Policy levers to increase jobs and increase income from work after the Great Recession

Table 3 Estimated effects of EITC on low-skilled, childless individuals, aged 21–34, 1997–2006

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Low-skilled treatment group	Less-educated individuals	Less-educated, black or Hispanic	Less-educated single, black or Hispanic men
Log wages
EITC × low-skill	−.10 (.09)	−.11 (.08)	−.13 (.09)
EITC	.08 (.07)	.06 (.10)	.08 (.11)
N	131,181	79,362	67,399
Employment
EITC × low-skill	−.05 (.05)	−.12 (.05)	−.16 (.05)
EITC	.02 (.04)	.03 (.03)	.01 (.03)
N	150,486	90,408	74,913
Log earnings
EITC × low-skill	−.58 (.49)	−1.32 (.44)	−1.75 (.56)
EITC	.35 (.38)	.40 (.37)	.35 (.29)
N	150,486	90,408	74,913

Notes: Most notes from Table 2 apply, except those pertaining to variables measuring the number of children. The log wage regressions condition on positive earnings and hours of work in the previous year. “Less-educated” means that the individual has a high-school degree at most. The low-skilled treatment group is defined in the column heading. The control group does not change across columns and always includes all those with at least some college (regardless of race, ethnicity, or marital status). The estimated coefficients of the EITC-low-skill interactions are robust to including state-specific linear trends, or state-year interactions
Source: Neumark and Wascher (2011), using CPS Annual Demographic Files