Today, despite the ongoing economic and social toll of Trump’s draconian mass deportation policy, prime-age Latina workers continue to drive much of the strength in the employment rates of Hispanic workers. But we also see signs of weakness for younger workers between the ages of 16 and 24. New data released this year also show that Hispanic adults and their families share growing concerns about their employment security. We highlight each of these dynamics below.

Prime-age Latina workers are writing much of the employment story for Hispanic workers in 2026  

To trace the performance of Hispanic workers since last year, we examine 12-month moving averages of the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age Hispanic workers (ages 25–54) available in the EPI Data Library. There are a few reasons for this that are important to highlight. First, our 12-month moving average smooths much of the month-to-month noise due to sampling size limitations. We also focus exclusively on employment rates because it is not influenced by changes in labor force participation in the way that the unemployment rate is. Lastly, by focusing on prime-age workers—who are less likely to be out of the labor force due to schooling or retirement—our analysis is less influenced by changes in college attendance and the aging of the population.  

As seen in Figure A, the average employment rate for prime-age Hispanic workers stands at a historic high as of August 2026. These workers have managed to make inroads in employment despite a sluggish labor market experiencing weak-to-modest job growth.  

This story of resilience amid uncertainty continues to be largely attributed to prime-age Latina workers, who have managed to not just maintain their employment rate from 2025, but to build on last year’s gains. 70.7% of prime-age Latina workers had a job between September 2025 and August 2026—a new record high. While a significantly larger share of prime-age Latinos work relative to Latinas, their employment rate remains largely unchanged and below previous peaks.

Figure A

Prime-age Latinas are even outpacing their peers, who have historically enjoyed higher employment rates but have been more adversely impacted by the weaker labor market. Figure B shows that the average employment rate of prime-age Latinas continued to rise through August 2026, while that of their Black and white peers declined or flattened. This is because Latinas are more heavily concentrated in some of the economic sectors leading the charts in job growth, such as leisure and hospitality. Despite these gains, Latinas continue to be disproportionately affected by the gender pay gap due to the compounding effects of discrimination and occupational segregation. 

Figure B

Young Hispanic workers have not seen their employment situation improve over the last year 

Not all Hispanic workers have avoided a worsening employment situation in the last year. For example, the employment rates of young Hispanic workers between the ages of 16 and 24 have struggled to maintain consistent gains in the last year. While the average employment rate for young Latinos is now improving after a sharp drop last year, employment among young Latinas is falling along with that of other young workers and recent graduates.  

More broadly, this uneven progress may help us understand why more than half of Hispanic adults expressed concerns about finding or keeping a job last year. These growing employment fears remind us how difficult it is to achieve broad-based employment gains in a labor market struggling to regain its footing amid a mass deportation policy that will cost millions of jobs and an uncertain macroeconomic environment that continues to reproduce inequality. 

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

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

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

In this article, we make the following arguments:

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

Americans’ economic dissatisfaction has real roots

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

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

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

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

Staggering inequality is a choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rising inequality of labor incomes

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

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

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

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

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

The shift from labor to capital incomes

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

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

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

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

Labor markets are not fair

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key policy choices that led to rising inequality 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wrong incentives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating a fairer economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

2. Congressional Budget Office, The Distribution.

3. Congressional Budget Office, The Distribution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key takeaways

• Years of government funding cuts are undermining the U.S.’s position as a global leader in providing the reliable statistical information that businesses and policymakers need for sound decision-making.
• The Trump administration has accelerated the funding cuts and worked to degrade the effectiveness and independence of data-collecting agencies.
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a prime example of an agency whose data collection in areas like employment and wages is integral to our understanding of the economy’s health and whether it is heading into a recession.
• A decline in response rates to one of the BLS’s key surveys was already underway but, absent funding increases and survey modifications, it will be harder for economists and policymakers to make timely sense of changes in the labor market.

Historically, the U.S. has been a leader in providing reliable and timely statistical information to support business strategy and policymaking. The value of information provided publicly and free of charge to businesses, households, and governments is immense. Yet underinvestment over the past 15 years is a key reason why the U.S. lost its position on the cutting-edge of public statistical services worldwide.

Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, this underinvestment has accelerated, and the administration has made intentional efforts to degrade the effectiveness and independence of the federal statistical agencies (FSAs). This accumulation of threats to the effectiveness of the FSAs will rapidly degrade the value of the key public good they provide, unless policy changes course sharply.

This blog post provides just one example of how cumulative underinvestment has blocked the ability of a key FSA to respond to developments, making its data less reliable over time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects a range of necessary data tracking the performance of the U.S. labor market. This BLS data are a key input into high-stakes decisions across the U.S. economy—including for both public and private actors. For example, the Federal Reserve relies on BLS data about unemployment rates, payroll job growth, wage growth, and price indexes to set monetary policy. The more volatile the BLS data are from month to month, the worse the information that guides Federal Reserve decisions.

Private industry also relies heavily on these statistics. A 2018 survey conducted by the National Association for Business Economists found that 95% of businesses responded “yes” to the question: “Are government data important for analyses and forecasting that drive business decisions?” Employment and unemployment data produced by the BLS were rated as the most important data source for informing business decisions.

Yet over the past 15 years, the BLS has gradually lost personnel and funding, which has been undermining their mandate of producing timely, accurate statistics on wages, prices, and the labor market. More recently, the Trump administration’s choices to freeze BLS hiring has further strained Census field staff charged with collecting household survey data. Worst of all, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of firing the commissioner of the BLS simply because the agency accurately reported data that the administration happened to find politically inconvenient.

Even without further blatant political pressure on the BLS’s independence, the agency will encounter growing difficulty in doing its job effectively in coming years. One of their most important efforts is the fielding of the Current Population Survey (CPS), a survey of thousands of households across the U.S. taken every month, which provides detailed employment and wage information. The CPS is the source data for the monthly estimate of the nation’s unemployment rate, for example. This is in turn a key criterion for assessing whether the economy is heading into recession. In recent years—after the COVID-19 pandemic—the response rates for the CPS have sharply declined. These declines, if not countered with greater investment in response rates, may make it harder for economists and policymakers to make timely sense of changes in labor market, particularly for populations that already have small sample sizes, such as rural areas or detailed demographic groups.

The rest of this blog post highlights the problem of falling response rates, demonstrates that they have made some labor market measures more volatile month to month, and shows that these falling response rates have occurred over the same period as the retrenchment in resources for the BLS.

Nonresponse reduces sample size in the Current Population Survey

The Current Population Survey asks questions about employment and other labor market characteristics to 60,0000 households or about 110,000 individuals every month. Between 2005–2016, the Current Population Survey household survey was able to steadily receive responses from around 107,000 people, ages 16 and older. However, as noted by others and shown in Figure A, the number of households responding to the survey has declined since the mid-2010s and then fell precipitously after the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first few months of 2026, just over 75,000 individuals, ages 16 and older, had responded to the monthly CPS.

Figure A

The decline in response rate has likely occurred for a few reasons. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that the rate of refusals had been increasing as early as the 1990s, likely as the world became more connected with computers and the internet, leading to less reliance on in-person interactions to conduct business. Social trust has also gone down over the past few decades, and the share of adults who agree that “most people can be trusted” has decreased by more than 15% since 1984.

More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with concerns for privacy and distrust in the government, may be the reason that the rate of decline grew in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many workers to transition to remote work, and concerns about contagion limited overall social interactions, making response collection increasingly difficult. Additionally, concerns about privacy or retribution from the state felt by groups like immigrants may make some people more reluctant to answer questions for fear of deportation. 

Finally, distrust in the federal government, fueled by recent overtly political activity, could be behind some of the reduction in response rates. For example, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics published two consecutive months of large negative revisions to the number of payroll jobs in mid-2025, the Trump administration leveled charges—which were baseless and never backed up by any evidence—that the BLS had manipulated the data for political purposes and fired then Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. People are less likely to trust government if they think publicized information and facts are politically motivated. 

Smaller sample sizes are linked to less precision in key labor-market estimates

If the size of sampled households is large enough, declining participation does not have to significantly affect the reliability of statistics produced from the survey. However, if declines in participation reduce usable sample sizes too much, this can lead to estimates with less precision, which can reduce researchers’ ability to parse a signal from statistical noise in a timely manner, especially for economically vulnerable groups.

For example, because the unemployment rate for Black workers is volatile, it can be difficult to accurately diagnose labor market softness for this group. If the sample size is too small to generate statistical precision in each month, researchers will require increasingly more months of data to be able to diagnose labor market softness, which could jeopardize the timeliness of proper policy responses to support the labor market.

Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes statistical significance summary tables, identifying whether changes in labor force indicators are statistically significant at the 90% level. BLS publishes these statistical significance tests for dozens of indicators across several demographic groups, including for Black workers. We collected these tables over time and documented the margin of error needed in order to claim a 1-month change in unemployment was statistically significant, shown in Figure B.

While the margin of error that is needed to claim a change is statistically significant varies with the level of unemployment rate, the reduction in precision from lower response rates is evident when we hold the unemployment rate constant. The two red lines in Figure B identify the effect size needed to claim statistical significance for a change from a starting unemployment rate of 7.3%. In November 2017, when the sample size of the labor force was 63,346, a 0.66 percentage point change in unemployment would have been considered a statistically significant change. In April 2026, when sample size of the labor force decreased to 45,416 respondents, a 0.84 percentage point change in unemployment is required to claim statistical significance.

