Protecting and empowering workers in an age of artificial intelligence: Lessons from the Biden-Harris administration
Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have sparked increased awareness and adoption of AI tools in the workplace. While AI systems and tools have been used in the workplace for decades, this acceleration in capabilities and greater public attention have motivated more concerted and urgent policy efforts, including a focus on protecting and empowering workers. During the Biden-Harris administration, leadership and agencies across the federal government acted to better understand the potential implications of AI for workers and to protect workers from risks to their livelihoods and rights.
The Database of Biden Administration Actions on AI — a joint project from EPI and Workshop — can serve as a resource for state, local, and federal efforts to tackle these challenges and opportunities.
Biden-Harris administration actions to protect workers and the public
In October 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights to help guide the design, development, and deployment of AI and other automated systems. This document outlines protections that should be guaranteed and served as a guiding resource by affirming the values that must be front and center when undertaking policymaking on AI.
A few months later, OpenAI released ChatGPT, which spurred an increased sense of urgency for this work. President Biden’s October 2023 executive order (EO) on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI” was—at the time—the most significant government action globally on AI safety, security, and trust. The EO highlighted a commitment to supporting U.S. workers and directed a number of related agency actions, including the Department of Labor’s (DOL) principles and best practices for developers and employers, which provide a roadmap for responsible use of AI in the workplace.
From the start of Biden’s administration, federal agency leaders were clear that existing laws and regulations ensure rights and protections related to AI, and that agencies would play an active role in regulation and enforcement. Agency actions included:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an initiative on AI and algorithmic fairness, and shared tips for workers focused on disability discrimination and the use of software.
- DOL issued a guide for federal contractors on AI and equal employment opportunity—which included a set of promising practices for employers—and addressed AI in other regulations and guidance, including the Good Jobs Principles; rulemaking on independent contractors; and guidance on the use of AI and automated systems and federal labor standards.
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released guidance to protect workers from surveillance and decision-making that violates Fair Credit Reporting Act rules.
- The National Labor Relations Board issued guidance focused on unlawful surveillance which could interfere with employees’ ability to engage in collective bargaining and other protected activities.
- The Federal Trade Commission addressed harmful commercial surveillance by major companies and brought to light the collection and monetization of personal data and the use of corporate surveillance pricing software.
Trump administration and a new federal landscape
Immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration rescinded President Biden’s executive order on AI and issued a new executive order requiring an immediate review of all actions taken under the previous administration’s executive order. Relevant documents have already been removed from public websites, and many worker protective actions have already been rolled back, along with ongoing cuts decimating many of these agencies.
In a speech at the February 2025 Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vice President Vance decried excessive regulation of AI domestically and internationally. He also said the Trump administration would “maintain a pro-worker growth path for AI,” but did not provide any policy specifics. The White House and many in Congress also backed a measure in the Republican budget mega bill that would have imposed a 10-year moratorium on any meaningful regulation of AI at the state and local levels, to supposedly avoid hindering tech innovation. While this measure fortunately failed to pass in the final version of the legislation in July 2025, the enthusiasm for ramming it through is a worrying sign of the administration’s priorities, particularly for worker advocates seeking to make meaningful change at the state and local levels.
In July 2025, the White House released its AI Action Plan, which continues to emphasize stripping protections from the public. While the plan purports to focus on empowering workers, the actions it outlines do not address workplace rights, surveillance and privacy, or algorithmic discrimination. Further, the Action Plan’s focus on the importance of deregulation as a prerequisite for AI advancement suggests that worker protections will be put aside. Instead of putting forth a real vision for worker empowerment, the plan suggests that unfunded actions around the edges can make a meaningful difference in worker opportunities and outcomes.
Looking forward
In this new landscape, the tech industry has been emboldened and is increasing lobbying at the state level in addition to its efforts at the White House and in Congress to undo and prevent meaningful protections related to AI. The combined power, collaboration, and messaging of labor, civil rights, consumer protection, and community groups will be critical.
