American poverty research largely neglects labor unions. The authors use individual-level panel data, incorporate both household union membership and state-level union density, and analyze both working poverty and working-aged poverty (among households led by 18- to 64-year-olds). They estimate three-way fixed effects (person, year, and state) and fixed-effects individual slopes models on the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), 1976–2015. They exploit the higher quality income data in the Cross-National Equivalent File—an extension of the PSID—to measure relative (<50% of median in current year) and anchored (<50% of median in 1976) poverty. Both union membership and state union density have statistically and substantively significant negative relationships with relative and anchored working and working-aged poverty. Household union membership and state union density significantly negatively interact, augmenting the poverty-reducing effects of each. Higher state union density spills over to reduce poverty among non-union households, and there is no evidence that higher state union density worsens poverty for non-union households or undermines employment.

美国的贫困研究在很大程度上忽视了工会。作者使用个人级别的面板数据，结合了家庭工会会员资格和州级别的工会密度，并分析了工作贫困和工作年龄贫困（在18岁至64岁的家庭中）。他们估计了1976-2015年的收入动态面板研究（PSID）的三向固定效应（人，年和州）和固定效应个体斜率模型。他们利用跨国等效文件（PSID的扩展名）中较高质量的收入数据来衡量相对（当年中位数的<50％）和固定贫困（1976年中位数的<50％）。工会会员资格和州工会密度在统计上和实质上都与相对的和固定的工作及工作年龄的贫困具有显着的负相关关系。家庭工会成员和州工会密度之间存在显着的消极相互作用，增强了两者的减贫作用。更高的州工会密度溢出来减轻非工会家庭的贫困，并且没有证据表明更高的州工会密度使非工会家庭的贫困恶化或破坏了就业。