Does raising the minimum wage increase unemployment?

In brief: No. High-quality economic research finds increasing the minimum wage does not significantly impact employment.

In detail: The 90% of high-quality economic studies show that increasing the minimum wage boosts wages for low-wage workers without meaningfully increasing unemployment. These studies use statistical tools and empirical methods to measure what happens to workers before and after a minimum wage increase, controlling for other factors that can impact employment. The consistency of these findings across time, place, and level of increase is powerful evidence that increasing the minimum wage creates a healthier low-wage labor market.

An increase in the minimum wage raises the cost of labor for businesses by definition, but the economy can absorb these changes through channels of adjustment including decreased turnover, modest price increases (see Question 2), lower profits, and the reallocation of workers to more productive firms. Even if a minimum wage increase leads businesses to adjust their staffing levels, what workers are likely to experience are decreases in hours worked or increased time between jobs, not categorical unemployment. Higher hourly earnings can more than offset these reductions, leaving many workers with greater total income even if they are working fewer hours.

Will raising the minimum wage cause inflation?

In brief: No. Increasing the minimum wage does not meaningfully increase prices.

In detail: Economists do find that raising the minimum wage increases prices at affected businesses but only very modestly. For example, one study found that a 10% minimum wage increase was associated with a 0.14 percentage point increase in the Consumer Price Index. A study focused on the restaurant industry found a 10% increase in the minimum wage was associated with a 0.58% menu price increase. Even some of the most ambitious minimum wage policies, such as California’s $20 hourly wage floor for fast-food workers, only increased fast-food prices 2.1% (around 8 cents for a $4 item). 

The economic benefits of the minimum wage far exceed these price increases. For low-wage workers, the wage boost from the higher minimum wage more than compensates for increased prices of the goods and services they buy. These workers are in turn spending more in aggregate because of their additional income, which can boost the overall economy. It is also worth noting that modest price increases on things like restaurant menu items are redistributive. Higher-earning consumers pay higher prices, transferring income to low-wage workers receiving bigger paychecks.

Claims that increasing the minimum wage will dramatically increase prices in the economy are false. Low-wage labor is a small share of total business expenses. In restaurants, for example, total labor costs are around 30% of operating costs—which also include rent, food, utilities, and insurance—and the wage bill of the lowest paid workers is an even smaller amount. This, combined with the fact that minimum wage increases can be offset through reduced profits, lower turnover, and higher productivity, is why price increases are small.

Will businesses just relocate if a state or locality raises its minimum wage?

In brief: The best economic research suggests businesses do not move in response to minimum wage increases.

In detail: One way that economists try to understand the impact of minimum wage increases is to compare economic outcomes across jurisdictional borders where a minimum wage increase took effect on one side but not the other. An analysis of cross-state and county impacts of all local minimum wage differences between 1990 and 2006 found no evidence that employment decreased in the places where the minimum wage went up or that employment increased in the places without a minimum wage increase. More recent research supports these findings, strongly suggesting that businesses are not relocating or moving their workers in response to minimum wage changes.

Businesses commonly affected by minimum wage changes (such as restaurants and retail) want to locate where there are consumers with money to spend. Because raising the minimum wage boosts the spending power of low-income households, it can strengthen the local customer base for these direct-to-consumer businesses even as it raises their labor costs.

Is the minimum wage an effective way to fight poverty?

In brief: Increasing the minimum wage does reduce poverty and should be paired with a strong safety net.

In detail: Minimum wage increases do significantly reduce poverty by boosting household income, especially among low-income households. Research has found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduces nonelderly poverty by 2–4%. When EPI applied this research to the 2021 Raise the Wage Act (which would have gradually increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour), an estimated 1.8 to 3.7 million individuals would have been lifted out of poverty, including up to 1.3 million children.

The current weakness of the federal wage floor exposes workers to poverty-level wages. As of 2025, a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage makes less than the poverty line. A stronger wage floor would generate more savings across critical safety net programs like Medicaid, SNAP, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), as fewer workers would need or be eligible for these programs due to their increased wages. The safety net would thus be more targeted toward the households that need assistance the most. Those public savings can and should be reinvested in those programs to make benefits more generous.

Can increasing the minimum wage harm workers by pushing them over a “benefits cliff”? 

In brief: The minimum wage does reduce safety net program eligibility, but the wage gains almost always outweigh the loss of benefits.

In detail: Most income-tested safety net programs are not characterized by “cliffs” but rather gradual phase outs. Nevertheless, when a worker’s income increases because of a minimum wage increase, they can lose eligibility to programs like Medicaid, EITC, CTC, SNAP, and housing assistance. Research on the interaction between the minimum wage and safety net eligibility finds that benefit reduction is significantly outweighed by the increase in income from the minimum wage. Benefit reductions offset around a third of the income increases for low-income families caused by the minimum wage—meaning that on net they still benefit overwhelmingly.

Higher minimum wages also help low-wage workers increase their access to medical coverage. While minimum wage increases can lift workers out of income eligibility for Medicaid, they simultaneously increase the take-up of employer-based health insurance plans by many low-wage workers, since those workers can more easily afford those plans. Many workers who lose Medicaid eligibility also can receive heavily subsidized private health care through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges. Researchers estimate that the $20 fast-food minimum wage in California could push almost 60% of Medi-Cal eligible workers in the industry off Medi-Cal and onto alternative health insurance. The wage benefits of the wage floor increase far outweigh the annual premium contributions workers must pay for ACA marketplace healthcare, even accounting for the Trump administration’s choice to let expanded subsidies for the ACA expire.

The reduction in public benefit usage created by higher minimum wages generates substantial savings for federal and state government. These savings should be reinvested in the safety net by expanding program eligibility or otherwise strengthening programs.

There are some safety net programs, which have cliff-like characteristics, like child care assistance, although states are required to provide a graduated phase-out. In rare cases where changes in program eligibility from a minimum wage increase does reduce a family’s total income, this indicates that the design of these programs’ eligibility criteria needs reform, not that the minimum wage increase should be abandoned.

Should lower cost of living in the South and Midwest mean a lower wage floor in those states?

In brief: Even accounting for differences in the cost of living, the minimum wage is far too low in many states across the South and Midwest.

In detail: Cost of living does vary between states and regions across the country, but the minimum wage is still too low across the South and the Midwest. According to EPI’s Family Budget Calculator, even under conservative assumptions of what constitutes a living wage, there is almost no county in the U.S. where a single adult worker can achieve a modest but adequate standard of living earning less than $15 an hour. In fact, many metro areas in the South and Midwest are much more expensive to live in. The living wage in Austin, Atlanta, and Charlotte exceeds $20 an hour. Affordability is still a pressing issue across these regions, even if on average the cost of living is lower. Notably, voters in Florida, Missouri, and Nebraska passed ballot referenda to raise their state minimum wages to $15.

Low wage floors in Southern and Midwestern states hurt workers by suppressing their pay. Most of the states that use the $7.25 federal minimum wage are in the South and Midwest, meaning the effective wage floor in these states is a poverty-level wage (see Question 5). Compounding the problem, many states in these regions preempt localities from passing their own minimum wage policies, preventing policymakers in these jurisdictions from setting wage floors that meet the needs of workers. The use of preemption to dismantle higher labor standards like the minimum wage in the South and Midwest has a long history of being used to reinforce anti-Black racism and white supremacy in these regions.

Can employers ever pay less than the minimum wage?

In brief: Most U.S. minimum wage laws do exempt some groups of workers (such as farmworkers) or set lower minimum wages that apply in certain circumstances (such as for workers who customarily receive tips). Unfortunately, these exemptions can be deeply harmful to workers; in some cases, they were originally adopted to exclude workers of color from minimum wage protections.

In detail: Federal and state labor standards make several groups of workers either ineligible for minimum wage protections or subject to a separate “subminimum wage.”

The FLSA exempts a variety of occupations and types of workers from minimum wage protections. Agricultural workers are excluded from the federal minimum wage entirely and workers who customarily receive tips may be paid a subminimum wage (sometimes called the “tipped minimum wage”) as low as $2.13 an hour (see Questions 8–11). Both of these exemptions originated as ways to exclude Black workers from New Deal economic policies in order to appease Southern lawmakers. Originally, the FLSA also excluded domestic workers, another group of workers with a high concentration of Black workers, but lawmakers extended coverage to them in 1974.

The FLSA also allows employers who have been granted a certificate from the U.S. Department of Labor to pay less than the minimum wage to employees with disabilities (see Question 14).

Another category of federal exemptions and subminimum wages impact young workers. Youth under 20 can be paid as little as $4.25 per hour for their first 90 calendar days of employment. Full-time students, apprentices, and student-learners can also be subject to subminimum wages. And specific occupations typically held by young workers, like babysitters and seasonal amusement workers, are exempt.

Workers misclassified as independent contractors, such as gig economy workers and other wrongly classified employees are not eligible for FLSA protections, including the minimum wage. Also, despite the fact around half of incarcerated people work full-time, these individuals are also excluded from the minimum wage.

State and local policymakers in many states have made efforts to close many of these gaps in minimum wage coverage, but states that do not go beyond the federal standards maintain these exemptions.

Does raising the tipped subminimum wage hurt the restaurant industry?

In brief: Tipped workers are low-wage workers who need wage increases just as much as any other type of worker. Economic research does not find that boosting the minimum wage for tipped workers hurts the restaurant industry.

In detail: There is no inherent economic reason why tipped workers should be paid a lower minimum wage than other workers. The fact that U.S. law allows this can be traced directly back to racist economic practices following the abolition of slavery. Seven states do not have a separate subminimum wage for tipped workers yet still have strong restaurant and hospitality industries. Economic research on the restaurant industry finds that tipped minimum wage increases boost wages for workers without affecting employment. Similarly, when the District of Columbia increased its tipped minimum wage, the restaurant industry did not suffer in terms of employment growth or number of establishments when compared with the U.S average or nearby counties.

Don’t tipped workers earn enough to earn a living wage?

In brief: Tipped workers, including restaurant servers and bartenders, are overwhelmingly low-wage workers. Many struggle to make ends meet, especially those in states where they can be paid less than the minimum wage.

In detail: Tipped workers are more than twice as likely as non-tipped workers to be in poverty. Poverty rates of tipped workers who live in states that use the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 are substantially higher than poverty rates of tipped workers in states that use the same minimum wage for all workers, regardless of tips.

The subminimum wage for tipped workers exacerbates economic insecurity for many workers. Employers are legally required to ensure that on a weekly basis, tipped workers’ tips cover the gap between the tipped minimum wage and the regular minimum wage for all hours worked that week, on average. If they do not, employers are responsible for making up the difference. In practice, this requirement is exceptionally difficult to enforce, as it is largely left to workers themselves to track their hours and tips, make the relevant calculations, and then confront their employer if something seems amiss. As a result, tipped workers—who are already paid low wages—are particularly vulnerable to wage theft.

Will raising/eliminating the tipped minimum wage lead to fewer tips or force restaurants to end tipping?

In brief: Tipping is deeply embedded in U.S. culture. Even in places with no separate tipped subminimum wage, workers still receive tips and typically have higher overall take-home pay than their peers in places with a separate tipped subminimum wage.

In detail: In the seven states that do not have a tipped subminimum wage, tipped workers continue to receive tips. According to the Toast platform, California (a state where tipped workers receive the full minimum wage) had the lowest tipping rate (i.e., the average percentage tip on a bill) in the country at 17.2%. This is less than 5 percentage points less than Delaware, the highest tipping state (21.8%). By contrast, the effective minimum wage for tipped workers in California ($16.90) is more than seven times greater than in Delaware ($2.23). EPI research finds that tipped workers in states without a lower tipped subminimum wage earn, on average, 17% more per hour in total take-home pay (base wages plus tips) than tipped workers in states that use the federal $2.13 tipped subminimum.

There is nothing wrong with workers receiving tips for their work in service jobs, but formalizing tipping in minimum wage law allows employers to shift responsibility for paying their workers onto customers. This in turn means workers are more vulnerable to harassment, discrimination, and other forms of abuse. Restaurant workers, particularly women, are subject to the highest rates of sexual harassment of any industry. Research has also found that racial discrimination leads to Black workers receiving fewer tips than their white counterparts. Relying on tipping means workers have less ability to avoid or protect themselves from harmful interactions in the workplace.

Does the so-called “no tax on tips” deduction eliminate the need to raise the tipped minimum wage?

In brief: The 2025 budget tax bill did create a temporary tax deduction for tipped income, but for most tipped workers the benefits are modest and pale in comparison to the benefits of increasing the wage floor.

In detail: The 2025 Republican budget bill created a new, temporary federal income tax deduction for tipped income. This policy does little to address the precarity of tipped work and the benefits to most tipped workers pale in comparison to the gains they would receive through a significant minimum wage increase. The tax deduction encourages employers to rely more on tipped jobs and avoid raising base wages, exacerbating the low wages and challenging conditions of most tipped jobs (see Questions 9 and 10). Many tipped workers earn too little to qualify for the benefit, and those that do will likely see modest tax benefits. Whereas the average annual benefit for an eligible tipped worker will be around $1,700 a year for the three remaining years the deduction is in place, a minimum wage increase to $15 per hour would boost earnings by $3,200 a year for a full-time worker, in perpetuity.

Aren’t most minimum wage workers teenagers?

No, the vast majority of workers impacted by the minimum wage are not teenagers. Low-wage work is a widespread problem and not just isolated to younger workers. EPI’s analysis of the 2025 Raise the Wage Act found that only 14% of the workers that would be impacted by the policy were younger than 20 years old.

Will raising the minimum wage hurt young workers in their first jobs? 

In brief: Higher minimum wages cause little to no employment changes for teenagers.

In detail: The majority of studies find little to no evidence that the minimum wage causes employment losses for teen workers. Instead, their incomes increase as they earn higher pay. It is also worth keeping in mind that teen workers are a minority of low-wage workers, and a shrinking share of the workforce overall as the cultural and economic emphasis on education has grown. To that end, minimum wage increases can support young workers’ educational attainment, particularly for low-income teens. Minimum wage increases significantly improve high school graduation rates for low-income students, a vital investment that can have large long-term consequences for those workers’ lifetime earnings.

Do workers benefit from the FLSA’s subminimum wage for workers with disabilities?

In brief: The federal subminimum wage for disabled workers does not provide real wage protections and is out of step with the most effective ways to boost employment for workers with disabilities.

In detail: Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers can apply for special certificates with the Department of Labor that allow employers to pay workers with mental or physical disabilities less than federal minimum wage. Employers can only apply for certificates if the worker’s disability actually impairs the worker’s earning or productive capacity. An overwhelming share (96%) of 14(c) employees work in so-called “sheltered workshops” which put workers with developmental disabilities in isolated, noncompetitive environments.

These certificates apply to a small number of workers (less than 37,000 nationally) but also produce exceedingly low pay for workers with disabilities. Nearly half of 14(c) workers were paid less than $3.50 an hour, exacerbating the economic precarity experienced by disabled workers. Disabled adults are 24.1% more likely to live in poverty than other adults. The low pay permissible under 14(c) perpetuates these workers’ struggle to make ends meet. This measure is also unnecessary for providing well-paying employment opportunities to workers with disabilities.

Researchers studying state repeals of 14(c) have found that the change has not hurt disabled workers’ employment. In Maryland, eliminating the provision caused no significant change to disabled worker employment, while in New Hampshire, employment increased. An analysis of the federal AbilityOne program, which is composed of nonprofits that primarily employ workers with disabilities, found that state and local minimum wage increases did not impact the employment of those workers. Employers also do not appear to shift more workers to 14(c) certificates in response to minimum wage increases.

Overall, the use of 14(c) certificates has been declining over time. Across the country, 27 states and D.C. have eliminated or restricted the use of the provisions, reflecting that the policy does not offer real wage protections for disabled workers and that there are superior models of employment for workers with developmental disabilities. Respecting the dignity of workers with disabilities requires prioritizing real pay and inclusion in supportive, but integrated employment opportunities.