A broad and ambitious vision for responsible AI governance is essential at a time when protections are under attack and AI-related risks are more pressing than ever. The Biden-Harris administration began to tackle many questions about the implications and opportunities for workers of advances in AI and automated systems. But this was just a first step and much of the progress at the federal level is now being undone. The vast resources, guidance documents, and innovative enforcement actions can and should be a model to augment existing state, local, and federal efforts to protect and empower workers in an age of rapid AI development and adoption.
The coauthors are both Fellows at Workshop, an organization that leverages expertise in policy and partnerships across the federal government, advocacy, and organizing to protect and advance workers’ rights.
New state income and poverty data show a strong economy in 2024, but Trump policies threaten progress
U.S. Census data released this week showed that national median household income held strong in 2024. However, income growth was uneven and regional poverty disparities persisted.
Today, the Census Bureau released 2024 state-level income and poverty data from the American Community Survey (ACS). Although these data come from a different survey than the national income and poverty data, the overall trends are similar, with a range of outcomes across states.
Importantly, these data describe trends for 2024 and tell us nothing about economic conditions this year, in which Trump administration actions—chaotic tariffs, mass deportations, attacks on federal employees—have weakened the labor market, put upward pressure on prices, and threatened to undo recent progress of historically high wage growth and declining inequality.
State-level changes in household income
Between 2023 and 2024, U.S. median household income rose 2.0% to $81,604.1 Median household income varied significantly by state, from a low of $59,127 in Mississippi to $109,707 in the District of Columbia in 2024. Compared with 2023, median household incomes saw the largest decline in Rhode Island (–4.5%) and the largest increase in Alaska (7.3%). Twenty-nine states had a statistically significant increase in median income while the remaining 21 states and D.C. had no measurable year-over-year change in household income, positive or negative.
EPI economists react to 2024 Census data on income and poverty
Below, EPI economists offer their insights on today’s release of U.S. Census Bureau data for 2024 on annual earnings, income, poverty, and health insurance.
Today’s BLS preliminary benchmark revisions are necessary for timely and accurate data—not fodder for Trump’s attacks
Today’s preliminary benchmark announcement from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reveals weaker job growth between March 2024 and March 2025 than when it was first reported based on survey data. These numbers are likely to anger President Trump and the White House who incorrectly view revised data as political manipulation. Trump has already lashed out at BLS, including firing the agency’s commissioner because a jobs report showed a rapidly weakening labor market. But these BLS data revisions are not corrections of mistakes. Revisions are part of the regular, transparent process to update employment counts with the most comprehensive data possible.
In today’s release, BLS provided preliminary estimates—during which no data will actually be revised—as a window into its eventual benchmark revisions that will be implemented in the beginning of 2026. According to the data, average monthly job growth between March 2024 and March 2025 may have been only half the pace that was initially estimated, about 70,600 jobs per month rather than 146,500. These preliminary estimates are consistent with other signs of slowing job growth in late 2024 and the beginning of 2025. The bulk of these revisions reflect 2024 data—in fact, despite the predictable angst they will generate from the White House, today’s revisions tell us very little about the state of Trump’s economy since he wasn’t president in 2024.
Instead, the preliminary benchmark revisions released this morning are simply part of regular BLS communication regarding the best available employment data. Monthly payroll employment estimates are based on a large sample with a fast turnaround; data are regularly updated for two subsequent months as new survey results come in, and then the data are revised again annually in February to reflect administrative records, which are comprehensive but less timely.
Any political retaliation due to today’s release will harm the ability for BLS to provide timely and unbiased statistics, either because the Trump administration is intending to undermine data integrity, or because political attacks on the dedicated public servants at BLS limit their ability to collect, process, and release these statistics. The latest economic data—which are wholly unaffected by today’s preliminary revisions—suggest the labor market is weakening for all workers. Job growth has been especially weak since May. Household survey rates also point to falling prime-age Black employment and higher unemployment for U.S.-born workers. Punishing the messenger will only further damage the federal data infrastructure and cloud our ability to understand the state of the economy.
Another weak jobs report fuels fears of a recession
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning, which showed 22,000 jobs added in August.
