Job openings little changed in November while quits declined slightly
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on today’s release of the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) for November. Read the full thread here.
Over 9.2 million workers will get a raise on January 1 from 21 states raising their minimum wages
Twenty-one states will increase their minimum wages on January 1, raising pay for more than 9.2 million workers by a total of $5.7 billion. In addition, 48 cities and counties will raise their minimum wages above their state wage floors, mostly in California, Colorado, and Washington.
Twenty-one states will increase their minimum wages on January 1: 2025 minimum wage increase, type of increase, number of affected workers, and wage impacts by state
| State | 2025 minimum wage | 2025 tipped minimum wage | Type of change | Type of change indicator | Size of increase | Size of tipped minimum wage increase | Number of workers affected | Share of workforce affected | Total increase in wage bill | Change in full-time worker average annual wages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | ||||||||||
| Alaska | $11.91 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.18 | 21,600 | 7.0% | $6,124,000 | $284 | ||
| Arizona | $14.70 | $11.70 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.35 | $0.35 | 480,200 | 15.0% | $214,011,000 | $446 |
| Arkansas | ||||||||||
| California | $16.50 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.50 | 3,080,000 | 18.7% | $2,028,512,000 | $659 | ||
| Colorado | $14.81 | $11.79 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.39 | $0.39 | 260,800 | 9.7% | $112,100,000 | $430 |
| Connecticut | $16.35 | $6.38 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.66 | $0.00 | 242,800 | 15.3% | $168,209,000 | $729 |
| Delaware | $15.00 | $2.23 | Legislation | 2 | $1.75 | $0.00 | 81,400 | 18.9% | $99,044,000 | $1,291 |
| Washington D.C. | ||||||||||
| Florida | ||||||||||
| Georgia | ||||||||||
| Hawaii | ||||||||||
| Idaho | ||||||||||
| Illinois | $15.00 | $9.00 | Legislation | 2 | $1.00 | $0.60 | 963,200 | 17.4% | $704,113,000 | $731 |
| Indiana | ||||||||||
| Iowa | ||||||||||
| Kansas | ||||||||||
| Kentucky | ||||||||||
| Louisiana | ||||||||||
| Maine | $14.65 | $7.33 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.50 | $0.25 | 52,000 | 9.1% | $22,954,000 | $441 |
| Maryland | ||||||||||
| Massachusetts | ||||||||||
| Michigan | $10.56 | $4.01 | Legislation | 2 | $0.23 | $0.08 | 214,700 | 5.0% | $43,093,000 | $201 |
| Minnesota | $11.13 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.28 | 83,600 | 3.1% | $21,839,000 | $261 | ||
| Mississippi | ||||||||||
| Missouri | $13.75 | $6.88 | Ballot measure | 3 | $1.45 | $0.73 | 440,100 | 16.2% | $365,558,000 | $831 |
| Montana | $10.55 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.25 | 29,300 | 6.3% | $7,010,000 | $239 | ||
| Nebraska | $13.50 | $2.13 | Ballot measure | 3 | $1.50 | $0.00 | 106,600 | 11.4% | $92,180,000 | $906 |
| Nevada | ||||||||||
| New Hampshire | ||||||||||
| New Jersey | $15.49 | $5.62 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.36 | $0.36 | 610,200 | 15.8% | $335,808,000 | $550 |
| New Mexico | ||||||||||
| New York | $15.50 | $10.35 | Legislation | 2 | $0.50 | $0.35 | 1,578,200 | 18.4% | $1,051,303,000 | $666 |
| North Carolina | ||||||||||
| North Dakota | ||||||||||
| Ohio | $10.70 | $5.35 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.25 | $0.10 | 313,300 | 6.1% | $71,749,000 | $229 |
| Oklahoma | ||||||||||
| Oregon | ||||||||||
| Pennsylvania | ||||||||||
| Rhode Island | $15.00 | $3.89 | Legislation | 2 | $1.00 | $0.00 | 65,100 | 13.6% | $46,494,000 | $767 |
| South Carolina | ||||||||||
| South Dakota | $11.50 | $5.75 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.30 | $0.15 | 29,300 | 6.9% | $8,057,000 | $275 |
| Tennessee | ||||||||||
| Texas | ||||||||||
| Utah | ||||||||||
| Vermont | $14.01 | $7.01 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.34 | $0.17 | 29,100 | 9.9% | $8,770,000 | $302 |
| Virginia | $12.41 | $2.13 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.41 | $0.00 | 245,500 | 6.4% | $97,063,000 | $421 |
| Washington | $16.66 | Inflation adjustment | 1 | $0.38 | 337,900 | 10.1% | $207,116,000 | $613 | ||
| West Virginia | ||||||||||
| Wisconsin | ||||||||||
| Wyoming |
Notes: “Legislation” indicates that the new rate was established by the legislature. “Ballot measure” indicates the new rate was set by a ballot initiative passed by voters. “Inflation adjustment” indicates that the new rate was established by a formula, reflecting the change in prices over the preceding year. New York's minimum wage value only reflects minimum for upstate New York. See Table 1 for New York City and Suffolk, Nassau, and Westchester minimum wage. Average annual wage increases are for full-time workers.
