The Minimum Wage Increase: A Working Woman’s Issue
By Jared Bernstein,
Heidi Hartmann,
John Schmitt,
September 1, 1999
ATTENTION:
To view this report's tables and figures, please download the PDF
version.
September 16, 1999 Issue Brief
#133
The Minimum Wage
Increase
A Working Woman's
Issue
by Jared Bernstein, Heidi Hartmann, and John Schmitt
As Congress considers raising the federal minimum wage from its
current level of $5.15 per hour to $6.15, it is important to
understand who will benefit from this increase. An analysis of
low-wage workers shows that the main beneficiaries of this
one-dollar increase would be working women, almost one million of
whom are single mothers. In fact, of the 11.8 million workers who
would receive a pay increase as the result of this higher minimum
wage, 58% would be women, simply because, as a group, they earn
lower wages than men. As a result, a minimum wage increase would
help to reduce the overall pay gap between women and men.
Since the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation, when Congress
fails to raise the minimum wage, these workers' purchasing power
declines, as was the case over the 1980s. Even with the two
increases thus far in the 1990s, the minimum wage remains 19% below
its inflation-adjusted 1979 level. This decline in the minimum wage
helps to explain the growth of wage inequality and the diminished
earnings of low-wage female workers over the last two decades.
In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70% of the
hourly wage of the median female worker (the woman right in the
middle of the female wage scale). By 1998, that ratio had fallen to
52%. Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at the
minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and
two children) above the poverty line. By 1998, however, the same
family would be 18% below the poverty line. [1]
Table 1 shows the number and the share
of working women in 1998 - nationally and in each state - that
would benefit from the proposed increase. About 7 million women
nationally - 12.6% of all working women - earn between $5.15 and
$6.14, the wage range that would be directly affected by an
increase in the federal minimum wage. [2] In lower-wage states, the share of women that
would benefit from the proposed increase is typically higher than
the national average. For example, one-fifth or more of working
women would receive a raise after a one-dollar increase in the
federal minimum in the following states: West Virginia (22.5%),
Arkansas (21.9%), Mississippi (21.1%), Montana (20.8%), Louisiana
(20.2%), and Oklahoma (20.0%). The states with the largest numbers
of working women who would benefit from the increase are: Texas
(669,000), California (572,000), Florida (414,000), New York
(372,000), Ohio (345,000), and Pennsylvania (338,000).
Table 2 helps provide a clearer picture of the low-wage
women who would benefit from the proposed increase (see column 1).
The vast majority (75.3%) of these women are adults (age 20 or
older). Although most low-wage women workers are white (65.4%),
African American and Hispanic women are overrepresented in low-wage
jobs. African American women are 13.1% of all women workers (see
the last column of Table 2), but 16.2% of those in the range
affected by the minimum wage increase; Hispanic women are 9.0% of
all women workers, but 14.4% of low-wage women. Close to half
(44.9%) of the female workers in the affected range work full time
(35 or more hours a week), and another 35.0% work between 20 and 34
hours per week.
The next few rows of Table 2 show the industries and occupations
where low-wage women tend to find work. An analysis by industry
shows that most low-wage females are concentrated in retail trade,
which employs 44.0% of those in the affected range. In contrast, a
much smaller share of low-wage women work in the higher-paying
manufacturing sector (8.4%). An analysis by occupation reveals that
28.3% of low-wage women are sales workers, with 16.4% working as
cashiers. One-third of these women (32.5%) work in service
occupations such as food preparation (16.1%). Finally, just under
4% of low-wage women are covered by collective bargaining through a
union, in contrast to 16.2% of women earning $7.15 or more per
hour.
Table 3 examines the parental and minimum wage status of
workers age 18-64. Parents with children under 18 years old
represent 32.9% of the beneficiaries of the proposed increase,
while such workers represent 40.4% of the total workforce. More
than two million married men and women with children would benefit
from the proposed increase (and within these families, women are
disproportionately the direct beneficiaries). Almost one million
(967,000) single mothers would receive a pay increase as a result
of a one-dollar rise in the minimum wage. Note that single mothers
are over-represented in the affected workforce - they represent 10%
of those affected by the increase but are only 5.7% of the overall
workforce.
All of the evidence suggests that the minimum wage increase is well
targeted, providing significant benefits to poor and middle-income
households. Table 4 shows that about 18% of the benefits of
a one-dollar increase would go to households with incomes below
$10,000 per year; another 32% of the benefits would go to
households with annual incomes between $10,000 and $25,000. In
total, households making less than $25,000 a year would receive
half of the benefits of a one-dollar increase. Among the affected
single mothers shown in Table 3, 85% have household incomes below
$25,000, underscoring the importance of the policy for these
low-wage and low-income families.
Conclusion
Those who oppose raising the minimum wage typically argue that the
increase will force employers to fire, or hire fewer of, those
workers affected by the increase. The evidence, however, fails to
support this claim. [3] Since the last increase, in late
1996 and 1997, employment rates of low-wage workers, and
particularly single mothers, have increased dramatically, as the
strong economy has bolstered demand in the low-wage labor market.
In this regard, one of the main policy lessons from the current
recovery is that the macroeconomy is the key determinant of
employment opportunity for low-wage workers, most of whom are
women. But, as the above evidence shows, the wage that these women
receive is very much a function of where the minimum wage is set by
Congress. Disregarding this reality can only serve to swell the
ranks of the working poor. Raising the minimum wage will help to
raise the incomes of many low-income families, especially those
headed by single mothers.
Research assistance from Danielle Gao. Chauna
Brocht provided helpful comments.
Endnotes
1. If we deduct the costs incurred in working full time for a single mother (e.g., child care and transportation), the family's disposable income would fall further below the poverty line. By the same token, if we add the cash value of food stamps and the earned income tax credit, the gross income of the 1998 family would be above the poverty line. But if both work costs and government assistance are considered, family income still falls below the poverty line.
2. More precisely, affected workers in this report are those who earn between the maximum of either their state's minimum or $5.15, at the lower end, and the proposed new minimum wage, at the upper end. About 4.8 million men, or 7.9% of all working men, are in this range.
3. For a detailed analysis of the
employment impact of the 1996-97 increase, see Making Work Pay,
Bernstein and Schmitt, Economic Policy Institute (1998).
The Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for Women's
Policy Research are grateful to The Annie E. Casey Foundation,
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Ford Foundation, The John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, The
Rockefeller Family Fund, and The Rockefeller Foundation for their
support of this work.
Sign Up to Stay Informed
Search EPI sites
RELATED PUBLICATIONS
- Jobs and Wages Tax Cut Should be Part of a New Jobs Package
- An analysis of Transportation for America’s Jobs Proposals
- Understanding the President’s FY 2011 Budget
- Budget reflects weakened economy, EPI analysis shows
- Tomorrow’s Recovery.gov Numbers Won’t Tell Whole Job Creation Story
- Spending freeze could spell disaster
- Private sources of spending cannot sustain job growth
- Exposing some health care urban legends
- Budgeting For Recovery—The Need to Increase the Federal Deficit to Revive a Weak Economy
- Layoffs moderating, but hiring not yet picking up
- See more publications about: Public investment Fiscal Policy