The labor market continues to soften, according to the latest #JobsReport out this morning from the BLS. Payroll employment grew only 22,000 in August and revisions now show employment losses for June (-13,000). Over the last three months, job growth has slowed to just 29,000 on average.
#EconSky— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 7:41 AM
Job losses were particularly acute in professional/business services, the federal govt, and wholesale trade, but there have also been sustained losses over recent months in manufacturing, construction, and mining, an indication that Trump’s blue-collar renaissance is clearly not happening.
#EconSky— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 7:59 AM
Federal cuts continue to cost jobs as federal employment fell another 15k in August. Federal employment is now down 97k since January. The full extent of the federal job losses won’t be seen until we get data for October after thousands more leave federal payrolls on September 30.
#EconSky— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:11 AM
Lest anyone tells you otherwise, the monthly revisions that led to a fall in employment for June are part of the normal #JobsDay process as BLS receives additional reports from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.
— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:24 AM
The household survey also provides useful information about labor market health. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.3%, it’s highest since 2021. While a more volatile series, the data show sustained increases in Black unemployment over the last three months, hitting 7.5% in August.
#EconSky— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:46 AM
The unemployment rate for young workers (16-24) also continued to increase with the latest data. Again, it’s a notably volatile series because of small sample sizes, but it’s now up just over a percentage point since March. A weak hires rate can make it harder for new entrants to find jobs.
#EconSky— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:55 AM
Next week’s 2024 Census data will give us the final snapshot of the economy’s health before Trump
The U.S. labor market continued to expand in 2024, but at a slower pace than the prior two years. Job growth remained fast enough to largely keep pace with population growth and wages rose faster than inflation. Upcoming Census Bureau data for 2024—set to be released on Tuesday—will reflect how these factors and others impacted annual earnings, income, poverty, and health insurance for workers, families, and children across the country.
It’s worth emphasizing that the upcoming Census data do not reflect any economic developments in 2025. Some policymakers will attempt to claim any good news from the data as validation of the current U.S. policy path, but this would be completely misleading given the radical policy shifts in 2025 under the Trump administration. In this piece, we argue:
- Data for 2024 will likely reflect continued labor market strength. Inflation decelerated rapidly in 2024, which should boost last year’s income growth.
- Even the likely strong 2024 income and poverty data will still show an economy that has left many workers, families, and children in an economically precarious position. Racial disparities in income, for example, leave people of color much more vulnerable to economic insecurity and poverty.
- Trump administration policies—including chaotic and historically high tariffs, mass deportations, and attacks on the federal workforce—have already led to a softening labor market and more inflationary pressures in the economy. Given this, income and poverty measures are likely to worsen when these data are released next year for 2025.
- In 2026 and beyond, cuts to food assistance and Medicaid that were part of the Republican-passed spending bill will increase food insecurity and the number of people without health insurance, particularly for families of color.
- The Census data are incredibly valuable and provide transparent and non-politicized data that allow Americans to make informed decisions about what policies are delivering economic security for working people. The Trump administration has begun attempting to politicize and erode trust in federal statistical agencies and to manipulate the reporting of anything that seems like bad news for the economy. This is deeply undemocratic.
Don’t be fooled—U.S.-born workers are facing a worse labor market in 2025
It seems likely that the Trump administration will use Friday’s jobs report to continue to argue that their immigration policies are creating job market opportunities for U.S.-born workers, but this claim is false and based on a misreading of data from the household survey. If anything, the job market for U.S.-born workers is worse so far in 2025 than it was in preceding years. Analysts following demographic trends from the household survey should concentrate on unemployment rates and employment ratios, rather than levels.
The unemployment rate for the U.S.-born population is higher in 2025 than previous years (see Figure A). The July rate of 4.7% has not been this high since 2021. Similarly, the prime-age employment-to-population ratio for U.S.-born workers may be moving downwards and is certainly not consistent with booming employment (see Figure B).
