The 2016 federal overtime rule would have benefited working people in every state: Share of salaried workforce in each state benefiting from raising the salary threshold for overtime protection from $23,660 to $47,476 a year
| State | Share of salaried workforce directly benefiting | Number of people directly benefiting | Share of total salaried workforce covered under new threshold |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 26.4% | 167,000 | 39.1% |
| Alaska | 17.6% | 16,000 | 25.9% |
| Arizona | 25.8% | 258,000 | 36.0% |
| Arkansas | 30.6% | 130,000 | 44.0% |
| California | 17.9% | 1,076,000 | 27.4% |
| Colorado | 24.0% | 248,000 | 31.7% |
| Connecticut | 16.2% | 113,000 | 23.7% |
| Delaware | 27.7% | 49,000 | 35.6% |
| Washington D.C. | 16.8% | 29,000 | 23.6% |
| Florida | 29.3% | 1,068,000 | 41.9% |
| Georgia | 28.2% | 493,000 | 39.3% |
| Hawaii | 26.4% | 57,000 | 36.9% |
| Idaho | 29.1% | 64,000 | 35.6% |
| Illinois | 22.8% | 539,000 | 31.2% |
| Indiana | 24.9% | 248,000 | 34.8% |
| Iowa | 25.2% | 124,000 | 33.3% |
| Kansas | 21.7% | 98,000 | 29.3% |
| Kentucky | 25.1% | 149,000 | 34.1% |
| Louisiana | 24.5% | 174,000 | 40.8% |
| Maine | 24.2% | 46,000 | 32.6% |
| Maryland | 20.2% | 233,000 | 28.4% |
| Massachusetts | 18.0% | 262,000 | 25.0% |
| Michigan | 20.1% | 275,000 | 28.0% |
| Minnesota | 16.4% | 158,000 | 21.5% |
| Mississippi | 25.3% | 88,000 | 37.8% |
| Missouri | 26.3% | 257,000 | 35.0% |
| Montana | 26.4% | 33,000 | 37.8% |
| Nebraska | 25.8% | 81,000 | 34.7% |
| Nevada | 26.9% | 115,000 | 35.9% |
| New Hampshire | 21.5% | 54,000 | 28.6% |
| New Jersey | 20.0% | 410,000 | 28.3% |
| New Mexico | 25.3% | 61,000 | 37.0% |
| New York | 23.6% | 982,000 | 33.2% |
| North Carolina | 25.7% | 425,000 | 36.6% |
| North Dakota | 27.5% | 34,000 | 35.0% |
| Ohio | 20.9% | 351,000 | 28.7% |
| Oklahoma | 26.2% | 154,000 | 37.5% |
| Oregon | 21.9% | 124,000 | 29.1% |
| Pennsylvania | 22.6% | 459,000 | 30.8% |
| Rhode Island | 21.8% | 37,000 | 29.2% |
| South Carolina | 30.3% | 219,000 | 39.9% |
| South Dakota | 28.2% | 32,000 | 36.1% |
| Tennessee | 29.2% | 290,000 | 40.2% |
| Texas | 25.4% | 1,244,000 | 36.6% |
| Utah | 24.1% | 119,000 | 36.2% |
| Vermont | 22.9% | 25,000 | 31.5% |
| Virginia | 21.1% | 333,000 | 28.9% |
| Washington | 20.2% | 232,000 | 26.6% |
| West Virginia | 30.7% | 66,000 | 40.7% |
| Wisconsin | 21.6% | 187,000 | 27.1% |
| Wyoming | 24.6% | 20,000 | 32.4% |
Note: The estimates consider all the workers who would for the first time be automatically eligible for overtime protection because their salary falls under the salary threshold (i.e., their employers could no longer exempt them from protection by claiming their primary job duties are managerial, administrative, or professional in nature). Not included are a subset of salaried California and New York workers already covered by state thresholds higher than the old federal threshold.
Source: EPI analysis of the U.S. Department of Labor’s proposed (July 6, 2015) and final (May 18, 2016) rule, “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees,” 29 CFR Part 541; and Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 2015
This chart appears in:
- What’s at stake in the states if the 2016 federal raise to the overtime pay threshold is not preserved—and what states can do about it: State action to modernize overtime rules (research report)
- What’s at stake in the states if the federal raise to the overtime pay threshold is not resurrected—and what states can do about it
Previous chart: « Median household income and share of population in poverty, various Asian populations, 2016
Next chart: Increases in coverage in “Favorable and Actionable” states needed to offset losses in “Unfavorable” states »