Date New minimum wage Increase New tipped minimum wage Tipped minimum increase Total estimated U.S. workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Indirectly affected (thousands) Total affected (thousands) Affected workers’ share of U.S. workforce July 2019 $8.55 $1.30 $3.60 $1.47 145,172 2,890 4,668 7,558 5.2% July 2020 $9.85 $1.30 $5.10 $1.50 145,957 7,345 8,255 15,600 10.7% July 2021 $11.15 $1.30 $6.60 $1.50 146,766 14,043 7,466 21,510 14.7% July 2022 $12.45 $1.30 $8.10 $1.50 147,599 18,419 8,639 27,059 18.3% July 2023 $13.75 $1.30 $9.60 $1.50 148,457 22,082 11,770 33,853 22.8% July 2024 $15.00 $1.25 $11.10 $1.50 149,340 28,078 11,595 39,673 26.6%

Notes: Values reflect the result of the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate exceeds their existing hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage. Wage increase totals are cumulative of all preceding steps.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 2

Wage impacts of increasing the minimum wage under the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, 2019–2024 (2018$)

Directly affected workers All (directly & indirectly) affected workers
Date New minimum wage (nominal $) New minimum wage 2018$) New tipped minimum wage (nominal $) New tipped minimum wage 2018$) Total wage increase (thousands) Change in avg. hourly wage Change in avg. annual income (year-round workers) Real percent change in avg. annual income Total wage increase (thousands) Change in avg. hourly wage Change in avg. annual earnings (year-round workers) Real percent change in avg. annual earnings
July 2019 $8.55 $8.35 $3.60 $3.52 $3,110,218 $0.76 $1,080 9.9% $5,327,000 $0.46 $700 4.8%
July 2020 $9.85 $9.39 $5.10 $4.86 $10,795,424 $1.01 $1,470 11.4% $14,723,132 $0.62 $940 5.9%
July 2021 $11.15 $10.37 $6.60 $6.14 $25,628,622 $1.21 $1,820 12.0% $30,162,310 $0.91 $1,400 8.1%
July 2022 $12.45 $11.30 $8.10 $7.35 $48,383,312 $1.69 $2,630 16.2% $53,675,376 $1.26 $1,980 10.6%
July 2023 $13.75 $12.18 $9.60 $8.50 $76,943,540 $2.19 $3,480 20.2% $84,224,367 $1.55 $2,490 12.5%
July 2024 $15.00 $12.98 $11.10 $9.60 $109,348,838 $2.40 $3,890 20.9% $117,967,152 $1.83 $2,970 14.0%

Notes: Values reflect the result of the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI's Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage. Wage increase totals are cumulative of all preceding steps.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 3

Demographic characteristics of workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All workers 149,340 28,078 18.8% 11,595 7.8% 39,673 26.6% 100.0%
Gender
Women 72,465 16,478 22.7% 6,479 8.9% 22,957 31.7% 57.9%
Men 76,875 11,600 15.1% 5,116 6.7% 16,716 21.7% 42.1%
Age
Age 19 or younger 5,213 3,366 64.6% 337 6.5% 3,702 71.0% 9.3%
Age 20 or older 144,126 24,712 17.1% 11,258 7.8% 35,970 25.0% 90.7%
Ages 16–24 20,313 10,834 53.3% 2,052 10.1% 12,886 63.4% 32.5%
Ages 25–39 50,239 8,890 17.7% 4,446 8.9% 13,336 26.5% 33.6%
Ages 40–54 47,723 4,632 9.7% 3,011 6.3% 7,643 16.0% 19.3%
Age 55 or older 31,065 3,722 12.0% 2,086 6.7% 5,807 18.7% 14.6%
Race/ethnicity
White 89,375 14,187 15.9% 6,514 7.3% 20,701 23.2% 52.2%
Black 17,564 5,079 28.9% 1,621 9.2% 6,700 38.1% 16.9%
Hispanic 28,702 6,984 24.3% 2,598 9.1% 9,583 33.4% 24.2%
Asian 9,641 909 9.4% 526 5.5% 1,435 14.9% 3.6%
Other race/ethnicity 4,057 919 22.6% 335 8.3% 1,254 30.9% 3.2%
Women of color 29,027 7,792 26.8% 2,554 8.8% 10,346 35.6% 26.1%
Men of color 30,937 6,099 19.7% 2,526 8.2% 8,626 27.9% 21.7%
Family status
Married parent 37,727 3,656 9.7% 2,231 5.9% 5,887 15.6% 14.8%
Single parent 13,783 3,877 28.1% 1,478 10.7% 5,355 38.9% 13.5%
Married, no children 38,401 3,929 10.2% 2,413 6.3% 6,342 16.5% 16.0%
Unmarried, no children 59,430 16,616 28.0% 5,473 9.2% 22,089 37.2% 55.7%
Education
Less than high school 15,045 6,159 40.9% 1,529 10.2% 7,688 51.1% 19.4%
High school 37,103 10,299 27.8% 4,233 11.4% 14,532 39.2% 36.6%
Some college, no degree 34,755 8,536 24.6% 3,429 9.9% 11,965 34.4% 30.2%
Associate degree 13,495 1,801 13.3% 1,105 8.2% 2,906 21.5% 7.3%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 48,942 1,282 2.6% 1,299 2.7% 2,582 5.3% 6.5%
Family income
Less than $25,000 20,098 10,276 51.1% 2,516 12.5% 12,792 63.6% 32.2%
$25,000–$49,999 30,386 6,930 22.8% 3,882 12.8% 10,812 35.6% 27.3%
$50,000–$74,999 27,730 4,344 15.7% 2,189 7.9% 6,533 23.6% 16.5%
$75,000–$99,999 21,733 2,597 12.0% 1,288 5.9% 3,885 17.9% 9.8%
$100,000–$149,999 26,711 2,506 9.4% 1,120 4.2% 3,626 13.6% 9.1%
$150,000 or more 22,682 1,425 6.3% 600 2.6% 2,025 8.9% 5.1%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 10,292 5,914 57.5% 1,013 9.8% 6,927 67.3% 17.5%
101–200% of poverty line 21,646 8,410 38.9% 3,190 14.7% 11,600 53.6% 29.2%
201–400% of poverty line 46,889 8,341 17.8% 4,798 10.2% 13,138 28.0% 33.1%
401% or above 69,575 4,858 7.0% 2,535 3.6% 7,393 10.6% 18.6%
Poverty status not available 938 555 59.2% 60 6.4% 615 65.6% 1.5%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 8,637 3,398 39.3% 784 9.1% 4,182 48.4% 10.5%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 22,177 9,349 42.2% 2,352 10.6% 11,701 52.8% 29.5%
Full time (35+ hours) 118,525 15,331 12.9% 8,458 7.1% 23,789 20.1% 60.0%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 2,434 523 21.5% 184 7.6% 707 29.1% 1.8%
Construction 8,228 993 12.1% 618 7.5% 1,611 19.6% 4.1%
Manufacturing 16,443 2,017 12.3% 1,138 6.9% 3,155 19.2% 8.0%
Wholesale trade 4,072 543 13.3% 280 6.9% 823 20.2% 2.1%
Retail trade 17,572 6,071 34.6% 1,739 9.9% 7,811 44.4% 19.7%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 7,773 799 10.3% 494 6.4% 1,293 16.6% 3.3%
Information 3,188 263 8.2% 130 4.1% 392 12.3% 1.0%
Finance, insurance, real estate 9,531 656 6.9% 442 4.6% 1,098 11.5% 2.8%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 9,256 381 4.1% 240 2.6% 620 6.7% 1.6%
Administrative, support, and waste management 5,968 1,646 27.6% 584 9.8% 2,231 37.4% 5.6%
Education 14,673 1,725 11.8% 759 5.2% 2,483 16.9% 6.3%
Health care 21,437 3,952 18.4% 1,613 7.5% 5,565 26.0% 14.0%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 3,028 960 31.7% 357 11.8% 1,317 43.5% 3.3%
Accommodation 1,803 700 38.8% 246 13.7% 947 52.5% 2.4%
Restaurants and food service 10,290 4,995 48.5% 1,691 16.4% 6,686 65.0% 16.9%
Other services 6,039 1,508 25.0% 818 13.5% 2,326 38.5% 5.9%
Public administration 7,606 346 4.5% 262 3.4% 607 8.0% 1.5%
Tipped occupations
Tipped workers 4,393 1,778 40.5% 1,828 41.6% 3,606 82.1% 9.1%
Nontipped workers 144,947 26,300 18.1% 9,767 6.7% 36,067 24.9% 90.9%
Sector
For-profit 113,570 24,250 21.4% 9,760 8.6% 34,010 29.9% 85.7%
Government 22,641 2,027 9.0% 1,037 4.6% 3,064 13.5% 7.7%
Nonprofit 13,128 1,801 13.7% 798 6.1% 2,599 19.8% 6.6%

Notes: Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 4

Number and share of U.S. children affected by increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2024

In directly affected households In indirectly affected households
Group Number (thousands) Share of U.S. children* Number (thousands) Share of U.S. children* Total number affected (thousands) Total share of U.S. children*?affected
Children with at least one parent? who would benefit 9,433 12.9% 4,956 6.8% 14,389 19.6%
Children with at least one adult? in the household who would benefit 12,432 16.9% 5,645 7.7% 18,077 24.6%

* Shares are out of an estimated total of 73,356,000 children living in the United States.