If the declines in survey participation are not random across the U.S. population, estimates may also be biased, which runs the risk of conveying inaccurate information about the state of the economy. For example, if nonresponse is more likely to occur among unemployed respondents compared with employed respondents, the statistics derived from these samples may suggest labor market softness when there is none. These concerns are already materializing: The Census reported that nonresponse had biased income statistics from the CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement upward by 2%–3% since 2020.

Researchers and field staff at Census and the BLS are aware of potential concerns of bias in their estimates and do their best to weight estimates using population counts from administrative data and other sources so that these issues don’t happen. However, if sample size declines continue on this trajectory, the BLS will need to create new methodologies and sampling strategies, all of which will require funding.

Steady throttling of BLS funding makes all decision-makers—public and private—less well informed

The declining precision of estimates in the Black unemployment rate is just one of the key indicators affected by a BLS that lacks resources to respond effectively to growing data collection challenges. Achieving a larger sample size for key surveys requires a well-functioning and well-funded BLS with personnel who can take on the challenges of administering surveys in the 21st century. Yet this is the exact opposite of what is happening. Figure C shows that from 2005 to the present, the staffing at the BLS went from roughly 2,500 employees to just over 2,150, a drop of about 15%.

Figure C

Funding has followed a similar trajectory. Since its high-water mark in 2010, the BLS budget has declined from $810 million to $636 million in inflation-adjusted terms, a decrease of 20%. These cuts don’t hurt just the estimates generated by the Current Population Survey. In the past couple of years, the BLS has been forced to reduce data collection for the Consumer Price Index and to discontinue certain Producer Price Indexes in an effort to cut costs. At a time when affordability and price changes are top of mind for U.S households and businesses, depriving public and private decision-makers of accurate and timely information about prices makes little sense.

Increased funding would allow the BLS to maintain all their current functions and implement new procedures to address declining sample sizes. In 2023, BLS began to modernize the collection process of the CPS to improve response rates by allowing online self-completion of the survey and other collection process improvements for certain data products. This BLS initiative is happening in parallel to similar initiatives in several other countries undertaking modernization efforts. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, and Canada have all received funding to launch similar modernization efforts for their own household surveys to address declining response rates. However, the BLS requests for increased funding for the modernization efforts have not been fully granted.

The decision to steadily defund the BLS is especially striking when weighed against the large economic benefits provided by the agency and other federal statistical agencies. The BLS provides up-to-date precise estimates of economic indicators that policymakers and business leaders alike rely on. Previous research finds that increased economic uncertainty can have negative effects on the economy, proving the important role that the BLS plays. Moreover, some economists have estimated in 2025 that the BLS generates economics benefits of about $25 for every $1 spent on the agency’s budgets. The 2025 FY BLS budget was approximately $636 million, meaning the BLS currently generates about $15.9 billion in economic benefit. Across all agencies, in FY 2022, the combined budget request for statistical agencies was $7.1 billion or 0.3% GDP, yet the benefits have been measured to be around $770 billion.

Conclusion

At a time when more information on the economic and social well-being of people and communities is needed, not less, funding the BLS should be a top priority. Addressing nonresponse will require substantial effort and creativity to counteract declining levels of social trust and anti-government sentiment. It will, for example, require public campaigns to convey that information provided to the BLS is confidential and safe, and changes in methodology to render the correct statistical adjustments, such that the statistics generated are unbiased. 

Rather than tackle these challenges head on however, the Trump administration put forward a proposal that would reduce the number of statistics about rural and less populous substate areas that could be published without running the risk of disclosing personally identifiable information. These proposals are a lazy solution to the real but solvable problem of making public data widely available and fully confidential. They would provide less information on the economic and social well-being of citizens, likely leading to delays in accurately diagnosing economic and social problems.

When agencies like the BLS are underfunded and understaffed, they aren’t able to conduct the critical functions of their agency or serve the public to the degree their mission entails. Funding for these organizations shouldn’t be up for debate, given how strong of an economic benefit they deliver.

Introduction

For Black Americans, public-sector employment has historically provided a pathway to better, more equitable and secure job opportunities compared with available private-sector jobs. The federal government has played an especially vital role in establishing a robust Black middle class in the Washington, D.C. metro area. According to the 2023 American Community Survey, roughly 2 out of 5 Black adults in the D.C. metro area were college graduates, Black median household income was nearly $90,000 and the Black homeownership rate was 52.8%. Postal service jobs have been particularly valuable to Black workers without college degrees because of the uniform wage and benefit structure (all postal employees who have the same job title and job tenure are paid the same nationwide) and higher pay relative to comparable private-sector employment. With a minimum education requirement of a high school diploma, the median hourly wage of a postal worker is 43% higher than the typical high school graduate. While federal employment has opened the door to social and economic mobility for generations of Black Americans, it has often been the battleground and served as a compass in setting higher labor standards and equal employment policies in the United States.

Opportunity. Backlash. Resistance. Change: A brief history of Black federal workers

The history of Black workers employed in the federal government dates to the Civil War when the federal government hired its first Black employee in the Treasury Department in 1863. In time, the federal government quickly became the largest employer of formerly enslaved people, with large concentrations in the military and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). By 1912, the federal government was the largest employer of Black Americans in the nation, including highly skilled Black workers who were hired in high-ranking white-collar positions.

One of the earliest actions aimed at weakening the position of Black federal workers came shortly after the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson. In 1913, Wilson racially segregated the USPS and Treasury department—the first federal agencies to employ, and in the case of USPS, promote Black workers to management positions. The administrative practice of segregating the federal workforce extended to the demotion of Black civil servants from white-collar positions, at-will firings, and refusal to fill open jobs with qualified Black candidates. Later that year, a group of Black workers formed the National Alliance of Postal Employees, the first industrial union in the federal service, to resist the administration’s racist tactics.

In the 1940s and 1950s, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower each issued executive orders that took measured steps to undo the overtly racist and discriminatory federal employment practices put in place by Wilson. Those orders were largely directed at national defense industries, armed forces, and government contractors in response to the demands imposed by World War II. But, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, civil rights activists pushed the federal government to do more to expand its hiring of Black workers. In response, President Eisenhower’s Executive Order 10590 established the President’s Committee on Government Employment Policy (PCGEP) in 1955. The PCGEP involved federal agencies more fully in the government’s anti-discrimination agenda and called for departments to develop regulations in accordance with its mission to stop all discrimination in all federal employment. However, the group lacked the enforcement power necessary to accomplish that mission.

Over the following decades, job prospects for Black federal workers were most improved by a series of executive actions and legislation introduced in the 1960s and 1970s. On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 required the federal government and federal government contractors to practice non-discrimination in their hiring practices. Additionally, E.O. 10925 established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (PCEEO) to monitor non-discrimination on government contracts. In a move that distinguished the PCEEO from prior ineffective, enforcement-lacking efforts like Eisenhower’s PCGEP, Kennedy granted policy-making authority to the group led by Vice President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg.

On January 17, 1962, Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988 which allowed limited collective bargaining for federal employees for the first time and opened the door to federal employee union membership under three different classifications: informal, formal, and exclusive recognition. Public-sector collective bargaining would play a central role in maintaining the quality and accessibility of federal jobs through labor contracts that fostered transparency with clearly defined policies and pay structures. Labor contracts also served to limit discriminatory outcomes while providing critical protections and recourse against other forms of exploitation or mistreatment.

The power of Kennedy’s executive orders was reinforced when Title VII of the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed by President Lyndon Johnson, formally prohibited employment discrimination in the United States and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce the law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 extended Title VII protections to cover more employers and strengthened the enforcement power of EEOC by allowing them to litigate against employers, including federal agencies, who violated Title VII.

Within the span of the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government had established a clear definition of what it meant to be an equal opportunity employer, leveraged its purchasing power to compel private contractors to meet similar standards, extended limited collective bargaining rights to federal workers, and assigned the EEOC a central role in enforcing anti-discrimination law. Black federal employees also continued to support and advocate for one another, establishing the non-profit organization, Blacks in Government (BIG), in 1975. The progress made during 1960s and 1970s would be gradually chipped away in the decades that followed. 

Federal job losses since the 1980s

During the 1980s, the Reagan administration took a swipe at federal employees, unions, and anti-discrimination enforcement, but that record pales in comparison to more recent developments. While Reagan announced plans to make federal job cuts, and infamously fired 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in the early 1980s, federal payrolls actually rose by more than 200,000 during his presidency before dropping by 427,000 during the 1990s and taking another hit of 244,000 between 2010 and 2014. Since the 1980s, the postal service, a major employer of Black workers, has been under sustained assault, including attempts to undercut employee compensation and the agency’s solvency.

