EPI’s top charts of 2021

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic exposed a range of stark inequalities in American society. Besides highlighting these inequalities, EPI’s research over the past year has identified the clear fingerprints of intentional policy decisions in driving the inequalities.

Building a better and fairer economy in the pandemic’s wake will require a fundamental reorientation of economic policy along many dimensions. While 2021 has seen a decent start in some of this reorientation, much more remains to be done. Here are the charts that we selected as our top ones of 2021.

After the longest period in history without an increase, the federal minimum wage today is worth 21% less than 12 years ago—and 34% less than in 1968. : Real value of the minimum wage (adjusted for inflation)

1
After the longest period in history without an increase, the federal minimum wage today is worth 21% less than 12 years ago—and 34% less than in 1968. : Real value of the minimum wage (adjusted for inflation)

Notes: All values are in June 2021 dollars, adjusted using the CPI-U-RS

Source: Reproduced from Ben Zipperer, “The Minimum Wage Has Lost 21% Of Its Value Since Congress Last Raised the Wage,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, July 22, 2021. Data sources are Fair Labor Standards Act and amendments.

It’s been 12 years since the last federal minimum wage increase on July 24, 2009, the longest period in U.S. history without an increase. In the meantime, rising costs of living have diminished the purchasing power of a minimum wage paycheck. Workers paid the federal minimum of $7.25 today effectively earn 21% less than what their counterparts earned 12 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.

Share this chart:

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

Some demographic groups are more likely to telework than others in the pandemic recession: Share of employed that teleworked by select demographic, average May 2020–April 2021

2
group_value share_tw_emp
Total, 16 years and older 24.27%
16 to 24 years 11.07%
25 to 54 years 27.30%
55 years and older 22.90%
Men 22.1%
Women 27.9%
White 25.89%
Black 20.42%
Hispanic 15.19%
AAPI 39.20%
Not U.S. citizen 18.81%
U.S. citizen 24.76%
Less than high school 3.06%
High school 8.12%
Some college 15.70%
College 38.42%
Advanced 51.58%
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Notes: Race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race). AAPI includes Asian American and Pacific Islander.

Source: Reproduced from Figure B in Elise Gould and Jori Kandra, “Only One in Five Workers Are Working from Home Due to COVID,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, June 2, 2021. Data are from authors' analysis of EPI Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.14 (2021), https://microdata.epi.org and the Current Population Survey COVID supplement.

The share of workers who teleworked as a result of COVID-19 exposes the disparities that exist not only across education levels, but also across age groups, gender, race/ethnicity, and citizenship. This figure shows that young workers are least able to work from home, which is not surprising given their tendency to work in face-to-face occupations, where job losses were also greater. In the pandemic, women were more likely to telework than men. And as with the pre-pandemic period, there remains a large disparity between the share of Black and Hispanic workers who are able to telework, compared with white and Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers.

Share this chart:

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

Sustained lower unemployment would help shrink Black–white wage gaps: Black–white median wage gap, actual and under three counterfactual scenarios, 1973–2019

3
Actual 1.0 ppt. lower average unemployment 1.5 ppt. lower average unemployment 2.0 ppt. lower average unemployment
1973 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6%
1974 24.8% 24.5% 24.3% 24.2%
1975 23.7% 23.1% 22.8% 22.5%
1976 23.4% 22.5% 22.0% 21.6%
1977 23.2% 22.0% 21.4% 20.8%
1978 25.1% 23.6% 22.9% 22.1%
1979 19.6% 17.9% 17.1% 16.3%
1980 20.9% 18.9% 17.9% 16.9%
1981 21.1% 18.8% 17.6% 16.5%
1982 24.0% 21.3% 19.9% 18.6%
1983 22.5% 19.5% 18.1% 16.6%
1984 24.2% 20.9% 19.3% 17.7%
1985 23.9% 20.3% 18.5% 16.8%
1986 24.9% 21.0% 19.1% 17.2%
1987 24.4% 20.2% 18.1% 16.1%
1988 22.5% 18.1% 16.0% 13.9%
1989 25.6% 20.7% 18.4% 16.1%
1990 25.2% 20.0% 17.6% 15.2%
1991 28.4% 22.8% 20.1% 17.5%
1992 25.8% 20.0% 17.2% 14.5%
1993 24.8% 18.7% 15.9% 13.1%
1994 25.1% 18.8% 15.8% 12.8%
1995 26.3% 19.6% 16.4% 13.3%
1996 27.8% 20.7% 17.3% 14.1%
1997 27.3% 20.0% 16.5% 13.1%
1998 25.6% 18.0% 14.5% 11.1%
1999 24.4% 16.7% 13.0% 9.5%
2000 26.2% 18.0% 14.2% 10.5%
2001 29.3% 20.6% 16.5% 12.6%
2002 27.1% 18.3% 14.1% 10.2%
2003 25.3% 16.3% 12.1% 8.1%
2004 24.8% 15.6% 11.3% 7.2%
2005 26.7% 17.1% 12.6% 8.3%
2006 25.9% 16.1% 11.5% 7.1%
2007 28.7% 18.3% 13.4% 8.8%
2008 30.0% 19.2% 14.2% 9.4%
2009 27.1% 16.3% 11.3% 6.5%
2010 26.9% 15.8% 10.7% 5.8%
2011 28.5% 16.9% 11.6% 6.6%
2012 32.7% 20.4% 14.8% 9.4%
2013 29.1% 16.9% 11.3% 6.0%
2014 31.8% 19.0% 13.2% 7.6%
2015 34.4% 21.1% 15.0% 9.2%
2016 29.8% 16.6% 10.6% 5.0%
2017 33.8% 20.0% 13.7% 7.7%
2018 36.4% 22.0% 15.4% 9.2%
2019 32.2% 18.0% 11.5% 5.4%
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Notes: The wage gap is how much less in percent terms the median Black worker earns in hourly wages than the median white worker. 

