Since the second Trump administration swept into office in January 2025, it has undertaken a range of damaging and destabilizing actions that have weakened the economy, undermined workers, hurt businesses and consumers, and threatened core elements of our democracy. While Trump has targeted numerous Democratic-led states and cities, the Washington, D.C., region has faced acute and prolonged harms since day one. From the first set of executive actions signed on Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has attacked people and businesses in the capital region repeatedly and intensely. These initial actions announced the president’s dubious claims of authority to fire large segments of the federal workforce, eliminate long-standing federal agencies and programs, and begin a campaign of illegal and inhumane mass deportations.  

The Trump administration’s damaging actions have been enabled and abetted by Republican members of Congress. Their passage of H.R. 1, the bill that the White House has referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), amplifies the administration’s mass deportation agenda and shreds critical health care and food supports for lower-income families to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. This funding bill will only cause more pain in the years ahead for Washington, D.C.-area households and throughout the country.

Congress also passed a federal spending bill that constrained the District of Columbia’s ability to spend its own tax revenue (Koma 2025) and a resolution that may force the district to adopt local tax code changes that match the OBBBA, whether the city wants to or not—changes that will jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars for city programs (D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute 2026).

In this report, we assess the early indicators of the damage of Trump’s actions and their effects on the Washington, D.C., regional economy, with particular attention to effects on workers and the labor market. We focus on this region due to its prominence as an early target of the Trump administration, in part due to its large federal workforce. Additionally, the district’s unique status as a non-state means that its leaders have far less legal authority to resist Trump’s interference than other target areas do.

Throughout this report, unless otherwise indicated, the data describe economic conditions for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which includes the District of Columbia, four nearby counties in Maryland, six cities and 11 counties in northern Virginia, and one county in West Virginia. We also refer to this region as the DMV (Washington, D.C.; Maryland; and Virginia). While we do not yet have the requisite data to fully and precisely document all the effects of the administration’s actions, we can see clear signals that the regional economy is already struggling, with more severe impacts likely to register in the data soon.

We then explore some of the factors that make other regions particularly vulnerable to significant economic harm from the Trump administration’s agenda. These include counties with large concentrations of federal workers, areas where federal transfer income (such as Medicaid and Social Security) makes up a significant portion of the region’s economic base, and places with significant immigrant populations. Though Trump has largely targeted prominent, Democratic-led areas, many of the regions most susceptible to the harmful economic consequences of the administration’s actions are rural counties, frequently represented in Congress by Republicans.

Trump’s actions in Washington, D.C., have led to reduced employment and rising unemployment

The clearest sign of the harm that the Trump administration’s actions have done to the Washington, D.C., regional economy is the substantial drop in the region’s employment rate. Based on EPI analysis of Current Population Survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from December 2024 to December 2025, the share of the regional working-age population with a job fell by 3.2 percentage points.1 As shown in Table 1, this compares with a decline of just 0.4 percentage points for the country over the same period. Among prime-age workers (those ages 25–54), the share employed in the DMV fell by 2.7 percentage points, compared with a decline of just 0.1 percentage points for the country overall.

This dramatic drop in regional employment is a direct result of the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on federal government workers, cuts to federal programs and agencies, and their cascading effects on connected regional industries. Prior to Trump’s taking office, federal employees made up 11.2% of the metro area’s total workforce (BLS-CES-SAE 2025).2 Between the end of 2024 and 2025, federal employment in the DMV region fell by more than 53,800 jobs (-14.2%) (BLS-CES-SAE 2026).3 These losses reverberated through the regional economy as affected households pulled back on spending, and many may have even opted to move, as data show the DMV region had the largest increase in home sale listings of any major metro last year (Brookings Institution 2026).

These significant cuts to federal employment, though highly damaging on their own, are only the first layer of the administration’s harm on the regional labor market. The DMV has a non-federal workforce of over three million people (BLS-CES-SAE 2026), many of whom work at firms that consult with, contract with, are funded by, or are otherwise connected to the government.4 The Trump administration has terminated thousands of grants to scientific research institutions (Kozlov, Tollefson, and Garisto 2026) and frozen or delayed funding for tens of thousands of nonprofit organizations, causing those targeted to limit operations or lay off staff (Tomasko et al. 2025). These cuts have also shrunk the funding pool for nonprofit groups, causing budget challenges even for those not previously receiving federal funding, as they must compete with groups previously funded through federal programs that are now scrambling to fill gaps with private support (Barrett 2025). The administration has also moved to cancel contracts with any company that maintains a commitment to DEI standards (Singh 2026). Although these cuts affect organizations everywhere, the DMV is disproportionately vulnerable to the economic harms of attacks on this sector as it has one of the highest concentrations of nonprofits in the country (Friesenhahn 2025). This is evident in the region’s slight dip (-0.3%) in private-sector employment from December 2024 to December 2025, a change from the consistent, albeit slowing, growth that had marked the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. At the national level, private-sector employment experienced slow but still positive change (0.5%) over the same period (BLS-CES-SAE 2026).5

The widespread impact of the administration’s actions can be seen in the breadth of employment declines across racial, ethnic, gender, and age groups in the region. As shown in Table 1, the employment rate fell by at least 2 percentage points for every demographic category of workers in the DMV. Notably, young workers under age 25 (-4.3 percentage points), workers age 55 and older (-3.3 percentage points), men (-3.5 percentage points), and Black workers (-5.9 percentage points) all experienced drops in their employment rates larger than the regional average. For older workers, the above-average decline likely reflects, at least in part, the firings and retirements of many federal employees, including many who had been near retirement age and opted into the so-called “Fork in the Road” deferred resignation program. For young workers, the administration’s funding and programmatic cuts directly reduced many traditional Beltway early-career opportunities (internships, fellowships), while weakness in the broader regional economy simultaneously forced area employers to pull back on entry-level positions.

Still, not all groups have been equally affected by Trump’s actions. As Table 1 shows, Black workers in the DMV region have suffered the largest employment declines, with the share employed falling by 5.9 percentage points in 2025. This is nearly triple the employment drop experienced by white workers (2.0 percentage points) in the region and, notably, more than seven times the employment drop of Black workers throughout the country overall (0.8 percentage points). Again, this is a direct consequence of the administration’s attacks on the federal workforce. Black workers have long tended to make up a larger share of the public sector than they do in the private sector—both in the DMV and across the country. This is because the public sector has historically been a pathway to the middle class for workers of color who face labor market discrimination in the private sector (Maye and Marvin 2025).

Trump’s massive cuts to federal employment have also rapidly undone what had been considerable progress in shrinking the regional Black-white employment gap. Figure A shows the employment rate of DMV workers, overall and by race/ethnicity, since the end of 2018. The rapid drop in the Black employment rate since the start of President Trump’s second term is striking, bringing the regional Black employment rate back down to its pandemic-era low. It is also notable that before that drop began, Black workers in the region were employed at essentially the same rate as their white counterparts—the only time in the last two decades when that occurred. These losses in employment will exacerbate existing racial and gender inequity across wages, poverty, and unemployment (Markoff and Zielinski 2026; Zielinski 2025; Busette and Elizondo 2022).

Recent increases in the DMV’s overall unemployment rate underscore the damage Trump is doing to the region. The non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate jumped more than a full percentage point, from 3.1% in January 2025 to 4.4% in January 2026—more than four times the increase in the national figure. (Importantly, this increase understates the weakening of the area labor market, as the BLS estimates the DMV labor force shrank by 3% over the same period—meaning that many workers who would have been counted as unemployed simply left the area labor force.) For comparison, the national non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased by less than half a percentage point, moving from 4.4% in January 2025 to 4.7% in January 2026 (BLS-LAUS 2026).

These numbers do not capture the full extent of the economic downturn in the DMV area, nor can they give us precise insight into where the pain has been most acutely felt. The administration’s violent deportation agenda, for example, will lead to a drop in immigrant and U.S.-born Hispanic workers’ employment, but resulting changes in Hispanic employment rates may be muted by the corresponding shrinking of the overall Hispanic population (Zipperer 2025). In other words, while the overall Hispanic population in the U.S. may fall dramatically in coming years, the ratio of remaining employed workers to remaining total population may stay somewhat consistent. This will mask the true scale of the economic and social harm being done to immigrant communities in the DMV and across the country.

It is also difficult to fully quantify how the deployment and continued presence of National Guard troops, violent immigration actions, and other authoritarian, fear-inducing tactics have impacted D.C.-area businesses, workers, and families, particularly in neighborhoods with predominately Black and Latino populations. Early data show regional declines in tourism, consumer spending, and foot traffic; harder to capture are the emotional and long-term economic consequences (Montgomery 2025; Hadden Loh and Haskins 2025; Sachs and Cocco 2025). Other recent analyses estimate similar economic harms in cities where targeted federal immigration enforcement actions have been aggressively deployed (Rosenthal and Sojourner 2026). A full accounting of the Trump administration’s harms on the Washington, D.C., region will take years to document.

Other localities should brace for similar consequences

Some of the Trump administration’s actions and their acute consequences are unique to the DMV, a function of the region’s high concentration of federal employees and government contractors, as well as the District of Columbia’s lack of statehood and full constitutional rights. However, the anti-government attacks the administration has unleashed on DMV-area households, workers, and businesses will have cascading consequences for communities throughout the country. The effects of the administration’s authoritarian attacks on the civil service, democratic institutions, and immigrants (Human Rights Watch 2026) that first registered across the DMV should be viewed as a preview of the consequences that will be felt in other regions. While no locality will be spared, regions particularly at risk include those with large shares of government workers (especially federal workers, but state and local government workers too), localities in which federal funding and social safety net programs make up a large portion of total area income, and those with large immigrant populations.

Trump’s attacks on the federal workforce will harm communities that rely on their employment

The day Trump returned to power in January 2025, he began attacking the federal workforce, first by moving to reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees to make it easier to fire and replace them with political loyalists (EPI 2026c), and then by stripping more than one million federal workers of their collective bargaining rights (EPI 2025a). The Trump White House subsequently worked feverishly to slash federal employment, attempting large and chaotic reductions in force, shuttering entire agencies, and coercing tens of thousands of staff to resign, among many other attacks (Poydock 2025). As of March 2026, the administration’s actions have reduced nationwide federal government employment by over 350,000 (11.7%) since January 2025 (Gould 2026).

Though federal workers make up a sizeable share of the DMV’s workforce, over 80% of federal workers live outside the region (Partnership for Public Service 2024). For instance, in Alaska, Hawaii, and New Mexico—states that are home to large swaths of federal and Native land, military bases, and federal research institutions—federal workers make up at least 4.5% of total employment (EPI 2025c). Within states, federal workers tend to be concentrated in specific localities. For instance, in Apache County, Arizona, which is largely made up of the Navajo Nation and the White Mountain Apache Reservations, lands that extend beyond county lines, the federal government employs 12% of the county’s workers, more than double the next most significant county for federal worker employment in the state (EPI 2025c). There are 22 U.S. counties, spread across the South, Midwest, and West Census regions, where federal workers comprise at least 10% of the county’s workforce (see Table 2).

In these counties and elsewhere, federal workers are the backbone of the regional economy, both through the essential services they provide and through their contributions to the local economy. Trump’s attacks simultaneously threaten federal workers’ livelihoods and the economic health of communities in which these workers’ spending on goods and services makes up a large share of economic activity in the region. In Apache County, Arizona, civilian government workers’ earnings comprise 11.7% of total economic activity in the county (see Table 3)—roughly the same as their share of overall county employment. However, in some counties, federal employees’ earnings are a disproportionate share of the regional economic base. For instance, in Leavenworth County, Kansas, where federal employees make up 10.0% of employment (Leavenworth has a large federal prison), federal civilian earnings comprise 22.1% of total income in the county.

The effects from lost federal jobs and income in these regions could be devastating. Some of these communities are places that have already faced historic disinvestment and in which there are few local employment opportunities that can match the quality of federal government jobs. These jobs are historically stable, good quality, union jobs that offer a pathway to the middle class, particularly for workers without a college education.6

Regions highly dependent on federal revenue will also suffer from a reduction in services and a loss of income

Beyond the harm to localities from reductions in the federal workforce, localities that are particularly reliant on federal government revenue and services will bear the consequences of Trump’s actions most acutely, though no locality will be spared from harm. For example, the Trump administration has announced or considered $23 billion in cuts to federal clean energy projects in nearly every state (CATF 2025) and $8 billion in cuts to colleges and universities that will impact every state’s economy (Bedekovics and Ragland 2025). Trump’s 2025 budget bill also made massive cuts to federal safety net programs that millions of low-income households rely on in order to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest households and corporations.

Funds from federal programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and other social programs not only help struggling families make ends meet, they also comprise a significant share of a locality’s “economic base,” the amount of money circulating in that region, as shown by sociologist Robert Manduca in a recent working paper (2025). Indeed, an often-overlooked benefit of Medicaid coverage is its role as a source of income for low-income households (money they would have had to spend on medical care in the absence of Medicaid). For the bottom 20% of households in the U.S., Medicaid comprised 70% of their total money income, based on recent data from the Congressional Budget Office (Bivens, Wething, and Morrissey 2025). In fact, government transfers such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid collectively made up 40% of the economic base of U.S. regions in 2022 (Manduca 2025). Substantial cuts to government social programs that support low-income households could reduce the economic base of these localities, at a scale equivalent, in many cases, to the loss of entire private industries in those areas.

Without deliberate intervention by state lawmakers to offset lost federal revenues, localities in every state face dire economic losses, but states particularly reliant on government transfers will suffer most. For instance, take Clay County, West Virginia, which is represented in Congress by Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV01), who voted in support of Trump’s budget bill (Miller 2025). Clay County’s poverty rate is more than double the national rate, and its per capita income is half the national amount (U.S. Census 2024a). Of the 10 U.S. counties that rely most on each of the largest federal social insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security) as a share of their economic base, Clay is the only county in the country to show up three times (see Table 4). Federal government transfers in the form of Medicare, SNAP, and Social Security payments comprise 57% of Clay County’s economic base, 20 times the share comprised by the earnings of every private industry in the county combined. Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia all have at least three counties that are ranked in the top 10 in the country for their reliance on a given social safety net program as a share of the county’s economic base (see Table 4).

Localities that have significant shares of federal workers and rely heavily on federal government transfers may face particularly significant consequences as a result of Trump’s attacks on the federal workforce and the Republican budget bill’s cuts to essential social safety net programs. For example, in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, and Apache County, Arizona, federal government workers make up 16.1% and 12.0% of all workers in the county, respectively (EPI 2025b). At the same time, both counties are ranked in the top-10 counties most reliant on federal government transfers—Apache is #2 for Medicaid, and Rio Arriba is #10 for SNAP. In Apache County, federal government transfers account for three-quarters (76.9%) of the county’s economic base, and the earnings of federal government civilian workers account for 11.7%—the Navajo Nation Tribal Government is the county’s largest employer (NACOG 2023). Meanwhile, private earnings account for a mere 2.8% of the county’s economy. In Apache, Trump’s cuts to both the federal workforce and federal government programs mean that the federal government may be unable to fulfill its legal obligations to tribal communities (Brown 2025) that have faced decades of disinvestment and depressed economic outcomes resulting from historic land theft and forced assimilation. Apache County’s poverty rate of 31.2% (AZ Economics 2026) is nearly triple the national rate of 11.1% in 2023 (Shrider 2024).

Trump’s anti-immigrant crackdown and deportation agenda hurt localities with large immigrant populations

Trump has launched a campaign of terror against immigrant communities, communities of color, and those who stand with them. Last summer, Trump federalized local police and deployed thousands of federal troops to diverse cities with large immigrant populations (Kim 2025). Though Washington, D.C., may have experienced the most visible federal troop presence, a function of the district’s lack of statehood and the president’s unchecked authority to mobilize the National Guard there (Dallas 2025), Los Angeles was the first city Trump targeted after public opposition to aggressive immigration raids (Kim 2025). It was soon followed by Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; New Orleans, Louisiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Portland, Maine.

These attacks are characteristic of an authoritarian playbook that includes forcing the leaders of diverse, opposition-led communities to bend to the strongman government’s will (McManus, Benson, and Herman 2024). Minneapolis, home to a large immigrant population, was subjected to an unprecedented immigration crackdown that drew widespread protests (Boone 2026). During “Operation Metro Surge,” as it was called, federal immigration enforcement officials made 4,000 arrests and killed two U.S. citizens. Though the true toll of this violent operation may never be fully quantified, initial economic data show clear cause for concern. A recent analysis estimated that Trump’s immigration crackdown has led to a 2.9% decline in consumer spending in Minnesota over a single month—the equivalent of the state’s economy losing $626 million (Rosenthal and Sojourner 2026). Relative to overall consumer spending, the food and accommodation sector (which employs a large share of immigrant workers) saw the most significant decline in January 2026—3.8% or a $46 million reduction in economic activity. Researchers also estimated that nearly 3% of workers in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region were unable to work during the occupation, resulting in a loss of over $100 million in wages (Sojourner and Rosenthal 2026).

Trump’s deportation agenda will continue to destabilize local communities and result in job losses for immigrant and U.S.-born residents alike (Zipperer 2025). Though immigrants live in counties across the U.S., coastal urban areas tend to have the largest shares of foreign-born residents. Counties with the largest foreign-born populations include Miami-Dade, Florida; Queens, New York; Aleutians, Alaska; and Hudson, New Jersey (see Table 5). Counties with relatively large shares of immigrants may see particularly acute harms from aggressive immigration enforcement.

Communities face overlapping economic threats from attacks on federal workers, the social safety net, and immigrants, but state and local lawmakers can resist them.

The Trump administration’s attacks on the federal workforce, the social safety net, and immigrant communities are designed to exacerbate economic precarity in many communities that are already struggling (Bivens 2026). The implementation of Trump’s authoritarian agenda in the DMV region may be the first, clearest, and in some cases most direct manifestation of its harms, but other localities across the country—particularly those with large federal workforces, those that are heavily dependent on federal revenue and those with sizeable immigrant populations—are far from immune, and many will suffer as much, if not more, from this agenda.

While state and local leaders cannot stop federal attacks, they do have the power to resist Trump’s agenda by improving state labor standards (EPI 2026b), advancing protections for immigrant workers (Díaz and Whitaker 2026), investing in the public-sector workforce (Bivens and Shierholz 2026), and using progressive tax policies (Austin and Davis 2025) to stabilize funding for critical social programs and other investments that workers, families, and communities need.

Notes

1. Throughout this report, unless explicitly noted, the source for all employment rate data is the authors’ analysis of Current Population Survey data (EPI 2026a). We compare an average of calendar year 2025 with calendar year 2024 in order to have adequate sample sizes for the noted demographic groups.

2. Employment level by industry and sector data come from the authors’ analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Employment Statistics (CES) State and Metro Area (SAE) data.

3. These numbers are calculated using monthly totals rather than annual averages. A quarterly comparison of 2025Q4 to 2024Q4 finds roughly the same results—employment fell by 52,600 jobs (13.9%). The quarterly analysis omits October in both years to maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, accounting for missing data due to the government shutdown that began in October 2025 and the subsequent lapse in Bureau of Labor Statistics funding.

4. The non-federal workforce includes private sector workers as well as state and local government employees.

5. These numbers are calculated using monthly totals rather than annual averages. Quarterly comparisons of 2025 Q4 to 2024 Q4 produce similar results—private sector employment fell by 0.1% in the DMV and grew by 0.7% nationally. The quarterly analysis follows the methodology outlined in note 2.

6. On average, federal workers with advanced degrees typically earn less in wages and total compensation than their private-sector counterparts. Federal workers without an advanced degree typically earn more than their private-sector counterparts and have access to retirement benefits that have become less common in the private sector (CBO 2024).

References

Austin, Sarah, and Carl Davis. 2025. The Wealth Proceeds Tax: A Simple Way for States to Tax the Wealthy. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, October 2025.

AZ Economics. 2026 “Apache County, Arizona.” U.S. Economic Research. Accessed April 2026.

Barrett, William P. 2025. “America’s Top 100 Charities: A Year of Pain After Trump Cuts.” Forbes, December 12, 2025.

Bedekovics, Gréta, and Will Ragland. 2025. Mapping Federal Funding Cuts to U.S. Colleges and Universities. Center for American Progress, July 2025.

Bivens, Josh. 2026. The Trump Administration’s Macroeconomic Agenda Harms Affordability and Raises Inequality. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

Bivens, Josh, and Heidi Shierholz. 2026. “You Can’t Starve the Public Sector to Excellence.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 27, 2026.

Bivens, Josh, Hilary Wething, and Monique Morrissey. 2025. Cutting Medicaid to Pay for Low Taxes on the Rich Is a Terrible Trade for American Families. Economic Policy Institute, February 2025.

Boone, Rebecca. 2026. “A Timeline of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown in Minnesota.” PBS Newshour, February 13, 2026.

Brookings Institution. 2026. “Active Residential For-Sale Listings,” DMV Monitor. Last updated February 18, 2026.