Many cities and states already have minimum wages above $15 an hour. Is increasing the federal minimum wage still important?

In brief: Yes, tens of millions of workers still earn less than $15 an hour. In many states and cities, higher wage floors are needed to provide meaningful economic security.

In detail: In the last decade, dozens of cities and states have responded to federal minimum wage inaction by enacting stronger wage floors, in many cases reaching or exceeding $15 an hour. As of 2026, more workers work in a state with at least a $15 minimum wage than in a state using the federal minimum wage. However, there are still 20 states that use the federal $7.25 wage floor and around 14 million workers earn less than $15 an hour.

Even places with recent minimum wage increases might need higher wage floors. The first $15 minimum wage was enacted in 2013. Prices have risen substantially since then, and consequently, the value of targets like $15 an hour has declined significantly. According to EPI’s Family Budget Calculator, $15 is not a living wage almost anywhere in the country. Many cities and states have at least partially protected their wage floors by adopting automatic annual adjustments to account for inflation, but if the initial value is too low, this inflation-indexing only locks in an unlivable floor.

Very few workers earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Is the minimum wage even relevant anymore?

In brief: The fact that so few workers earn the federal minimum wage is a policy failure, not a reason to abandon the policy. The minimum wage is a vital tool for lifting wages and addressing systematic power imbalances between workers and employers. The failure to adequately raise the minimum wage over time has left millions of workers being paid less today than they could have been earning.

In detail: It is true that a small fraction of the labor force earns exactly the federal minimum wage, but this is a policy failure that has left tens of millions of workers with lower wages. Had Congress simply raised the federal minimum wage to keep pace with inflation since the late 1960s, it would be over $12.50 today. According to EPI’s Low Wage Workforce Tracker, 14 million workers earn less than $15 an hour, while 42 million earn less than $20 an hour. The minimum wage does not just impact workers at the very bottom of the wage distribution; it exerts upward pressure for low-wage workers in general. Minimum wage increases create “spillover effects,” where workers above the new minimum wage threshold also see wage increases as employers keep wage ladders and seniority consistent in their firms.

It is important to recognize that without leveraging policy tools like the minimum wage, the low-wage labor market gives employers excess power to set low wages. Workers have limited information about the wages and work policies at alternative employers and can be constrained in their job choices by limited transportation options or the need to maintain specific schedules for child care and other family needs. These economic “frictions” add up, providing leverage for employers to pay lower wages than is optimal for the economy. In short, the longstanding failure to increase the federal minimum wage suppresses worker pay, leaving low-wage workers worse off every year there is no increase.

Does raising the minimum wage lead to automation of low-wage jobs?

In brief: The minimum wage is not a primary cause of automation of low-wage work, but automation is changing the tasks and occupations of some low-wage workers.

In detail: Increasing the cost of low-wage labor can encourage businesses to invest in automation. This can lead to disruption for specific low-wage jobs, or changes in the roles in those occupations. Since we see that the minimum wage does not increase unemployment for low-wage workers (Question 1), the effects of automation on these low-wage jobs are either limited or counterbalanced by expanding employment in other occupations. Evidence suggests that while in recent years automation is taking over a growing number of routine tasks from low-wage workers, the minimum wage has a limited contribution in driving that adoption. Researchers with access to extensive data on McDonalds franchises nationwide found that, while the adoption of touch-screen ordering kiosks grew significantly between 2017 and 2019, there was no evidence that uptake was driven by minimum wage increases. So far, the overall employment impact of automation on low-wage workers has been insignificant, as reductions in occupations with high amounts of routine tasks have been replaced with greater demand for jobs with interpersonal tasks.

Technology is a tool, but the balance of labor market power determines who it helps. Automation has been a feature of our economy since the industrial revolution, boosting productivity in our economy. Technological change can disrupt employment for specific sectors or professions, but in aggregate the economy benefits. Workers benefit from these productivity increases when there are strong labor institutions like access to unions, a strong minimum wage, and policies that support full employment. When those institutions are weak, the gains from technological advancement are not shared widely and contribute to increased inequality.

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.

Key takeaways:

• The federal minimum wage is at its lowest real value in 77 years. Frozen at $7.25 since 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost 30% of its purchasing power during this 17-year freeze.
• Setting the federal minimum wage at two-thirds of the national median wage would raise pay for 39.6 million workers in 2030, about 1 in 4 of the wage-earning workforce.
• The policy would move the federal floor meaningfully toward one definition of a living wage, meeting EPI’s Family Budget Calculator thresholds in half of U.S. counties for a single adult working full time. But it falls short for many families, meaning that policies to strengthen unionization, provide a more robust safety net, and keep unemployment low remain essential.
• Decades of economic research support this two-thirds benchmark, finding little to no employment loss from ambitious minimum wage increases.
• Indexing the federal minimum wage to median wage growth would lock in these gains. Median wages typically outpace prices, so median wage indexing would prevent the kind of decades-long slide that has eroded the current floor.

Introduction

The federal minimum wage, frozen at $7.25 since 2009, is now at its lowest real value in 77 years and a major driver of the affordability crisis facing low-wage workers. For over a decade, the senior Democrats on the House and Senate’s labor committees have consistently introduced and championed the Raise the Wage Act, which would significantly raise the federal level (most recently, to $17 an hour in 2030) and index it to median wage growth going forward. But Congress as a whole has failed to take action on the legislation. In the absence of federal movement, states have moved on their own: Thanks in large part to the Fight for $15 campaign, 21 states and the District of Columbia, home to half of all U.S. wage earners, will have a minimum wage of at least $15 by 2028. But that patchwork still leaves 20 states—home to about 55 million workers—at $7.25, and updating the federal floor to a modern benchmark is the only way to reach these workers.

Raising the federal minimum wage to two-thirds of the national median wage would lift pay for nearly 40 million workers, about a quarter of the workforce. Two-thirds of the median—equivalent to roughly $17.70 today, a projected $20 in 2030, and a projected $25 in 2038—matches the benchmarks used in other high-income countries and tracks the direction of recent minimum wage research. Indexing to median wage growth thereafter would keep the floor from losing ground to inflation or falling behind the broader economy.

A federal minimum at two-thirds of the national median would eliminate poverty wages and move the floor meaningfully toward a living wage in much of the country: A single adult working full time could cover modest expenses in half of U.S. counties under EPI’s Family Budget Calculator thresholds. Maintaining the two-thirds minimum-to-median ratio would lock in those gains, improving affordability for U.S. workers and their families. It would also durably narrow the gap between low-wage workers and the typical worker, with Black workers and women seeing the largest benefits.

The two-thirds benchmark is also well-supported by economic research. Decades of studies of state and federal minimum wages find that higher floors raise pay for low-wage workers with little to no effect on employment, and a smaller but growing body of work on minimum wages approaching two-thirds of the median reaches the same conclusion. Setting the federal floor at two-thirds of the median, and updating it annually, would raise incomes at the bottom and prevent the kind of decades-long slide that has left the current minimum at its lowest real value in 77 years.

The outdated federal minimum wage and extent of low pay

The federal minimum wage is now at its lowest real value in 77 years. Stuck at $7.25 since 2009, it is in its longest stretch without an increase since the federal wage floor was established in 1938 (Figure A). Inflation has eroded 30% of its purchasing power over those 17 years, gradually cutting real pay for the lowest-wage workers in states still tied to the federal floor. Simply indexing the 2009 wage to inflation, a far weaker standard than this report proposes, would put the federal minimum at about $10.60 today.

The minimum wage was once meaningfully higher in real terms. Civil rights organizers in the late 1960s pressed Congress not only to raise the wage floor but also to extend its coverage to service industries that had previously been excluded because they disproportionately employed Black workers. By 1968, the federal minimum wage reached $1.60 per hour, equivalent to $12.62 in 2026 dollars and roughly 61% of the national median wage at the time, close to the two-thirds benchmark this report proposes. Even a federal minimum wage of $12.62 today would raise the wages of about 12 million workers.

Because Congress has not raised the federal floor in 17 years, states and localities have moved on their own. Thirty states, the District of Columbia, and dozens of cities and counties have raised their minimum wages, many in response to the Fight for $15 campaign (EPI 2026a). By the end of 2028, more than half of the U.S. workforce, about 74 million workers, will live in a state with a minimum wage of at least $15.

The state-by-state patchwork has delivered real successes but also left tens of millions of workers behind. Roughly 55 million people work in the 20 states still tied to the $7.25 federal floor, and they are nearly twice as likely as workers elsewhere to earn less than $15 per hour. Nationally, almost no one is paid exactly $7.25 anymore: The floor is so low it rarely binds. Yet 14 million workers, about 9% of the workforce, still earn less than $15. Closing that gap and preventing the federal floor from eroding further requires a national standard pegged to a modern benchmark.

A new standard: Two-thirds of the median wage

The federal minimum wage suffers from two related deficiencies: Its level is too low, and it does not adjust as the economy grows. Both can be solved by tying the federal minimum to two-thirds of the national median wage. Congress would first raise the floor to that level, and each subsequent year the minimum would adjust to maintain the same ratio.

First, the new benchmark replaces a poverty-level federal floor (Hickey and Cid-Martinez 2025) with one that pushes the minimum wage toward a living wage. As Oakford (2026) argues, two-thirds of the median is “a realistic stepping stone to living wages,” and standards below that ratio leave too large a gap between earnings and the cost of necessary expenses. A federal minimum at two-thirds of the median also better fulfills the original promise of the federal standard, which Congress described in 1937 as protecting “this Nation from the evils and dangers resulting from wages too low to buy the bare necessities of life” (U.S. Congress 1937).

Second, maintaining the two-thirds ratio guarantees automatic increases as the economy grows, ending the recurring erosion that comes from a frozen federal floor. Because median wages typically outpace prices, median wage indexing produces real gains, not just inflation protection. In 2025, two-thirds of the national median wage was $17.11 per hour (Figure B), and today, it is estimated to be $17.70. By 2030, applying Congressional Budget Office (2026) Employment Cost Index projections, it would reach $20.02. A federal minimum tied to two-thirds of the median would likely reach or exceed $25 by 2038, four years sooner than if a $17.11 wage in 2025 had been indexed only to the cost of living going forward.1

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia index their minimum wages to inflation, but Connecticut goes further by indexing to average wage growth and capturing the real gains that wage growth typically delivers above prices. Congress should follow Connecticut’s lead and link the federal minimum to the national median wage. Of course, indexing to price inflation would be an enormous improvement to current federal minimum wage policy and to state and local minimum wage policies that have also failed to implement automatic increases. Tying the minimum wage to median wages—i.e., indexing the minimum to typical workers’ wage growth—would yield even larger increases over time.

Tying the federal minimum to two-thirds of the median would also durably narrow inequality in the bottom half of the wage distribution. Whenever the minimum wage fails to keep pace with economy-wide wage growth, the gap between low and median earners widens. But a substantial increase in the minimum to a fixed ratio of the median shrinks and bounds that gap by construction. The gains disproportionately affect Black workers and women, who are overrepresented in low-wage jobs due to persistent racism and sexism (Banks 2019). Minimum wages are a major determinant of Black-white wage gaps (Derenoncourt and Montialoux 2020; Wursten and Reich 2023), and the long erosion of the federal minimum was a leading driver of widening pay inequality among women (Autor, Manning, and Smith 2016).

The state of minimum wage research and new policies

Minimum wages and job losses

A federal benchmark of two-thirds of the national median would significantly raise wages, and recent research strongly supports the conclusion that ambitious minimum wage targets work as intended, with little to no employment downsides. Across more than three decades of modern economic research, the median estimated employment effect is small; among studies that look at all low-wage workers rather than narrow subgroups, the effect is essentially zero (Zipperer 2024). The recurring scare stories about job losses are not borne out by the body of evidence.

Businesses adjust to higher minimum wages through what Dube (2026b) and Bernstein (2013) call the “Three P’s”: productivity, prices, and profits.2 Take productivity first. Higher wages reduce the rate at which workers quit, particularly in high-turnover sectors like restaurants and retail. That lowers hiring and training costs and means employment levels can hold steady even as new hiring slows. Better-paid workers, and workers with longer tenure, are also typically more productive, further offsetting the cost of the wage increase.

The minimum wage also redistributes income to low-wage workers when employers cover higher labor costs through reduced profits or modestly higher prices. Vergara (2026) and Coviello, Deserranno, and Persico (2022) both find that minimum wage increases shrink profits in low-wage industries. Price pass-through is small in aggregate terms because low-wage workers’ earnings are only a fraction of total labor costs, which are themselves a fraction of total business expenses. California’s $4 overnight increase in the fast-food minimum generated a one-time increase in fast-food prices of 2.1% to 3.6% (Sosinskiy and Reich 2026; Clemens et al. 2026). To put that in context: The price of a $6.00 hamburger would have risen to about $6.17.

How high is too high?

A common way to measure the level of a given minimum wage is to use the minimum-to-median wage ratio. Sometimes called the Kaitz index, the minimum-to-median wage ratio compares the minimum with the underlying distribution of wages by measuring the share of the typical wage that the floor reaches. This report proposes setting that ratio at about 67%. Most of the U.S. evidence base reflects periods when the ratio sat well below that level, because until recently, U.S. minimum wages were rarely considered high by today’s standards. But a growing body of recent research, together with recent state and local policies, has pushed the evidence into higher ratios—and the results are the same: There is substantial room for higher minimums without large employment losses.

Cengiz et al. (2019) found no negative employment effects at minimum-to-median ratios up to 59%. Dube and Lindner (2021), studying city-level minimum wages with ratios averaging 58% to 64%, found small and statistically insignificant effects. Godoy and Reich (2022) found no employment effect across localities with ratios ranging from 56% to 82%. And the 1968 federal minimum, which reached roughly 61% of the median,3 has been reexamined in two recent studies that likewise found small or no employment effects (Bailey, DiNardo, and Stuart 2021; Derenoncourt and Montialoux 2021).

The most direct evidence that the floor can go meaningfully higher comes from California’s $20 fast-food minimum wage. In April 2024, the state raised the wage for fast-food chain workers from $16 to $20, pushing the ratio of that minimum to the state’s median wage to about 74%, well above most U.S. precedents.4 One might worry that customers would substitute toward lower-priced independent restaurants exempt from the policy, generating job losses at the chains. The actual evidence shows otherwise. Despite the large wage increase, research finds little to no employment effect of the policy (Bivens and Zipperer 2026), and the median employment effect in Dube (2026a) is essentially zero. Evaluations of the UK minimum wage through 2019, when it reached nearly 60% of the median wage, also find small, statistically insignificant effects on the employment of low-wage workers (Giupponi et al. 2024).

A federal benchmark set at two-thirds of the national median will push some states above two-thirds of their own median wage. There is good reason to be optimistic about employment changes there as well. The studies above already span a wide range of Kaitz ratios, from the high 50s through the low 80s, and consistently find little or no employment effect. California’s $20 fast-food minimum extends this evidence to a 74% state-level ratio with essentially no employment losses, and only five states would have a minimum-to-median wage ratio above that threshold under the proposed federal benchmark. And while the minimum wage would be at a higher level relative to the state median in those states, it would still be less than a “living wage” for many families in those areas, as I discuss later.

Even if some employment loss does occur, that is not the right test of policy success. Low-wage labor markets are dominated by job-to-job churn, so reduced employment in response to a higher minimum typically shows up as longer gaps between jobs rather than workers permanently shut out of the labor market (Cooper, Mishel, and Zipperer 2018). On net, low-wage workers come out ahead in annual earnings when significantly higher hourly pay more than offsets a modest increase in unemployment.

Policymakers and organizers campaigning for minimum wage increases have considerable room to maneuver above the current federal floor before needing to worry about job losses. To assuage concerns about employment impacts, a federal proposal could be structured to limit annual increases of the federal minimum wage so that they never exceed two-thirds of the national median wage. States and localities, of course, can and should continue to push for higher minimum wages, as many will have higher median wages and costs of living than the national average.