? “Parent” refers to the biological or adoptive parent of a child. “Adult” refers to any adult living in the child’s household—e.g., parent, grandparent, caretaker, or adult sibling.

Notes: Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Sources:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Estimate for total number of U.S. children comes from U.S. Census Bureau 2017.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 5

Summary of impact of increasing the minimum wage to $15 by 2024 (in 2024), by state

State Total estimated state workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share of state workforce directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share of state workforce indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Total share of state workforce affected State’s share of total affected nationally Change in total annual wages of state’s affected workers (2018$, thousands) Change in avg. annual earnings of state’s affected year-round workers (2018$) Real percent change in avg. annual earnings
National total 149,340 28,078 18.8% 11,595 7.8% 39,673 26.6% 100.0% $117,967,152 $3,000 14.0%
Alabama 2,010 581 28.9% 172 8.6% 754 37.5% 1.9% $2,820,747 $3,700 18.0%
Alaska 350 64 18.3% 18 5.1% 82 23.4% 0.2% $226,885 $2,800 11.9%
Arizona 2,986 694 23.2% 346 11.6% 1,040 34.8% 2.6% $928,148 $900 3.7%
Arkansas 1,243 369 29.7% 118 9.5% 487 39.2% 1.2% $1,099,408 $2,300 9.9%
California 18,753 7 0.0% 4 0.0% 11 0.1% 0.0% $20,219 $1,800 7.2%
Colorado 2,667 447 16.8% 313 11.7% 760 28.5% 1.9% $602,641 $800 3.4%
Connecticut 1,768 332 18.8% 132 7.5% 465 26.3% 1.2% $1,068,581 $2,300 11.8%
Delaware 433 111 25.6% 34 7.8% 145 33.5% 0.4% $442,554 $3,100 14.8%
District of Columbia 361 7 1.8% 9 2.4% 15 4.2% 0.0% $37,733 $2,500 9.4%
Florida 8,874 2,501 28.2% 774 8.7% 3,275 36.9% 8.3% $10,487,542 $3,200 14.9%
Georgia 4,533 1,205 26.6% 369 8.1% 1,575 34.7% 4.0% $5,840,009 $3,700 17.6%
Hawaii 714 175 24.5% 62 8.7% 237 33.2% 0.6% $554,940 $2,300 10.6%
Idaho 710 201 28.3% 69 9.8% 271 38.1% 0.7% $977,421 $3,600 17.5%
Illinois 6,121 1,031 16.8% 981 16.0% 2,012 32.9% 5.1% $4,490,026 $2,200 10.2%
Indiana 3,022 818 27.1% 294 9.7% 1,113 36.8% 2.8% $3,597,951 $3,200 15.9%
Iowa 1,525 406 26.6% 132 8.7% 538 35.3% 1.4% $1,628,645 $3,000 15.2%
Kansas 1,377 341 24.7% 140 10.1% 480 34.9% 1.2% $1,484,708 $3,100 14.7%
Kentucky 1,860 533 28.7% 159 8.5% 692 37.2% 1.7% $2,685,891 $3,900 18.9%
Louisiana 1,985 560 28.2% 185 9.3% 745 37.5% 1.9% $2,996,969 $4,000 18.9%
Maine 617 123 20.0% 80 12.9% 203 32.9% 0.5% $208,705 $1,000 4.6%
Maryland 3,032 479 15.8% 191 6.3% 670 22.1% 1.7% $1,839,055 $2,700 12.8%
Massachusetts 3,456 33 1.0% 87 2.5% 121 3.5% 0.3% $227,502 $1,900 8.5%
Michigan 4,367 1,050 24.1% 419 9.6% 1,469 33.6% 3.7% $3,613,068 $2,500 11.9%
Minnesota 2,773 323 11.7% 101 3.7% 425 15.3% 1.1% $777,756 $1,800 9.5%
Mississippi 1,199 396 33.0% 103 8.6% 499 41.6% 1.3% $2,097,470 $4,200 20.1%
Missouri 2,760 677 24.5% 232 8.4% 909 32.9% 2.3% $1,680,153 $1,800 8.6%
Montana 457 128 28.0% 40 8.7% 168 36.7% 0.4% $423,578 $2,500 12.5%
Nebraska 949 227 23.9% 89 9.4% 316 33.3% 0.8% $756,360 $2,400 11.5%
Nevada 1,379 396 28.7% 159 11.6% 555 40.3% 1.4% $1,712,021 $3,100 13.4%
New Hampshire 679 123 18.1% 50 7.4% 173 25.5% 0.4% $460,586 $2,700 14.0%
New Jersey 4,397 796 18.1% 326 7.4% 1,123 25.5% 2.8% $3,128,308 $2,800 13.7%
New Mexico 923 280 30.3% 83 9.0% 363 39.3% 0.9% $1,165,722 $3,200 15.1%
New York 9,450 504 5.3% 680 7.2% 1,183 12.5% 3.0% $1,078,848 $900 3.9%
North Carolina 4,474 1,227 27.4% 360 8.0% 1,587 35.5% 4.0% $6,017,683 $3,800 18.4%
North Dakota 380 77 20.2% 32 8.5% 109 28.7% 0.3% $294,557 $2,700 13.0%
Ohio 5,305 1,419 26.7% 430 8.1% 1,849 34.9% 4.7% $5,514,513 $3,000 14.7%
Oklahoma 1,714 438 25.6% 164 9.6% 602 35.1% 1.5% $2,276,758 $3,800 17.9%
Oregon 1,816 73 4.0% 246 13.6% 319 17.6% 0.8% $204,419 $600 2.7%
Pennsylvania 5,910 1,475 25.0% 529 9.0% 2,004 33.9% 5.1% $6,698,663 $3,300 16.9%
Rhode Island 516 92 17.9% 50 9.6% 142 27.5% 0.4% $290,337 $2,000 10.0%
South Carolina 2,132 527 24.7% 209 9.8% 736 34.5% 1.9% $2,674,401 $3,600 17.4%
South Dakota 414 102 24.7% 40 9.7% 142 34.4% 0.4% $339,289 $2,400 11.0%
Tennessee 2,926 796 27.2% 274 9.4% 1,069 36.5% 2.7% $3,854,280 $3,600 17.0%
Texas 13,157 3,624 27.5% 1,088 8.3% 4,712 35.8% 11.9% $18,781,857 $4,000 18.8%
Utah 1,364 364 26.7% 124 9.1% 488 35.8% 1.2% $1,443,535 $3,000 15.4%
Vermont 302 63 20.8% 25 8.1% 87 28.9% 0.2% $128,792 $1,500 6.8%
Virginia 4,034 895 22.2% 293 7.3% 1,187 29.4% 3.0% $4,172,251 $3,500 17.1%
Washington 3,340 56 1.7% 456 13.7% 513 15.4% 1.3% $116,339 $200 0.9%
West Virginia 718 195 27.2% 59 8.3% 255 35.5% 0.6% $800,502 $3,100 14.9%
Wisconsin 2,832 670 23.7% 239 8.5% 909 32.1% 2.3% $2,887,627 $3,200 16.6%
Wyoming 278 65 23.2% 24 8.6% 88 31.8% 0.2% $311,194 $3,500 16.8%