Brown, Alex. 2025. “For Indian Country, Federal Cuts Decimate Core Tribal Programs.” Stateline, March 4, 2025.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics State and Metro Area (BLS-CES-SAE). Various years. Public data series accessed through the CES State and Metro Area Databases and through series reports. Accessed April 2026.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (BLS-LAUS). Various years. Data from the LAUS are available through the LAUS database and through series reports. Accessed April 2026.

Busette, Camille, and Samantha Elizondo. 2022. “Economic Disparities in the Washington, D.C. Metro Region Provide Opportunities for Policy Action.” Commentary, Brookings Institution, April 27, 2022.

Clean Air Task Force (CATF). 2025. “The High Cost of Retreat: Impacts of Department of Energy Project Cuts.” Clean Air Task Force, November 21, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2024. Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees in 2022. Congressional Budget Office, April 2024.

Dallas, Kelsey. 2025. “The President’s Power to Deploy Troops Domestically: An Explainer.” SCOTUSblog, October 28, 2025.

D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. 2026. “Congressional Interference Will Cost D.C. Nearly $700 Million in Local Revenue and Jeopardize Efforts to Reduce Child Poverty.” D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, February 4, 2026.

Díaz, Marisa, and Mimi Whitaker. 2026. How States and Localities Can Strengthen Workplace Protections for Immigrant Workers. National Employment Law Project, January 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025a. “Executive Order on ‘Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.’” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), December 17, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025b. How Many Federal Employees Live in Your State? Economic Policy Institute.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025c. “New Resource Calculates How Many Federal Workers Live in Every State, County, and Congressional District” Economic Policy Institute (press release). March 3, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026a. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 2026.3.11, https://microdata.epi.org.

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

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026c. “OPM Finalizes Regulation Enabling Firing Federal Employees for Political Reasons.” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), March 4, 2026.

Friesenhahn, Erik. 2025. “Nonprofit Organizations: State and Regional Employment Trends.” Monthly Labor Review (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), March 2025. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2025.6.

Gould, Elise. 2026. “Attacks on the federal workforce continue (down 18k jobs in March).” Bluesky, @elisegould.bluesky.social, April 3, 2026, 9:01 a.m.

Hadden Loh, Tracy, and Glencora Haskins. 2025. Consumer Spending and Visitor Demand in the Washington, D.C. Region Are Dropping. Brookings Institution, December 2025.

Human Rights Watch. 2026. “Sliding Towards Authoritarianism?” January 2026.

Kim, Juliana. 2025. “Trump Says National Guard Will Soon Go to New Orleans. Here’s the Latest.” NPR, December 3, 2025.

Koma, Alex. 2025. “Here’s How D.C. Solved the Billion-Dollar Budget Problem Congress Created.” WAMU, October 22, 2025.

Kozlov, Max, Jeff Tollefson, and Dan Garisto. 2026. “U.S. Science After a Year of Trump.” Nature 649 (January): 812–815.

Lynch, Teresa M., and Robert Manduca. 2024. “Beyond Local and Traded: Evidence for a Third Industry Market Area Type and Implications for Regional Economic Development.” Economic Development Quarterly 38, no. 3: 183–194, July 2024. 

Manduca, Robert. 2025. Financial and Transfer Income as Components of the Regional Economic Base. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June 2025.

Markoff, Shira, and Connor Zielinski. 2026. Chronic Racial Inequality Holds Back Workers and Equitable Economic Growth. D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, March 2026.

Maye, Adewale A., and Stevie Marvin. 2025. “Trump Attacks on Federal Agencies Have Steep Implications for Black Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 10, 2025.

McManus, Allison, Robert Benson, and Dan Herman. 2024 “The Dangers of Project 2025: Global Lessons in Authoritarianism.” Center for American Progress, October 2024.

Miller, Carol. 2025. “Miller Votes to Send the One, Big, Beautiful Bill to President Trump’s Desk” (press release). Office of Congresswoman Carol Miller, West Virginia’s First District, July 3, 2025.

Montgomery, Mimi. 2025. “Trump Crackdown Is Affecting D.C.’s Image and Tourism Numbers.” Axios, August 29, 2025.

Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG). 2023. “Business, Jobs, and Industry Highlights for Apache County.” Northern Arizona Council of Governments, November 20, 2023.

Partnership for Public Service. 2024. Beyond the Capital: The Federal Workforce Outside the D.C. Area. March 2024.

Poydock, Margaret. 2025. “How Trump Has Dismantled the Federal Workforce in His First 100 Days.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 23, 2025.

Rosenthal, Aaron, and Aaron Sojourner. 2026. The Economic Impact of Operation Metro Surge in January 2026: A Synthetic Difference-in-Differences Analysis. North Star Policy Action, February 2026.

Sachs, Andrea, and Federica Cocco. 2025. “D.C. Tourism Was Already Struggling. Then the National Guard Arrived.” Washington Post, August 29, 2025.

Shrider, Emily A. 2024. Poverty in the United States: 2023. United States Census Bureau, Report Number P60-283, September 2024.

Singh, Kanishka. 2026. “Trump Signs Executive Order Asking Federal Contractors to Eliminate DEI.” Reuters, March 26, 2026.

Sojourner, Aaron, and Aaron Rosenthal. 2026. Impact of DHS Agent Surge on Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metro Area Labor Outcomes. North Star Policy Action, February 2026.

Tomasko, Laura, Hannah Martin, Katie Fallon, Mirae Kim, Lewis Faulk, and Elizabeth T. Boris. 2025. How Government Funding Disruptions Affected Nonprofits in Early 2025: Nationally Representative Findings from the Nonprofit Trends and Impacts Study. Urban Institute, October 2025.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024a. “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile Page for Clay County, WV.” Accessed April 14, 2026.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024b. “U.S. Foreign-Born Population: 2018–2022 American Community Survey, 5 Year-Estimates (Table B05006).” Accessed April 14, 2026.

Zielinski, Connor. 2025. “Inequality Remained Extreme in 2024 as D.C. Backslid on Poverty.” DCFPI Blog (D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute), September 15, 2025.

Zipperer, Ben. 2025. Trump’s Deportation Agenda Will Destroy Millions of Jobs: Both Immigrants and U.S.-Born Workers Would Suffer Lob losses, Particularly in Construction and Child Care. Economic Policy Institute, July 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure A

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

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

Figure B

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

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

Figure C

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

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

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

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

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

The construction phase and Project Labor Agreements (PLA)

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

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

Removing obstacles to unionization: Neutrality and labor peace agreements

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of unionization to improve manufacturing jobs and wages

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

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

Table 1

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

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

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

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

Living wage floor

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

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

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

Figure D

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

Table 2

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

Local and/or targeted hire policies

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

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

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

Figure E

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

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

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

Equitable workforce development through apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships

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

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

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

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

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

Child care

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

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

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

Table 3

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

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

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

Affordable housing

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

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

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

Figure F

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental standards, funding, and monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Appendix

Appendix Table 1

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access to paid sick leave is increasing in some areas

On a national level, we’ve seen positive trends in access to paid sick days from 63% of private-sector workers in 2012 to a record high of 80% in 2025, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These advances are driven by the fact that state and local governments enacted laws to enable workers to earn paid sick leave. In 2024, ballot measures were passed in Alaska and Nebraska. Alaska’s leave policy took effect on July 1, while Nebraska’s took effect just last week (albeit weaker than originally passed). Unfortunately, a paid sick leave measure that Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved by ballot was rolled back by the legislature and is no longer in effect.

Currently 18 states (including Washington, D.C.), 17 cities, and 4 counties have some form of paid sick leave requirements. Given that the existence of state laws varies, it’s no surprise that there are significant differences in access to paid sick time across the country, as shown in Figure A. The share of workers with access to paid sick days ranges from only 63% in the East South Central states (Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee) and 71% in the West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) up to 98% in the Pacific states (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska). The fact that the nearly 30 million workers in the Pacific states have essentially universal access to at least some form of paid sick days highlights that this key labor standard is purely a policy choice—and one that state and local governments can enforce on their own.

Figure A

Notably, many state governments in the East South Central and West South Central Census divisions have passed preemption laws prohibiting local municipalities from passing paid sick leave policies. So not only have legislative majorities failed to enact paid sick leave at the state level, but these states have also blocked cities and counties from passing legislation to provide paid sick leave for their workers.

Access to paid sick leave is greatest for the most highly paid workers

As with geographic variation, access to paid sick leave remains vastly unequal by wage level. As shown in Figure B, the higher the wage, the greater the access to paid sick leave. Among the 10% of private-sector workers with the highest wages, 96% have access to paid sick days. By contrast, among the 10% of workers with the lowest wages, only 41% have access to paid sick days.

Figure B

The unequal access to paid sick days is particularly troubling since low-wage workers are least able to absorb lost wages when they or their family members are sick. Workers may have trouble paying for housing, food, health care, and other necessities (see Table 1 of this report). This unequal access is why state laws are so important: Most of the gains from state and local paid sick provision benefited the lowest-wage workers. Access for the bottom 10% of wage earners increased from 19% in 2012 to 41% in 2025.

There is also huge variation in access to paid sick days within the private sector for workers by work hours and union status. Full-time workers are much more likely to have paid sick days than part-time workers (88% versus 56%). Unionized workers have greater access to paid sick days than nonunion workers (86% versus 80%).

Fortunately, there is a relatively simple way to address some of these inequities: The federal government can pass legislation to mandate paid sick leave for all workers. In the absence of federal action, state governments can move on their own and mandate that employers provide this key labor standard. Paid sick leave not only helps reduce the transmission of disease, it also provides economic security for workers who might otherwise lose income if they have to take time off from work. 

Discrimination in the workplace—either in employment, promotion, job assignments, pay, benefits, discipline, discharge, and layoffs—is illegal in the United States. Research shows that actions taken to reduce discrimination not only improve equity but also support economic growth. Federal law defines workplace discrimination on the basis of a worker’s membership in designated protected classes, with the rationale that disparate treatment violates the law when it would not have happened to an individual “but for” that aspect of their identity. These protected classes are enshrined by legislation and include the following:

• Race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
• Age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
• Disability (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
• Genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008)

The extent to which these protected classes can be expanded is subject to legal interpretation. For example, over time, the definition of “sex discrimination” has been amended to explicitly include disparate treatment related to pregnancy and childbirth with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity following Supreme Court decisions in 2020.

In addition to protection from unjust unequal treatment, federal law also protects workers from retaliation for filing discrimination claims or from beginning the process of filing a discrimination claim. These federal laws cover most employees whether they work full time or part time and irrespective of citizenship status. Employers with 20 or more employees are required to comply with all nondiscrimination laws at the federal level; employers with less than 20 employees are still subject to many nondiscrimination standards, though standards are less stringent.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the independent federal agency responsible for investigating claims of employment discrimination at the federal level and for enforcing federal workplace nondiscrimination law. The EEOC does this both by fielding discrimination claims against employers and by requiring annual reports from employers on employment outcomes by protected class characteristics to assess potential patterns of discrimination.

What are the threats to federal workplace nondiscrimination protections?

Current threats to workplace nondiscrimination protections include:

• Executive actions constraining EEOC’s mission and functions: Since taking office, Trump has undermined or limited key functions of the EEOC by:
  • Illegally firing two of the three commissioners and the general counsel, leaving the Commission unable to alter policy or vote on rulemaking for several months. In October 2025, the Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as an EEOC commissioner, establishing a three-person quorum. With a quorum in place, the EEOC will likely rescind their 2024–2028 strategic enforcement plan, guidance on arrest and conviction records, and EEO-1 reporting requirements. Additionally, the agency will likely move forward with announced plans to significantly revise its Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Rule and Harassment Guidance.  
  • Imposing new limits on the collection of data necessary to accurately assess discriminatory impact by shortening annual reporting periods and removing nonbinary gender reporting entirely from forms used to collect demographic data from private employers and federal contractors.
  • Directing the EEOC to focus more on so-called “DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination and anti-American national origin bias and discrimination.”
• Politicizing the EEOC and constraining independent state and local agencies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has repeatedly affirmed her commitment to restructuring the EEOC’s priorities toward those of the administration, rather than enforcing anti-discrimination law as an independent federal agency. In an effort to impose the administration’s agenda on state and local enforcement agencies, Lucas has proposed changes that would weaponize the funding relationship between those agencies and the EEOC. While state and local agencies operate independently, they receive funding from the EEOC in the form of reimbursements for jointly filed cases they take on behalf of the federal agency. With the exception of a few large states, such as New York or California, most states significantly rely on this funding to cover their operational costs. Since serving as acting chair, Lucas has reversed course on the EEOC’s enforcement of disparate impact and sex discrimination cases by:
  • Withholding funding for state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs) that choose to take on cases concerning gender identity discrimination.
  • Threatening to decertify state and local FEPAs that draw conclusions on gender identity and disparate impact charges that differ from those of the EEOC.
  • Instructing the agency to close charges that solely concern disparate impact by September 30, 2025, without developing them for litigation or for conciliation.
• Diminished EEOC enforcement capacity: The extent to which workers are protected from workplace discrimination at the federal level is dependent on the EEOC’s capacity to monitor employment practices, investigate claims of workplace discrimination, and reliably enforce sanctions against employers who violate nondiscrimination law. But for decades, inadequate funding and staffing has limited the EEOC’s capacity to investigate and resolve charges in a timely manner. Actions of the second Trump administration further exacerbate these problems:
  • In March 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced plans to close and consolidate EEOC field offices. Once the EEOC reestablishes a quorum, the agency may begin these closures, which threaten the job security of EEOC field staff and further constrain their enforcement capacity.
  • The EEOC plans to break up its data analytics office, signaling that robust data collection and analysis—critical tools for enforcement and assessing charges—will be less of a priority for the agency. Rolling back data collection is a step toward the Project 2025 prescribed goal of ending EEO-1 data collection.
• Executive actions attacking nondiscrimination law: The Trump administration has prohibited the consideration of disparate impact liability in discrimination claims, making it more difficult to hold employers accountable for unfair employment practices and outcomes without being able to prove that employers explicitly intended to discriminate (including efforts to hold companies accountable for AI-driven algorithmic bias).  

While many threats are coming directly from the federal level, workplace nondiscrimination protections are also under threat in states that have chosen to follow the lead of the White House in passing anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) laws. Many states have already closed DEI-related offices and initiatives, cut funding to programs, and restricted the use of language and consideration of protected classes in higher education. While these actions do not remove existing workplace nondiscrimination laws, workers in those states could be left without recourse if legislative trends continue and federal nondiscrimination protections continue to deteriorate.

How can states maintain and strengthen workplace nondiscrimination protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own employment discrimination laws that provide more expansive coverage than federal law. States can provide legal protections for more traits or characteristics, lower the minimum employment threshold required to file a discrimination claim, and extend the window of time employees have to file a claim after the alleged discriminatory incident occurred.

Many states and local governments have Fair Employment Practices Agencies{{1}} that investigate workplace discrimination claims in accordance with state and local nondiscrimination law, often in concert with field offices of the federal EEOC. FEPAs may have authority to enforce state or local standards for nondiscrimination that exceed those laid out by the federal government. Workers who believe they have been discriminated against can file a claim with the EEOC and/or their state or local FEPA, depending on the standards being violated, the types of relief available to victims, the deadlines for filing charges, or other factors related to the claim. The Trump administration is actively working to undermine the independence of FEPAs by weaponizing their funding arrangement, particularly on enforcement of disparate impact and gender identity discrimination protections. For state agencies that rely on federal funding for a significant share of their operating budget, these changes present serious challenges to their ability to properly maintain and expand enforcement capacity.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections 

Most states have passed state-level employment discrimination laws that codify employment discrimination protections for at least the same protected classes that are federally protected. Today, 24 states and Washington, D.C., have discrimination laws that cover a more expansive range of protected traits than federal law. However, 19 states, including Idaho, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, offer less protection than federal laws. Alabama’s employment discrimination law is by far the least comprehensive, as it only protects against age discrimination from 40 years of age.  

Other states have enacted certain discrimination laws that only protect public employees. For example, Georgia’s discrimination laws have mixed levels of protection based on the sector of employment. Protections for discrimination against race, color, religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity are only extended to public-sector employees. Private-sector employees are provided protections for disability and equal pay discrimination. Similarly, Mississippi’s employment discrimination laws only apply to public employees.  

States typically have a commission or division dedicated to enforcing state nondiscrimination laws. Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi do not have their own state agency and solely rely on the EEOC for anti-discrimination enforcement. Additionally, North Carolina does not have an agency where private employees can file discrimination claims.

As the Trump administration makes it easier for employers to discriminate by weakening the federal EEOC, failure to cover private employers under state law and a lack of state level enforcement capacity will leave even more workers in those states without recourse. States can—and should—act to plug these gaps by, at a minimum:

• Ensuring their state code includes at least all the protected classes covered in federal nondiscrimination law;
• Ensuring state nondiscrimination laws cover all workers (in both public and private sectors) and mirror federal employment minimum thresholds for coverage; and
• Establishing and adequately funding a state commission or division with enforcement authority that, at minimum, mirrors federal policies for filing deadlines.

Step II: Include additional protections already implemented in other states 

• Extend protections to additional traits: Most states have extended protections for marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. While states may be financially disincentivized to pursue cases concerning gender identity discrimination, there is currently no threat to simply extending legal protections. Some states have also incorporated additional traits such as reproductive health decision-making, medical conditions, status as a victim of domestic violence, housing status, arrest/court/conviction record, and military or veteran status as protected traits (see Figure A). Additionally, several states including New York and Oregon and D.C. have lowered the age limit to be considered for age discrimination.  
• Codify inclusive definitions for protected traits to fortify employment nondiscrimination protections: Many states include definitions of protected traits that better encompass the types of discrimination employees may face. For example, since 2019, the CROWN Act has been adopted by states across the nation to include hair discrimination as a form of racial discrimination. More than half of U.S. states have passed the CROWN Act and eight states have defined race-based discrimination to include discrimination based on traits associated with race in their state code. 

Figure A

Step III: Modernize nondiscrimination policies by extending and locking in coverage across classes of workers and collecting comprehensive data

• Extend coverage to contract workers: Independent contractors are not considered employees, so they may not be inherently covered by employment discrimination laws. As of 2019, only four states (Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island) protect independent contractors from discrimination protection, while 24 states and D.C. explicitly exclude them. Extending discrimination protections to independent contractors is important as they have significantly less labor protections than employees. Additionally, states could explicitly enforce anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity laws for state contract workers to ensure fair employment practices among private employers that conduct business with the state. In a climate with increased hostility against those who are not white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender, it is imperative that the classification of a worker does not dictate the rights they have to protect themselves from discrimination.
• Emphasize protections for workers regardless of their citizenship and immigration status: Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, and employees are protected by Equal Employment Opportunity statutes regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Given changing federal treatment of immigrants, states should emphasize and enforce fair treatment regardless of documentation status to ensure workers remain protected. They should also strengthen anti-retaliation protections and practices.  
• Collect employment and pay data at the state level: Federally, the EEOC requires employers with more than 100 employees to submit an annual report (the EEO-1 form) providing critical workforce demographic data. With the future of federal data collection at risk, states should seek to collect their own equal employment data, including pay data, to support anti-discrimination enforcement mechanisms. Currently, only three (California, Illinois, Massachusetts) states require employers to submit this data.

Additional recommended resources 

• Trump is making it easier for employers to discriminate. This stifles equity and hurts economic growth. (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Trump-led attacks on equity are setting the stage for our next public health crisis (Economic Policy Institute) 
• Trump’s assault on independent agencies endangers us all (Economic Policy Institute and The Century Foundation) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section and include updates on federal and state policy developments that took place after initial publication

{{1.}} These agencies are often referred to as commissions on civil rights, human rights, human relations, etc. See a list of agencies here: University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)—which establishes wage and hour standards that apply to most workers at private businesses with annual revenue of at least $500,000, as well as hospitals, care centers, schools, and public agencies—requires that covered employers keep employee time and pay records. Beyond this minimal recordkeeping requirement, other important questions about wage payment are left up to states. The FLSA does not specify, for example, how and whether employers make time and pay records available to employees; when or how often employees must be paid; the manner in which pay can be issued (e.g., cash, check, direct deposit, electronic pay card, etc.); whether and under what circumstances employers can take deductions from workers’ pay; and how and by when employees must be paid following separation from employment.

What are the threats to federal wage payment protections?

Current threats to wage payment protections include:

• Diminished federal Department of Labor (DOL) enforcement capacity: Wage theft is an epidemic across the country, and diminished DOL capacity to enforce federal wage and hour laws will exacerbate this problem. As of May 2025, the number of federal DOL Wage and Hour Division investigators is at an all-time low.
• Attempts to close the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The 2006 Electronic Funds Transfer Act included important protections for workers who encounter fraud or abuse when attempting to access wages issued via electronic pay cards (including disclosure requirements, error resolution rights, and rights to other options for receiving pay). Trump administration efforts to eliminate CFPB may leave the federal government with little or no ability to enforce these protections.

How can states maintain and strengthen wage payment protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own wage payment standards since most issues related to wage payment are not covered by the FLSA.