Existing proposals and policies reaching two-thirds of the median

Some recent federal proposals already target or are consistent with the two-thirds benchmark. The recent Give America a Raise Act would raise the federal minimum to $20 by 2029, close to this report’s projection of two-thirds of the 2029 median wage ($19.44). The Living Wage for All Act names the two-thirds benchmark explicitly and locks in indexation in statute: “once the minimum wage equals two-thirds of the national median hourly wage, it shall thereafter be automatically adjusted each year to maintain that ratio.” The Bold Economic Program for America (Reich 2026) likewise proposes $20 by 2030, and Oakford (2026) embeds the two-thirds target in a broader portfolio that includes just cause protections and stronger wage theft enforcement.

The benchmark also aligns U.S. policy with international practice. The UK Low Pay Commission has targeted two-thirds of the median for the National Living Wage since 2024, and in the EU, 17 of 22 countries benchmark their statutory minimum wages to a ratio of the median or average wage. The 2022 European Union Minimum Wage Directive obligates member states to use “indicative reference values”—such as 60% of the gross median wage—to assess adequacy of their wage standards (Luebker and Schulten 2026).

Some of these international benchmarks may look numerically lower than two-thirds, but they are usually defined against a different denominator. Germany, for instance, benchmarks against the median wage of full-time workers. In the United States, the full-time median is about 10% higher than the overall median, so 60% of the full-time median is roughly equivalent to two-thirds of the overall median that this report proposes.

Implementing a minimum wage equal to two-thirds of the median wage

Any federal legislation will need a phase-in period, but it must specify two things: a clear path to the target and an explicit guarantee that automatic median wage indexing kicks in once the floor reaches two-thirds of the median.

Implementing the benchmark also requires choosing a wage source. Legislation should designate the Department of Labor (DOL)—which already publishes median wage estimates through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS)—to publish the official median wage each year. DOL has two ready sources: OEWS, an establishment survey, and the Current Population Survey (CPS), the household survey already used to produce the unemployment rate, which collects detailed wage and hours data.

Each source has tradeoffs. The CPS is timelier, with wage data available at a one- to two-month lag, but smaller samples, the difficulty of computing hourly earnings for salaried workers, and respondents’ tendency to round wages all introduce noise. OEWS uses an established BLS hourly wage methodology and median wage calculation that may be less volatile, but it is published with a one-year lag and pools data from earlier, lower-wage years. DOL could pick one source or use a weighted average; recent data show only about a $1 difference between the two surveys.5 Either way, expanding resources at BLS and the Census Bureau would strengthen the underlying data and support further refinements to the methodology.

Once DOL has a baseline median, indexing requires projecting that median forward to the year the new minimum takes effect. The UK Low Pay Commission, which recommends a two-thirds median target to the UK government, offers a useful template: It estimates a midyear median wage by combining lagged historical data with timely indicators and short-run forecasts (Low Pay Commission 2024). A concrete schedule illustrates the approach. To set the minimum for January 1, 2030, DOL would announce the new wage on July 1, 2029, six months in advance, based on its best projection of the July 2030 median, the midyear point representative of the median wage workers will face on average throughout 2030. The projection would proceed in three steps: compute the 2028 median from CPS or OEWS data; roll it forward to early-to-mid-2029 using a combination of available data—like the Current Employment Statistics, the Consumer Price Index, and the Employment Cost Index (ECI); and then roll it forward one more year using short-run wage projections like those in the CBO Budget and Economic Outlook (2026).

National and state effects of a federal minimum wage at two-thirds of the median

To estimate the economic benefits of a federal minimum wage set at two-thirds of the median wage, I model how many low-wage workers would see higher pay under this policy. I assume the policy is phased in over five years, so that if it went into effect today, the federal minimum would reach two-thirds of the median in 2030 and then automatically adjust each year to maintain that ratio.

Concretely, I assume the federal minimum rises to $12 immediately in 2026 and then increases incrementally to $20 in 2030, which is about two-thirds of the projected national median wage.6 Legislation should build in a path adjustment if 2030 median wages come in higher or lower than projected.

I focus on the effects in 2030. I assume the same phase-in path and automatic indexing applies to the federal tipped minimum wage, which has been frozen at $2.13 per hour since 1991.7 Wages elsewhere are assumed to grow in line with CBO ECI projections from 2026 to 2030, and the model incorporates the effects of scheduled state-level minimum wage increases (see the appendix for details).

In 2030, a federal minimum wage equal to two-thirds of the national median would raise pay for 39.6 million workers, about 1 in 4 of the wage-earning workforce (Table 1).8 Annual earnings would rise substantially, and the gains would be largest for Black workers: A full-time, full-year Black worker affected by the increase would earn about $5,000 more per year, compared with $4,400 for all affected workers. In line with other minimum wage increases, women would gain more than men, with 31% of women seeing higher pay compared with 23% of men.

Adults ages 20 and over would make up 9 in 10 affected workers (teens would have the largest share of affected workers of any age group, but they make up a small share of total employment). The problem of low pay is far from limited to the youngest workers.

Although several states with scheduled minimum wage increases will see the gap between their minimum wage and the new federal floor shrink, workers in every state would still be affected (Figure C). With the exception of D.C., no state’s scheduled 2030 minimum wage reaches $20. The largest gains go to workers in the 20 states still tied to $7.25: 1 in 3 (33%) would see a raise, and annual pay for those affected would rise by about $6,200 on a full-time, full-year basis.

Figure C

Beyond who gets a raise and how much, a related question is whether the raise is enough to cover a family’s basic costs. Setting a target of two-thirds of the median would push the federal floor much closer to a living wage for many families. What counts as a living wage varies across the country, depending on local costs and on family size and composition. EPI’s Family Budget Calculator thresholds make this concrete: They calculate the income a given family type needs in a given place to afford a “modest but adequate” standard of living. For example, in 2025 a two-adult, one-child family in Los Angeles County, California, needed about $118,000 in annual pretax earnings to pay for housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, taxes, and other necessities. In more rural Early County, Georgia, a similar family needed about $74,000. These budgets are minimal by design, with no allowance for savings, emergencies, retirement, college, or entertainment.

Of course, other business income and government provided social benefits can lower the amount of labor market earnings a family needs to maintain the same standard of living. Gould, Mokhiber, and deCourcy (2024) report that, according to Congressional Budget Office data, about 81% of a middle-income family’s budget is met by labor market income.

Applying that 81% adjustment to EPI’s Family Budget Calculator thresholds gives a more useful benchmark for what wages need to deliver. Under this adjusted measure, the Los Angeles County family would have needed about $96,000 in earnings to meet their 2025 budget, equivalent to both adults working full time, year round at about $23 per hour. The Early County family would have needed about $60,000, equivalent to both adults working full time, year round at $15 per hour.

The implications for everyday affordability are significant. After inflating these adjusted thresholds to 2030 dollars using CBO Consumer Price Index projections, a federal minimum at two-thirds of the median substantially closes the gap between full-time annual earnings and necessary expenses for low-wage workers and their families. A single adult working full time at the 2030 minimum of $20 would cover modest but adequate expenses in half of U.S. counties. Two full-time working parents with two children would meet their family budget in roughly a quarter of U.S. counties. Using similar thresholds, Oakford (2026) finds that a federal minimum at two-thirds of the national median in 2025 would be “90% to 99% of the median living wage of a single adult without children in 16 states.”

A federal minimum tied to two-thirds of the national median would therefore make enormous progress in increasing affordability and helping families make ends meet. Closing the remaining gaps will require a broader set of policies, including strengthening other labor standards like overtime protections and their enforcement, a more robust safety net, expanded public goods like universal health insurance, fewer barriers to unionization, and a renewed commitment to full employment.

Conclusion

The federal minimum wage is at its lowest real value in 77 years, and tens of millions of low-wage workers are paying for that erosion every paycheck. Pegging the federal floor to two-thirds of the national median wage, and maintaining that ratio, would correct the two flaws that have left the floor unfit for purpose: a level too low to function as a meaningful wage standard and a structure that does not adjust as the economy grows.

A federal minimum at two-thirds of the median would raise pay for nearly 40 million workers in 2030, deliver the largest gains to Black workers and to women, and bring the floor close to a living wage in much of the country. Decades of research, recent state and local experience, and California’s $20 fast-food minimum all point to the same conclusion: The labor market can absorb minimum wages of this size with little to no employment cost. The benchmark also brings U.S. policy into line with the UK and most of the EU, where two-thirds-style targets are now standard practice.

A higher floor cannot, on its own, guarantee economic security for working people. That will require a broader agenda: a stronger safety net, expanded public goods, fewer barriers to unionization, and a renewed commitment to full employment. But updating the federal minimum to a modern, indexed benchmark is the single most direct step Congress can take to raise wages at the bottom, and the only step that reaches the 55 million workers in the 20 states still stuck at $7.25.

Appendix

State benefits

Methodology

Underlying wages are based on the 2025 Current Population Survey and between 2025 and 2030. I assume wages increase at the rate of CBO (2026a) ECI projections and because of future state-level minimum wages. Due to the Trump administration’s immigration policies and the possibility of continued labor market weakening, how the baseline level of employment grows over the next five years is very uncertain. For simplicity, I hold the estimated employment level constant between 2025 and 2030 instead of making additional assumptions about either employment rates or population growth. In terms of total population growth, this assumption may not be too far off the mark of current projections; CBO (2026b), for example, estimates that between 2025 and 2030, the civilian population ages 16 to 64 will only grow by 0.06%, or 130,000 people.

Affected workers include those “directly” affected, whose wages would otherwise be less than the new federal minimum wage, as well as “indirectly” affected workers who earn up to 115% of the new minimum (Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019). These particular estimates may overstate the number of workers affected because while they incorporate already scheduled state-level increases, they exclude city-level minimum wage increases, and some cities will have higher than $20 minimum wage standards in 2030. On the other hand, if the labor market continues to weaken, low-wage workers will, in the absence of minimum wages, face slower than usual wage growth because their wage growth slows disproportionately when unemployment is higher (Bivens and Zipperer 2018).

Notes

1. These projections follow CBO ECI and CPI projections from 2025–2036, and for subsequent years assume 2026–2035 annual growth rates of 2.26% for CPI and 2.94% for ECI. 

2. For additional discussion, see Dube and Lindner (2025), Schmitt (2013), and Zipperer (2023).

3. OECD (2026) estimated the U.S. minimum-to-median wage for full-time workers was 55.05% in 1968. Assuming a 10% premium for the full-time median wage relative to the overall median wage results in a minimum-to-median wage ratio of 60.56%.

4. In April 2024, the state raised the wage for fast-food chain workers from $16 to $20, pushing the ratio of that minimum to the state’s median wage to about 74%, well above most U.S. precedents.

5. The 2024 OEWS national median wage (which is the latest available data) was $23.80 (BLS 2025). The EPI State of Working America Data Library (EPI 2026b), which uses CPS wage data and which we use for wage levels throughout this paper, reports a 2024 median wage of $24.87.

6. The exact schedule simulated below is $12 in 2026, $13.50 in 2027, $15.50 in 2028, $17.50 in 2029, and $20 in 2030.

7. Ideally other subminimum wages would be phased out, including those for some workers with disabilities and youth workers. I do not model the effects of those changes due to data constraints.

8. I concentrate on the effects in 2030. Were low-wage workers’ wages to grow slower (or faster) than median wages, these estimates would understate (or overstate) the effects in later years.

References

Banks, Nina. 2019. “Black Women’s Labor Market History Reveals Deep-Seated Race and Gender Discrimination.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 19, 2019.

Bernstein, Jared. 2013. “If Increasing the Minimum Wage Doesn’t Cost Jobs, How Does It Get Absorbed?” Huffington Post, August 14, 2013.

Bivens, Josh, and Ben Zipperer. 2018. The Importance of Locking in Full Employment for the Long Haul. Economic Policy Institute, August 2018.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2025. “Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) Tables, May 2024” [Excel file], Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. Accessed May 13, 2026. 

Clemens, Jeffrey, Olivia Eduwards, Jonathan Meer, and Joshua D. Nguyen. 2026. “The Effects of Calfornia’s $20 Fast Food Minimum Wage on Prices.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 34990, March 2026.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2026a. The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036. February 11, 2026.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2026b. The Demographic Outlook: 2026 to 2056. January 7, 2026.

Cooper, David, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer. 2019. Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology. Economic Policy Institute, February 2019. 

Coviello, Decio, Erika Deserranno, and Nicola Persico. 2022. “Minimum Wage and Individual Worker Productivity: Evidence from a Large US Retailer.” Journal of Political Economy 130, no. 9: 2315–2360.

Derenoncourt, Ellora, and Claire Montialoux. 2021. “Minimum Wages and Racial Inequality.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 136, no. 1 (February): 169–228.

Dube, Arindrajit. 2026a. “Labor Market Effects of California’s $20 Fast-Food Minimum Wage.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 35171, May 2026.

Dube, Arindrajit. 2026b. The Wage Standard: What’s Wrong in the Labor Market and How to Fix It. New York: Penguin Random House.

Dube, Arindrajit, and Attila S. Lindner. 2024. “Minimum Wages in the 21st Century.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, Volume 5, edited by Christian Dustmann and Thomas Lemieux. 

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026a. Minimum Wage Tracker. Accessed May 5, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026b. State of Working America Data Library. Accessed May 5, 2026. 

Giupponi, Giulia, Robert Joyce, Attila Lindner, Tom Waters, Thomas Wernham, and Xiaowei Xu. 2024. “The Employment and Distributional Impacts of Nationwide Minimum Wage Changes.” Journal of Labor Economics 42, no. S1: S293–S333.

Hickey, Sebastian, and Ismael Cid-Martinez. 2025. “The Federal Minimum Wage is Officially a Poverty Wage in 2025.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 28, 2025.

Low Pay Commission. 2024. “What Will the Minimum Wage Be Next Year?” (blog post). April 19, 2024.

Oakford, Patrick. 2026. Federal Employment Standards as the Foundation of Economic Security: Revisiting Minimum Wage, Just Cause, and Tools to Combat Wage Theft. Roosevelt Institute, May 2026.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2026. OECD Data Explorer. Accessed May 5, 2026.

Reich, Michael. 2026. The Unexpected Effects of a $20 Federal Minimum Wage. Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, February 2026.

Reich, Michael, and Denis Sosinskiy. 2026. “Effects of a $20 Minimum Wage: Evidence from Granular Data on Wages, Employment, and Prices.” Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper, April 1, 2026.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Education and Labor. 1937. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937. S. Rep. No. 884, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wursten, Jesse, and Michael Reich. 2023. “Racial Inequality in Frictional Labor Markets: Evidence from Minimum Wages.” Labour Economics 82, 102344.

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:

• Affordability is not just about prices; it’s the outcome of a race between income growth and price inflation. When income growth is slower than price inflation, affordability worsens. When income growth is faster, affordability improves.
• Focusing just on prices is bad for understanding how the economy works and how it has performed in the recent past, and it leads to an overly restrictive policy menu for improving families’ affordability.
• Policy can more reliably address income growth for typical families. This growth has been stunted for decades by the rise of inequality. Closing this gap by ensuring more equitable distribution of future growth is the strongest tool we have for improving affordability.

Affordability has been the policy buzzword of recent years. Much of the affordability discourse—both among policymakers and the public—has focused near-exclusively on prices as the big affordability problem. But affordability is not a problem of high prices, instead it’s the outcome of a race between incomes and prices. And the reason typical families have faced an affordability crunch in recent decades is not because prices have grown exceptionally fast, it’s because incomes for the vast majority have grown too slowly. This income growth has been suppressed mostly by rising inequality that has put a growing wedge between overall economic growth and the income growth of typical families.