Notes: Values reflect the result of the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers would see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They would receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 6

Demographic characteristics of women workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage by $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All women workers 72,465 16,478 22.7% 6,479 8.9% 22,957 31.7% 100.0%
Age
Age 19 or younger 2,710 1,770 65.3% 166 6.1% 1,936 71.4% 8.4%
Age 20 or older 69,754 14,708 21.1% 6,313 9.1% 21,021 30.1% 91.6%
Ages 16–24 10,171 5,659 55.6% 997 9.8% 6,655 65.4% 29.0%
Ages 25–39 23,678 5,014 21.2% 2,282 9.6% 7,297 30.8% 31.8%
Ages 40–54 23,162 3,277 14.1% 1,884 8.1% 5,161 22.3% 22.5%
Age 55 or older 15,454 2,528 16.4% 1,316 8.5% 3,843 24.9% 16.7%
Race/ethnicity
White 43,437 8,686 20.0% 3,925 9.0% 12,611 29.0% 54.9%
Black 9,658 3,043 31.5% 918 9.5% 3,961 41.0% 17.3%
Hispanic 12,599 3,664 29.1% 1,137 9.0% 4,801 38.1% 20.9%
Asian 4,710 552 11.7% 312 6.6% 864 18.3% 3.8%
Other race/ethnicity 2,060 533 25.9% 187 9.1% 720 35.0% 3.1%
Women of color 29,027 7,792 26.8% 2,554 8.8% 10,346 35.6% 26.1%
Family status
Married parent 16,375 2,440 14.9% 1,269 7.8% 3,709 22.7% 16.2%
Single parent 9,565 3,053 31.9% 1,063 11.1% 4,116 43.0% 17.9%
Married, no children 18,223 2,593 14.2% 1,505 8.3% 4,098 22.5% 17.9%
Unmarried, no children 28,302 8,392 29.7% 2,641 9.3% 11,033 39.0% 48.1%
Education
Less than high school 5,858 3,026 51.7% 545 9.3% 3,571 61.0% 15.6%
High school 16,211 5,962 36.8% 2,249 13.9% 8,211 50.7% 35.8%
Some college, no degree 17,487 5,352 30.6% 2,068 11.8% 7,420 42.4% 32.3%
Associate degree 7,542 1,242 16.5% 749 9.9% 1,991 26.4% 8.7%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 25,366 896 3.5% 869 3.4% 1,764 7.0% 7.7%
Family income
Less than $25,000 10,654 5,959 55.9% 1,266 11.9% 7,225 67.8% 31.5%
$25,000–$49,999 15,084 4,129 27.4% 2,053 13.6% 6,181 41.0% 26.9%
$50,000–$74,999 13,315 2,669 20.0% 1,315 9.9% 3,984 29.9% 17.4%
$75,000–$99,999 10,366 1,533 14.8% 812 7.8% 2,345 22.6% 10.2%
$100,000–$149,999 12,573 1,418 11.3% 681 5.4% 2,099 16.7% 9.1%
$150,000 or more 10,472 770 7.4% 352 3.4% 1,122 10.7% 4.9%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 5,827 3,602 61.8% 534 9.2% 4,136 71.0% 18.0%
101–200% of poverty line 10,896 4,874 44.7% 1,663 15.3% 6,537 60.0% 28.5%
201–400% of poverty line 22,579 4,916 21.8% 2,695 11.9% 7,611 33.7% 33.2%
401% or above 32,602 2,749 8.4% 1,555 4.8% 4,304 13.2% 18.7%
Poverty status not available 560 336 59.9% 33 5.9% 369 65.8% 1.6%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 5,570 2,160 38.8% 538 9.7% 2,698 48.4% 11.8%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 14,090 5,837 41.4% 1,553 11.0% 7,390 52.4% 32.2%
Full time (35+ hours) 52,805 8,480 16.1% 4,389 8.3% 12,869 24.4% 56.1%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 496 120 24.2% 39 7.8% 159 31.9% 0.7%
Construction 811 103 12.7% 62 7.6% 165 20.3% 0.7%
Manufacturing 4,806 968 20.1% 466 9.7% 1,434 29.8% 6.2%
Wholesale trade 1,235 212 17.2% 101 8.2% 313 25.3% 1.4%
Retail trade 8,726 3,660 41.9% 969 11.1% 4,630 53.1% 20.2%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 1,961 272 13.9% 161 8.2% 433 22.1% 1.9%
Information 1,327 152 11.5% 79 5.9% 231 17.4% 1.0%
Finance, insurance, real estate 5,338 445 8.3% 316 5.9% 760 14.2% 3.3%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 4,176 270 6.5% 175 4.2% 445 10.7% 1.9%
Administrative, support, and waste management 2,377 757 31.9% 238 10.0% 995 41.9% 4.3%
Education 10,030 1,231 12.3% 564 5.6% 1,796 17.9% 7.8%
Health care 16,929 3,373 19.9% 1,375 8.1% 4,748 28.0% 20.7%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 1,413 498 35.2% 184 13.0% 682 48.3% 3.0%
Accommodation 1,041 482 46.3% 131 12.6% 613 58.9% 2.7%
Restaurants and food service 5,356 2,802 52.3% 932 17.4% 3,733 69.7% 16.3%
Other services 3,054 931 30.5% 537 17.6% 1,469 48.1% 6.4%
Public administration 3,390 200 5.9% 151 4.5% 352 10.4% 1.5%
Tipped occupations
Tipped workers 2,967 1,291 43.5% 1,178 39.7% 2,469 83.2% 10.8%
Nontipped workers 69,497 15,186 21.9% 5,301 7.6% 20,487 29.5% 89.2%
Sector
For-profit 51,183 13,863 27.1% 5,217 10.2% 19,080 37.3% 83.1%
Government 12,716 1,360 10.7% 690 5.4% 2,051 16.1% 8.9%
Nonprofit 8,565 1,254 14.6% 571 6.7% 1,826 21.3% 8.0%