Step I: Lock in and enhance federal recordkeeping requirements

At a bare minimum, all states should ensure that state code requires employers to keep detailed employee time and pay records.

• For example, California requires “payroll records showing the hours worked daily” by employees, and California wage orders contain more specific recordkeeping provisions “showing when the employee begins and ends each work period” as well as meal periods and split shift intervals (CA Code Regs Title 8, Ch. 11010, Sec. 7).

Step II: Ensure state code requires timely and accurate payment of wages for all workers

1. Require pay stubs (written wage statements) with each paycheck: Most states require employers to provide workers with a print or electronic pay stub at each payday. Pay stub requirements vary widely by state, and should at a minimum guarantee that workers receive critical information such as the rate of pay, hours worked, gross and net wages, and itemized accounting of any withholdings or deductions. The six states (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Tennessee) that still lack a pay stub requirement should adopt one, as Ohio did recently.
2. Ensure timely pay on established paydays: State codes vary widely on the question of how frequently employers are required to pay workers and a few states lack any standard to ensure workers are paid at timely, predictable intervals. As a minimum standard, states should ensure employers are required to issue paychecks at least biweekly or twice per month on a regularly scheduled payday.
3. Regulate forms of payment to prevent wage theft: The proliferation of third-party vendors contracting with employers for payroll services that include use of electronic pay cards or debit cards has increased the risk that workers are charged fees for accessing their pay or are unable to access part or all of their wages. Eleven states already require that employers provide employees the option to receive payment of wages by check and many others set additional guardrails for the use of pay cards. For example, in Connecticut and Illinois employers can only use pay cards if they first obtain employee consent; explicitly offer direct deposit and paper check/cash as alternatives; provide clear written notice disclosing fees and terms of pay cards; and allow employees to revoke pay card authorization and switch to another method of payment at any time. Connecticut also requires that pay cards must allow at least three free withdrawals per pay period without fees.
4. Prevent unauthorized deductions from paychecks: The FLSA minimally bars employers from making deductions that bring a worker’s hourly pay below the federal minimum wage, with exceptions for the “reasonable cost” of items provided to benefit the employee, such as food or lodging. States should at a minimum prohibit employers from taking deductions from workers’ pay without clear written notice and employee authorization. For example, New York state code and accompanying regulations require employee authorization of payroll deductions and specify types of deductions considered legal or illegal.
5. Mandate prompt payment of final paychecks: To prevent the withholding of final paychecks after separation from employment (a common form of wage theft) many states set a deadline by which an employer must issue a worker’s final pay. For example, New Hampshire requires employers to issue final paychecks within three days to workers who are terminated, and no later than the next regular payday if a worker resigns. In Nevada, workers must receive a final paycheck “immediately” if they are terminated, or within a week if they resign or quit. In West Virginia, workers must receive a final paycheck on or before the next regular payday.

Step III: Strengthen wage payment accountability and enforcement

1. Require written notice at time of hire: More states should follow the lead of Minnesota and others by requiring employers to provide written notice of terms of employment at time of hire. This type of notice includes very basic information about employment terms but can be a critical tool for workers and enforcement agencies in the event that wage commitments are not met. Such notices should at a minimum specify the employer(s) name(s) and contact information; the work location, the nature of the work, and expected period of employment; the wage rate including when overtime or premium pay will apply; and benefits to be provided and at what cost (with information provided in a language understood by workers).
2. Strengthen enforcement: States have a host of opportunities to strengthen enforcement of wage payment laws, including:
   • Updating penalty frameworks to ensure fines and damages are adequate to serve as deterrents;
   • Allowing workers to pursue a private right of action (in addition to agency remedies) to address wage payment violations;
   • Enacting strong non-retaliation protections to ensure all affected workers can speak up about violations;
   • Equipping state agencies with adequate resources and staffing;
   • Pursuing joint employer liability for wage claims when necessary; and
   • Adopting tested best practices for strategic enforcement, co-enforcement, and employer and worker outreach and education.

Recommended sources for model legislation on these and related policies:

• Winning Wage Justice (National Employment Law Project)
• The DNA of Worker Rights: Key Building Blocks of California’s Model Framework of Wage and Hour Standards (UC Berkeley Center for Law and Work)
• Wage Theft Policy Playbook (State Innovation Exchange)
• The Labor Standards Enforcement Toolbox (Rutgers Workplace Justice Lab)

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes a “floor under wages” mandating that employers pay covered employees no less than a minimum hourly rate for all hours worked, whether they are paid on an hourly or salaried basis. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour—a rate set in 2009. FLSA minimum wage rules apply to all private businesses with annual revenue of at least $500,000, as well as hospitals, care centers, schools, and public agencies. 

The FLSA exempts a variety of specific occupations from the minimum wage, such as newspaper delivery workers, seasonal farm workers, workers in commercial fisheries and canneries, private investigators, and babysitters. It allows workers under 20-years-old to be paid as little as $4.25 per hour for their first 90 days of employment. The FLSA also allows employers who have been granted a certificate from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to pay less than the minimum wage to employees with disabilities. It also allows employers to pay workers who customarily receive tips as little as $2.13 per hour, so long as the tips they receive over the course of a workweek bring them to an average hourly combined wage (tips plus base wage) of at least the minimum wage.

What are the threats to federal minimum wage protections?

• Allowing the value of the minimum wage to continue to erode: Since the federal minimum wage was last raised in June 2009, its value has declined by 30%. At its 1968 high point in inflation-adjusted terms, the federal minimum wage was worth roughly $12 in 2024 dollars. In 2019, the U.S. House passed a bill to gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 and then automatically update it for inflation every year thereafter; however, the Senate never took up the bill. Every year it remains unchanged, the purchasing power of the minimum wage erodes, undermining wage growth for millions of low-wage workers, including many earning wages above the minimum. Moreover, without an increase, the gap between the current minimum wage and what would constitute a true living wage gets larger—making any eventual effort to reach a living wage more challenging.
• Continuing to subject tipped workers to a lower and difficult-to-enforce subminimum wage: The subminimum wage for tipped workers was set in 1991 at $2.13 per hour and has not been raised since. At such a low level, many tipped workers effectively receive no pay from their employers; their take-home pay comes entirely from what they receive in tips. Consequently, tipped workers’ income is volatile and unpredictable, and they can be subject to abuse by customers and employers who, in every shift and transaction, hold power over tipped workers’ pay. Although the FLSA requires that employers must “top off” workers’ paychecks if their tips do not make up the difference between the tipped minimum and full minimum wage, this requirement is notoriously hard to enforce.
• Denying minimum wage coverage to some groups of workers: The Trump administration has already taken initial steps to roll back existing DOL rules that ensure minimum wage coverage for direct care workers (home health aides) and has withdrawn a proposed rule that would have phased out programs allowing payment of subminimum wages to workers with disabilities. Proposals laid out in Project 2025 recommend altering the FLSA to allow states to seek waivers to core FLSA provisions—which could open the door to exclusions of additional groups of workers from coverage.
• Increasing likelihood of underpayment: Failure to pay the minimum wage is one of the most common forms of wage theft and diminished DOL capacity to enforce federal wage and hour laws will exacerbate this problem.

How can states maintain and strengthen minimum wage protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own minimum wages that are higher and more expansive in coverage than the federal minimum. Given the very real risk that aspects of FLSA minimum wage protections could be eliminated (or will go unenforced), it is important for states to at least lock in existing FLSA minimum wage protections. However, states should seek to go beyond the current floor, as the federal minimum wage is far too low and does not cover all workers.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections

Because updates to the federal minimum wage have been infrequent and inadequate over the last 40 years, many states—though not all—have established their own minimum wages. The strength of these laws varies greatly. For example:

• 30 states and the District of Columbia have set minimum wages higher than the federal minimum, ranging from $8.75 in West Virginia, to $16.66 in Washington, and $17.50 in the District of Columbia.
• Five states (Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) have no state minimum wage. Two states (Georgia and Wyoming) have state minimum wages below the federal minimum. The federal minimum wage applies in these states to all workers covered by the minimum wage under the FLSA.
• Some states (such as New Hampshire, Idaho, North Carolina, and Texas) set the state minimum to explicitly equal the federal minimum (whatever it may be), while others have set it specifically at $7.25.

To lock in current federal minimum wage protections, states should:

1. Guarantee a strong state minimum wage floor: States without a minimum wage or with one lower than the federal minimum should enact one that is at least as strong as the federal minimum wage—and ideally stronger. States should codify that the state minimum wage always equals the greater of the federal minimum wage or whatever higher explicit value state lawmakers or voters (in the case of a ballot measure) set.
2. Ensure the state minimum wage covers at least those workers covered by the FLSA: Most states, though not all, link coverage of their state minimum wage to the coverage definitions in the FLSA. States should consider spelling out coverage definitions in state code so that currently covered workers remain covered if federal coverage definitions are eroded to exclude certain groups or occupations in the future.
3. Ensure state agencies have authority and capacity to enforce minimum wage laws: Many states rely, at least in part, on federal enforcement of wage and hour laws. Florida, for example, will have a $15 minimum wage in 2026, yet has no state-level wage and hour enforcement body.

State minimum wage rules are typically part of state labor and employment or wage and hour statutes. In some cases, they are set in state constitutions—the result of citizen-initiated ballot measures. Policymakers and advocates should review their state’s labor laws to assess whether their state minimum wage laws codify at least the same level of protection currently provided under the FLSA, and to ensure that the state has the power to enforce its own minimum wage laws without relying on the federal government.

Step II: Raise the minimum wage to an adequate level, set it for automatic annual increases going forward, and eliminate harmful exemptions

While the FLSA sets an important floor for minimum pay, the current level is woefully inadequate and there remain notable gaps in coverage that state policymakers should close. Priority steps states can take to update the minimum wage include:

1. Gradually raise the minimum wage to at least $17 per hour by 2028: Today, there is no county in the country where a single, childless worker can achieve a modest, but adequate standard of living on a wage of less than $15. By targeting at least $17 by 2028, states can raise their minimum wages to an adequate level allowing for any inflation that may occur as the new wage floor is gradually phased in.
2. Gradually raise and eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers: There are currently seven states where tipped workers are paid the regular minimum wage, regardless of tips. In these states, tipped worker wages are higher, poverty rates are lower, and the restaurant industry thrives. States should gradually increase the minimum wage that applies to tipped workers (or reduce any “tip credit” employers can claim against their minimum wage obligation) so that eventually all workers are paid the full minimum wage regardless of any tip income.
3. Index the minimum wage for inflation: States should establish that once the minimum wage has reached at least $17 per hour, it must be automatically updated each year to account for any growth in prices over the preceding year. There are 20 states and D.C. that already have automatic inflation-adjustment built into their state minimum wage laws. Most require that the minimum wage be raised the same percentage as any change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) over a preceding 12-month period, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. If the CPI-U decreases, the minimum wage should not be lowered.
4. Codify minimum wage coverage for direct care workers: As noted above, the 2013 FLSA rule that clarified minimum wage and overtime coverage for home care companions who provide direct care services for seniors and persons with disabilities is under attack in the courts, and the Trump DOL has taken initial steps to reconsider it. To protect such workers from losing these key protections, states should ensure that their wage and hour laws clearly cover them. In states where they are exempted or where state coverage of such workers depends on FLSA coverage (such as Connecticut), state laws should be updated to clearly cover such workers, regardless of what happens to the federal rule.
5. Eliminate harmful minimum wage exemptions: Agricultural workers are not covered by the FLSA, a racist holdover from when the act was initially passed in 1938. Other exceptions apply to smaller categories of workers. States have it in their power to eliminate these exemptions. For example, several states—including California, Washington, and Colorado—cover agricultural workers under the state minimum wage. Also, many states have a “training wage” allowing workers—often only those under age 20 or in school—to be paid less than the full minimum wage. Lawmakers should consider whether these training wages are necessary, and if they are maintained, they should be limited to a short period (e.g., 30 days) after a worker’s initial hiring.
6. Ensure localities can establish their own minimum wages above the state minimum: There are nine states in which a city or a county has established a local minimum wage that exceeds the state minimum—with nearly 60 local minimum wages now in effect. Because costs of living can vary considerably within a state, local governments should be able to establish higher wage standards if the people in those localities deem that the state wage floor is inadequate. There are 25 states where state law currently prohibits local wage minimum wages. Lawmakers in those states should reverse that prohibition.

Step III: Modernize minimum wage policies by establishing stronger mechanisms to adjust the level of the minimum wage over time

In addition to codifying FLSA minimum wage rules, setting an adequate minimum wage level, and closing coverage gaps, there are other steps state lawmakers can take to ensure all workers can afford a decent life and benefit from a growing economy.

1. Set the minimum wage to automatically adjust each year based on growth in prices or median wages—whichever is greatest: Indexing the minimum wage to changes in prices ensures that low-wage workers can buy the same amount of goods and services year after year. But as the economy grows and productivity rises, low-wage workers’ standard of living should improve, not just stay the same. Instead of indexing the minimum wage to price changes, lawmakers can index the minimum wage to changes in the median wage.
   • Linking the minimum wage to the median wage ensures that the gap between the lowest paid job and a “middle-class” job never grows; as a middle-class worker’s pay rises, so would pay for a minimum wage worker.
   • Over the long run, wage growth should outpace price growth, but on a year-over-year basis, that may not be true and in some years, median wages could decline. The law should be written such that the minimum wage never goes down and is raised at least as much as any increase in prices—and more when wage growth exceeds price growth.
2. Establish wage boards to periodically evaluate the strength of the minimum wage overall and for specific industries: In some countries—such as the United Kingdom— minimum wage levels are set by boards or commissions (composed of nonpartisan analysts, worker representatives, and members of the business community) that periodically review the level of the minimum wage and recommend changes. In some states—such as in New York and California—there are wage boards for individual industries, such as fast food, that set minimum wages (and potentially other workplace standards) for all workers in that industry. Policymakers should consider establishing or creating mechanisms allowing for such boards to periodically review whether the state minimum wage level is adequate for workers overall, and/or for those in industries with large numbers of low-wage workers.

Additional recommended resources 

• Why the U.S. needs at least a $17 minimum wage (Economic Policy Institute) 

• The impact of the Raise the Wage Act of 2023 (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Minimum Wage Tracker (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Most minimum wage studies have found little or no job loss (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Minimum Wage for Agricultural Workers (The National Agriculture Law Center) 

• Low Wage Workforce Tracker (Economic Policy Institute) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 23, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section.

In reality, this economic development model is fundamentally flawed as a strategy for improving living conditions for most Southerners. In fact, the Southern economic development strategy was never designed to help the vast majority of working Southerners; rather, it reflects efforts to ensure continued access to the cheap labor of Black people following emancipation, and that of Black and brown people more generally today. 

In this report, we describe the Southern economic development model in detail and document the historical evolution of various components of the model. We show how politicians and the wealthy across the South have used racism and drawn on notions of white supremacy to divide the population along racial, ethnic, nativist, and economic lines. This has prevented Southerners from coming together in solidarity to demand policies that would uplift everyone in the region.

Many Southern politicians try to obscure and distort the historical record on race and the origins and purposes of many of their policies. They point to population growth over the last 50 years and the increasing number of businesses—primarily in manufacturing—that have located in some Southern states to try to sell their deceptive narrative. In this report, and in the companion reports and fact sheets in this series, we will scrutinize such claims and draw on empirical data to illustrate how the Southern economic development model has failed most workers and families across the U.S. South.

This project exposes the exploitative policies and practices that impoverish Southerners across demographic groups and highlights their complex connections to the prevailing power structure in the South. This report begins with a detailed description of the Southern economic development model. What follows is a brief history of the origins of the model, which developed as a way for wealthy and powerful people to ensure continued access to the labor of Black people following the Civil War and to that of Black and brown Southerners today, for little or no compensation. Finally, the report emphasizes that civil rights for Black and brown Americans are intimately intertwined with the rights of workers, independent of race. This reality is recognized by many conservative economic and political leaders and has led to their vociferous opposition to unions, an institution that can create cross-racial solidarity, empower workers, and undermine the racial hierarchy across the region.

Figure A

What is the Southern economic development model?

The Southern economic development model is designed to enable businesses to extract labor from large pools of workers as cheaply as possible. Businesses in the South have particularly sought the labor of Black and brown Southerners. For over 300 years, these laborers have been used to cultivate cotton and tobacco, produce the food we eat, care for our children and the elderly, build the nation’s infrastructure, and perform many other critical jobs—often for little or no compensation. The labor provided by enslaved men and women was overwhelmingly unpaid.{{1}} After emancipation, many Black men and women—who faced limited employment opportunities—were often forced into sharecropping. They worked the land and grew crops on plantations owned by former enslavers who typically took half or more of the value of their crops (Bode 2020; USDA 2003). It was also common for Black men and women to work as porters and maids on Pullman railcars, where they were forced to rely on tips for most, if not all, of their income (Hasso 2021; Trotter Jr. 2019; Tye 2005). Today, incarcerated workers can be required to work without pay and they often are (ACLU and GHRC 2022; Mast forthcoming a).

The racist roots of this model have been obscured in favor of a more acceptable “pro-business” narrative. The pro-business narrative suggests that low wages, low taxes, anti-union policies, a weak safety net, and limited regulation on businesses creates a “rising tide that lifts all boats.”

Below we examine the key features of the Southern economic development model in detail. We then trace the development of this model over time, highlighting the ways civil rights for Black and brown Southerners are necessary for ensuring that all workers are empowered.

Low wages

Many states across the South promote low wages for many workers by the policies they implement or, in many cases, the policies they choose not to implement. For example, five Southern states—Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina—have no state minimum wage at all. Georgia has a minimum wage set at $5.15 per hour. Because the federal minimum wage is set at $7.25 per hour and $2.13 per hour for tipped workers, all workers across the South are supposed to be paid at least these minimums (EPI 2023).

Fewer than half of the Southern states (six states plus D.C.) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In every other region, most states have minimum wages higher than $7.25 (EPI 2023). In fact, of the 20 states where the federal minimum wage applies, 10 are in the South.

Many Southern states have weak, if any, labor law enforcement. This means that workers in the South, who are already receiving low minimum wages, are particularly vulnerable to wage theft. This is especially true in industries such as food and drink services, agriculture, and retail (Cooper and Kroeger 2017).

Cooper and Kroeger (2017) analyze data on the share of workers who have experienced minimum wage violations—i.e., were paid less than the applicable minimum wage—in the 10 most populous U.S. states. They find that large shares of low-wage workers in Florida (24.9%), North Carolina (12.3%), Texas (10.8%), and Georgia (9.4%) have experienced minimum wage violations.

Failing to pay the minimum wage is just one of the ways employers cheat workers out of their earnings.{{2}} Employers who commit wage theft are rarely punished (Cooper and Kroeger 2017). In Florida, for example, there is no state Department of Labor to enforce wage standards; all of the state’s wage and hour enforcement is deferred to federal authorities. While Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina are states which technically do have Departments of Labor (DOLs), their DOLs do not make any concrete effort to recover wages that are stolen by employers (Mangundayao et al. 2021).

Wage theft victims can technically pursue action against an unscrupulous employer by submitting claims with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. However, in the absence of in-state enforcement, businesses face little risk of being held accountable if they cheat their employees.

Notably, some Southern states have actively fought against federal government efforts to raise wages in their states. In 2022, the attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi sued the federal government to prevent an increase in the wages of federal contractors (Texas v. Biden 2022).

It is important to understand that federal standards governing minimum wages, overtime, and even what activities are to be included in the number of hours worked were designed to keep wages low in the South. When the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was enacted in 1938 establishing these rules, large categories of workers—primarily agricultural workers, domestic workers, tipped workers, and public-sector workers—were excluded from its protections.

Agricultural workers, domestic workers, and tipped workers were excluded specifically because the formerly enslaved were limited almost entirely to these lines of work across the South; Southern lawmakers would not agree to vote for the legislation without these exclusions (Dixon 2021; Perea 2011). The practice of using tips to compensate service workers in the United States in fact proliferated in the 19th century after the end of slavery; it allowed businesses to hire the formerly enslaved without having to pay them, instead forcing them to rely on tips (Dixon 2021; Tye 2005).

When the FLSA was amended in 1966 to include service workers—among other coverage expansions—a special “tip credit” was created that allowed employers to count tips received by staff against a portion of the minimum wage the employer was required to pay, effectively creating a separate, lower minimum wage (Allegretto and Cooper 2014). Today, Southern tipped workers continue to rely heavily on their tips. The federal minimum wage for tipped workers, which applies in most Southern states, is only $2.13 per hour—a level that has remained unchanged since 1991 (Schweitzer 2021).

We continue to see the influence of racism and sexism in the low wages and lack of protections offered to workers in jobs that were historically held by enslaved people. Domestic work, for example, has historically been—and continues to be—performed by Black, brown, and immigrant women. These women work as nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides; personal and home care aides; and nursing assistants in private households. Across the South, Black women make up 43% of home health care workers, followed by Hispanic women at 17% (Childers, Sawo, and Worker 2022). Workers in these jobs remain undercompensated despite the clear value of this work—providing care that allows families to work and that allows elderly and disabled Southerners to age in their homes (Childers, Sawo, and Worker 2022; Robertson, Sawo, and Cooper 2022).