In 2025, the Trump administration took steps to implement massive cuts to the federal sector and reverse course in the government’s pursuit of equity by rescinding at least a dozen prior executive orders related to racial and/or gender equality and terminating workers in DEI departments within federal agencies. In a series of legally challenged actions, Trump fired decisionmakers at the EEOC and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—rendering two independent agencies responsible for enforcing workers’ rights non-operational for several months—while his newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) made severe staff reductions and eliminated entire federal agencies. Trump’s attacks on the federal workforce have also included attempts to limit the approval of collective bargaining agreements with federal workers. The actions of Trump and DOGE contributed to the loss of 288,000 federal jobs between January and December of 2025, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ironically, while federal jobs once provided Black workers relatively more job security, early evidence suggests the burden of federal job cuts has fallen disproportionately on Black women. The potential consequences of these actions go beyond job losses and include major implications for Black family incomes and racial and gender pay equity.

An accounting of the significance of federal sector employment for Black workers and families

As detailed in the history presented above, between 1941 and 1981, Black workers gradually improved their employment status in the federal government through collective and individual activism of groups like the National Alliance and Blacks in Government, within a context of official support for their rights through executive orders and landmark civil rights legislation. This improved employment status expanded the ranks of Black federal workers who were able to secure higher incomes. By 1970, the median household income for Black families was just $6,279 compared with a range of $7,178–$10,987 for those earning GS 5–8 salaries in the federal government. In fact, Black federal employees compensated between grades GS 5–8 were either close to or slightly above the national median of $9,867. This remains a factor today as the high concentration of federal employment and related professional job opportunities in the Washington, D.C. metro area helps to make metro D.C.’s Black median household income ($89,912 in 2023) one of the highest in the nation and well above the overall national median of $77,719.

Analysis of 2024 state-level data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reveals that over 300,000 federal workers (excluding USPS) reside in the D.C. metro area, accounting for 60% of all federal workers in the District of Columbia and surrounding states of Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. Black workers are just over one-fourth of the federal workforce in the District of Columbia (28.8%), Maryland (27.9%), and Virginia (26%). While the D.C. metro area is home to the largest concentration of federal workers, over 90% of the federal workforce live and work outside the nation’s capital. Black workers account for at least one-fifth of the state’s federal workforce in 12 states beyond the D.C. metro area.

Implications of massive federal job losses and the unfinished business of equity

To understand the stakes of federal workforce contraction, it is necessary to compare the demographic and wage structure of federal employment with that of the broader labor market. As shown in Table 1, in 2023 and 2024, Black workers were 12.5% of the private-sector workforce, compared with more than a fifth (22.6%) of all workers in the federal sector—a share that also exceeds their representation in the entire public sector (16.4%) which includes state and local governments. Black women’s share of the federal workforce (12.8%) was double their share in the private sector (6.4%).

A national comparison of hourly wages at the median and for low-wage (10th percentile) workers demonstrates the clear monetary benefit of federal over private-sector employment. Figure A shows this is true across race and gender both at the middle and lower end of the wage distribution. The hourly wage of a typical (i.e., median) Black federal worker is more than 40% higher than that of the median Black worker in the private sector. Black federal workers—median and 10th percentile—also have higher wages than same gender white workers in the private sector. It is worth noting that these wage comparisons don’t account for the more generous benefits typically offered to federal and other public-sector workers, which further raises the value of their total compensation. The higher wages earned by federal workers largely reflect the higher share of college and advanced degree holders and higher rates of union coverage relative to private-sector employees. Less than 7% of private-sector workers are in a union or covered by a union contract compared with 35.9% of all public-sector workers and 29.5% of federal workers (see Table 1). While greater union coverage helps to boost wages and benefits for all workers, it is an even more important factor in raising wages of those for whom racial and gender discrimination further restrict individual bargaining power.

Another factor contributing to better pay outcomes in the federal government is the use of the Schedule (GS) pay scale which applies to over 70% of white-collar federal jobs. This helps to mitigate pay discrimination in the federal government by standardizing the qualifications and compensation associated with a specific position and consistent with experience, job performance, and local cost of living. On average, Black federal workers appear to experience only marginally improved pay equity over Black workers in the private sector, while the Black-white wage gap is much smaller in the public sector, overall.

In the federal sector, Black workers earn 12.6% less than white workers with the same levels of education, experience, union coverage status, gender, and state of residence, compared with 14.9% less in the private sector and just 3.8% less in the overall public sector (see Table 2). Although there is a sizable wage gap between Black women and white men across sectors, the federal sector gap (26.1%) is nearly 8 percentage points lower than the gap that exists in the private sector (33.9%). Given enforcement of the GS pay scale, remaining racial and gender pay gaps among federal workers likely reflect disparities in job positions and associated GS levels, a long-documented concern of Black federal worker advocates and activists. These disparities may stem from the underrepresentation of Black workers in higher-level, higher-paying positions, which can reflect differences across agencies in workforce demographic composition, occupational structures, and promotion rates. Notwithstanding the relatively higher economic position of many Black federal workers, these results epitomize the unfinished business of eliminating pay inequity and occupational segregation across all sectors of the labor market.

Conclusion

This brief summarizes the important role federal-sector employment has played in providing better job opportunities for Black Americans than have traditionally been available in the private sector. However, those outcomes have never been a given. A solid history of advocacy and activism by and on behalf of Black federal workers alongside others were critical in securing important wins through executive actions and policy change. Moreover, pushback against some of the most egregious violations of federal worker’s civil and worker rights have at times resulted in stronger, more broadly enforced labor and equal employment standards, improving outcomes to the benefit of all workers.

Key findings:

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

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

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

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

CEO Pay

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

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

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

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

CEO Pay

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

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

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

CEO Pay

Policymakers can rein in excessive CEO pay

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

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

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

Key takeaways

• The 2025 Census data on earnings, income, and poverty may reflect how the Trump administration’s policy choices were beginning to impact the economic well-being of workers, families, and children last year.
• Last year’s economy was characterized by slowing job growth, rising wage inequality, and growing policy uncertainty. We expect to see little to no improvements in key economic indicators such as lower-end household income and supplemental poverty rates between 2024 and 2025.
• The 2026 story is still unfolding and is likely to be worse, given these factors: decelerating nominal wage growth, higher inflation, and the 2025 budget reconciliation law that will leave more families and children vulnerable to poverty.

Next week, the Census Bureau will release the latest data on earnings, income, and poverty for 2025. This data could show early signs of how the Trump administration’s policy choices impacted the economic well-being of workers, families, and children across the country. The initial strong recovery from the pandemic recession measurably slowed in 2025 as the labor market softened and the policy climate grew more uncertain. To help place the upcoming data release in context, we highlight key trends that have characterized the economic and policy landscape in 2025. Though the economy continued to soften as inflation worsened in 2026 and the safety net grew increasingly more difficult to access as a result of the Republican Budget Reconciliation Law, the data in the Census will only provide specific insights for living standards in 2025.

In summary, we find:

1. 1. The U.S. economy in 2025 grew more slowly than in 2024, adding fewer than half as many jobs—only 764,000 jobs compared with 1.825 million in 2024. The unemployment rate slowly rose over the course of 2025, and the hires rate was depressed, making it harder for young people in particular to break into the labor market. While the prime-age employment-to-population remained relatively resilient to labor market softening, prime-age Black workers experienced large declines in their employment rate.
   2. With more moderate inflation, strong nominal wage growth translated into decent average hourly wage gains between 2024 and 2025, but gains were not shared equally. Lower-end wage growth stalled in 2025, which could have implications for lower-end incomes and poverty rates.
   3. Because the Republican budget reconciliation law is making basic needs programs like SNAP increasingly more difficult for families to access, we don’t expect to see any significant improvements in supplemental poverty between 2024 and 2025. We expect to the see the full impact of the Republican law in the years ahead.
   4. While the release will only provide data for 2025, our examination of the economic and policy landscape for 2026 suggests that a weaker job market, safety net cuts, and high inflation will worsen outcomes.

The labor market recovery softened in 2025

Because the vast majority of people in the United States rely on labor market income for their economic well-being, the labor market data we already have for 2025 should provide some insights into what the Census data may tell us. Overall, job growth has slowed, and the unemployment rate has ticked up as employment rates softened, particularly for certain demographic groups.

After the tremendous rebound from the pandemic recession, the labor market cooled somewhat. Payroll employment growth went from 3.3 million in 2023 to 1.8 million in 2024 and then 764,000 in 2025. A slowdown would be expected after such a strong recovery, and the number of jobs needed to keep up with population growth declined with lower net immigration in the wake of Trump’s draconian mass deportation policies. Nearly 100,000 federal jobs (96,000) were lost in the massive DOGE cuts (when comparing annual averages, which obscure more massive downward trends later in the year), and even manufacturing employment faltered in Trump’s first year, falling by 156,000 jobs between 2024 and 2025. If not for job growth in health care and social assistance, overall payroll employment would have fallen outright.

This weakening led to a mild increase in the unemployment rate, from 4.0% to 4.3% between 2024 and 2025. Figure A displays the change in some key labor market indicators for certain demographic groups. While the overall unemployment rate rose modestly, the increase was far greater for young workers, ages 16 to 24. It’s likely that the depressed hires rate has made it harder for young workers to break into the labor market. Older workers experienced much milder increases in their respective unemployment rates.