Source: EPI compilation of minimum wage data from state agency websites and state legislation. Estimated impacts produced by Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model; see Technical Methodology by Dave Cooper, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer.
The January 1 increases show that the minimum wage continues to be a powerful tool for combating racial and gender wage disparities, supporting working families, and reducing poverty. According to our analysis of state minimum wage increases:
- Women make up almost three-fifths (58.2%) of workers getting a raise.
- Black and Hispanic workers will disproportionately benefit. Black workers make up 9.1% of the wage-earning workforce in the states with increases, but are 11.3% of affected workers. Similarly, Hispanic workers are 19.5% of the workforce in these states, but 38.8% of the workers receiving wage increases.
- More than a quarter (25.7%) of affected workers are parents. More than 5.3 million children live in households where an individual will receive a minimum wage increase.
- Almost one in five (20.4%) affected workers are in families with incomes below the poverty line, and nearly half (48.5%) have family incomes below twice the poverty line.
Wage inequality fell in 2023 amid a strong labor market, bucking long-term trends: But top 1% wages have skyrocketed 182% since 1979 while bottom 90% wages have seen just 44% growth
Key findings:
- Wage inequality fell in 2023 as inflation-adjusted earnings grew for the bottom 90% (+0.9%) while earnings declined for the top 5% (–2.0%), top 1% (–3.3%), and top 0.1% (–4.7%).
- For the entire pandemic business cycle between 2019 and 2023, earnings growth for the bottom 90% was more than twice as fast as for the top 5%.
- Over the long run, however, earnings growth has been vastly unequal. From 1979 to 2023:
- Wages for the top 1% and top 0.1% skyrocketed by 181.7% and 353.9%, respectively.
- Wages for the bottom 90% grew just 43.7%.
- The top 1% earned 12.4% of all wages in 2023—up from 7.3% in 1979. The bottom 90% earned just 60.7% of all wages in 2023, far lower than their 69.8% share in 1979.
Wage inequality fell for the second year in a row in 2023 but still remains extremely high, according to our analysis of newly available wage data from the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Average real earnings mostly held steady in 2023 (–0.1%) as inflation receded, but there were significant differences across the earnings distribution. The bottom 90% experienced the only growth of any group in 2023 (+0.9%), while the top 5% and the top 1% experienced losses of 2.0% and 3.3%, respectively. Even the top 0.1% experienced real wage losses in 2023 (–4.7%). These losses are surprising given that pay at the very top tends to move with the stock market, which held steady in 2023.1 We found similarly puzzling findings among top CEOs.
Table 1 shows average annual earnings by wage group for each of the business cycle peaks since 1979, as well as for the last two years (in 2023 dollars).
Nearly half of U.S workers will live in states with at least a $15 minimum wage by 2027: Alaska and Missouri became the latest states to enact a $15 minimum wage
In the 2024 election, Alaska and Missouri voters approved ballot measures to increase their state minimum wages to $15 an hour in the coming years. This means that now 15 states and Washington D.C. either have or will have minimum wages of at least $15 an hour.
In addition, four more states will likely reach the $15 mark by 2027 because of automatic annual inflation adjustments built into their minimum wage laws. With these changes, nearly half (48.1%) of the U.S. workforce will live somewhere with a minimum wage at or above $15 an hour by 2027.1
Three ways workers’ rights are on the chopping block under President Trump: Judging by the first Trump administration, workers and unions are set to face new attacks and a rollback of rights
This piece was originally published at In These Times.
Much of the Trump-Vance campaign’s platform was designed to provoke outrage rather than to supply policy details. So, if you’re trying to figure out what to actually expect from the coming second Trump administration, it’s helpful to look at the record of Trump’s first term in office, as well as the individuals and organizations that influenced the 2024 GOP campaign. When it comes to workers’ rights, that record is crystal clear: From attacks on unions and workers’ freedom of speech to rolling back laws that would have boosted paychecks or expanded worker safety protections, Trump has been a disaster.
