Outside of a crisis or recession, Americans’ perceptions of how the country and economy are being managed have never been so negative. Many have attributed this voter unhappiness to a crisis of “affordability.”

It is objectively true that it is too hard for most American families to afford a secure and dignified life. But the word “affordability” leads too many people—including policymakers—to fixate on prices. Affordability is not just about prices; instead, it’s the outcome of a race between incomes and prices.

This is not just economists quibbling. Focusing on prices will lead policymakers to ignore far too much of the useful playing field when thinking about what changes could make life better for working families.

In this article, we make the following arguments:

• Far too many families are unable to afford a decent economic life.
• The primary cause is a large increase in income and wage inequality, with incomes and wages for the vast majority of families lagging far behind what they could and should be.
• This rise in inequality was caused by increasingly unequal “market” incomes (e.g., wages and salaries, returns on investments), while changes in taxes or transfers (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance) slightly dampened the rise of income inequality.
• The large rise in income inequality was driven by intentional policy changes that affected typical workers’ leverage and bargaining power in the labor market—and that means they can be reversed.
• In capitalist economies (like ours), labor markets are inherently tilted toward employers—but historically and globally, broadly shared prosperity has only been achieved when policies that intentionally support workers (like strong unions, adequate minimum wages, and full employment mandates) have provided a countervailing force against employers’ power in labor markets. 
• Much of the post-1979 period in the United States saw an assault on worker-friendly policies, and this led directly to the rise in inequality and to weak income growth for working families.

Americans’ economic dissatisfaction has real roots

The U.S. economy is the richest in the world, yet the gap between what it could deliver to working families versus what it actually delivers is maddening. This gap can be measured with some precision. Figure A shows inflation-adjusted household income for the middle-fifth of U.S. families between 1979 and 2022, as well as what this growth could have been had it simply grown as fast as average incomes did in this period. 

This gap is driven by inequality. Average incomes can only rise faster than incomes at the middle if some groups—the ultra-rich in this case—see strongly above-average growth. This gap between average growth and growth experienced by the middle reached staggering levels by 2022 (the most recent data from the Congressional Budget Office). In that year, inequality’s rise since 1979 deprived middle-income families of an average of $28,100. Life for these families would be far more affordable today if they had this money coming in each year. And that’s well within our grasp. Average income growth is by definition attainable. All that’s needed are policies that ensure income growth is broadly shared, instead of policies that cause staggeringly fast income growth among the top 1% and much slower income growth for working people. 

Figure B shows this inequality another way—charting average annual growth rates for the 1979–2022 period for a number of groups ranked by their position in the income distribution. The strikingly bad news from this figure is that only household groups above the 90th percentile saw income growth that matched or exceeded average income growth. How can more than 90% of households be below average when it comes to income growth? This is possible because the top 5%—and especially the top 1%—saw astoundingly fast growth over this period. 

For any given average growth rate, faster growth at the top of the scale must be matched by slower growth at the middle and/or bottom. It is this zero-sum dynamic of inequality, not anything to do with prices, that has been the crushing drag on regular Americans trying to afford a better life over time.

Staggering inequality is a choice

This growth in inequality has been driven by the rules governing markets—rules our elected leaders determine—not by taxes or transfers. Figure A showed the staggering $28,100 gap in market (pre-tax and transfer) income between what families in the middle-fifth actually made in 2022 versus what they could have made had inequality not risen. Figure C shows how large this gap is after the federal government gets involved on the tax and transfer side of the equation. 

Taxes obviously reduce incomes, but transfers (social insurance like Social Security and income support payments like unemployment insurance) raise incomes. For the middle-fifth of US households, this effect is largely a wash—their current income levels in Figures A and C are very similar. But because the United States still has a progressive federal tax system (though not as progressive as we would like), the rise of inequality in this post-tax and transfer data is slightly muted—i.e., federal taxes and transfers shrink the gap somewhat. By 2022, the annual gap after accounting for federal taxes and transfers is $17,698—still a sum of money that would be transformative for American families.

Essentially, federal taxes and transfers undid roughly one-third of the rise in income inequality, allowing rich households to pocket roughly two-thirds of their gains.*

This rise in inequality was overwhelmingly driven by an intentional, multipronged policy campaign to suppress wages that was undertaken by shareholders, other capital owners, and corporate executives, with policymakers greasing the skids along the way.4 The primacy of wage suppression can be seen in Figure D, which compares the economy’s potential to pay higher wages and incomes with the actual hourly pay of typical workers in the United States. 

We measure the economy’s potential to pay higher wages by productivity, which is the output and income generated in the economy in an hour of work on average. And we define typical workers’ pay as the wages and benefits of workers in production and nonsupervisory positions, a group that constitutes over 80% of the economy’s private-sector workforce, excluding higher-wage managers and executives. As you see in the figure, in the three decades after World War II, productivity and pay mostly moved roughly in tandem, with typical workers’ pay rising 83% as fast as productivity. After 1979, these lines diverge sharply, with workers’ pay rising only about 43% as fast as productivity. 

If typical workers’ pay had risen in line with productivity growth in the years since 1979, their hourly pay would be 43% higher today. For a full-time, full-year worker making the median wage, this would constitute annual wages that are almost $23,000 higher.5 Where did that $23,000 go? Instead of paying workers more as their productivity rose, corporate executives, other already highly paid professionals, and shareholders captured those gains for themselves.

This growing gap between what shows up in typical workers’ paychecks and benefits versus the overall income being generated in the economy is the root story of American inequality and of today’s affordability crisis.

This pay-productivity gap can be decomposed into two parts: the portion driven by rising inequality in “labor” income (income earned from work), and the portion driven by a shift from labor income to “capital” income (income from investments, like when a stock increases in value). Growing inequality within labor incomes—earnings growing much faster among high-paying jobs than among middle- and low-paying jobs—accounts for almost 80% of the gap. The remaining 20% is accounted for by a shift from labor income to capital income.6 Below we say a bit more about each of these.

Rising inequality of labor incomes

The larger factor in the rise of overall income inequality is the growing inequality within labor incomes. This often surprises people, who assume the story of rising inequality is mostly one of the profits of rich corporations rising while most of their workers are left behind. It’s true that most workers in these corporations do not benefit, but the powerful employees who do prosper—CEOs and other executives—receive astronomical salaries that are classified as labor income in economic data, and these inflated executive salaries do cut into corporate profits. 

In addition, below the stratospheric level of corporate managers at large companies, there is a stratum of workers in medicine, legal services, and finance who command huge salaries. It’s not a large group of people, but the rise in their pay has been extreme. Figure E highlights this radical inequality within labor incomes, showing annual earnings of various wage groupings. (To keep the figure legible, pre-1979 data are not shown.) Prior to 1979, wage growth among very high wage workers—those in the top 10%, the top 1%, and the top 0.1%—was roughly in line with wage growth for the vast majority (i.e., for the bottom 90%). But between 1979 and 2023, cumulative growth in average annual earnings for the bottom 90% of workers was 44%, compared with 133% for the top 1%. For the top 0.1%, this growth was 354%—so high it doesn’t fit in the figure.

Given that labor income remains the large majority of all income generated in the economy, this huge rise in inequality within labor incomes is a key driver of the economy-wide march to greater inequality. Workers at the top of the wage scale were largely able to insulate themselves from the campaign of wage suppression launched by corporate owners. Of course, some of them were active participants in this campaign and got a significant cut of its benefits (think CEOs and lawyers for union-busting law firms). But the vast majority of workers (roughly 90%, as we see in Figure B) were on the losing side of this wage suppression campaign and found their wages falling far behind the economy’s potential to deliver strong and sustained wage growth. 

In some ways, the influence of rising inequality within labor incomes might be underestimated. For decades, U.S. tax policy has levied lower tax rates on capital income than labor income, and a great deal of capital gains escapes taxation entirely due to loopholes. 

Many of the same people who have been privileged enough to insulate themselves from wage suppression are also privileged enough to have excellent accountants who can make their incomes appear in whatever form results in the lowest taxes.7 For example, CEOs are overwhelmingly paid with “performance-based” measures, which means measures tied to the value of their companies’ stock prices. Twenty years ago, the large majority of this stock-based pay for CEOs came in the form of stock options, which are contracts that give the CEO the right (but not the obligation) to buy shares of stock at a set price. If the market price went above this set price, CEOs could exercise these options and pocket the difference as pay. The gains from exercised stock options are recognized by the IRS as labor income, taxed accordingly, and classified in data as labor income. But over the past two decades, there has been a pronounced shift in the stock-based pay of CEOs away from stock options and toward the outright granting of stock. In this case, CEOs are not given a right to buy shares at a preferential price; they are simply given shares.8 What’s important for the split between capital and labor incomes is that these non-option forms of stock-based compensation are far less likely to be captured in measures of wage incomes. So this tax evasion strategy artificially depresses estimates of labor income in the economy.

The shift from labor to capital incomes

While most of the pay-productivity gap stemmed from the rising inequality within labor earnings discussed above, a nontrivial portion of this gap stemmed from a shift in overall income from labor to capital. This goes far beyond the tax avoidance trick described above for CEO compensation—including paying regular working people less so that shareholders get more. If, for example, a corporation were able to suppress its workers’ pay while raising customers’ prices and/or cutting what it paid suppliers (which generally means those suppliers paying their workers less), it would earn higher profits. By successfully suppressing wages to boost profits, American corporations have made their stock more valuable. Imagine an investor buys $100 in company stock with the expectation of an annual return of $5. If the company undertakes a successful campaign of wage suppression that boosts annual returns to $10, many other investors will buy company stock—bidding up share prices.

So even though this labor-to-capital shift in overall income is the smaller player in generating overall income inequality, it still had profound effects on American economic life. Estimates indicate that anywhere from 40% to nearly 100% of the entire nominal gains in the U.S. stock market since 1989 can be attributed to this shift of income from workers to capital owners.9

The rise in US stock prices in recent decades is a key driver of another kind of economic inequality: inequality of wealth.^† One of the primary sources of wealth, the ownership of corporate equities (e.g., shares of stocks), is incredibly concentrated; the top 10% of households own about 85% of all corporate equities, and the top 1% own nearly 40%.10

The concentration of corporate equities combined with the role of wage suppression in making these equities far more valuable leads to a clear implication: The wage suppression of recent decades is not just by far the biggest driver of the rise in income inequality; it is also by far the biggest driver of the rise in wealth inequality. Most of the rise in wealth inequality in recent decades has been the outcome of an intentional transfer away from workers to the top. 

Labor markets are not fair

This rise in inequality in recent decades has attracted much attention from researchers—along with everybody else struggling to pay for groceries and keep the lights on. For a long time, economists’ role in the debate over inequality was to look for reasons why well-functioning, competitive markets could generate lots of inequality. This often led to explanations that essentially blamed workers for the outcomes. The argument was that the fair and competitive labor market had spoken and that these workers were falling behind because their skills and efforts had been found wanting. The precise failure identified was often workers’ alleged inability to adapt to the quickening pace of technological change in the economy. 

But the evidence supporting this view of inequality driven by apolitical forces working through fair and competitive markets was incredibly thin.11 That led many researchers to examine whether labor markets are by their very nature tilted against workers, making it very difficult to secure regular raises that match overall economic growth. 

There is ample evidence for this view—that excess employer-side power makes labor markets generally unfair and inefficient, and that truly fair, competitive labor markets are the exception, not the rule. For example, many employers, and particularly those of low- and moderate-wage workers, rarely if ever negotiate pay; instead, they post take-it-or-leave-it wage offers.12 And when a given employer lets its wages lag behind those of potential competitors, workers’ exit from the lower-wage firm is far less common than would be predicted under truly competitive labor markets (where employers robustly compete for workers).13

This employer-side power is rooted in many obvious factors in real-world labor markets that make it hard for workers to effectively search for better jobs and, therefore, force employers to compete over them. These include things like lack of information about wages and benefits offered by other employers, transportation restrictions that require workers to look for jobs only in places near their homes or public transit nodes, and child care considerations that require a job’s location be compatible with picking up kids at a regular time, along with many other factors. 

Another barrier to competition is the obvious fact that in the short run, most employers need the income a new worker would generate for their business far less than most workers need the income from a job. In a jobsite of 100 workers, having a month go by understaffed by a single worker reduces business income by roughly 1%. In a household with a single worker, having a month go by without a job reduces income by essentially 100%. 

Employers exploit these barriers to employees finding better options by “marking down” wages below what would be necessary for employers to attract and retain workers in competitive labor markets. These markdowns can be large enough to push workers’ pay well below the value they produce for the employer (i.e., below the “market clearing” wage). This makes them not just unfair, but inefficient—a drag on economic growth. 

Key policy choices that led to rising inequality 

Having realized the role of employers’ power in determining labor market outcomes, the importance of specific policies is magnified. For example, before the 1990s, many economists were extremely skeptical that minimum wages could do much good in raising wages without steep downsides like job loss. Why? Because they erroneously used models of competitive labor markets. 

But more accurate models that include employers’ power reveal significant room to raise minimum wages without generating job losses. The evidence over the past 30 years has been highly persuasive that minimum wages could be much higher than they were in the 1980s and 1990s without causing job losses and that the benefits for low-wage workers would be large.14

The period of rising inequality since 1979 was one of profound institutional change in labor markets. The federal minimum wage, for example, lost 35% of its value between 1979 and 2025 as legislative inaction (i.e., not raising it) allowed it to be battered into irrelevance by inflation.15 This was also a period that saw a pronounced acceleration in the decline of unionization rates of American workers.16 It was a time when high levels of unemployment were tolerated by policymakers for extended periods in the name of fighting inflation.17 And it was a time when increasing integration between the rich United States and a poorer global economy was done on terms that were written by and for corporate interests.^‡

Several years ago, researchers at our organization, the Economic Policy Institute, reviewed the research on how much specific policy choices likely contributed to growing inequality. Adding together the impacts of the changes like those listed above could easily explain the lion’s share of the rise in inequality since 1979.18

For example, one key policy change was the practical abandonment of the Federal Reserve’s full employment mandate. By law, the Fed is supposed to pursue both stable inflation and full employment (which means trying to keep unemployment as low as is consistent with stable inflation). But between 1979 and 2007 (right before the Great Recession), the Fed largely acted as if it did have a mandate to pursue stable inflation but did not have one to pursue full employment. 

After the Great Recession, the Fed admirably reversed course and tried to push the economy back to full employment, but its tools proved too weak given the magnitude of the shock. In such situations, fiscal policy—taxes and spending—should be used aggressively to restore full employment. But in the 2010s, political gridlock and excess caution kept policymakers from doing this, and much of that decade was plagued by excess unemployment. 

Excess unemployment does not just leave willing workers locked out of jobs. It also saps the ability of still-employed workers to demand raises. For nonunion workers, their chief leverage for getting wage increases is threatening to quit. This threat is only credible when unemployment is low. Consequently, the too-high unemployment rates for most of the period from 1979 to 2019 were a drag on wage growth. In our estimates, too-high unemployment may well have explained nearly a third of the entire pay-productivity gap over that period19—not to mention the devastation it wrought for millions of families.

Another key policy change was the failure to keep the playing field level between workers looking to organize and join unions and the employers who wanted to stop them. The National Labor Relations Board is supposed to safeguard this right, but its tools have proved too weak in the face of fierce employer opposition to unions, and policy changes to strengthen these tools have consistently been blocked. The results of throttling the growth of new unions have been profound; our estimates are that declining unionization likely explains a quarter of the pay-productivity gap since 1979.20 Crucially, the decline in unionization did not just hurt workers who otherwise would have been unionized. By far the biggest of the wage-suppressing effects of deunionization has been on the broad pool of nonunion workers. As unions lose strength, they stop being able to set industry-wide pay standards that even nonunion employers feel like they have to meet to avoid hemorrhaging employees. 

The wage-depressing effect of trade flows from poorer nations—flows encouraged by the corporate-led trade agreements the United States has signed in recent decades—can likely explain another 10 to 15% of the pay-productivity divergence since 1979.21

The wrong incentives

Tolerating excess unemployment, throttling workers’ ability to join unions, failing to update the minimum wage as costs rise, and signing corporate-friendly trade agreements were some of the many instruments of wage suppression undertaken and abetted by policymakers in recent decades. At the same time, choices legislators made on tax policy boosted the incentive for capital owners and corporate managers to aggressively use these instruments to increase their wealth. 

When ultra-high incomes and corporate profits are taxed at high (i.e., appropriate) rates, the incentives for powerful individuals to rig the rules of markets to suppress regular workers’ wages are much smaller. Key research shows that this incentive effect is real and powerful. For example, across countries, the larger the tax cuts on the rich enacted in recent decades, the greater the increase in pre-tax inequality.22 And, the lower the top tax rates for individuals, the higher the levels of pre-tax CEO pay.23 High taxes reduce the benefits of rule-rigging, so cutting taxes increases rule-rigging. This means that raising taxes on the richest households and corporations results in new revenue and more equal pre-tax incomes. But from the mid-1970s, tax rates for high-income households and corporations have been cut steadily and deeply in the United States, reducing both tax revenues and wages for working people.

Income inequality, not high prices, is behind the affordability crisis

We opened this article with a claim that affordability is the outcome of a race between income and prices. Our long walk through the economics and history of recent American inequality highlights that intentional policy choices have deprived typical households of income they could have otherwise claimed. Without this inequality, a middle-income household today would have tens of thousands of dollars more per year—and this would obviously make affording a decent life much easier. 

But some might wonder if we have still given prices short shrift in how much they contribute to affordability challenges. We don’t think so, for a number of reasons. We sketch three of them here.

First, all of the income, wage, and productivity statistics we have included in this article have been real (i.e., they have been adjusted for the impact of inflation). And it is unambiguously true that real (inflation-adjusted) incomes are the proper way to measure living standards and economic possibilities for households. 

Getting distracted by price growth while missing what’s happening with income will lead to wrong conclusions about economic performance over even relatively recent periods of time. Figure F compares two periods, both starting one year before a deep recession struck and then running five years: 2007–2012 and 2019–2024. In the first period, inflation averaged 1.8%, while in the second it ran more than twice as fast at 4.2%. Yet real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth for low- and middle-wage workers was far faster in the second period. For the lowest-wage workers, real wages fell by 2.1% in the first period but rose by 15.3% in the second. For workers in the middle of the wage scale, real wages fell by 1.5% in the first period but rose by 5.8% in the second. 

Over very short periods of time (one to two years), it is true that a rapid spike in prices tends to drive down real incomes and wages. But over any longer period (even as short as three to five years), assessing how the economy is doing for typical families rarely bears much relationship to price growth.

Second, even when researchers adjust for inflation differently at different parts of the wage and income distribution, the impact is modest. Such measures account for things like lower-income families spending a higher share of their income on rent and groceries and a lower share on vacations. But there are surprisingly small differences in overall price growth faced by families at different income levels. For example, from 2019 to 2025, when the price of housing and groceries was on peoples’ minds for good reasons, the inflation rate faced by the bottom 40% of households was just 0.2% higher than for the top 20% of households.24 In short, the growth in prices faced by different groups varies far less than the growth of their incomes and wages. 

Third, a key insight in assessing affordability debates is that one person’s cost is another person’s income. If the cost of a pound of coffee doubles from $10 to $20, this constitutes $10 of additional income that somebody is getting. Perhaps the coffee grower or the shipper or the grocery store shareholders or the CEO or the cashiers or some other link in the supply chain is getting an extra $10 (or several of them are getting some slice of it). This means that rapidly rising prices cannot result in less income overall, so they are highly unlikely to actually make an entire economy poorer. Instead, the groups that face only the price increase lose out while groups receiving the extra income win. 

This fact that every price is an amalgamation of various income streams also means policymakers can more usefully target wage and income policies rather than price policies. Again, my bill at the grocery store pays for the wages of cashiers, the pay of the company CEO, the dividends to shareholders, the payments to suppliers, and more. Even if we’re unhappy about this grocery bill, we likely don’t want all of those price components to get squeezed. We probably want the wages of cashiers to rise while hoping to rein in CEO pay and shareholder dividends. Policies that only look to restrain prices—price controls, for example—make no such distinction, so we don’t know who in the grocery supply chain will bear their burden (though we can guess it’s more likely to be the cashiers than the CEO). But if we raise minimum wages, change labor law to allow more widespread unionization, and raise taxes on the ultra-rich and on corporate profits, we have a very good idea of which incomes will be boosted and which will get squeezed.

Creating a fairer economy

It is deeply depressing that intentional policy acts led to the enormous rise in inequality that is making life so much harder for so many people. If tens of millions of American households had tens of thousands of extra dollars in their bank accounts each year while billionaires had significantly less money, the country would be a much better and happier place.

