More than 350,000 Oklahoma workers will get a raise if voters approve a $15 minimum wage this summer
This June, Oklahoma voters will have the opportunity to pass a historic minimum wage ballot initiative that would boost workers’ wages at a time when many are struggling with growing affordability challenges. State Question (SQ) 832 proposes gradually increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 an hour by 2029 (Table 1). Our analysis finds that this policy would raise wages for 357,700 Oklahoma workers—or roughly one-fifth (20.3%) of the state’s wage-earning workforce—by more than $783 million overall. This total includes both workers who would directly and indirectly see wage increases from the policy. On average, affected workers would gain $2,322 in annual pay if they worked full time and year-round.
The benefits of raising the minimum wage
Raising the minimum wage is a research-backed policy that increases earnings for low-wage workers without causing increases in unemployment or other negative economic side effects. A strong wage floor is also a powerful tool for making a more equitable economy. Almost two-thirds of the workers who would be affected by SQ 832 are women (63.3%). The policy would also disproportionately benefit workers of color. Hispanic workers make up 18.2% of the affected workers, compared with 11.0% of the total Oklahoma workforce. Black workers would be 10.6% of affected workers, while only making up 7.1% of the workforce (see Table 3).
The policy would also provide critical support to workers experiencing significant economic insecurity. Nearly three-fifths (59.3%) of the affected workers have incomes below 200% of the poverty line. Research shows that raising the minimum wage significantly reduces poverty, even as higher wages simultaneously reduce some workers’ and families’ eligibility for, and reliance on, public assistance programs.
The gender pay gap widened slightly in 2025: How Trump’s first year in office hurt women and what states can do to fix it
Key takeaways:
- The persistent gender wage gap widened slightly in 2025; women were paid 18.6% less than men on average after controlling for race and ethnicity, education, age, marital status, and state.
- Women are paid less than men across all education levels. Women with a graduate degree earn less, on average, than men with only a college degree.
- The gender pay gap worsened following a year of Trump administration attacks on workers, including cuts to the federal workforce; attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; ordering mass deportations; and undermining child care and home care providers.
- States can narrow the gender pay gap with policies that guarantee access to paid family and medical leave, mandate pay transparency, raise the minimum wage, and make it easier for workers to form unions.
March 26 is Equal Pay Day, a reminder that there is still a significant pay gap between men and women in our country. The date represents how far into 2026 women would have to work on top of the hours they worked in 2025 simply to match what men were paid in 2025.
On an hourly basis, women were paid 18.6% less on average than men in 2025, after controlling for race and ethnicity, education, age, marital status, and state. After narrowing to a series low of 18.0% in 2024—likely driven by a strong labor market recovery from the COVID-19 recession that lifted wages more at the lower end of the overall wage distribution—the gender wage gap widened slightly in 2025. Though far from a total reversal of the last few years’ progress, the slight worsening in 2025 reflects the slowing of low-end wage growth and the economic consequences of Trump’s first year back in office.Read more
The battle for the ballot: How Southern legislatures are trying to block economic progress by restricting access to ballot initiatives
Key takeaways:
- Ballot initiatives have enabled voters to advance worker-centered policies—like higher minimum wages—in states with hostile legislatures, particularly in the South.
- A coordinated, right-wing legislative attack on ballot initiative processes is attempting to reverse ballot initiative wins, scare advocates out of using the ballot process, and make it harder to get future measures on the ballot that improve standards for workers.
- Despite these barriers, advocates and voters are fighting back to protect pro-worker ballot access and advance new progressive ballot measures.
In recent years, state ballot initiatives have served as powerful tools to advance economic opportunity for working families. Voters directly have raised the minimum wage, secured paid sick leave, protected abortion access, enacted bail reform, expanded Medicaid, and increased funding for public education—all popular progressive economic policies that some state legislatures have failed to enact. However, some conservative state legislatures have responded by overturning or limiting recent wins. And in the few Southern states where voters can access ballot measures—Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma—conservative legislators are waging war against the ballot initiative process itself, attempting to obstruct the will of voters and make it permanently more difficult for the public to directly decide on policy choices.