Financial disparities will deepen economic insecurity for Black and Hispanic households amid the 2025 slowdown
Recent evidence from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) shows that disparities in income variability, hardship, and savings are deepening Black and Hispanic individuals’ vulnerability to economic insecurity. The Fed Board has conducted this survey annually since 2013, with a focus on capturing how households identify and assess the U.S. economy, their own economic wellbeing, and the potential risks that may impact their finances. The findings published earlier this year reflect the results of questions fielded in the last quarter of 2024, before the economic chaos wrought by the Trump-Vance administration increased fears of a recession. Read more
Trump is the biggest union-buster in U.S. history: More than 1 million federal workers’ collective bargaining rights are at risk
Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has taken a flurry of actions that have put our federal agencies, economy, and democracy at risk. One alarming line of attack that directly threatens workers’ economic security has been on labor unions and workers’ right to engage in collective action.
For decades, large corporations and unscrupulous employers have undermined workers’ right to collective bargaining. But throughout this period, the federal government has largely recognized the existence of these rights and respected the independent bodies that enforce our labor laws. No more. Trump has tossed aside the rule of law and advanced a strategy to not only weaken but effectively eliminate many workers’ ability to engage fully in collective action and bargaining. Below are some of Trump’s most egregious actions so far.
Union-busting the federal workforce. In March, Trump issued an executive order that stripped union protections from more than 1 million federal workers across dozens of federal agencies. And in advance of Labor Day, Trump issued another executive order expanding these actions to additional agencies. Despite ongoing litigation, some agencies have unilaterally canceled collective bargaining agreements with the unions that represent its employees. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced in early August that union contracts for 400,000 employees were terminated, eliminating crucial protections for federal workers.
As the federal workforce continues to be under attack, unions are crucial to protecting these workers’ jobs and ensuring a fair transition and compensation in the event of large-scale downsizing at agencies. Trump’s action represents the single largest retaliatory action against unions and workers and sends an alarming signal to employers across the country. Trump cited thinly veiled national security reasons to pursue these blatantly retaliatory actions against unions that were fighting back against Trump’s attack on the federal workforce. The federal government should be modeling high-road employer practices. Instead, Trump has implemented the most egregious union-busting tactics and normalized illegal actions for private-sector employers across the country.
Stacking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in his favor. In January, Trump fired NLRB Board member Gwynne Wilcox and severely jeopardized the independence of the agency. When Trump fired Wilcox, he cited that her opinions on the Board had “unduly disfavored” employers—an implicit warning about how any future Board members should rule if they want to keep their jobs.
With only one member remaining on the Board—and therefore unable to meet quorum—the NLRB cannot hear cases on unfair labor practices or union representation, nor can it issue decisions. While Wilcox continues to fight her firing in court, Trump has nominated Scott Mayer and James Murphy to be Board members. If confirmed, the NLRB would have enough members to establish a quorum and a Republican majority. If Mayer and Murphy are confirmed, workers and unions are likely to find their cases ultimately before a Board that is heavily influenced, if not controlled by, Trump and the interests of bosses over workers.
Undercutting efforts to foster and support labor-management mediation. In March, Trump directed the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to eliminate “non-statutory components” and to “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.” Since 1947, the FCMS has helped resolve difficult labor disputes, especially those that have resulted in strikes. There is a clear interest for the federal government to encourage parties to continue engaging in the collective bargaining process: workers who go on strike can experience economic hardship and broader economic impacts may be felt. Trump’s directive to undermine the FMCS, however, signals to employers and labor the exact opposite. At a time when employer power usually far outweighs worker power—and unions struggle to secure first-time contracts—Trump’s actions may have a significant chilling effect on workers’ ability to get employers to engage in good faith at the bargaining table.
In the coming months, we will no doubt continue to see more attacks undermining workers’ right to organize and collectively bargain. You can find a comprehensive catalogue of all policies relevant to working people and the economy at Federal Policy Watch, an EPI online tool documenting actions by the Trump administration, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts.