What brings us hope is the knowledge that because the rise in inequality was not the inevitable outcome of a modern economy, it can be halted and reversed. Today’s workers have the skills and abilities needed to support much higher incomes with no loss in efficiency or employment—if we change policy to give them these higher wages. This is excellent news. Of course, many of today’s elected leaders—and their donors—have little interest in reducing inequality, so the road ahead is long. But the foundational ingredients for a fairer and more efficient economy are clear: 

• Keep unemployment rates low for long periods of time and fight recessions fiercely when they inevitably occur. 
• Restore the right to organize new unions and bargain collectively. 
• Raise minimum wages, including the federal minimum wage. 
• Enact rules for the global economy that support healthy wage growth, not just healthy corporate profits. 
• Crush the incentive to rig the rules of the economy by raising taxes significantly on ultra-rich households and corporations. 

The details on how we create a fairer economy are more complex—and they do matter! But understanding that the affordability crisis facing American families is overwhelmingly an inequality crisis is a necessary and useful place to start.

*Since this analysis goes through 2022, it does not include the tax or benefits cuts (including to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Trump signed into law in July 2025. These will further increase inequality.

^†Wealth is the value of a person’s assets (e.g., the equity in their home, stocks and bonds in their retirement accounts, or their baseball card collections) minus the value of their debts.

^‡For details, see “A Trade Policy That Puts Working Families First.” 

Footnotes

1. Congressional Budget Office, The Distribution of Household Income, 2022 (January 2026), cbo.gov/publication/61911.

2. Congressional Budget Office, The Distribution.

3. Congressional Budget Office, The Distribution.

4. For a much deeper dive into the specifics of this policy campaign of wage suppression, along with empirical assessments of how much it cost American families, see L. Mishel and J. Bivens, “Identifying the Policy Levers Generating Wage Suppression and Wage Inequality,” Economic Policy Institute, May 13, 2021, epi.org/unequalpower/publications/wage-suppression-inequality.

5. The median wage for U.S. workers in 2025 was $25.67. This (and a lot more) can be found at data.epi.org. Multiplying this median wage by 0.43 and then by 2,080 (hours worked by a full-time/full-year worker) yields the $23,000 figure.

6. Earlier estimates of how much inequality within wages contributed to the pay-productivity gap can be found here: L. Mishel, “Growing Inequalities, Reflecting Growing Employer Power, Have Generated a Productivity–Pay Gap Since 1979,” Working Economics Blog, September 2, 2021, epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker. The easy way to update this (which we did for this report) is to compare productivity with growth in overall average compensation of American workers since 1979. This overall average compensation rose by roughly 76% since 1979. Given typical workers’ pay growth of just under 30%, this means that 46% (76% minus 30%) of the divergence between typical workers’ pay and productivity is a difference between typical workers’ pay and average pay.

7. See here for an estimate of how much of today’s reported capital incomes would be more properly classified as the returns to work (i.e., labor incomes): A. Eisfeldt, A. Falato, and M. Xiaolan, “Human Capitalists,” NBER Working Paper no. 28815, National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2022, nber.org/papers/w28815.

8. For more on CEO pay levels and their composition, see J. Bivens, E. Gould, and J. Kandra, “CEO Pay Has Skyrocketed Since 1978,” Economic Policy Institute, September 25, 2025, epi.org/publication/ceo-pay.

9. For this estimate, see D. Greenwald, M. Lettau, and S. Ludvigson, “How the Wealth Was Won: Factor Shares as Market Fundamentals,” Journal of Political Economy 133, no. 4 (April 2025): 1083–1132; and A. Atkeson, J. Heathcote, and F. Perri, A Macroeconomic Perspective on Stock Market Valuation Ratios (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Division, January 2026), minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr682.pdf.

10. See Table 10 in: E. Wolff, “Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962 to 2019: Median Wealth Rebounds… but Not Enough,” NBER Working Paper no. 28383, National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2021, nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28383/w28383.pdf.

11. For a much deeper dive into the weakness of claims that inequality was driven by technology rewarding skilled workers and penalizing less-skilled workers, see J. Schmitt, H. Shierholz, and L. Mishel, Don’t Blame the Robots: Assessing the Job Polarization Explanation of Growing Wage Inequality (Economic Policy Institute, November 19, 2013), epi.org/publication/technology-inequality-dont-blame-the-robots.

12. One study found that roughly 75% of low-wage jobs were ones where employers made take-it-or-leave-it posted offers: R. Hall and A. Krueger, “Evidence on the Incidence of Wage Posting, Wage Bargaining, and On-the-Job Search,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 4, no. 4 (October 2012): 56–67; and R. Hall and A. Krueger, “Evidence on the Determinants of the Choice Between Wage Posting and Wage Bargaining,” NBER Working Paper no. 16033, National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2010, nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w16033/w16033.pdf.

13. For evidence on how nonresponsive worker quits are to wage cuts relative to predictions of competitive markets, see A. Dube, L. Giuliano, and J. Leonard, “Fairness and Frictions: The Impact of Unequal Raises on Quit Behavior,” American Economic Review 109, no. 2 (February 2019): 620–63.

14. For a comprehensive review of this evidence, see D. Cengiz et al., “The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 134, no. 3 (August 2019): 1405–54.

15. Economic Policy Institute, “Minimum Wages: Real Minimum Wage (2025$),” 2026, data.epi.org/minimum_wage/minimum_wage_levels/line/year/national/real_minimum_wage_2025/overall?timeStart=1938-01-01&timeEnd=2025-01-01&dateString=1979-01-01&highlightedLines=overall.

16. P. Romero and J. Whittaker, A Brief Examination of Union Membership Data (Library of Congress, June 16, 2023), congress.gov/crs-product/R47596; and H. Meyerson, “Economic Inequality Is Undermining America: Worker Solidarity Will Build a Better Future,” AFT Health Care 3, no. 2 (Fall 2022): 33–36.

17. S. Galan, “Monthly Federal Funds Effective Rate, Unemployment Rate and Inflation Rate in the U.S. During Paul Volcker’s Terms as Federal Reserve Chairperson from 1979 to 1987,” Statista, October 2022, statista.com/statistics/1338105/volcker-shock-interest-rates-unemployment-inflation/?srsltid=AfmBOoqoXQ4yTpqiSJMevwNFbnNGEETrwhlltEeVrJuA1rThyYCBBkFl.

18. Mishel and Bivens, “Identifying the Policy Levers.”

19. J. Bivens, “Focus on the Boom, Not the Slump—the Fed’s New Policy Framework Needs to Stop Cutting Recoveries Short,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, June 18, 2019, epi.org/blog/focus-on-the-boom-not-the-slump-the-feds-new-policy-framework-needs-to-stop-cutting-recoveries-short-epi-macroeconomics-newsletter.

20. Mishel and Bivens, “Identifying the Policy Levers.”

21. Mishel and Bivens, “Identifying the Policy Levers.”

22. A. Fieldhouse, Rising Income Inequality and the Role of Shifting Market-Income Distribution, Tax Burdens, and Tax Rates (Economic Policy Institute, June 14, 2013), epi.org/publication/rising-income-inequality-role-shifting-market.

23. J. Bivens, “Using Tax Policy to Restrain CEO Pay: Best Practices and Smart Alternatives,” Economic Policy Institute, December 13, 2023, epi.org/publication/using-tax-policy-to-restrain-ceo-pay-best-practices-and-smart-alternatives.

24. Authors’ analysis of data obtained from: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Economic Heterogeneity Indicators (EHIs),” 2026, newyorkfed.org/research/economic-heterogeneity-indicators.

Key findings:

• CEO pay at the top 350 U.S. firms rose 14.0% in 2025 to an average of $27.9 million.
• CEOs made 325 times as much as the typical worker in 2025. It hasn’t always been this way. In 1965, CEOs were paid 21 times as much as a typical worker.
• From 1978–2025, top CEO compensation skyrocketed 1,316% while typical workers’ compensation increased only 28%.
• CEO pay has not climbed so fast because their skills or productivity rose spectacularly. It has risen instead simply because CEOs have gained and used increasing leverage over the corporate boards that set their pay.
• Policymakers can rein in excessive CEO pay through more progressive tax policy, corporate governance reforms, and strengthened labor standards, including laws that make it easier for workers to unionize. One new EPI policy proposal calls for default collective bargaining at firms where the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is especially exorbitant.

Our latest analysis finds that CEO pay rose 14.0% at the top 350 U.S. firms in 2025 as the CEO-to-worker pay ratio hit 325-to-1.

Between 1978 and 2025, CEO pay jumped an astronomical 1,316% while typical workers’ pay only rose 28%. As a result, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio increased more than tenfold since 1978.

Figure A demonstrates the rise in the CEO-to-worker pay ratio using both the realized and granted CEO compensation measures (for more on our methods and additional analysis, see EPI’s CEO pay landing page). The pay ratio increased a modest amount between 1965 and 1978, but then exploded in the late 1990s and has remained extraordinarily high since then, ebbing some during recessions and stock market losses.

CEO Pay

Media reports have called attention to Elon Musk’s Tesla pay package for 2025, which the company reports as $158 billion. We should note that this $158 billion is not in our measure of CEO pay—largely because it was not paid and likely never will be—and therefore cannot explain the uptick in CEO pay in 2025. The $158 billion refers to the potential pay Musk could receive only if Tesla meets a number of performance metrics related to its output and share price in coming years. Most market observers deem it highly unlikely that Tesla will meet these metrics, and a large portion of this $158 billion has already been “lost” since some of the performance metrics were required to be met in 2025 and were not. In some ways, the $158 billion expense reported by Tesla is just an accounting exercise—the amount that other shareholders’ stock would have been diluted had the performance metrics been met.

CEO pay is strongly related to the stock market, though less on stock options

The jump in CEO pay in 2025—though striking—isn’t surprising given how closely CEO pay tends to track gains in the stock market, as the S&P 500 rose a similar 11.8% in 2025.

While salaries were only about 5% of total CEO pay in 2025—which averaged $27.9 million—the vast majority of CEO pay (82%) was in the form of stock options or stock awards. However, there has been a marked shift away from stock options to stock awards over the past two decades. As Figure B shows, the share of compensation in stock options has fallen from 85% in 1992 to 26% in 2025.

CEO Pay

This shift to stock awards has been driven by executives’ search for lower taxes as well as regulatory changes made in the early 2000s. Stock options are more likely to be considered ordinary or W-2 income rather than other stock-based pay, which is taxed at a lower rate. Further, companies used to be able to offer stock options to executives without notifying shareholders of the expense. But a regulatory change after 2006 required the full expensing of stock options in reports to shareholders, making them appear more costly to grant.

While tax incentives and these regulatory changes may have incentivized this shift away from stock options, this shift has also likely led to a slightly better alignment of CEO pay to longer-term company success. Stock options allow executives to benefit from rising stock prices, but do not penalize them for falling prices. Stock awards, conversely, expose executives to the cost of falling stock prices as well as the benefits of rising prices. While an improvement, the shift from stock options to stock awards has obviously not been a transformational win for making CEO pay more generally fair and rational.

This shift from stock options to stock awards also has implications for the measured share of corporate-sector income accruing to capital versus labor. Over a full business cycle, the labor share of income has often reflected the leverage workers have to increase their wages versus capital owners’ ability to keep revenue in the form of profits (see Figure C). For arcane tax and data reasons, income from stock options is more likely to be recorded in economic data as labor earnings than is income from other forms of stock-based pay. Therefore, some of the losses in labor’s share of income in Figure C may be in part due to the changing ways top executives are receiving their compensation rather than simply the unequal balance of power between capital and labor.

CEO Pay

Policymakers can rein in excessive CEO pay

The rapid growth in CEO pay over the last several decades has not been driven by rising CEO productivity. Instead, it has simply been the result of executives’ ability to leverage their political and economic power to increase their own pay. As such, excessive pay can be reined in with policy changes.

Policymakers can alter tax policy to lower incentives for excessive CEO pay and change corporate governance laws to give shareholders greater ability to penalize excessive pay packages. Lawmakers can also strengthen labor standards to give workers more leverage to secure a larger share of the income generated by the firm, leaving less for CEOs (and shareholders) to claim.

Policymakers can further boost leverage for typical workers by strengthening the right to organize and form unions. For starters, Congress can pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act to make it easier to organize for the tens of millions of U.S. workers who want unions at their workplace. Further, policymakers can pass legislation instituting default collective bargaining when CEO-to-worker pay ratios are especially exorbitant.

Key takeaways

• The label “right to work” is intentionally misleading. RTW laws provide no job protections. What they do is make it harder for workers to form and sustain strong unions.
• RTW laws are intended to weaken unions. They are linked to lower unionization rates, lower wages and benefits, and worse safety outcomes for all workers.
• RTW laws have racist, anti-union origins dating to the 1940s. For decades, big business and white supremacist groups promoted RTW laws to diminish workers’ collective bargaining rights and block multiracial organizing.
• RTW laws don’t boost job growth but do erode job quality and increase inequality.
• Trends on RTW are reversing. No state has adopted a new RTW law since 2017, and multiple states have repealed or rejected RTW.

Imagine union membership tripling in the United States. It may sound radical—if you’ve forgotten history. In fact, more than 1 in 3 private-sector workers belonged to a union in the 1950s. The results? Wages grew in tandem with the economy. The middle class thrived. Black-white wage gaps shrank. Broadly shared economic growth was a reality, not an aspiration. That’s because when workers have bargaining power, they win better wages, benefits, and working conditions. This report shines a light on what we stand to win if we rebuild union power.

Over the last four decades, big corporations and the billionaires who run them have waged a relentless campaign against unions. And they have largely succeeded in reshaping the U.S. economy. By making it harder and harder for workers to organize and bargain collectively, the rich seized more and more income and wealth, destroying the U.S. middle class. Now the wealth of the richest Americans has exploded: The richest 0.1% own more than five times the combined wealth of the entire bottom half of the country.

And yet, workers haven’t given up. In 2025, unionization ticked upward. Public approval of unions has reached some of its highest levels in decades, and more than 50 million nonunion workers say they’d join a union tomorrow if they could. That’s because they know what unions deliver. In an economy that has been rigged against working people for decades, unions serve as a counterweight to corporate power—reducing inequality and building the kind of middle class that underpins a strong and inclusive economy.

It will take serious policy change to reverse nearly 50 years of deliberate attacks on working people and their institutions. It will require that politicians stand up to the superrich and corporate interests. It will require that workers continue to build power. But, as this report shows, we have much to gain from stronger unions. An organized and empowered workforce has powerful and far-reaching economic benefits.

Nearly four decades ago, I helped found the Economic Policy Institute because working people needed a voice in the economic debates that shape their lives. This report is exactly the work we envisioned: rigorous research that puts workers at the center of economic policy, and that arms all of us with the facts to fight for them. At a time when our economy is held in relatively few hands, we need this work—and we need unions—more than ever. 

Robert Reich
Professor, writer, and former Secretary of Labor

Executive summary

Union membership in the U.S. ticked up in 2025, breaking a decades-long trend of declining unionization. But today’s unionization rate doesn’t reflect the tens of millions of workers who want a union but can’t get one. This report examines what we stand to gain if we triple current union membership to 30%—restoring it to 1950s levels, when union strength delivered rising wages, narrowing racial wage gaps, and a thriving middle class.

Tripling union membership would:

• Deliver a 14.5% raise for the median worker—amounting to more than $7,700 annually, or nearly $270,000 over a 35-year career. These life-changing increases would benefit union and nonunion workers alike.
• Shift $1.2 trillion to workers annually. This would reverse a third of the increase in inequality experienced since 1979.
• Significantly narrow racial wage gaps. Because unions tend to boost wages more for Black and Hispanic workers than for white workers, tripling union membership would close racial wage gaps by more than one-third.
• Boost the number of people with health insurance. Since unions increase other forms of compensation, like health insurance benefits, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would fall by about 25%. Unions further reduce uninsured rates by advocating for increased public benefits like Medicaid.
• Strengthen communities. States with high union density invest more in public education, have higher unemployment insurance recipiency rates, and have all adopted Medicaid expansion.
• Protect democracy. Unions boost voter turnout, equip workers with civic skills, and actively defend voting rights. States with high union density have passed far fewer voter restriction bills than low-density states.

Download the factsheet

Roadmap for tripling union density

Reversing decades of political neglect that has stealthily undermined workers’ rights to unions and collective bargaining will require comprehensive reform that weaves together tested approaches with bold new ideas, at both federal and state levels.

Two bills with bipartisan support could help restore collective bargaining

• The Protecting the Right to Organize Act would restore private-sector workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. It would streamline the union formation process, establish penalties for labor law violations, override so-called “right-to-work” laws, and ban “captive audience” meetings.
• The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act would be the first federal law that guarantees all public-sector workers at the federal, state, and local levels the right to organize and collectively bargain.

Two bold new proposals could expand the benefits of collective bargaining and help tackle the affordability crisis

• Guaranteed annual raises for newly unionized workers. Legislation providing that newly unionized workers can use arbitration to achieve a first contract (if an employer fails to negotiate in good faith) should set a minimum standard that such contracts include a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). For the typical worker, a 3% COLA means roughly $2,000 extra a year.
• Default collective bargaining when CEO-to-worker pay ratios exceed 100:1. Declining unionization and the stratospheric rise in CEO pay are deeply connected. Strengthening the bargaining power of workers in severely imbalanced companies would enable them to capture a larger share of the wealth their work creates.

States can remove anti-union laws and protect collective bargaining

Removing so-called “right-to-work” laws and restrictions on public-sector bargaining alone would increase union density nationally from 9.9% to 14.4%. Beyond removing those unionization barriers, states can also:

• Extend collective bargaining rights to workers currently excluded from federal law (in-home child care, home health care, agricultural, and gig workers);
• Protect workers’ right to refuse mandatory, anti-union “captive audience” meetings; and
• Extend unemployment insurance eligibility to workers on strike.

Introduction

In 2025, 14.7 million workers—10% of all wage and salary workers—were union members, an increase from 9.9% in 2024.1 Though small, the increase marks a departure from prior years’ downward trend in union density and coincides with record high public favorability of unions.2

This report examines what the U.S. might look like if union membership were to triple to 30%, restoring it to roughly its 1950s peak. We analyze the economic, social, and democratic impacts of this increase; examine the potential impact on state union density rates if all states were to remove anti-union policies; and offer policy recommendations to expand union membership.

While tripling union membership is an ambitious goal, it is fully consistent with workers’ own demand for unions. Recent survey data show that 43% of nonunion workers would vote to unionize if given the opportunity—the equivalent of about 56 million wage and salary workers (Ahlquist, Grumbach, and Kochan 2024; McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). If all these workers unionized, union density would rise from 10% to 48.7%—well above the 30% goal we examine in this paper.

Union decline, wage suppression, and affordability

As union membership has declined, workers’ wages have been suppressed and inequality has skyrocketed. The gap between typical workers’ pay and economy-wide productivity is at a historic high.3 Since 1979, productivity has grown 2.7 times as much as pay for typical workers (Figure A). This divergence reflects both rising wage inequality—high earners experiencing much stronger wage growth than typical workers—and a shrinking share of the economy’s income going to workers overall. Between 1979 and 2023, real (inflation-adjusted) earnings for the top 0.1% grew 354% (from $618,000 to $2.8 million), while earnings for the bottom 90% of households grew just 44% (from $30,000 to $43,000) (EPI 2026a). And workers are now taking home a historically low share of corporate-sector income—meaning shareholders and other capital owners are capturing more than ever before (EPI 2026b).

Figure A

Inequality has grown since 1979 because of intentional policy choices that suppressed wages for typical workers to accelerate income growth at the top. If pay for typical workers had kept pace with productivity over the past nearly five decades, their paychecks today would be more than 40% larger (EPI 2026c). Though affordability pressures are often framed as a problem of high prices, the real problem is this wage shortfall—and reversing that shortfall must be central to any serious affordability agenda. Collective bargaining is the most effective mechanism workers have to raise their wages and secure their fair share of economic growth. Expanding union membership and collective bargaining is central to addressing the affordability squeeze.

Unions raise wages for all workers

One of the most well-studied benefits of unions is the ability of collective bargaining to raise pay—resulting in a “union wage premium.”4 Historically, that premium has fluctuated around 15–20% (EPI 2026d). Unions also reduce inequality by compressing the wage distribution within firms, with the largest benefits going to workers at the bottom and middle. This is one reason the union wage premium is typically larger for those with less education, and for Black and Hispanic workers relative to white workers (Bivens et al. 2023).