Minimal levels of regulation

Another key component of the Southern economic development model is regulating businesses as little as possible. As noted in the previous section, this means lack of regulation or enforcement around labor laws such as federal minimum wage laws, overtime laws, and safety standards for workers (Cooper and Kroeger 2017; Fleischman and Franklin 2017; FPI 2022; Terrell and St. Julien 2023; Waldman 2017). It also includes minimal regulation of business activities that pollute the air, water, and soil, which disproportionately impact Black and brown communities.

In Louisiana, there is a roughly 130-mile-long area between Baton Rouge and New Orleans running along the Mississippi River that is known as “Cancer Alley.” Cancer Alley has a heavy concentration of 200 or more oil refineries and petrochemical plants spewing toxic chemicals into the air, elevating cancer and other health risks among the area’s predominantly Black residents (Laughland 2023; Terrell and St. Julien 2022). Terrell and St. Julien (2023) found that lax permitting processes in the state have resulted in Black and brown communities across Louisiana having a seven to 21 times greater exposure to air pollutants—especially those from chemical manufacturers—compared with white communities.{{3}}

Younes et al. (2021) mapped the spread of cancer-causing chemicals in air pollution across the country that moves into residential neighborhoods and exposes residents. They identified places across the country where residents were exposed to hazardous chemicals, with or without their knowledge. Younes et al.’s study found that almost all states with the highest levels of exposure are Southern states, with Texas and Louisiana being the states whose residents have the greatest excess exposure. In Texas, for example, one of the largest refineries globally has put millions of pounds of toxic chemicals in the air over the years. The result is an excess risk of cancer in these areas of three to six times what is considered acceptable by the EPA (Younes et al. 2021).

These communities are exposed to these dangerous chemicals because of the lax regulations of policymakers in Southern states. For example, in Louisiana, land use plans which label many majority-Black districts as “industrial” or “future industrial” have been approved despite these being residential communities (Laughland 2023). And according to a lawsuit by residents of these communities, every request by these large industrial corporations to locate in predominantly Black communities is approved by local governments (Laughland 2023).

Instead of expanding their staffing for pollution control, states with the worst environmental exposures have actually cut funding to state environmental agencies. In Texas and Louisiana, the states whose residents face the highest rate of exposure to toxic chemicals, funding for state environmental agencies was cut by 35.2% and 34.8% respectively between 2008 and 2018. Funding was down by 33.7% in North Carolina, 32.8% in Delaware, 20.8% in Georgia, 20.3% in Tennessee, and 10% in Alabama. But not all Southern states cut their operational funding for state environmental agencies: Maryland, South Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida, and West Virginia increased their funding (EIP 2019).

Low income and corporate taxes

Next, the Southern economic development model seeks to severely limit corporate and personal income taxes, particularly any that would increase the tax burden on higher-income households and individuals.

The roots of the South’s tax structure

To understand public attitudes toward taxes across the South, it is important to consider the roots of the current stance on taxes in the Southern economic development model. Before the Civil War, taxes on enslaved people were paid primarily by wealthy plantation owners and constituted a significant source of revenue for states across the South (Hill et al. 2019; Lyman 2017).

After slavery was abolished, plantation owners represented themselves as “concerned taxpayers” who opposed compensating for lost state revenue from taxes on enslaved people with rising property taxes. They were joined by poor white farmers who would now also be subject to rising property taxes raised by newly—and temporarily—empowered Black political leaders.

These leaders were raising taxes to provide basic services such as public education and to rebuild infrastructure after the devastation of the Civil War. But wealthy Southerners stoked racial animus to divide poor and working-class Southerners along the lines of race and ensure majority support to implement highly regressive tax policies (Williamson 2021; Young 2023).

Low corporate and income taxes force reliance on regressive sales taxes

Today, Southern politicians, business interests, and other wealthy Southerners continue to seek to eliminate or severely limit corporate and personal income taxes. For example, several Southern states used temporary budget surpluses—surpluses resulting from the distribution of federal dollars to states intended to address COVID-19 and the associated recession—as an excuse to further cut already low income-tax rates (Das 2022b).

Corporate and personal income taxes tend to be progressive, meaning they are structured such that higher-income earners pay a larger share of their income in taxes, while lower-income earners pay a smaller share. But when collection of corporate and personal income taxes declines, states are forced to rely more heavily on sales and property taxes, which are regressive. When sales and property taxes are assessed, lower-income people end up paying a larger share of their income for those taxes than higher-income people do (Wiehe et al. 2018; Young 2023).

Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have no income tax. In other Southern states with income taxes, tax rates are so low that they fail to raise adequate revenue, requiring the state to rely on sales and property taxes and fees and fines to pay for many public services including education, public health, public safety, infrastructure, and other services.

In 2019, sales tax accounted for more than 40% of all state and local tax revenue in many Southern states. These included Tennessee (56.6%), Louisiana (53.3%), Florida (50.9%), Arkansas (49.6%), Alabama (48.0%), and Mississippi (45.5%). These shares are substantially higher than the 34.4% of state and local tax revenue that sales taxes account for nationally (Das 2022a).

To generate this revenue, these states had sales taxes ranging from 4.0% in Alabama to 7.0% in Mississippi and Tennessee. And while most states at least exempt food from sales taxes, as of January 2023, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma did not (Tax Policy Center 2023).{{4}}

This approach to taxes means that public services are underfunded in the South

Proponents of this tax model argue that it increases the incomes of all households by allowing them to keep more of their money. Further, they argue that it allows businesses to reinvest and grow their businesses, thereby increasing tax revenue. But this regressive approach to taxes simply means there is not sufficient revenue to properly fund education, health care, public transportation, water and sewer system maintenance, and the many other public services Southerners rely on (Das 2022b).

The lack of resources to provide services for ordinary Southerners is further exacerbated when state governments give huge subsidies to private companies. For example, Mississippi gave a $247 million subsidy to Steel Dynamics in 2022, and South Carolina spent $1.3 billion on a subsidy for Scout Motors in 2023 (Good Jobs First 2023a, 2023b). To illustrate how these subsidies harm South Carolinians specifically, we can consider the impact of abatements on public education. In fiscal year 2021, South Carolina public schools reported that they lost $534 million in property tax revenues to abatements, money that would have gone to funding school staff and providing services to students (Wen 2022). The districts that lost the most funding had a majority of students coming from low-income households that qualified for free or reduced-price lunches (Wen 2022). This harms students, families, and communities—with the harshest impacts on those facing the greatest hardships.

A weak safety net

The Southern economic development model is further characterized by a weak social safety net. Most Southern states offer relatively few and weak protections against hardship for individuals and families who suffer some kind of economic shock, such as the loss of a job, an illness, or the need to care for someone. This weak social safety net cements low-income Southerners’ precarity, further disempowering the labor force by making any economic shock all the more harmful. In this context, a Southern worker with little private savings is more likely to take or endure exploitive or underpaid work.

Southerners face greater insecurity when they lose their jobs

Unemployment insurance (UI) , is a crucial component of the social safety net, meant to ensure families have economic security in the face of a job loss by replacing some percentage of their prior earnings (Bivens and Banerjee 2021). During times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 recession, UI also helps stabilize the broader economy by enabling households to continue spending, which helps maintain overall consumer demand (Bivens et al. 2021). While the UI system is funded jointly by federal and state funds, it is the state that has primary control over who is eligible to receive benefits, the levels and duration of benefits, and how the system is financed (Bivens et al. 2021).

UI is also a system that, if properly designed, helps support workers’ bargaining power. By giving workers support when they lose a job, UI allows those workers to take the time necessary to find a job that matches their skills and that pays as well as the one they lost. Conversely, weak UI benefits force many workers to take the first available job—even if it suits their skills poorly or pays less than the job they lost.

While many states’ UI systems need reform, the level and ease of accessing benefits in many Southern states is particularly problematic. Data show that of the 10 states with the lowest maximum weekly UI benefit amounts, seven—Mississippi ($235), Alabama ($275), Florida ($275), Louisiana ($275), Tennessee ($275), South Carolina ($326), and North Carolina ($350)—are in the South (The Century Foundation 2023). Many Southern states also have particularly onerous requirements for accessing benefits, which are made available for incredibly short durations. For example, most states make standard UI benefits available for a maximum of 26 weeks. Only 13 states set their maximum number of weeks below 26, more than half of which are Southern states: Alabama (14 weeks), Arkansas (16), Florida (12), Georgia (14), Kentucky (12), North Carolina (12), South Carolina (20), and Oklahoma (16) (CBPP 2023b).

The fact that the states where most Black Americans live have the least accessible UI systems with the least generous benefits, shortest durations for receiving benefits, and some of the most onerous requirements is not a coincidence or an accident. The UI system as structured is rooted in a racist agenda: Southern Democrats agreed to support the New Deal only if states controlled access to UI and other social benefits. This allowed them to design systems that would limit Black workers’ access to benefits (Edwards 2020; Traub and Diehl 2022).

Southerners face barriers to health care access

Full participation in the economy—not to mention in one’s family and community—are much easier when one is healthy both physically and mentally. Unfortunately, far too many people in the United States lack access to quality, affordable health care. This problem is particularly salient across Southern states; Southerners are less likely to have access to health insurance than those living in other regions. In 2020, 7.7% of all children living in Southern states lacked health insurance coverage compared with 3.3% in the Northeast, 4.4% in the Midwest, and 4.9% in the West. For working age adults, the share was 16.4% in the South, 6.6% in the Northeast, 8.6% in the Midwest, and 11.3% in the West (Keisler-Starkey and Bunch 2021).

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) included an expansion of Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes up to 138% of the official poverty line. While most states have adopted and implemented the expansion, 10 states have failed to adopt it, seven of which are in the South: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas (KFF 2023).{{5}} This is one reason Southerners are less likely to have health insurance coverage, which is particularly concerning given high rates of illness and comorbidities across the South (Akinyemiju et al. 2016).

The failure to expand Medicaid creates additional challenges even for those who have insurance coverage but live in rural areas, denying increased revenue to many rural hospitals that were already facing closure (Levinson, Godwin, and Hulver 2023).

Southern states have some of the lowest levels of cash assistance for families with children

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a cash assistance program for poor families with children, was established in 1935 as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC).{{6}} In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) replaced AFDC with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF differs from AFDC in several important ways. Under AFDC, states could receive unlimited federal matching funds. Under TANF, federal support is distributed to states through a block grant. TANF also has five-year lifetime limits on the receipt of benefits and requires that states increase their work participation rates for TANF recipients (DHHS n.d.).

TANF is funded by the federal government, but states determine benefit levels, set income and resource limits, and administer or oversee administration of the program. They have a great deal of discretion in how they use TANF funds because the specific goals of the program are so broad. The stated goals of the program are to (1) assist families in need so children can be cared for in their own homes; (2) reduce parental dependence on government by promoting job training, work, and marriage; (3) prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) encourage two-parent families (CBPP 2022; DHHS n.d.).

Under the first goal, states can provide direct cash assistance to families to provide for their children (CBPP 2022; DHHS n.d.). In 1997, 71% of TANF dollars were spent in direct cash assistance, but by 2020, this share had fallen to just 22% nationally (Azevedo-McCaffrey and Safawi 2022). There are, however, large variations in TANF spending by state. In 2021, 15 states spent 10% or less of TANF dollars to provide cash assistance to families. Almost half of these—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas—are in the South.{{7}} Alabama spent just 7% of their TANF dollars on general spending, most in cash dollars. They spent 1% of their TANF dollars on work supports, 11% on childcare, but 29% on “other” services (CBPP 2023a).{{8}} Mississippi spent 6% in general spending, with only 3% going to childcare, while 17% of spending fell under the “other” category (CBPP 2023c). Across the South, only the District of Columbia and Kentucky spent 30% or more of their TANF funds on direct assistance, and in Kentucky, more than half of those funds went to foster care for children fostered by relatives and adoption and guardianship subsidies (Azevedo-McCaffrey and Safawi 2022).

Despite spending millions of dollars on TANF-related activities, states had millions of unspent TANF dollars as of 2021.{{9}} For example, Alabama had $113 million in unspent TANF dollars in 2021—amounting to 122% of their $93 million block grant for the year (CBPP 2023a). At $98 million, Mississippi’s unspent TANF funds amounted to 113% of their $86 million grant for that year (CBPP 2023c). Texas and Oklahoma each had more than $300 million in unspent TANF funds (CBPP 2023d; CBPP 2023f). Tennessee was even worse, with $798 million in unspent funds (CBPP 2023e).

Compounding the impact of unspent TANF dollars are low benefit levels in many states, especially in the South. The maximum monthly benefit for a single mother with two children ranges from $204 in Arkansas to a high of $1,151 in New Hampshire. There are only four Southern jurisdictions with a benefit amount of $500 or more for a one adult three-person family: the District of Columbia ($665), Maryland ($727), Virginia ($587), and West Virginia ($542) (Thompson, Azevedo-McCaffrey, and Carr 2023).

The maximum nominal TANF benefit in 2022 is the same or lower than it was in 1996 in 16 states, seven of which—Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—are in the South. The result is that the inflation-adjusted value of TANF benefits in these states is 45% to 56% lower than it was in 1996 (Thompson, Azevedo-McCaffrey, and Carr 2023).{{10}}

The current structure of TANF in many Southern states reflect efforts of politicians to control the behavior and reproduction of Black women and compel their participation in the low-wage labor market (Floyd et al. 2021; King v. Smith 1968; CBPP 2022). Historically, states have used concepts of “deservingness,” “suitable homes,” and the “man in the house” to exclude Black families from the program.

To be deserving, a mother needed to be widowed, have her husband be unable to provide due to disability, or have been abandoned by the children’s father “through no fault of the mother.” A home was “unsuitable,” by definition, if the mother was unwed or engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage (Floyd et al. 2021; Floyd and Pavetti 2022). The “man in the house” rule denied mothers benefits if a man was found in the house or if the mother was found to be sexually active even if no man lived in the house with her and her children. These rules applied regardless of whether the man the mother was involved with was the children’s father (Floyd et al. 2021; King v. Smith 1968; O’Connor 1969). Today, states with larger Black populations—primarily Southern states where most of the Black population lives—tend to have more stringent requirements for accessing TANF benefits, and those benefits tend to be more meager (Shrivastava and Thompson 2022).

Anti-union policies

Crucially, advocates of the Southern economic development model vociferously oppose unions and other collective actions in which workers band together—especially across racial, ethnic, and immigration statuses. Research has shown that higher rates of unionization are associated with higher wages, better working conditions, less inequality, less racial animosity, greater economic mobility, and greater civic participation (Banerjee et al. 2021; Freeman et al. 2015; Frymer and Grumbach 2020; Mishel 2021; Mishel, Rhinehart, and Windham 2020). Given these effects, it is unsurprising that states across the South have adopted policies that hamstring workers’ ability to form unions, which pose a threat to the Southern economic development model.

First, unions threaten the Southern economic model because they have historically been the primary counterweight against businesses seeking to keep workers’ wages and benefits low. In this way, unions threaten the central economic goal of the Southern model, which is to keep labor costs as low as possible. Second, the labor movement in the U.S. today is one of the foremost institutions promoting cross-racial solidarity. Strong unions could potentially undermine the racial and class divisions that the wealthy and their political supporters have used to promote and preserve the Southern model. Third, they are a key driver of greater equity in the workplace; racial and gender wage and wealth gaps are smaller among unionized workers, and union contracts ensure that all workers receive negotiated benefits. Further, unions protect Black and brown workers from discriminatory, retaliatory, or other arbitrary firing with the “just cause” and “due process” protections they provide (Bivens et al. 2023; EPI 2021; Gould and McNicholas 2017). Finally, unions threaten the Southern economic development model because they educate and encourage civic engagement among union members. Unions shape how voters understand their interests by discussing issues and candidates. They also activate their members to actively engage in campaigns and to turn out voters (EPI 2021; Feigenbaum, Hertel-Fernandez, and Williamson 2018).

Race and the Southern economy

Historically, the economy of the American South was largely agrarian and heavily dependent on cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, and other labor-intensive agricultural products (Baptist 2014, Conlin 2018). The intense need for large pools of labor and the desire to retain the wealth generated from that labor lies at the heart of the economic policies implemented across the South since even before the colonies became the United Sates. This includes policies of enslaving African people, supporting child labor, opposing unions, and allowing corporations to pollute the environment and poison the air and water—all in the name of keeping costs low and profits high.

Even as workers have fought to improve working conditions, many Southern lawmakers have used their power to ensure employers in their states retain access to large numbers of workers at poverty-level wages. While the economy was predominantly agrarian in the past, today there are significantly more auto manufacturing, professional, technological, and business services jobs across the South. There remain many jobs in oil and gas production, animal slaughter and processing, and service jobs as well. Yet even as the industrial composition of the South has modernized, much of the region’s business practices, labor standards, and underlying political economy has not. Below is a brief historical overview of the battle to maintain a low-wage labor force, particularly one comprised of Black and brown workers.

Extracting cheap labor from indentured and enslaved people

Since before the founding of the United States, the states that would become the American South have relied on cheap labor to drive economic growth and generate the illusion of widespread prosperity. The colonies imported white indentured servants and African people to meet their labor needs. The African people would eventually shift from being indentured to becoming enslaved people (Bennett 1962; Hannah-Jones 2021). Their enslavement ensured a consistent source for Southern businesses and landowners labor needs, while minimizing the costs of that labor. Plantation owners in the South used as much cruelty as was necessary to drive ever-increasing productivity from those enslaved Africans who worked in the fields producing ever-higher yields (Baptist 2014). This not only benefited wealthy Southern planters, but also Northern industrialists, financiers, and universities. The cotton that was produced in the South was processed in Northern factories and financed by Northern banks, creating wealth for everyone except those whose labor produced the wealth (see Baptist 2014).

Little changed following emancipation

Following the Civil War, the South remained tied to an agricultural economy. Instead of relying on enslaved people to provide much of the backbreaking labor required, they shifted to a sharecropping and tenant-farmer model which still relied on “freed” Black men and women’s labor. Plantation owners would “lend” newly freed men and women resources for sharecropping, but they ensured the vast majority would never be paid enough to pay off their debts. This was a system known as debt peonage which effectively meant that most freed Black men and women were often forced to work on the same plantations and for the same wealthy white landowners who had enslaved them. This effectively tied sharecroppers to their employers and, for many Black sharecroppers, their conditions under this system were difficult to distinguish from bondage.

States across the South also employed many other ways of ensuring they could retain access to Black labor for little or no compensation. They passed sets of laws known as Black Codes. These codes were designed to closely control the actions of Black men and women and maintain the racial hierarchy. These laws made it illegal for Black people to drink from white water fountains, attend white schools, or have a supervisory position over white workers (Dewey 1952; Hill 1965). In fact, Black men and women were often limited to the same menial jobs they held before the Civil War and were often pushed out of skilled work they had previously performed (Hill 1965). And to ensure that Black people would have no other choice but to take these jobs, it was common to require proof of employment from Black men and women. If they could not prove they were employed, they could be arrested and “rented” out to work on plantations, to build railroads, or just to provide general unskilled labor. Black women were often forced back into the same domestic work roles in white homes or in agricultural work alongside Black men. These laws were justified using the constitutional loophole in the 13th Amendment that allows “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” as a punishment for crime (Alexander 2020; Mercer 2022).

Extracting cheap labor from Black and brown Southerners today

This loophole enables Southern states to incarcerate a disproportionate number of Americans. For every 100,000 people nationally in 2021, the U.S. had 664 people incarcerated in prisons, jails, and other forms of confinement. This rate far exceeds the incarceration rates of our peer nations, such as the United Kingdom (129 for every 100,000 people), Canada (104), France (93), and many other democratic nations (Widra and Herring 2021).

While the national U.S. incarceration rate dwarfs those of our peers, the prison and jail incarceration rates of 13 of the 16 Southern states and the District of Columbia exceed the national average, with Louisiana (1094), Mississippi (1031), Oklahoma (993), and Georgia (968) having the highest rates of incarceration (Mast forthcoming a; Widra and Herring 2021). Further, Black Americans are disproportionately represented among the prison populations. While Black people are just over 32% of the population in Louisiana, they are 66% of those incarcerated in prisons and 57% of those in jails (PPI 2021a). In Mississippi, they are 37% of the population but 61% of the prison and 49% of the jail population (PPI 2021b). In Oklahoma they are 7% of the population but are 27% of the prison population and 23% of those incarcerated in jails (PPI 2021c).

Of the 1.2 million state and federal prisoners in the U.S., nearly 800,000 are forced to work in the prisons themselves, in prison industries, for other state or local government agencies, or for private-sector businesses (ACLU and GHRC 2022; Mast forthcoming a, PPI 2017).{{11}} These prisoners, disproportionately Black men, are often paid very low wages, if they are paid at all—the vast majority of work done by prisoners in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas is unpaid (ACLU and GHRC 2022). In many instances, mass incarceration effectively reinstates the slave system (Alexander 2020).