A ‘$30 by 2030’ minimum wage in New York City is a bold proposal: The first step is giving the city the freedom to set its own wage floor
Last spring, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani proposed a “$30 by 2030” minimum wage for New York City workers.1 Ambitious strategies to raise wages and lower costs are needed given that New York City’s current $16.50 minimum wage is inadequate compared with any reasonable measure of a living wage in the city.
Without a policy change, we project there will be 1.68 million NYC workers earning less than $30 an hour in 2030, or 36.7% of the city’s wage-earning workforce. It is likely that the vast majority of these workers would experience significant wage gains if a $30 minimum wage were implemented.
An enormous body of research on the effects of higher minimum wages has shown that past minimum wage increases have meaningfully raised pay for low-wage workers without causing significant increases in unemployment. However, the “$30 by 2030” proposal would go beyond the levels of minimum wages studied in past research, making it more difficult to precisely estimate the number of workers who would benefit and any additional impacts of the measure, such as reductions in hours or employment.
New York City’s current minimum wage does not come close to a living wage
NYC workers face some of the highest living costs in the nation. EPI’s Family Budget Calculator (FBC) measures the income a family needs to attain a modest yet adequate standard of living in every U.S. county. The FBC thresholds are conservative amounts: they account for necessities like housing, food, transportation, health care, and child care but do not provide any allowance for savings for retirement, emergencies, or college. As Figure A shows, a family of two adults and two children in the Bronx faces annual costs of nearly $135,000.2 In Manhattan, these costs are greater than $167,000 a year. For a single adult with no children, annual costs range from $62,913 in the Bronx to $87,038 in Manhattan.
A family of four in NYC needs at least $134,000 a year to make ends meet: FBC living cost data across five boroughs in NYC
| 1 adult, no children | 2 adults, 2 children | |
|---|---|---|
| The Bronx | $62,913 | $134,773 |
| Brooklyn | $74,620 | $150,186 |
| Manhattan | $87,038 | $167,753 |
| Queens | $79,929 | $155,998 |
| Staten Island | $78,790 | $156,133 |
Source: EPI Family Budget Calculator.
With the FBC cost data we can estimate a living wage that would allow workers to support their families.3 Table 1 shows that the living wage in 2025 is already above $30 an hour in Manhattan ($33.89), Queens ($31.31), and Staten Island ($30.68). While Brooklyn and The Bronx do not exceed this threshold, the costs facing these families will almost certainly continue to rise between today and 2030. These figures make it clear that discussions of a $30 minimum wage in New York City are not superfluous—they reflect the very real needs of working people throughout the city.
Relative to the actual living wage, New York City’s minimum wage is significantly lower than many other high-cost-of-living cities in the country. NYC’s $16.50 minimum wage is around half of the living wage in most of the city’s boroughs. By comparison, the minimum wage is around three-quarters the estimated living wage in Seattle, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. Chicago’s and Denver’s minimum wages are each more than 80% of a living wage, while the minimum wage is 69.3% of the living wage in San Francisco. All these cities have room to push for higher wages for their workers, but it is clear that New York City’s minimum wage leaves workers further behind than many other major cities in the country.
It is notable that among the cities in Table 1, those with local control over minimum wage policy have been significantly more successful at approaching living wage targets. While New York City’s minimum wage is higher than the upstate region, the policy is currently set by state lawmakers in Albany, not at the local level. Boston (Suffolk County, MA) uses the Massachusetts state minimum wage of $15.00, which is around half of the living wage in the city. Portland, OR, also has its minimum wage set by state lawmakers and has a slightly stronger minimum wage floor (69.8% of the living wage), but every city with a wage floor of at least 70% of the living wage has local control over the policy.4 This pattern suggests that when given the power to do so, local government officials are more responsive to the wage floor needs of workers in their city.
Without a policy change, 1.68 million New York City workers will be paid less than $30 an hour by 2030
Under the status quo minimum wage policy in New York City, we project there will be 1.68 million workers earning less than $30 in 2030, a little more than a third (36.7%) of the total wage-earning workforce in the city. These workers would likely be directly affected by the minimum wage increases in Mamdani’s policy proposal. In addition, economic research shows that workers already earning above the new minimum wage also typically benefit through spillover wage effects as employers seek to maintain organizational wage ladders.