Getting the drivers of affordability right is important—it’s not just quibbling. If you only examine price growth and try to infer what has happened to affordability over periods of economic history, you’ll usually get the story wrong. And if policymakers only look at how to change the trajectory of prices while ignoring what they can do to change the trajectory of incomes, they will be far less effective in providing useful relief to U.S. families. There are far more ways to use policy to raise incomes in a targeted and effective way than there are to suppress price growth.

Below, we provide some more background on why analyses of affordability need to include incomes, why policymakers have much more scope to raise incomes in a useful way as opposed to pushing down prices, and why focusing just on prices can obscure whether affordability has improved or worsened.

Why do prices dominate today’s affordability debates?

In modern capitalist economies, prices rise essentially every year (though at quite different rates), but so do incomes. Determining what has happened to families’ ability to afford a decent and secure life requires looking at measures that take into account both sides of the affordability equation, such as real (inflation-adjusted) income growth. Nobody really disputes this. After all, Americans could buy a new car for $600 in the 1930s, but nobody thinks society was generally richer back then.

The narrow focus on prices in assessing one’s own economic struggles likely stems from several factors.

First, inflation was very fast in the early 2020s. Americans hadn’t experienced inflation rates that high in decades, and they didn’t like them, so prices remain front of mind for many.

Second, it is true that price changes can dominate what happens to real incomes over very short time periods (say a year or less). This recognition is why we can be so sure that the oil price shock inflicted by the U.S. bombing of Iran is going to be so damaging to U.S. families. The rise in oil prices so far this year has likely baked in at least a 1.5% increase in inflation over the next 6–12 months. In 2025, real wage growth for the large majority of workers was slower than 1.5% (which was the outcome of roughly 4% nominal wage growth minus 2.5% inflation). Given this, a sharp and unexpected 1.5% jump in prices will likely erase any prospective real wage gains for workers in 2026.

Finally, it has been noted that many Americans see wage gains as something they accomplished themselves through hard work, while prices are out of their immediate control. Inflation is hence seen as damage done to them and something they need relief from. But this is mostly wrong—policy choices impact wage growth at least as much as inflation, and the most effective policy relief for living standards will come through measures that raise wages, not restrain prices.

Policy can target incomes more effectively and precisely than prices

One person’s income is another person’s cost, which means prices are a bundle of different stakeholders’ incomes. The bill you pay at the grocery store must cover payments the store makes to its shareholders, the salary of the CEO and managers, the wages of cashiers, and the cost of buying food from producers. We don’t want all these incomes to be forced down. Given extreme levels of inequality in the U.S., we would likely be fine with lower CEO pay and payments to shareholders, but we would want wages of cashiers and many in the food production supply chain to rise. Efforts to simply clamp down on this price will have uncertain effects on incomes.

In the jargon of economists, focusing on prices is sector-based policy but to genuinely improve affordability we need factor-based policies, where factors of production like capital, rank-and-file workers, and corporate management can be specifically targeted by policies that aim to raise or restrain their incomes.

Fortunately, there are many good policy options for targeted affordability policy specifically toward low- and middle-income families. Incomes for these families—and for anybody without dynastic wealth—are dominated by wages and public benefits. We talk about each of these in turn below.

Boosting public benefits is affordability policy

Public benefits are entirely under policymakers’ control. If policymakers really cared about the affordability of groceries or health care or energy, they could boost benefits for food stamps, Medicaid, and the low-income heating energy assistance program. These programs currently deliver needed assistance to tens of millions of families to make life more affordable—and they do this with vanishingly small administrative costs, meaning they are highly efficient. Yet all of these programs are slated for steep cuts in the coming decade due to the Republican tax and spending megabill passed in 2025. This bill will inflict large damage to the most vulnerable families’ ability to afford decent and secure lives.

Further, Congress and the Trump administration chose to not extend the Biden administration’s more-generous subsidies for people to buy health insurance through the marketplace exchanges of the Affordable Care Act. The failure to extend these subsidies—even after a full federal government shutdown engineered by congressional Democrats aimed at prioritizing this issue—means that average out-of-pocket costs will double for those buying insurance in the exchanges.

Besides just reversing these cuts, making the U.S. welfare state more robust could also greatly boost the affordability of a decent life. Things like making health coverage more universal with lower out-of-pocket costs, reforming unemployment insurance to make it more protective, and providing all families with children a generous universal child allowance could dramatically improve affordability.

Policy can boost affordability through higher wages as well

The link between policy changes and wage growth is slightly less direct than for public benefits, but it remains very strong. Capitalist labor markets are inherently tilted toward employers and against workers. The only periods of history that have seen strong and equal rates of wage growth across the workforce have been periods where policy supported institutions that boosted workers’ leverage with employers.

The 30 years after World War II saw the creation of policies and institutions that successfully spread the gains from rising productivity equitably among workers up and down the wage distribution, with low- and middle-wage workers seeing growth rates as fast as high-wage workers. This equitable distribution of wage growth was a crucial way that income growth more broadly was kept equitable in this period.

Since 1979, however, these institutions have been steadily attacked and weakened with no new institutions being stood up to take their place in ensuring an equitable distribution of economic growth. The result has been that wages and incomes of typical families have lagged far behind average income and wage growth (or productivity). The wedge between income growth experienced by the vast majority of families and average growth is simply income being generated in the economy that is not helping typical families’ affordability struggles. Instead, it is income being funneled reliably away to the top.

There’s no reason that the institutions that equalized wage growth cannot be built back up and modernized.

The federal minimum wage is the most obvious policy institution for raising wages at the low end of the labor market. Raising the federal minimum wage from its current shamefully low $7.25 would directly boost affordability for tens of millions of workers. In the middle of the wage distribution, unions have proven to be the institution that has historically counteracted employer power and given typical workers increased leverage. However, unions are in a far weaker position today relative to their high points because of intentional policy choices—specifically because policymakers failed to act to curb employers’ growing hostility (and often their illegal activities) toward union organizing. If stronger policy boosted union density, unions would raise wages for both members and non-members alike.

Low- and middle-wage workers also benefit enormously from a determined effort to keep unemployment low for extended periods of time. In recent decades, policymakers have tolerated excess unemployment to keep inflation in check, but this is far too costly a strategy to keep potential inflation in check. Besides locking out millions of willing workers from job opportunities, long periods of excess unemployment were periods when real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth became literally stagnant.

Policymakers often seem skeptical of the effectiveness of these wage-boosting policies, arguing that the effects are too indirect and will take too long to provide benefits to workers. It’s true that efforts to boost unionization and sustain full employment will take some time to push up wages. But they will do this reliably. Further, many policies advanced in the name of reducing prices would also take a long time to come to fruition. For example, calls to tighten antitrust restrictions against corporate mergers and to break up established monopolies often have lots of merit. However, they are not policies that happen instantly and have purely predictable effects.

Focusing too hard on prices can obscure when affordability is actually improving

Finally, one key reason to broaden the affordability debate beyond prices is simply to make sure the public and policymakers can correctly identify periods of improvement or degradation of affordability. As an example of how focusing only on prices can lead to an incorrect diagnosis of affordability trends, take the example of two five-year stretches in recent economic history, both measured from a business cycle peak and going five years forward from there: In the years between 2007 and 2012, annual inflation averaged 1.8% and peaked at 5.5%, while between 2019 and 2024, inflation averaged 4.2% and peaked at 9%. Based on price growth alone, one would expect affordability to have eroded more rapidly in that second period, and indeed the popular narrative is that the early 2020s inflation was particularly destructive for affordability.

But between 2007 and 2012, the nation’s unemployment rate averaged 8.3%, while it averaged less than 5% between 2019 and 2024. After 2007, it took 93 months to re-attain the pre-recession unemployment rate, while it took just 29 months after the 2019 business cycle peak. In short, the labor market was far stronger in the second period.

And when it comes to real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth, the second period—largely because of its lower unemployment—saw far better outcomes than the first. In the 2019–2024 period, inflation-adjusted wages for low-wage workers (those at the 10th percentile) and the median worker rose by a cumulative 15.3% and 5.8%, respectively. In short, contrary to most conventional wisdom, affordability improved in this time. Between 2007 and 2012, real wages outright fell for both low-wage and median workers. Even with very slow inflation, affordability was demonstrably worse in that earlier period.

Figure A

More recently, inflation averaged slightly lower in 2025 (2.5%) than 2024 (2.9%). Yet for many workers—and particularly low-wage workers—2025 saw weaker (or even negative) real wage growth. This is largely due to some slight cooling in the labor market as unemployment rose from 4.0% to 4.4% over the course of 2025. Hence, even as inflation decelerated, the cooling labor market led to an even faster deceleration in nominal wages, which meant that affordability worsened for many workers.

Figure B

Reducing inequality is the key to improving affordability

Because many policymakers believe that affordability concerns are a new problem caused by inflation of recent years, they are now on a frenzied search for new and creative solutions to this price problem. But because the real affordability problem for U.S. families did not emerge in the past few years (remember, affordability was improving in the five years before 2025) and because the genuine long-run problem of affordability was about the inequality of income and wage growth, not excess inflation, most of these new and creative solutions just won’t hit the mark.

It’s understandable why many policymakers seem frustrated with being reminded of the long-diagnosed problem of inequality and the proven remedies—such as sustained full employment, higher wage standards like minimum wages, protecting workers’ fundamental rights to organize unions and bargain collectively, and a more robust welfare state.

Some, of course, just don’t believe in some of these solutions, while many who do would argue that these proven remedies are politically unrealistic in the current moment. But because the real affordability problem is an inequality problem that requires those at the top of the income and wealth scales having to accept less growth going forward (less than the stratospheric gains they’ve gotten used to, it should be said), any genuine solution is going to seem impossible in today’s political system that is dominated by the wealthiest families and corporations. Any policy—whether old and well-tested or new and creative—that actually aims to redistribute income, wealth, and power away from where it sits today will face a wall of opposition that must be politically overcome one way or the other. There’s no “one weird trick” where you can develop a policy creative and neat enough that it will somehow fool the rich and powerful about what its end result will be. And if the end result of the new and creative policy does not threaten the prerogatives of the rich, it’s not a real solution.

Today’s affordability concerns are indeed rooted in objective facts about the material circumstances of middle- and working-class families in the United States. Precisely because of this, they deserve more serious analysis and policy responses than they have been getting. This means focusing more on incomes than prices, and it means being clear-eyed that it has been the upward redistribution of income to the top—abetted by policy decisions—that is the drag on typical families’ affordability. Until solutions address that, they’re mostly just noise.

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.

Rising authoritarianism and the need to upend the failed Southern economic development model

For generations, Southern politicians backed by powerful business interests have promoted a Southern economic development model—characterized by low wages, regressive taxation, lax environmental regulations, a weak social safety net, and vicious opposition to unions—while claiming such policies will attract business and thereby generate regional economic gains. But data actually show a grim reality. The South lags all other regions on most indicators of economic health including job growth and wages, and Southern workers and their families experience significantly higher rates of poverty than in other parts of the country (Childers 2024a).

The truth is that this Southern economic development model was never designed to benefit most Southerners; rather, it is historically rooted in efforts of white plantation owners to retain their wealth following emancipation and ensure continued access to the labor of Black people for as little compensation as possible (Childers 2025). Foundational to these efforts was an authoritarian approach to state governance that suppressed popular democracy and worker organizing—an approach that also sanctioned prison labor, sharecropping, a century of Jim Crow laws, lynching, and other forms of state-sponsored terror and exploitation. Until partially challenged by federal legal and policy interventions won by post-WWII civil rights movements, many Southern states for decades held elections that served merely to provide a cover of legitimacy to one-party rule of white, wealthy elites—functionally excluding Black voters from the electorate and blocking working-class constituencies from any meaningful participation in governance (Mickey 2015; Perez 2024; Mast 2025).

Today, the Trump administration’s increasingly authoritarian actions echo this troubling Southern history. At their foundation, the administration’s approaches to bypassing constitutional checks and balances—while rolling back civil rights, worker rights, and environmental protections; terrorizing immigrant communities; deploying military troops in U.S. cities; and attempting to engineer election outcomes via gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression—are rooted in authoritarian models developed and tested in the U.S. South, and that Black, brown, and immigrant communities across the country are no stranger to.

Recent attempts to terminate federal employee collective bargaining agreements, for example, are familiar to public employees in Southern states for whom collective bargaining has long been banned or severely restricted. The Trump administration’s use of military-style policing in communities across the country echoes Southern histories of weaponizing law enforcement (or National Guard troops) to suppress organizing and instill fear, while prioritizing the expansion of the carceral state over investments in housing, education, and public services. Trump’s efforts to override the authority of state officials mirror Southern state uses of abusive preemption laws to strip policymaking authority from local governments. And administration attempts to halt clean energy investments and environmental protections threaten to repeat harms familiar in Black and brown communities in the South, where corporations have insisted on lax environmental regulations that allow them to degrade air, water, and climate quality, while profiting from the exploitation of local natural resources and labor.

Seizing opportunities to reverse decades of anti-worker, anti-democratic policymaking in the South at a moment of rising authoritarianism in the U.S. is a daunting and unavoidably urgent challenge. It will require robust new forms of multiracial organizing and labor-community coalition building across a broad set of industries in the South. Labor-community coalitions can leverage community benefits agreements (CBAs) as a powerful tool to transform economic power relations in Southern workplaces and communities. Because CBAs are private agreements between labor-community coalitions and project owners, they do not rely on government action and can therefore shape economic outcomes of major projects even in otherwise hostile political environments. CBAs have traditionally been fought for and won by labor and community groups coming together and building necessary public pressure to hold developers, corporations, and elected leaders accountable for ensuring that public investments in major new developments truly benefit workers and communities.

In this report, we analyze the potential for labor-community coalitions to pursue strong CBAs that secure significant economic benefits for Southern manufacturing workers and communities, drawing on examples of existing agreements to model potential impacts. We examine the scale of recent public investments in Southern manufacturing and examine how strong CBAs on major publicly-subsidized private projects could improve the quality of newly created construction and production jobs; open up pathways to unionization; ensure equitable hiring and training opportunities for local residents; and address community needs such as child care, affordable housing, and natural resource protection.

We contend that upending the failed Southern economic development model and the authoritarian structures that underpin it will require building new forms of labor and community power to increase union density in the South. Well-known research shows that unions promote economic equality and help workers win improvements in pay, benefits, and working conditions (Economic Policy Institute 2021). But unions also powerfully affect people’s lives outside of work. They help foster solidarity, increase democratic participation, enable working-class communities to shape economic policies affecting their lives, and serve as a counterweight to corporate power in our economy and democracy (McNicholas et al. 2025). Historically, unions have been engines of resistance to entrenched and undemocratic power—mobilizing working people to challenge inequality, defend civil rights, and push back against authoritarianism in all its forms. For all these reasons, strengthening labor-community coalitions and pathways to unionization in growing Southern industrial sectors is not just good economic policy—it is also a democratic imperative amid national authoritarian backsliding.

Worker and community power can ensure new manufacturing investments yield good jobs and community benefits

The latest wave of manufacturing growth in the South presents both opportunities and pitfalls for workers and communities. Southern states continue to lure businesses—including large manufacturing facilities—with promises of low corporate tax rates, low wages, lax regulations, and massive public subsidies. The automotive manufacturing industry has been a key recipient of public subsidies, receiving billions of dollars from Southern states in recent decades (Childers 2024a; Todd 2021). This system of low taxation and corporate giveaways starves other essential public goods, like education and social safety net programs (Mast 2025b). Likewise, weak or nonexistent environmental regulations have contributed to toxic sites and resource degradation that disproportionately affect Black and brown families, reflecting often intentional decisions to site hazardous facilities in low-income communities of color (Bergman 2019).

