Skip to main content

Table 3 Results from alternative specifications of weekly wages per worker

From: Watching the grass grow: does recreational cannabis legalization affect retail and agricultural wages?

 

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

 

Baseline

Med. cannabis controls only

Illegal controls only

In levels, demeaned

Colorado

Narrow Agriculture

− 0.007

0.094*

0.077

14.22*

 

[0.576]

[0.069]

[0.2]

[0.091]

Narrow Retail

0.050

− 0.094

− 0.044

-42.62

 

[0.212]

[0.897]

[0.8]

[0.879]

Broad Agriculture

0.007

− 0.010

0.055

− 27.22

 

[0.242]

[0.548]

[0.4]

[0.697]

Broad Retail

0.015*

− 0.033

− 0.063

− 291.63

 

[0.061]

[0.586]

[0.4]

[0.818]

Washington

Narrow Agriculture

− 0.013*

0.748*

0.695

397.8*

 

[0.091]

[0.069]

[0.4]

[0.091]

Narrow Retail

0.059

0.158

0.198

− 178.2

 

[0.606]

[0.103]

[0.2]

[0.121]

Broad Agriculture

− 0.154

− 0.050

− 0.020

− 1200.23

 

[0.667]

[0.419]

[0.6]

[0.697]

Broad Retail

0.014

0.025

0.012

52.10**

 

[0.333]

[0.103]

[0.4]

[0.030]

  1. Notes: Narrow agriculture is NAICS 1114, narrow retail is NAICS 453998, broad agriculture is NAICS 11, broad retail is NAICS 446, 452, and 453. P values in brackets are calculated via a placebo test. Column (1) repeats results from Tables 1 and 2. In Column (2), we restrict the set of potential donor states to those with medical cannabis regimes. In Column (3), we restrict the set of potential donor states to those with full prohibition of cannabis throughout our study period. In Column (4), we use the level of average wages per worker per week (as opposed to the log wage) and demean the outcomes. Stars indicate significance levels: *10%, **5%, ***1
Back to article page

Journal of Cannabis Research

ISSN: 2522-5782