Most minimum wage research finds that increasing the wage floor significantly increases earnings for affected workers, while causing little to no loss in employment. That’s because businesses are able to adjust to increased labor costs through modestly increasing prices, reductions in turnover, and the movement of workers from less-productive firms to more-productive firms.
Moreover, even if a minimum wage increase did result in reduced employment, it’s important to understand what that actually means for low-wage workers. The low-wage job market is characterized by high levels of turnover and churn, as workers are typically always looking for any new position that will offer them more livable pay. Many low-wage workers also spend some portion of the year not employed—due to care responsibilities, participating in education or training programs, or seeking other work. In this context, what researchers would describe as reduced employment does not mean that some set of workers will now be permanently unemployed. Rather, it likely would mean that some low-wage workers would work fewer hours over the course of the year or spend more time between jobs. Of course, these workers would now be earning more per hour when they do work because of the higher minimum wage—what really matters is the net outcome on their annual earnings.
We are cautious about extending the general conclusions of minimum wage research on employment to a $30 minimum wage in New York City. The proposal is more ambitious than the levels that economists have studied extensively. One tool economists use to assess the “bite” of a minimum wage is the minimum-to-median-wage ratio (sometimes called the “Kaitz index”). When underlying wages in the labor market are higher, as proxied by the median wage, the minimum-to-median-wage ratio is lower, and a given minimum wage affects a smaller share of employment. For example, a $17 minimum wage will have a much smaller effect on workers and employers in a higher wage place like New York City than it would have in places where wages are generally much lower.
Table 2 estimates the minimum-to-median-wage ratio for a $30 NYC minimum wage in 2030, as well as other wage thresholds. The ratio of a $30 minimum wage in 2030 would be around 0.76, higher than most other policies in the U.S.5 In a 2021 paper, economists Arindrajit Dube and Attila Lindner compared minimum-to-median-wage ratios across the 10 most populous U.S cities with minimum wages above the state level and found a population-weighted average minimum-to-median-wage ratio of 0.64.6 At the time, Los Angeles’s minimum wage had a Kaitz index of 0.75, but this policy has not been studied enough to understand its employment effects. According to Dube and Lindner, most state minimum wage policies greater than the federal minimum sit at a minimum-to-median-wage ratio of around 0.50. Among international peers, it is notable that the United Kingdom officially targets a minimum wage policy that is two-thirds the median wage (ratio of 0.67). Other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries also have high minimum-to-median-wage ratios, including France (0.62), New Zealand (0.69), Mexico (0.74), Chile (0.75), Costa Rica (0.87), and Colombia (0.92).
The cost-of-living crisis in New York City requires bold steps forward as part of a cohesive strategy to create a more equitable economy. Increasing the minimum wage should be one key part of this strategy, which must also include tackling the cost of housing, child care, and health care. The experience of other high-cost cities also indicates that local lawmakers are better positioned than state officials to set appropriate and livable minimum wages for their jurisdiction’s workers. New York state lawmakers can be much more ambitious in setting high standards for New York City, but it likely would be better to let the city set its own wage standards above the state floor, much in the same way that states can set their own minimums above the federal minimum.
Minimum wage levels, living wage levels, and ratio of minimum wage to living wage for select counties in the U.S.