Hispanic men and women, especially immigrant workers, also continue to face exploitation by wealthy business owners and corporations across the South. According to Gershon (2020), by the early 1960s, 95% of meatpacking workers outside the South were unionized with wages comparable to those of steel production workers. Meatpacking companies responded by moving operations to more rural areas, and, by the 1990s, they began seeking immigrant workers to keep wages low. Black workers make up the majority of meat processing workers in states across the South (56.4% in Maryland, 67.1% in South Carolina, and 73.1% in Mississippi) but the representation of immigrant and Hispanic workers in these grueling, low-wage jobs is high. Hispanic workers make up 25.8% of the South’s meat processing workers and 26.2% are foreign-born workers (Gershon 2020; Hickey forthcoming).{{12}}

The Southern economic development strategy helps maintain the racial hierarchy

Race and ethnicity have long been used by politicians and varied economic interests to divide Southerners along racial lines and increase animosity and distrust between groups (Haney López 2014; McGhee 2021). Southern politicians fearmonger about immigrants or Black and brown people receiving “unearned” benefits as the population of young Black and brown Southerners continues to increase. This is often achieved by drawing on stereotypes or racist tropes. One example is when politicians make receiving benefits (e.g., food stamps or Medicaid) conditional upon fulfilling work requirements or passing drug tests.{{13}} Such practices create deep divisions, which are likely among the key reasons why the South has not become more progressive—given that Black and brown communities generally favor more progressive policies and politicians—despite the increasing diversity of the population.

In the current political climate, it has become common, particularly among conservative politicians and commentators, to hear arguments that “American” voters are being disenfranchised by voters who vote “illegally” or who “cheat.” Typically, “American” appears to apply to white voters while “cheaters” and “illegal” voters seem to refer to Black and brown Americans who are simply casting their ballots legally. For example, the places where challenges and lawsuits were filed in the 2020 presidential election were primarily places with large Black and brown populations (Phillips 2020).

We also see that in many states across the country, with the South being well represented, there is a push to privatize public education and to push public dollars into privately run charter schools (Pierce 2021). Pierce (2021) writes that this move toward privatization was largely in response to the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education which ordered states to desegregate. In other words, the push towards privatizing education in the United States aimed to preserve the racial hierarchy. Similarly, it is not uncommon to hear arguments about immigrants coming to the United States and living on public benefits (Thomas 2020). The goal of these arguments is to make the broader white population feel that their tax dollars are going to people who are deemed “undeserving” and increase the white public’s support for policies that would exclude Black and brown Southerners.

Using dog whistles to divide

Politicians and other influential and powerful interests activate racism in ways that they and their supporters can deny by using dog whistles. A dog whistle in political speech refers to discourse that uses a code that specific segments of the population understand as racial but that gives people cover to deny that they are being racist to those who abhor racism. Haney López (2014) refers to the practice of dog whistles as “a steady drumbeat of subliminal racial grievances and appeals to color-coded solidarity” (3).

The development of the concept of the “taxpayer” provides one clear example of this practice. The common appeal to the “taxpayer” developed out of racism and white supremacy. During the Reconstruction period directly following the abolition of slavery, large Black populations in states like South Carolina were large enough, especially with the support of some poor whites, to elect Black leaders. Many poor white men voted in support of policies that required raising taxes on white landowners to fund things like schools, roads, and a basic safety net. Williamson (2021) reports that the wealthy white landowners developed the identity of the “taxpayer” as a means of dividing poor white landowners and Black freedmen. Since most Black freedmen lacked any substantial landholdings, wealthy landowners could engender hostility among poor white landowners toward Blacks, even if their material conditions were not dramatically different. This approach allowed powerful interests to oppose paying taxes for general welfare and encouraged poor white Southerners—especially poorer landowners who would also be taxed—to identify with the wealthy white landowners rather than with Black elected officials (Williamson 2021).

When the concept of “taxpayer” is invoked, it is used as a dog whistle to imply that “undeserving” people—particularly “undeserving” Black, Hispanic, and immigrant people—will take advantage of public resources paid for by hardworking white people who pay their own way and do not ask for “handouts.” This also instills the idea that asking for assistance is shameful, which further reinforces the status quo.

Meanwhile, poor, working- and middle-class workers of all racial backgrounds—especially Black and brown men and women who are disproportionately low-income—pay much larger shares of their incomes for sales, income, social security, and other taxes (see Mast forthcoming b).

The conservative strategy

While these dog whistles have been part of the conservative strategy at least since Reconstruction, they have been essential in convincing the majority to support racist, exploitative, and regressive politicians and policies. For example, John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under then President Richard Nixon, admitted that the Nixon administration intentionally linked anti-war hippies and Black people with drug use and then proceeded to heavily criminalize drugs in order to “arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news” (Baum 2016). Campaigns based on “law and order” or appeals to increase criminal punishments for violence and/or drug use were thinly veiled racial appeals. This was especially the case following the tumultuous era of the Civil Rights Movement when Black Americans were demanding equality. Many white Americans opposed that equality, and Black rebellions—often called “riots”—broke out across the nation. These so-called riots were in response to police violence, high poverty rates, poor housing, and the many other inequities that Black communities were, and are, facing (Alexander 2020; Haney López 2014; Purnell and Hinton 2021).

When Ronald Reagan kicked off his presidential campaign, he began in the South, specifically in Philadelphia, Mississippi, which is known for the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner for trying to register Black people to vote. Reagan used this first campaign stop to state his support for states’ rights, a signal to segregationists to support him (Sharon 2021). As his campaign moved forward, he became ever-more explicit in his racist appeals. He painted a picture of a “Chicago welfare queen,” who drove a Cadillac while using 80 different names to receive Medicaid, food stamps, and welfare totaling over $150,000 annually and of “a strapping young buck” buying T-bone steaks (presumably with food stamps) while the implied hardworking white person whose taxes provided the food stamps could only afford to buy hamburger for their family (Haney López 2014).

The key to the effectiveness of dog whistles is to deny that they have anything to do with race. It is common to hear political and economic leaders claim that it is in fact the people calling out the racism that are racist. Fortunately, we have the words of one of these conservative political leaders who was willing to admit this was indeed what they were doing. According to Lee Atwater, they had to adjust the way they used race in their electoral strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So, you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… (Perlstein 2012)

This shift can also be seen in the work of MacLean (2021). She describes how white supremacists—who wanted to maintain Jim Crow segregation in education and who had been explicitly using race to resist the Brown v. Board of Education decision—learned from Milton Friedman that they could make more progress by using more “neutral” language. They thus began saying “personal liberty,” “government failure,” and the “need for market competition” to move toward school vouchers and private schools to preserve Jim Crow segregation.

In many of the Southern states with the largest Black populations—such as Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia—state legislatures have been more likely to implement regressive policies that produce higher negative outcomes such as poverty, food insecurity, incarceration, reliance on fees and fines to fund government, high infant and maternal mortality, and a host of other negative outcomes. Although all low- and middle-income Southerners are negatively impacted by these policies, Black Southerners experience the worst outcomes.

Despite large and growing Black and brown populations in many Southern states, communities and workers of color still struggle to enact policy changes that would improve their economic conditions. One reason for this is state lawmakers—who are overwhelmingly white—enacting “preemption” laws to prevent elected officials in cities and counties from enacting their own local policies. Southern legislatures have preempted local governments from passing laws on everything from environmental protections and progressive taxes to minimum wages and paid sick day requirements (Blair et al. 2020). State lawmakers further interfere with these communities’ ability to improve economic conditions through restrictions on voting and practices such as gerrymandering legislative districts. Gerrymandering disempowers and dilutes the voting power of Black and brown communities, denying them greater representation in state legislatures. Yet the Black and brown populations of cities, counties, and states across the South will keep growing—even as state lawmakers continue their efforts to prevent them from deviating from the Southern economic development model.

Civil rights and labor rights

While the fight for civil rights is often discussed separately from the fight for workers’ rights, these movements have often been one and the same. Race and racism have been leveraged to weaken both movements. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the face of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, was standing with striking sanitation workers in Memphis when he was assassinated. He was fighting for the poor and for workers and families independent of race and ethnicity.

Whenever civil rights and labor leaders have been able to bring Black and white workers together to fight to improve their working conditions, Southern elites wielded notions of white supremacy and implemented policies to undermine labor generally and labor unions specifically. This was designed to ensure permanent divisions along racial lines and maintain Jim Crow race and labor relations (Pierce 2017). While right-to-work laws were pushed across the country, they initially took root in the Southern states where—due to racial terrorism, poll taxes, literacy tests, and outright violence—most Black people (and many poor white people) could not vote. Working together would have empowered both Black and white workers, but it also would have undermined the racial order in the South.

According to Pierce (2017) and Griffith (1988), while unions like the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) were organizing both Black and white workers, the Christian American Association was raising money from wealthy Southern planters and industrialists to get anti-union laws enacted. This same group was also enlisted to help fight against the New Deal. Similarly, when Black and white workers came together to form the Knights of Labor following the Civil War in Virginia, Black voters were disenfranchised once white politicians were able to regain control of state government and white workers were offered privileges not available to Black workers to maintain the racial hierarchy (Scribner 2021).

Opponents to interracial solidarity and union organizing warned:

White women and White men will be forced into organizations with Black African apes…whom they will have to call ‘brother’ or lose their jobs. (Pierce 2017)

Other material designed to maintain the racial divisions include Figure B, a flyer produced to motivate support for right-to-work in North Carolina, which highlights that George Benjamin, a Black man, would be in charge of organizing white workers.

Figure B. This flyer was an effort to mobilize racial prejudice against the CIO. The irony here is that, according to Griffith (1988), the Tobacco Workers International Union under criticism was an American Federation of Labor (AFL) affiliate, one which did not share the CIO’s progressive position on interracial organizing. (Photo by David Haberstich. Courtesy of Donald McKee, cited in Griffith 1988.)

In 1944, Arkansas and Florida became the first two states to adopt the anti-worker right-to-work laws. When the key leader of these efforts, Vance Muse, was called out for his use of racism to achieve his goals, he reportedly said “They call me anti-Jew and anti-nigger. Listen we like the nigger—in his place” (Pierce 2017).

Southern politicians and employers were not only interested in using their state and local policies to maintain the racial hierarchy; they also wielded power at the national level as well, threatening to oppose federal legislation that did not exclude Black workers and families from the protections and benefits of federal laws. The exclusion of Black workers was not explicit in the legislation. Testimony and debates over federal legislation leaves little doubt about their goals, however. For example, when the Fair Labor Standards Act was being debated, Southern Democrats threatened to tank the legislation if Black workers were included:

The organized Negro groups of the country are supporting [the FLSA] because it will, in destroying state sovereignty and local self-determination, render easier the elimination and disappearance of racial and social distinctions…. (Congressman Cox of Georgia, cited in Perea 2011)

Another congressman, Representative J. Mark Wilcox of Florida remarked:

There has always been a difference in the wage scale of white and colored labor. So long as Florida people are permitted to handle the matter, this delicate and perplexing problem can be adjusted; but the federal government knows no color line and of necessity it cannot make any distinction between the races. We may rest assured, therefore, that …it will prescribe the same wage for the Negro that it prescribes for the White man. …Those of us who know the true situation know that it just will not work in the South. You cannot put the Negro and the White man on the same basis and get away with it. (Perea 2011)

It was not just politicians; however, employers shared the same sentiments with one employer stating:

A Negro makes a much better workman and a much better citizen, insofar as the South is concerned, when he is not paid the highest wage. (Perea 2011)

These attitudes and threats to the passage of important legislation was not limited to the FLSA. The same threats were made to ensure the exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers—jobs primarily filled by Black men and women across the South—from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. As noted above, racism and maintaining the racial hierarchy in the South was at the root of many policies including taxation, policing, and economic policies. In institution after institution, efforts were made to ensure that Black labor could be extracted as cheaply as possible. And while there was also a great desire to get white labor cheaply as well, there was a clear sense that white workers must always be above Black workers to maintain the racial hierarchy (Perea 2011; Dixon 2021).

The changing demography of the South is an opportunity to uplift everyone

The American South is a dynamic region of the country with a growing population that is increasingly diverse. Made up of 16 states and the District of Columbia—including Texas and Florida, two of the largest states in the country—the South is home to almost four in 10 Americans. These are Americans whose lives and livelihoods are heavily shaped by the state and local policies implemented across the region. Not only is the South the largest region of the country, but it is also the fastest growing. Figure C shows that over the last few decades the share of the population living in the South grew faster and larger than the population of any other region. In fact, the share of Americans living in the Midwest and the Northeast declined.

Figure C

This growth in the population of the South reflects a natural increase in the region—more births than deaths. It also reflects international immigration–especially across the Southern border from Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean—as well as domestic migration to the region. While politicians point to population growth across the South to argue for the positive impacts of their policies, this increase tends to be concentrated in specific states and cities. For example, while Texas and Florida had the highest population growth from 2021 to 2022, Louisiana, West Virginia, Maryland, and Mississippi were in the top 10 for population decline (U.S. Census Bureau 2022).

Many of those moving to the South from other regions, including New York and California, are seeking cheaper housing (Henderson 2016). Land generally tends to be cheaper across the South, contributing to housing that is much more affordable than places like California and New York. Texas and Florida also benefit from immigration across the Southern border and the Caribbean.

The widespread use of air conditioning during the 1960s and 1970s further contributed to population growth across the region. The oppressive heat during summer months along with high humidity left many Southerners in misery. This has been fundamentally changed, however, by air conditioning in cars, homes, and businesses (Arsenault 1984). As Figure C shows, before 1980 the share of the population living in the South fluctuated around 30–31%. From 1980 onward, it has continued to increase in each subsequent decade.

This report highlights the true origins of key components of the failed Southern economic development strategy—the extraction of labor from Black Americans after the end of slavery and from Black and brown Americans today as cheaply as possible. The emphasis on low wages, lack of regulation, regressive taxation and giveaways to corporations has not, and cannot, produce broadly shared prosperity. It was never designed to do so.

The youthful and increasingly diverse population across the South, however, presents a great opportunity to shift the policy landscape across the region. While wealthy and powerful people across the region have fought long and hard to keep the people divided and to maintain the racial hierarchy that maintains these divisions, Southerners can choose a different way forward. Southerners can demand an economic strategy that raises wages, strengthens the safety net, implements fair and progressive taxation, and perhaps most importantly, empowers workers to act on their own behalf by unionizing. This approach can help eliminate the racial hierarchy that holds all Southerners back from an economically secure future. But, as long as the powerful can keep low- and middle-income Southerners focused on racial, political, and economic divisions, they can keep them from seeing what they have in common: They are all being exploited by those at the top.

Notes

{{1.}} Enslaved men and women might be “hired out” to a third party if their labor was not immediately needed. In some instances, they might be allowed to retain a portion of the money generated (Butler 2022).

{{2.}} See Cooper and Kroeger 2017 for descriptions of other forms of wage theft.

{{3.}} While “Cancer Alley” is a high-profile area in the environmental racism literature, Terrell and St. Julien (2023) report that there are other industrial areas of the state with higher exposure to these toxins.

{{4.}} As of September 1, 2023, the sales tax on food in Alabama dropped from 4.0% to 3.0%. For more information, see Sell 2023.

{{5.}} North Carolina has adopted the expansion of Medicaid, but as of September 2023, it had not yet been implemented; implementation is dependent on the passage of the 2023–2024 budget. Virginia and Oklahoma adopted the Medicaid expansion in 2016 and 2021, respectively (KFF 2023).

{{6.}} ADC was changed to AFDC in 1962.

{{7.}} The remaining states spending 10% or less of funds in direct assistance were primarily in the Midwest, with two in the Northeast. The Midwestern states spending 10% or less are North Dakota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas. The Northeastern states are Connecticut and New Jersey. See the complete map here.

{{8.}} “Other” includes a wide range of expenditures across states, but can include short-term benefits for families in crisis; transfers to the social services block grant; after school programs; pregnancy prevention; and programs promoting two-parent families (Azevedo-McCaffrey and Safawi 2022).

{{9.}} States can carry unspent federal TANF dollars over into future years.

{{10.}} To a see graphic representation of change in the real value of TANF benefits, see here.

{{11.}} Mast (forthcoming a) is a fact sheet focused on mass incarceration and how it continues the tradition of extracting cheap labor from primarily Black Americans in states across the South. It describes ways that Black Americans continue to have their labor extracted by the state or leased out to private companies.

{{12.}} Hickey forthcoming includes fact sheets that will address the experiences of immigrant workers and provide a deep dive on domestic workers and food processing workers, especially meat processing workers.

{{13.}} Arkansas Department of Human Services 2023 and Reuters Fact Check 2022 are examples of these dog whistles.

References

Akinyemiju, Tomi, Megha Jha, Justin Xavier Moore, and Maria Pisu. 2016. “Disparities in the Prevalence of Comorbidities Among U.S. Adults by State Medicaid Expansion Status.” National Institute of Health.

Allegretto, Sylvia, and David Cooper. 2014. Twenty-Three Years and Still Waiting for Change: Why It’s Time to Give Tipped Workers the Regular Minimum Wage. Economic Policy Institute, July 2014.

Alexander, Michelle. 2020. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

American Civil Liberties Union and Global Human Rights Clinic (ACLU and GHRC). 2022. Captive Labor: Exploitation of Incarcerated Workers. 

Arkansas Department of Human Services. 2023. “Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders Directs DHS to Add Work Requirements to Medicaid Program” (press release). February 15, 2023.

Arsenault, Raymond. 1984. “The End of the Long Hot Summer: The Air Conditioner and Southern Culture.” Journal of Southern History 50, no. 4: 597–628.

Azevedo-McCaffrey, Diana, and Ali Safawi. 2022. To Promote Equity, States Should Invest More TANF Dollars in Basic Assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2022.

Banerjee, Asha, Margaret Poydock, Celine McNicholas, Ihna Mangundayao, and Ali Sait. 2021. Unions Are Not Only Good for Workers, They’re Good for Communities and for Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, December 2021.

Baptist, Edward. 2014. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.

Baum, Dan. 2016. “Legalize it All: How to Win the War on Drugs.” Harpers Magazine, April 2016.

Bennett, Lerone Jr. 1962. Before the Mayflower: A History of the Negro in America 1619-1962. Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.

Bivens, Josh, and Asha Banerjee. 2021. How to Boost Unemployment Insurance as a Macroeconomic Stabilizer: Lessons from the 2020 Pandemic Programs. Economic Policy Institute, October 2021.

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

Bivens, Josh, Melissa Boteach, Rachel Deutsch, Francisco Díez, Rebecca Dixon, Brian Galle, Alix Gould-Werth, Nicole Marquez, Lily Roberts, Heidi Shierholz, William Spriggs, and Andrew Stettner. 2021. “Primer: How the Unemployment Insurance System Operates.” In Reforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a System in Crisis and Laying the Foundation for Equity, a joint project of Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women’s Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June 2021.

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

Bode, Frederick A. 2020. “Tenant Farming.” New Georgia Encyclopedia. Last updated September 25, 2020.

Butler, Nic. 2020. “Episode #147: Self-Purchase: The Price of Freedom from Slavery.” Charleston Time Machine (podcast), February 28, 2020.

Cagin, Seth, and Philip Dray. 1988. We Are Not Afraid: The Story of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney and the Civil Rights Campaign for Mississippi. New York: Macmillan.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2022. Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Updated March 2022.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2023a. Alabama TANF Spending (fact sheet).

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2023b. Policy Basics: How Many Weeks of Unemployment Compensation Are Available? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Updated December 2023.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2023c. Mississippi TANF Spending (fact sheet).

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2023d. Oklahoma TANF Spending (fact sheet). 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2023e. Tennessee TANF Spending (fact sheet). 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2023f. Texas TANF Spending (fact sheet). 

The Century Foundation. 2023. Unemployment Insurance Data Dashboard. Accessed June 2023.

Childers, Chandra, Marokey Sawo, and Jaimie Worker. 2022. “State Policy Solutions for Good Home Health Care Jobs—Nearly Half Held by Black Women in the South—Should Address the Legacy of Racism, Sexism, and Xenophobia in the Workforce.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), August 15, 2022.

Conlin, Erin L. 2018. “African American and Latino Workers in the Age of Industrial Agriculture.” In Reconsidering Southern Labor History: Race, Class, and Power, edited by Matthew Hild and Keri Leigh Merritt, 174–190. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida Press.

Cooper, David, and Teresa Kroeger. 2017. Employers Steal Billions from Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less Than the Minimum Wage, at Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies. Economic Policy Institute, May 2017.

Das, Kamolika. 2022a. Creating Racially and Economically Equitable Tax Policy in the South. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, June 2022.

Das, Kamolika. 2022b. Most States Used Surpluses to Reduce Taxes but Not in Sustainable or Progressive Ways. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, July 2022.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). n.d. “Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—Overview” (web page). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Dewey, Donald. 1952. “Negro Employment in Southern Industry,” Journal of Political Economy 60, no. 4: 279–293.