The share of the population with a job—the employment-to-population ratio fell from 60.1% to 59.7%, a drop of 0.4 percentage points. Prime-age workers—those between 25 and 54 years old—were more resilient to the labor market softening. However, prime-age Black workers experienced a tremendous decline of 1.3 percentage points between 2024 and 2025. This weakness may show up in the income and poverty data released next week. At the same time, prime-age Hispanic workers experienced an increase in their employment-to-population ratio.

Figure A

Wage inequality increased in 2025

Employment changes alone have important implications for family and household income, but wages are also an important part of the economic story. Figure B illustrates several key price and wage changes between 2024 and 2025. Though the economy was a bit weaker, the labor market delivered strong nominal wage growth for private-sector workers, measured by the Current Employment Statistics. Nominal average hourly wages increased 4.0% between 2024 and 2025. Inflation moderated—remember this is before the spike in 2026—and therefore, real hourly wages rose a modest 1.5%.

Unfortunately, the gains were not broad based. Unlike the faster wage growth among lower-wage workers through 2024, lower-end wage growth stalled in 2025. While the fall wasn’t large, it reversed the trends experienced between 2019 and 2024. The stair-step increase in wage growth, as shown in the right half of Figure B, suggests a return to a K-shaped recovery, wherein higher-wage workers experienced much faster wage growth than those at the middle or the bottom. While stronger average wage growth and modest median wage growth may suggest modest improvements in median household income—though tempered by slower job growth—weaker low-end wages may translate into losses for lower-income households and possibly rising poverty rates, particularly for groups hit hardest by falling employment.

Figure B

Republicans weakened SNAP last year and any chance at poverty alleviation in the years ahead 

The end of the expanded social safety net in 2022 eroded all of the gains in poverty reduction experienced between 2020 and 2021. Since 2022, poverty has continued to climb. This unfortunate trend in poverty is unlikely to reverse course in the latest Census release for 2025. This is partly because the Republican budget reconciliation bill signed into law by President Trump in July of last year significantly cut and limited access to basic needs programs like SNAP, one of the most successful programs in our country’s fight against poverty and hunger. Because the implementation of these changes and spending cuts is still ongoing, we are unlikely to see the full impact of the Republican law in next week’s data.

In 2024 alone, SNAP lifted more than 3.5 million people out of poverty. Nearly 40% of these individuals were children (see Figure C). In fact, both SNAP and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which provides reduced-cost or free lunches to low-income children in public and nonprofit private schools, lifted more than 2 million children out of poverty in 2024. After refundable credits, these programs, along with Social Security, make up the most effective anti-poverty strategies for children in the United States.

Figure C

Instead of strengthening the country’s nutritional assistance programs to improve access and the adequacy of benefits amid growing food insecurity, the Republican reconciliation package cut funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), imposed strict and costly work requirements, and eliminated waivers for areas with chronically high unemployment. The ongoing implementation of some of these changes, including factors associated with staff limitations, has led to a decline in SNAP participation by more than 4.5 million people. This drop will not be entirely reflected in the upcoming poverty statistics since some of this decline occurred in 2026. Yet the cutting back of resources for USDA and SNAP initiated by congressional Republicans and the administration will continue to translate into higher poverty rates and increased food insecurity, as states struggle to implement the costly and harmful changes now required by the new law.

The administration has also taken steps to ensure that we don’t have the data we need to trace the painful impact of these changes on food insecure families. In September 2025, Trump’s USDA canceled the country’s leading survey that documented the magnitude and severity of hunger and food insecurity in the U.S. They claimed that the USDA survey and report  were “redundant” and “politicized.” Soon after this, the administration allowed SNAP benefits to lapse for the first time in the history of the program, while at the helm of the longest full government shutdown in U.S. history, lasting 43 days and creating a chaotic situation for SNAP beneficiaries, many of whom needed to turn to food pantries for help. 

As we will be reminded when the Census releases its poverty statistics for 2025, the impact of all these harmful policies hit Black and brown families with children particularly hard. This is because families of color are disproportionately more likely to rely on SNAP to avoid food insecurity, and children of color are also more likely to be burdened by poverty than their peers.

In 2021, the United States demonstrated to the world that it had the capacity to reduce poverty to historically low levels by expanding access to SNAP and other basic needs programs. In 2025, Trump and congressional Republicans showed the world that they were willing to gut basic needs programs to pay for tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy. We should not be surprised when we fail at poverty reduction in the years ahead.

Next week’s data will be about the economic story of 2025. The 2026 story is still unfolding and is likely to have a worse ending.

As noted earlier, the earnings, income, and poverty statistics the U.S. Census will publish next week are for 2025. While we don’t yet know the full economic story for 2026, it is unlikely to be a more promising one. This is because the slowdown in job growth that began in 2025 has further solidified throughout 2026. This weaker job market continues to be particularly harmful to Black and young workers. The softer labor market in 2026 has also coincided with worsening inflation. Higher inflation is largely due to Trump’s ongoing war in Iran, which has already wiped out 1.5 years of real wage growth in a matter of months.

The policy landscape for 2026 also looks bleaker. The spending cuts to the U.S. social safety net that Trump signed into law in the summer of 2025 will continue to hurt the ability of families to access basic services like Medicaid and SNAP. This will leave increasingly more economically insecure families vulnerable to poverty and unnecessary hardship in the face of a worsening affordability crisis.

Key takeaways:

• So-called right-to-work (RTW) laws undermine workers’ ability to form unions. Unionization rates are clearly lower in RTW states—and since unions raise wages, that suppression lowers pay.   

• States with RTW laws are also more likely to have other anti-worker laws and generally weaker labor standards. This is likely because both RTW and other anti-worker policies stem from the same anti-worker political roots, and because RTW’s suppression of unions deprives these states of strong potential political champions (unions) for other pro-worker policies.  

• Non-RTW states are more likely to have pro-worker policies like higher minimum wages and prevailing wage laws, restrictions on noncompete agreements, pay transparency policies, and more protective unemployment insurance benefits. 

• As a result, workers in RTW states are paid 6.7% less on average than workers in non-RTW states—more than double the 3.2% wage penalty we found in 2015. That means the RTW wage penalty has increased in recent years and now translates to over $4,000 less per year for a median full-time worker in a RTW state.

• The RTW wage penalty is steeper for women (7.3%) than for men (6.3%), and for Black (9.7%) and Hispanic workers (10.0%) than for white workers (5.4%).   

• Lawmakers already have the policy tools they need to boost wages and improve other outcomes for workers: 

• • At the state level, rolling back existing RTW laws is the most powerful lever.  

• • At the federal level, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (which includes a ban on RTW) would be transformational for efforts to organize workers.  

• • Policymakers could also make progress on numerous other fronts, such as making UI systems more protective and raising minimum wages. 

In the United States, so-called right-to-work (RTW) laws are anti-union state policies promoted by big business interests to weaken unions and limit workers’ bargaining power. Despite the name, RTW laws do not provide any sort of job protection or right to a job. Rather, the deceptively named policy starves unions of resources, making it harder for them to negotiate collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

RTW laws emerged in the 1940s as part of anti-union campaigns to suppress worker organizing and maintain Jim Crow labor relations in Southern states; these campaigns worsened economic inequality and racial disparities (Childers 2024). Today, 26 states have active “right-to-work” statutes.1

As intended, RTW laws reduce union density (the share of workers who are either members of a union or covered by a union contract). These policies prohibit unions and employers from negotiating over union security—the contract terms under which workers covered by a union contract either join the union or pay an agency fee covering their share of representation costs. This deprives unions of critical resources and suppresses union membership (Sherer et al. 2026). RTW states—specifically those with RTW laws for at least 25 years—have an average union density rate of 6.2%, far less than half the union density rate in non-RTW states (16.0%) (see Appendix Table 1).

RTW laws not only reduce the number of workers with collective bargaining agreements but also limit unions’ political power to advocate for stronger labor standards for workers more broadly. This is, in part, why states without anti-union restrictions are more likely to pass protections such as prevailing wage mandates, restrictions on noncompete agreements, higher minimum wages, and pay transparency laws.

To assess the effects of RTW laws on outcomes for workers, we analyze whether wages are lower in RTW states after controlling for key demographic-, job-, and state-level characteristics (see Appendix Table 1 for full demographic controls as well as median and average wages by RTW status). We find that wages in “right-to-work” states are, on average, 6.7% lower than in non-RTW states. This penalty is worse for Black and Hispanic workers, as well as young workers and those without college degrees. Notably, the penalty is also larger for nonunion workers. This is because strong unions benefit workers across the state, not just those in unionized workplaces (Shierholz et al. 2026). In RTW states with weaker unions, nonunionized workers do not experience these positive “spillover” effects.

Pro-worker policies are more common in states without RTW laws

The strong correlation between wages and states’ RTW status is not surprising. Not only do RTW states have lower unionization rates, leaving workers with less leverage to bid up wages, but they often maintain other anti-worker policies. Combined, these anti-worker policies tilt bargaining power toward employers, weakening workers’ ability to garner higher wages. States without RTW laws are more likely to have a wide array of stronger labor standards in place that raise pay, protect workers’ ability to switch jobs, and support those who lose one. These same states—where unionization rates have not been suppressed by RTW laws—have a better safety net and stronger labor standards in part because stronger unions give workers more political power and the ability to better lobby for pro-worker policies writ large (Shierholz et al. 2026).