Notes: Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 7

Demographic characteristics of black workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage by $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All black workers 17,564 5,079 28.9% 1,621 9.2% 6,700 38.1% 100.0%
Gender
Women 9,658 3,043 31.5% 918 9.5% 3,961 41.0% 59.1%
Men 7,907 2,036 25.7% 703 8.9% 2,739 34.6% 40.9%
Age
Age 19 or younger 559 371 66.3% 29 5.2% 399 71.5% 6.0%
Age 20 or older 17,006 4,709 27.7% 1,592 9.4% 6,300 37.0% 94.0%
Ages 16–24 2,497 1,593 63.8% 199 7.9% 1,791 71.7% 26.7%
Ages 25–39 6,145 1,891 30.8% 660 10.7% 2,552 41.5% 38.1%
Ages 40–54 5,737 945 16.5% 490 8.5% 1,435 25.0% 21.4%
Age 55 or older 3,185 650 20.4% 272 8.5% 922 29.0% 13.8%
Family status
Married parent 3,009 447 14.8% 230 7.6% 676 22.5% 10.1%
Single parent 3,031 1,117 36.8% 335 11.1% 1,452 47.9% 21.7%
Married, no children 3,012 491 16.3% 238 7.9% 729 24.2% 10.9%
Unmarried, no children 8,513 3,024 35.5% 818 9.6% 3,842 45.1% 57.3%
Educational attainment
Less than high school 1,457 787 54.1% 137 9.4% 924 63.4% 13.8%
High school 5,115 2,048 40.0% 610 11.9% 2,657 52.0% 39.7%
Some college, no degree 5,155 1,726 33.5% 568 11.0% 2,293 44.5% 34.2%
Associate degree 1,625 326 20.1% 159 9.8% 485 29.8% 7.2%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 4,212 192 4.6% 148 3.5% 340 8.1% 5.1%
Family income
Less than $25,000 3,527 2,237 63.4% 370 10.5% 2,608 73.9% 38.9%
$25,000–$49,999 4,697 1,399 29.8% 669 14.2% 2,068 44.0% 30.9%
$50,000–$74,999 3,401 688 20.2% 293 8.6% 982 28.9% 14.7%
$75,000–$99,999 2,228 347 15.6% 141 6.3% 488 21.9% 7.3%
$100,000–$149,999 2,300 285 12.4% 102 4.4% 388 16.9% 5.8%
$150,000 or more 1,411 122 8.7% 45 3.2% 167 11.8% 2.5%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 1,896 1,310 69.1% 144 7.6% 1,454 76.7% 21.7%
101–200% of poverty line 3,541 1,773 50.1% 524 14.8% 2,297 64.9% 34.3%
201–400% of poverty line 6,160 1,378 22.4% 710 11.5% 2,088 33.9% 31.2%
401% or above 5,850 545 9.3% 237 4.1% 782 13.4% 11.7%
Poverty status not available 117 73 62.4% 6 5.2% 79 67.5% 1.2%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 900 403 44.8% 69 7.7% 472 52.4% 7.0%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 2,824 1,562 55.3% 256 9.1% 1,819 64.4% 27.1%
Full time (35+ hours) 13,841 3,114 22.5% 1,295 9.4% 4,409 31.9% 65.8%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 94 31 32.7% 8 8.0% 39 40.8% 0.6%
Construction 443 77 17.4% 38 8.6% 116 26.1% 1.7%
Manufacturing 1,589 398 25.0% 177 11.1% 575 36.2% 8.6%
Wholesale trade 312 87 27.8% 31 10.0% 118 37.8% 1.8%
Retail trade 2,081 1,003 48.2% 206 9.9% 1,209 58.1% 18.0%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 1,324 235 17.7% 121 9.2% 356 26.9% 5.3%
Information 350 50 14.2% 22 6.3% 72 20.5% 1.1%
Finance, insurance, real estate 1,007 119 11.8% 68 6.7% 186 18.5% 2.8%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 589 42 7.2% 24 4.0% 66 11.2% 1.0%
Administrative, support, and waste management 977 376 38.5% 111 11.3% 486 49.8% 7.3%
Education 1,588 310 19.5% 111 7.0% 421 26.5% 6.3%
Health care 3,613 1,049 29.0% 343 9.5% 1,392 38.5% 20.8%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 291 121 41.5% 36 12.5% 157 53.9% 2.3%
Accommodation 266 142 53.3% 33 12.5% 175 65.8% 2.6%
Restaurants and food service 1,225 756 61.7% 153 12.5% 908 74.2% 13.6%
Other services 578 190 32.9% 78 13.5% 269 46.4% 4.0%
Public administration 1,238 94 7.6% 60 4.9% 155 12.5% 2.3%
Sector
For-profit 12,677 4,257 33.6% 1,292 10.2% 5,549 43.8% 82.8%
Government 3,366 484 14.4% 210 6.2% 693 20.6% 10.3%
Nonprofit 1,521 339 22.3% 119 7.8% 458 30.1% 6.8%

Notes:?Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 8

Demographic characteristics of Hispanic workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage by $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All Hispanic workers 28,702 6,984 24.3% 2,598 9.1% 9,583 33.4% 100.0%
Gender
Women 12,599 3,664 29.1% 1,137 9.0% 4,801 38.1% 50.1%
Men 16,103 3,321 20.6% 1,461 9.1% 4,782 29.7% 49.9%
Age
Age 19 or younger 1,199 655 54.6% 73 6.1% 728 60.7% 7.6%
Age 20 or older 27,503 6,330 23.0% 2,525 9.2% 8,855 32.2% 92.4%
Ages 16–24 4,893 2,286 46.7% 427 8.7% 2,713 55.4% 28.3%
Ages 25–39 11,412 2,632 23.1% 1,139 10.0% 3,771 33.0% 39.3%
Ages 40–54 8,881 1,419 16.0% 745 8.4% 2,165 24.4% 22.6%
Age 55 or older 3,516 648 18.4% 287 8.2% 935 26.6% 9.8%
Family status
Married parent 8,163 1,403 17.2% 719 8.8% 2,122 26.0% 22.1%
Single parent 3,861 1,158 30.0% 393 10.2% 1,551 40.2% 16.2%
Married, no children 5,178 924 17.8% 441 8.5% 1,365 26.4% 14.2%
Unmarried, no children 11,501 3,500 30.4% 1,046 9.1% 4,545 39.5% 47.4%
Educational attainment
Less than high school 7,643 2,745 35.9% 773 10.1% 3,518 46.0% 36.7%
High school 8,192 2,240 27.3% 895 10.9% 3,135 38.3% 32.7%
Some college, no degree 6,378 1,515 23.7% 596 9.3% 2,111 33.1% 22.0%
Associate degree 1,952 305 15.6% 170 8.7% 475 24.3% 5.0%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 4,538 180 4.0% 164 3.6% 344 7.6% 3.6%
Family income
Less than $25,000 5,378 2,540 47.2% 545 10.1% 3,085 57.4% 32.2%
$25,000–$49,999 7,610 2,020 26.5% 953 12.5% 2,973 39.1% 31.0%
$50,000–$74,999 5,735 1,154 20.1% 513 8.9% 1,667 29.1% 17.4%
$75,000–$99,999 3,837 605 15.8% 284 7.4% 888 23.2% 9.3%
$100,000–$149,999 3,864 472 12.2% 219 5.7% 691 17.9% 7.2%
$150,000 or more 2,278 193 8.5% 85 3.7% 278 12.2% 2.9%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 3,153 1,579 50.1% 275 8.7% 1,854 58.8% 19.3%
101–200% of poverty line 7,130 2,570 36.0% 864 12.1% 3,434 48.2% 35.8%
201–400% of poverty line 10,651 2,114 19.8% 1,102 10.4% 3,216 30.2% 33.6%
401% or above 7,660 672 8.8% 351 4.6% 1,024 13.4% 10.7%
Poverty status not available 108 49 45.8% 6 5.4% 55 51.1% 0.6%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 1,319 453 34.3% 92 7.0% 545 41.3% 5.7%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 4,462 1,821 40.8% 370 8.3% 2,191 49.1% 22.9%
Full time (35+ hours) 22,922 4,711 20.6% 2,136 9.3% 6,847 29.9% 71.5%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 986 256 26.0% 86 8.7% 342 34.7% 3.6%
Construction 2,795 527 18.9% 307 11.0% 833 29.8% 8.7%
Manufacturing 3,097 626 20.2% 308 9.9% 935 30.2% 9.8%
Wholesale trade 857 174 20.3% 76 8.8% 250 29.2% 2.6%
Retail trade 3,386 1,144 33.8% 287 8.5% 1,432 42.3% 14.9%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 1,482 197 13.3% 112 7.6% 309 20.9% 3.2%
Information 424 51 12.1% 23 5.4% 74 17.5% 0.8%
Finance, insurance, real estate 1,401 172 12.3% 95 6.8% 268 19.1% 2.8%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 985 79 8.0% 45 4.6% 124 12.6% 1.3%
Administrative, support, and waste management 1,866 623 33.4% 183 9.8% 806 43.2% 8.4%
Education 1,938 318 16.4% 118 6.1% 436 22.5% 4.5%
Health care 3,178 709 22.3% 247 7.8% 956 30.1% 10.0%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 517 170 32.8% 55 10.7% 225 43.5% 2.3%
Accommodation 559 227 40.6% 71 12.7% 298 53.3% 3.1%
Restaurants and food service 2,947 1,279 43.4% 394 13.4% 1,673 56.8% 17.5%
Other services 1,252 372 29.7% 150 12.0% 522 41.7% 5.5%
Public administration 1,031 59 5.7% 40 3.9% 100 9.7% 1.0%
Sector
For-profit 23,991 6,342 26.4% 2,321 9.7% 8,663 36.1% 90.4%
Government 3,124 363 11.6% 161 5.1% 524 16.8% 5.5%
Nonprofit 1,586 279 17.6% 116 7.3% 396 24.9% 4.1%