Some announced manufacturing projects have been cancelled or reduced in size after the Trump administration’s slashing of federal supports for strategic industries, but many projects launched during the Biden administration continue to move forward. These manufacturing investments, both in traditional industries and nascent ones such as electric vehicle (EV) and EV battery manufacturing, are spurring significant job growth in some Southern communities. Yet past experience shows that new investments and resulting jobs are unlikely to generate economic benefits for most Southerners unless local residents are able to ensure that developers and corporations respect workers’ rights, protect local natural resources, and contribute a fair share toward addressing priority community needs.

Community benefits agreements can be powerful vehicles for communities to secure lasting local economic benefits from major industrial development, at both new and existing facilities. A CBA is a legally enforceable contract between a private developer or company and a local coalition—typically made up of labor, community, faith, environmental, and other grassroots organizations—that details how a project will benefit workers and the community, and in turn how the community will support the project (including via potential public investment). Benefits spelled out in a CBA can include commitments to strong labor standards; respect for workers’ rights to organize; equitable workforce recruitment, training, and hiring practices; affordable housing; environmental protections; or a broad range of other community-identified priorities. CBAs are a well-developed model for responsible community development—so far mostly, but not entirely, in regions outside the South—and have been used for many different types of major projects including sports stadiums, events centers, manufacturing plants, airports, transit projects, and more (WRI n.d.).

CBAs can likewise mitigate risks for project developers by ensuring local project support and addressing important concerns early on, whereas failure to engage local communities in major development decisions can otherwise lead to strong community opposition, interruption of development, obstacles to obtaining necessary siting permits or rezoning approvals, or significant legal costs. In an example from June 2024, developers shelved plans for a $1.3 billion data center in Indiana after facing significant local opposition over environmental concerns (Fazili et al. 2025).

Because a CBA is a private, legally binding agreement, it does not require government action and can be used to shape outcomes of major projects even in contexts (as in most of the South) where state legislators have preempted local governments from establishing their own job quality or environmental standards (EPI 2025a). That being said, state and local governments can still have a role in facilitating, negotiating, or enforcing community benefits. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland have ordinances requiring developers of projects using public resources to engage in a community benefits plan process (City of Detroit n.d.; City of Cleveland n.d.). In 2005, Atlanta passed an ordinance specifying worker and community benefits for the Beltline redevelopment (WRI 2025). However, government involvement in community benefits plans does not guarantee strong agreements on its own. A strong labor-community coalition remains essential for securing meaningful community benefits.

Another key strength of a CBA is that it can set standards across all stages of a project’s development to ensure long-term benefits for the community at large. Private developers or public entities sometimes negotiate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) or Community Workforce Agreements (CWAs) with building trades unions and community partners to set wages, working conditions, and timelines for the construction phase of a complex development project. A CBA can be negotiated alongside a PLA to also ensure pathways to quality jobs for local residents during the operational phases of a project, including any future expansions of the facility or additions to its workforce. A CBA can also secure commitments to build affordable housing, strengthen environmental standards, and provide other benefits to the community such as child care, public parks, or other community spaces.

To be successful, a CBA must also include defined enforcement mechanisms that hold all parties to the agreement accountable. It must clearly establish the obligations of each party, metrics for measuring progress, and ongoing monitoring of compliance with the agreement’s provisions (Last 2025; PWF and CBLC 2016). If the company or the coalition fails to make good-faith efforts on the agreement’s commitments, an arbitration process is initiated. While monitoring of the agreement is an ongoing responsibility of all members of the coalition, providing a pathway for workers to organize in the operational phase of a project is of particular importance. A newly established union at the project site is well-positioned to monitor the commitments of the CBA and hold the company accountable over the long term.

Organizers and advocates should be clear-eyed that while strong CBAs can yield powerful economic outcomes, such agreements are by no means easy to win. There are generally no legal requirements for a particular company or developer to recognize or engage with a labor-community coalition, much less to agree to negotiate and implement a CBA. Building the broad-based, durable coalitions and leverage necessary to compel private interests to engage in CBA negotiations (and then to implement and enforce the terms of a CBA) is unavoidably a challenging, long-term, resource-intensive organizing project. And like any worthwhile organizing, the formation of strong, durable labor-community coalitions is itself a key outcome of successful CBA campaigns. Vastly expanding the capacity of broad-based coalitions and labor, faith, environmental, and other grassroots organizations to gradually build community and worker power in Southern communities is the most essential ingredient for transforming existing power imbalances and, ultimately, upending the failed Southern economic development model.

Indeed, recent initiatives to win CBAs in Southern states have proven so threatening to some corporate interests that they have sought to undermine them. In 2025, Tennessee Republicans passed legislation prohibiting any company that enters into a CBA from receiving state economic development funds—aiming to create obstacles to replication of a highly successful CBA covering Nashville’s soccer stadium, and to discourage a coalition of West Tennessee residents and allied groups calling on Ford and SK Innovation to negotiate a CBA covering its massive BlueOval electric vehicle and battery manufacturing complex (Abrams 2025). In Tennessee and elsewhere, however, labor-community coalitions are nonetheless continuing to organize to ensure that massive, publicly subsidized new facilities yield good jobs and community benefits.

A new wave of Southern manufacturing is an opportunity to transform working conditions in growing industries—and across the South

Growth in Southern manufacturing industries presents a significant opportunity for labor-community coalitions to shape labor standards and community benefits in new plants and facilities—and to shape economic outcomes for generations of Southern workers to come. In recent years, the South has seen a wave of manufacturing investments. Between 2017 and 2023, manufacturing construction doubled in the East South Central Census division (Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi) (O’Brien 2023). The West South Central division (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) has the highest amount of manufacturing construction spending of any division in the U.S. These investments are part of a long-term trend of manufacturing industries locating in the South, which in recent years was accelerated by large federal investments through the Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and CHIPS and Science Act. These federal investments included both direct public subsidies and tax credits to businesses that invested in key clean energy manufacturing industries such as the production of batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind energy products.

In contrast to the typical economic development approach of many Southern states, some recent federal investments have included incentives meant to encourage strong labor standards on projects receiving public funds. While the future of many of these investments (and accompanying incentives) is now uncertain, the U.S. has in the past two years experienced its largest investment in clean energy manufacturing ever, and much of that has occurred in Southern states.1 Since the third quarter of 2023, more than $125 billion worth of clean energy manufacturing investments were announced across Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas (CET 2025). Advancing even a portion of these projects would result in thousands of jobs for Southern workers.

Independent of the future of federal support for clean energy manufacturing, the South will likely continue to be the largest manufacturing employer of all U.S. regions. Figure A shows manufacturing employment by region in the United States since 1990. While manufacturing employment overall has fallen during the last three decades, the South has retained the largest share of manufacturing employment of any region. In 2024, 35% of U.S. manufacturing employment was in the South. Furthermore, since 2010, manufacturing employment in the South has grown by 17%, the quickest growth of any region.

Figure A

Manufacturing jobs are often considered to be well-paid, benefit-providing “middle-class” jobs, but there is nothing inherent to the sector that determines their quality. Manufacturing jobs in some industries became “good jobs” thanks to relatively high levels of unionization during the mid-20th century, which improved wages, benefits, and working conditions (Bayard et al. 2024; Rhinehart and McNicholas 2020). As Figure B shows, unionization in manufacturing has fallen in all regions since 1983, but the South has almost without exception had the lowest unionization rate of any region.

Conservative Southern policymakers have long been hostile to union organizing. For example, every Southern state except Maryland and Delaware has passed anti-union so-called right-to-work (RTW) laws, which make it harder for workers to form, join, and sustain unions. Southern states like Florida and Arkansas were among the first to pass such laws in the 1940s, amid a wave of big business backlash against new federal labor laws and white supremacist campaigns to maintain racial hierarchies and suppress multiracial worker organizing. RTW laws suppress unionization rates and, as a result, have driven down wages for both union and nonunion workers alike across the South (Sherer and Gould 2025; Childers 2023).

Figure B

In 2025, Southern manufacturing had a 6.7% unionization rate—slightly below the national unionization rate for private-sector workers (6.8%). Unionization in Southern manufacturing grew by more than a percentage point between 2024 and 2025, a notable one-year reversal of the industry’s long-standing unionization decline, consistent with overall union gains in the South (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). Nevertheless, Southern manufacturing’s unionization rate remains well below the Midwest’s (11.2%), the region where manufacturing is the most heavily unionized. Unions have a strong impact on job quality because they leverage worker power collectively to raise wages, win benefits like health care and retirement, and enact other meaningful workplace improvements, such as improved health and safety standards. These benefits can extend beyond unionized workers themselves, helping set standards across a workplace, and with enough density, across an industry.

As unionization declines in an industry or region, so does job quality. For instance, as unionization rates have fallen in auto manufacturing, the pay advantage for auto workers compared with the median worker has declined significantly (Barrett and Bivens 2021). Figure C demonstrates how this relationship holds across regions in 2025. Manufacturing jobs in the South have a pay advantage of 7%, the lowest of any region. Southern manufacturing workers also experience the lowest median hourly pay of any region ($24.41).2

Figure C

The Southern economic development model clearly hurts the region’s workers by denying them their right to organize and suppressing their wages, but there are harmful spillover effects for their communities as well. Corporate tax breaks with no strings attached provide billions of dollars to corporations that could otherwise be used to invest in schools and other essential government services. These types of tax breaks might be worthy of consideration if manufacturing employers were required to create high-quality jobs for local workers and make long-term investments in local community development needs (i.e., housing, infrastructure, education, etc.). Without such protections, they are simply taxpayer-funded giveaways that often drain the very resources needed to develop the local workforce recruited by large new facilities.

Southern states enact little to no regulation of workplace safety or environmental pollution. This results in unsafe workplaces with greater levels of injury and death (Childers 2024a). Environmental pollution from manufacturing sites can negatively affect public health by contaminating water, air, and soil. New manufacturing investments also can mean significant changes to the demand for housing in a community. A new plant or factory can drive up the cost of living for nearby residents without yielding any economic benefits to a local community. Labor, community, and environmental groups need to collaborate on shared solutions to effectively address these intertwined challenges.

Labor-community coalitions can obtain commitments that ensure “economic development” means shared prosperity for all

Labor-community coalitions organizing around manufacturing projects can secure commitments that offer direct economic benefits to workers and communities, while also establishing groundwork for the growth of worker and community power in the area. While a campaign to win a CBA can be the impetus for forming a local labor-community coalition, the alignment and relationships built through this shared work can lead to longer-term, sustainable coalitions capable of transforming local and state power relationships.

The following section analyzes a set of commitments that can be included in a CBA for a manufacturing project. The CBA framework is flexible and allows for the inclusion of many different types of commitments prioritized by particular groups of workers, community members, and environmental groups. This report focuses on key types of commitments including union neutrality agreements, living wage floors, equitable workforce development practices (such as local or targeted hire policies and programs to expand pathways to apprenticeship training), affordable housing provisions, child care benefits, and environmental protections. Each type of commitment is analyzed in terms of its economic impacts and effectiveness in reshaping local economic development to ensure that public investments generate broadly shared community benefits.

The construction phase and Project Labor Agreements (PLA)

This report mostly focuses on community benefits for workers during the operational phase of a manufacturing plant. Nevertheless, it is just as vital to set high labor standards during the construction phase. Strong community benefits agreements are ideally developed in tandem with strong project construction labor standards set via project labor agreements (PLAs). A PLA is a multiparty agreement between a project owner and a coalition of labor unions that sets out labor standards and dispute resolution procedures to promote stability and efficiency on complex infrastructure projects while also ensuring the project will generate good jobs. PLAs ensure that construction projects run smoothly, are safer, and pay workers fairly (Mangundayao, McNicholas, and Poydock 2022). By setting negotiated wage and benefit levels for each type of work on a project, PLAs level the playing field in highly competitive construction bidding processes; they ensure that contractors base bids on their ability to deliver on quality and efficiency, rather than low-ball cost estimates that reflect intent to pay substandard wages or cut corners on safety. By standardizing wage and benefit levels and taking them out of the competition in the bidding process, PLAs incentivize the use of skilled union labor, which is 14% more productive than nonunionized construction work (McFadden, Santosh, and Shetty 2022). PLAs typically set wages, fringe benefits, and working conditions but can also include requirements to utilize certain numbers of apprentices, hire locally or from certain target worker populations, and/or provide child care or other benefits that open up pathways to good union construction jobs for members of underrepresented groups.

Several of the types of standards for construction workers typically included in a PLA have analogous labor standards in the operational phase. For instance, a CBA can secure commitments for local or targeted hiring and the development of registered apprenticeship programs in a manufacturing facility, extending equitable recruitment and high-quality training requirements that a PLA typically sets for construction into the operational phase of a project.

Removing obstacles to unionization: Neutrality and labor peace agreements

Protecting workers’ freedom to unionize has historically been key to turning manufacturing jobs into good jobs. This remains just as true today. However, like workers across the country, Southern manufacturing workers continue to face formidable obstacles—including weak labor laws, powerful anti-union corporations, and hostile politicians—to exercising their legally protected rights to form or join a union. Employers are charged with violating federal labor law in more than 40% of union elections and spend more than $400 million a year on “union avoidance” consultants (McNicholas et al. 2019; McNicholas et al. 2023). Because existing weak labor laws do not effectively deter employers from union busting, these tactics are treated by many employers as a normal cost of doing business—stacking the deck unfairly against workers seeking to exercise their rights to organize and collectively bargain.

Union neutrality agreements can help safeguard workers’ right to form unions free of the types of interference employers often deploy. Under a neutrality agreement, an employer agrees to remain “neutral” and not interfere with workers’ decisions on whether to unionize. Such agreements typically include joint commitments to a “card check” process for verifying whether a majority of employees have indicated interest in forming a union. Unions and employers sometimes also enter into a labor peace agreement, where unions agree not to engage in certain types of picketing, work stoppages, or other economic disruptions during the organizing process in exchange for employer neutrality.

Employers can also choose to commit to union neutrality as a matter of principle or company policy. Union neutrality—providing workers a more free and fair choice to decide whether to unionize—has been a key component of successful unionization drives in Southern manufacturing. To take two recent examples:

• In 2024, workers at the Volkswagen (VW) Chattanooga plant voted to join the United Auto Workers. Like many European corporations, the German-based VW has an established policy of maintaining neutrality in union election processes, although workers still voiced concerns that in its U.S. facilities, VW management tried to intimidate and dissuade workers from forming a union (Bomey 2024).
• In tandem with community benefits agreement negotiations with New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama, the United Steel Workers and Communications Workers of America negotiated three neutrality agreements with New Flyer and its subsidiaries in 2022. Over the two years that followed, these union neutrality agreements enabled workers to pursue five successful union drives, including at the New Flyer facility in Alabama (Last 2025; Sasha 2024).

Successful recent instances of union organizing in Southern manufacturing facilities have been powerful enough to generate their own backlash. Because of the threat that union neutrality agreements represent to the reigning Southern economic development model, several conservative state legislatures in the South have used model legislation developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council to pass laws intended to interfere with these agreements (Sachs 2024). While the legality of such measures remains in question and has not yet been tested, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia now all have legislation in place stating that employers who agree to a union neutrality agreement will be barred from receiving state economic development funds, disincentivizing companies from participating in these agreements (Stephenson 2024).

Importance of unionization to improve manufacturing jobs and wages

Securing unionization in Southern manufacturing can have significant wage benefits for workers. Unionized manufacturing jobs are more likely to provide family-sustaining wages. Unionization in manufacturing is associated with a 17.9% wage premium for workers (Scott et al. 2022). This means that compared with similar workers in terms of education, occupation, experience, race, and ethnicity, unionized manufacturing workers are paid almost a fifth more per hour than their nonunionized counterparts.

Table 1 translates this union premium into how much more unionized workers in the South could make on an hourly, annual, and plant-wide basis. The average nonunionized manufacturing worker in the South earns $34.50 an hour, so with the typical union premium, that worker would be earning an additional $6.18 an hour. If that worker works full time, year-round, the hourly premium translates to $12,846 more a year. To illustrate the potential impact of unionization in an entire plant, we take the example of the BlueOval auto manufacturing investment in Tennessee, which is projected to create 6,000 jobs (TN Office of Governor 2023). For a plant of that size, unionization could mean more than $77 million in additional wages for workers.