Less appreciated is that unions also boost wages for nonunion workers. Higher wages at unionized firms make those jobs more attractive to nonunion workers, indirectly pressuring nonunion firms to raise wages to keep their workers. Nonunion firms may also raise wages to avoid unionization, especially when union density is already high in the relevant sectors and occupations.

Finally, unions also advocate for progressive changes in the tax and benefit system—indirectly raising pre-tax pay for low- and middle-wage workers. This happens in two main ways: First, when taxes on top incomes are higher, corporate executives have less incentive to maximize their own income at the expense of workers’ wages.5 Second, more generous social benefits like SNAP and Medicaid increase the bargaining power of lower-paid workers by making them less economically vulnerable and better able to reject low-quality jobs (Bivens 2026).6

These “spillover” effects of unions on the nonunion sector are significant and increase when union density is high. Rosenfeld, Denice, and Laird (2016) and Farber et al. (2021) find strong evidence that unions raise the wages of nonunion workers. Consistent with this, Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd (2021) estimate that between 1979 and 2017, declining unionization was responsible for 37% of the increase in inequality between the 90th and 50th percentiles of male workers—and more than half of that impact occurred because, as unions weakened, nonunion employers faced less pressure to offer higher wages.

Tripling union density would shift $1.2 trillion a year to working people

Our analysis of the relationship between union density and state median wages finds that for every 10 percentage point difference in union density, real median wages are about 7.2% higher.7 If we tripled union density from 10% to 30%, the real median wage for all workers (including both union and nonunion workers) would rise from $25.67 in 2025 to $29.39 per hour—a 14.5% increase.8 A full-time, full-year worker earning that wage would see annual pay rise by more than $7,700.

To put this into perspective, consider the substantial growth in the gap between pay and productivity between 1979 and 2025. A full-time, full-year worker at the 2025 median wage was paid about $53,400 per year—but would have earned about $76,400 had their pay kept pace with productivity growth (EPI 2026e). Through direct wage increases for union members and unionization’s spillover effects on nonunion workers, tripling union density would close roughly one-third of the productivity-pay gap, increasing annual pay to $61,100.

To contextualize the gain in another way, consider that the median annual cost of a mortgage in the U.S. is $18,252. An additional $7,700 per year would cover more than 40% of that cost.9

Perhaps more strikingly, consider that an extra $7,700 a year adds up to nearly $270,000 (in today’s dollars) over the course of a 35-year career—a life-changing increase for a working family. Adjusting the USDA’s latest estimate of the cost of raising a child to 2025 dollars yields a current cost of roughly $317,000 to raise a child from birth through age 17, including food, housing, transportation, health care, clothing, child care, education, and other expenses (USDA 2017). The additional $270,000 in career earnings that a typical worker would receive if union density were tripled would cover 85% of that cost.

Or, according to the College Board, the average annual cost of attending a four-year in-state public college, including room and board, is about $31,000 (Ma, Pender, and Hu 2025). Over four years, that comes to $124,000 per student—so the additional $270,000 in career earnings would more than cover the cost of sending two children to college.

Yet another way to show how transformational these effects would be for the U.S. economy and the economic security of typical families: Assuming the 14.5% wage boost we estimate from a tripling of union density applies to the bottom 80% of the U.S. workforce, this would raise these workers’ combined pay each year by $1.2 trillion.10 

Several useful reference points help illustrate the scale of this $1.2 trillion increase in workers’ annual pay. First, the increase would be nearly three times as large as the $430 billion U.S. families received in “COVID checks”—and unlike those one-time checks, these gains would be permanent and recurring.11 Second, the $1.2 trillion that tripling union density would shift to workers slightly exceeds the Pentagon’s 2025 budget—a redistribution of income on a scale comparable to the entirety of the U.S. military-industrial complex.12 Third and most revealingly, this increase would claw back a full third of the increase in income inequality since 1979. Between 1979 and 2022, the share of market income going to the richest 20% of households rose by 12.0 percentage points (with nearly all of that increase—10.1 percentage points—accruing to the richest 1%). A $1.2 trillion increase in the incomes of the bottom 80% of households would reverse a third of that shift, 4.0 of the 12.0 percentage points.13

Our estimates likely underestimate future gains

It’s worth noting that while our estimates show large wage gains to workers from tripling union density, they are likely being significantly held down by the fact that union density in the U.S. is starting from such a low level (10%). Our estimates therefore likely understate the wage gains workers will experience once the labor market reaches a higher level of union density. Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd (2021) find that the wage payoff to union density is much larger where density is already high, and this shows up clearly in our analysis as well: Below 15% union density, a one percentage point increase in density is associated with just a 0.2% increase in the median wage; above 15%, the median wage increases by 0.9%—a wage response more than four times as large (see Figure B).14

The economic intuition behind this 15% threshold is that a minimum scale of unionization is needed for collectively bargained wages to exert a strong influence on pay scales—both union and nonunion—throughout the broader economy. While every additional percentage point of unionization gives another 1% of workers the union pay premium, it has a more limited effect on wage-setting throughout the broader labor market until overall union density reaches around 15%.

Today’s typical state has a union density of about 10%, which means the wage gains from each additional percentage point of unionization—while still significant—are muted relative to the gains that occur once union density exceeds 15%. In essence, the policy assault on unions in recent decades has pushed density so low that we need a 50% increase—from 10% to 15% union density—just to start realizing the “normal” gains unions can bring to a high-road economy. Raising density from 10% to 30% would carry the labor market across that 15% threshold and well into the higher-density regime, where each additional percentage point increase in unionization delivers substantially larger gains for the median worker. This is why a transformational policy effort is needed: We must rebuild union density from the depressed levels created by decades of political neglect to the point where the full wage benefits of widespread collective bargaining can be realized.

Unions reduce racial wage gaps

Because unions increase wages for Black and Hispanic workers more than for white workers, unions reduce racial wage gaps. And this dynamic is not new—research shows that the union premium was already higher for Black workers than for white workers by the mid-20th century, meaning that the spread of unionization in that era was one of the country’s greatest forces for racial justice (Farber et al. 2021; Bivens et al. 2023). But with the decline in unionization over the past 45 years, racial wage gaps have widened and are now substantially worse than they were in 1979—damage that restoring union power would more than reverse. In 2025, the median Black or Hispanic worker earned 76.5% of the median white worker wage—a wage gap of 23.5%. Tripling union density would close more than one-third of that gap, reducing it to 14.6%.15

Unions boost benefits, not just pay

Unions also increase other forms of compensation, like health insurance benefits. In 2025, 95% of union workers had employer-sponsored health insurance, relative to 71% of nonunion workers. In addition, as discussed later, unions further reduce uninsured rates by advocating for increased public benefits like Medicaid. Figure C shows that nonelderly uninsurance rates are substantially lower in states with higher union density. To do this analysis, we divided the 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia into three equally sized groups based on their current (2023–2025) level of union density.16 Most low-union-density states have double-digit uninsured rates, but these rates typically fall to the single digits in medium- and high-union-density states. If union density tripled and all states were high-density states, the national nonelderly uninsured rate would fall by about a quarter, from 9.8% to 7.3%.

Figure C

Unions benefit communities

Unions don’t just improve workers’ pay and benefits—they give workers a voice in shaping the social fabric of their communities, lifting standards for union and nonunion workers alike. The data reveal a strong correlation between higher levels of unionization and a range of economic and personal well-being measures. When more workers are in unions, states have more equitable economic and social structures (McNicholas et al. 2025). Meanwhile, states with anti-union policies have lower union density and consistently worse outcomes across these measures.

Economic well-being

We first examine economic well-being—broadly defined as working people having the means to support themselves—using two indicators: the gap between productivity and pay, and unemployment insurance recipiency rates.

As discussed earlier, there has been a growing gap since 1979 between productivity—the value of the output generated by a worker in the U.S. economy in an hour of work, on average—and typical workers’ hourly compensation. Far from accidental, this divergence stems from deliberate policy choices in the U.S. beginning around 1980 that allowed the gains from economic growth to be increasingly captured by the highest earners, shareholders, and other capital owners—rather than being broadly shared across low-, middle-, and high-income households (Shierholz 2024).

The degree to which productivity gains have translated into higher pay for typical workers varies widely across states. Figure D shows that in states with smaller declines in unionization since 1979, a larger share of productivity gains translated into higher pay for typical workers. In other words, in places where unions remained stronger, it wasn’t just those with high incomes and wealth who benefited from economic growth—working people, both unionized and nonunionized, saw a bigger share of the gains.

Figure D

Unemployment insurance (UI) recipiency rates also offer insight into economic well-being. When a worker is laid off and their household income falls, unemployment insurance supports them and their family until they find another job. UI is a joint federal-state program that relies on state UI systems to effectively deliver benefits to unemployed workers. States differ in their rules and approaches under the federal UI framework, leading to wide variation in the share of unemployed workers receiving UI benefits (the UI recipiency rate).

Studies show a strong correlation between higher UI recipiency rates and high union density (Clegg et al. 2022); Figure E illustrates this strong positive relationship. In recent years, the average UI recipiency rate in high-union-density states was 36%, double the 18% rate in low-union-density states.

Unions fight to increase UI eligibility, ease of access, benefit levels, and benefit duration—to the benefit of all workers, union and nonunion (Hertel-Fernandez and Gould-Werth 2020). The strong correlation between union density and state UI recipiency rates suggests that expanding unionization by removing anti-union policies would result in higher UI recipiency rates.

Figure E

Personal health and well-being

Next we examine personal health and well-being—which we define as an individual’s physical and mental health—using one indicator, Medicaid expansion.

As we noted earlier, almost all union workers (95%) have access to health insurance, and uninsured rates are lower in high-union-density states. To show how unions influence health care coverage beyond explicitly bargained workplace plans, we examine whether a state has expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to broaden eligibility. The Medicaid public insurance program provides critical health coverage to families and individuals with low incomes. Research has found that Medicaid expansion has expanded access to health care; improved health outcomes, including fewer premature deaths; lowered uncompensated costs; bolstered financial security; and boosted economic mobility (CBPP 2020). While the Medicaid program has broad federal guidelines, it is administered by states—and a 2012 Supreme Court decision gave them the power to decide on eligibility and expansion. Since 2014, 40 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted Medicaid expansion; 10 states have not (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).

Figure F shows a stark divide between high- and low-union-density states in terms of Medicaid expansion. All 17 high-union-density states have expanded Medicaid. Out of 17 medium-union-density states, 14 have adopted Medicaid expansion (Alabama, Kansas, and Wisconsin are the only medium-union-density states that have not adopted expansion). Just 10 out of 17 low-union-density states have adopted Medicaid expansion (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are the low-union-density states that have not adopted expansion).

There is a strong correlation between union density and Medicaid expansion. If states removed anti-union policies and became high-union-density states, they would be joining a group of states in which Medicaid expansion is currently universal, potentially helping to close the Medicaid coverage gap that currently leaves 1.5 million adults uninsured (Zhang 2026).

Figure F

Spending on public education

Union density also intersects with public education investment. Investment in public education helped make the U.S. the richest country in the world in the 20th century. The benefits of universal education are many—including a more productive workforce, and a more informed and engaged democratic society equipped to think critically. Unions play a key role in negotiating public spending on education. At the school district and state level, education unions advocate for increased funds for schools. 

We can measure the relationship between union density and public education investment by looking at states’ level of per-pupil spending. Adequate levels of per-pupil spending are crucial to maintaining quality education; low per-pupil spending limits the support students receive toward achieving their learning goals and makes it harder for districts to retain teachers and staff by offering competitive salaries or benefits. Increased per-pupil funding pays off for students. Research has consistently shown that increased funding for schools improves educational attainment, student achievement, and economic outcomes in adulthood (Jackson and Mackevicius 2023). In one study, researchers examined the impact of school finance reforms between 1972 and 2010 and found that a 10% increase in school spending for 12 years leads to increased high school graduation rates, 7% higher wages, and 10% higher family incomes in adulthood for children from districts that saw the spending increase (Jackson, Johnson, and Persico 2016).

Figure G shows that states with higher rates of unionization spend substantially more per pupil on education—demonstrating the impact of union advocacy on education investment and building a more educated society.

Figure G

Voting rights and democratic participation

Many states disproportionately disenfranchise people of color (Johnson and Feldman 2020), and the number of voter suppression laws enacted across the country is high and rising. These restrictions threaten democratic participation and the stability of our democracy.

Unions strengthen democracy by encouraging civic engagement and helping workers become informed voters. Unions communicate with their members about issues and candidates to make sure workers have the information they need when they go to the polls. And as democratic institutions where members elect leaders and ratify contracts, unions serve as “schools of democracy,” equipping workers with civic skills that carry over to public life (Andrias and Hertel-Fernandez 2026). More broadly, because many organizations that shape policy represent elite or corporate interests, unions are a countervailing force, bringing working people’s voices into legislative debates and building coalitions that can win against well-resourced opposition.

Research shows that these effects translate into greater political participation. Union members are more likely to vote than the general public, and voter turnout is higher in states with greater unionization (EPI 2021). Conversely, turnout is lower in states with “right-to-work” (RTW) laws, which weaken unions and in turn the civic engagement they foster. Feigenbaum, Hertel-Fernandez, and Williamson (2018) found that RTW laws reduced presidential election turnout by 2%, a substantial effect given the narrow margins that often decide presidential elections.

We build on this evidence by examining the relationship between union strength and laws that restrict voting. Figure H shows that there is a strong correlation between union density and voter suppression legislation. A large majority of low- and medium-union-density states passed at least one voter restriction bill between 2023 and 2025, while a large majority of high-union-density states passed none. Among high-union-density states, 14 out of 17 did not pass any voter restrictions during this period, while only eight of the medium-union-density states and three of the low-union-density states can claim this distinction.

These results are consistent with evidence that unions actively defend voting rights. Unions have long mobilized members to oppose voter suppression laws, educated communities about their rights, and turned out to vote despite increasing barriers (Bondy 2025). Unions have also expanded access to voting: Dean, McCallum, and Grumbach (2023) found that county-level union density was associated with greater access to ballot drop boxes—a highly secure way to increase access to voting—during the 2022 midterm elections. Together, these findings suggest that stronger unions not only increase voter participation but also help preserve and expand access to the ballot.

Figure H

State policy and union density

Increasing union density across all states—including those where anti-union policies have historically suppressed unionization—is essential to strengthening both the economy and democracy, improving all workers’ wages, and expanding access to public goods like health care, retirement, and education.

As the previous section made clear, residents of high- and low-union-density states face starkly different economic and social realities. These wide variations in union density across states—and highly variable economic outcomes—are strongly correlated with variations in state labor policies. For example, the union rights of millions of public-sector, agricultural, and domestic workers (including home health care and in-home child care providers) vary by state because workers in these occupations are excluded from coverage under federal law. And even for private-sector workers whose union rights are covered under federal law, collective bargaining rights are limited by anti-union “right-to-work” laws in many states. Research shows that anti-union state policies result in lower union density. Union density averages 6.2% in states with anti-union RTW laws compared with 15.8% in non-RTW states, and states that limit or prohibit public-sector collective bargaining have lower overall union density than other states (Sherer and Gould 2024; Sherer and Morrissey 2026).

Here, we consider what union density would be if states with certain anti-union laws adopted the policies of states that better protect workers’ rights to unionize and collectively bargain. We consider two policy changes: 1) requiring state and local governments to bargain with public-sector workers who choose to unionize; and 2) repealing so-called “right-to-work” laws that limit collective bargaining rights of private-sector workers. These are two of many policies that states can adopt to remove barriers to unionization, but we focus on them because of their clearly documented, large-scale impact on large numbers of workers across much of the country. At present, roughly half of U.S. states have RTW laws in effect and do not require public employers to bargain with unionized public employees. Modeling changes to these two policies lets us estimate what would happen to union density if we removed large state-by-state labor policy disparities and created a stable “floor” for collective bargaining for workers across all states. This provides an important starting point for considering how additional, stronger state labor policies might affect union density, worker wages, and democracy.

Public-sector workers face wide disparities in bargaining rights across states

Variations in collective bargaining rights for public-sector workers are rooted in history, notably in Southern states where systemic racism drove the enactment of anti-union policies (Childers 2023; Dixon 2007; Kaufman 2018; Stelzner, Hoyt, and Ramchurn 2019). By the 1980s, most states had enacted public-sector collective bargaining policies, though these statutes varied in strength and coverage (Freeman and Ichniowski 1988). In more recent decades, many states have repealed or harshly limited formerly robust public-sector collective bargaining statutes, while a few states have expanded them. A key distinction is whether state and local government employers have a legal duty to bargain with unionized employees over pay and working conditions, rather than being merely permitted to bargain—or outright banned from doing so.

Sherer and Morrissey (2026) classify state public-sector bargaining rules across five categories of workers: teachers, police officers, firefighters, other local government employees, and other state government employees. States vary widely in which categories they cover and how strongly, and that variation maps closely onto union density. In states with strong, uniform duty-to-bargain rules across all five categories, public-sector union density can be close to 50% or higher, while in states that ban bargaining across most categories, state and local density can fall as low as the single digits. Pay consequences track these differences. Across the country, public-sector employees earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar experience and education. This public-sector pay gap is smaller when bargaining rights are strong: Sherer and Morrissey (2026) estimate that in states with robust duty-to-bargain rights, public-sector workers earn 14.3% less than private-sector workers; the gap widens to 19.6% in states where bargaining is only permitted, and to 22.5% in states where it is banned.

“Right-to-work” laws weaken union density and suppress wages for all workers

“Right-to-work” laws prohibit unions and employers from negotiating over union security—the contract terms under which workers covered by a union contract either join the union or pay an agency fee covering their share of representation costs. State RTW laws first emerged as part of anti-union industry campaigns to suppress multiracial worker organizing and maintain Jim Crow labor relations in Southern states following the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (Pierce 2017). By making union finances more unpredictable and leaving unions more vulnerable to ongoing employer interference, these laws weaken unions’ stability, suppress union density, and limit workers’ bargaining power. As a result, RTW laws generate negative outcomes for all workers—with or without a union. States with RTW laws have lower unionization rates and higher income inequality, and workers in RTW states on average have lower wages and benefits (Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd 2022). Sherer and Gould (2024) document that workers in RTW states earn 3.2% less than otherwise comparable workers in non-RTW states—about $1,670 per year for a full-time worker.

There are currently 27 states with RTW laws in place—including Colorado, which is not a traditional RTW state, but whose law has, since 1943, effectively imposed RTW conditions. By barring unionized workers from negotiating over union security unless they first win a second, state-administered election by a 75% supermajority of those voting or 50% plus one of all eligible workers—whichever is higher—Colorado’s anti-union policy has produced RTW-like outcomes, so we group it with RTW states.

Removing state anti-union policies would raise national union density from 9.9% to 14.4%

We estimate that these two policy changes—1) requiring state and local governments to bargain with public-sector workers who choose to unionize, and 2) repealing RTW—would substantially increase unionization in states that currently have more anti-union policies in place, as shown in Table 1.17 In the 24 states without a duty to bargain with public-sector employees, establishing that duty would raise public-sector union density from 16.7% to 46.7%. In the 27 RTW states, repealing RTW would increase private-sector density from 3.4% to 8.8%. Overall, removing these anti-union policies would increase union density in 27 states from 5.4% to 14.3%. Nationally, union density would rise from 9.9% to 14.4%.18 This is a conservative national estimate reflecting changes in union density only for the 27 states undergoing hypothetical policy changes and not including likely impacts on the 23 states and D.C. where stronger union policies are already in place. These states would likely also see some level of increased union density under this scenario, given that removal of anti-union state policies across the country would strengthen worker bargaining power and union organizing resources in all states.

Table 1

Removing state-level anti-union policies would increase median wages by up to $4,900 a year

Were the 27 RTW states to increase unionization to estimated levels, overall annualized median wages would rise by $1,600 to $4,900 for full-time, full-year workers, depending on the state. Table 1 shows that if Virginia’s density rose from 4.9% to 15.5% because of the removal of state-level anti-union policies, annual pay for full-time, full-year workers at the state median wage would increase by about $4,500. Removing these anti-union policies in Texas could cause a similar increase in density, raising annual pay by $3,400.

Of course, were workers in all states able to achieve 30% union density, the effects on median pay would be even larger. These impacts are shown in Figure I. The 23 percentage point increase in density in Alabama, for example, would increase annualized median pay there for full-time, full-year workers by about $8,500.

Figure I

Recent state policy changes show that anti-union laws lower union density

Recent “natural experiments” in states that have changed one or both of these labor policies also show the impact on union density. For example, in states that adopted new RTW laws since 2010, union density fell 3.8 percentage points between 2010 and 2023. By comparison, union density declined only 2 percentage points during this same period in non-RTW states (Sherer and Gould 2024).