How AI spending is impacting the U.S. economy
Earlier this year, I gave an informal briefing on the macroeconomic effect of AI-related spending. It focused largely on claims that AI spending was the only thing standing between the U.S. economy and a recession, as well as concerns that AI spending was supported by fragile financing structures that could collapse and threaten near-term growth.
AI-related spending is providing much of the growth in the U.S. economy today. Business investments in structures and equipment (capex) that are driven by AI firms have accelerated noticeably in the past year. How much of this investment consists of imports rather than U.S.-based production is an open and important question. Even more important is the wealth effect on consumption from the AI stock boom, which seems to have firmly entered bubble territory. Combined, the capex spending and the consumption spending spurred by the stock market bubble are adding over a percentage point to GDP growth.
Worse, both types of spending seem fragile as medium-term sources of growth. The stock market bubble could deflate at any time, and when it does, it will almost certainly pull down much of the capex spending as well. After all, the entire reason for the frenzied capex build-out is the expectation of future profits. If these expectations radically change, the capex spending will evaporate.
If AI spending growth slows and the economy falls into a recession, policymakers should follow the typical recession-fighting playbook and use monetary and fiscal policy to boost the demand that was erased. The Federal Reserve should cut interest rates, and Congress and the president should direct fiscal aid to struggling families.
I then point to a couple of long-run observations about AI and its effect on labor markets, mostly echoing our arguments made in this report. One key finding: Despite widespread concern that AI will be strongly capital-biased, the profit share in the non-financial corporate sector has actually declined markedly since 2022.
For those interested, the PowerPoint and notes from the briefing are below.
A more diverse workforce isn’t ‘DEI-motivated discrimination’—it’s just demographic change: How Trump is weaponizing the EEOC against the workers it was built to protect
Key takeaways:
- Trump has weaponized the EEOC to go after employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, accusing them of “reverse racism” against white workers—but nothing in the EEOC’s own data points to evidence of systemic discrimination against white workers.
- People of color have made up a growing share of the U.S. working-age population since 1989, while the share of the white working-age population has fallen from 76.9% in 1989 to 55.4% in 2025.
- According to data submitted to the EEOC by large employers, workers of color make up more than 40% of the workforce but hold only 1 in 5 executive or senior-level positions—a pattern that contradicts the administration’s narrative of bias against white workers.
Trump’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently opened a federal investigation into Nike and its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—alleging systemic discrimination against white workers. This is the first time the EEOC has targeted a large private employer with a federal investigation and subpoena explicitly linked to their DEI initiatives and hiring goals. Shortly thereafter, the EEOC sued a Coca-Cola bottling company for sex discrimination following a networking event it held for female employees. The EEOC chair closed a busy February with a letter to Fortune 500 companies, warning them about “unlawful discrimination” related to their use of DEI initiatives.
These recent EEOC actions reflect Trump’s undue control over the agency and his administration’s effective weaponization of the EEOC to fight against DEI, a broad set of programs and initiatives designed to remedy the long and well-documented history of systemic injustices against people of color and women in the labor market. Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC has operated as an independent federal agency throughout its 60-year history enforcing employment nondiscrimination laws—until last year.Read more
U.S. economy lost an alarming 92,000 jobs in February: Private sector experienced vast majority of losses, one-third were due to temporary strikes
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning. Read the full thread here.
EPI’s updated Family Budget Calculator shows that higher minimum wages are needed in states like Oklahoma to afford the cost of living
Key takeaways
- EPI’s updated Family Budget Calculator shows how much income it takes to afford basic expenses in every metro area and county across the United States in 2025.
- The Family Budget Calculator can be used to assess a living-wage level and shows that states like Oklahoma need a higher minimum wage. The state’s minimum wage falls short by over $12 an hour in meeting a one-person budget in the state’s lowest cost county.
- Voters in Oklahoma will have the chance to raise their state’s minimum wage this summer, which will help low-wage workers better achieve a decent standard of living.
- As of 2025, there is no county or metro area in the country where a minimum-wage worker is paid enough to meet the requirements of their local family budget on their wages alone.