Notes:?Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 9

Demographic characteristics of Asian or other race/ethnicity workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage by $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All Asian workers 13,698 1,827 13.3% 862 6.3% 2,689 19.6% 100.0%
Gender
Women 6,770 1,085 16.0% 499 7.4% 1,584 23.4% 58.9%
Men 6,928 743 10.7% 362 5.2% 1,105 16.0% 41.1%
Age
Age 19 or younger 446 246 55.2% 28 6.3% 274 61.5% 10.2%
Age 20 or older 13,252 1,581 11.9% 834 6.3% 2,415 18.2% 89.8%
Ages 16–24 1,771 756 42.7% 156 8.8% 912 51.5% 33.9%
Ages 25–39 5,333 565 10.6% 330 6.2% 895 16.8% 33.3%
Ages 40–54 4,371 301 6.9% 243 5.6% 544 12.5% 20.2%
Age 55 or older 2,222 205 9.2% 133 6.0% 338 15.2% 12.6%
Family status
Married parent 4,159 282 6.8% 208 5.0% 489 11.8% 18.2%
Single parent 881 189 21.5% 91 10.3% 281 31.9% 10.4%
Married, no children 3,442 275 8.0% 190 5.5% 464 13.5% 17.3%
Unmarried, no children 5,217 1,081 20.7% 373 7.2% 1,455 27.9% 54.1%
Educational attainment
Less than high school 1,180 406 34.4% 126 10.7% 533 45.2% 19.8%
High school 2,312 593 25.7% 273 11.8% 867 37.5% 32.2%
Some college, no degree 2,544 566 22.3% 236 9.3% 803 31.6% 29.8%
Associate degree 1,046 124 11.9% 78 7.4% 202 19.3% 7.5%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 6,615 137 2.1% 148 2.2% 285 4.3% 10.6%
Family income
Less than $25,000 1,689 636 37.6% 187 11.1% 823 48.7% 30.6%
$25,000–$49,999 2,298 423 18.4% 254 11.0% 677 29.5% 25.2%
$50,000–$74,999 2,201 280 12.7% 157 7.1% 437 19.9% 16.3%
$75,000–$99,999 1,831 173 9.5% 101 5.5% 274 15.0% 10.2%
$100,000–$149,999 2,593 189 7.3% 99 3.8% 288 11.1% 10.7%
$150,000 or more 3,086 127 4.1% 63 2.1% 190 6.2% 7.1%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 935 395 42.2% 92 9.9% 487 52.1% 18.1%
101–200% of poverty line 1,783 506 28.4% 230 12.9% 736 41.3% 27.4%
201–400% of poverty line 3,789 540 14.2% 331 8.7% 871 23.0% 32.4%
401% or above 7,072 335 4.7% 200 2.8% 535 7.6% 19.9%
Poverty status not available 118 52 44.3% 8 6.5% 60 50.8% 2.2%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 844 263 31.2% 64 7.6% 327 38.8% 12.2%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 1,955 600 30.7% 185 9.5% 785 40.2% 29.2%
Full time (35+ hours) 10,899 964 8.8% 612 5.6% 1,576 14.5% 58.6%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 98 16 16.6% 6 6.1% 22 22.7% 0.8%
Construction 348 30 8.7% 20 5.7% 50 14.4% 1.9%
Manufacturing 1,555 128 8.2% 81 5.2% 209 13.5% 7.8%
Wholesale trade 328 30 9.2% 15 4.7% 45 13.8% 1.7%
Retail trade 1,492 392 26.3% 117 7.8% 509 34.1% 18.9%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 579 40 7.0% 26 4.5% 66 11.4% 2.5%
Information 352 17 4.9% 8 2.2% 25 7.1% 0.9%
Finance, insurance, real estate 930 33 3.6% 25 2.7% 59 6.3% 2.2%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 1,419 25 1.7% 14 1.0% 38 2.7% 1.4%
Administrative, support, and waste management 370 71 19.1% 28 7.5% 98 26.6% 3.7%
Education 1,202 123 10.2% 49 4.1% 172 14.3% 6.4%
Health care 2,186 216 9.9% 101 4.6% 317 14.5% 11.8%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 300 79 26.3% 42 14.1% 121 40.3% 4.5%
Accommodation 235 63 26.7% 37 15.6% 99 42.3% 3.7%
Restaurants and food service 1,057 400 37.8% 152 14.4% 551 52.2% 20.5%
Other services 617 140 22.8% 124 20.1% 265 42.9% 9.8%
Public administration 628 23 3.7% 18 2.8% 41 6.5% 1.5%
Sector
For-profit 10,571 1,577 14.9% 737 7.0% 2,314 21.9% 86.0%
Government 1,955 146 7.5% 72 3.7% 218 11.2% 8.1%
Nonprofit 1,172 105 9.0% 52 4.4% 157 13.4% 5.8%

Notes:?Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 10

Demographic characteristics of white workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage by $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All white workers 89,375 14,187 15.9% 6,514 7.3% 20,701 23.2% 100.0%
Gender
Women 43,437 8,686 20.0% 3,925 9.0% 12,611 29.0% 60.9%
Men 45,938 5,501 12.0% 2,589 5.6% 8,090 17.6% 39.1%
Age
Age 19 or younger 3,009 2,094 69.6% 207 6.9% 2,301 76.5% 11.1%
Age 20 or older 86,366 12,092 14.0% 6,308 7.3% 18,400 21.3% 88.9%
Ages 16–24 11,152 6,200 55.6% 1,270 11.4% 7,470 67.0% 36.1%
Ages 25–39 27,349 3,802 13.9% 2,317 8.5% 6,118 22.4% 29.6%
Ages 40–54 28,732 1,967 6.8% 1,533 5.3% 3,499 12.2% 16.9%
Age 55 or older 22,142 2,218 10.0% 1,395 6.3% 3,613 16.3% 17.5%
Family status
Married parent 22,397 1,524 6.8% 1,074 4.8% 2,599 11.6% 12.6%
Single parent 6,010 1,413 23.5% 659 11.0% 2,072 34.5% 10.0%
Married, no children 26,770 2,239 8.4% 1,544 5.8% 3,783 14.1% 18.3%
Unmarried, no children 34,199 9,011 26.3% 3,237 9.5% 12,247 35.8% 59.2%
Educational attainment
Less than high school 4,766 2,220 46.6% 493 10.4% 2,713 56.9% 13.1%
High school 21,484 5,419 25.2% 2,455 11.4% 7,873 36.6% 38.0%
Some college, no degree 20,677 4,729 22.9% 2,028 9.8% 6,757 32.7% 32.6%
Associate degree 8,871 1,046 11.8% 698 7.9% 1,744 19.7% 8.4%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 33,576 773 2.3% 840 2.5% 1,613 4.8% 7.8%
Family income
Less than $25,000 9,503 4,863 51.2% 1,413 14.9% 6,277 66.0% 30.3%
$25,000–$49,999 15,781 3,088 19.6% 2,005 12.7% 5,093 32.3% 24.6%
$50,000–$74,999 16,393 2,221 13.5% 1,226 7.5% 3,447 21.0% 16.6%
$75,000–$99,999 13,837 1,473 10.6% 762 5.5% 2,235 16.2% 10.8%
$100,000–$149,999 17,954 1,559 8.7% 700 3.9% 2,259 12.6% 10.9%
$150,000 or more 15,907 983 6.2% 407 2.6% 1,390 8.7% 6.7%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 4,308 2,630 61.1% 502 11.6% 3,131 72.7% 15.1%
101–200% of poverty line 9,193 3,561 38.7% 1,571 17.1% 5,133 55.8% 24.8%
201–400% of poverty line 26,289 4,310 16.4% 2,654 10.1% 6,964 26.5% 33.6%
401% or above 48,992 3,305 6.7% 1,747 3.6% 5,053 10.3% 24.4%
Poverty status not available 595 380 64.0% 40 6.8% 421 70.7% 2.0%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 5,574 2,280 40.9% 559 10.0% 2,838 50.9% 13.7%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 12,937 5,365 41.5% 1,541 11.9% 6,906 53.4% 33.4%
Full time (35+ hours) 70,864 6,542 9.2% 4,415 6.2% 10,957 15.5% 52.9%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 1,255 220 17.5% 84 6.7% 304 24.2% 1.5%
Construction 4,642 358 7.7% 254 5.5% 612 13.2% 3.0%
Manufacturing 10,203 865 8.5% 572 5.6% 1,437 14.1% 6.9%
Wholesale trade 2,574 251 9.8% 158 6.1% 409 15.9% 2.0%
Retail trade 10,613 3,532 33.3% 1,129 10.6% 4,661 43.9% 22.5%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 4,389 327 7.4% 235 5.3% 562 12.8% 2.7%
Information 2,061 144 7.0% 77 3.7% 221 10.7% 1.1%
Finance, insurance, real estate 6,193 331 5.4% 254 4.1% 585 9.5% 2.8%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 6,263 234 3.7% 157 2.5% 391 6.2% 1.9%
Administrative, support, and waste management 2,756 577 20.9% 263 9.5% 840 30.5% 4.1%
Education 9,944 974 9.8% 481 4.8% 1,455 14.6% 7.0%
Health care 12,460 1,978 15.9% 921 7.4% 2,899 23.3% 14.0%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 1,920 591 30.8% 224 11.6% 814 42.4% 3.9%
Accommodation 743 269 36.2% 105 14.2% 374 50.3% 1.8%
Restaurants and food service 5,060 2,561 50.6% 992 19.6% 3,553 70.2% 17.2%
Other services 3,591 805 22.4% 465 12.9% 1,270 35.4% 6.1%
Public administration 4,708 169 3.6% 143 3.0% 312 6.6% 1.5%
Sector
For-profit 66,331 12,074 18.2% 5,410 8.2% 17,484 26.4% 84.5%
Government 14,195 1,034 7.3% 594 4.2% 1,629 11.5% 7.9%
Nonprofit 8,849 1,078 12.2% 510 5.8% 1,589 18.0% 7.7%

