Working Paper: NBER ID: w12048
Authors: Joanna Lahey
Abstract: Some anti-discrimination laws have the perverse effect of harming the very class they were meant to protect. This paper provides evidence that age discrimination laws belong to this perverse class. Prior to the enforcement of the federal law, state laws had little effect on older workers, suggesting that firms either knew little about these laws or did not see them as a threat. After the enforcement of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1979, white male workers over the age of 50 in states with age discrimination laws worked between 1 and 1.5 fewer weeks per year than workers in states without laws. These men are also .3 percentage points more likely to be retired and .2 percentage points less likely to be hired. These findings suggest that in an anti-age discrimination environment, firms seek to avoid litigation through means not intended by the legislation -- by not employing older workers in the first place.
Keywords: No keywords provided
JEL Codes: J1; J7
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| state age discrimination laws (J71) | employment duration of older workers (J26) |
| state age discrimination laws (J71) | likelihood of retirement for older workers (J26) |
| state age discrimination laws (J71) | likelihood of hiring for older workers (J78) |
| state age discrimination laws (J71) | firms' hiring practices (M51) |
| state age discrimination laws (J71) | involuntary retirement for older workers (J26) |
| state age discrimination laws (J71) | employment opportunities for older workers (J26) |