Wisconsin is an example of a state that both repealed a previous duty to bargain with public employees (in 2011) and enacted a new RTW law (in 2015). Since adopting these anti-union policies, between 2011 and 2024, Wisconsin’s union density has fallen by half, from 14% to 7%. Over this same period, national union density declined just 2 percentage points, from 13% to 11%. With both a RTW law in place and no public-sector duty to bargain, Wisconsin’s union density is plummeting in comparison with national and regional trends (Dresser, Rogers, and Vasquez 2025). Other studies show that Wisconsin’s adoption of anti-labor policies and declining union density have generated a wide array of harmful outcomes for the state’s economy and democracy, including sharp decreases in public education spending, declining worker wages, widening public-sector pay gaps (including stark increases in gender pay gaps for teachers), and declining voter participation (Nack et al. 2019; García and Han 2021; Biasi and Sarsons 2022; Feigenbaum, Hertel-Fernandez, and Williamson 2018).

States have other policy options to enable workers to increase union density

Beyond these two policy changes, states have numerous other opportunities to increase union density by removing obstacles to unionization and ensuring more workers have full rights to collectively bargain (Sherer 2026). A few examples that have not yet been adopted in most states include:

• Creating pathways to collective bargaining for all workers in occupations not currently covered by federal labor law, including in-home child care and home health care workers, agricultural workers, and rideshare or delivery drivers treated as “independent contractors” by digital platform companies;
• Protecting workers’ freedom to refuse mandatory “captive audience” meetings on political or religious topics not related to work duties, including mandatory anti-union meetings employers typically hold when attempting to block workers from unionizing;
• Ensuring workers whose paychecks stop due to a strike or lockout are eligible to apply for unemployment insurance; and
• Establishing or expanding state agency capacities and public labor education programs that ensure workers can easily learn about their union rights.

We do not model the specific impacts of all possible state policy changes in this report. But our conservative, baseline estimate of increases in union density likely to result from removing two of the largest state obstacles to workers’ union rights—RTW laws in 27 states and the lack of a duty to bargain for public employees in 24 states—suggests that combining these changes with additional policy changes would likely lead to additional increases in union density across the country.

Federal policy and union density

Given the clear benefits of tripling union membership, it is critical that policymakers prioritize reforms that enable workers to organize and collectively bargain. It is tempting to search for a policy “silver bullet” to restore the promise of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), our primary labor law. But the reality is that policymakers must adopt comprehensive labor law reforms to eradicate the effects of decades of political neglect that has steadily undermined the effectiveness of U.S. labor law. As discussed above, these reforms must at a minimum reverse state anti-union policies, via state or ideally federal labor law reforms that end Jim Crow-era occupational exclusions, ensure equal union rights and pathways to collective bargaining for all workers in all states, and eliminate RTW laws.

Labor law reform has passed the House three times with bipartisan support

A consistent narrative maintains that such policy change is impossible, but that narrative relies on the mistaken notions that real reforms require more political power than the labor movement has and that our legislative process prevents labor law reform. It is true that winning policy fights takes significant political capital. But labor law reform must not be seen as solely a labor movement priority. It is central to any attempt to address affordability pressures and economic inequality. And in this moment, such reform is imperative to our democracy. While the Senate filibuster rules do prevent much legislative progress, they are not inevitable dictates but rather agreed-upon rules that, as history shows, can change. It is deeply destructive to our political system to convince working people that the system simply cannot be expected to serve their interests, which is what this flawed narrative around labor law reform reinforces. To be clear, policies favored by elites benefiting from the unequal status quo are far more likely to become law than even broadly popular ones. But these reforms have the potential to help rebalance this inequality.

In fact, in the last two decades, legislation to significantly reform labor law has passed the U.S. House of Representatives three times—with bipartisan support each time. Even in the current Congress, legislation aimed at restoring collective bargaining rights has managed to bypass Republican House leadership opposition via parliamentary procedure (discharge petition) and pass with bipartisan support.19 Of the on average 12,000 bills introduced in a given Congress, labor law reform measures have had more success than roughly 95% of bills—passing a chamber with bipartisan support. Of course, Senate rules around the filibuster requiring 60 votes to proceed on consideration of various measures have been a significant impediment to the Senate passing these reforms. However, since 2013, the Senate has used the “constitutional option” to change its own rules for procedures and has eliminated the 60-vote requirement to proceed on specific debates three times. That could be done here, too.

Record high union approval strengthens the case for labor law reform

Labor unions today have significantly higher public approval ratings than when major labor law reform was last considered, polling more than 20 points higher.20 Since 2021, approval for unions has remained high, with over 68% of people in the U.S. viewing unions favorably (Brenan 2025). This positive view of unions is shared across generations, with majorities of Boomers (59%), Gen X (58%), Millennials (61%), and Gen Z (63%) viewing unions favorably. Young adults (ages 18–35) have the highest favorability rate at 72% (Glass 2025).

Unions are viewed positively across party lines, with both Democrats (90%) and independents (69%) having high favorability rates for unions, and over 40% of Republicans approving of labor unions (Brenan 2025). Some conservative organizations recognize that unions are popular among workers: Research by American Compass (2025) finds that at least 46% of Republicans view unions somewhat favorably, with favorability increasing among young Republicans (60%).

Data from the American National Election Studies show that people in the U.S. favor unions over big business now more than ever—with the average rating for labor unions hitting a new high (60%), while big business hit a low (44%) (Sojourner and Reich 2025). Further, most people in the U.S. say the decline in union density is bad for the country (60%) and bad for working people (62%). Most young adults (69%), including young Republicans (52%) and young Democrats (82%), view the decline in union density as negative for working people (Van Green 2025).

Three bipartisan bills would pave the way toward restoring collective bargaining rights

As with many popular policies, high public opinion of unions has not translated into the enactment of labor law reform. Even though several bills that would reform aspects of our current labor law are being introduced and even passing with bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate has failed to act on the legislation. There are three main bills with bipartisan support that would help reform our current labor law system and each should be passed.21

• The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act would restore private-sector workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. It would streamline the process of forming a union, create a roadmap to reaching a first collective bargaining agreement, establish civil monetary penalties for employers who violate labor law, among other reforms—such as expanding coverage to more workers, overriding state “right-to-work” laws, and banning “captive audience” meetings (McNicholas, Poydock, and Rhinehart 2021). Since its first introduction in 2019, the PRO Act has passed the House of Representatives twice with bipartisan support.
• The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act (PSFNA) would establish public-sector workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. This would fill an important gap—there is currently no federal law that guarantees all public-sector workers at the federal, state, and local levels the right to organize and collectively bargain. As a result, more than half of U.S. states today lack comprehensive collective bargaining laws for state and local public-sector workers (Sherer 2026).
• The Protecting America’s Workforce Act (PAWA) would reverse President Trump’s executive order that revokes collective bargaining rights for federal workers. The bill would reestablish collective bargaining rights for more than 1 million federal workers. In December 2025, PAWA passed the House of Representatives by a 231-195 vote.

Beyond passing these important bills, policymakers should also consider additional policies to help workers access collective bargaining and union membership. We propose two concrete policies that complement the labor reforms above. While these two proposals alone will not result in tripling union membership, they could help more workers receive the benefits of collective bargaining, which serves as a corrective to the affordability crunch and the economic inequality that characterizes our economy.

Guaranteed annual raises for workers in first contract arbitration

When workers win a union and begin to collectively bargain with their employer, both parties have an obligation to bargain in “good faith.” However, given that the NLRA lacks meaningful penalties for violations, employers often engage in bad faith bargaining tactics with few consequences. In fact, it is well documented that many union-busting consultants view bargaining as a new phase of union-busting and advise employers to drag out bargaining for as long as possible. The goal is to avoid reaching a contract for a year or more, hoping that workers will then give up their union through decertification, which is permitted one year after the election. It is no coincidence that workers who have successfully formed a new union spend an average of 465 days bargaining for a first contract before reaching an agreement.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, which overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month, would discourage delay and promote good faith bargaining by establishing a mediation and binding arbitration process when employers refuse to bargain in good faith. Beyond guaranteeing workers first contract arbitration, we suggest the adoption of a mandatory cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for workers whose first contract bargaining ends up in arbitration. This would establish an important guardrail for workers in the arbitration process, given that an arbitrator will ultimately impose a final contract on both parties. This provision would ensure that workers receive at least a COLA each year of their first contract. In other words, by voting for a union, workers would be voting for a guaranteed raise.22

For the average production, nonsupervisory worker, a 3% COLA would result in almost a $2,000 increase in annual earnings for a full-time, full-year worker. 23 Table 2 shows that, while these increases would vary widely by industry because pay varies widely by industry, workers in some of the lowest-paid industries would still see annual pay increases above $1,000.

Table 2

Default collective bargaining when CEO-to-worker pay ratios exceed 100:1

The outsized and ballooning gap in recent decades between CEO pay and the pay of typical workers is among the clearest signs that the economy’s rules have been rigged to allow the most powerful to claim oversized shares of income growth. This CEO-to-worker pay ratio rose nearly tenfold from 1978 to 2024, as the pay of CEOs rose over 1,000% while the pay of typical workers rose just 26%. The explosion of CEO pay was driven not by CEO’s rising productivity or skills, but by policy changes that boosted both the incentives and the ability of CEOs to raise their own pay.

When a firm’s CEO makes more than 100 times what the typical worker in their industry makes, effective corporate governance has clearly broken down—which threatens the ability of those outside the C-suite to receive their fair share of the firm’s income. The two main parties competing with executives to claim a share of a firm’s income are the shareholders and the firm’s workers. The best mechanism for ensuring that workers are able to bargain against CEOs and shareholders for their fair share of the income generated by the firm is collective bargaining.

We propose instituting default collective bargaining in any firm that meets or exceeds this 100:1 ratio. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting already requires the annual disclosure of CEO pay (SEC 2007). We propose that these disclosures be reported not only to the SEC but also to the National Labor Relations Board. Comparing those disclosures with Bureau of Labor Statistics data on the pay of a typical worker economy-wide in various industries, the NLRB would determine which corporations meet the default collective bargaining ratio of 100:1.24 The NLRB would then publish a public notice and notify specific corporations and their workers that the default collective bargaining ratio had been met, triggering default collective bargaining at the firm. The NLRB would then direct an election for a bargaining representative to be held within 45 days of the notification.25

Nonsupervisory workers at these firms would then have the opportunity to select a bargaining representative of their choosing—whether a labor organization or other representative. The NLRB would conduct the election for and certify a bargaining representative, after which bargaining would start. For purposes of default collective bargaining, the presumption for the bargaining unit would be a wall-to-wall unit—a model where all nonsupervisory employees join a single bargaining unit—ensuring comprehensive coverage under the collective bargaining process and resulting contract. This standard would apply absent an employer or employee representative demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.26 The NLRB would then determine the appropriate bargaining unit, the same way the agency already accepts or rejects bargaining unit proposals. We propose that all such questions be resolved within 10 days of the NLRB’s notice of election for bargaining representative. This proposal would not apply to existing bargaining units, but in firms where unions are present, it would apply to any nonunionized nonsupervisory employees, as described below.

A threshold of 100:1 for the CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio is reasonable and fair. A ratio this high clearly signals a fatal breakdown in the ability of the firm’s workers and shareholders to protect their income claims against executives looking to maximize their own incomes. A ratio this high will not affect most publicly traded companies but will be relevant to a large share of the U.S. workforce.

Comprehensive data on CEO pay are available only for a subset of firms: The Compustat Execucomp database tracks CEO pay for half of publicly owned companies (and most U.S. firms are not publicly owned). For the firms in the Compustat database, under half (41.7%) had a CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio exceeding 100:1 in 2024. This proposal would provide the 30 million workers employed in firms that have higher ratios—representing about a fifth of total private-sector employment in the United States—with collective bargaining.

It is not a coincidence that the stratospheric rise in CEO pay was accompanied by an acceleration in the downward trend of unionization in the United States. The broader correlation between declining unionization and the rise of inequality is well established, and the highest-quality research documents that this relationship is clearly causal, with the decline of unions leading to a higher share of income claimed by households at the top of the income distribution (Farber et al. 2021).

To be clear, using a threshold CEO-to-worker pay ratio as a trigger for default collective bargaining will not alone solve the problem of excess CEO pay. We focus on this threshold as a policy trigger because it is a readily available and measurable indicator of the outsized control of executives over the distribution of the firm’s income. In the total absence of collective bargaining or any other strong corporate governance institutions, firm executives will shift income in a zero-sum fashion away from both the workers and the shareholders of a firm. If shareholders manage to assert some influence over CEO pay—e.g., through public pressure campaigns or say-on-pay mandates—one likely outcome will be CEOs looking to suppress the firm’s wages even further to make room for both their own outsized salaries and a return to shareholders that placates them. Only collective bargaining can protect the interests and earnings of workers in firms where executives pocket an outsized share of firms’ incomes.

If collective bargaining became widespread enough throughout the corporate sector, it would likely not only boost workers’ wages but also rein in excess executive pay broadly—actually helping shareholders at the same time. The research on this question is encouraging: Unions and collective bargaining have been found to significantly restrain excess CEO pay (Huang et al. 2017; Nanda, Nishikawa, and Prevost 2025; DiNardo, Hallock, and Pischke 2000). But even if expanded collective bargaining does not tamp down the CEO-to-worker pay ratio beneath our 100:1 threshold, it will at a minimum protect workers’ interests from excess executive power—without foreclosing any policy route shareholders take to restrain excess CEO pay.

Currently, a number of firms with at least some degree of unionization among their workforces have CEO-to-worker pay ratios that exceed 100:1. But this is not an argument against using this threshold as an indicator of dysfunctional corporate governance requiring a strong policy solution. For many of these firms, union coverage among their rank-and-file workforce is far from complete, so this proposal would help fill in glaring gaps. Most of these firms clearly do pay wages that are among the highest in their industries, which signals that the policy of default collective bargaining to protect workers’ interests in the face of dysfunctional corporate governance would largely work. Finally, one key empirical driver of high CEO pay is the simple size of the firm: The CEO-to- worker pay ratio rises steeply with the size of the firm, all else equal.27 The firms with CEO-to-worker pay ratios above 100:1 and some degree of unionization among their workforces are large firms; it would take a very strong effect of collective bargaining on CEO pay specifically to have kept pay ratios at these large firms well below average.

In our world with only 10% union density (and less than this in the private sector), it should hardly be a shock that collective bargaining by itself has not been able to stem what has been an irresistible tide toward high CEO pay. Even large increases in executive pay are not enormous when compared with overall returns to shareholders. Given the strong policy and economic barriers to shareholder activism in restraining CEO pay, it takes truly outrageous pay scales to mobilize enough organized opposition from shareholders. In those firms where it is relatively strong, collective bargaining has protected workers’ interests, and that is the primary goal we are looking to achieve with this policy. The fact that in these firms the CEOs have felt free to shift income to themselves at the expense of other stakeholders (like the shareholders of the firm) is not a sign that default collective bargaining is a bad solution for protecting workers’ interests—it is only a sign that the problem of excess CEO pay needs to be addressed from other angles as well.

Tripling union density is what workers want—and it is entirely achievable

Restoring union density to 1950s levels is not a nostalgic pipe dream. Federal and state policymakers have a clear roadmap for tripling union density. While no single reform discussed in this report is a silver bullet for the problems facing the country, taken together they would address one of the worst: the erosion of workers’ right to bargain for their fair share of the wealth they produce. These reforms are meaningful steps toward tripling union density, and toward an economy where productivity gains are shared broadly, not captured by corporate elites and the superrich.

The evidence in this report shows what is at stake. Tripling union density would deliver nearly $270,000 in extra earnings over the median worker’s career and shift $1.2 trillion annually to working people—reversing a third of the rise in inequality since 1979. Rebuilding union power would narrow racial wage gaps by more than a third, and removing state anti-union policies would help dismantle the legacy of Jim Crow-era campaigns aiming to suppress multiracial organizing. States with higher union density deliver better economic and personal well-being outcomes to their residents, and they have healthier democracies with fewer voting restrictions. At a time when the voting rights of all citizens are under attack, rebuilding union power is a democratic imperative.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Hilary Wething for her contribution to this report’s section on public education spending. We also thank Matthew Wich, Summer Labor Fellow from the Institute for Social Concerns at the University of Notre Dame, for his support of the project.

Appendix

Methodology

How we measure union density

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides data on both union membership—workers who are full-fledged union members—and union representation, which includes both union members and workers who are not members but are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. As a result, the share of workers represented by a union is higher than the share of union members. For example, in 2025, 11.2% of workers were represented by a union, but 10% were union members.

In this report, we measure union density as the share of workers who are members of a union. Throughout this report, the terms “union density” and “unionization” refer to those who are members of a union. When measuring union density by state, data are averaged over three years (2023 to 2025) to give a more accurate estimate of state unionization rates and avoid temporary single-year changes due to small sample sizes in some states.

Estimating wage effects of tripling union density

To assess how much higher wages would be after tripling union density, we use state-level annual data on wages and unionization from 1979 to 2019 and compare median wages with unionization rates across states and over time. Specifically, we regress the state median wage on the state union membership rate, controlling for permanent differences in state characteristics, national annual shocks (like recessions), and annual state characteristics like state unemployment rate, minimum wage level, and education, race, age, gender, broad industry, and managerial shares.

Using state-level data from the Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group for 1979–2019, we regress the log median wage on union density with state and year fixed effects and additional covariates: the log minimum wage, unemployment rate, and shares of those with less than a high school degree and just a high school degree, age group shares, and shares of those who are white, Black, Hispanic, married, and shares of those in the public sector, manufacturing, construction, services, and a managerial occupation. Regressions are weighted by state employment levels averaged over 1979–2019. The coefficient on union membership is 0.724 with a standard error, accounting for clustering at the state level, of 0.191.

To calculate effects of increasing union density on racial wage gaps, we use the same wage regression as before, except where the dependent variable is the state annual racial wage gap.

The calculation yielding the $1.2 trillion estimate of the annual increase in workers’ pay from tripling union density is as follows. First, the share of total labor income claimed by the bottom 80% is calculated from data provided by the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO 2026) Distribution of Household Income data (we focus on the bottom 80% because research has generally identified the positive effect of unions on boosting pay as applying mostly to union and nonunion workers in the bottom 80% of the U.S. workforce). In 1979 this share was 60.5%, but by 2019 it had fallen to 50.1%. We use 50% for our calculations. Then we multiply the 14.5% boost to pay stemming from a tripling of union density by this 50% of labor income to get an estimate (7.25%) of how much total labor compensation would rise in the event of a tripling of union density. In the first quarter of 2026, the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 2.1 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (2026a) reports that total labor compensation was $16.1 trillion. Multiplying this by the 7.25% pay boost from tripling union density yields $1.16 trillion in higher pay for the bottom 80%. We believe this is the appropriate estimate for approximating how much higher wages would be for most workers if union density tripled. While potential caveats merit consideration, none, in our view, hold much force. For example, the regressions used earlier in the paper use median wages, not median total labor compensation, as the dependent variable. However, a long research literature has highlighted that benefit premiums stemming from unionization are likely even larger than wage premiums (Knepper 2020). To the degree that tripling union density works by giving all workers more leverage and bargaining power in labor markets, it seems clear that some of this leverage will be used to obtain broader and more generous coverage of benefits, not just higher wages. Another objection could be that union effects (both direct and indirect effects) are higher in the middle of the wage distribution than in either the lower or upper parts of the distribution, and hence the full 14.5% wage boost would only apply to (say) the second and middle fifths of workers while workers in the lowest and fourth fifth would see smaller wage boosts. However, in work that has estimated both the overall average effect of unionization on nonunion wages and the effect by wage percentile, the overall average effect is roughly one-half the effect at the median, a result that would be consistent with applying the 14.5% premium to half of all labor income, as we do (Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd 2021). Other research has similarly found that union effects at the median are very close to overall average effects (Baker et al. 2026).

For our analysis of how wage effects differ across union density levels, we use the same regression of log median wages on union density described above, modified to let the slope differ below and above 15% density using a piecewise-linear specification interacting union density with an indicator for density of at least 15%, while retaining the same controls and state and year fixed effects, weighted by state employment. The difference in slopes is statistically significant at the 1% level.

The scatterplot in Figure B uses 50 state-year bins to show this nonlinearity directly. The binned scatterplot groups the state-year observations into 50 employment-weighted bins by union density and plots each bin’s average real log median wage against its average union density, after partialing out the same controls and state and year fixed effects used in the regression.

State union density groupings

We divided the 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia into three equally sized groups based on their current (2023–2025) level of union density.