Figure A displays the incidence of these labor standards for states with and without anti-union RTW laws.2 This is far from a complete list of relevant policies that may correlate with RTW status and wage levels, but they are illustrative.

Figure A

Prevailing wage

Prevailing wage laws apply to certain contracts for public works and require that contractors and subcontractors pay the employees performing such work a prevailing wage rate. The prevailing wage rate is defined as the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment. Federal law requires this of federal contracts while state and local laws may apply to state and local contracts.

Prevailing wage laws are more common in non-RTW states. Figure A shows that nearly all (96.0%) of non-RTW states have prevailing wage laws, while only 23.1% of RTW states have these protections for workers on state contracts.3 Without prevailing wage requirements, contractors may reduce their workers’ wages to win bids on government contracts—putting contractors who pay their workers fair wages at a disadvantage.

Restrictions on noncompetes

Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at a company from joining a competing business or starting their own for a set period after leaving a job. Noncompetes undermine economic dynamism and innovation; they depress business formation and labor mobility, hurt productivity and growth, raise prices, shrink workers’ wages, and restrict workers’ freedom (Shierholz 2024).

One of the most effective ways workers achieve higher wages is by securing another offer, and then either renegotiating their current salary or leaving for the new higher-paying job. It is not surprising then that workers in states that enforce noncompetes are paid less than similar workers in states that do not enforce noncompetes (Starr 2019). States without anti-worker RTW laws are nearly four times as likely to restrict noncompetes as RTW states (44.0% vs. 11.5%).4 In this analysis, we include only full bans on noncompetes and states with income-based restrictions. States with only small carve-outs for certain occupations provide a much weaker standard and are, by definition, less broad, so those aren’t included.

Minimum wage

Raising the minimum wage is particularly important for lower-wage workers. While the federal minimum wage has sat at $7.25 an hour since 2009, losing over 30% of its purchasing power, workers in 31 states enjoy a higher wage floor (Zipperer 2026). Non-RTW states are three times as likely to have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum compared with RTW states (92.0% vs. 30.8%). This is not a small difference. As of 2026, the average value of the minimum wage in non-RTW states is 60% higher—$5.36 more per hour—than in RTW states.5

Pay transparency

Pay transparency laws prevent employers from lowballing wage offers by requiring them to include wage information in job postings. While they vary, all laws include some requirement that employers provide salary information in job postings or if directly requested by applicants. Lack of knowledge about wages and benefits keeps potential workers in the dark and limits their ability to learn about and apply for better paid opportunities. A study on Colorado’s newly passed wage transparency law found that wages increased 4.2% faster than those in neighboring states without such laws (Shedge 2025). Further, wage transparency has the potential to reduce gender- and race-based discrimination by arming jobseekers with more information and limiting employers’ ability to pay different amounts to similarly qualified candidates. Only two RTW states have a pay transparency law, compared with 64% of non-RTW states.6

Unemployment insurance

Access to unemployment insurance (UI) also shapes workers’ ability to seek better wages. When a worker is laid off and their household income falls, unemployment insurance supports them and their family until they find another job. UI is a joint federal-state program that relies on state UI systems to effectively deliver benefits to unemployed workers. States differ in their rules and approaches under the federal UI framework, leading to wide variation in the share of unemployed workers receiving UI benefits (the UI recipiency rate).

Better UI not only cushions workers and their families but also provides workers with additional leverage in the labor market. When UI access and generosity fall, job seekers are forced to settle for lower wages and employers leverage this by offering less (Dahl and Knepper 2026). On the flip side, research shows a positive relationship between more UI generosity and wages (Rinz and Wasser 2026). The UI recipiency rate is significantly higher in non-RTW states compared with RTW states (32.8% vs. 18.7%).7 This is not surprising because non-RTW states have stronger unions, which fight to increase UI eligibility, ease of access, benefit levels, and benefit duration—to the benefit of all workers, union and nonunion (Hertel-Fernandez and Gould-Werth 2020). As with other pro-worker policies, better UI access can contribute to higher wages in non-RTW states.

Other policy levers

Not only do workers in non-RTW states enjoy higher wages, but they also benefit from increased economic security thanks to higher health insurance rates, higher public education spending, paid family and medical leave access, and no preemptions against higher labor standards. Every non-RTW state expanded Medicaid compared with fewer than two-thirds of RTW states (61.5%).8 Unsurprisingly, the uninsured rate is higher in RTW states than in non-RTW states (8.9% vs. 6.2%).9

Investments in public education deliver a more productive workforce and more informed and engaged society. Increased funding for schools not only improves educational attainment, but also increases wages and family incomes (Jackson, Johnson, and Persico 2016). Non-RTW states spend 45% more on public education than RTW states ($24,084 vs. $16,620).10 Paid family and medical leave provides essential benefits that help workers maintain their livelihoods while taking care of themselves and their families. These laws are also shown to increase labor force participation, job retention, and earnings (Glynn 2020). Only one RTW state has comprehensive paid family and medical leave provisions for private-sector workers, compared with 56% of non-RTW states.11

Finally, some cities, counties, and other local governments enact policies that raise standards for working people, but some state legislatures force those standards back down with preemption—the use of state law to void local ordinances. Preemptions apply to policies such as minimum wage, prevailing wages, paid leave, and fair scheduling (EPI 2025). Preemption laws interfere with local governments’ ability to set job quality standards. They suppress wages, exacerbate racial inequities, and reduce worker power (Sherer, Cohn, and Ahdoot 2025). These preemptions are more common in RTW states.

Workers in RTW states are paid less

Our analysis of the relationship between wages and RTW status puts states into three categories: long-term RTW states, always non-RTW states, and “switcher” states that have changed their RTW status since 2011.12 Appendix Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for these three groups of states, and Appendix Figure A provides a map of states by RTW status. Our estimates focus on comparisons between long-term RTW states and always non-RTW states.

A simple comparison of hourly wages, the primary variable of interest, reveals that average wages are 22.9% higher in non-RTW states ($40.28 in non-RTW states vs. $32.78 in RTW states). Median wages are 19.2% higher in non-RTW states ($28.79 vs. $24.16). Because there are differences between worker-, job-, and state-level characteristics in RTW and non-RTW states, and since some of these characteristics will directly impact workers’ wages, it is important to control for these factors in a multivariate regression model. This allows us to more accurately identify the relationship between RTW status and wages.

We estimate log wage equations using Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS-ORG) data for 2023–2025. We pool three years of data to minimize any spurious year-specific economic relationships, thereby helping us achieve more precise estimates. The total sample consists of 234,155 workers, ages 16+, who earn wages and salaries. About 42% of the sample lives in states with RTW laws (see Appendix Table 1 for the sample’s full demographic breakdown).13

In Table 1, we construct a regression model, starting with an unadjusted framework and building up to a model that controls for the full range of explanatory variables. The dependent variable is the natural log of hourly wages.

The variable of interest is an indicator variable when the worker lives in a long-term RTW state. We also include an indicator in the regression for a switcher state, though that is not our focus of interest (see Appendix Table 2 for a complete set of regression results, including the coefficient for switcher states). There are currently 26 states with RTW laws on the books and 25 without them including Washington, D.C. (see Appendix Figure A). There are five switcher states that have adopted RTW in recent years: Indiana (2012), Michigan (2013), Wisconsin (2015), West Virginia (2016), and Kentucky (2017). In 2023, Michigan became the first state to repeal its RTW statute. We separate the five switcher states from the analysis to better isolate the relationship between wages and the long-run effects of RTW.

The naïve model, without any controls, suggests that workers in RTW states are paid 17.8% less than workers in non-RTW states (Model I in Table 1).14 But many factors contribute to wage differences: demographic characteristics such as age, race/ethnicity, gender, and level of education are relevant as well as job-related factors such as work hours, occupation, and industry. Since these vary across states, they reduce the measured relationship between RTW status and wages. Model II shows that when the analysis compares more similar workers with each other, the RTW penalty drops to 14.0%.15

There are other factors that are different in RTW states, aside from these individual and job-related characteristics. Most importantly, the cost of living. The cost of living in non-RTW states is higher than in RTW states, as shown in Appendix Table 1. In prior research, Gould and Kimball (2015) showed that choice of price indicator makes no material difference on the measured relationship between RTW and wages. Here we include the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Regional Price Parity index: The regional price parity index is higher in non-RTW states.16 Not surprisingly, this correlates with wage levels and therefore is important to include in the model. As with earlier studies, we also include state unemployment rates to control for differences in economic conditions.

After including the full set of demographic, individual-, and state-level labor market and cost of living controls (Model III), our analysis finds that workers in RTW states are paid 6.7% less than similar workers in non-RTW states. For the average worker, this is a difference of $2.70 per hour, or more than $5,600 for full-time workers at 2,080 hours over the year. However, because the average is skewed upward due to wage inequality, an assessment at the middle of the wage distribution provides a more conservative but perhaps more robust estimate of the RTW wage penalty. Acknowledging that this is a likely understatement of the full relationship, the RTW wage penalty for the median worker at full-time hours is over $4,000 for the year.