These are just a few of the major changes in policy that workers can likely expect in the Trump-Vance administration:
Labor market bounced back in November: Job growth has averaged 173,000 in the last three months
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on today’s release of the jobs report for November. Read the full thread here.
New data explore U.S. economic conditions by race and ethnicity—including for American Indian and Alaska Native communities
This November, EPI’s Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy updated our interactive chartbook showing racially disaggregated data across several domains, including population demographics, civic engagement, labor market outcomes, and health. In addition to updating the charts with the most recent data available, many of the charts now include new data on American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) populations. The chartbook was originally created as part of our Advancing Anti-Racist Economic Research and Policy handbook that includes a series of essays capturing perspectives and resources on race, ethnicity, and the economy.
The newly updated chartbook provides a more detailed snapshot of the social, political, and economic conditions for AIAN, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), Black, Hispanic, and white households, and those data are also disaggregated by gender where possible.
The addition of AIAN data represents an ongoing effort to improve and expand representation of Indigenous communities within economic research and policy discussions. Historically, their exclusion has reflected a genuine lack of data of comparable quality and quantity compared with more populous groups within the United States. However, it is important to also acknowledge that Indigenous Americans have often been deliberately erased from the American narrative, even when those conversations center on social and economic justice. A history of physical, cultural, and economic violence—combined with institutional neglect and the denial of sovereignty—has resulted in AIAN communities experiencing rates of poverty, incarceration, and unemployment much more similar to Black and Hispanic Americans than white and Asian Americans. Supporting the self-determination of Native American communities while simultaneously working to make those communities whole through compensation for the harm done by American policy is critical to reducing those inequities.
Significant gaps in employment opportunities and lower wage levels translate to lower median household incomes among Black, Latino, and AIAN households. As shown in the figure below, these income disparities have been persistent across time, even as recent years have seen increases in household incomes across groups.
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey continues to show labor market strength
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on today’s release of the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) for October. Read the full thread here.
How trends in American Indian and Alaska Native population growth impact employment data
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) is a broad and diverse Census-defined racial category that includes Indigenous populations with origins in North America and South (including Central) America. Within the United States, American Indian or Native American is also a political identity defined by tribal citizenship. Of the nearly 8 million people who selected the AIAN racial category in the 2020 Census, more than half (4.9 million) did so in combination with another race. The vast majority of those who self-identify as AIAN alone reported American Indian (70.4%) or Latin American Indian (25%) heritage.
Relative to the 2010 Census, total multiple-race AIAN responses in the 2020 Census rose 240.6%, while single-race AIAN responses (AIAN alone) increased 37.2%. According to the Census Bureau, the increase in multiple-race AIAN responses is largely due to redesigned questions for race and ethnicity, which included a write-in option with examples of corresponding national origins for each racial or ethnic category. The agency also made improvements in data processing and coding to provide a more thorough and accurate accounting of the nation’s racial diversity. However, since Census racial categories are self-reported, AIAN population counts differ from official tribal enrollment records.
In 2022, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began publishing monthly labor force estimates for AIAN workers over age 16, shedding new light on a historically invisible segment of the U.S. labor force. Comparable data are available back to 2003, including monthly unemployment rates, labor force participation rates, and employment-to-population ratios. While these statistics are available from BLS’s website, they are not included in the monthly jobs report and are less publicized than labor market statistics for other demographic groups.
How Republicans in Congress are trying to quietly privatize SNAP through the back door of disaster relief
The country’s largest and most important government anti-hunger program faces a renewed threat as Congress returns from recess next week: privatization.
Congress needs to reauthorize the now-expired Farm Bill—the enormous legislative package that includes funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps)—but a privatization scheme was attached to the bill.
Earlier this Congress, Rep. Don Bacon (R, NE-02) introduced the “SNAP Staffing Flexibility Act,” which was also included as a provision in the current version of the Farm Bill. The bill would allow state agencies to hire outside contractors to administer key requirements of the SNAP program under certain conditions, such as in the aftermath of natural disasters or during pandemics and public health emergencies. Rep. Bacon and supporters of this proposal now aim to tack this provision onto the emergency disaster relief package under consideration this year. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to use emergency disaster relief as cover to privatize the SNAP program and workforce, instead of giving the SNAP program enough money to operate effectively.
Privatization is often touted as a solution to bureaucratic red tape or cutting “wasteful” government spending, but in practice, it can mean cutting the experienced public workforce who administer complicated government programs. This can result in prolonged delays, more people wrongly denied benefits, and ultimately worse outcomes for people who need the benefits most.