Source: Reproduced from Figure C in Josh Bivens, The Promise and Limits of High-Pressure Labor Markets for Narrowing Racial Gaps, August 2021. For original data sources and regression coefficients used to construct counterfactual wage growth see Figures B and C in the report. 

Achieving and sustaining high-pressure labor markets since the early 1970s would have dramatically narrowed the median Black–white wage gap. Had unemployment averaged 2 percentage points less over the entire period, 80% of the median Black–white wage gap that appeared in 1973 could have been erased (as the gap shrank from 28.6% to 5.4%). Instead, the gap increased to 32.2%. With unemployment averaging just 1 percentage point less, the median wage gap could have fallen to 18.0%. In short, high-pressure labor markets—the very low unemployment and rapid job growth that occur when the Federal Reserve prioritizes low unemployment—hold great potential to reduce this particular measure of racial inequality in the labor market.

Share this chart:

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

Pay growth has lagged productivity growth largely thanks to policy failures: Contribution (in 2017 dollars) of various factors to productivity–median compensation divergence, 1979–2017

4
Year Unexplained** Noncompetes, misclassification, overtime, supply chain dominance* Corporate globalization Eroded collective bargaining Excessive unemployment Actual growth Baseline
1979 $20.48 $20.48 $20.48 $20.48 $20.48 $20.48 $20.48
2017 $33.10 $30.72 $28.59 $27.30 $25.46 $23.15 $20.48
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Notes: Automation/skill deficits had no effect.

* Dominant buyer and fissuring

** Including but not limited to: wage theft, guestworker programs, racial discrimination, industry deregulation, forced arbitration, and anti-poaching agreements

Source:  Adapted from Figure J in Lawrence Mishel and Josh Bivens, Identifying the Policy Levers Generating Wage Suppression and Wage Inequality, May 2021.

Had median hourly wages grown with productivity since 1979 they would be at least $10 higher than they are. This figure shows that excessive unemployment, eroded collective bargaining, and corporate-driven globalization are key factors that have suppressed wage growth over the last four decades. Together these factors lowered the growth of median hourly compensation relative to net productivity growth by $5.45—accounting for 54.7% of the divergence between productivity and pay from 1979 to 2017. Absent these factors, median hourly compensation would have risen to $28.59 rather than to $23.15.

Share this chart:

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

Care workers are disproportionately women of color: Gender and race/ethnicity breakdown of all workers, home health care workers, and child care workers

5
Men White women Black women Hispanic women AAPI women Women of other race/ethnicity
All workers 53.1% 29.1% 6.4% 7.5% 3.3% 0.5%
Home health care workers 11.4% 34.0% 26.1% 20.1% 7.0% 1.4%
Child care workers 6.0% 53.1% 14.1% 22.3% 3.3% 1.2%
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Notes: To ensure sufficient sample sizes, this figure draws from pooled 2018–2020 microdata. AAPI refers to Asian American/Pacific Islander. Race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AAPI non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).

Source: Reproduced from Figure B in Asha Banerjee, Elise Gould, and Marokey Sawo, Setting Higher Wages for Child Care and Home Health Care Workers is Long Overdue, Economic Policy Institute, November 2021. Data are from authors' analysis of Current Population Survey basic monthly microdata, EPI Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.18 (2021), https://microdata.epi.org.

Care workers are deeply undervalued and underpaid. This figure shows that Black, Hispanic, and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) women are far more likely to be home health care workers compared with their shares in the workforce overall. In particular, Black women are more than four times as likely to be home health care workers relative to their shares in the workforce overall. And white, Black, and Hispanic women are overrepresented in the child care workforce.

Share this chart:

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