Table 1

This does not mean that RTW laws are a causal explanation for this 6.7% wage penalty. As demonstrated earlier in this report, RTW status correlates strongly with a number of other anti-worker policies. Other research has attempted to calculate the causal effects of RTW laws on wages. Using the switcher states in the most recent period, Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd (2022) found smaller wage penalties, which is to be expected given the shorter time frame for measurement post-adoption. Our wage penalty for switcher states—shown in the final column of Appendix Table 2—is much smaller (closer to zero) than the coefficient for long-term RTW states, though not statistically significant at conventional levels. Dasgupta and Merchant (2023) also examine states recently adopting RTW laws and find a statistically significant decline in annual wages by almost $1,900. Again, these states are more recent RTW adopters, so the full effects we find may take time to materialize.

We find that this relationship between long-term RTW status and wages remains economically and statistically significant under alternative specifications of our econometric model. For instance, removing major industries and occupations changes the coefficient to -0.071. Restricting the model to RTW status as of 2026—removing the separate indicator for states that switched since 2011—yields a coefficient estimate of -0.060. Doing the same but dropping Michigan (since its status changed in the measurement period) results in a coefficient of -0.064. In our final model, we do not include an indicator for unionization, unlike Gould and Kimball (2015). If we reintroduce that variable, the coefficient is -0.063.

In each of our regressions discussed above, we include a three-year average as it improves data reliability and allows us to run smaller groups of the data (see next section). When we run our analysis using just 2025, our results do not change. In fact, when we run our three-year final model for the periods 2021–2023, 2022–2024, and 2023–2025, our coefficients remain in the -0.070 to -0.068 range.

Wage penalties are steeper for women, Black, Hispanic, and nonunion workers in RTW states

The RTW penalty is not uniform across demographic groups and other labor market characteristics. Table 2 below shows the results of a series of final-model regressions (comparable to Model III in Table 1) for a set of demographic groups.

We find that women’s wages in RTW states are penalized at a higher rate (7.3%) than men’s (6.3%). The wage penalty also persists across all racial and ethnic groups, but it is almost twice as large for Black (9.7%) and Hispanic (10.0%) workers as for similar white workers (5.4%) and more than twice as large as for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers (4.6%). Young workers between the ages of 16 and 24 face a greater penalty (8.4%) than older workers. And workers without a college degree experience a much higher penalty (7.8%) than workers with a college degree (4.7%).

Table 2

It is particularly important to note that RTW laws have a statistically significant negative effect on the wages of nonunion workers, as shown in the last row of Table 2. Our analysis indicates that nonunion workers in RTW states have wages that are 6.3% lower, on average, than their counterparts in non-RTW states. Union members likely experience a smaller penalty (3.6%) because their wages tend to be higher than those in nonunionized workplaces, regardless of the state’s RTW status (McNicholas et al. 2025). However, the wage impact of unions extends beyond those directly covered by a union contract. Unions lift wage standards across entire industries, meaning that nonunion workers in states with higher union density are more likely to receive better pay.

As the gap in wages and labor standards between RTW and non-RTW states has grown, so has the wage penalty

Using our final model (Model III in Table 1) with pooled 2023–2025 data, we find a 6.7% RTW wage penalty—a larger penalty than we found in earlier examinations. For example, we found a 3.2% wage penalty using data for 2009 (Gould and Shierholz 2011) and pooled 2010–2012 data (Gould and Kimball 2015). Some of the increase in the current estimate of the RTW wage penalty reflects small changes (likely improvements) in our methods. But part of the higher estimate persists even when we apply our current methods to earlier data: Applying these methods to the 2010–2012 data yields an RTW wage penalty of 4.7%.

One method change concerns “switchers”—states that changed from non-RTW to RTW status (or back) since 2019. In the 2010–2012 period, there were no switchers to affect the data.17 In our analysis, we isolate switchers from the long-term RTW group, but the RTW penalty remains negative and significant no matter how one deals with the issue of switcher states. For example, recategorizing the five switchers to match their 2012 status (all non-RTW) lowers the measured RTW wage penalty in the 2010–2012 period to 4.1%, but it remains significant.

Other changes relative to our earlier research include controlling for public-sector status; removing union as an independent variable from the regression; using the full working age range of 16 and up (as opposed to 18–64); and correcting an issue with nonrandom missing values to the metropolitan variable. We’ve further clustered standard errors at the state level as suggested by Douglas (2024), which does not affect the size of the coefficients, only the size of their standard errors and resulting statistical significance.18

Setting those minor model differences aside, a consistent comparison over time sees the RTW wage penalty rising from 4.7% in 2010–2012 to 6.7% in 2023–2025. One possible reason why this RTW wage penalty grew could be the increasingly divergent policy trajectories of RTW and non-RTW states over this period.

For example, the gap between minimum wages in RTW states and non-RTW states has grown since 2010, largely because policymakers in most RTW states have refused to increase their minimum wage despite the fact that the federal minimum wage has been stagnant in nominal terms since 2009. In that year, the average minimum wage in RTW states was $7.25 while the average minimum wage in non-RTW states was $7.54. That gap has grown enormously, from just $0.29 per hour in 2009 to $5.36 per hour by 2026 ($14.24 in non-RTW states vs. $8.89 in RTW states).

There were other potentially relevant policy changes between 2012 and 2025. The first state-level pay transparency law was passed in Maryland in 2020. Seventeen states followed suit in subsequent years, 15 of which were non-RTW states. On the flip side, six states have repealed their prevailing wage laws since 2012—all of which were RTW. Only one state, Michigan, reinstated its prevailing wage law. It did so in 2023, the same year it repealed RTW. While this is far from an exhaustive list, it’s not surprising that the measured RTW wage penalty has grown over time.

Repealing anti-union “right-to-work” laws and strengthening labor law is key to raising wages

The wage penalty for workers in RTW states has grown since the last time we conducted this research a decade ago. Long-standing and more recently enacted anti-union RTW laws in 26 states, in tandem with other anti-worker policies, have further eroded workers’ collective bargaining power, suppressed wages, and lowered labor standards. These outcomes are linked to clear policy choices, and lawmakers at every level of government have the tools they need to restore workers’ union rights, strengthen labor standards, and lift wages. Across the U.S., 56 million workers say they want a union in their workplace, yet only 10% of all workers have one (Shierholz et al. 2026). Current federal and state labor laws—including anti-union RTW laws—place too many obstacles in workers’ path to unionizing and give employers too much power to interfere with workers’ free choice.

First and foremost, states with RTW laws should follow Michigan’s recent lead and repeal them. Repealing state RTW laws will enable workers to unionize and raise wages across the country. Indeed, recent EPI research finds that equalizing collective bargaining rights across all states by repealing RTW laws that affect private employees and ensuring collective bargaining rights for public employees would increase national union density by almost 50% (from 9.9 to 14.4%) (Shierholz et al. 2026). States should also consider passing constitutional amendments that affirm collective bargaining rights and explicitly bar RTW-style restrictions, such as the 2022 Workers’ Rights Amendment in Illinois (Sherer 2026).

At the federal level, lawmakers should pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. The PRO Act is designed to address major weaknesses of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which has been severely eroded by amendments and court decisions. Among many other reforms, the PRO Act would eliminate the option for states to maintain anti-union RTW laws—restoring full bargaining rights to workers in all states as intended when the NLRA was originally passed in 1935 (McNicholas, Poydock, and Rhinehart 2021). Since its first introduction in 2019, the PRO Act has passed the House of Representatives twice with bipartisan support (Shierholz et al. 2026).

In addition to proposed PRO Act reforms that would enable newly unionized workers to pursue arbitration to achieve a first contract (if an employer fails to negotiate in good faith), federal labor law should set a minimum standard that such contracts include a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). To further expand the benefits of collective bargaining, Congress should amend the NLRA to require default collective bargaining at any firm where CEO-to-worker pay ratios exceed 100 times what a typical worker makes in their industry (as this ratio would be one proxy for whether conditions at an employer are particularly unequal) (Shierholz et al. 2026). 

Legislators at both the state and federal level should also look to the list of anti-worker laws that are typically found in RTW states for more opportunities to rebalance unequal power in the labor market and improve wages and working conditions. These policies include:

• Raising the minimum wage;
• Banning noncompete agreements;
• Strengthening federal unemployment insurance guidelines and state UI systems;
• Removing state restrictions that preempt local governments from raising wages and strengthening labor standards.

These are among just a few of the policy levers states can use to raise wages and standards (EPI 2026b).

Our analysis suggests that repealing anti-union RTW laws and enabling workers to increase unionization levels are key to raising wages, both because RTW laws directly suppress unionization rates (and unions raise wages), and because weakening unions limits workers’ collective ability to shape other public policies.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Josh Bivens, Jennifer Sherer, Hilary Wething, and Ben Zipperer for their helpful comments and expertise.