These groupings are shown in Appendix Table 1. We refer to the 17 states with the highest union density as “high-union-density states” (with 11.9%–25.1% union membership rates); the next 17 states (including D.C.) are “medium-union-density states” (6.8%–11.6%); and the remaining 17 are “low-union-density states” (2.5%–6.1%).

Appendix Table 1

Estimating union density effects of establishing a public-sector duty to bargain and repealing “right-to-work” laws

To estimate the effect of these two policy changes—1) requiring state and local governments to bargain with public-sector workers who choose to unionize, and 2) repealing RTW—we use the CPS Outgoing Rotation Groups for 2023–2025 to compute union density rates in states with stronger union policies (i.e., states with public sector collective bargaining and/or without RTW). We do this separately by industry and major occupation group for the private sector and by level of government (federal, state, and local) for the public sector. We then apply those rates to the workforce of each state that lacks the corresponding policy, holding each state’s industry, occupation, and government-employment mix fixed. Nevada is an exception on the private-sector side: Although Nevada is a RTW state, its private-sector union density is already comparatively high, so we hold its private-sector density at its current level.

Notes

1. “Union membership” refers to workers who are full-fledged union members, while “union representation” includes both union members and workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement but not members. The share of workers represented by a union is thus higher than the share of union members. In 2025, for example, 11.2% were represented by a union and 10% were union members.

2. In 2025, for the fifth consecutive year in a row, approval of unions reached record high levels last seen in the late 1950s, when union membership was roughly triple what it is now.

3. The productivity-pay gap is a measure of how much income is generated in an average hour of work.

4. “Union wage premium” refers to the additional wages paid to union members compared with nonunion workers with similar characteristics.

5. For example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91%, as it was in the 1950s and early 1960s, executives kept far less of each additional dollar of pay than they do under today’s 37% top rate, which reduced the payoff to pursuing ever-larger compensation packages.

6. Relatedly, expanded unemployment benefits during the pandemic boosted workers’ bargaining power and compelled employers to make higher wage offers (Bivens and Banerjee 2023).

7. See appendix for details about our methodology.

8. The real median wage is the wage of the person in the middle of the overall wage distribution, including both union and nonunion workers.

9. The median monthly cost of a mortgage in the U.S. is $1,521 according to Census (2025). Over the course of a year, that is $18,252.

10. See appendix for details about the calculation of this figure.

11. In 2020 and 2021, Congress authorized Economic Impact Payments—better known as the “COVID checks.” Those three rounds of payments added roughly $430 billion to U.S. families’ personal income in those years and were widely viewed as an historically ambitious economic intervention. Data on how much these checks added to personal income can be found at Bureau of Economic Analysis (2026c).

12. Data on federal defense spending in 2025 is from Bureau of Economic Analysis (2026b).

13. Data on the income shares by percentile come from CBO (2026), which contains data through 2022. The calculation of how much the $1.2 trillion gain to wages would reverse the rise in income shares of the top quintile uses data from BEA (2026a).

14. See appendix for details on how we estimated these wage effects.

15. See appendix for details on how we calculated the effects of increasing union density on racial wage gaps.

16. See Appendix Table 1, which shows how we grouped states into low-, medium-, and high-union-density categories.

17. For details on the data and methodology used to produce these estimates, see appendix.

18. For this state-level analysis, we use 2023–2025 averages of union density across states, which is 9.9%, rather than the 10% for 2025 cited earlier in this report.

19. See passage of Protecting America’s Workforce Act and Faster Labor Contracts Act.

20. The last time a major labor law reform was considered was in 2009 with the Employee Free Choice Act.

21. The Protecting the Right to Organize Act has two Republican co-sponsors, the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act has six Republican co-sponsors, and the Protecting America’s Workforce Act has nine Republican co-sponsors.

22. One way to determine the exact COLA amount is to use nonseasonally adjusted values of the national Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These price index values are easily available, less subject to revision, and widely covered in the media. The simplest COLA adjustment would be to use the annual rate of inflation measured as the percent change between the two most recent annual averages of nonseasonally adjusted CPI-U values. See BLS (2023) for other considerations.

23. CBO estimated CPI in 2026 at 2.8%, 2027 at 2.4%, and then 2.3% after—however those estimates were done before the U.S. war in Iran that increased energy prices, so we estimate COLA at 3% for purposes of the proposal. To calculate full-time, full-year worker wages, we used 2025 average production, nonsupervisory wage rates (EPI 2026f).

24. We specifically would recommend calculating the CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio using the methodology detailed in EPI (2025). 

25. In order to appear on the ballot, an individual or organization would have to demonstrate a record of collective bargaining over the preceding three years or obtain 100 signatures or 10% of the workforce, whichever is less.

26. The showing of extraordinary circumstances is referenced in the acute care hospital rule: 29 CFR § 103.30 (1989).

27. This correlation between simple firm size and CEO pay is yet another piece of evidence that CEO pay is not about the skills or acumen of individual CEOs, but is driven by noncompetitive market structures and labor markets for executives.

References

AFL-CIO Tech Institute. 2026. “It’s Better in a Union!” (web page). Accessed July 7, 2026.

Ahlquist, John S., Jake Grumbach, and Thomas Kochan. 2024. The Rise of the ‘Union Curious’: Support for Unionization Among America’s Frontline Workers. Economic Policy Institute, July 2024.

American Compass. 2025. PRO-Tip: Only Some Labor Reforms Are Pro-Worker. May 1, 2025. 

Andrias, Kate, and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez. 2026. Democratic Abundance: An Abundance That Works for Workers. Roosevelt Institute, April 2026.

Baker, Michael, Yosh Halberstam, Kory Kroft, Alexandre Mas, Derek Messacar. 2026. The Impact of Unions on the Wage Distribution: Evidence from Higher Education. American Economic Review: Insights 8, no. 2 (June): 196–213.

Biasi, Barbara, and Heather Sarsons. 2022. “Flexible Wages, Bargaining, and the Gender Gap.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 137, no. 1 (February): 215–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab026.

Bivens, Josh. 2026. “Employer Assessment Fees Are Not an Adequate Solution to Low Wages and Large Safety Net Cuts.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 27, 2026.

Bivens, Josh, and Asha Banerjee. 2023. Lessons from the Inflation of 2021–202(?). Economic Policy Institute, April 2023.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Kyle K. Moore, and Margaret Poydock. 2023. “Unions Promote Racial Equity” (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, July 31, 2023. 

Bondy, Assaf S. 2025. “Workers For Democracy? Trade Unions and the Struggle Against Democratic Backsliding.” Democratization 33, no. 2: 344–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2507359. 

Brenan, Megan. 2025. “Labor Union Approval Relatively Steady at 68% in U.S.” Gallup, August 28, 2025. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2026a. National Income and Product Accounts Table 2.1. – Personal Income and Its Disposition. Accessed June 25, 2026.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2026b. National Income and Product Accounts Table 1.1.5 – Gross Domestic Product. Accessed June 25, 2026.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2026c. COVID-19 and Recovery Archive – Personal Income. Accessed June 25, 2026.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2023. How to Use the Consumer Price Index for Escalation. June 8, 2023.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2026. Employee Benefits in the United States. Table 2. Medical care benefits: Access, participation, and take-up rates, March 2025. Last modified September 25, 2025. Accessed May 4, 2026. 

Census Bureau. 2025. “Monthly Mortgage Payments for Homeowners Who Moved in 2024 Were $2,225, Above the U.S. Median of $1,521.” September 11, 2025.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2020. The Far-Reaching Benefits of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid Expansion (chart book). October 21, 2020. 

Childers, Chandra. 2023. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation. Economic Policy Institute, October 2023.

Clegg, Daniel, Elke Heins, and Philip Rathgeb. 2022. “Unemployment Benefit Governance, Trade Unions And Outsider Protection In Conservative Welfare States.” Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 28, no. 2: 195–210. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221094240. 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2026. Distribution of Household Income 2022.

Dean, Adam, Jamie McCallum, and Jake Grumbach. 2023. Labor Unions and the Defense of American Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, December 2023. 

DiNardo, John, Kevin F. Hallock, and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2000. “Unions and the Labor Market for Managers.” IZA Discussion Paper, August 2000.

Dixon, Marc. 2007. “Limiting Labor: Business Political Mobilization and Union Setback in the States.” Journal of Policy History 19, no 3: 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1353/jph.2007.0015.

Dresser, Laura, Joel Rogers, and Leslie Vasquez. 2025. The State of Working Wisconsin 2025. High Road Strategy Center, August 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2021. “Unions Help Reduce Disparities and Strengthen Our Democracy” (fact sheet). April 23, 2021.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025. “CEO Pay Has Skyrocketed Since 1978: Discussion of our Methods” (web page). Last updated September 25, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026a. “Average Real Annual Wage (2023$),” State of Working America Data Library. Accessed June 30, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026b. “Nominal Wage Tracker” (web page). Accessed June 30, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026c. “The Productivity–Pay Gap” (web page). Last updated March 23, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026d. “Union Wage Premium – Union Wage Premium, Average (Regression-Based),” State of Working America Data Library. Accessed May 4, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026e. “Wage Calculator” (web page). Accessed May 4, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026f. “Hourly Earnings by Industry – Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, Average Nominal Wage,” State of Working America Data Library. Accessed June 30, 2026.

Farber, Henry S., Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu. 2021. “Unions and Inequality over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 136, 3 (August): 1325–1385.

Feigenbaum, James, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, and Vanessa Williamson. 2018. “From the Bargaining Table to the Ballot Box: Political Effects of Right to Work Laws.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 24259, January 2018.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w24259.

Fortin, Nicole, Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd. 2021. Labor Market Institutions and the Distribution of Wages: The Role of Spillover Effects. Journal of Labor Economics 39, no. S2.

Fortin, Nicole, Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd. 2022. “Right-to-Work Laws, Unionization, and Wage Setting.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 30098, June 2022. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30098.

Freeman, Richard B., and Casey Ichniowski. 1988. When Public Sector Workers Unionize. Chicago, Il.: Univ. of Chicago Press.

García, Emma, and Eunice Han. 2021. The Impact of Changes in Public-Sector Bargaining Laws on Districts’ Spending on Teacher Compensation. Economic Policy Institute, April 2021.

Glass, Aurelia. 2025. “Everybody Likes Unions.” Center for American Progress, November 4, 2025. 

Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, and Alix Gould-Werth. 2020. Labor Organizations and Unemployment Insurance: A Virtuous Circle Supporting U.S. Workers’ Voices and Reducing Disparities in Benefits. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, October 2020.

Huang, Qianqian, Feng Jiang, Erik Lie, and Tingting Que. 2017. “The Effect of Labor Unions on CEO Compensation.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 52, no. 2: 553–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109017000072.

Jackson, C. Kirabo, Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. 2016. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131, no. 1: 157–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036. 

Jackson, C. Kirabo, and Claire L. Mackevicius. 2023. “What Impacts Can We Expect from School Spending Policy? Evidence from Evaluations in the United States.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 16, no. 1: 412–446. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20220279.

Johnson, Theodore R., and Max Feldman. 2020. The New Voter Suppression. Brennan Center for Justice, January 2020. 

Kaufman, Dan. 2018. “A Labor Day Reflection on Unions, Race, and Division.” The New Yorker, September 3, 2018.

KFF. 2026. Health Insurance Coverage of Population Ages 0-64: 2024. Accessed May 4, 2026. 

Knepper, Matthew. 2020. “From the Fringe to the Fore: Labor Unions and Employee Compensation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 102, no. 1: 98–112.

Ma, Jennifer, Matea Pender, and Xiaowen Hu. 2025. Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2025, College Board.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Lynn Rhinehart. 2021. “Why Workers Need the Protecting the Right to Organize Act” (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, February 9, 2021.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Heidi Shierholz. 2026. Workers’ Resolve Drives Increase in Unionization in 2025. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Heidi Shierholz, and Hilary Wething. 2025. Unions Aren’t Just Good for Workers—They Also Benefit Communities and Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, August 2025.

Nack, David, Michael Childers, Alexia Kulwiec, and Armando Ibarra. 2019. “The Recent Evolution of Wisconsin Public Worker Unionism Since Act 10.” Labor Studies Journal 45, no. 2: 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X19860585.

Nanda, Vikram, Takeshi Nishikawa, Andrew Prevost. 2025. “The Impact of Unions on Compensation Consultants and CEO Pay.” Financial Management 54, 89–122. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12472.

Pierce, Michael. 2017. The Origins of Right-to-Work: Vance Muse, Anti-Semitism, and the Maintenance of Jim Crow Labor Relations. The Labor and Working-Class History Association, January 12, 2017.

Rosenfeld, Jake, Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird. 2016. Union Decline Lowers Wages of Nonunion Workers. Economic Policy Institute, August 2016. 

Securities and Exchange Commission. 2007. “Executive Compensation” (web page). Last modified January 4, 2007.

Sherer, Jennifer. 2026. Holding the Line: Rights to Unionize and Collectively Bargain. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

Sherer, Jennifer, and Elise Gould. 2024. “Data Show Anti-Union ‘Right-to-Work’ Laws Damage State Economies.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 13, 2024.

Sherer, Jennifer, and Monique Morrissey. 2026. Stronger Collective Bargaining Laws Will Benefit All Virginians. Economic Policy Institute, January 2026.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2024. “Middle-Out Economics Is Good for Workers, Their Families, and the Broader Economy.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 19, 2024.

Sojourner, Aaron, and Adam Reich. 2025. “Americans Favor Labor Unions Over Big Business Now More Than Ever.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 20, 2025. 

Stelzner, Mark, Eric Hoyt, and Toushita Ramchurn. 2019. Structured Conflict: Changes in Federal and State Labor Laws and Strike Activity, 1950 to 2017. Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst, May 2019.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. “2015 Expenditures on Children By Families” (web page). Accessed June 30, 2026.

Van Green, Ted. 2025. “Majorities of Adults See Decline of Union Membership as Bad for the U.S. and Working People.” Pew Research Center, August 27, 2025. 

Zhang, Elizabeth. 2026. Nearly 3 Million Uninsured Adults Would Gain a Path to Medicaid Coverage if Their States Adopted ACA Medicaid Expansion. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 19, 2026.

Figure A

These increases continue to be crucial for low-wage workers as they contend with the affordability crisis. The average increase in annual wages for a full-time, year-round worker resulting from these minimum-wage hikes ranges from $573 in Oregon to $811 in Alaska. These pay raises directly boost workers’ incomes, giving them a leg-up in the race against rising prices—a straightforward example of how policymakers can often more easily tackle affordability challenges through policy decisions that boost wages, such as setting strong wage floors.

A higher minimum wage has a positive impact on more than just the workers who currently earn the minimum wage; indirectly affected workers will see their pay go up too as employers adjust their wage ladders to the new wage floor. Our analysis of the increases in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, D.C., accounts for these “spillover” effects and finds:

• Women make up more than half (56.3%) of affected workers.
• The wage increases disproportionately benefit Black and Hispanic workers. Black workers make up 15.3% of affected workers, despite making up 10.4% of the workforce across the three areas. Hispanic workers make up a similar percentage of the workforce (12.4%) but make up more than a fourth (26.0%) of affected workers.
• The vast majority (89.3%) of affected workers are age 20 or older, and more than 3 in 5 workers (62.1%) are 25 or older.
• More than half (52.9%) of the affected workers work full-time.
• The increases will raise wages for those who need it the most. Half (50.5%) of affected workers belong to households whose incomes are less than 200% of the poverty line.
• More than 1 in 5 (23.6%) of affected workers are parents.

Table 1

State and local policymakers should combat cost-of-living challenges with minimum wages

Because costs of living can vary significantly within a state, local policymakers should establish strong wage floors if the state minimum wage is inadequate for their area. In June, city councilors in Albuquerque, New Mexico, took an important step in that direction, passing a minimum-wage increase to $15 an hour by 2029. Whereas the current state minimum in New Mexico is $12 an hour, EPI’s Family Budget Calculator shows that a living wage for a single adult working full-time in Albuquerque is $17.56 an hour.1 The proactive step taken by local elected officials will provide significantly more economic security for low-wage workers in the city.

This summer, the minimum wage will increase in localities in California, Illinois, and Maryland (Table 2) due to “indexing”—automatic annual adjustments written into the minimum-wage law that require the wage floor be adjusted for price increases each year. Without indexing, the minimum wage is worth less and less every year as prices rise. With time, this can dramatically erode the value of the minimum wage. For example, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour—which has not increased since 2009—has now lost 30% of its purchasing power.

Table 2

Indexing to inflation is a commonsense policy enacted in dozens of cities and states across the country, but it is not the strongest way to protect the value of the minimum wage. Adjusting for price increases mostly protects the real value of a low-wage worker’s paycheck (although low-wage workers are more vulnerable to inflation than top-of-the-line inflation measures indicate). However, in a well-functioning economy, wages for most workers—especially higher wage workers—will grow faster than inflation. If the minimum wage only rises at the rate of price growth, then over time, this can increase inequality between low-wage workers and everyone else.

One way to address this issue and ensure that low-wage workers do not fall further away from the middle class is to index the minimum wage to median wage growth. EPI’s latest vision for a federal minimum wage explicitly targets a wage floor that rises to two-thirds of the median wage and remains indexed there thereafter. This policy both creates a high floor that provides significantly higher wages for workers across the country and protects the minimum wage’s value against price increases and increases in wage inequality over time.

Oklahoma fails to pass minimum-wage ballot measure

In June, a minority of eligible Oklahoma voters rejected a ballot initiative (State Question 832) that would have increased the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2029. The initiative’s failure is a costly missed opportunity to increase wages for Oklahoma workers. More than 1 in 5 workers in the state earn less than $15 an hour, and if passed, the ballot initiative would have provided more than $783 million in increased earnings for low-wage workers.

During a time when cost of living and inflation are some of the most important concerns for voters, Oklahomans might have worried that increasing the minimum wage would have hurt affordability in the state. In fact, the opposite is true. Although raising the minimum wage can lead some affected businesses to increase prices, the resulting price increases are extremely modest—far smaller than the increase in pay that would go to low-wage workers. Even some of the most ambitious wage floor policies, such as California’s $20 fast food minimum wage, only increased fast-food prices 2.1% (around eight cents for a $4 item). A 10% increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.14 percentage point increase in CPI increase. In contrast, a 10% minimum-wage increase boosts income at the 10th percentile by around 3.6%, an order of magnitude greater. The average full-time, year-round Oklahoman worker affected by SQ 832 would have gained $2,322 in annual wages if voters had approved the initiative.

It is also important to highlight SQ 832’s winding path to the ballot. Ballot initiatives have historically been an important mechanism for passing minimum-wage increases in states with conservative-dominated legislatures like Florida, Missouri, and Nebraska. While Oklahoma is one of only three states in the South that has a ballot initiative process, conservative politicians have been increasingly curtailing it.

The Oklahoma minimum-wage ballot initiative is a prime example of this. Advocates originally began collecting signatures for SQ 832 in the lead-up to the November 2024 general election. Despite collecting nearly twice the necessary signatures in enough time to qualify for the ballot, advocates were thwarted when Governor Kevin Stitt delayed the State Question until the June 2026 gubernatorial primary election, a low turnout election in contrast to a general election with presidential candidates on the ballot. Voter turnout in the 2026 primary election was 26%, around half of what it was in the 2024 election.

In response to the emergence of SQ 832, the Oklahoma legislature also passed restrictions on the signature-gathering process, limiting the number of signatures that can be gathered from populous areas like Tulsa and Oklahoma City. These restrictions will make it more costly and logistically challenging to pass a future minimum-wage increase in Oklahoma. With such low voter turnout and marked interference in the ballot initiative process, it is difficult to say that SQ 832’s failure reflects a lack of popular support for minimum-wage increases in Oklahoma. Regardless of the cause, without a future minimum-wage increase, the issue of low pay in Oklahoma is only going to grow.

When policymakers like those in Oklahoma fail to adequately set the wage floor, it suppresses worker pay, not just for the lowest-paid workers, but for low-wage workers in general. Workers need a raise to help them overcome the affordability crisis, and the minimum wage is an evidence-backed tool under policymakers’ control to help them do that.

1. Assuming 81% of income comes from wages.

Key takeaways:

• Misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a pervasive and widespread problem. AAPI workers are overrepresented in three of the 11 commonly misclassified occupations: manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides. Vietnamese, Bangladeshi, Filipino, Samoan, and other Pacific Islander workers are overrepresented within these occupations.
• Groups with lower median hourly wages also have larger shares of their working populations in the 11 commonly misclassified occupations.
• Federal protections against misclassification are limited and currently under attack by the Trump administration. The state and local landscape for curbing misclassification is varied, which leaves some workers less protected than others.

