New research reveals how work permits reduce child labor violations
One year ago, EPI published a blog post summarizing research on the effectiveness of youth work permits in reducing child labor violations. Updated findings by the study’s authors reveal the mechanisms and features of work permits that make them so effective.
Amid increased child labor violations, youth work permit systems have been under attack in some states
In recent years, child labor violations have been on the rise across the country. At the same time, lawmakers in many states have proposed bills to reverse long-standing state child labor standards that prohibit employers from exposing youth under 18 to hazardous jobs or overly long work hours that interfere with their health and well-being. Youth work permits—which many states have historically required—have been a repeated target of this coordinated, industry-backed campaign to weaken child labor laws. Such permits typically require employers to outline the potential hours and work duties for a minor worker, as well as parental approval and verification that the minor is attending school.
Since 2021, lawmakers in at least nine states have proposed weakening or eliminating youth work permit systems, and four have enacted such legislation (Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, and West Virginia). Most recently, in 2025, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy encouraged the legislature to pass a bill that would have eliminated the requirement that minors receive individual authorization to work (and replaced it with a general authorization for employers to hire minors). And in West Virginia, lawmakers successfully eliminated youth work permits for 14- and 15-year-olds and replaced them with age certificates following a two-year push by the right-wing think tank Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). FGA has played a leading role in efforts to eliminate youth work permits in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
New research explains how and why youth work permits are so effective
Proponents of eliminating youth work permits have often argued that work permits are not necessary, are overly burdensome for employers, or that they infringe on parents’ right to decide whether, where, and how long their child should work. In reality, work permits are a proven, effective policy for ensuring that young teens can enter the workforce safely by making sure employers are aware of child labor laws and that parents are fully informed about the conditions of a proposed job.
A year ago, we reported on research providing new quantitative evidence that work permits help prevent federal child labor violations. Using comprehensive data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division from 2008 to 2020, researchers at the University of Maryland and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, found that states requiring employment certificates saw 13.3% fewer violation cases and 31.8% fewer minors involved in these violations.1 States with work permits also saw 34.9% lower civil penalties per minor, indicating reduced severity of violations that do occur.
New findings from the same research team now reveal two key mechanisms that explain how work permits provide this protection: 1) work permits create a documentary paper trail that increases employers’ accountability and aids government enforcers, and 2) work permits improve compliance with state and federal standards by increasing employers’ awareness of child labor laws. According to the new analysis, requiring verification of parental consent for a minor to work and providing education to employers about hours restrictions are the main features that make work permits effective. State lawmakers can use the new findings to strengthen and modernize their youth work permit systems, using strategies proven to reduce violations and protect youth well-being.Read more
December jobs report shows a decidedly weaker labor market than a year ago
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning, which showed 50,000 jobs added in December. Read the full thread here.
Billionaire-funded Trump Accounts won’t end child poverty: But they will widen structural inequities in the U.S. economy
In recent months, uber-rich families and companies have pledged millions of dollars to support a new savings program for children, known as Trump Accounts. In early December, for example, Dell Founder and CEO Michael Dell made a historic pledge of $6.25 billion to strengthen the new infrastructure for Trump Accounts. This gift aims to provide about 25 million children under age 11, from economically disadvantaged zip codes, with about $250 as an incentive to join the new savings vehicle. Soon after this, hedge fund manager Ray Dalio pledged $75 million to certain children in Connecticut in another effort to encourage additional participation.
The Trump-Vance administration has announced each of these charitable contributions with considerable fanfare, staging press and campaign-style events and promising that U.S. companies and other philanthropists will soon follow. What is often missing from the White House celebrations is an explanation of how exactly these gifts and the new Trump Accounts will alleviate child poverty and inequity.
The truth is that the U.S. falls behind peer countries from the developed world in its fight against child poverty. These deprivations are particularly harmful to children of color due to the deterministic role that structural racism plays in the American economy. A pretax and voluntary savings vehicle with little government support, and at the mercy of charitable inclinations, will do little for the millions of low-income families who can’t afford to save. In fact, these accounts are poised to compound structural inequities that have persistently delivered disparate outcomes for disadvantaged families. This is because the Trump Accounts fail to adequately account for the scope of child poverty and inequity. They also crudely overlook the root causes of these issues by framing them as the result of insufficient savings.Read more
Ending ACA tax credits would impose high costs on Black Americans in 10 major metro areas: Over 170,000 losing health insurance, $740 million more in annual premiums, and more than 200 preventable deaths each year
If Congress allows the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits to expire, millions of working families will lose health care coverage while millions of others will face sharply higher premiums. With four Republicans breaking ranks to vote with Democrats and force a House vote on whether to extend the credits, Congress now has a chance to avert this crisis. Losing the tax credits would be an added blow for households already squeezed by rising costs and tight budgets. But a deeper story emerges when we look at who stands to lose the most. A forthcoming analysis from the Economic Policy Institute and Groundwork Collaborative finds that Black Americans in some of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas would face deep coverage losses and financial harm if credits expire.1
This analysis was produced in partnership with Groundwork Collaborative.