Table 1

Wage gains from successful unionization are not hypothetical for manufacturing workers in the South. For example, in 2024, workers at New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama, ratified a union contract with significant pay raises, with some workers gaining raises of up to 38% through 2026 (CWA 2024). Establishing a union contract with transparent pay ladders will also help New Flyer workers combat persistent pay gaps between white and Black workers in Anniston’s manufacturing industry (Erickson 2021).

The benefits of unionization go far beyond hourly wage increases. The workers at New Flyer also achieved significant gains in terms of vacation time and retirement contributions. Unionized workers secure critical benefits like health care and sick days at greater rates than their nonunion peers. Adjusting for differences in industry, sector, and region, union workers are 18.3% more likely to have employer-covered health insurance than their nonunion counterparts (EPI 2021). Almost 9 in 10 private-sector union workers have paid sick days, compared with less than three-fourths of nonunion private-sector workers (EPI 2021).

Unions also contribute to safer and healthier working conditions across a wide range of industries (Dean, McCallum, and Venkataramani 2022). By strengthening workers’ voice on the job, unions empower workers to report safety issues and demand better protocols. One example of this is that unionized construction sites experience significantly lower rates of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations than nonunionized sites (Manzo IV, Jekot, and Bruno 2021). This is despite the fact that unionized workplaces actually experience greater rates of OSHA inspections than other workplaces, likely because many unions maintain active health and safety committees and because unionized workers have greater access to education on how to recognize safety hazards and are less afraid of reprisals from their employer for reporting them (Leigh and Chakalov 2021).

As the New Flyer agreement demonstrates, a strong CBA includes (or is negotiated in tandem with) union neutrality commitments ensuring that workers have a free and fair choice to unionize, without employer interference or retaliation. Securing a pathway to unionization can provide direct benefits to workers at a particular facility, while also increasing local organizing capacity and coalition strength for future negotiations over new projects and local development decisions. Not only is a new union a legally recognized institution that can monitor and hold the company accountable for commitments in the CBA, but it can also play a critical role in amplifying demands of workers and communities outside of the workplace and building power for working people more broadly.

Living wage floor

CBAs can also include commitments to minimum wage floors for the workers who will operate a new facility. For example, the 2018 Nashville Soccer CBA in Tennessee included a commitment to an hourly wage of at least $15.50 for stadium workers (SUN 2018). This provision set the stadium’s wage floor well above the minimum wage in Nashville, where workers—like all Tennessee workers and many across the South—are otherwise subject to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

If a wage floor set by a CBA is high enough, it can help workers achieve a living wage in the place that they live. What constitutes a living wage must be determined by labor and community partners (Gould, Mokhiber, and DeCourcy 2024). For example, a living wage could be defined narrowly as covering the necessities for a single adult, or more broadly as including the needs of a working parent and their children. A living wage target must also make assumptions about nonwage income such as health care benefits and government transfers. Manufacturing workers in the South can also rightfully seek wages that not only cover bare necessities but provide the family-sustaining resources needed to be healthy and thrive.

Figure D shows the share of manufacturing workers in the South earning less than $30 an hour, or $62,400 a year in wages for a full-time worker. More than 3 in 5 (60.8%) manufacturing workers in the region earn less than $30 an hour. Around 80% of Southern Black and Hispanic manufacturing workers earn below the $30 threshold. Women in manufacturing are also more likely to earn below $30 an hour (71.8%) than men (59.1%).

Figure D

A $30 wage floor exceeds the minimum costs for a single adult in most jurisdictions in the U.S., but still barely covers needs for many families with children in manufacturing-dense counties nationwide. EPI’s Family Budget Calculator estimates living wage standards by county that cover modest but necessary costs families face like food, rent, and transportation in the United States. Table 2 shows three Southern counties with significant clean energy manufacturing investments in recent years (CET 2025). Each county has significant manufacturing employment, exceeding the U.S. average for manufacturing employment density. For each county, living wage standards from the Family Budget Calculator are listed for different family types. In Morgan County, Georgia, and Maury County, Tennessee, a single adult with a child must earn at least $30 an hour to cover basic needs. For a single economic provider to cover the costs of a four-person family, they must earn over $35 an hour in all the counties listed. These living wage standards indicate that a $30 wage floor would provide significant economic security for workers with smaller families or multiple wage-earners.

Table 2

A CBA that secures a strong living wage standard in a manufacturing facility can create a virtuous cycle that brings about greater prosperity in the area. Higher wages for low- and middle-income workers boost spending in the local economy because these workers spend a greater share of their paycheck than high-income workers (Anderson 2014). Other employers in the area might have to raise their wages to compete for workers with the CBA-bound employer. The establishment of a living wage also demonstrates to other workers in the area that higher wages are a feasible goal through collective action.

Local and/or targeted hire policies

Local and targeted hiring refers to policies that prioritize recruitment of individuals from the local community, or workers from specific groups who are otherwise underrepresented in a given workforce relative to local population demographics, such as women, people of color, veterans, low-income workers, formerly incarcerated workers, or workers with disabilities (Lawliss, Finfer, and Sherer 2022). A local hire policy can require that a certain percentage of hours worked on a project be completed by local workers. These policies can also require giving local workers the first option to apply for jobs on a project. For the prosperity created through manufacturing investments in the South to be shared equitably, it is important that local community members have access to the jobs that are created during both the construction and operation phases of a development. Workforce policies also should be designed to remove barriers to employment for groups of workers—especially workers of color and women—who have historically been excluded from many construction and manufacturing career opportunities. Increasing access to these well-paying jobs can increase economic mobility for workers with more limited opportunities.

Despite these benefits, some state policymakers have been hostile to local hire as a public policy. In 2015, Nashville voters passed a ballot initiative that required city-funded construction projects to dedicate 40% of construction hours to Nashville residents, with 25% of those hours going to low-income Nashville residents (Blair et al. 2020). The Tennessee state legislature then quickly passed a bill that preempted the city from creating its own local hire policy.

As Figure E shows, the harm of Tennessee’s preemption of local hire falls disproportionately on workers of color. The construction workforce in the Nashville metro area has a higher share of workers of color and immigrant workers compared with the state construction workforce overall. Black workers are 8.2% of the construction workforce in Davidson County, but 5.5% of the overall state workforce. More than half (51.5%) of construction workers in Davidson County are Hispanic, compared with less than a quarter (20.1%) of the state overall. Davidson County construction workers are also more than twice as likely to be immigrants (40.2%) than in all of Tennessee (14.8%). State preemption of local hire prevented Nashville from ensuring that public spending would benefit local workers. However, private agreements like CBAs offer an opportunity to incorporate local hire and/or targeted hire requirements into publicly subsidized developments, even in heavily preempted jurisdictions.

Figure E

In 2018, three years after the preemption of Nashville’s local hire policy, the labor-community coalition Stand Up Nashville was able to leverage $275 million in public subsidies for a new professional soccer stadium into a successful CBA (SUN 2018). The Nashville Soccer CBA included commitments to local hire for stadium workers, particularly workers from “Promise Zones,” i.e., high-poverty areas with fewer economic opportunities (SUN 2020). Through the CBA, Nashville Soccer Holding, LLC agreed to consider qualified Promise Zone resident referrals for jobs at the stadium. So far, the program has succeeded in hiring Promise Zone residents. In 2023, Nashville Soccer Club had hired 180 employees, 80 of whom were residents of Promise Zones (SUN 2023).

CBAs in the South and throughout the country are securing similar commitments to local and targeted hiring in clean energy and manufacturing investments. In Alabama, the New Flyer CBA commits the company to ensuring that at least 45% of new hires and 20% of promotions are members of “Historically Disadvantaged Groups” (Sabin 2022).4 In Massachusetts, a new offshore wind terminal entered into a CBA with the City of Salem—setting targets for hiring of local workers, workers of color, and women workers (Sabin 2024). The CBA for Maine Aqua Ventis, an offshore wind facility, includes local hiring opportunities for residents of Monhegan, Maine (Sabin 2017). 

These types of agreements help ensure that local residents benefit from large investments in their communities, particularly when policymakers have invested public dollars in the form of tax breaks or corporate subsidies to support a new facility. Ensuring local workers are prioritized in training programs and hiring processes for newly created jobs also helps community members stay in the area when housing costs are driven up by a large new manufacturing investment. And in the longer term, providing pathways for local workers to benefit directly from these investments strengthens the labor and community alliances needed to hold developers and corporations accountable over time.

Equitable workforce development through apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships

In addition to local hire policies, which help create equitable pathways for local workers to secure good jobs at a manufacturing site, construction and manufacturing projects require a skilled workforce to operate safely and productively. A robust ecosystem of registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs can help ensure both that employers find the skilled workers they need in a large new manufacturing facility, and that local workers can access pathways to newly created jobs.

Registered apprenticeship programs are training programs vetted by federal or state agencies to ensure use of high-quality, best-practice training standards and approved curriculum aligned with skills needed to succeed in a particular occupation. Registered apprenticeships combine paid on-the-job and classroom training and result in a recognized, portable credential certifying that a worker has the skills and experience necessary for a specific occupation. Pre-apprenticeship programs (also known as apprenticeship readiness programs) recruit and prepare participants for registered apprenticeships—often partnering with community organizations—to open pathways to apprenticeship for women, Black and brown youth, immigrants, workers with disabilities, or others historically excluded from skilled trades occupations. The best practice is for these apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships to be joint programs between unions and employers, providing high-quality instruction tailored to industry needs and training that leads to placement in a high-quality job with wages, conditions, and benefits negotiated into a union contract. Often, a vital building block for successful manufacturing apprenticeship programs is the establishment of a unionized workforce at a facility.

Unlike lower-quality workforce development programs, registered apprenticeships pay workers fairly for their labor during their training—and in joint apprenticeship programs, the wages and benefits of apprentices are negotiated into a union contract and typically include scheduled increases as apprentices progress through the training program. Registered apprentices (across joint and non-joint programs) typically see their earnings increase 49% between the year before they enter the program and the year after completing it (Walton, Gardiner, and Barnow 2022). These increases in earnings are greater than for similar workers who do not enter the apprenticeship during the same time period (Katz et al. 2022). Apprenticeships can also be particularly attractive to workers because they are debt-free. Most apprentices (60%) consider debt avoidance the most important reason for choosing to enroll in an apprenticeship (Walton, Gardiner, and Barnow 2022).

Apprenticeships can be a powerful tool for increasing the diversity of construction and other industry workforces. While participation of women and workers of color in apprenticeships has grown in recent years, this growth has been painfully slow for decades (CEA 2024). Research finds that union-based (joint) apprenticeship programs have been more successful than other types of apprenticeships at increasing diversity in the construction industry (Ormiston and Bilginsoy 2024). Joint apprenticeships enroll a higher share of women, Black workers, and Hispanic workers than non-joint programs, and have higher program completion rates for all workers, including for women and workers of color. Community benefits agreements can secure commitments and partnerships that equitably grow this pipeline of workers and set enforceable local and targeted hiring goals which in turn spur diversification of construction and manufacturing apprenticeship programs.

For instance, the New Flyer CBA creates a partnership between the company and coalition partners to develop pre-apprenticeship and technical training programs that expand access to manufacturing jobs for workers with low incomes and from disadvantaged groups (Sabin 2022). For these programs to succeed, community groups and educational institutions must have an active role in shaping the programs and connecting workers to these opportunities. The development of a growing skilled workforce and a robust, high-quality workforce development ecosystem can in turn be a strong incentive for bringing more facilities to an area over time. In 2015, Polaris stated that a significant factor in its decision to choose Huntsville, Alabama, for a new production facility was the area’s skilled workforce (Polaris 2015). As more workers participate in high-quality training programs that lead to union jobs, the organized workforce of the region will grow, strengthening labor-community coalitions the next time there is an opportunity to shape new development in the region.

Child care

Child care is an essential but extremely costly expense for many working families across the South. Average annual infant care costs in the South range from $6,868 in Mississippi to $14,277 in Virginia.5 The Department of Health and Human Services recommends that 7% or less of family income go toward infant child care costs, but typical Southern families spend significantly more. In Alabama, infant care costs are 9.8% of median family income, while in Oklahoma the share is 15.4% (EPI 2025b).

Increasing access to high-quality, affordable child care not only makes work more accessible to parents (and especially to women, who on average continue to assume disproportionate care responsibilities), but is a powerful investment in children’s development that can help narrow class and racial inequalities (Morrisey 2020). In addition, child care workers tend to work for very low wages and experience poverty at greater rates than the typical worker.

A large manufacturing investment in a locality might produce a significant number of jobs, and in turn increase the demand of workers and their families to live nearby. This is likely to increase the need for child care services in the region. However, data show that child care employment has not kept up with manufacturing growth in Southern counties. Table 3 compares counties with high manufacturing density, where manufacturing employment makes up more than the national average (9% in 2009), with those with lower manufacturing employment density (EPI 2025c).

Table 3

Between 2009 and 2024, manufacturing employment in high-manufacturing-density counties in the South grew 15.9%, achieving faster growth than similar counties in the U.S. overall (12.1%). However, over the same period, child care employment only grew 4.5% in Southern high-manufacturing-density counties, far below the national rate of 14.2%. Child care employment growth in the South for low-manufacturing-density counties (22.3%) is also below the national level (28.5%). The South systematically underinvests in child care, despite its importance to a healthy economy in the region.

CBAs and PLAs have been used to secure both the construction of physical child care spaces and financial support for actual services. The Nashville Soccer CBA reserved 4,000 square feet for the development of a child care center (SUN 2020). In 2001, the CBA for the North Hollywood Commons mixed-use development project in Southern California secured a commitment to an on-site child care center. Fifty child care spaces at the center were reserved for low- and moderate-income families (Sabin 2001). In the Boston area, unions have secured Project Labor Agreements that seek to address the unique child care needs of the construction industry. The PLA for the Winthrop Center in Boston established a child care access fund to research, develop, and implement alternative child care models within the construction industry, with a particular focus on assisting single mothers with child care while supporting their career (NEREJ 2019).

These types of investments are vital supports for working families, particularly mothers, seeking to balance professional and care work. Combined with union neutrality for the child care workers at these facilities, commitments to providing child care can further elevate worker power in the region and help large new facilities recruit and retain the skilled, experienced workforces they need to succeed.

Affordable housing

Without strategies to address the housing needs of a community impacted by a new manufacturing investment, local residents can experience increased economic precarity or forced displacement. The local housing impacts of a large industrial investment can be complex. A significant manufacturing investment can make a local community more attractive as workers move into the area to be close to their place of work. Manufacturing investments are also likely to be paired with prospective real estate investments in anticipation of future development around the original project. State and local governments might use eminent domain and other purchasing mechanisms to secure land for roads and other new infrastructure. These dynamics can increase housing costs for residents, particularly renters who are most vulnerable to the impacts of housing speculation and prospective rent increases. For instance, the BlueOval development in West Tennessee is already reported to have increased property prices and housing rents (TCG 2023). Homeowners, particularly those with fixed incomes, can also be more burdened with housing costs as higher demand in the area increases property tax valuations (Payne 2019).

On the other hand, extreme proximity to an industrial site can expose residents to environmental hazards and noise pollution, and may be considered unsightly, which decreases property values (Currie et al. 2016; Upton and Talpur 2024). The exact distribution of these changes in demand for housing across a community will depend on the type of industry and any other types of development included in the project.