Dixon, Rebecca. 2021. “From Excluded to Essential: Tracing the Racist Exclusion of Farmworkers, Domestic Workers, and Tipped Workers from the Fair Labor Standards Act.” Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Washington, D.C., May 3, 2021.

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

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2023. Minimum Wage Tracker. Last updated July 1, 2023.

Edwards, Kathryn A. 2020. “The Racial Disparity in Unemployment Benefits.” RAND Blog, July 15, 2020.

Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). 2019. The Thin Green Line: Cuts in State Pollution Control Agencies Threaten Public Health. December 2019.

Feigenbaum, James, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, and Vanessa Williamson. 2018. “Right-to-Work Laws Have Devastated Unions–and Democrats.” New York Times, March 8, 2018.

Fleischman, Lesley, and Marcus Franklin. 2017. Fumes Across the Fence-Line: The Health Impacts of Air Pollution from Oil and Gas Facilities on African American Communities. NAACP and Clean Air Task Force, November 2017.

Florida Policy Institute (FPI). 2023. “Enforcing the Minimum Wage: Statewide Wage Theft Threatens the Potential Gains of Amendment 2.” 

Floyd, Ife, and LaDonna Pavetti. 2022. Improvements in TANF Cash Benefits Needed to Undo the Legacy of Historical Racism. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2022.

Floyd, Ife, LaDonna Pavetti, Laura Meyer, Ali Safawi, Liz Schott, Evelyn Bellew, and Abigail Magnus. 2021. TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance: Reimagined Program Should Center Black Mothers. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 2021.

Freeman, Richard, Eunice Han, David Madland, and Brendan V. Duke. 2015. “How Does Declining Unionism Affect the American Middle Class and Intergenerational Mobility?” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper no. 21638, October 2015. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21638.

Frymer, Paul, and Jacob M. Grumbach. 2020. “Labor Unions and White Racial Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 65, no. 1: 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12537.

Gershon, Livia. 2020. “Why Does Meatpacking Have Such Bad Working Conditions?”. JSTOR Daily, May 8, 2020.

Griffith, Barbara S. 1988. The Crisis of American Labor: Operation Dixie and the Defeat of the CIO. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Good Jobs First. 2023a. “Subsidy Tracker Individual Entry: Scout Motors.” Accessed June 2023. Data for 2023.

Good Jobs First. 2023b. “Subsidy Tracker Individual Entry: Steel Dynamics.” Accessed June 2023. Data for 2022.

Gould, Elise, and Celine McNicholas. 2017. “Unions Help Narrow the Gender Wage Gap.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 3, 2017.

Haney López, Ian. 2014. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hannah-Jones, Nikole, and the New York Times. 2021. The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story. New York: One World.

Henderson, Tim. 2016. “Americans are Moving South, West Again.” Stateline, January 8, 2016.

Hickey, Sebastian. The U.S. Food Production System Extracts a High Price from Black, Brown and Immigrant Food Production Workers. Economic Policy Institute, forthcoming.

Hill, Herbert. 1965. “Racial Inequality in Employment: The Patterns of Discrimination.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 357, no. 1: 30–47. 

Hill, Misha, Jenice Robinson, Alan Essig, Meg Wiehe, Steve Wamhoff, and Carl Davis. 2019. The Illusion of Race-Neutral Tax Policy. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, February 2019.

Hasso, Jennifer. 2021. “Pullman Porters.” Jim Crow Museum.

Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). 2023. Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map. December 2023.

Keisler-Starkey, Katherine, and Lisa N. Bunch. 2021. Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2020. U.S. Census Bureau, September 2021.

King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968).

Laughland, Oliver. 2023. “Residents of Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ Announce Lawsuit Against Local Officials.” The Guardian, March 21, 2023.

Levinson, Zachary, Jamie Godwin, and Scott Hulver. 2023. Rural Hospitals Face Renewed Financial Challenges, Especially in States that Have not Expanded Medicaid. Kaiser Family Foundation, February 2023.

Lyman, Brian. 2017. “Alabama’s Slave Tax Forever Warped the State’s Finances, Politics.” Montgomery Advertiser, February 4, 2017.

MacLean, Nancy. 2021. “How Milton Friedman Exploited White Supremacy to Privatize Education.” Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper no. 161, September 2021. https://doi.org/10.36687/inetwp161.

Mangundayao, Ihna, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Ali Sait. 2021. More Than $3 Billion in Stolen Wages Recovered for Workers Between 2017 and 2020. Economic Policy Institute, December 2021.

Mast, Nina. Forthcoming a. Incarceration and Prison Labor in the ‘Land of the Free’. Economic Policy Institute, forthcoming.

Mast, Nina. Forthcoming b. Lack of Regulation of Workplace and Environmental Standards, Regressive Taxation, and Privatization. Economic Policy Institute, forthcoming.

McGhee, Heather. 2021. The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together. New York: One World.

Mercer, Marsha. 2022. “Yes, Slavery Is on the Ballot in These States.” Stateline, August 22, 2022.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2021. The Enormous Impact of Eroded Collective Bargaining on Wages. Economic Policy Institute, April 2021.

Mishel, Lawrence, Lynn Rhinehart, and Lane Windham. 2020. Explaining the Erosion of Private-Sector Unions: How Corporate Practices and Legal Changes Have Undercut the Ability of Workers to Organize and Bargain. Economic Policy Institute, November 2020.

O’Connor, Michael. 1969. “Welfare Law—Aid to Dependent Children and the Substitute Parent Regulation—The State Loses a Scapegoat, the ‘Man-in-the-House.’” DePaul Law Review 18, no. 2: 897–906.

Perea, Juan F. 2011. “The Echoes of Slavery: Recognizing the Racist Origins of the Agricultural and Domestic Worker Exclusion from the National Labor Relations Act.” Ohio State Law Journal 72, no.1: 95–138.

Perlstein, Rick. 2012. “Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy”. The Nation, November 12, 2012.

Phillips, Kristine. 2020. “‘Damaging to our Democracy’: Trump Election Lawsuits Targeted Areas with Large Black, Latino Populations.” USA Today, December 1, 2020.

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

Pierce, Raymond. 2021. “The Racist History of ‘School Choice’.” Forbes, May 6, 2021.

Prison Policy Initiative (PPI). 2017. “State and Federal Prison Wage Policies and Sourcing Information.” [Html table]. Last updated April 10, 2017.

Prison Policy Initiative (PPI). 2021a. “Comparing Louisiana’s Resident and Incarcerated Populations.” [Html graph], September 2023. 

Prison Policy Initiative (PPI). 2021b. “Comparing Mississippi’s Resident and Incarcerated Populations.” [Html graph], September 2023. 

Prison Policy Initiative (PPI). 2021c. “Comparing Oklahoma’s Resident and Incarcerated Populations” [Html graph], September 2023. 

Purnell, Derecka, and Elizabeth Hinton. 2021. “Reclaiming the Power of Rebellion.” Boston Review, May 19, 2021.

Reuters Fact Check. 2022. “Inaccuracies in Claims Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri All Require Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients.” Reuters, December 14, 2022.

Robertson, Cassandra, Marokey Sawo, and David Cooper. 2022. All States Must Set Higher Wage Benchmarks for Home Health Care Workers. Economic Policy Institute, June 2022.

Schweitzer, Justin. 2021. Ending the Tupped Minimum Wage Will Reduce Poverty and Inequality. Center for American Progress, March 2021.

Scribner, Connor. 2021. “Fight Over Right to Work Evokes History of Richmond Unions.” VPM News, April 13, 2021.

Sell, Mary. 2023. “Grocery Sales Tax Cut Kicks in on Friday.” Alabama Daily News, August 31, 2023.

Sharon, Keith. 2021. “Can a Community Overcome Its Horrible Past? An Inside Look at Philadelphia, MS.” The Tennessean, July 15, 2021.

Shrivastava, Aditi, and Gina Azito Thompson. 2022. Cash Assistance Should Reach Millions More Families to Lessen Hardship: Access to TANF Hits Lowest Point Amid Precarious Economic Conditions. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. February 2022.

Tax Policy Center. 2023. “State Sales Tax Rates.” Rates as of January 1, 2023.

Terrell, Kimberly A., and Gianna St. Julien. 2022. “Air Pollution Is Linked to Higher Cancer Rates Among Black or Impoverished Communities in Louisiana.” Environmental Research Letters 17, no. 1.

Terrell, Kimberly A., and Gianna St. Julien. 2023. “Discriminatory Outcomes of Industrial Air Permitting in Louisiana, United States.” Environmental Challenges 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100672.

Texas v. Biden S.D. Tx. (2022).

Thomas, Kenneth P. 2019. The State of State and Local Subsidies to Business (policy brief). Mercatus Center, October 2019.

Thomas, Claire R. 2020. “The Invisible Wall: Public Charge Policy Impacts on Immigrant Families.” New York Law School Review 65, no. 2: 197–223.

Thompson, Gina Azito, Diana Azevedo-McCaffrey, and Da’Shon Carr. 2023. Increases in TANF Cash Benefit Levels are Critical to Help Families Meet Rising Costs. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. February 2023.

Traub, Amy, and Kim Diehl. 2022. Reforming Unemployment Insurance Is a Racial Justice Imperative. National Employment Law Project, February 2022.

Trotter Jr., Joe William. 2019. Workers on Arrival: Black Labor in the Making of America. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

Tye, Larry. 2005. Rising from the Rails: Pullman Porters and the Making of the Black Middle Class. New York: Henry Holt.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021.”Geographic Levels.” Last updated October 2021. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. “Historical Population Change Data (1910-2020)” [Html table]. Published April 26, 2021.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. “Table A-5. Reason for Move (Collapsed and Specific Categories): 1999–2022” [Excel file], CPS Historical Migration/Geographic Mobility Tables. Last updated August 2023.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. “Growth in U.S. Population Shows Early Indication of Recovery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic” (press release). December 22, 2022.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2003. Black Farmers in America, 1865-2000: The Pursuit of Independent Farming and the Role of Cooperatives. RBS Research Report 194, October 2002. Reprinted October 2003.

Waldman, Peter. 2017. “Inside Alabama’s Auto Jobs Boom: Cheap Wages, Little Training, Crushed Limbs: The South’s Manufacturing Renaissance Comes with a Heavy Price.” Bloomberg, March 23, 2017.

Wen, Christine. 2022. The Revenue Impact of Corporate Tax Incentives on South Carolina Public Schools 2017-2021. Good Jobs First, May 2022.

Widra, Emily, and Tiana Herring. 2021. States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2021. Prison Policy Initiative, September 2021.

Wiehe, Meg, Aidan Davis, Carl Davis, Matt Gardner, Lisa Christensen Gee, and Dylan Grundman. 2018. Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, October 2018.

Williamson, Vanessa. 2021. “The Austerity Politics of White Supremacy.” Dissent, Winter 2021.

Younes, Lylla, Ava Kofman, Al Shaw, Lisa Song, and Maya Miller. 2021. “Poison in the Air.” ProPublica, November 2, 2021.

Young, Caitlin. 2023. “What Policymakers Need to Know About Racism in the Property Tax System.” Housing Matters (Urban Institute), March 15, 2023.

Many states across the Southern United States{{1}} employ an economic model that prioritizes business interests and the wealthy over ordinary citizens. This model—which we refer to in this report as the “Southern economic development model”—is characterized by low wages, low taxes, few regulations on businesses, few labor protections, a weak safety net, and vicious opposition to unions. The model is marketed as the way to attract businesses into Southern states, with the implicit promise that this will lead to an abundance of jobs and shared economic prosperity for all Southerners.

The reality is this economic development model is fundamentally flawed as a strategy for improving living conditions for most Southerners. In fact, the Southern economic development strategy was never designed to help the vast majority of working Southerners; rather, it reflects efforts to ensure continued access to the cheap labor of Black people following emancipation. Today the cheap labor sought is increasingly diverse, yet it is still overwhelmingly made up of Black and brown workers across the region.

In this report, we use empirical data to show that the Southern economic development model has failed to provide economic security for workers and families across the South. In fact, the South lags other regions of the country on most indicators of economic health.{{2}} We also show—through historical context and case examples—how the Southern economic development model continues to serve as a means of maintaining racial hierarchies across the South.{{3}}

What characterizes the Southern economic development model?

To maintain the disproportionate levels of wealth and power enjoyed by many Southern politicians, corporate interests, and many wealthy and powerful people across the nation, businesses in the South have relied on access to large pools of cheap labor.

Businesses in the South have particularly depended on the labor of Black and brown Southerners. These laborers are used in cotton and tobacco fields, to produce the food we eat, to care for our children and the elderly, to build the nation’s infrastructure, and to perform many other jobs for little or no compensation.

Enslaved Africans were not paid at all. After the end of slavery, many Black workers, such as the Pullman porters, were forced to rely on tips. Today, while slavery is illegal in most cases, incarcerated workers can be—and often are—required to work without pay (ACLU and GHRC 2022). Below, we discuss other ways worker’s wages are kept low or kept from them entirely.

The racist roots of this model have been obscured and have been replaced by a more acceptable “pro-business” narrative. The pro-business narrative suggests that low wages, low taxes, anti-union policies, a weak safety net, and limited regulation on businesses creates a rising tide that “lifts all boats.”

Below we examine the key features of the Southern economic development model in detail.

Low wages

Many states across the South promote low wages for many workers by the policies they implement or, in many cases, the policies they choose not to implement.

For example, five Southern states—Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina—have no state minimum wage at all. Georgia has a minimum wage set at $5.15 per hour. Because the federal minimum wage is set at $7.25 per hour and $2.13 per hour for tipped workers, all workers across the South are supposed to be paid at least these minimums (EPI 2023).

Fewer than half of the Southern states (six states plus D.C.) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In every other region, more than half of states have minimum wages higher than $7.25 (EPI 2023).

Because many Southern states have weak, if any, labor enforcement, wage theft is common across the South. That means some workers are not even paid these too-low minimum wages. This is especially true in industries like food and drink services, agriculture, and retail (Cooper and Kroeger 2017).

Cooper and Kroeger (2017) analyze data on the share of workers who have experienced minimum wage violations—i.e., were paid less than the applicable minimum wage—in the 10 most populous U.S. states. They find that large shares of workers in Florida (24.9%), North Carolina (12.3%), Texas (10.8%), and Georgia (9.4%) have experienced minimum wage violations.

Failing to pay the minimum wage is just one of the ways employers cheat workers out of their earnings.{{4}} Employers who commit wage theft are rarely punished (Cooper and Kroeger 2017). In Florida, for example, there isn’t a state department of labor to enforce wage standards; employers therefore have no reason to fear being caught or punished. In Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina—which technically do have departments of labor (DOLs)—the DOLs do not in practice make any effort to recover wages that are stolen by employers (Mangundayao et al. 2021).

Notably, some Southern states have actively fought against federal government efforts to raise wages in their states. In 2022, the attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi sued the federal government to prevent an increase in the wages of federal contractors.{{5}}

It is important to understand that federal standards governing minimum wages, overtime, and even what activities are to be included in the number of hours worked were designed to keep wages low in the South. When the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was enacted in 1938, establishing these rules, large categories of workers—primarily agricultural workers, domestic workers, tipped workers, and public-sector workers—were excluded from the FLSA’s protections.

Agricultural workers, domestic workers, and tipped workers were excluded specifically because the formerly enslaved were limited almost entirely to these lines of work across the South; Southern lawmakers would not agree to vote for the legislation without these exclusions (Dixon 2021; Perea 2011). As noted above, the practice of using tips to compensate service workers in the United States began in the 19th century after the end of slavery. This practice allowed businesses to hire the formerly enslaved without actually having to pay them (Dixon 2021; Tye 2005).

When the FLSA was amended in 1966 to include service workers—among other coverage expansions—a special “tip credit” was created that allowed employers to count tips received by staff against a portion of the minimum wage the employer was required to pay—effectively creating a separate, lower minimum wage (Allegretto and Cooper 2014). Today, Southern tipped workers continue to rely heavily on their tips. As noted above, the federal minimum wage for tipped workers, which applies in most Southern states, is only $2.13 per hour—a level that has remained unchanged since 1991 (Schweitzer 2021).

We continue to see the influence of racism and sexism in the low wages and lack of protections offered to workers in jobs that were historically held by enslaved people. Domestic work, for example, historically has been—and continues to be—performed by Black, brown, and immigrant women. These women work as nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides; personal and home care aides; and nursing assistants in private households. Across the South, Black women make up 43% of home health care workers, followed by Hispanic women at 17% (Childers, Sawo, and Worker 2022). But workers in these jobs remain undercompensated despite the clear value of this work—providing care that allows families to work and that allows elderly and disabled Southerners to age in their homes (Childers, Sawo, and Worker 2022; Robertson, Sawo, and Cooper 2022).

Minimal levels of regulation

Another key component of the Southern economic development model is ensuring that businesses aren’t “hampered” by regulation. This includes minimal regulation of business activities that pollute the air, water, and soil. It also means lack of regulation or enforcement around labor laws such as federal minimum wage laws, overtime laws, or safety standards for workers (Cooper and Kroeger 2017; Fleischman and Franklin 2017; Florida Policy Institute 2022; Terrell and St. Julien 2023; Waldman 2017).

Issues resulting from weak regulatory standards can be particularly widespread in Black and brown communities (Donaghy et al. 2023). Terrell and St. Julien (2023), for example, found that, due to a lax state permitting process, these communities across Louisiana had a seven to 21 times greater exposure to air pollutants, especially those from chemical manufacturers, compared with white communities. Black and brown communities experience similar disproportionate impacts from coal ash, which contains toxic metals that pollute the air and water in North Carolina and other states (Bienkowski 2016; SELC 2019).

Low income and corporate taxes

Next, the Southern economic development model seeks to limit corporate and personal income taxes, particularly any that would increase the tax burden of higher-income households and individuals.

The roots of the South’s tax structure

To understand attitudes toward taxes across the South, it is important to understand the roots of the current stance on taxes in the Southern economic development model. Before the Civil War, taxes on enslaved people—considered the private property of slaveholders—were paid primarily by wealthy plantation owners and constituted a significant source of revenue for states across the South (Williamson 2021).

After slavery was abolished, plantation owners represented themselves as “concerned taxpayers” who opposed rising property taxes. They were joined by poor white farmers who would now also be subject to rising property taxes raised by newly—and temporarily—empowered Black political leaders.

These leaders were raising taxes to provide basic services such as public education and to rebuild infrastructure after the devastation of the Civil War. But wealthy Southerners stoked racial animus to divide poor and working-class Southerners along the lines of race and ensure majority support to implement highly regressive tax policies (Williamson 2021; Young 2023).

Low corporate and income taxes force reliance on regressive sales taxes

Today, Southern politicians, business interests, and other wealthy Southerners continue to seek to eliminate or limit corporate and personal income taxes. For example, several Southern states used temporary budget surpluses—surpluses resulting from the distribution of federal dollars to states intended to address COVID-19 and the associated recession—as an excuse to further cut already low income-tax rates (Das 2022a).

Corporate and personal income taxes tend to be progressive, meaning they are structured such that higher-income earners pay a larger share of their income in taxes, while lower-income earners pay a smaller share. But when collection of corporate and personal income taxes declines, states are forced to rely more heavily on sales and property taxes, which are regressive. When sales and property taxes are assessed, lower-income people end up paying a larger share of their income for those taxes than higher-income people do (Wiehe et al. 2018; Young 2023).

Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have no income tax. In other Southern states, income tax rates fail to raise adequate revenue, requiring those states to rely on sales and property taxes and fees and fines to pay for many public services, including education, public health, public safety, infrastructure, and other services.

In 2019, for example, more than 40% of all state and local tax revenue came from sales taxes in many Southern states. These included Tennessee (56.6%), Louisiana (53.3%), Florida (50.9%), Arkansas (49.6%), Alabama (48.0%), and Mississippi (45.5%). These shares are substantially higher than the 34.4% of state and local tax revenue that sales taxes account for nationally (Das 2022a).

To generate this revenue, these states had sales taxes ranging from 4.0% in Alabama to 7.0% in Mississippi and Tennessee. And while most states at least exempt food from sales taxes, as of January 2023 Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma did not (Tax Policy Center 2023).{{6}}

This approach to taxes means that public services are underfunded in the South

Proponents of this tax model argue that it increases the incomes of all households by allowing them to keep more of their money. Further, they argue that it allows businesses to reinvest and grow their businesses, thereby increasing tax revenue. In reality, this regressive approach to taxes simply means there is not sufficient revenue to properly fund education, health care, public transportation, water and sewer system maintenance, and the many other public services Southerners rely on (Das 2022b).

The lack of resources to provide services for ordinary Southerners is further exacerbated when state governments give huge subsidies to private companies. For example, Mississippi gave a $247 million subsidy to Steel Dynamics in 2022, and South Carolina spent $1.3 billion on a subsidy for Scout Motors in 2023 (Good Jobs First 2023b, 2023c).

A weak safety net

The Southern economic development model is further characterized by a weak social safety net. Unemployment insurance (UI), for example, is a crucial component of the social safety net, meant to ensure families have economic security in the face of a job loss by replacing some percentage of their prior earnings (Bivens and Banerjee 2021). During times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 recession, it also helps stabilize the broader economy (Bivens et al. 2021).