More than 170,000 Black adults in 10 major metro areas would lose health care coverage in 2026 if the ACA credits expire, with the largest losses in Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Miami. Losing insurance wipes away a basic source of security for working families and reverses gains made under the ACA, which disproportionately reduced uninsured rates for Black adults—narrowing longstanding racial coverage gaps.
Our analysis shows that coverage loss is only the first shock. Families who lose insurance and families who remain covered both face significant new burdens, and the costs are substantial across the 10 metropolitan areas.
Don’t be fooled—Senator Cassidy’s labor reform proposals are not pro-worker
Last month, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) unveiled a package of four bills that he described as advancing President Trump’s purported “pro-worker” agenda. But there is nothing in the legislation to address the problems workers face when they try to organize unions at their workplace. In fact, Senator Cassidy’s bills construct new barriers to worker organizing and create new incentives for employers to undermine workers’ rights.
Below, we compare Senator Cassidy’s bills to the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which is comprehensive legislation to reform our nation’s broken labor law system. As you can see, it’s clear which legislation actually helps workers.
Over 8.3 million workers will benefit from minimum wage increases on January 1: Nineteen states will raise their minimum wages. Here’s where.
Three key takeaways:
- More than 8.3 million workers will get a raise starting January 1 as 19 states raise their minimum wages.
- For the first time, there will be more workers in states with a $15 or greater minimum wage than in states with the federal minimum of $7.25.
- Minimum wage increases are critical for improving affordability. State and federal policymakers should ensure wage floors meet the needs of all workers.
Nineteen states will increase their minimum wages on January 1, boosting earnings for more than 8.3 million workers by a total of $5 billion. In addition, 47 cities and counties will raise their minimum wages, adding to the number of workers likely to get larger paychecks because of lawmakers—or in some cases, voters—taking action to lift state and local wage floors.
Federal layoffs trigger a sharp slowdown in job growth: Unemployment rises to highest rate since 2021
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning, which showed 41,000 jobs lost over October and November. Read the full thread here.
The Department of Justice is making a mistake by suing Minneapolis Public Schools: The union contract protects all workers while ensuring that Black and brown educators can hold on to good jobs
The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit on Tuesday, December 11, against the Minneapolis school district, alleging that the contract the district signed with the teachers’ union—the Minneapolis Federation of Educators (MFE)—discriminates against white teachers by requiring the school district to shield Black and brown teachers from layoffs. The lawsuit fundamentally misrepresents the innovative Minneapolis union contract, which protects educators from arbitrary dismissal while also seeking to preserve a diverse teaching workforce. The lawsuit is however aligned with the Trump administration’s revisionist version of history that positions white workers as the primary victims of employment discrimination. At the same time, this ahistorical narrative dismisses the long and well-documented record of discrimination against Black and brown workers evident in persistent racial disparities in unemployment and pay—patterns the contract seeks to remedy. The lawsuit was filed soon after the Trump administration’s racist decision to target Minnesota’s Somali community and is yet another example of how racial animus is a defining feature of Trump’s policies.Read more
Trump’s deportation plans threaten 400,000 direct care jobs: Older adults and people with disabilities could lose vital in-home support
If the Trump administration follows through on its goal of deporting 4 million people over four years, the direct care industry would lose close to 400,000 jobs—affecting 274,000 immigrant and 120,000 U.S.-born workers. This dramatic reduction in trained care workers would compromise home-based care services, forcing family members to scramble for informal arrangements to support relatives who are older or have disabilities.Read more
Should high earners support scrapping Social Security’s cap on taxable earnings?
Earnings above a cap aren’t subject to the payroll taxes that fund Social Security. As a result, billionaires pay the same tax as someone earning $176,100 in 2025 (the cap is indexed to the average wage, so it changes every year).
“Scrapping the cap” is a popular and effective way to address Social Security’s funding gap. Nearly three-fourths of Social Security’s projected long-term shortfall would be eliminated if the cap were scrapped without increasing benefits.Read more