Now updated with 2025 data, EPI’s widely cited Family Budget Calculator (FBC) shows what it takes to make ends meet for different family types in all counties and metro areas in the United States. For more than 20 years, we have calculated family budgets for basic expenses like housing, food, health care, child care, transportation, other necessities, and taxes. In doing so, we create a more location-specific and realistic assessment of cost of living than traditional poverty thresholds.
We use government-provided data where possible and stay up to date with changes in policy and data availability. Because of this, and due to related changes in methodology, we don’t recommend comparing budgets over time. For more details on the construction of EPI’s family budgets and all of the datasets we use, see the full methodology. For a video tutorial on how to use the FBC, see here. The full dataset is downloadable here.
How Trump’s economic policies are worsening affordability
This op-ed was originally published on MS NOW. Read the full piece here.
President Donald Trump has said some strikingly out-of-touch things about affordability: that it’s a “hoax,” he’s “solved it” and he’s “won affordability.” In his State of the Union address, he even said “prices are plummeting downward.” U.S. families know this is nonsense. But to see how much Trump’s policies will erode affordability in the coming years, you must understand that affordability isn’t just about prices.
Affordability is the outcome of a race between incomes and prices. And for typical families, the Trump agenda is near-guaranteed to harm their incomes far more than it can possibly reduce their prices.
Even judged by the movement of prices alone, Trump’s record on affordability is poor. Inflation fell from 8.0% to 3.0% in the final two years of the Biden administration. This rapid downward movement slowed to a crawl in the first year of Trump’s second term, with inflation falling from 3.0% to just over 2.6%.
There are clear policy reasons why progress in reducing inflation has slowed. Electricity prices have surged as the Trump administration has ended subsidies for renewable generation passed during the Biden administration. The Trump tax cuts passed in the president’s first term were part of a law that gouged loopholes in the tax code, including inviting pharmaceutical companies to offshore their production and import back into the United States. Last year the Trump administration put tariffs on these offshored pharmaceuticals, pushing up their costs. When the administration failed to extend Obamacare subsidies for people buying health insurance through the exchanges, healthier enrollees who could afford to began opting out, driving up prices for everybody left in the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
And these are not the only ways that Trump administration policies have intensified affordability issues for ordinary Americans.
Employer assessment fees are not an adequate solution to low wages and large safety net cuts
Too many U.S. employers are breaking the social contract by paying unfairly and inefficiently low wages. These low wages are one reason why even people who work regularly throughout the year can qualify for income assistance programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Further, the Republican-led One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) that passed last year will sharply cut Medicaid and SNAP over the next decade by well over $1 trillion combined.
The combination of these trends—low-road employers paying insufficient wages and big upcoming cuts to Medicaid and SNAP—has led to a flurry of policy proposals at the state level to address them. One proposal—employer assessment fees (EAFs)—appears at first glance to address both problems by imposing a tax on firms that employ workers who receive Medicaid or SNAP, with the tax often calculated as the number of workers receiving these benefits multiplied by the average cost of those benefits. But EAFs are not the optimal solution to either problem and might cause undesirable collateral damage.
Here’s why:
You can’t starve the public sector to excellence
Most people understand a basic truth: you get what you pay for. Skip maintenance on your roof, and you shouldn’t be surprised when leaks appear.
The same is true of government. If we want a high-functioning public sector—and we should—there is no shortcut. It requires sustained investment in the people and capacity that make government work. Starve it of resources, and its performance will inevitably suffer.
In a recent New York Times essay, academics Nicholas Bagley and Robert Gordon argue otherwise. In their telling, government underperforms because public-sector unions have too much power, driving up costs and resisting efficiencies. Their solution is simple: rein in unions and invest less—largely by cutting pay for public-sector workers. It’s a tidy story that promises an easy fix.
It is also economically incoherent.
The central constraint on public-sector performance is not the power of unions—it is chronic underinvestment. For decades, policymakers have allowed public-sector pay and prestige to fall behind comparable private-sector jobs and have outsourced key functions that should have been performed by skilled civil servants, not profit-maximizing private contractors that are the real source of excess costs for state and local governments. The predictable results have been staffing shortages, uneven service quality, and degraded state capacity—not because we are paying too much, but because we have been trying to get government on the cheap.