Industrial investments like manufacturing facilities tend to take place in rural and semirural areas, in part because land is relatively inexpensive (Wiley 2015). While the counties with a higher share of manufacturing employment tend to have lower housing costs than urban areas, housing affordability remains a significant issue for workers. On average, across high-manufacturing-density counties in the South, a two-adult, two-child household must cover more than $14,000 a year in housing costs.6 A large share of renters in high-manufacturing-density counties in the South still are cost-burdened by housing, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, utilities, and other housing costs. As shown in Figure F, across the Southern states, the share of cost-burdened households in high-manufacturing-density counties ranges from 28% in Arkansas to 47% in Florida. More than 2 in 5 (42%) of Texas renters in these counties are also housing cost-burdened.

Figure F

A strong CBA will secure commitments to build a certain number of affordable housing units or dedicate a share of housing at the site as affordable. The Nashville Stadium CBA created agreements that at least 12% of residential units in the development would be affordable and that 20% of those units would be three-bedroom units to accommodate families (SUN 2020). The Staples Center CBA in Los Angeles, California, was another successful example of strong affordable housing benefits. The 2001 agreement for the development of an expanded convention center, theater, and surrounding housing, hotel, and retail space secured commitments that 20% of housing units would be affordable. The developer also agreed to provide $650,000 in interest-free loans to nonprofit affordable housing developers in the local community (WRI 2001).

Even in situations where a labor-community coalition is unable to reach a final CBA with a company, coalition organizing around community demands can still deliver meaningful affordable housing victories. Between 2002 and 2006, a labor-community coalition in Denver pressured Cherokee Investment Partners to provide community benefits as part of their redevelopment of the site of the Gates Rubber Company. The coalition leveraged zoning changes necessary for the project and a potential subsidy package from the city to extract benefits including an affordable housing plan for hundreds of rental and for-sale affordable housing units (Ingram and Hong 2011; PowerSwitch Action 2025).

In 2005, the labor-community coalition organized by Georgia STAND-UP was able to attach community benefits to an Atlanta city ordinance allocating $2 billion in public funding for the Atlanta Beltline transit-oriented development project. The city resolution shaped by the coalition established an affordable housing trust fund and a goal of developing 5,600 affordable housing units (PowerSwitch Action 2025). As of 2024, more than 4,100 affordable units have been created as part of the project (Atlanta Beltline, Inc. 2024).

Labor-community coalitions can also pursue other land-use commitments beyond the development of affordable housing. The BlueOval Good Neighbors coalition in West Tennessee has demanded commitments to protect land for farmers in the area. The development of the Ford factory has pushed Tennessee’s Department of Transportation to pursue land for new roadways through purchase and eminent domain. The area targeted for new roadways is a majority Black farming community, and several farmers are engaged in lawsuits with the state over the state’s meager compensation offers for their land (Wadhwani 2023). The coalition has demanded that farmers be offered replacement land in exchange for their sold land, as well as the creation of a 10,000-acre community land trust (BlueOval Good Neighbors n.d.).

Creating or protecting affordable housing is essential for protecting the communities that are necessary for any effective labor-community coalition. Large developments can cause instability within the community as new residents arrive, and existing residents are buffeted by rising housing costs. Because of historic and ongoing racial discrimination in housing policy, labor policy, and real estate practices, the costs of these changes are most likely to impact Black and Hispanic workers. Black families and other workers of color are the most likely to be cost-burdened by housing (JCHS 2024). Creating housing for workers and families to remain in the area is vital for continued collective action to secure benefits from developers and hold those developers accountable for their promises.

Environmental standards, funding, and monitoring

Large-scale manufacturing projects often have significant environmental impacts, both during construction and once they are in operation. Air, noise, and groundwater pollution; harm to wildlife habitats; and residents’ exposure to toxic byproducts are just a few examples of common concerns, and these consequences can be severe when projects are approved without sufficient environmental consideration. The consequences of large manufacturing projects often disproportionately harm communities of color and low-wealth areas throughout the South (Brouk 2024). For decades, poor and Black residents in the region have been exposed to toxic chemicals, pollution, and other environmental dangers at alarming rates (Bergman 2019).

In 2021, the Tennessee governor approved the construction of a General Motors lithium battery supplier in the city of Spring Hill, on the banks of the Duck River. Though the project was seen as an economic success, the plant’s operation has taken a toll on the fragile river ecosystem. The lithium battery factory is not the only strain—just eight companies along the river drain tens of millions of gallons of water daily (Wadhwani 2024). This enormous water usage has lowered river water levels, threatened biodiversity, and harmed local tourism and recreation. Advocates for the river’s health blame the state’s prioritization of manufacturing expansion without regard to the long-term environmental or economic consequences for local residents or other existing local industries.

CBAs are a tool that may help community-labor coalitions address the environmental impacts of data centers in the South. Data centers are booming across the United States, but particularly in Southern states like Georgia, Texas, and Virginia (Walker and Goldsmith 2026). New centers are heavy users of water and energy, create noise and air pollution, and are driving up electricity costs nationwide both by increasing demand for energy and requiring utilities to invest in new infrastructure paid for by all ratepayers (Merchant and Guerra 2025; Bizo et al. 2021; AI NOW 2025; Reed 2025). For example, in Virginia, electric bills were on track to increase as much as 25% in 2025 because of data centers (Penn and Weise 2025).

Growing community concerns surrounding data centers could create leverage for labor-community coalitions to pursue CBAs and other community benefits strategies. In 2025, community opposition blocked or delayed $64 billion in data center projects across the nation (Data Center Watch 2025). As community resistance to data centers continues to grow, more developers may recognize the need to come to the table with local coalitions to negotiate binding commitments on environmental and economic outcomes to secure project approvals. A handful of localities have begun to create agreements with data center developers regulating water use and securing commitments to green energy use (Turner Lee and West 2026).

Past development projects provide examples of how communities have used CBAs to secure long-term commitments to clean energy transition and protection of local natural resources in a multitude of ways, from mandating that any new construction must meet specific sustainability standards to requiring companies to contribute a set dollar amount to a city’s renewable energy transition fund. In Virginia, the City of Richmond Resort Casino CBA ensured the developing and operating company would design and construct all project buildings to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards and would use previously existing pavement where possible (WRI 2021). The agreement also required the developer to attempt to reduce the urban heat island effect by planting shade trees along sidewalks and using other landscaping methods (WRI 2021). These agreements can mitigate additional environmental harm in areas that have already been polluted. A CBA between the Town of Waterloo, New York, and Seneca Meadows, Inc. regarding a landfill expansion commits the waste management company to pay for the development of new public water lines and other potable water infrastructure if existing public water wells become contaminated (WRI 2005).

CBAs can also be used to expand the positive impact of an already climate-friendly project. In New York, a CBA with an offshore windfarm developer stipulates that the company must contribute $2 million to the town of East Hampton’s Ocean Industries Sustainability Program (WRI 2018). Additionally, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC must spend $200,000 to establish an Energy Sustainability and Resilience Fund to support East Hampton’s transition to 100% renewable energy (WRI 2018). CBAs with environmentally focused companies provide valuable opportunities for communities looking to address climate change, especially where state governments have failed to invest in environmental programs.

A CBA can achieve a variety of climate and environmental commitments from a company but is also a strong starting point for building local capacity to monitor resource use, pollution, and other environmental priorities. A strong coalition of community, labor, and environmental groups can play essential roles in implementing and enforcing CBA commitments in contexts where understaffed government agencies have limited ability to monitor or investigate pollution and other environmental harms. Instead, workers and community members are often the first to report harmful practices and safety concerns. A strong CBA can provide opportunities for labor and environmental groups to work together to monitor and protect worker and community health, natural resources, and ecosystems.

Conclusion

For decades, Southern economic policies shaped by dominant business and corporate interests have resulted in poor working conditions and failed to ensure that profits generated by publicly subsidized development are shared with local workers and communities. Confronting the deep, long-standing imbalances of power that have entrenched this failed economic development model will require significant organizing and coalition-building to increase the collective power of workers and community members to shape different outcomes from the latest Southern manufacturing boom. Building new forms of worker and community power will be equally necessary to counter escalating authoritarian actions of the Trump administration, which closely parallel many features of the failed Southern economic development model that by design prioritizes corporations over workers and communities.

Our analysis shows that community benefits agreements could be powerful tools for Southern labor and community groups building the shared power necessary to reshape local and eventually regional economies. When strong coalitions of labor, environmental, faith-based, and other grassroots community organizations are able to build the necessary power to bring a company or developer to the table to negotiate an enforceable agreement, such coalitions can secure measurable economic benefits like higher wages, respect for workers’ rights to unionize, local or targeted hiring, protection of natural resources, or more affordable housing. Such economic gains are beneficial in themselves, but they also raise expectations, build local capacity to pursue additional gains, and demonstrate to the community at large that local residents can shape their own economic futures, and that these types of victories are achievable in the face of the Southern status quo.

While the urgent project of upending the Southern economic development model will require vigorous and persistent organizing across many sectors and geographies, community benefits agreements are one key strategy for turning manufacturing jobs into good jobs, ensuring long-term local economic gains from new industrial investments, and even renewing democracy in contexts where it has long been suppressed. Forming strong, long-lasting labor-community coalitions is essential to winning concrete gains for local workers as well as reshaping the political fabric of Southern communities and increasing working people’s influence over broader state or regional economic policy decisions. Winning and implementing any strong CBA requires the formation of an empowered labor-community coalition, which ideally endures and gains greater strength, experience, and influence over time. Just as the economic benefits of unionization extend far beyond an individual workplace, establishing a strong CBA coalition can create broader positive impacts across a community or region—delivering higher-quality jobs; more equitable tax systems; stronger public services; and healthier, more inclusive political systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the AFL-CIO Center for Transformational Organizing for their partnership and invaluable contributions in the production of this report. The authors are also grateful to Athena Last and Ian Elder at Jobs to Move America and Ben Beach at PowerSwitch Action for their expert feedback.

Appendix

Appendix Table 1

Notes

1. Clean energy manufacturing includes manufacturing of batteries, electric vehicles, mineral products, solar energy products, and wind energy products.

2. Workers in Southern states experience lower wages than in other regions even after adjusting for cost-of-living differences (Childers 2023).

3. The facilities covered by these agreements included plants in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin.

4. This category includes workers who are Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color; women; LGBTQ+ persons; systems-impacted people (formerly incarcerated people); persons emancipated from the foster care system; residents of Anniston, Alabama, lacking GED or high school diploma; and veterans.

5. Southern states excluding D.C., Delaware, and Maryland.

6. EPI analysis of Family Budget Calculator and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data.

References

Abrams, Cynthia. 2025. “As West Tennessee Community Pressures Ford for Promises, Lawmakers Curb ‘Community Benefits Agreements’.” WPLN News, March 25, 2025.

AI NOW. 2025. “North Star Data Center Policy Toolkit: State and Local Policy Interventions to Stop Rampant AI Data Center Expansion.” December 2025.

Anderson, Sarah. 2014. “Wall Street Bonuses and the Minimum Wage.” Institute for Policy Studies, March 12, 2014.

Aquiles-Sanchez, Pablo, and Laura Dresser. 2022. Worker Power Levels the Playing Field: Community Benefits for Public Subsidies in the Iron District. High Road Research Center, November 2022.

Aquiles-Sanchez, Pablo, and Laura Dresser. 2024. From Community Benefits, to Collective Bargaining, and Back: Building Worker Power in Milwaukee. High Road Research Center, March 2024.

Atlanta Beltline Inc. 2024. Relentless Momentum, Undeniable Results: 2024 Annual Report.

Barrett, Jim, and Josh Bivens. 2021. The Stakes for Workers in How Policymakers Manage the Coming Shift to All-Electric Vehicles. Economic Policy Institute, September 2021.

Bayard, Kimberly, Tomaz Cajner, Vivi Gregorich, and Maria Tito. 2022. Are Manufacturing Jobs Still Good Jobs? An Exploration of the Manufacturing Wage Premium. Federal Reserve Board, March 2022.

Bergman, Megan Mayhew. 2019. “‘They Chose Us Because We Were Rural and Poor’: When Environmental Racism and Climate Change Collide“. Guardian, March 8, 2019.

Bizo, Daniel, Rhonda Ascierto, Andy Lawrence, and Jacqueline Davis. 2021. Uptime Institute Global Data Center Survey 2021. Uptime Institute, September 2021.

Blair, Hunter, David Cooper, Julia Wolfe, and Jaimie Worker. 2020. Preempting Progress: State Interference in Local Policymaking Prevents People of Color, Women, and Low-Income Workers from Making Ends Meet in the South. Economic Policy Institute, September 2020.

BlueOval Good Neighbors. n.d. “Community Benefits Agreement Demands Summary.” Accessed September 5, 2025.

Bomey, Nathan. 2024. “Volkswagen on Factory Unionization Efforts: ‘Neutral Doesn’t Mean Silent’.” Axios, February 15, 2024.

Brouk, Allison. 2024. “Wood Pellet Manufacturing in the South Harms Communities and the Environment.” Earthjustice, October 11, 2024.

Clean Economy Tracker (CET). 2025. Clean Economy Tracker. Accessed July 15, 2025.

Childers, Chandra. 2023. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: The Failed Southern Economic Development Model. Economic Policy Institute, October 2023.

Childers, Chandra. 2024a. Southern Economic Policies Undermine Job Quality for Auto Workers. Economic Policy Institute, September 2024.

Childers, Chandra. 2024b. The Evolution of the Southern Economic Development Strategy. Economic Policy Institute, May 2024.

Childers, Chandra. 2025. The Ongoing Influence of Slavery and Jim Crow Means High Poverty Rates and Low Economic Mobility in the South. Economic Policy Institute, April 2025.

City of Cleveland. n.d. “Community Benefits Ordinance” (web page). Accessed December 4, 2025.

City of Detroit. n.d. “Community Benefits Ordinance” (web page). Accessed December 4, 2025.

Communication Workers of America (CWA). 2024. “A New Dawn: Union Victory at New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama.” May 20, 2024.

Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). 2024. “All Aboard the ApprenticeSHIP: Assessing the Changing Face of Registered Apprenticeships.” Biden White House Archives, November 20, 2024.

Currie, Janet, Lucas Davis, Michael Greenstone, and Reed Walker. 2015. “Environmental Health Risks and Housing Values: Evidence from 1,600 Toxic Plant Openings and Closings.” American Economic Review 105, no. 2 (February 2015): 678–709. doi: 10.1257/aer.20121656.

Data Center Watch. 2025. “$64 Billion of Data Center Projects Have Been Blocked or Delayed Amid Local Opposition.” Accessed February 24, 2026.

Dean, Adam, Jamie McCallum, and Atheendar Venkataramani. 2022. Unions in the United States Improve Worker Safety and Lower Health Inequality. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, December 2022.

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

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025a. “Workers’ Rights Preemption in the U.S.” Accessed July 1, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025b. “Child Care Costs in the United States.” Accessed July 1, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025c. “State of Working America data.” Accessed June 25, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026. “Family Budget Calculator.” Accessed February 15, 2026.

Erickson, Emily. 2021. Are Good Jobs Possible in the Deep South? Jobs to Move America, March 2021.

Fazili, Sameera, Pronita Gupta, and Doug Bloch. 2025. “How Community Benefits Agreements Can Reduce Project Delivery Risk.” UtilityDive, October 15, 2025.

Gould, Elise, Zane Mokhiber, and Katherine DeCourcy. 2024. What Constitutes a Living Wage? Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Hickey, Sebastian Martinez. 2024. “Leveraging the Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub Community Benefits Plan to Empower the Texas Workforce.” Comments submitted on behalf of Economic Policy Institute to Texas Climate Jobs Project Community Commission on Truth and Transparency in Texas Hydrogen, December 5, 2024.

Ingram, Gregory K, and Yu-Hong Hong. 2012. Value Capture and Land Policies. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2024. America’s Rental Housing. Harvard University, 2024.

Katz, Batia, Robert Lerman, Daniel Kuehn, Jessica Shakespeare. 2022. Did Apprentices Achieve Faster Earnings Growth Than Comparable Workers? Brief prepared for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Rockville, MD: Abt Associates; and Washington, DC: Urban Institute, August 2022.