In March, EPI published updated research highlighting the cost to workers of being misclassified as an independent contractor for 11 commonly misclassified occupations. Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers were overrepresented in three of those occupations—manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides—relative to their share of the overall workforce.

Most federal, state, and local labor laws apply only to employees and not to independent contractors, so misclassification strips workers of key protections such as minimum wage laws or qualifying for employer-provided health insurance and retirement benefits. Additionally, both misclassified workers and social insurance funds lose out on income: the report conservatively estimates that for the three jobs in which AAPI workers are overrepresented, misclassification costs workers at least $7,000 annually and costs social insurance programs $600 to $800 per worker each year.

With the understanding that the umbrella term “AAPI” encompasses an immensely diverse population both in ethnic origin but also in economic outcomes, this piece goes beyond the narrow view that all AAPI workers are high-wage earners. Below, we provide more detail on which groups of AAPI workers are most likely to be employed in lower-wage commonly misclassified occupations.

Disaggregated data shed light on particular AAPI communities that may be vulnerable to misclassification

Across all occupations, AAPI workers comprise approximately 8% of the total workforce. For three of the 11 occupations highlighted in the report—manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides—AAPI workers make up 67%, 13%, and 10% of employment, respectively, according to Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the composition of the AAPI workforce for the three occupations in which AAPI workers are overrepresented. Here, we use the American Community Survey (ACS) as it offers detailed race definitions which the CPS does not offer due to sample size restrictions.

Asian Indian and Chinese populations combined make up over 40% of the working-age AAPI population, thus their relatively large shares of the AAPI workforce in these occupations are not surprising. However, several groups are disproportionately represented across these occupations compared with their share of the overall AAPI workforce.

For example, Bangladeshi workers make up 5.1% of AAPI workers employed as home health aides while only constituting 1.1% of the total AAPI workforce. Chinese workers represent almost half (47.7%) of AAPI home health aides while representing just over one-fifth of the overall AAPI workforce (20.9%). AAPI employment among manicurists and pedicurists is largely held by those of Vietnamese origin (71.4%).

Finally, a majority of AAPI personal care aides are either Filipino (32.8%) or Chinese (20.8%). Filipino workers, however, are overrepresented by twice their share of the overall workforce. While Samoans and other Pacific Islanders comprised a much smaller share of personal care aide employment, they are also overrepresented in this occupation by more than twice their share of the overall workforce.

Table 1

Figure A provides a more comprehensive picture of the share of each detailed group employed across all 11 commonly misclassified occupations, revealing that smaller communities—often overlooked because of their size relative to the aggregate AAPI workforce—may be among the most vulnerable to misclassification. Workers belonging to seven of those groups are more likely than the average U.S. worker to be employed in one of those occupations. Almost 20% of Vietnamese workers are employed in one of those occupations, with over half concentrated as manicurists and pedicurists.

Samoan, Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders have the next highest shares working in the 11 occupations, making up 15% or more of their total working-age population. These groups also earn lower median hourly wages than the national median and the aggregate AAPI median hourly wage. Their disproportionate representation in commonly misclassified occupations further exposes these workers to wage suppression due to misclassification.

Misclassification enforcement varies by state—meaning different AAPI populations can be disproportionately impacted

Federal protections from misclassification are limited and are currently under attack by the Trump administration, which has proposed a rule to weaken standards to determine worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act. The proposed rule narrows the definition of who is a covered employee under these statutes, encouraging employer schemes to reclassify their employees as independent contractors to evade those obligations.

Broadly, the Trump administration has been actively dismantling long-standing federal worker protections, leaving states to bear the responsibility of ensuring workers are given rights and protections and that they can exercise them. For most states, labor and employment protections only apply to workers classified as employees, meaning workers misclassified as independent contractors are denied their legal rights and protections.

EPI’s 2026 misclassification report outlines state and federal policy recommendations that ensure proper enforcement mechanisms to curb misclassification. One of the recommendations includes implementing the ABC test. Unlike the six-part “economic reality” test or the “common law” test, the ABC test presumes that a worker is an employee unless they can demonstrate they are an independent contractor based on three criteria. Placing the onus on the employer to determine the employment status of a worker provides protections against misclassification and extends proper protections to workers. Many states have adopted the ABC test for unemployment insurance programs and, to a lesser extent, for wage and hour orders and other employment applications.

As shown in Figure B, The AAPI population is highly concentrated across a handful of states. Almost half of the prime-age working Asian population is concentrated in California, New York, and Texas, and a majority of the Pacific Islander population resides in California, Hawaii, and Washington. Overall, 21 states have significant numbers of AAPI residents, and some are home to large shares of specific AAPI communities. For example, the Hmong community in Minnesota and the Burmese community in Indiana are concentrated in states that have smaller total AAPI populations.

The current landscape for state policy protections against misclassification is quite varied. For example, among the states with the largest AAPI populations, California is the only state to adopt the ABC test for both unemployment insurance and employment law, although certain occupations are exempt from the test—including app-based drivers. California also institutes penalties for misclassifying a worker, which can include restitution payments and, if the misclassification was willful, a penalty between $5,000 to $25,000 per violation.

Texas, on the other hand, has significantly less state enforcement. Apart from using the common law test for its unemployment insurance program and providing a definition of an independent contractor for workers’ compensation, Texas mainly relies on federal law for classifying workers as employees. In the last 15 years, Texas lawmakers have introduced several bills that would create penalties for misclassifying workers in the construction industry, but all have stalled or failed.

Figure B

Comprehensive protections are needed to protect workers from misclassification

AAPI workers are facing multi-pronged attacks from the Trump administration through the degradation of federal protections for workers, immigration, and equity. Occupational segregation and other labor market disparities lead women, people of color, and immigrants to be disproportionately represented in occupations that are commonly misclassified. These factors—in addition to historical and current geopolitical relations that shape the flow of labor to the U.S., immigration and citizenship status, and English language proficiency—can contribute to the concentration of AAPI workers in these occupations. Disaggregated data further identify which specific AAPI communities are overrepresented, revealing that smaller, less economically secure groups are often most exposed to the costs of misclassification. Strong policies at the federal, state, and local levels are needed to combat misclassification and to ensure workers can exercise their rights.

Introduction

In 2025, unionization in the United States grew to its highest levels since 2009 (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). This growth is a testament to the fact that Americans increasingly view unions favorably and recognize them as critical instruments for building a just economy. Yet more than 50 million nonunion workers would join a union but are unable to do so because our nation’s labor laws allow employers to derail workers’ unionization efforts (McNicholas et al. 2019).

It is well documented that employers often hire union avoidance consultants to dissuade and weaken workers’ unionization efforts. These consultants work to prevent a union election from taking place—and if that fails, to ensure that workers vote against the union and then stall negotiations over a first collective bargaining agreement. Over the past several decades, large law firms have developed substantial business specializing in union avoidance services. These firms now play a significant role in denying workers their rights to a union and collective bargaining (Kaufman and Stephan 1995).

The role of these law firms in defeating workers’ organizing campaigns and frustrating workers’ attempts to reach a first contract has largely gone unexamined. While employers are required to disclose money spent on lawyers engaged in persuading employees on their union and collective bargaining rights, there is an exemption around reporting money spent on “advice” services, which is ill-defined under the law. Union avoidance law firms have taken full advantage of this reporting loophole and have constructed an industry providing counsel on union busting. Further, many union avoidance law firms provide employers services beyond these persuader activities, including representation at the NLRB and the stalling of first contract negotiations. 

In this report, we examine the union avoidance industry and the law firms that play integral roles in this business. We calculate the revenue law firms generate from employers who try to avoid unions and undermine collective bargaining with their workers. Further, we discuss the impacts of the union avoidance industry on workers’ ability to organize and what it means for workers, our economy, and our democracy.

Employers spend millions on union avoidance consultants

When workers seek to form a union, employers often hire union avoidance consultants to dissuade and weaken workers’ unionization efforts. These consultants include both non-attorney consultants and attorney consultants. Under the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), employers and the consultants they hire must file disclosure reports on agreements in which the consultant is engaging in union-busting activities. Table 1 lists just a few of the employers who filed mandatory reports with the Department of Labor during 2025.

Table 1

These reports represent only a fraction of the total money spent on anti-union campaign services, not to mention legal counsel, representation, and litigation aimed at union avoidance. That’s for two main reasons: 1) consultants are not required to report activity that counts as “advice,” which is ill-defined but currently interpreted to exempt nearly all activities that don’t involve direct contact with workers, even though this accounts for the vast majority of work that consultants engage in; and 2) even activities that clearly must be reported very often are not. Research from LaborLab found that 57% of employers who were known to owe a financial disclosure for having hired a union avoidance consultant in 2024 had failed to file their required disclosure by June 30, 2025, three months after the filing deadline (LaborLab 2025). In 2024, a total of 153 employers filed a financial disclosure, according to the LaborLab report. This showcases a significant amount of underreporting from employers when one considers that over 3,200 union election petitions were filed in 2024, and that 71%–87% of employers hire a union avoidance consultant when faced with a union-organizing drive (NLRB 2026; DOL n.d.). If most “advice” provided by consultants were included, EPI estimates employers spend $442 million per year on both attorney and non-attorney consultants for anti-union campaign services.1

However, that still represents only a fraction of what employers spend on union avoidance. The EPI estimate excludes spending on legal counsel, representation and litigation aimed at defeating organizing drives and stalling contract negotiations, as well as strike preparation and strike-breaking services (McNicholas et al. 2019). It further excludes spending on consultants to implement or enhance employee engagement and “positive employee relations” programs that center around “union-substitution” policies (Levine et al. 2025). These programs feature techniques that are deliberately crafted to preempt, detect, and rapidly quash union organizing, including supervisor training, manipulative communication policies, surveillance techniques, “voice” mechanisms (like suggestion boxes), and employee-involvement programs (such as employee committees and teams).

As mentioned, EPI estimates that employers spend at least an estimated $442 million on anti-union campaign services provided by consultants that are designed to persuade or intimidate workers into voting “no” in union elections. Many of these consultants are also practicing attorneys who simultaneously will provide legal counsel and representation services related to NLRB proceedings. These attorneys also will help employers bend the law to their advantage during contract negotiations, prepare for and break strikes, file unfair labor practice charges to weaken unions and defend employers against such charges, sometimes appealing them not just to the NLRB but also into federal courts. Inclusive of all of these services, the traditional labor relation practices of these law firms generate an estimated $1.48 billion on average.2 When we account for overlap (much labor practice revenue comes from providing anti-union campaign services, not just representation and counsel), these two figures suggest that total spending on attorneys (whether for representation, consulting, or both) and non-attorney consultants is roughly $1.7 billion a year.3 Table 2 shows top law firms’ share of cases at NLRB and the estimated revenue the labor relations practices of these firms generated in 2024.

Table 2

Union avoidance law firms

Prominent law firms—such as Littler Mendelson, Morgan Lewis, and Jackson Lewis—have generated substantial business in union avoidance work on behalf of U.S. employers seeking to frustrate worker organizing and collective bargaining. As shown in Table 2, these law firms do a great deal of business before the National Labor Relations Board, the independent agency charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA is the nation’s fundamental labor law that guarantees most private-sector workers the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. However, decades of federal policy and court decisions have weakened the NLRA (Shierholz et al. 2024). Union avoidance consultants and law firms have long exploited the law’s significant loopholes, making it harder and harder for workers to win unions. For nearly 80 years, policymakers have failed to address the NLRA’s weaknesses and restore meaningful union and collective bargaining rights to workers.

These law firms have represented employers in fighting against some of the largest organizing efforts over the last decade, including worker organizing drives at Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s (Logan 2025). These law firms have essentially created a specialized practice of union busting and together have generated billions of dollars in revenue, as shown in Table 2. The firms range from exclusively labor and employment firms to full-service corporate firms offering representation in a range of matters. The following are profiles of three law firms that have been at the center of the largest union avoidance campaigns in recent years.

Littler Mendelson

One of the largest union avoidance law firms is Littler Mendelson, a global management-side law firm with more than 1,800 attorneys who can make upwards of $1,700 an hour (Littler Mendelson 2026).4 In Littler Mendelson’s 80-year history, it has represented the likes of Amazon, Delta Airlines, and McDonald’s and has played a predominant role in Starbucks’s anti-union campaign (Logan 2022; Logan 2025). Beyond offering their union-busting services to employers, Littler Mendelson has expanded their services to include promoting anti-worker legislation. For example, Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI) played a predominant role in opposing California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 5, legislation aimed at protecting workers by combatting misclassification (Poydock 2020). WPI also supported the passage of Proposition 22, which exempted gig workers from AB5 (McNicholas and Poydock 2019). WPI is part of the Coalition for Workplace Innovation, which has lobbied for proposals that weaken workers’ rights, including the exclusion of gig/app-based workers from employee status (Pinto 2022).

Morgan Lewis

Morgan Lewis also has a large practice aimed at union avoidance (Morgan Lewis 2026). The firm is a global law firm with nearly 2,000 attorneys, representing the likes of Amazon, REI, and McDonald’s. In addition to being one of the largest union avoidance law firms, Morgan Lewis is also known as one of the most expensive firms, with partners making $1,100 to $1,900 an hour.5 Morgan Lewis is the lead law firm engaged in the legal challenge to have the NLRB declared unconstitutional, despite employing multiple former NLRB officials (Rhinehart and McNicholas 2024).

Jackson Lewis

Another law firm with a significant union avoidance practice is Jackson Lewis, a national labor and employment law firm with a nearly 70-year history in union avoidance (Jackson Lewis 2026). The firm has over 1,000 attorneys who can make upwards of $730 per hour.6 Jackson Lewis has an especially robust presence in the higher education and health care industries but also serves major companies in a wide range of other industries, such as ExxonMobil, Amazon, and Google. As with other union avoidance law firms, Jackson Lewis’s services go beyond legal representation—often providing employers a “full-service” campaign in which they train supervisors and design materials, including speeches, to dissuade workers from organizing a union (Correia 2019).

How union avoidance law firms frustrate worker organizing

The NLRB election process is designed to be straightforward. Workers seeking to form a union file an election petition with the NLRB with signatures of at least 30% of the proposed bargaining unit. If parties cannot agree on a bargaining unit and election logistics, the NLRB will hold a hearing on issues of disagreement and then issue a decision and direct that an election be held. Either party can file post-election objections over the conduct of the election and other issues. Once these issues are resolved, if a majority of workers casting valid ballots in the election vote for union representation, the NLRB will certify the union and direct the parties to begin bargaining. 

While the NLRB election process is supposed to be relatively simple, the strategy of union avoidance law firms follows a standard playbook—they use their overwhelming resources to exploit the NLRB’s administrative processes and sometimes create nearly endless delays. This includes challenging bargaining units and election results and filing endless appeals of adverse decisions (See Appendix Table 1 for examples). The result is to create an unnecessarily complicated and protracted legal process for workers. The NLRB’s own performance objectives aim to ensure that the median age of representation and unfair labor practice cases before the Board is 180 days or less (NLRB 2025). While the NLRB has achieved this goal for many years, the median age for cases is over 100 days and for some workers, it can take years. For example, the NLRB only recently ordered Amazon—an employer known for hiring Littler Mendelson, Morgan Lewis, and Ogletree Deakins—to bargain with workers who voted to unionize over four years ago (Bensinger 2026).

Impact of union avoidance

The roughly $1.7 billion U.S. employers spend each year on anti-union law firms and consultants has an undeniable impact on workers’ ability to organize and bargain collectively. It also contributes to the creation of an economy marked by inequality: It has been well documented that the decline in unionization has contributed to increased income inequality over the last several decades (Bivens et al. 2023). It is no coincidence that the overall decline in unionization follows decades of federal policy neglect that have weakened U.S. labor law. The loopholes in U.S. labor law, which union avoidance consultants and law firms exploit, routinely frustrate workers’ organizing and collective bargaining, enabling wealthy corporations to prosper at workers’ expense.

Why would these corporations want to frustrate workers’ organizing? Consider the benefits unions provide for workers and their communities. When workers join together in a union and engage in collective bargaining, they see higher wages and better benefits (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). Further, in communities with higher union density rates, working families have higher incomes, greater access to health care, and few voter restrictions (McNicholas et al. 2025). It is clear that when unions are strong, workers have more power and their communities thrive.

Despite the erosion of U.S. labor law and the standard playbook of union avoidance, workers do win unions and union contracts. In 2025, 16.5 million workers in the United States were represented by a union—an increase of 463,000 from 2024 and the highest number of unionized workers in the U.S. in 16 years. The 2025 rise in union density coincides with a high public favorability toward unions, with nearly 70% of people in the U.S. viewing unions favorably (Brenan 2025). Further, research from the Pew Research Center finds that most people in the U.S. see the decline in union density as bad for the country (60%) and bad for working people (62%) (Van Green 2025).

To sustain the modest gains seen in union density in 2025, policymakers must act to restore workers’ rights to a union and collective bargaining. This is critical to the health of our economy and to ensuring that workers receive a fair share of the profits they help produce. Policymakers must pass the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would help restore private-sector workers’ ability to form unions and bargain collectively.7 The PRO Act addresses many of the major shortcomings with U.S. labor law by establishing civil penalties for employers who violate workers’ rights, creating an election process that limits employer interference, and establishing a bargaining process for reaching a first contract in a timely manner. The PRO Act also would shed light on the union avoidance industry by requiring prompt disclosure of union-busting activities and closing the “advice” loophole through which employers and consultants have evaded reporting (McNicholas, Poydock, and Rhinehart 2021).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Joe Fast and Hannah Faris for their research assistance for this report.

Appendix

Methodology for labor practice revenue estimate

Estimated revenue of company-level labor practices and of U.S. labor practices as a whole was calculated in the following manner. 

First, we divided the number of attorneys listed in a company’s labor practice in 2026 by the number of attorneys that Law.com reported that the firm had in 2024, the most recent year for which Law.com data are available. We treated that figure as an initial indicator of the fraction of the firm’s total revenue that came from its labor practice. We then multiplied that fraction by the company’s total 2024 revenue, as reported by Law.com. Next, we discounted the result by 50%, on the conservative assumption that half of the revenue generated by attorneys in a company’s labor practice was earned for work performed in other areas of law than labor law. (Many labor relations attorneys belong to multiple practices, often practicing both labor law and employment law at the same company.) This calculation yielded our estimate of the revenue generated by a firm’s labor practice in 2024, inclusive of both representation and consulting services. 

We performed this calculation for the six law firms with 1.5% market share or more in 2024, where market share is defined here as a firm’s share of all NLRB cases in 2024. We then estimated the total revenue generated by all U.S. labor practices by dividing the sum of the six firms’ estimated labor practice revenue by the sum of the six firms’ market share.

Market share data were obtained through a custom query of NLRB data compiled by Labor Data (https://labordata.bunkum.us/). The number of attorneys in a company’s labor practice was obtained by tallying the number of attorneys listed on each company’s labor relations practice page in March 2026 and weeding out any attorneys practicing outside the U.S. 

Note: The share of revenue generated by attorneys in a labor practice that comes exclusively from labor relations services (rather than other areas of practice, such as employment law) may vary significantly by each law firm. For example, our labor practice revenue estimate for Littler Mendelson is lower than our estimate for Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, even though the former has greater market share than the latter does. This may be because our 50% assumption is too low in Littler Mendelson’s case. Perhaps attorneys in Littler Mendelson’s labor practice specialize in labor relations more often and more intensively than attorneys in Ogletree’s labor practice, thereby leading to higher labor practice revenue for Littler than our estimate suggests.

Appendix Table 1

Notes

1. See Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau, Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns, Economic Policy Institute, December 2019. To arrive at the $442 million figure, we take the $338 million dollar estimate from McNicholas et al. 2019, which covered the four-year period 2014–2017, and adjust it for inflation to 2025 dollars, according to Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) estimates using the annual average of the BLS CPI-U for 2014–2017 and BLS C-CPI-U for 2025. The estimated rates for consultants are from McNicholas et al. 2019.

2. Full methodology for this calculation can be found in the methodology section in the appendix.

3. We assume about half ($221 million) of the $442 million goes to attorney consultants for anti-union campaign services, which we also capture in the law firms’ labor practice revenue of $1.48 billion. To get to the $1.7 billion, we add the remaining of the $442 million ($221 million) on non-attorney consultants with the law firm revenue estimates ($1.48 billion).

4. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

5. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

6. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

7. Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025, [H.R. 20], 119th Cong. (2025).