Notes:?Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 11

Demographic characteristics of Native American workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage by $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All Native American workers 873 227 26.0% 90 10.2% 316 36.2% 100.0%
Gender
Women 449 137 30.4% 51 11.3% 187 41.7% 59.2%
Men 424 90 21.3% 39 9.2% 129 30.5% 40.8%
Age
Age 19 or younger 33 22 68.2% 3 7.7% 25 75.9% 7.9%
Age 20 or older 841 205 24.3% 87 10.4% 292 34.7% 92.1%
Ages 16–24 127 78 61.1% 14 11.3% 92 72.4% 29.1%
Ages 25–39 295 81 27.7% 35 11.9% 116 39.5% 36.8%
Ages 40–54 282 41 14.5% 24 8.5% 65 23.0% 20.5%
Age 55 or older 170 27 15.9% 16 9.5% 43 25.4% 13.7%
Family status
Married parent 182 26 14.4% 16 8.7% 42 23.2% 13.4%
Single parent 143 46 32.3% 17 11.8% 63 44.1% 19.9%
Married, no children 182 28 15.2% 15 8.4% 43 23.6% 13.5%
Unmarried, no children 367 127 34.6% 42 11.3% 168 45.9% 53.2%
Educational attainment
Less than high school 96 47 49.0% 11 11.3% 58 60.3% 18.2%
High school 277 91 32.9% 35 12.7% 126 45.6% 40.0%
Some college, no degree 253 69 27.4% 29 11.3% 98 38.7% 30.9%
Associate degree 92 14 15.2% 9 9.4% 23 24.7% 7.1%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 156 6 3.7% 6 3.9% 12 7.6% 3.7%
Family income
Less than $25,000 179 101 56.4% 24 13.6% 125 70.0% 39.5%
$25,000–$49,999 226 59 26.2% 30 13.5% 90 39.7% 28.3%
$50,000–$74,999 172 31 17.8% 17 9.8% 47 27.6% 15.0%
$75,000–$99,999 118 17 14.6% 9 7.3% 26 21.9% 8.1%
$100,000–$149,999 117 14 11.8% 6 5.5% 20 17.3% 6.4%
$150,000 or more 63 6 8.8% 3 4.8% 9 13.7% 2.7%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 104 67 64.4% 11 10.6% 78 75.0% 24.6%
101–200% of poverty line 185 78 42.0% 30 16.4% 108 58.3% 34.1%
201–400% of poverty line 309 58 18.7% 35 11.2% 92 29.9% 29.2%
401% or above 272 23 8.3% 13 4.9% 36 13.2% 11.4%
Poverty status not available 3 2 59.9% <1 5.7% 2 65.6% 0.6%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 42 20 48.3% 4 9.5% 24 57.8% 7.7%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 137 70 51.5% 16 11.4% 86 62.9% 27.2%
Full time (35+ hours) 694 136 19.6% 70 10.1% 206 29.7% 65.1%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 22 5 20.5% 2 8.4% 6 28.9% 2.0%
Construction 56 8 14.6% 5 8.4% 13 23.0% 4.0%
Manufacturing 71 11 16.2% 6 8.6% 18 24.9% 5.5%
Wholesale trade 14 2 14.3% 2 11.6% 4 25.8% 1.2%
Retail trade 96 46 47.4% 11 11.1% 56 58.5% 17.8%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 44 5 11.8% 4 8.5% 9 20.3% 2.8%
Information 11 1 13.2% 1 8.2% 2 21.4% 0.7%
Finance, insurance, real estate 33 4 13.0% 3 10.4% 8 23.4% 2.5%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 25 3 10.4% 1 4.3% 4 14.7% 1.2%
Administrative, support, and waste management 28 10 36.2% 3 10.9% 13 47.1% 4.2%
Education 81 13 16.3% 6 7.7% 19 24.0% 6.1%
Health care 138 38 27.7% 15 11.2% 54 38.9% 17.0%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 53 19 35.6% 10 18.2% 28 53.8% 9.0%
Accommodation 20 10 50.0% 2 12.1% 12 62.1% 3.9%
Restaurants and food service 57 33 58.2% 8 14.0% 41 72.2% 13.0%
Other services 29 9 29.1% 4 13.9% 13 43.0% 4.0%
Public administration 94 9 9.8% 7 6.9% 16 16.7% 5.0%
Sector
For-profit 554 171 30.9% 61 11.1% 233 42.0% 73.5%
Government 253 41 16.1% 22 8.8% 63 24.9% 19.9%
Nonprofit 66 15 22.3% 6 9.1% 21 31.4% 6.6%

Notes:?Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Appendix Table 12

Demographic characteristics of women of color workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage by $15 by 2024