Last, Athena Nicole. 2025. A Case Study of the New Flyer of America Inc. Community Benefits Agreement. Jobs to Move America, July 2025.

Lawliss, Michael, Lew Finfer, and Jennifer Sherer. 2022. Using Local and Economically-Targeted Hire to Promote Good Jobs through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Jobs to Move America, September 2022.

Leigh, J. Paul, and Bozhidar Chakalov. 2021. “Labor Unions and Health: A Literature Review of Pathways and Outcomes in the Workplace.” Preventative Medicine Reports 24, no. 101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101502

Mangundayao, Ihna, Celine McNicholas, and Margaret Poydock. 2022. “Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects Will Benefit Nearly 200,000 Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 9, 2022.

Manzo IV, Frank, Michael Jekot, and Robert Bruno. 2021. The Impact of Unions on Construction Worksite Health and Safety. Illinois Economic Policy Institute, November 2021.

Mast, Nina. 2025a. Forced Prison Labor in the “Land of the Free.” Economic Policy Institute, January 2025.

Mast, Nina. 2025b. How Anti-Worker Policies, Crony Capitalism, and Privatization Keep the South Locked Out of Shared Prosperity. Economic Policy Institute, June 2025.

McFadden, Michael, Sai Santosh, and Ronit Shetty. 2022. Quantifying the Value of Union Labor in Construction Projects. Mechanical Industry Advancement Fund, December 2022.

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.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Samantha Sanders, and Ben Zipperer. 2023. Employers Spend More Than $400 Million per Year on ‘Union-Avoidance’ Consultants To Bolster Their Union-Busting Efforts (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, March 2023.

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

Merchant, Zach, and Adrian P. Guerra. 2025. “Data Center Boom Impacting Georgia’s Water Resources.” 11Alive, April 14, 2025.

Mickey, Robert. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944-1972. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 2015.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2017. “The Increased Diversity of New York City Union Construction Employment.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), January 19, 2017.

Morrissey, Taryn. 2020. Addressing the Need for Affordable, High-Quality Early Childhood Care And Education for All in the United States. Washington Center for Economic Growth, February 2020.

New England Real Estate Journal (NEREJ). 2019. “MP Boston and Building Trades Unions sign Project Labor Agreement for Winthrop Center.” NEREJ, November 15, 2019.

O’Brien, Connor. 2023. “Factory Boom in the Mountain West and Upper Midwest Accelerated into the Spring.” Economic Innovation Group, June 13, 2023.

Ormiston, Russell, and Cihan Bilginsoy. 2024. “Measuring Diversity in Construction Apprenticeship Programs.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), November 21, 2024.

Partnership for Working Families and Community Benefits Law Center (PWF and CBLC). 2016. Common Challenges in Negotiating Community Benefits Agreements and How to Avoid Them. January 2016.

Payne, Mat. 2019. “When Nowhere Becomes Somewhere: Gentrification in Rural Communities and How Proactive Community Planning and a Progressive Property Valuation System Can Stem the Tide.” Kentucky Law Journal 207, no. 4: 727–745.

Perez, Daniel. 2015. Voter Suppression Makes the Racist and Anti-Worker Southern Model Possible. Economic Policy Institute, October 2024.

Penn, Ivan, and Karen Weise. 2025. “Big Tech’s A.I. Data Centers Are Driving Up Electricity Bills for Everyone.” New York Times, August 2025.

Polaris. 2015. “Polaris Industries Inc. Announces Expansion of Manufacturing Operations.” January 9, 2015.

PowerSwitch Action. 2025. “Community Benefits Agreements Examples.” Accessed September 1, 2025.

Reed, Rachel. 2025. “How data centers may lead to higher electricity bills.” Harvard Law Today, September 2025.

Rhinehart, Lynn, and Celine McNicholas. 2020. Collective Bargaining Beyond the Worksite: How Workers and Their Unions Build Power and Set Standards for Their Industries. Economic Policy Institute, May 2020.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2001. North Hollywood Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2017. Monhegan Plantation et al. and Maine Aqua Ventis Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2022. New Flyer of America, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Jobs to Move America Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2024. City of Salem and Salem Wind Terminal LLC Community Benefits Agreement.

Sachs, Benjamin. 2024. “Hey ALEC, Be Careful What You Wish For.” On Labor, March 8, 2024.

Saha, Devashree. 2024. Community Benefits Snapshot: New Flyer Community Benefits Agreement. World Resources Institute, December 2024.

Scott, Robert, Valerie Wilson, Jori Kandra, and Daniel Perez. 2022. Botched Policy Responses to Globalization Have Decimated Manufacturing Employment with Often Overlooked Costs for Black, Brown, and Other Workers of Color. Economic Policy Institute, January 2022.

Sherer, Jennnifer, and Elise Gould. 2025. It’s Time for Colorado to Remove Barriers to Unionization. Economic Policy Institute, February 2025.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2018. “Historic Community Benefits Agreement Reached!” SUN, September 4, 2018.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2020. Nashville MLS Soccer Community Benefits Agreement.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2023. Community Advisory Committee Community Benefits Agreement Annual Report 2023.

Stephenson, Jemma. 2024. “Alabama Senate Bill Would Punish Companies That Voluntarily Recognize Unions.” Alabama Reflector, March 27, 2024.

Tennessee Office of Governor. 2023. “Gov. Lee, Ford Celebrate Historic BlueOval City in West TN” (press release). March 23, 2023.

The Chesapeake Group, Inc. (TCG). 2023. Haywood Market Assessment Section for Growth Strategies. September 2023.

Todd, Patricia. 2021. The Hidden Costs of Alabama’s Tax Incentives. Jobs to Move America, August 2021.

Turner Lee, Nicol, and Darrell West. 2026. Why Community Benefit Agreements Are Necessary for Data Centers. The Brookings Institution, January 2026.

Upton, Greg, and Sarang Talpur. 2024. Literature Review on the Impact of Utility-Scale Solar on Housing Prices. Louisiana State University, August 2024.

Wadwhani, Anita. 2023. “Black Farming Community Fights to Get Fair Deal as State Takes Land for Ford Plant Roadways.” Tennessee Lookout, April 3, 2023.

Wadhwani, Anita. 2024. “Water Wars: Groups Challenge ‘Unsustainable’ Withdrawals from Duck River.” Tennessee Lookout, May 6, 2024.

Walker, Carla, and Ian Goldsmith. 2026. “From Energy Use to Air Quality, the Many Ways Data Centers Affect US Communities.” World Resources Institute, February 2026.

Walton, Douglas, Karen Gardiner, and Burt Barnow. 2022. Expanding Apprenticeship to New Sectors and Populations. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Rockville, MD: Abt Associates, August 2022.

Wiley, Jonathan. 2015. The Impact of Commercial Development on Surrounding Residential Property Values. J. Mack Robinson College of Business, April 2015.

World Resource Institute (WRI). n.d. “Database of Community Benefits Frameworks Across the US.” Accessed September 5, 2025.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2001. Staples Center Community Benefits Agreement.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2005. Community Benefits Agreement between the Town of Waterloo and Seneca Meadows Inc.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2018. Community Benefits Agreement between Deepwater Wind and the Town of East Hampton.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2021. Resort Casino Host Community Agreement by and between the City of Richmond, Virginia and RVA Entertainment Holdings, LLC.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2025. Atlanta Beltline. Accessed September 29, 2025.

Zessoules, Daniella, and Olugbenga Ajilore. 2018. Wage Gaps and Outcomes in Apprenticeship Programs. Center for American Progress, December 2018.

Key takeaways:

• The U.S. is the only OECD country that does not provide a national paid family and medical leave program, leaving it to states to ensure workers are protected when they need to take time off from work to care for themselves or a family member. 
• Some states—including eight across the South—have adopted voluntary private insurance models of paid leave that allow private insurance companies to sell insurance policies directly to employers and/or workers themselves. 
• But this approach provides less coverage, covers fewer workers, widens already large disparities in access, and is likely to be more expensive than comprehensive state paid family and medical leave (PFML) plans. 
• Other states should follow the model of proven success from 13 states and Washington, D.C. that have implemented comprehensive PFML programs. 

Comprehensive, universal Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) programs are powerful tools to safeguard and improve the economic well-being and overall health of workers and their families. Research shows that PFML improves health for both mothers and infants, reduces poverty and economic insecurity for low-income families, and increases labor force participation rates for mothers for up to five years after the birth of their child. In states that do not have a PFML program, workers lose an estimated $34.3 billion annually in wages due to leave-related absences from work, including $18.8 billion lost by women. 

PFML programs also benefit employers and the broader economy, in part by improving recruitment of talented workers, especially among small businesses, reducing turnover, and increasing worker productivity. The National Partnership for Women and Families estimates that U.S. women’s lower labor force participation—due in part to a lack of paid leave—has cost the broader U.S. economy more than $6.7 trillion in economic activity over the last decade. This is economic activity the U.S. economy would have experienced if American women’s labor force participation rates were the same as those of women in Canada.

Despite PFML’s clear benefits, the U.S. is the only OECD country that does not provide a national paid family and medical leave program—leaving it to states to ensure workers are protected when they need to take time off from work to care for themselves or a family member. 

Lawmakers in 13 states and D.C. have met this responsibility by passing comprehensive paid family and medical leave programs that guarantee coverage. Lawmakers in 10 other states have chosen weaker, much less effective voluntary approaches that defer to employers, leaving many workers uncovered. Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, have implemented public-private voluntary paid leave models where the state contracts with private insurance companies to provide paid leave for public-sector workers and private-sector employers may opt in voluntarily.1 

Across the South, Alabama (2023), Arkansas (2023), Florida (2023), Kentucky (2024), South Carolina (2024), Tennessee (2023), Texas (2023), and Virginia (2022) have adopted voluntary private insurance models of paid leave that allow private insurance companies to sell insurance policies directly to employers and/or workers themselves. 

While the private insurance model has been embraced by the insurance industry—the National Conference of Insurance Legislators adopted a voluntary paid family leave model bill in 2022 at its annual meeting—it fails workers and families. Not only do these programs fail to require employers to provide any coverage to their workforce, but the relevant laws in these states also typically provide few, if any, requirements for what types of leave are covered, the duration of coverage, or wage replacement rates.

This approach to paid family and medical leave provides less coverage, provides it for fewer workers, increases already large disparities in access, and is likely to be more expensive than comprehensive state PFML plans. 

Less coverage 

State PFML programs typically provide workers with 8–12 weeks of paid, job-protected leave to bond with a new child (birth, adoption, or foster), to care for themselves or a family member with a serious illness or injury, or for military caregiving and exigency leave. Wage replacement rates are typically at 90% or higher, at least for low-wage workers, in most states with a paid leave program, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Maine and Maryland will also pay out at this rate when they begin paying benefits later in 2026. 

Because voluntary models do not require employers to provide coverage for their workers, there is no guarantee that they will. And when employers do purchase paid leave insurance for their workforce, they are unlikely to provide the same level of coverage as comprehensive state programs. The amount of leave provided, the wage replacement rate, and even what life events are covered depend on the employer and/or the insurance company. The New Hampshire plan, which does provide details on requirements for paid leave coverage, only requires 6 weeks of paid leave with wage replacement of just 60%. 

Finally, in direct contrast to comprehensive, universal state paid leave programs, it is unclear how voluntary insurance models of paid leave could provide a job guarantee for workers taking paid leave. In the public-private model offered in New Hampshire, workers are not provided with job protection but may qualify for protection under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), so long as they meet the requirements of FMLA (i.e., they must work at a firm with 50+ employees, and must have worked for the employer for 1,250 hours over the preceding 12 months). 

Covering fewer workers

An estimated 46.2 million workers—almost one-third (32%) of the private-sector workforce in the U.S.—are eligible for coverage under one of the 14 PFML programs in the country. That leaves tens of millions of workers without a guarantee of paid time off when they need to provide for their family’s needs. This reflects, in large part, the lack of a federal universal, comprehensive PFML program and the failure of most states to implement such a plan. Unfortunately, when participation is voluntary, many employers are unlikely to offer this benefit to their workers. 

For example, in the New Hampshire voluntary program, public-sector workers are automatically covered, and private employers and individual workers can voluntarily participate. After three years, just 2.3% of private-sector workers are covered by this PFML plan through their employer. And in the eight states that authorize private insurance paid leave, researchers are unable to determine whether employers are actually purchasing insurance coverage for their workers, but it appears that few insurance companies are even selling policies in these states. It is therefore not surprising that fewer than 1 in 4 workers are covered by PFML through their employer in most of these states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In contrast, the 14 state PFML programs cover 93% of all workers in their jurisdictions. 

Increasing disparities

It is not just that fewer workers are covered by voluntary paid leave models, but coverage rates vary dramatically by income, occupation, race and ethnicity, and other characteristics. According to the Department of Labor, 95% of the lowest-wage workers—mostly women and workers of color—lack access to paid family leave. Many of these workers are in occupations with low access to paid leave, including jobs in leisure and hospitality (8%), accommodation and food service (7%), and transportation and warehouse work (9%). 

American Indian/Alaska Native (18%) and Black (23%) workers have some of the lowest PFML coverage, while Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (55%) and Hispanic (41%) workers have some of the highest coverage rates. Racial differences reflect, in part, differences in where workers live. For example, more than half of the Black population lives in one of the 16 Southern states or the District of Columbia, where only two states and D.C. have a state paid leave program.

Higher costs

In states where PFML is voluntary, there is little transparency, especially related to costs. We know from the private health insurance model, however, that introducing a profit motive into the provision of care is a terrible way for policymakers to provide workers with the protection they need at affordable costs. A profit-seeking insurance company is going to look for ways to reduce its costs and maximize profits; this inevitably means seeking to reduce payouts, whether through claim denials or other means. There is no scenario in which the profit-seeking model results in both high-quality, comprehensive leave coverage and low costs for workers, employers, or the public. 

In New Hampshire, for example, only one insurance company bid for a contract to provide paid leave benefits, and its estimated rates were generally higher than the payroll contributions in states with PFML programs. 

Further, an insurance industry stakeholder expressed concern about the lack of incentives for private employers to participate in these plans. In both the New Hampshire and Vermont cases, they reported that the models were unsustainable because most employers did not participate in the plans and individual workers whose costs are capped by the state plans would only participate when they anticipated needing coverage—meaning that the insurance pools would never be adequately financed. 

A better model exists

In recent years, challenges facing workers with care responsibilities have rightfully garnered greater public attention, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many policymakers have taken notice. Unfortunately, in some states—frequently those that have long opposed strong worker protections, a robust safety net, and workplace regulations—lawmakers have opted for voluntary models of paid family and medical leave that are fundamentally flawed. 

Voluntary models allow businesses to decide whether their workers should be paid when they need to take time to care for themselves or their families. Without mandatory coverage, too many workers will not have access to the leave they need, and this is especially the case for those workers who need paid leave the most. 

Instead, we should follow the model of proven success from 13 states and D.C. that have implemented comprehensive PFML programs, including some that have improved programs over time, incorporating lessons and best practices from other states. These programs provide more inclusive coverage for personal illness or injury, bonding with a child, caring for an ill or injured family member, and military deployment.

Universal programs also provide coverage for more workers, including employees, both full- and part-time, both public- and private-sector workers, and in some cases, independent contractors are allowed to opt in. The best programs provide workers with 12 weeks of job-protected leave—i.e., workers are guaranteed their same job or a substantially similar job with comparable pay and benefits when they return from leave and have wage replacement rates of at least 80% of the state median and 100% for low-wage workers. 

These programs have been proven to expand access at a reasonable cost and with a broad range of benefits for workers, businesses, and states overall.

These are benefits that voluntary private insurance models have failed to provide in part because the goal of private insurance is to make a profit, not to ensure the overall well-being of workers and families or their communities. 

1. Lawmakers in New Hampshire introduced a new bill in February 2026 that will extend paid family leave to a full comprehensive state paid leave program, if it is enacted.

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.