References

Bensinger, Greg. 2026. “Amazon Must Negotiate with Staten Island Warehouse Workers, NLRB Says.” Reuters, April 2, 2026.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Jennifer Sherer, and Monica Leon. 2023. What to Know About This Summer’s Strike Activity. Economic Policy Institute, August 2023.

Brenan, Megan. 2025. “Labor Union Approval Relatively Steady at 68% in U.S.” Gallup, August 28, 2025.

Correia, David. 2019. “Union Busting on Campus: Jackson Lewis and Higher Education Anti-Unionism.” Verso Books, March 11, 2019.

Department of Labor (DOL). n.d. Persuader Agreements: Ensuring Transparency in Reporting for Employer and Labor Relations (fact sheet). n.d.

Department of Labor, Office of Labor–Management Standards (OLMS). 2026. “OPDR–LM-10 Employer” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Gregg, Forest. 2026. “Labor Data.” Accessed May 15, 2026.

Jackson Lewis. 2026. “About Us” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Kaufman, Bruce E., and Paula E. Stephan. 1995. “The Role of Management Attorneys in Union Organizing Campaigns.” Journal of Labor Research 16 (December 1995): 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685719.

LaborLab. 2025. One-Sided Transparency: The Growing Gap Between Required Annual Union Versus Employer and Persuader Filings and OLMS Compliance Efforts Continues to Widen. July 2025.

Law.com. 2026. “Fisher Phillips” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Jackson Lewis” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Littler” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Morgan Lewis” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Ogletree Deakins (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Seyfarth” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Levine, Jonathan O., Tanja L. Thompson, Brooke E. Niedecken, and Brendan Fitzgerald. 2025. Littler’s 2025 Labor Survey Report. Littler Mendelson, September 30, 2025.

Littler Mendelson. 2026. “Our Firm History” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Logan, John. 2022. “Not Your Father’s Anti-Union Movement: Ten Key Facts About Starbucks’ Union Avoidance Law Firm, Littler Mendelson.” The Labor and Working-Class History Association (LAWCHA), March 7, 2022.

Logan, John. 2025. Corporate Union Busting in Plain Sight: How Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s Crushed Dynamic Grassroots Worker Organizing Campaigns. Economic Policy Institute, January 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, and Margaret Poydock. 2019. How California’s AB5 Protects Workers from Misclassification (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, November 14, 2019.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Lynn Rhinehart. 2021. Why Workers Need the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, February 9, 2021.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Heidi Shierholz. 2026. Workers’ Resolve Drives Increase in Unionization in 2025. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Heidi Shierholz, and Hilary Wething. 2025. Unions Aren’t Just Good for Workers—They Also Benefit Communities and Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, August 2025. 

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau. 2019. Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns. Economic Policy Institute, December 2019.

Morgan Lewis. 2026. “Our Firm” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2025. The National Labor Relations Board 2025 Performance and Accountability Report. Fiscal Year 2025. 

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2026. “Case Search” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Pinto, Maya. 2022. How the ‘Coalition for Workforce Innovation’ Is Putting Workers’ Rights at Risk. Gig Workers Rising, National Employment Law Project, PowerSwitch Action, Service Employees International Union, and Temp Worker Justice, July 2022.

Poydock, Margaret. 2020. “The Passage of California’s Proposition 22 Would Give Digital Platform Companies a Free Pass to Misclassify Their Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), October 22, 2020.

Rhinehart, Lynn, and Celine McNicholas. 2024. “What’s Behind the Corporate Effort to Kneecap the National Labor Relations Board?: SpaceX, Amazon, Trader Joe’s, and Starbucks Are Trying to Have the NLRB Declared Unconstitutional—After Collectively Being Charged with Hundreds of Violations of Workers’ Organizing Rights.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 7, 2024.

Shierholz, Heidi, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Jennifer Sherer. 2024. Workers Want Unions, but the Latest Data Point to Obstacles in Their Path: Private-Sector Unionization Rose by More Than a Quarter Million in 2023, While Unionization in State and Local Governments Fell. Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Van Green, Ted. 2025. “Majorities of Adults See Decline of Union Membership as Bad for the U.S. and Working People.” Pew Research Center, August 27, 2025. 

Key takeaways:

• Income inequality has skyrocketed since 1979 because of intentional policy choices that suppressed wages for typical families to accelerate income growth at the top.
• Middle-class household incomes would be roughly $30,000 higher today if their incomes had simply kept pace with average income growth since 1979.
• Recognizing that today’s affordability problems are overwhelmingly inequality problems is the key to constructing the right policy solutions.
  • As a start, protecting workers’ right to organize unions, fostering long periods of very low unemployment, and keeping minimum wages high will help typical families claim their fair share of income growth.

When most people—including policymakers—complain about a lack of affordability, they think of prices being too high. But affordability is the outcome of a race between prices and incomes. After all, goods and services were a lot cheaper 90 years ago during the Great Depression, but we all know that nearly everybody is richer today than their peers back then. Bringing incomes into the affordability picture makes for better understanding and better policy.

New Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data show that rising income inequality is the main reason that affordability feels out of reach for too many U.S. families. For more than four decades, most of the income growth in the U.S. economy has been funneled to those at the very top, leaving typical families with far less than their proportionate share of the economy’s gains. If middle-class household incomes had simply kept pace with average income growth since 1979, their pay would be roughly $30,000 higher today. If we account for taxes and government transfers, incomes would still be $19,000 higher today for these middle-class households. Think of this gap as an “inequality tax”: the amount that rising inequality has cost the typical U.S. family. Life would be much more affordable for these families today if they hadn’t been hit by this inequality tax.

This inequality is not the result of competitive markets fairly rewarding people’s skills and hard work. Instead, it resulted from an intentional policy campaign of wage suppression. Labor markets in capitalist economies are inherently tilted toward employers. Fair pay and broadly shared prosperity only materialize when policy affirmatively aims to correct this power imbalance. This can happen—policy choices that bolstered workers’ leverage and bargaining power in labor markets kept growth fast and equal for decades following World War II, for example. But lawmakers rolled back these policies at the behest of capital owners and corporate managers.  

The latest CBO inequality data make the scale of this policy shift visible. Figure A shows the distribution of market income growth for non-elderly households by income group since 1979. We use market income to look at pre-tax, pre-transfer outcomes to assess the equality of outcomes generated by markets. We isolate non-elderly incomes because older households tend to have very low market incomes and these older households have grown as a share over time—so we don’t want any poor performance of market incomes documented here to simply be the outcome of natural population aging. Among this non-elderly group, the top 1% have captured a hugely disproportionate share of market income growth. Between 1979 and 2022, market income for the top 1% grew 277% (from $784,573 to $2.958 million) compared with just 26% growth for the middle fifth of households (from $76,359 to $96,335). This lopsided growth is the root of America’s affordability problem. Even as the economy grew and average incomes rose, typical families fell further behind those at the top who captured most of income growth.

Figure B shows the inequality tax over time, plotting actual market income for the middle fifth of households against what their income would have been if it had grown at the same rate as overall average income. By 2022, the inequality tax reached $30,676 per household, meaning middle-class families are forgoing that much income each year because of rising inequality. The gap has widened steadily since 1979, a sign that the affordability problem facing typical families is not a recent development but rather the cumulative result of decades of policies that have shifted income upward.

Because market income for middle-class families is driven predominantly by labor income, the inequality tax in Figure B reflects the consequences of decades of wage suppression. Of course, the United States has a system of taxes and means-tested transfers (safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, for example) that leads to post-tax and transfer income being more equal than market income in any given year. But the tax and transfer system did not ramp up in importance as market income inequality grew after 1979, and even after accounting for its effects, inequality increased significantly. Figure C shows that even when using post-tax and transfer income, the inequality tax remained substantial at $19,320 per middle fifth household in 2022.

Figure D shows who loses and who gains from rising inequality. While the inequality tax cost middle-income families $19,320 in 2022, families at the very top benefited enormously. The 96th to 99th percentiles gained about $88,000 from rising inequality, while the top 1% gained $1.1 million in 2022.

Perhaps surprisingly, the lowest quintile also slightly gained. For this group, lower taxes and higher levels of means-tested benefits counterbalanced a significant loss of market income due to inequality (their market income inequality tax would be around $4,000). The greater fiscal transfers to the bottom fifth are an under-recognized policy achievement of recent decades. It is also an achievement under constant threat, with the latest one being the large cuts to Medicaid and food stamps coming because of the Republican tax and spending bill that passed in 2025.

Figure D

U.S. families’ feeling that life is less affordable than it should be is grounded in objective realities about how the economy has failed them. And it’s understandable why so many of these families think about prices, which they see as the final barrier between them and being able to obtain what they need for a good life, whether the price is for a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread or a monthly health insurance premium.

But the forces causing this affordability crunch are far larger than any given set of prices. Instead, they are mostly the forces that led to rising income inequality by intentionally suppressing the power of workers in labor markets. This wage suppression meant that middle-class income growth was never going to outpace inflation consistently enough to ensure steadily improving economic security.

In short, today’s affordability problems are overwhelmingly inequality problems. Recognizing this fact is the key to constructing the right policy solutions. As a start, protecting workers’ right to organize unions, fostering long periods of very low unemployment, and keeping minimum wages high will help typical families claim their fair share of income growth.

Key takeaways:

• Recent Democratic proposals to exempt broad swaths of the middle class from federal income taxes accept a damaging frame of taxes as a pure drain on affordability.
• But taxes aren’t a drain on affordability; they fund the public services and social insurance programs that make a decent life possible for middle-class families.
• Progressive taxes on the ultrarich and corporations are essential and should be the immediate priority, but they cannot sustain the public sector alone, let alone expand it in ways needed.
• Middle-class tax rates have fallen by a third since 1979, yet economic anxiety remains high. Tax-cutting has failed because it has left the private-sector drivers of inequality untouched and starved public services.

For decades, anti-tax politicians have tried to smuggle in large tax cuts for the ultrarich and corporations by loudly offering tax cut crumbs to the middle class. Key to this effort has been framing taxes as a pure drain on typical families’ ability to afford a secure economic life. Any success in this dishonest campaign to foster anti-tax sentiment is a disaster for working people—and that’s why some recent tax policy ideas from Democrats and the rhetoric around them are so deflating.

Two things are true about taxes in the United States. First, taxes on the richest families and corporations are far too low. Second, it is broad-based taxes on the middle-class that are the foundation of a functioning public sector and a decent society.

Progressive taxes on the ultrarich and corporations are mostly needed to reduce the potential gains to the rich and powerful from rigging the rules of markets. When the powerful rig these rules and hugely disproportionate shares of income concentrate at the top—like in the United States today—progressive taxes can also raise significant revenue.

But if sharply progressive taxes succeed in reducing the incentive for rigging the rules of markets and if other policies help lead to more broadly shared income growth in the country, this means that progressive taxes will raise a lot less revenue over time.

To be clear, this would be a victory for a better society. For example, the purpose of a carbon tax is to lower greenhouse gas emissions and if it’s highly successful, it will by definition stop raising much revenue. Progressive taxes aimed at reducing inequality will see the revenue they raise start to decline when they are their most successful. Right now, we do have deep inequality in the U.S. and progressive taxes will raise a lot of money—but we shouldn’t make the public sector’s resources dependent on this remaining true forever.

But more importantly, taxing only the very rich has never been the primary foundation of public-sector resources and can’t be going forward. The revenue needed to support programs that provide social insurance and income support (Social Security and Medicaid, for example), as well as public investment and services like highways, transit, and public education requires broad-based taxation. Without Social Security providing secure retirement, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act providing access to health care, and public schools providing universal education, a decent life for the middle-class would be entirely unaffordable. And without middle-class taxes supporting all of these things, they would collapse.

If typical Americans lose faith that paying broad-based taxes to support public services and investments is a good deal, it will be a disaster for their ability to afford a decent life. Sadly, some recent Democratic proposals capitulate to this view of taxes as a “pure burden” rather than an investment in the country and its people.

Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) have both floated ideas that would draw a line below which nobody would pay any federal income tax (Van Hollen’s line is $92,000 for a married couple while Booker’s is $75,000). Both proposals pay for this with tax increases on the rich. If these tax increases on the rich were standalone pieces of legislation, they’d be excellent. But they are instead paired with tax benefits that mostly miss the bottom of the income distribution. In Booker’s proposal, the gains from the higher standard deduction that zeroes out taxes for many are actually largest for families between the 60th and 80th percentiles, and gains persist on average through the 99th percentile. Van Hollen’s bill phases out the “alternative maximum tax” that zeroes out taxes for many, and the biggest gains hit in the middle of the income distribution, but the proposal still provides gains on average for families between the 60th and 80th percentiles.

Both proposals clearly aim to address the affordability challenge that politicians have seized on, but in doing so both frame taxes as a pure drain on affordability, with Booker even calling his the “Keep Your Pay Act.” But taxes aren’t a drain on affordability. They provide the resources needed to run the public sector, and the public sector in turn does a great deal to make life more secure and more affordable over people’s lifetimes.

Social Security and Medicare, for example, both rely on payroll taxes on workers’ wages. But they also provide income for these workers in retirement. Instead of draining affordability, these programs smooth income over the lifecycle to ensure working families can afford a decent life even when they can no longer work. Food stamps and Medicaid are financed by taxes and provide benefits to people who otherwise would not be able to afford the most basic necessities: food and health care. The same people who receive Medicaid and food stamps in one era of their lives will contribute to them through taxes in other periods when they have found steady work. Again, the taxes collected are recycled back into families’ incomes in ways that minimize suffering and severe affordability crises throughout their lives.

State and local taxes—often borne quite heavily by the broad middle class—pay for public education. This education—both K–12 and higher education—is incredibly valuable and necessary for anyone operating in modern economies. Without the taxes to support education, families would have to dig into their own pockets to pay for private schooling, and it would be delivered less efficiently and much less equitably.

Other taxes finance infrastructure and other key public goods and services, without which life would be harder and more expensive for most families.

Cutting taxes even fails on the crass political grounds of buying voters’ short-term goodwill. It’s often underrecognized (mostly, again, because of conservative campaigns to hide this fact), but taxes for the middle class have been cut a lot in recent decades. Figure A below shows the percentage point change in tax rates of households at different parts of the income distribution between 1979–2019. We stop at 2019 to compare equivalent points of the business cycle. Tax rates tend to fall sharply during recessions, which can obscure the full extent of legislative changes to tax rates. Further, cutting taxes temporarily during recessions can make some sense—tax cuts are one form of fiscal stimulus that can be used to fight recessions (unless these tax cuts are quite well-targeted on low- and moderate-income families, they tend to be less efficient stimulus than spending measures).

Figure A

The largest tax cuts have gone to the bottom fifth of households—a key policy victory of recent decades. The expansion of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit—credits that are paid directly to lower-income families even if their amount is greater than the families’ tax liability—have essentially made the problem of taxing families into poverty almost nonexistent. These tax cuts should clearly be kept. But all households, not just those with very low incomes, have seen sizable tax cuts. Tax rates for households in the middle of the income distribution have been cut by a third since 1979.

And yet, does anybody feel like this tax-cutting has led to most U.S. households feeling great about their place in the economy and their prospects for affording a decent life today? Do these voters express warm feelings about the policymakers from both parties who provided these middle-class tax cuts?

The tax-cutting strategy has failed to make these households happy for two reasons. First, it leaves the private-sector drivers of inequality untouched, and as governments have collected less in taxes, employers and corporations have contributed less to middle-class families’ wages. Second, lower taxes have starved public-sector capacity and led to a degradation of public services. Strangely, the newly fashionable “abundance” movement often frames this degradation as a problem of public-sector excesses, but it’s clearly driven by disinvestment. In short, middle-class families value public services and the decades-long campaign to cut taxes has harmed the ability to provide them. The lessons for today’s tax debates should be clear.

The failure of tax-cutting to foster economic security and happiness is not all that surprising for scholars of U.S. attitudes toward taxes, who argue that Americans are not universally anti-tax. Instead, Americans view paying taxes as a patriotic good and a moral obligation. But they are angry about paying their taxes when they think others are shirking their part of the social contract, particularly when they think the richest people and corporations aren’t paying their fair share.

Because we are starting with such high levels of inequality and because of this public cynicism about the rich ever being forced to pay their fair share, the first priority—by far—for policymakers today should be to enact significant stand-alone tax increases on the ultrarich and corporations. The revenue raised solely from the ultrarich could close today’s fiscal gap, the difference between today’s budget deficits and what is needed to put them on a sustainable path going forward. And this act would convince the rest of Americans that the ultrarich are not always prioritized in policymaking and would make future debates about the costs and benefits of higher taxes for higher levels of public goods much healthier.

But we can’t run a decent society based on just taxing the rich and telling everybody else that taxes are an unfair drain. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said that taxes are the price you pay for civilization. But if the taxes are paid only by the rich, we will get the civilization they want. That doesn’t seem good enough to me.

The Council was preparing to discuss a wage adjustment in June 2025 when the chair resigned. It is expected to take up the issue when the governor names a new chair, which has yet to happen. Given that almost two years have passed since the initial setting of the $20 wage standard—a year and a half that has seen continued inflation—the Council should prioritize this cost-of-living adjustment in 2026 to prevent rising prices from erasing the gains made by fast-food workers. One impediment to this adjustment is opposition from fast-food restaurant operators, who argue that raising workers’ pay to $20 damaged their businesses and that they cannot absorb any further increases.

This debate in California between fast-food workers and employers highlights the importance of regular and automatic adjustments to wage standards (like minimum wages) that ensure inflation-adjusted living standards for low-wage workers do not erode over time.

Indexation is often an afterthought in debates over wage standards. But it can turn out to be the most important part of any policy that sets a wage standard. This report examines salient issues related to indexing wage standards and offers recommendations for policymakers. Its key arguments are:

• Wage standards are necessary and efficient because of unbalanced power in labor markets.
• Wage standards that are fixed in nominal terms and have no automatic adjustment (like the federal minimum wage) get weaker every single year that passes without a legislated increase. The cumulative erosion of inflation-adjusted wage standards often exceeds the initial legislated increase.
  • For example, in inflation-adjusted terms, the federal minimum wage today is lower than it was in 2007, the last time a new standard was passed into law.
• Mandating higher wages for any group of workers will set off a chain of adjustments elsewhere in labor and product markets. What these adjustments eventually mean for relative incomes, prices, and employment is an empirical question.
  • Thankfully, minimum wage increases are some of the most well-studied events in economics, and the weight of empirical evidence is that they do not measurably increase overall inflation or lead to significant job loss, but they do raise the inflation-adjusted pay of targeted workers.
• Adjusting wage standards only for increases in inflation is actually a conservative policy in the sense of minimizing potential burdens on low-wage employers. More ambitious targets for adjustment—like wages or even productivity—could be preferable depending on the specific case.
  • In the case of the California Fast Food Council, providing a price-based adjustment to account for inflation since the initial adoption of the $20 minimum wage in April 2024 is an appropriate and modest step.
  • A 3.5% increase in the wage standard—the maximum adjustment the Council can recommend—is also conservative because it will only partially offset the actual 4.2% cost of living increase since April 2024 and because it does not account for ongoing productivity improvements in the sector.
• Over the past decade—and continuing since April 2024—the inflation rate faced by lower-income households has been higher than the overall inflation rate, largely because housing is a higher share of lower-income households’ budget. This means indexing based on the average inflation rate would fail to fully restore the affordability lost to fast-food workers since the enactment of the $20 wage standard, making such an adjustment even more modest (and even more necessary).

Wage standards are necessary because of unbalanced labor market power

Modern labor markets—particularly those that low-wage workers participate in—are characterized by significant employer power. Low-wage employers rarely if ever negotiate pay with workers, instead posting take-it-or-leave-it wage offers. Further, when a given employer lets its own wages lag those of potential competitors, workers’ exit from the lower-wage firm is far less common than would be predicted under truly competitive labor markets where employers robustly compete for workers.

The seminal source for modeling labor markets as situations where employers have substantial wage-setting power is Manning (2003), who describes this situation as one of “monopsony” power in labor markets.The literal definition of monopsony is a market with a single buyer. At points in history (think 19th century “company towns” in rural and isolated areas) this kind of literal monopsony may have existed. But Manning and those who have built on this work point to several features and frictions in real-world labor markets that make it hard for workers to effectively search for better jobs. These job search barriers effectively grant employers excess market power over workers even when there are numerous employers. Some of these frictions include things like lack of information about wages and other policies of alternative employers, transportation restrictions that require workers to look for jobs only in places near their home or public transit nodes, child care considerations that require a job’s location be compatible with picking up kids at a regular time, along with many other factors.

Employers use these barriers to employees finding better outside options to “mark down” wages below what would be necessary for employers to attract and retain workers in competitive labor markets. These markdowns can be large enough to push workers’ pay well below the value they produce for the employer, making pay levels inefficient.