Southerners face greater insecurity when they lose their jobs

While the UI system is funded jointly by federal and state funds, it is the state that has primary control over who is eligible to receive benefits, the level and duration of those benefits, and how the system is financed (Bivens et al. 2021).

The fact that the states where most Black Americans live have the least accessible UI systems with the least generous benefits and some of the most onerous requirements is not a coincidence or an accident. The UI system as structured is rooted in a racist agenda: Southern Democrats agreed to support the New Deal only if states controlled access to UI and other social benefits. This allowed them to design systems that would limit Black workers’ access to benefits (Edwards 2020; Traub and Diehl 2022).

Data show that of the 10 states with the lowest maximum weekly UI benefit amounts, seven—Mississippi ($235), Alabama ($275), Florida ($275), Louisiana ($275), Tennessee ($275), South Carolina ($326), and North Carolina ($350)—are in the South and have large Black populations (The Century Foundation 2023).

Southerners face barriers to health care access

The South is also the least likely of any region to ensure its constituents have access to health care. This is particularly concerning given high rates of illness and comorbidities across the South (Akinyemiju et al. 2016).

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) included an expansion of Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes up to 138% of the official poverty line. While most states have adopted and implemented the expansion, 10 states have failed to adopt it, and seven of these—Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas—are in the South (KFF 2023).{{7}}

Southern states have some of the lowest levels of cash assistance for families with children

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a cash assistance program for poor families with children, was established in 1935 as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC).{{8}} In 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) replaced AFDC with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

TANF differs from AFDC in several important ways. Under AFDC, states could receive unlimited federal matching funds; under TANF, federal support is distributed to states through a block grant. TANF also has five-year lifetime benefit limits and requires that states increase their work participation rates for TANF recipients (DHHS n.d.).

While the federal government funds TANF, states determine benefit levels and income and resource limits, and they administer or oversee administration of the program. States have a great deal of discretion in how they use TANF funds because the specific goals of the program are so broad. The stated goals of the program are to (1) assist families in need so children can be cared for in their own homes; (2) reduce parental dependence on government by promoting job training, work, and marriage; (3) prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) encourage two-parent families (CBPP 2022; DHHS n.d.).

Under the first goal, states can provide direct cash assistance to families to provide for their children (CBPP 2022; DHHS n.d.). In 1997, 71% of TANF dollars were spent for this purpose, but by 2020 this share had fallen to just 22% nationally (Azevedo-McCaffrey and Safawi 2022).

There are large variations in spending by state. In 2021, 15 states spent 10% or less of TANF dollars to provide cash assistance to families. Seven of these states—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas—are in the South and have large Black and Hispanic populations. Of the remaining states spending 10% or less of funds in direct assistance, six were in the Midwest and two were in the Northeast.{{9}} Across the South, only the District of Columbia and Kentucky spent 30% or more of their TANF funds for direct assistance (Azevedo-McCaffrey and Safawi 2022).

Benefit levels are also low in many states, especially in the South. The maximum monthly benefit for a single mother with two children ranges from $204 in Arkansas to a high of $1,151 in New Hampshire. Only four Southern jurisdictions—the District of Columbia ($665), Maryland ($727), Virginia ($587), and West Virginia ($542)—have a benefit amount greater than $500 for a three-person family (Thompson, Azevedo-McCaffrey, and Carr 2023).

In 16 states, the nominal TANF benefit in 2022 is the same as or lower than it was in 1996. Seven of these states—Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—are in the South. The failure to raise the nominal benefit means that in these states, the inflation-adjusted value of the benefit is 45% to 56% lower than it was in 1996 (Thompson, Azevedo-McCaffrey, and Carr 2023).{{10}}

The current structure of TANF in many Southern states reflects efforts of politicians to control the behavior and reproduction of Black women and compel their labor into the low-wage labor market (Floyd et al. 2021; CBPP 2022).{{11}} Historically, states like Alabama and Louisiana have used “deservingness,” “suitable homes,” and “man in the house” rules to exclude Black families from the program. States began to pass these morals-based eligibility rules in the 1940s as the ADC rolls began to become more diverse (Floyd et al. 2021; Gordon and Batlan 2011; O’Connor 1969).

To be “deserving,” a mother needed to be widowed, have a husband that was unable to provide for the family’s needs due to disability, or have been abandoned by the children’s father “through no fault of the mother.” A home was “unsuitable,” by definition, if the mother was unwed or engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage (Floyd et al. 2021; Floyd and Pavetti 2022).

The “man in the house” rule denied mothers benefits if a man was found to be living in the house or if the mother was found to be sexually active, even if no man lived in the house with her and her children. In either case, it did not matter whether the man involved was the children’s father or not (Floyd et al. 2021; O’Connor 1969).{{12}}

Today, those states with larger Black populations—primarily Southern states where the majority of the Black population lives—tend to have more stringent requirements to access TANF benefits, and those benefits tend to be more meager (Shrivastava and Thompson 2022).

Anti-union policies

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, advocates of the Southern economic development model vociferously oppose unions and other collective actions in which workers band together, especially across racial, ethnic, and immigration statuses.

Research has shown that higher rates of unionization are associated with higher wages, better working conditions, less inequality, less racial animosity, greater economic mobility, and greater civic participation (Banerjee et al. 2021; Freeman et al. 2015; Frymer and Grumbach 2021; Mishel 2021; Mishel, Rhinehart, and Windham 2020). Despite this, states across the South have adopted policies that hamstring workers’ ability to form unions because they pose a threat to the Southern economic development model.

First, unions threaten the Southern economic development model because they have historically been the primary counterweight against businesses seeking to keep wages and benefits low. Second, the labor movement in the U.S. today is one of the foremost institutions promoting cross-racial solidarity. Third, unions are a key driver of greater equity in the workplace (Bivens et al. 2023).

Labor unions have not always fulfilled the roles of cross-racial solidarity or racial equity in the workplace—many unions have a history of anti-Black racism. Throughout the 20th century, businesses would pit Black and white workers against one another, including by using Black workers as strikebreakers (Arnesen 2003).

Many white workers viewed Black workers as competition. This—coupled with the belief that Black workers were inferior to them—led them to oppose including Black workers in their unions. Unions such as the American Federation of Labor and many trade unions would not organize Black workers (Hill 1959). In response, Black workers began forming their own unions. A. Philip Randolph, for example, organized Black porters in the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (AFL-CIO 2014; Tye 2005).

Not all unions were opposed to organizing workers across race, though. Some, like the Congress of Industrial Organizations, realized that as long as workers were divided, their power would continue to be undermined. As noted above, when Black workers or any other group of workers are systematically excluded from joining a union, they can then be used as strikebreakers. This makes it less likely that a strike will be effective and less likely that workers’ demands will be met.

Despite the negative experiences many Black workers had with discriminatory unions, many civil rights leaders were also labor leaders who wanted to bring workers together to demand economic justice and equality for all workers. The organizers of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which everyone remembers for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, included A. Philip Randolph. Randolph had not only led the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters but had also demanded racial integration of the military and called for a march on Washington in the 1940s to force President Roosevelt to issue an executive order banning discrimination in war industries (AFL-CIO n.d.).

Figure A. Racist flyer used to drive opposition to the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1940s. (Photo by David Haberstich. Courtesy of Donald McKee, cited in Griffith 1988.)

In pushing back against interracial labor organizing, wealthy and powerful Southerners would invoke white supremacy to thwart these efforts for collective economic justice. During a campaign to get a so-called right-to-work (RTW) law on the books in Arkansas, advocates made clear that RTW was critical to maintaining racial segregation. (RTW laws require unions to represent all workers but restrict their ability to collect dues, thereby weakening the unions.) To advance their cause, they drew on the racial animus of white Southerners with the warning that

White women and White men will be forced into organizations with Black African Apes…whom they will have to call “brother” or lose their jobs. (Pierce 2017)

In another instance, those trying to mobilize racial prejudice in the 1940s against the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)—which supported interracial organizing—produced the flyer shown in Figure A. The flyer shows a photo of George Benjamin, a Black man, with a caption noting that Benjamin had been put in charge of organizing the tobacco workers. In all capital letters it states, “INCLUDING THE WHITE EMPLOYEES.” Ironically, the Tobacco Workers International Union under attack was in fact an American Federation of Labor (AFL) affiliate and was not as supportive of interracial organizing as the CIO (Griffith 1988).

In many Southern states, the campaigns to get RTW laws passed were successful (NCSL 2023). In the 1940s, Florida and Arkansas were the first two states to adopt these anti-worker laws. It is important to emphasize that—contrary to the “right to work” moniker—these laws in no way guarantee workers a right to a job or a right to work; instead, they simply make it more difficult for workers to form and maintain unions.{{13}}

Across the South, states have continued to adopt RTW laws, with some legislatures enshrining them in their state constitutions (Ballotpedia 2022). One result is that Southern states have some of the lowest rates of union coverage in the country. While nationally union coverage rates stand at 11.3%, rates were as low as 1.9% in South Carolina, 3.9% in North Carolina, and 5.4% in Georgia in 2022 (BLS 2023).{{14}}

The Southern economic development model: A summary

Collectively, these economic policy positions form what we refer to as the Southern economic development model. Most states across the South census region—with the exception of Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia{{15}}—adhere to most, if not all, of these components and have adopted a wide range of policies consistent with this model. Some Southern states—such as Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, and West Virginia—adhere to this model particularly closely.

Future reports from EPI will delve deeper into the Southern economic development model and how it manifests in specific states across the region.

Throughout the rest of this report, we examine several key indicators of economic well-being for workers and families across the South. We compare the South with other regions and look at variations across states within the South. The data show that those states that adhere most closely to the Southern economic development model fare worse in general than those states that have taken a different path.

The Southern economic development model has failed to promote the economic well-being of workers and families across the South

On the surface, the Southern economic development model may seem purely like a set of economic policy choices. However, as we describe above, it in fact emerged out of efforts in the late 1800s and beyond to maintain racial hierarchies across the South—hierarchies that would ensure continued access to the cheap labor of the newly freed Black population (Harris 1993; Perea 2011).

Below, we use empirical data to refute proponents’ argument that this model creates jobs and overall prosperity. We show that it actually produces worse outcomes for workers and families across the South.

Southern states are well represented among the lowest-GDP states

If the Southern economic development model led to better economic performance, one likely place that would show up would be in measures of state GDP. The gross domestic product, or GDP, is the total value of goods and services produced in an economy. It is a comprehensive measure that represents overall spending by government, the output of businesses and their workers, investments made by actors in the economy, and the trade conducted with economic actors in other jurisdictions. It is an important measure of overall economic trends; a rising per-worker GDP is necessary (although insufficient on its own) to achieve rising living standards for the broad population.

The data indicate that on this overall measure of economic growth, the South does not perform particularly well. Figure B lists the 15 states with the lowest per-worker GDP in 2019 before the COVID-19 recession. Nine of these states are in the South. Mississippi has the lowest per-worker GDP in the nation. The other eight Southern states on the list are Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Tennessee.

Figure B

Of the remaining states in the South census region (not shown in Figure B), the majority have per-worker GDPs below the U.S. average. Only Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia have per-worker GDPs above the national average. As noted above, these three jurisdictions adhere less closely to the Southern economic development model than other Southern states.

Job growth across the South largely reflects population growth, not economic growth

The health of an economy is also frequently assessed by looking at job growth. As demand for goods and services grows among the general population, workers are hired to provide those goods and services. When demand is weak or constrained, workers are not hired and some may lose their jobs, further dampening GDP and weakening the growth that can improve living standards.

Many Southern politicians have argued that the policies associated with the Southern economic development model produce greater job growth and that this exceptional job growth creates a “rising tide that lifts all boats.” They point to the strong job growth across the South that has occurred since the late 1970s—i.e., the larger increase in the total number of jobs in the South compared with other regions of the country. When we examine the data, however, we find that job growth across the South largely reflects a growing Southern population.

Various factors largely unrelated to the South’s economic development strategy (e.g., the widespread adoption of air conditioning, proximity to the Southern U.S. border, and increased domestic and international migration) have driven strong population growth in the South (Arsenault 1984; Frey 2023). Yet job growth across the region has lagged population growth since the early 2000s.

Figure C shows that between 1976 and 2001, job growth in the South generally moved in tandem with population growth but never exceeded growth in the working-age population. Since 2001, job growth has failed to keep up with population growth, especially after the Great Recession of 2008–2009. This is in contrast to the Northeast and Midwest regions, where job growth has exceeded population growth for the majority of the more-than-four-decade period.

Figure C

Southern states are well represented among the states with the lowest prime-age employment-to-population (EPOP) ratios

Arguably the best way to assess labor market health is to evaluate whether job growth is providing adequate employment for everyone in their prime working years. We can measure this by looking at the prime-age employment-to-population (EPOP) ratio, which is the share of workers ages 25 to 54 with a job. If the Southern model provided exceptionally strong job growth, we would expect Southern states to have relatively high EPOPs.

Figure D shows the 10 states with the lowest prime-age EPOP. Of the 10 states with the lowest EPOP nationally, seven are Southern states. The five states with the lowest EPOPs—Louisiana, Alabama, New Mexico, Mississippi, and West Virginia—have more than a fourth of their prime-age population out of the workforce; four of these are in the South.

Figure D

Of the remaining states in the South census region (not shown in Figure D), the majority have prime-age EPOPs below the U.S. average. Only Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia have prime-age EPOPs above the national average. As noted above, Maryland, Delaware, and D.C. adhere less closely to the Southern economic development model than other Southern states.

Many of the workers missing from the EPOPs are not in the labor force at all—they are not employed and they are not looking for work. While there are a variety of reasons why prime-age workers would leave the labor market, one of the most common reasons is they have become discouraged. They have been unable to find suitable work or they face obstacles—such as the need for child care or transportation—that prevent them from seeking or keeping employment.

Workers in Southern states tend to have lower earnings even after adjusting for regional differences in the cost of living

Table 1 shows the nominal median annual earnings and median annual earnings adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. States are ranked from highest to lowest cost-of-living-adjusted earnings. States in the South census region are marked with an asterisk.

Three Southern states—Maryland, Virginia, Delaware—and the District of Columbia are among the top 20 highest-earning states. As noted previously, three of these jurisdictions—Maryland, Delaware, and D.C.—do not adhere to the Southern economic development model as closely as the nine Southern states that fall into the 20 lowest-earning states. Three states that adhere particularly closely to this model—Florida, South Carolina, and Mississippi—fall into the 10 lowest-earning states.

Table 1

Wages are even lower for some groups in the South. Table 2 highlights dramatic differences in earnings across the region by gender and race/ethnicity. The state-level median earnings listed in Table 1 may not be representative of the typical earnings of Black and Hispanic workers in those states, especially Black and Hispanic women, who are generally paid even less than their male counterparts. On average, Black women in the South are paid $35,884 at the median and Hispanic women just $30,984, compared with $58,008 for white men.

Table 2

Poverty rates in most Southern states are higher than the national rate

Arguably the best-known measure of economic well-being is the official poverty rate. According to the official poverty measure, a family of four with two minor children in 2019 would fall below the poverty line if their family income was less than $26,000. Figure E shows official poverty rates for each state in the South and for the nation as a whole in 2019. The data provide a clear indicator that the Southern economic development model is leaving large numbers of Southerners in dire economic conditions.

Figure E

The poverty rate nationally, at 12.3%, is much higher than it should be in a nation as wealthy as the United States. However, the poverty rate is significantly higher in many states across the South. Almost 1 in 5 residents in Mississippi and Louisiana fall below the poverty line. Only three states in the South have a poverty rate below the national rate: Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland. As noted above, Maryland and Delaware do not adhere as closely to the Southern economic development model as other states in the South census region.

While overall poverty rates across the South are appalling, when we consider differences by race and ethnicity they become even more so. Black women across the South have a poverty rate of 20.0% and Hispanic women are at 18.5% (see Figure F).

Figure F

These extremely high rates of poverty—roughly 1 in 5 women—are not due to unwillingness to work. Black women in fact have a higher prime-age employment-to-population ratio than women from any other racial or ethnic group in the South.{{16}}

Table 3 shows that Black women in the South have a higher poverty rate than Black women in the Northeast (19.0%) or the West (19.2%), although Black women’s poverty rates are highest in the Midwest (23.4%). Black men’s poverty rates across the South (15.7%) are higher than in the West (15.5%) but lower than in the Northeast (16.0%) and the Midwest (20.1%). Extreme disparities by race/ethnicity and gender in the U.S. are not limited by geographic boundaries.

Table 3

Hispanic men and women have the highest poverty rates in the Northeast (13.9% and 20.6%, respectively), followed by the South (12.4% and 18.5%). Their lowest poverty rates are in the West (11.3% and 15.7%) and the Midwest (11.6% and 16.9%).

Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) men and women living in the South actually have lower poverty rates than AAPI men and women in other regions. In the South, their poverty rates are 8.7% and 9.6%, respectively. These are lower than in the West (8.9% and 9.8%), the Northeast (10.4% and 11.4%), or the Midwest (11.0% and 11.2%). Lower rates of poverty among AAPI men and women in the South likely reflect the fact that they tend to live in higher-earning Southern states such as Maryland (Childers 2023c).

Finally, white men and women across the South have much lower poverty rates than Black and Hispanic Southerners but have higher poverty rates than white men and women in any other region. In the South, white men and women have poverty rates of 8.2% and 10.8%, respectively, while in the Midwest their poverty rates are 7.5% and 10.1% and, in the West, 7.8% and 9.5%. Their poverty rates are lowest in the Northeast, at 6.7% and 8.6%.

One reason Black women’s poverty rates remain high in the South—despite a relatively high EPOP—is that they are disproportionately employed in jobs consistent with the occupations they were largely limited to during and after the end of slavery: care work, cleaning, and food production, including agricultural and animal slaughter work. Because this work is largely done by Black, brown, and immigrant workers, consistent with the Southern economic development model, these jobs pay very low wages.

While Black and Hispanic men are paid more than Black and Hispanic women in the South, their earnings are lower than white men’s earnings. This means that among two-adult households, Black and Hispanic households are more likely to rely on Black and Hispanic women’s earnings to meet household needs than white households do. Black women in particular are frequently co-breadwinners in their households (Banks 2019; Glynn 2019).

Child poverty is higher in the South than in any other region

Low wages across the South also mean that many children will suffer economic hardships. Their parents’ earnings determine to a great degree the resources available to them, especially when public safety nets are as limited as they are across most of the South. Figure G shows the geographic distribution of all U.S. children living in households where the household head is paid less than $10.00 per hour. More than half of these children, 53.4%, live in Southern states.

Figure G

The large number of Southern children in households where the head of household is paid less than $10.00 per hour, and high rates of poverty overall, mean that many children across the South live in poverty. Figure H shows that child poverty is significantly higher in the South than in other regions. At 20.9%, child poverty rates in the South are 3.7 percentage points higher than the region with the next-highest child poverty rate, the Midwest at 17.2%. While child poverty across the South is clearly worse than in other regions, it is troubling that the lowest regional rate nationwide is as high as 16.6%, in the Northeast.

Figure H

The high overall child poverty rates obscure extreme racial inequities in child poverty. As seen in Figure I, across Southern states, Asian American children have the lowest poverty rates, at 9.9%, followed by 12.5% of non-Hispanic white children. The next-highest rate is more than double that; 26.3% of American Indian and Alaska Native children, 28.1% of Hispanic children, and 33.0% of Black children live in poverty across the South.

Figure I

High levels of income inequality are seen in every state across the South

In this final section, we consider how the Southern economic development model has performed in addressing income inequality. Figure J shows the share of all household income that goes to the top 5%, the top 20%, and the bottom 20% of households in each Southern state and across the U.S.

Figure J

In every Southern state, more than 20% of all household income goes to just the richest 5% of households. In most Southern states, more than 50.0% of all household income goes to the richest 20%. The bottom 80% of households share the remaining 50%, with the bottom 20% sharing between 2.0% and 3.5% of all household income. Further, the share to the top 5% has increased over the last decade and the share to the bottom 20% has declined (not shown in Figure J).{{17}}

It is important to note here that this is the one indicator on which the South does not differ from the rest of the nation. Though the South has not performed worse than the rest of the country on this particular measure, it also has not performed any better. Indeed, this pattern of inequality holds for every state in the nation.

Conclusion

Efforts to instigate racial division today may not be as overt as the flyers featuring George Benjamin, but we know that racial dog whistles are still at play across the South. When states gerrymander maps to dilute the voting strength of Black and brown residents or engage in voter suppression, or when wages are kept low in jobs held primarily by Black, brown, and immigrant workers, this is all done in the service of maintaining a racial hierarchy across the South.

Many Southerners may believe their politician’s arguments that the Southern economic development model will deliver good, well-paying jobs. However, the data presented here show clearly and emphatically that this model has failed those living in Southern states. This economic model has garnered vast amounts of riches for the wealthiest and most powerful people across the region but is leaving most Southerners with low wages, underfunded public services, a weak safety net in times of economic downturns, deep racial divisions, and high rates of poverty.