Group Total estimated workforce (thousands) Directly affected (thousands) Share directly affected Indirectly affected (thousands) Share indirectly affected Total affected (thousands) Share of group who are affected Group’s share of total affected
All women of color workers 29,027 7,792 26.8% 2,554 8.8% 10,346 35.6% 100.0%
Age
Age 19 or younger 1,137 663 58.3% 64 5.6% 726 63.9% 7.0%
Age 20 or older 27,891 7,129 25.6% 2,490 8.9% 9,620 34.5% 93.0%
Ages 16–24 4,551 2,378 52.3% 372 8.2% 2,750 60.4% 26.6%
Ages 25–39 10,739 2,712 25.3% 1,010 9.4% 3,723 34.7% 36.0%
Ages 40–54 9,249 1,744 18.9% 794 8.6% 2,538 27.4% 24.5%
Age 55 or older 4,488 957 21.3% 378 8.4% 1,336 29.8% 12.9%
Family status
Married parent 6,408 1,256 19.6% 527 8.2% 1,783 27.8% 17.2%
Single parent 5,557 1,922 34.6% 583 10.5% 2,505 45.1% 24.2%
Married, no children 5,336 984 18.4% 444 8.3% 1,427 26.7% 13.8%
Unmarried, no children 11,727 3,630 31.0% 1,000 8.5% 4,631 39.5% 44.8%
Educational attainment
Less than high school 3,918 1,869 47.7% 336 8.6% 2,205 56.3% 21.3%
High school 6,873 2,709 39.4% 841 12.2% 3,551 51.7% 34.3%
Some college, no degree 7,362 2,353 32.0% 815 11.1% 3,167 43.0% 30.6%
Associate degree 2,640 512 19.4% 263 10.0% 776 29.4% 7.5%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 8,234 349 4.2% 298 3.6% 647 7.9% 6.3%
Family income
Less than $25,000 5,463 3,026 55.4% 520 9.5% 3,546 64.9% 34.3%
$25,000–$49,999 7,063 2,158 30.6% 896 12.7% 3,054 43.2% 29.5%
$50,000–$74,999 5,386 1,218 22.6% 508 9.4% 1,725 32.0% 16.7%
$75,000–$99,999 3,734 629 16.9% 294 7.9% 924 24.7% 8.9%
$100,000–$149,999 4,124 523 12.7% 231 5.6% 754 18.3% 7.3%
$150,000 or more 3,257 238 7.3% 105 3.2% 343 10.5% 3.3%
Family income-to-poverty ratio
At or below the poverty line 3,318 1,969 59.3% 253 7.6% 2,221 67.0% 21.5%
101–200% of poverty line 6,055 2,660 43.9% 783 12.9% 3,443 56.9% 33.3%
201–400% of poverty line 9,696 2,214 22.8% 1,069 11.0% 3,283 33.9% 31.7%
401% or above 9,753 845 8.7% 437 4.5% 1,282 13.1% 12.4%
Poverty status not available 206 105 51.1% 11 5.5% 117 56.6% 1.1%
Work hours
Part time (<20 hours) 1,930 703 36.4% 150 7.8% 853 44.2% 8.2%
Mid time (20– 34 hours) 5,654 2,469 43.7% 513 9.1% 2,982 52.7% 28.8%
Full time (35+ hours) 21,443 4,620 21.5% 1,892 8.8% 6,511 30.4% 62.9%
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 255 65 25.4% 20 8.0% 85 33.4% 0.8%
Construction 246 46 18.6% 20 8.1% 66 26.7% 0.6%
Manufacturing 2,097 572 27.3% 221 10.6% 793 37.8% 7.7%
Wholesale trade 474 110 23.1% 37 7.8% 147 30.9% 1.4%
Retail trade 3,494 1,486 42.5% 316 9.1% 1,802 51.6% 17.4%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 913 161 17.6% 82 9.0% 243 26.6% 2.3%
Information 479 67 13.9% 30 6.2% 96 20.1% 0.9%
Finance, insurance, real estate 1,913 210 11.0% 125 6.5% 335 17.5% 3.2%
Professional, scientific, management, technical services 1,337 98 7.3% 56 4.2% 153 11.5% 1.5%
Administrative, support, and waste management 1,288 496 38.5% 123 9.5% 619 48.1% 6.0%
Education 3,165 525 16.6% 195 6.2% 720 22.7% 7.0%
Health care 6,999 1,666 23.8% 575 8.2% 2,241 32.0% 21.7%
Arts, entertainment, recreational services 510 184 36.1% 66 12.9% 250 49.0% 2.4%
Accommodation 625 300 48.1% 73 11.7% 373 59.8% 3.6%
Restaurants and food service 2,525 1,283 50.8% 329 13.0% 1,611 63.8% 15.6%
Other services 1,241 418 33.7% 217 17.5% 635 51.2% 6.1%
Public administration 1,464 106 7.2% 70 4.8% 176 12.0% 1.7%
Sector
For-profit 21,450 6,651 31.0% 2,079 9.7% 8,730 40.7% 84.4%
Government 4,887 660 13.5% 285 5.8% 945 19.3% 9.1%
Nonprofit 2,690 481 17.9% 190 7.1% 671 24.9% 6.5%

Notes:?Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

Source:?Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Methodology

The Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey (ACS) to estimate the size and demographic/workforce characteristics of the populations affected by proposed changes in federal, state, and local minimum wages, as well as the likely impact of those changes on the wages of affected workers. The model accounts for inflation, labor force growth, and all existing state and local minimum wage laws and the likely minimum wages resulting from those laws throughout the simulation period. The statistics in this report were generated using the 2017 ACS five-year microdata and the 2017 CPS Outgoing Rotation Group microdata. A full description of the methodology can be found in Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019.

Endnotes

1. ?It would also phase out the youth minimum wage, which allows employers to pay workers under 20 a lower wage for the first 90 calendar days of work (U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division 2008a), and the subminimum wage for workers with disabilities, which allows employers, after receiving a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, to pay workers with disabilities a lower wage (U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division 2008b).

2. ?We use the Research Series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to deflate the value of the minimum wage because the CPI-U tracks changes in the prices of goods bought by typical U.S. consumers. It is the standard deflator used by researchers and government agencies when adjusting wages and incomes for changes in prices. For example, the Census Bureau uses the CPI-U when it measures trends in family and household incomes, and the Internal Revenue Service adjusts tax brackets annually using the CPI-U. The Census Bureau has made various methodological improvements to the CPI-U over the years. The Research Series applies current CPI-U methodology retrospectively to calculate the most accurate measure of historical inflation for typical U.S. consumers. We use the implicit price deflator for gross domestic product—or “GDP deflator”—when calculating changes in total economy net productivity. This is also standard practice, as it captures changes in the value of the overall output of the economy—i.e., the value of what workers are able to produce.

3. ?Inflation-adjusted values for future years are calculated using the projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.

4. ?Overall productivity is measured as total economy productivity net depreciation. From 1968 to 2016, net productivity grew by 100 percent. Based on?projections for productivity growth in CBO 2018, growth from 1968 to 2024 is expected to be 119 percent.

5. In a well-functioning economy, growth in wages would consistently outpace inflation. Unfortunately, that has not been the norm for the last half century in the U.S. Median wage growth has barely outpaced inflation over the past 50 years (as shown by the mere 16 percent growth of the median wage in Figure B). Labor market conditions at the start of 2019 are strong enough that it is possible there could be some median wage growth above inflation in the near term. Thus, assuming growth of 0.5 percent above inflation is a plausible, albeit conservative, estimate relative to what wage growth should be in a healthy economy with rising productivity.

6. ?Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

7. ?Wething and Gould (2013) describe the various shortcomings of the federal poverty line and discuss alternative tools for measuring well-being.?O’Brien and Pedulla (2010) also discuss the federal poverty line’s inadequacy and provide a useful history of the measure.

8. ?See Cooper and Essrow 2015.

9. ?Dube, Giuliano, and Leonard (2015) observe minimum wage spillover or “ripple” effects for workers earning up to 15 percent above newly implemented minimum wages. Thus, in this analysis, the range of indirectly affected workers is modeled as those workers reporting hourly wages between 100 and 115 percent of the new minimum wage.?See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019 for further detail.

10. ?Because this increase is larger than past increases that have been rigorously studied, we cannot predict how the higher wage floor might affect the aggregate hours worked by low-wage workers. As explained in greater detail in Cooper, Mishel, and Zipperer (2018), it may be that the total hours worked by the low-wage workforce shrinks. However, the distribution of that shrinkage is not clear. Opponents of minimum wage increases often portray this potential shrinkage as low-wage workers being forced out of the labor market entirely, never to work again. This is a misleading suggestion. The low-wage labor market has very high churn—workers move in and out of jobs frequently, some work multiple jobs, and many will typically spend some portion of the year not working. If the higher minimum wage does lead to a reduction in the total hours of work for low-wage workers, this reduction could manifest as some workers working fewer weeks per year, fewer hours per week, or in fewer jobs if they previously held more than one. In all three scenarios, the workers’ total annual pay is still likely to be higher than it would have been otherwise because of the higher hourly rate they would receive from the minimum wage increase. The clearly harmful outcome would be instances in which workers are truly unable to find work at all, or in which their individual loss of hours outweighs the increased hourly rate of pay, leaving them worse off on net. We believe that such outcomes, if they occur, would affect only a very small fraction of workers in the low-wage labor market, and that the benefits of higher pay for millions more outweigh the risk of such negative outcomes. Moreover, policymakers have other tools (e.g., more generous unemployment benefits, work sharing programs, targeted hiring programs, and many other tools) that they can use to mitigate the impacts of any negative outcomes for workers.

11. ?The median age of affected workers is 30.

12. There are an estimated 72.5 million women in the wage-earning workforce, out of a total of 149.3 million workers. See Appendix Table 3.

13. Author’s calculation using the EPI Minimum Wage Simulation Model. See Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019 for details.

14. ?For a full list of all states that have enacted minimum wages above the federal minimum wage, and for any scheduled future increases, see EPI’s minimum wage tracker (EPI 2019a).