At the level of the total economy, the excess power of employers in labor markets and their ability to markdown wages can be seen in the gap between economy-wide productivity (the amount of income generated in an average hour of work in the economy) and the hourly pay (including benefits) of typical workers.

Figure A

Wage standards—like minimum wages—can correct for this excess employer power. This leaves low-wage workers with higher pay and living standards and moves the economy to a more efficient allocation of workers across jobs. It can in theory even lead to an increase in employment. This degree of employer power in labor markets and the inefficiency of labor market outcomes without wage standards help explain the general empirical finding that minimum wage increases in the United States have not caused significant employment declines, a finding that is counter to what one would expect if labor markets were competitive.1

California’s fast-food minimum wage has had minimal employment effects

Current evidence suggests that California’s fast-food minimum wage is no different in that it has raised wages without causing large, negative employment reductions. There are four studies on the specific wage and employment effects of the California fast-food minimum wage. Three studies show both sizable earnings effects and limited-to-no employment changes. One analysis, in contrast to the other three studies, shows moderately negative employment effects, but also found the policy raised the total earnings of fast-food workers.

Schneider, Harknett, and Bruey (2024) surveyed fast-food workers in large chains and showed that relative to other states, the California policy raised wages and had no effect on the usual number of hours of fast-food workers in the quarter after the minimum wage change. With data from Equifax, Hamdi and Sovich (2025) compared fast-food establishments within large firms across different states and found that California fast-food establishments raised wages by about 12% and increased employment by a statistically insignificant 2%. Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) used data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) to study employment and earnings trends in fast-food restaurants in California relative to those in other states and to full-service restaurants in California, which are not directly bound by the fast-food minimum wage. The authors’ preferred specification estimated a wage increase of about 7% and an employment decline of just under 1% that was statistically indistinguishable from zero. Finally, Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) used QCEW data and estimated a similar wage increase of about 8%, but also a statistically significant employment decline of over 3%.2

In interpreting employment changes from a minimum wage increase, it’s best to compare the size of estimated wage effects with the estimated employment effects. The ratio of these two estimates—the own-wage elasticity of employment3—helps to gauge whether any employment changes were small or large relative to how much the policy actually raised wages. When the ratio is more positive than -1, total fast-food worker earnings rose even after accounting for potential employment losses. Standardizing the estimates by dividing employment and wage effects also allows us to make consistent comparisons across these studies and with studies of other minimum wage increases.

For the three studies where it is possible to calculate them, the own-wage elasticities are 0.19 (Hamdi and Sovich 2025), −0.12 (Sosinskiy and Reich 2025), and −0.40 (Clemens, Edwards, and Meer 2025). The first two are consistent with small or no employment impacts, but the last one moves into “medium negative” territory. All three studies’ estimates imply that the policy increased the aggregate earnings of fast-food workers, but the last study implies that employment losses caused fast-food workers to receive only about 60% of the potential earnings increase spurred by the minimum wage hike.

Even though Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) and Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) use similar data, one important difference is that the Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) study controls for population changes. Net immigration rapidly fell after the implementation of the policy, disproportionately affecting California’s population levels. For example, according to the latest Census estimates, California’s resident population did not grow in 2025, whereas the rest of the country’s population grew by about 0.5%. Not accounting for these different population trends between California and elsewhere could cause an analysis to overstate any employment declines stemming from the policy, particularly if fast-food employment levels are sensitive to falling labor supply or a shrinking customer base. In their appendix, Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) find that ignoring population changes causes their estimates to be more negative.

In addition, when selecting a comparison group for fast-food workers, Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) use fast-food workers in other states and high-wage industries in California, but they do not directly compare the California fast-food sector with the California full-service sector, which is not covered by the policy. Comparing the two sectors would be especially useful for capturing underlying economic trends if slowing population growth is driving declines in both fast-food and full-service employment levels. Indeed, Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) show that the policy did not raise wages in the California full-service sector, but full-service employment in California declined by close to 2%. Failing to account for this decline in full-service employment also causes the Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) estimates to be more negative.

Regardless of the source of these differences, the average own-wage elasticity across the three studies is −0.11, suggesting that the fast-food policy was successful in raising wages without causing sizable job losses. This point estimate is very similar to the median elasticity of all published minimum wage studies on restaurants (see Dube and Zipperer 2025). However, even if the policy were associated with larger employment reductions, measured job losses may still overstate the consequences for low-wage workers. First, lower headcount employment in the fast-food sector does not automatically translate into reduced employment or lower wages for low-wage workers if they move to other low-wage jobs, like retail, where they must be paid at least the California $16.90 minimum wage. Second, a measured decline in headcounts in a high turnover sector like fast-food is more likely to manifest as more weeks in between jobs rather than being shut out of work completely; in that case, some fast-food workers would indeed be working less but earning more money over the course of the year due to higher hourly wage rates.4

Why wage standards need to be automatically adjusted

If wage standards stay fixed in nominal terms, they are reduced in real (inflation-adjusted) terms every year inflation is nonzero. When there is a burst of rapid inflation, these real wage cuts get large very quickly. In fact, steady inflation can combine with policy inaction to leave wage standards lower in real terms than they were the last time a legislated increase happened.

Take the example of the federal minimum wage. Its current value of $7.25 came into effect in 2009. Today’s inflation-adjusted value of the federal minimum wage is almost 40% lower than its historic peak. It reached this peak in 1968, in an economy where productivity (the income generated in an average hour of work in the economy) was just 46% as high as it is in 2025. 5

Figure B

Adjusted for inflation, the 2025 value of the federal minimum wage is in fact lower than it was in 2007 when the U.S. Congress and president last signed a legislated increase into law. Put simply, without effective and automatic indexation, higher wage standards can be eroded almost entirely over time.

Today’s debate over the cost-of-living adjustment to the California Fast Food Council’s minimum wage often frames such adjustments as imposing new burdens on low-wage employers. But inflation since April 2024 means that the real minimum wage paid to California’s fast-food workers has been steadily cut since then. From April 2024 to January 2026, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban wage earners (CPI-W), this cut amounts to 4.2%. Without indexation, any burden on employers from this wage standard has fallen considerably since its adoption, providing a windfall to low-wage employers at the expense of their frontline employees. A failure to regularly index for inflation is essentially a backdoor method for unraveling the wage standard that policymakers passed into law.

Price indexing wage standards is a necessary and conservative policy

Raising wage standards each year by an amount equal to inflation holds low-wage workers’ living standards steady at the level that prevailed when the wage standards were set. For example, the $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers in large chains in California came into effect in April 2024. If these wages are indexed regularly to account for inflation since then, this will keep California fast-food workers’ living standards frozen at April 2024 levels going forward.

This is a clear improvement compared with outright erosion of living standards. But it remains the case that price indexing wage standards is a conservative policy in the sense that it minimizes any potential burdens on low-wage employers. It is a conservative policy for two reasons: (1) indexed wage changes are very small relative to the initial phase-in of wage standards, and (2) indexing for prices allows productivity growth in the wider economy to steadily reduce any potential burden or need for adjustment imposed by wage standards.

Price indexations are very small increases to wage standards

The increases to wage standards that result from price indexation are significantly smaller than the increases that result when the standards are initially phased in. For example, say that the last federal minimum wage increase in 2009 also indexed for subsequent price changes. The initial phase-in of the higher federal minimum wage saw it rise from $5.15 to $7.25 between 2007 and 2009. This constituted an average annual change of 19% for these two years. The average annual inflation rate (measured by the consumer price index for all items) between 2007 and 2024 was just 2.5%.

If the initial introduction of higher wage standards does not cause problematic outcomes, then it is very hard to see how the much smaller changes spurred by indexation for price changes would cause any.

The research on minimum wages provides very little reason to worry that changes in the United States in recent decades have caused any such problematic outcomes. The most commonly expressed worries about minimum wage increases are employment losses and upward price pressure.

We noted earlier that studies looking specifically at the California wage standard continue a common pattern in research on the employment effects of phased-in minimum wages: Employment declines caused by these minimum wage changes tend to be extremely modest or even zero on average. If one applied the modest measured employment losses stemming from the large initial increase in fast-food wages to the much smaller indexed adjustments, these already small employment losses become totally trivial.

The same logic holds regarding potential upward price pressures stemming from indexation: Compared with the initial setting of wage standards, indexed changes are very small and therefore unlikely to push up prices.

It is a fact that one person’s income is another person’s cost, so as low-wage workers’ pay rises, this raises costs for their employers. These employers could pass on these costs (in part or in full) to their customers by raising prices. But even if the entirety of the wage increases driven by price indexing wage standards was passed on in the form of price increases, overall price pressures would be extremely modest and low-wage workers would still unambiguously come out ahead.

Say that low-wage workers’ pay constitutes a third of labor costs in the fast-food sector, and that labor costs in turn constitute a third of total costs of fast food.6 If low-wage workers’ pay rises by 3.5% due to price indexing, this would increase prices the employer charges customers by less than 0.4% even if the full amount was passed on as price increases. Because fast food accounts for less than 3% of the overall inflation consumption basket, even a 0.4% increase in fast-food prices would raise overall prices by only 0.01%.

Price indexing still sees reductions in low-wage workers’ relative pay and allows productivity growth to steadily erode any potential burden on low-wage employers

We noted earlier that price indexing a minimum wage essentially holds low-wage workers’ pay frozen thereafter at the level that prevailed when the wage was introduced. Again, this is better than allowing inflation to erode the real value of pay, but average incomes throughout the overall economy are not frozen over time in real terms. Instead, they rise faster than prices over any reasonable period. Inequality often keeps this growth in average living standards from reaching many (or even most) workers and families in the economy, but the potential for living standards to rise is generated every year of positive economic growth.

This means that even when wage standards are indexed to prices, low-wage workers’ relative standing in the economy still falls over time. Further, because low-wage workers’ earnings are a cost to their employers, this means that even with price indexing, any potential burden of wage standards on low-wage employers slightly declines any year that productivity rises. In this sense, price indexing of wage standards—providing regular cost-of-living adjustments based on price growth—is a conservative policy that allows the costs and benefits of wage standards to slowly erode over time relative to developments in the larger economy.

A quick example can help make this point. Say that pay for low-wage workers at a particular employer amounts to 20% of the final price of the firm’s output. Say that productivity (how much output is generated with each hour of work) rises by 2% per year. If low-wage workers’ pay rises only with inflation (and not with productivity) and all other firm costs rise with inflation and productivity, this implies that over 10 years the share of low-wage workers’ pay in total costs would fall to just 16.4% of total costs. Employers could use this decline in real costs to either lower their prices to consumers or raise their profit margins. Either way, so long as there is any growth in productivity, the burden of low-wage workers’ pay to employers falls even when this pay is indexed to inflation.

Price indexing is not the only option for adjusting wage standards. One could, for example, index growth in minimum wages to growth in wages at other parts of the wage distribution—growth in the median wage for example.7 An even more ambitious indexing choice would be to match wage changes to changes in average wages or even economy-wide productivity.8

The obvious benefit of using these alternative wage indexations would be faster wage growth and higher living standards for low-wage workers. The potential downside is that they do not allow any potential burden from higher wages for employers to relent over time—meaning that if the initial setting of wage standards is high enough to cause problematic outcomes (job losses or rapid price increases), then this would not smooth over time with wage indexation. Price indexation, conversely, would actually allow any higher than optimal initial wage standard to become less binding over time. In this sense, it is a conservative choice that is highly responsive to the pressures faced by low-wage employers.

In the case of the California Fast Food Council, the $20 minimum wage enacted in 2024 was an admirably ambitious standard. There is little persuasive evidence that it is too high in that it has caused any problematic outcomes on either the employment loss or price increase fronts. Yet it was high enough to provide a significant wage boost for affected workers. For these types of ambitious standards, indexing to prices seems necessary to protect workers’ gains yet conservative in that it puts declining pressure on low-wage employers over time. Further, since 2019, the limited-service restaurant sector has seen significant productivity growth—roughly 2% per year—which should allow any price indexation to be easily absorbed with no wrenching adjustments for employers.9

Different groups face different inflation rates: The case for discretion in indexing

The benefit of indexing wage standards for inflation is the protection it provides for the living standards of low-wage workers. The costs are the various adjustments or burdens forced onto employers. Because the group of low-wage workers and employers are heterogenous, and because inflation is measured by the aggregation of price changes across the entire economy, there remains room for judgement and discretion in balancing these costs and benefits.

The California Fast Food Council has some discretion, as they can either index wages up to 3.5% for inflation or they can decline to index these wages and let them be eroded.

We noted before that indexing only for prices (as opposed to indexing for wages or productivity growth) results in a steady reduction in any economic burden wage standards might place on employers. So long as these employers see any growth in productivity (the efficiency with which each hour of labor generates output), then having some portion of their wage costs fixed in real terms will see these costs become a progressively smaller share of total output over time. In this sense, simply choosing to index by prices means the cost of wage standards to employers is set to shrink consistently over time.

In terms of the benefits to low-wage workers, recent years have seen a large jump in the overall price level. Any given episode of inflation is likely to have uneven effects across groups in the economy. For example, the inflation of the 1970s was actually accompanied by an increase in real wages, even for low-wage workers.10 The inflationary spike in 2021 and 2022, conversely, was largely driven by large increases in profit margins, which meant that real wages for most workers fell in those years.

More systematically, inflation faced by various groups in the economy can diverge if they have different consumption baskets that skew average price growth in a predictable way. For example, housing makes up a larger share of consumption spending for lower-income households than higher-income households, and in recent decades the price of housing as measured by the consumer price index has slightly outpaced overall price growth. This implies that inflation faced by lower-income households has likely been systematically higher than that faced by higher-income households. This makes the overall CPI that informs discussions of wage indexation inadequate for fully protecting lower-wage workers from inflation in recent years.

Concretely, the CPI-W, which is the price index the Council can target, has risen by 4.2% since April 2024. This means that a 3.5% cost of living adjustment—the largest that can be granted by the Fast Food Council—would not quite neutralize the affordability losses experienced by workers since the $20 minimum wage was enacted. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (2025) indicates that households in the bottom 40% of the income distribution saw inflation between April 2024 and August 2025 (the most recent data point available) that averaged 0.2% higher than overall inflation. This means actual inflation faced by many fast-food workers in California exceeded 4% since the introduction of the $20 wage standard.

The bias in actually experienced inflation stemming from housing runs even deeper. The housing component of the CPI essentially assumes everybody is paying market rent for their housing. There are good reasons for this decision, but it means that discretion and judgement must enter into using the CPI for different purposes. Well over half of the U.S. population owns their homes, and these people have significantly higher incomes on average than renters. Homeowners either have no monthly housing payment or pay a mortgage that is fixed over time and therefore experiences no inflation. By assuming these homeowning households experience the average amount of rental inflation each month the CPI overstates actually experienced inflation for homeowners.

This means when weighing the interests of low-wage workers against other economic actors—including consumers facing potential price increases stemming from wage standards—the real gap in living standards growth is likely larger than what would be implied by assuming all households face the same CPI inflation. Given this, there is a strong case for policymakers to use their discretion to put a countervailing thumb on the scale by boosting low-wage workers’ pay.

Notes

1. For a review of the estimates of employment loss caused by minimum wage increases, see Dube and Zipperer 2025.

2. There is an additional study by Pandit (2026) that estimates the fast-food minimum wage caused an 8% decline in staffing intensity based on long-duration visits from mobile phone location data. However, the study finds almost all of the estimated effect occurred before the actual policy went into effect, with little-to-no change in the proxy for employment activity after the effective date of the minimum wage increase on April 1, 2024. It is hard to believe that in a very high turnover industry like fast food—where employers can adjust employment levels rapidly by reducing hiring—that businesses would reduce staffing levels several months before being compelled to pay higher wages, but then not change employment levels at all after actually being required to increase wages. The study also provides no evidence on wage changes, cannot distinguish between headcounts and hours reductions, and excludes new businesses that may have started during the policy period.

3. For an explanation of the importance of the own-wage elasticity in interpreting studies of the minimum wage’s effect on employment, see Dube and Zipperer 2024.

4. See Cooper, Mishel, and Zipperer 2018 for the importance of accounting for turnover rates when assessing the likely implications of any measured employment decline.

5. See Economic Policy Institute 2025a for data on productivity levels over time.

6. Both of these assumptions are likely close to true or overstate the actual price pressure that would be experienced from price indexing wage standards in fast food. For the leisure and hospitality sector—the larger sector in which fast-food (or limited-service) restaurants are embedded—aggregate weekly payrolls are roughly $10 billion. To estimate low-wage workers’ aggregate pay, we took the number of leisure and hospitality sector workers making less than $17 per hour in 2024 (5.7 million) and multiplied this by $17 and by 35 hours per week. All of these (the high $17 threshold for defining “low-wage”, the assumption that all making under $17 were making exactly $17, and the 35 hours per week) likely increase the estimate of low-wage workers’ wage bill in the sector. Making these generous assumptions yields a weekly wage bill of roughly $3.4 billion, or just over a third of the total wage bill in the sector. For total labor costs as a share of total output in the sector, we used the Composition of Gross Output by Industry table from the GDP by Industry accounts of the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

7. Growth in wages has been used to index some labor standards. Under the overtime rule enacted by the Obama administration the salary threshold for being granted automatic rights to overtime protections was set at the 40th percentile of annual earnings in the lowest-wage region of the country.

8. Social Security uses an “average wage index” to deflate workers’ past earnings to calculate their initial Social Security benefit amount. This implicitly credits recipients for overall economic growth (overwhelmingly determined by productivity) over the course of their working life.

9. This figure calculated from data provided by the Detailed Industry Productivity database from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

10. See Economic Policy Institute 2025b, specifically the wages for workers at the 10th percentile.

References

Bivens, Josh. 2022. “Corporate Profits Have Contributed Disproportionately to Inflation: How Should Policymakers Respond?” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 21, 2022.

Clemens, Jeffrey, Olivia Edwards, and Jonathan Meer. 2025. “Did California’s Fast Food Minimum Wage Reduce Employment?” NBER Working Paper no. 34033, July 2025.

Cooper, David, Larry Mishel, and Ben Zipperer. 2018. Bold Increases in the Minimum Wage Should Be Evaluated for the Benefits of Raising Low-Wage Workers’ Total Earnings. Economic Policy Institute, April 18, 2018.

Dube, Arindrajit, and Ben Zipperer. 2024. “Own-Wage Elasticity: Quantifying the Impact of Minimum Wages on Employment.” NBER Working Paper no. 32925, September 2024.

Dube, Arindrajit, and Ben Zipperer. 2025. Minimum wage own-wage elasticity repository, Version 2025.9.1., https://economic.github.io/owe.

Economic Policy Institute. 2026. “The Productivity-Pay Gap” (web page). Last updated January 16, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute. 2025a. State of Working America Data Library, “Productivity and pay levels – Productivity and pay, real dollars per hour (2024$).”

Economic Policy Institute. 2025b. State of Working America Data Library, “Minimum wage – Real minimum wage (2024$).”

Economic Policy Institute. 2025c. State of Working America Data Library, “Hourly wage percentiles – Real hourly wage (2024$).”

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 2025. “Economic Heterogeneity Indicators.” Accessed January 2026.

Hamdi, Naser, and David Sovich. 2025. “The Wage and Employment Effects of California’s Fast-Food Minimum Wage.” SSRN, March 28, 2025.

KFF. 2025. “Population Distribution by Citizenship Status.” Accessed January 23, 2026.

MacDonald, Daniel, and Eric Nilsson. 2016. “The Effect of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Prices: Analyzing the Incidence of Policy Design and Context.” Upjohn Institute Working Paper no. 16-260, June 2016.

Manning, Alan. 2003. Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.

Pandit, Hitanshu. 2026. “Simply Can’t Wait: Evaluating the Effect of California’s Fast-Food Minimum Wage Increase.” SSRN, February 23, 2026. 

Schmitt, John. 2013. Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? Center for Economic Policy and Research.

Schneider, Daniel, Kristen Harknett, and Kevin Bruey. 2024. Early Effects of California’s $20 Fast Food Minimum Wage: Large Wage Increases with No Effects on Hours, Scheduling, or Benefits. The Shift Project, October 2024.

Sosinskiy, Denis, and Michael Reich. 2025. “A $20 Minimum Wage: Effects on Wages, Employment and Prices.” Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper, September 2025.

United States Census Bureau (Census). 2026. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2025. NST-EST2025-POP. Accessed January 27, 2026.

Zipperer, Ben. 2024. “Most Minimum Wage Studies Have Found Little or No Job Loss.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 9, 2024.