The failed Southern economic development model is still being used to maintain the color line across the South and to exploit and oppress Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, poor, and women residents. While these exploited groups face the greatest hurdles to social and economic security, all Southerners are harmed by this failed model.

Notes

{{1.}} In this report we follow the definition of the South used by the U.S. Census Bureau, which includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

{{2.}} Census-defined regions outside the South include the Midwest, the Northeast, and the West. The Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The West includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

{{3.}} States in other regions may draw on some components of the Southern economic development model, for example, lowering tax rates or implementing so-called right-to-work laws. States across the South, however, are much more likely to consistently implement all or almost all components of the model and to implement them to a greater degree.

{{4.}} See Cooper and Kroeger 2017 for descriptions of other forms of wage theft.

{{5.}} Texas v. Biden (S.D. Tx. 2022).

{{6.}} As of September 1, 2023, the sales tax on food in Alabama dropped from 4.0% to 3.0%. For more information, see Sell 2023.

{{7.}} North Carolina has adopted the expansion, but as of September 2023 it had not yet been implemented; implementation is dependent on the passage of the 2023–2024 budget. Virginia and Oklahoma adopted the Medicaid expansion in 2019 and 2021, respectively (KFF 2023).

{{8.}} ADC was changed to AFDC in 1962.

{{9.}} The Midwest states spending 10% or less are North Dakota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas. The Northeastern states are Connecticut and New Jersey. See this map (Azevedo-McCaffrey and Safawi, Figure 2).

{{10.}} For a graphic representation of change in the real value of TANF benefits, see this chart (Thompson, Azevedo-McCaffrey, and Carr 2023, Figure 2).

{{11.}} See also King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968).

{{12.}} See also King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968).

{{13.}} For more information on RTW, see Sherer and Gould 2023.

{{14.}} See BLS 2023 for union membership and union coverage rates for all states.

{{15.}} For simplicity, we refer to the District of Columbia as a state in this report.

{{16.}} EPI analysis of the 2017–2021 Current Population Survey Basic data. Data on the prime-age EPOP by race/ethnicity and gender in the South will be examined in more detail in a forthcoming report (Childers 2023a).

{{17.}} EPI analysis of American Community Survey Table B19082, “Shares of Income by Quintile,” from the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis of income distribution in the Southern states over time will be discussed in a forthcoming report (Childers 2023b).

References

AFL-CIO. 2014. “A Brief History of Labor, Race and Solidarity” (web page). American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

AFL-CIO. n.d. “A. Philip Randolph” (web page). American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

Akinyemiju, Tomi, Megha Jha, Justin Xavier Moore, and Maria Pisu. 2016. “Disparities in the Prevalence of Comorbidities Among US Adults by State Medicaid Expansion Status.” National Institute of Health.

Allegretto, Sylvia, and David Cooper. 2014. Twenty-Three Years and Still Waiting for Change: Why It’s Time to Give Tipped Workers the Regular Minimum Wage. Economic Policy Institute, July 2014.

American Civil Liberties Union and Global Human Rights Clinic (ACLU and GHRC). 2022. Captive Labor: Exploitation of Incarcerated Workers.

Arnesen, Eric. 2003. “Specter of the Black Strikebreaker: Race, Employment, and Labor Activism in the Industrial Era.” Labor History 44, no. 3: 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/002365603200012946.

Arsenault, Raymond. 1984. “The End of the Long Hot Summer: The Air Conditioner and Southern Culture.” Journal of Southern History 50, no. 4: 597–628.

Azevedo-McCaffrey, Diana, and Ali Safawi. 2022. To Promote Equity, States Should Invest More TANF Dollars in Basic Assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2022.

Ballotpedia. 2022. Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 1, Right-to-Work Amendment (2022).

Banerjee, Asha, Margaret Poydock, Celine McNicholas, Ihna Mangundayao, and Ali Sait. 2021. Unions Are Not Only Good for Workers, They’re Good for Communities and for Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, December 2021.

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

Bienkowski, Brian. 2016. “Toxic Coal Ash Hits Poor and Minority Communities Hardest.” Scientific American, January 14, 2016.

Bivens, Josh, and Asha Banerjee. 2021. How to Boost Unemployment Insurance as a Macroeconomic Stabilizer: Lessons from the 2020 Pandemic Programs. Economic Policy Institute, October 2021. 

Bivens, Josh, Melissa Boteach, Rachel Deutsch, Francisco Díez, Rebecca Dixon, Brian Galle, Alix Gould-Werth, Nicole Marquez, Lily Roberts, Heidi Shierholz, William Spriggs, and Andrew Stettner. 2021. “Primer: How the Unemployment Insurance System Operates.” In Reforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a System in Crisis and Laying the Foundation for Equity, a joint project of Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women’s Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June 2021.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Kyle K. Moore, and Margaret Poydock. 2023. Unions Promote Racial Equity. Economic Policy Institute, July 2023.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2023. “SAGDP9N Real GDP by State.”

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023. “Union Members—2022” (news release). January 19, 2023.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2022. Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Updated March 2022.

The Century Foundation. 2023. Unemployment Insurance Data Dashboard. Accessed July 2023.

Childers, Chandra. 2023a. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: A Closer Look at the “Southern Miracle.” Economic Policy Institute, forthcoming 2023.

Childers, Chandra. 2023b. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: Poverty, Inequality, and Mobility Across the South. Economic Policy Institute, forthcoming 2023.

Childers, Chandra. 2023c. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: The Racist Roots and Evolution of the Southern Economic Development Strategy. Economic Policy Institute, forthcoming 2023.

Childers, Chandra, Marokey Sawo, and Jaimie Worker. 2022. “State Policy Solutions for Good Home Health Care Jobs—Nearly Half Held by Black Women in the South—Should Address the Legacy of Racism, Sexism, and Xenophobia in the Workforce.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), August 15, 2022.

Cooper, David, and Teresa Kroeger. 2017. Employers Steal Billions from Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less Than the Minimum Wage, at Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies. Economic Policy Institute, May 2017.

Das, Kamolika. 2022a. Creating Racially and Economically Equitable Tax Policy in the South. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, June 2022.

Das, Kamolika. 2022b. Most States Used Surpluses to Reduce Taxes but Not in Sustainable or Progressive Ways. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, July 2022.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). n.d. “Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—Overview” (web page). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Dixon, Rebecca. 2021. From Excluded to Essential: Tracing the Racist Exclusion of Farmworkers, Domestic Workers, and Tipped Workers from the Fair Labor Standards Act. National Employment Law Project, May 2021.

Donaghy, Timothy Q., Noel Healy, Charles Y. Jiang, and Colette Pichon Battle. 2023. “Fossil Fuel Racism in the United States: How Phasing Out Coal, Oil, and Gas Can Protect Communities.” Energy Research and Social Science, vol. 100 (June 2023).

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2023. Minimum Wage Tracker. Last updated July 1, 2023.

Edwards, Kathryn A. 2020. “The Racial Disparity in Unemployment Benefits.” RAND Blog, July 15, 2020. 

Fleischman, Lesley, and Marcus Franklin. 2017. Fumes Across the Fence-Line: The Health Impacts of Air Pollution from Oil and Gas Facilities on African American Communities. NAACP and Clean Air Task Force, November 2017. 

Florida Policy Institute. 2022. “Enforcing the Minimum Wage: Statewide Wage Theft Threatens the Potential Gains of Amendment 2.”

Floyd, Ife, and LaDonna Pavetti. 2022. Improvements in TANF Cash Benefits Needed to Undo the Legacy of Historical Racism. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2022.

Floyd, Ife, LaDonna Pavetti, Laura Meyer, Ali Safawi, Liz Schott, Evelyn Bellew, and Abigail Magnus. 2021. TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance: Reimagined Program Should Center Black Mothers. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 2021.

Freeman, Richard, Eunice Han, David Madland, and Brendan V. Duke. 2015. “How Does Declining Unionism Affect the American Middle Class and Intergenerational Mobility?” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper no. 21638.

Frey, William H. 2023. “Table C. State Net International Migration, Natural Increase, and Net Domestic Migration, 2018–2019, 2019–2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–2022” (downloadable Excel file). In New Census Estimates Show a Tepid Rise in U.S. Population Growth, Buoyed by Immigration. Brookings, January 2023.

Frymer, Paul, and Jacob M. Grumbach. 2021. “Labor Unions and White Racial Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 65, no. 1: 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12537.

Glynn, Sarah Jane. 2019. Breadwinning Mothers Continue to Be the U.S. Norm. Center for American Progress, May 2019.

Good Jobs First. 2023a. Subsidy Tracker. Accessed June 2023.

Good Jobs First. 2023b. “Subsidy Tracker Individual Entry: Scout Motors.” Accessed June 2023. Data for 2023.

Good Jobs First. 2023c. “Subsidy Tracker Individual Entry: Steel Dynamics.” Accessed June 2023. Data for 2022.

Gordon, Linda, and Felice Batlan. 2011. “The Legal History of the Aid to Dependent Children Program.” Social Welfare History Project.

Griffith, Barbara S. 1988. The Crisis of American Labor: Operation Dixie and the Defeat of the CIO. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Haney López, Ian. 2014. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harris, Cheryl I. 1993. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8: 1707–1791.

Hill, Herbert. 1959. “Labor Unions and the Negro: The Record of Discrimination.” Commentary, December 1959.

Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). 2023. Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map. October 2023.

Mangundayao, Ihna, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Ali Sait. 2021. More Than $3 Billion in Stolen Wages Recovered for Workers Between 2017 and 2020. Economic Policy Institute, December 2021.

McGhee, Heather. 2021. The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together. New York: One World.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2021. The Enormous Impact of Eroded Collective Bargaining on Wages. Economic Policy Institute, April 2021.

Mishel, Lawrence, Lynn Rhinehart, and Lane Windham. 2020. Explaining the Erosion of Private-Sector Unions: How Corporate Practices and Legal Changes Have Undercut the Ability of Workers to Organize and Bargain. Economic Policy Institute, November 2020.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2023. Right-to-Work Resources.

O’Connor, Michael. 1969. “Welfare Law—Aid to Dependent Children and the Substitute Parent Regulation—The State Loses a Scapegoat, the ‘Man-in-the-House.’” DePaul Law Review 18, no. 2: 897–906.

One Fair Wage, Food Labor Research Center at University of California, Berkeley, and National Black Workers’ Center Project. 2021. Ending a Legacy of Slavery: How Biden’s COVID Relief Plan Cures the Racist Subminimum Wage. February 2021.

Perea, Juan F. 2011. “The Echoes of Slavery: Recognizing the Racist Origins of the Agricultural and Domestic Worker Exclusion from the National Labor Relations Act.” Loyola University Chicago, School of Law.

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

Robertson, Cassandra, Marokey Sawo, and David Cooper. 2022. All States Must Set Higher Wage Benchmarks for Home Health Care Workers. Economic Policy Institute, June 2022.

Sawo, Marokey, and Asha Banerjee. 2021. “The Racist Campaign Against ‘Critical Race Theory’ Threatens Democracy and Economic Transformation.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), August 9, 2021.

Schweitzer, Justin. 2021. Ending the Tipped Minimum Wage Will Reduce Poverty and Inequality. Center for American Progress, March 2021.

Sell, Mary. 2023. “Grocery Sales Tax Cut Kicks in on Friday.” Alabama Daily News, August 31, 2023.

Sherer, Jennifer, and Elise Gould. 2023. “Why ‘Right-to-Work’ Was Always Wrong for Michigan: Restoring Workers’ Rights Is Key to Reversing Growing Income Inequality in Michigan.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 13, 2023.

Shrivastava, Aditi, and Gina Azito Thompson. 2022. Cash Assistance Should Reach Millions More Families to Lessen Hardship: Access to TANF Hits Lowest Point Amid Precarious Economic Conditions. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 2022. 

Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). 2019. “NC Settlement Results in Largest Coal Ash Cleanup in America: Community Groups, N.C. DEQ and Duke Energy Reach Settlement to Clean Up Coal Ash at Six North Carolina Sites” (press release). December 31, 2019.

Tax Policy Center. 2023. State Sales Tax Rates. Rates as of January 1, 2023.

Terrell, Kimberly A., and Gianna St. Julien. 2022. “Air Pollution Is Linked to Higher Cancer Rates Among Black or Impoverished Communities in Louisiana.” Environmental Research Letters 17.

Terrell, Kimberly A., and Gianna St. Julien. 2023. “Discriminatory Outcomes of Industrial Air Permitting in Louisiana, United States.” Environmental Challenges, vol. 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100672.

Thompson, Gina Azito, Diana Azevedo-McCaffrey, and Da’Shon Carr. 2023. Increases in TANF Cash Benefit Levels Are Critical to Help Families Meeting Rising Costs. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 2023.

Traub, Amy, and Kim Diehl. 2022. Reforming Unemployment Insurance Is a Racial Justice Imperative. National Employment Law Project, February 2022.

Tye, Larry. 2005. Rising from the Rails: Pullman Porters and the Making of the Black Middle Class. New York: Henry Holt.

Waldman, Peter. 2017. “Inside Alabama’s Auto Jobs Boom: Cheap Wages, Little Training, Crushed Limbs: The South’s Manufacturing Renaissance Comes with a Heavy Price.” Bloomberg, March 23, 2017.

Wiehe, Meg, Aidan Davis, Carl Davis, Matt Gardner, Lisa Christensen Gee, and Dylan Grundman. 2018. Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, October 2018.

Williamson, Vanessa. 2021. “The Austerity Politics of White Supremacy.” Dissent, Winter 2021.

Young, Caitlin. 2023. “What Policymakers Need to Know About Racism in the Property Tax System.” Urban Institute, March 15, 2023.

Though much work remains to be done to enact a progressive economic agenda, this midterm election showed clear signs of support for a policy agenda that prioritizes economic, racial, and gender justice for working families.

Minimum wage

Nebraska: Voters approved Initiative 433, which will increase the state’s minimum wage to $15 by 2026.

Nevada: Voters approved Question 2, which will increase the state’s minimum wage to $12 in July 2024. The measure also removed a provision that allows employers to pay workers $1 less if they offer health insurance.

Tipped minimum wage

Voters in Washington, D.C. and Portland, Maine considered ballot measure to eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers. The tipped minimum wage system, which allows employers to pay workers well below the minimum wage, is a legacy of slavery and disproportionately harms workers of color and women. Over 3 million tipped workers nationwide are paid below their state’s minimum wage for as little as $2.13 an hour. Meanwhile, workers in states with one fair wage have higher take-home pay and are less likely to live in poverty than workers in states that pay tipped workers the federal minimum of $2.13.

Washington, D.C.: Voters approved Initiative 82, eliminating the subminimum wage and raising the wage floor for tipped workers from $5.35 to $16.10 by 2027. A similar initiative was passed in 2018 but was overturned by the D.C. City Council and Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Portland, Maine: Voters rejected Question D, which would have raised the overall minimum wage to $18 by 2025 and eliminated the subminimum wage for tipped work. The measure would have also classified app-based workers as employees and established a Department of Fair Labor Practices to investigate and enforce labor standards at the city level. The Maine Center for Economic Policy, a partner of EPI’s Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN), estimates that over a third of Maine workers would have earned higher wages as a result of the change. An increased minimum wage would have primarily benefited women and workers of color in the state.

Workers’ rights

New York: Voters approved the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Bond Act of 2022, which establishes prevailing wage standards on construction projects. The bill also allows the state and municipalities to require contractors to execute labor peace agreements and buy American for structural iron and steel.

Illinois: Voters approved Amendment 1, which will prevent lawmakers from passing so-called “right-to-work” laws and give workers a constitutional right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions.

However, in Tennessee, so-called “right-to-work” was further entrenched at the ballot box. Voters approved Amendment 1, enshrining “right-to-work” in the state’s constitution and making efforts to repeal the law much more difficult. EPI research has shown that states with so-called “right-to-work” laws, which are designed to weaken unions financially, have lower wages for both unionized and nonunionized workers than states without such laws.

Free school meals

Colorado: Voters approved Proposition FF to provide free meals for all public school students in the state. The measure, which will also fund pay increases for school cafeteria workers, will be funded by limiting state income tax deductions by households earning more than $300,000 annually. Colorado Fiscal Institute, an EARN partner, called the initiative a “fair, equitable” measure that “will boost the physical and economic health of our communities.”

Tax fairness

Massachusetts: Voters approved Question 1, an amendment to the state’s constitution that will increase taxes on the state’s richest residents. The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, an EARN partner, estimates that the tax will generate at least $2 billion a year for investments in public education and affordable transportation.

Health Care

Medicaid Expansion

South Dakota: Voters approved Constitutional Amendment D, which will require the state to provide Medicaid benefits to adults between 18 and 65 with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level. Though the Affordable Care Act offered to pay 90% of states’ costs to expand Medicaid eligibility, 12 states have yet to expand eligibility. As a result, over 3.5 million people—mostly people of color—lack affordable health care coverage. South Dakota is the seventh state to expand Medicaid through the ballot initiative process. An additional 45,000 South Dakotans will qualify for Medicaid under the expanded program, 14,000 of whom are American Indian.

Abortion

Voters in Kentucky rejected an amendment that would eliminate residents’ right to reproductive freedom and prohibit the use of public funds for abortion. The right to an abortion is a matter of economic security, independence, and mobility for millions of women across the country. People who are denied abortion access are more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed, and face other adverse economic outcomes. Kentucky currently has an abortion plan in place, but the state Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the ban this week. 

California, Michigan, and Vermont voters approved amendments that enshrine reproductive rights, including the rights to contraception and abortion, into the state constitution.

Criminal justice

Constitutional amendments to abolish slavery

Voters in Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Alabama approved measures that remove language in their state constitutions permitting slavery or involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Louisiana voters rejected a measure to remove language permitting slavery from the constitution after the amendment’s sponsor expressed concerns that the measure’s confusing wording could inadvertently erode protections against slavery. Louisiana voters will consider a revised measure in 2023.

Many state constitutions retain language similar to the 13^th Amendment to the U.S Constitution, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. The Abolish Slavery National Network—which is organizing the effort across the country—and other civil rights advocates argue that extremely low-paid (or, in some cases, unpaid) forced work in American prisons amounts to modern slavery. Incarcerated workers are not only exempt from minimum wage laws but are also denied overtime protection, workplace safety guarantees, and the right to unionize. Supporters see these slavery abolition amendments as an initial step in disrupting the power dynamic between incarcerated workers and prison staff and establishing basic rights for the incarcerated workforce.

Cannabis legalization

Marijuana is now legal to use recreationally in 21 states, Washington, D.C., and Guam. As legalization efforts gain momentum in states across the country, it is critical that lawmakers protect cannabis workers’ collective bargaining rights to ensure that this emerging industry provides safe, good-paying, and community-sustaining jobs.

Maryland: Voters approved Question 4, which permits residents to possess, smoke, and grow marijuana (within limits) and allows the General Assembly to tax the sale of marijuana. Companion legislation to the amendment proposes an expungement process for past marijuana convictions and an assistance fund for small, BIPOC-owned, or woman-owned businesses. Maryland Center on Economic Policy, an EARN partner, estimated that decriminalization would save the state tens of millions of dollars on enforcement costs and that taxing the sale of marijuana would generate hundreds of millions in revenue for the state.

Missouri: Voters approved Amendment 3, which legalizes recreational marijuana and will automatically expunge the records of individuals who were convicted of non-violent marijuana offenses and are not currently incarcerated. Currently incarcerated individuals can petition for release from incarceration, probation, or parole. State advocacy groups estimate that record expungement will impact thousands of Missourians whose marijuana offense convictions limited access to employment, housing, and the social safety net.

Meanwhile, Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota voters rejected marijuana legalization.

Affordable housing

Voters in several states and localities approved measures to fund the construction of affordable housing. As the housing shortage grows and housing becomes increasingly unaffordable, particularly for communities of color and low- to moderate-income families, affordable housing construction has become an especially urgent priority. In Kansas City, voters approved Question 2, which allows the city to spend $50 million over five years to build affordable housing units for low-income residents.

Colorado voters approved the only state-wide affordable housing measure on the ballot this November. Proposition 123 will direct $300 million of the state’s taxable income to help essential workers like teachers and nurses buy homes, as well as help local governments increase housing supply. According to Colorado Fiscal Institute, an EARN partner, minimum wage workers in Colorado would need to work 75 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom apartment.

Los Angeles voters approved Measure LH, which grants the city authority to develop 75,000 units of affordable housing for seniors, unhoused, and low-income residents. Measure ULA, which will raise $1 billion per year for affordable housing and homelessness efforts in the city by taxing property sales over $5 million, also appeared likely to pass as of this writing.

And Austin voters approved Proposition A, the city’s largest ever affordable housing bond. The $350 million bond will be used to build and preserve affordable housing for Austin residents with annual incomes below $61,800.

When given the opportunity, millions of voters across the country showed their support for policies that will strengthen workers’ rights, reproductive justice, and racial equity. Lawmakers at every level of government should take note.