| County | State | Living wage | Effective minimum wage for major city | Ratio of minimum wage to living wage | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York City area | |||||
| The Bronx | NY | $24.50 | $16.50 | 67.3% | NY state minimum wage for NYC area |
| Brooklyn | NY | $29.06 | $16.50 | 56.8% | NY state minimum wage for NYC area |
| Manhattan | NY | $33.89 | $16.50 | 48.7% | NY state minimum wage for NYC area |
| Queens | NY | $31.13 | $16.50 | 53.0% | NY state minimum wage for NYC area |
| Staten Island | NY | $30.68 | $16.50 | 53.8% | NY state minimum wage for NYC area |
| High cost-of-living cities | |||||
| King County | WA | $27.41 | $20.76 | 75.7% | Seattle minimum wage |
| San Francisco County | CA | $27.66 | $19.18 | 69.3% | San Francisco city minimum wage |
| Los Angeles County | CA | $23.97 | $17.87 | 74.6% | Los Angeles city minimum wage |
| District of Columbia | DC | $24.31 | $17.95 | 73.8% | Washington, D.C minimum wage |
| Cook County | IL | $20.20 | $16.60 | 82.2% | Chicago minimum wage |
| Santa Clara County | CA | $31.18 | $17.95 | 57.6% | San Jose minimum wage |
| San Diego County | CA | $27.81 | $17.25 | 62.0% | San Diego city minimum wage |
| Suffolk County | MA | $29.69 | $15.00 | 50.5% | MA state minimum wage |
| Denver County | CO | $22.48 | $18.81 | 83.7% | Denver city minimum wage |
| Multnomah County | OR | $23.36 | $16.30 | 69.8% | OR state minimum wage for Portland Urban Growth Boundary |
| Other major cities | |||||
| Philadelphia County | PA | $18.29 | $7.25 | 39.6% | PA state minimum wage (federal minimum wage) |
| Dallas County | TX | $19.67 | $7.25 | 36.9% | TX state minimum wage (federal minimum wage) |
| Miami-Dade County | FL | $22.93 | $13.00 | 56.7% | FL state minimum wage |
| Harris County | TX | $17.22 | $7.25 | 42.1% | TX state minimum wage (federal minimum wage) |
| Maricopa County | AZ | $21.05 | $14.70 | 69.8% | AZ state minimum wage |
Notes: Minimum wage values effective July 2025. Effective minimum wage chosen for major city within relevant county. Oregon and New York state minimum wage law establish distinct regional minimum wage levels. The policy is controlled by the state legislature. Living wage values assumed to be for a single adult with no children receiving 81% of their income from wages.
Source: Family Budget Calculator living wage standards and EPI Minimum Wage Tracker.
Projected 2030 count and share of workers below minimum wage and minimum-to-median-wage ratio in NYC for $30 minimum wage and other thresholds
| Scenario | Count of workers below threshold | Share of NYC wage-earning workforce | Minimum-to-median-wage ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| $25 by 2030 | 1,358,700 | 29.7% | 0.64 |
| $28 by 2030 | 1,579,900 | 34.5% | 0.71 |
| $30 by 2030 | 1,680,900 | 36.7% | 0.76 |
| $32 by 2030 | 1,868,200 | 40.8% | 0.82 |
Notes: Assumes annual nominal wage growth rate of 3.3% based on CBO projections of Employment Cost Index. Annual population growth of 0.97%.
Source: EPI analysis of 2023 1-year ACS data and CBO January 2025 Economic Projections.
Notes
1. The proposal also calls for indexing the minimum wage to inflation or productivity increases, whichever is greater, thereafter. The tipped minimum wage in New York is set at two-thirds the regular minimum wage.
2. The FBC data is organized by county, but for the purposes of this analysis we refer to the corresponding New York City boroughs.
3. Gould, Mokhiber, and deCourcy (2024) suggest living wages can be approximated by 81% of the associated FBC thresholds because middle-income families receive about 81% of their income through wages and 19% from other non-wage sources, including government transfers (such as refundable tax credits) and non-wage market income (such as interest on savings).
4. Of course, any state action is more beneficial than using the stagnant federal minimum wage, which is still the effective wage floor in Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, and other cities in states where local minimum wage increases are preempted. These localities all have effective minimum wages that are less than half of the living wage.
5. Our projections assume a nominal annual wage growth of 3.3% based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections of the Employment Cost Index. If we vary this assumption ±0.5%, the outcomes of a $30 minimum wage in 2030 vary as follows: Kaitz ratio: 0.73–0.79. Share of workers under $30 an hour: 36.0%–40.0%.
6. At the time New York City had a 0.66 Kaitz index, higher than it does today (approximately 0.5).