Appendix

Appendix Figure A

Appendix Table 1

Appendix Table 2

Notes

1. See Appendix Figure A for RTW status. As of 2026, these states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

2. States are categorized as “RTW” or “non-RTW” based on their status as of 2026.

3. Authors’ analysis of prevailing wage laws from DOL (2023) and state legislative websites.

4. Authors’ analysis of noncompete restriction policies from EIG (2026).

5. Authors’ analysis of minimum wage data from EPI (2026c).

6. Authors’ analysis of pay transparency laws from GovDocs (2026).

7. Authors’ analysis of UI recipiency rate data from DOL-ETA.

8. Authors’ analysis of Medicaid expansion policies from KFF (2026).

9. Authors’ analysis of uninsurance rates by state, 2023 through 2025, from Carter (2025).

10. Authors’ analysis of per-pupil education spending data from NCES-NPEFS (2024).

11. Authors’ analysis of paid family and medical leave policies from Wielk (2026).

12. Prior to 2012, the last state to change its status was Oklahoma in 2001.

13. This analysis builds on earlier work by Gould and Kimball (2015); see the report for a full description of the methodology and list of controls.

14. Interpreting the results from these semilogarithmic functions requires utilizing the exponential function on the coefficient. Specific to the binary variable coefficient (β1) for RTW, the percent change in workers’ wages resulting from a state being RTW can be calculated by the formula: 100*[exp(β1)-1]. Typically, the result of this equation will be very close to the coefficient itself but will differ more as the coefficient becomes larger. We show the coefficient in the first row of Table 1 and the exponentiated result as a percent in the third row.

15. Full regression results for covariates in all three models can be found in Appendix Table 2.

16. Because the 2025 BEA RPP data were not yet available at the time of publication, we assign an average of 2022–2024 data to all years in our sample (2023–2025).

17. Gould and Kimball (2015) classify Indiana as non-RTW as its RTW law had just taken effect.

18. We do not control for state-level fixed effects, as Douglas (2024) suggested, because state-level fixed effects perfectly correlate with RTW status and would deem our results uninterpretable.

References

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Price Parities by State and Metro Area: All items (BEA-RPP). Various years [Release date: February 19, 2026]. Public data series accessed via the Regional Data interactive tool. Accessed August 1, 2026. 

Carter, Caitlin. 2025. “Health Insurance Coverage by State: 2023 and 2024.” U.S. Census Bureau, September 11, 2025. 

Childers, Chandra. 2024. The Evolution of the Southern Economic Development Strategy: Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: Part One. Economic Policy Institute, May 2024. 

Dahl, B. Gordon, and Matthew Knepper. 2026. “Unemployment Insurance, Starting Salaries, and Jobs: Evidence from Multi-state Firms.” The Review of Economic Studies, rdag056. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdag056.

Dasgupta, Kabir, and Zofsha Merchant. 2023. “Understanding Workers’ Financial Wellbeing in States with Right-to-Work Laws.” FEDS Notes (The Federal Reserve), September 8, 2023.

Department of Labor (DOL). 2023. “Dollar Threshold Amount for Contract Coverage Under State Prevailing Wage Laws.” Last modified January 1, 2023. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (DOL-ETA). Various years. Unemployment Insurance Chartbook. Public data series accessed via the interactive tool. Accessed August 6, 2026. 

Douglas, Christopher C. 2024. Right-to-Work States Do Not Have Lower Wages. Mackinac Center, December 2024. 

Economic Innovation Group (EIG). 2026. “State Noncompete Law Tracker.” Last modified March 24, 2026. 

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025. “Workers’ Rights Preemption in the U.S.” Last modified February 2025. 

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026a. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 2026.7.8, https://microdata.epi.org.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026b. Holding the Line: State solutions to the U.S. Worker Rights Crisis.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026c. “Minimum Wage Tracker.” Last Modified July 1, 2026. 

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

Glynn, Sarah Jane. 2020. “The Rising Cost of Inaction on Work-Family Policies.” Center for American Progress, January 21, 2020.

Gould, Elise, and Will Kimball. 2015. “Right-to-Work” States Still Have Lower Wages. Economic Policy Institute, April 2015.

Gould, Elise, and Heidi Shierholz. 2011. The Compensation Penalty of “Right-to-Work” Laws. Economic Policy Institute, February 2011. 

GovDocs. 2026. “Pay Transparency Laws by State and Province.” Last modified July 2026.

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

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

KFF. 2026. “Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions.” Last modified May 21, 2026. 

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Lynn Rhinehart. 2021. “How the PRO Act restores workers’ right to unionize” (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, February 4, 2021. 

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.

National Center for Education Statistics, National Public Education Financial Survey (NCES-NPEFS). 2024. Public data series accessed via the Common Core of Data database. Accessed July 1, 2026. 

Rinz, Kevin, and David Wasser. 2026. “Unemployment Insurance Generosity and Wage Determination.” Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper no. 26-11, May 2026. https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-wp-202611.

Shedge, Nirav. 2025. Pay Transparency Laws and Wage Dynamics: Evidence from Colorado. Social Science Research Network, November 2025. 

Sherer, Jennifer. 2026. Rights to Unionize and Collectively Bargain: State Solutions to the U.S. Workers Rights Crisis. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

Sherer, Jennifer, Emma Cohn, and Ruby Ahdoot. 2025. “Updated EPI Tracker Shows More States Obstructing Progress on Workers’ Rights: Harmful Preemption Laws are Increasing Inequality and Repressing Democracy.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 6, 2025.

Sherer, Jennifer, Nina Mast, Elise Gould, and Emma Cohn. 2026. Everything You Need to Know About Anti-Union “Right-to-Work” Laws. Economic Policy Institute, forthcoming 2026.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2024. “Banning Noncompete Agreements.” Testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy, July 30, 2024. 

Shierholz, Heidi, Celine McNicholas, Josh Bivens, Jennifer Sherer, Ben Zipperer, and Margaret Poydock. 2026. The Case for Tripling Union Membership: How Rebuilding Union Power Would Strengthen Workers, the Economy, and Our Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, July 2026. 

Starr, Evan. 2019. “Consider This: Training, Wages and the Enforceability of Covenants Not to Compete.” ILR Review 72, no. 4 (August): 783–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919826060.

Wielk, Emily. 2026. “State Paid Family Leave Laws Across the U.S.” Bipartisan Policy Center. Last updated April 23, 2026. 

Zipperer, Ben. 2026. Setting High Standards for a Federal Minimum Wage. Economic Policy Institute, May 2026. 

But as the country’s workforce has shifted over the nearly 90 years since the FLSA was enacted, the FLSA’s overtime rate has not.

Recently, the Double Wage for Overtime Act was introduced by Rep. Casar (D-Texas) in the House and by Sen. Gallego (D-Ariz.) in the Senate. The Act would strengthen overtime protections for more than 13 million workers by amending the overtime rate for the first time since 1938. It would raise overtime pay from 1.5 times a worker’s regular rate of pay to double the regular rate.

How would this affect pay, hours worked, and employment?

The potential to significantly increase workers’ earnings is notable. A worker making $25 an hour and working 10 hours overtime a week for a full year would gain $6,500 more in annual income, all else equal. But, as with any change to overtime policies, employers could respond to the new standard differently, based on the needs of their workplace. In particular, some workers who often work overtime may work fewer overtime hours, as employers adjust schedules and spread work to minimize having to pay the overtime premium. But, due to the double overtime rate, overall compensation for working people would still rise.

The Double Wage for Overtime Act also serves as a mechanism to narrow race and gender pay gaps by boosting pay in historically undercompensated, overtime-eligible sectors, where women and workers of color are disproportionately represented, due to the broad impacts of racism and sexism on labor market outcomes.

Finally, the bill offers a strong deterrent to employers who might otherwise overwork employees. Stronger overtime protections incentivize fairer and more reasonable scheduling, and act as a protection against unpredictably long hours. And, by incentivizing employers to spread hours out to employees who work less than 40 hours a week, stronger overtime protections are also likely to reduce the number of workers who are working part-time “involuntarily” (because they can’t get enough hours).

Any impact on employment is likely to be small, but positive. Some might argue, as they often do in opposing minimum wage increases, that requiring businesses to pay their employees more would reduce employment. But the overwhelming body of evidence on minimum wage increases shows that they raise wages without causing meaningful job losses.

Moreover, increasing the overtime premium differs from increasing the minimum wage in an important way. A higher minimum wage requires employers to raise the pay of all workers earning below the new minimum. By contrast, employers have considerable flexibility in responding to a higher overtime premium. Rather than paying the higher overtime rate, they could hire additional workers or offer more hours to employees who currently work part-time. In part because employers have these alternatives, any employment effect of increasing the overtime premium is likely to be positive.

How does this compare with “No tax on overtime”?

The legislation is far better for working people than Republicans’ “no tax on overtime” policy. Although a tax deduction may sound like a compelling way to help people who work overtime, it is a deeply flawed policy with very uneven benefits. It largely benefits middle-to-high-income earners, provides only modest tax savings for those workers who do qualify, leaves some workers worse off, and preserves financial gains for employers who overwork employees. Strengthening overtime standards—instead of offering gimmicky tax cuts—is the real way to deliver for working people.

How would this affect local economies and businesses?

As mentioned above, if this legislation were to take effect, businesses would have choices and flexibility as to how to comply. Firms may hire additional employees, which would increase employment in the overall economy. They may also choose to innovate and become more efficient in how they direct their employees’ use of time. Reducing excessive numbers of work hours may also improve worker health, concentration, and lead to fewer fatigue-related accidents, which would increase productivity in the workplace, benefiting workers and employers alike.