15. ?Idaho and North Carolina have minimum wages equal to the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Arkansas voters recently passed a ballot measure increasing the state minimum wage to $11 by 2021, but without any further adjustment thereafter. Tennessee and Mississippi have no minimum wage laws. In these states and others without a minimum wage or with a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage, workers must be paid at least the federal minimum wage.

16. ?EPI’s “Agenda to Raise America’s Pay” describes 11 policies to boost American’s wages by tilting bargaining power back toward low- and moderate-wage workers. See EPI 2016 for details.

17. ?“Wage theft” occurs when employers fail to pay employees the full wages to which they are entitled for the hours they work. See Cooper and Kroeger 2017 or Meixell and Eisenbrey 2014 for greater detail.

18. ?Tipped workers receive the full minimum wage before tips in Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Montana, and Nevada. In 2016, voters in Maine passed a ballot measure that will raise Maine’s tipped minimum wage over a 10-year period until it is equal to the state’s full minimum wage. In Hawaii, tipped workers generally receive the full minimum wage before tips, but employers may pay these workers $0.75 below the regular minimum wage if workers’ combined base wage plus hourly tips equals at least $7.00 more than the regular minimum wage.

19. See National Employment Law Project 2013.

20. See Marinescu 2018.

21. Cengiz et al. (2019) examine minimum wages as high as 59 percent of the median wage of all workers. This is a slightly different statistic from the median wage of full-time, year-round workers described in the first section of this report. The full-time, year-round workforce is a subset of all workers—some of whom work part time or only part of the year. Because part-time and part-year workers tend to have lower wages than full-time, full-year workers, including them in this calculation lowers the calculated median wage, therefore leading to the minimum wage being a higher percentage of the median wage than would result if calculated using the median wage of full-time, year-round workers. The full-time, year-round median is used in this report because it can be calculated for workers in 1968, allowing for comparisons to the high point of the federal minimum wage. Data allowing for calculations of the median wage of all workers are only available beginning in 1979.

References

Allegretto, Sylvia A. 2013. “Waiting for Change: Is It Time to Increase the $2.13 Subminimum Wage?” Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper no. 155-13, December 2013.

Allegretto, Sylvia A., and David Cooper. 2014. Twenty-Three Years and Still Waiting for Change: Why It’s Time to Give Tipped Workers the Regular Minimum Wage. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper no. 379, July 2014.

Allegretto, Sylvia, Arindrajit Dube, Michael Reich, and Ben Zipperer. 2017. “Credible Research Designs for Minimum Wage Studies: A Response to Neumark, Salas, and Wascher.”?ILR Review 70, no. 3 (May): 559–592.?https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917692788.

Bivens, Josh, Elise Gould, Lawrence Mishel, and Heidi Shierholz. 2014. Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge. Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper no. 378, June 2014.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor). 2015. “Labor Force Projections to 2024: The Labor Force Is Growing, but Slowly.” Monthly Labor Review, December 2015.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor) Labor Productivity and Costs program. Various years. Unpublished data provided by program staff at EPI’s request.

Cengiz, Doruk, Arindrajit Dube, Attila Lindner, and Ben Zipperer. 2019. “The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs: Evidence from the United States Using a Bunching Estimator.” NBER Working Paper no. 25434, January 2019.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2018. The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018 to 2028. August 2018.

Cooper, David. 2017. “Valentine’s Day Is Better on the West Coast (at Least for Restaurant Servers).” Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), February 9, 2017.

Cooper, David, and Dan Essrow. 2015. Low-Wage Workers Are Older Than You Think (economic snapshot). Economic Policy Institute, April 2015.

Cooper, David, and Teresa Kroeger. 2017. Employers Steal Billions from Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less Than the Minimum Wage, at Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies. Economic Policy Institute, May 2017.

Cooper, David, Lawrence Mishel, and Ben Zipperer. 2018. Bold Increases in the Minimum Wage Should Be Evaluated for the Benefits of Raising Low-Wage Workers’ Total Earnings: Critics Who Cite Claims of Job Loss Are Using a Distorted Frame. Economic Policy Institute, April 2018.

Cooper, David, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer. 2019. Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology. Economic Policy Institute, February 2019.

Cooper, David, John Schmitt, and Lawrence Mishel. 2015. We Can Afford a $12.00 Federal Minimum Wage in 2020. Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper no. 398, April 2015.

Dube, Arindrajit. 2018. “Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Family Incomes.” NBER Working Paper no. 25240, November 2018.

Dube, Arindrajit, Laura Giuliano, and Jonathan Leonard. 2015.?“Fairness and Frictions: The Impact of Unequal Raises on Quit Behavior.” IZA Discussion Paper no. 9149, June 2015.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2016. “The Agenda to Raise America’s Pay.”

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2019a. Minimum Wage Tracker. Last updated January 8, 2019.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2019b. The Impact of Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 by 2024, by Congressional District?[interactive map].

Golden, Lonnie. 2016. Still Falling Short on Hours and Pay: Part-Time Work Becoming New Normal. Economic Policy Institute, December 2016.

Gould, Elise, Alyssa Davis, and Will Kimball. 2015. Broad-Based Wage Growth Is a Key Tool in the Fight Against Poverty. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper no. 399, May 2015.

Kuehn, Daniel. 2014. The Importance of Study Design in the Minimum-Wage Debate. Economic Policy Institute Issue Brief no. 384, September 2014.

Marinescu, Ioana. 2018. “Most important paper on minimum wage effects since Card and @Alan_Krueger, according to @davidautor.” Twitter, @mioana, January 6, 2018, 6:40 a.m.

Meixell, Brady, and Ross Eisenbrey. 2014. An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions of Dollar a Year. Economic Policy Institute Issue Brief no. 385, September 2014.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2014a. Low-Wage Workers Have Far More Education Than They Did in 1968, Yet They Make Far Less (economic snapshot). Economic Policy Institute, January 2014.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2014b. “The Tight Link Between the Minimum Wage and Wage Inequality.” Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), January 27, 2014.

National Employment Law Project. 2013. Consider the Source: 100 Years of Broken-Record Opposition to the Minimum Wage. March 2013.

National Women’s Law Center. 2016. Raise the Wage: Women Fare Better in States with Equal Treatment for Tipped Workers (fact sheet). October 2016.

O’Brien, Rourke L., and David S. Pedulla. 2010. “Beyond the Poverty Line.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2010.

Rinz, Kevin, and John Voorheis. 2018. “The Distributional Effects of Minimum Wages: Evidence from Linked Survey and Administrative Data.” Working Paper 2018-02, Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications, U.S. Census Bureau, March 2018.

Schmitt, John. 2013. Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? Center for Economic and Policy Research Briefing Paper, February 2013.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2009. Fix It and Forget It: Index the Minimum Wage to Growth in Average Wages. Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper no. 251, December 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. “Table S0901: Children Characteristics: 2013–2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Generated using American FactFinder. Accessed January 2019.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement microdata (U.S. Census Bureau CPS-ASEC). Various years. Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics [machine-readable microdata file]. Accessed December 2018 at https://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata (U.S. Census Bureau CPS-ORG). Various years. Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics [machine-readable microdata file]. Accessed November 2018 at https://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html.

U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. 2008a. Fact Sheet #32: Youth Minimum Wage—Fair Labor Standards Act. Revised July 2008.

U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. 2008b. Fact Sheet #39: The Employment of Workers with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages. Revised July 2008.

Wething, Hilary, and Elise Gould. 2013. “EPI Family Budgets: Why More Tools Are Better Than One.” Working Economics?(Economic Policy Institute blog), August 28, 2013.

Wicks-Lim, Jeannette. 2006. “Mandated Wage Floors and the Wage Structure: New Estimates of the Ripple Effects of Minimum Wage Laws. Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Working Paper no. 116.

Wolfson, Paul, and Dale Belman. 2016. “15 Years of Research on U.S. Employment and the Minimum Wage.” Tuck School of Business Working Paper no. 2705499. Last revised December 2016.

Zipperer, Ben. 2015a. How the Minimum Wage Ripples Through the Workforce. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, April 2015.

Zipperer, Ben. 2015b. Bolstering the Bottom by Indexing the Minimum Wage to the Median Wage. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June 2015.


See related work on Minimum wage | Wages, Incomes, and Wealth | Inequality and Poverty | Tipped Minimum Wage

See more work by David Cooper

任我爽