Though employers can respond to an increase in overtime protections in many ways, the increase would raise labor costs, as it puts money in workers’ pockets. Importantly, this is unlikely to translate into higher prices for consumers. Research on minimum wage increases, which raise labor costs, finds little-to-no inflationary impact from minimum wage increases. And minimum wage increases are a much greater shock to labor costs than an increase in the overtime premium. Increases in the minimum wage affect all hours worked for impacted workers, while the higher overtime rate would only affect hours worked past 40 in a week, a small fraction of total hours worked.

In fact, the Double Wage for Overtime Act would boost affordability by helping ensure that workers actually earn enough in wages to cover the cost of living with dignity and security. The potential income increase for working-class households would have a positive effect on local businesses as well. When workers have more money in their pockets, they can put that money back into their communities.

In short, increasing the overtime wage premium would strengthen one of the nation’s foundational labor standards, putting more money in workers’ pockets while encouraging employers to create jobs, instead of relying on excessive overtime. The Double Wage for Overtime Act is a straightforward opportunity for lawmakers to tackle continued affordability concerns. It is a long overdue modernization of overtime pay that would benefit millions.

The bill includes a combined $71.9 million cut for the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Further, the measure implements a 3% cut to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). While the legislation slightly increases funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the Trump administration has weaponized for political reasons, the amount overall remains insufficient. The appropriations measure now moves to the Senate, where the budget cuts face an uncertain future.

If enacted, these reductions would further strain these agencies that have faced over a decade of flat funding that hasn’t accounted for inflation or rising labor force participation (see Figure A). This chronic underfunding has severely impacted their ability to enforce worker protection laws.

Figure A

The consequences of underfunding worker protection agencies

The Department of Labor serves the nation’s workers by administering and enforcing most federal worker protection laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Within this framework, WHD ensures that workers receive wages earned while OHSA evaluates safe workplace conditions and standards. Moreover, independent agencies such as the EEOC enforce a range of anti-discrimination laws while the NLRB enforces private-sector labor law, including workers’ rights to a union and collective bargaining. Together, these government agencies are designed to equip workers with the tools to combat workplace abuses and rectify unequal bargaining power. However, enforcement agencies are unable to fulfill their mandates with reduced staffing and resources.

Since 1992, OSHA has experienced a 16.0% decrease in inspectors. OSHA has been left with so few resources that it would take 191 years for its inspectors to visit every workplace under its coverage just once. Furthermore, a recent Government Accountability Office report flagged critical agency shortcomings, noting OSHA’s weak efforts to address the rising tide of workplace violence against health care and social service workers.

WHD has faced similar staffing challenges. The number of WHD investigators is at its lowest point since at least 1973, despite being tasked with protecting many more workers. As a result, the total number of resolved WHD investigations has dropped significantly over the past few years (see Figure B).

Figure B

Meanwhile, the EEOC has experienced an uptick in discrimination claims over the decades alongside rising labor force participation, yet its resources have not matched the pace of these shifts. For the NLRB, funding for the agency has remained flat except for a recent $6 million reduction in case-handling. The lack of funding has severely impacted field offices—the primary point of contact for union elections—with six closing between 2014 to 2025. In 2024, the NLRB released a statement describing their struggle to meet responsibilities such as conducting hearings and elections amid funding and staffing shortages. The consequence of these challenges is evident. Although favorability for unions nears a record high, major efforts to undermine worker organizing persist.

House budget cuts would leave workers more vulnerable to exploitation

If enacted, the House’s budget cuts would exacerbate an already precarious workplace reality. There were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see Figure C). Put another way, a worker died every 104 minutes from a work-related injury. Foreign-born Latinx workers were disproportionately impacted. Reducing OSHA funding and staffing will make it even harder to ensure preventable deaths do not occur.

Figure C

Additionally, amid eroding worker protections, workers have had billions of dollars of wages stolen each year. Undocumented workers are especially impacted, with many fearing to report violations especially amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policies.

Furthermore, workers continue to face discrimination, filing an average of 83,000 charges per year since 1997. Political attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion have only eroded the mechanisms designed to address these injustices.

The House budget proposal claims to champion efficiency, but true efficiency cannot be achieved by dismantling an already vulnerable labor protection ecosystem or by slashing public-sector resources. The chronic underfunding of worker protection agencies turns legally guaranteed protections into hollow promises and leaves workers exposed to unchecked exploitation and vulnerability. A budget that truly supports U.S. workers would pass robust funding for staffing, investigators, and programs that guarantee safety, fairness, and justice across every workplace.

After years of pushing unsuccessfully to weaken work hours protections for 14–15-year-olds in Ohio, industry groups have partially succeeded with the help of State Senator Tim Schaffer. Just months after a public outcry led Governor Mike DeWine to veto similar child labor rollbacks in 2025, Schaffer revived the attack on child labor laws by sneaking an amendment into a broader bipartisan education bill. An unrelated amendment tacked onto the new law will allow employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds until 9 p.m. during the school year, though (unlike prior versions of the legislation) only on nights not preceding a school day. The change puts Ohio state law in conflict with long-standing federal child labor standards and allows employers to treat young teens more like adults for scheduling purposes, while saving on labor costs. In Ohio, employers can pay youth under 16 the federal minimum wage of $7.25, nearly $4 less than the regular state minimum wage of $11 an hour.

Industry-supported Ohio senator snuck failed child labor rollback into bipartisan bill to force lawmakers’ support

In late 2025, Governor DeWine vetoed a standalone bill that would have extended the number of hours that employers can schedule 14–15-year-olds to work on any night during the school year—in violation of federal law—after advocates from a long list of child health and welfare, education, organized labor, and economic justice organizations publicly urged him to oppose it. In his veto message, DeWine acknowledged that existing work hour guidelines—providing young teens (under 16) opportunities to gain work experience “after school up to 7 p.m.”—have been “in place, across this country, for many years” and have “served us well” and “effectively balanced the importance of 14- and 15-year-old children learning to work, with the importance of them having time to study.”

But DeWine has now approved similar changes as part of a comprehensive, bipartisan education bill that received broad support, including from education and child advocates. State Senator Schaffer’s 11th-hour backdoor move to add previously vetoed child labor legislation to this year’s education bill was a desperate effort to force changes that have otherwise failed to pass muster, even in a Republican-controlled state legislature.

Federal child labor laws reflect decades of research about the harms of overwork

Allowing young teens to work more hours at night opens the door to problems ranging from poor academic outcomes to a greater chance of injury. Studies have consistently shown that intensive work at a young age is associated with poor academic outcomes; longer hours raise the risk of work-related illness and injury; and working later into the night exacerbates sleep deprivation that in turn can interfere with teens’ education and well-being. Allowing employers to schedule young teens to work until 9 p.m. also increases the likelihood of nighttime driving for new drivers (minors can be permitted to drive at age 15.5 in Ohio), an additional risk factor for accidents. Motor vehicle crashes are already the leading cause of death for teens and young adults, who are three times more likely than adults to die in a car accident.

For all these reasons, federal law limits the maximum number of working hours for young teens to three hours per night or 18 hours a week and prohibits work past 7 p.m. during the school year. Because states can legislate above FLSA standards but not below, the new state standards conflict directly with federal law.

The enacted rollback is less harmful than last year’s failed bill but still hurts children and violates federal law

While the bill DeWine vetoed in 2025 would have allowed employers to schedule 14-year-olds to work until 9 p.m. on any night during the school year, the bill he signed on Friday allows employers to schedule 14-year-olds to work until 9 p.m., only on nights not preceding a school day. However, this limitation on working hours during school nights does nothing to change overall concerns: that later and longer working hours during the school year threaten children’s well-being and education. The new state law also conflicts with federal law and will sow confusion. Employers who follow new state guidelines will be at high risk of violating the FLSA (which will continue to apply to most Ohio employers) and incurring fines and other enforcement actions from the U.S. Department of Labor. This is a lesson that employers have already learned the hard way in states like Iowa where the National Restaurant Association, NFIB, and others have pushed for similar child labor law changes that put state standards into conflict with federal law.

The outcome this year in Ohio provides a useful illustration of how corporate interests and dark money groups are conspiring to weaken labor standards in state legislatures across the country. Schaffer has championed multiple legislative efforts to roll back child labor protections in Ohio in coordination with industry groups that benefit from weaker standards and has even sought to erode federal child labor standards through a concurrent resolution calling on Congress to weaken the FLSA to match.

Schaffer has been clear about his intention to benefit employers, working closely with lobby groups like the billionaire-founded right-wing dark-money group Americans for Prosperity and state affiliates of industry lobby groups like the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and National Restaurant Association. These organizations have fought at the state and federal level for unpopular child labor rollbacks, as well as blocking minimum wage increases, paid sick leave, and other policies that improve conditions for workers. Schaffer has received legislative awards or campaign endorsements from all three groups.

By repeatedly proposing—and in this case implementing—rollbacks that conflict with federal law, Ohio lawmakers are chipping away at the already fragile federal floor for workplace protections. Industry campaigns to weaken child labor laws are continuing, and there is a very real risk that federal child labor protections could face similar threats. In light of these threats, states should instead pursue policy options to strengthen standards and ensure that young teens who work can do so without harming themselves in the process.