Trump's Overtime Pay Cut Tracker

The Trump administration has abandoned the Department of Labor's overtime pay regulations. It's going to cost workers $1.2 billion per year.

In 2016, the Department of Labor strengthened a regulation requiring employers to pay workers overtime when they work more than 40 hours a week. The regulation hadn't been adequately updated in over 40 years—and in that time, it had eroded to a cover only a fraction of the people it was designed to protect.

The DOL's overdue attempt to restore lost pay to America’s workers was blocked in the courts by business interests, and on October 31, 2017, the Trump administration made clear in legal proceedings that it would not defend the rule.

The result will be over a billion dollars in lost wages each year, and 12.5 million workers left with weakened protections—or none at all. Here are the numbers.

What workers will lose each year without updated overtime regulations

  • Wages lost since the rule was abandoned 10/31/17
    $1,200,000,000
  • Wages lost per month
  • Wages lost per week
  • Wages lost per day

Methodology

The $1.2 billion annual increase in wages resulting from the 2016 overtime pay rule was estimated by the Department of Labor in the economic impact study that accompanied the rule. The estimate is from a model based on empirical research on how businesses respond to overtime pay regulations. A summary of the economic impact study can be found here.

The state breakdown of that national figure is based on an EPI analysis of the weekly earnings and overtime hours of workers directly affected by the overtime rule in each state and the District of Columbia using Current Population Source (CPS) Outgoing Rotation Group data for 2015 and 2016. As with the federal government's analysis of the overtime rule, this analysis does not take into account higher overtime thresholds at the state level.

How would repealing the Affordable Care Act affect health care and jobs in your state?

Across the country, 29.8 million people would lose their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act were repealed—more than doubling the number of people without health insurance. And 1.2 million jobs would be lost—not just in health care but across the board.

Losing health insurance

How many people would lose their health insurance if the ACA were repealed?

State Percent increase in uninsured population Number of people who would lose health insurance
Alaska 53% 62000
Arizona 95% 709000
Arkansas 171% 361000
California 146% 4887000
Colorado 134% 588000
Connecticut 124% 248000
Delaware 86% 52000
Washington D.C. 103% 32000
Hawaii 99% 86000
Illinois 128% 1150000
Indiana 103% 566000
Iowa 150% 230000
Kentucky 200% 486000
Louisiana 154% 558000
Maryland 123% 476000
Massachusetts 273% 369000
Michigan 175% 887000
Minnesota 123% 380000
Montana 168% 142000
Nevada 95% 371000
New Hampshire 190% 118000
New Jersey 124% 799000
New Mexico 136% 266000
New York 75% 1139000
North Dakota 154% 69000
Ohio 155% 964000
Oregon 186% 475000
Pennsylvania 134% 956000
Rhode Island 170% 96000
Vermont 129% 35000
Washington 153% 775000
West Virginia 208% 184000
Alabama 74% 357000
Florida 90% 2230000
Georgia 71% 1006000
Idaho 101% 184000
Kansas 76% 219000
Maine 122% 95000
Mississippi 65% 229000
Missouri 93% 504000
Nebraska 111% 165000
North Carolina 90% 1025000
Oklahoma 59% 313000
South Carolina 58% 353000
South Dakota 92% 74000
Tennessee 79% 526000
Texas 58% 2550000
Utah 83% 273000
Virginia 79% 685000
Wisconsin 144% 431000
Wyoming 76% 47000

Map is colored to illustrate relative impact by showing the percent increase in the number of uninsured.

Losing jobs

Losing health insurance would also be devastating for family finances and hurt the economy. By helping pick up the tab for individual insurance and expanding coverage on Medicaid, the ACA has helped millions of Americans afford their care. If this support were withdrawn, people would have less money to spend on other basic necessities like food and rent. Fewer dollars spent at grocery stores and other businesses means 1.2 million jobs would be lost.

How many jobs would be lost if the ACA were repealed?

State Drop in overall state employment Number of jobs lost Jobs lost per 1,000 jobs in the state Billions of federal health care dollars lost
Alabama 0.58% 11,459 5.8 1.349
Alaska 0.81% 2,702 8.1 0.278
Arizona 1.55% 41,982 15.5 3.447
Arkansas 0.79% 9,737 7.9 0.823
California 0.85% 141,676 8.5 13.588
Colorado 1.34% 35,217 13.4 2.731
Connecticut 0.76% 12,836 7.6 1.257
Delaware 0.76% 3,497 7.6 0.303
Washington D.C. 0.19% 1,466 1.9 0.146
Florida 0.76% 64,629 7.6 7.63
Georgia 0.57% 25,090 5.7 2.764
Hawaii 0.66% 4,299 6.6 0.354
Idaho 0.76% 5,310 7.6 0.54
Illinois 0.78% 47,060 7.8 4.197
Indiana 0.59% 18,111 5.9 1.609
Iowa 0.43% 6,753 4.3 0.626
Kansas 0.30% 4,148 3 0.532
Kentucky 2.92% 55,949 29.2 4.093
Louisiana 1.42% 28,063 14.2 2.226
Maine 0.56% 3,435 5.6 0.429
Maryland 1.01% 27,398 10.1 2.293
Massachusetts 0.55% 19,640 5.5 1.904
Michigan 0.89% 38,720 8.9 3.264
Minnesota 0.55% 15,806 5.5 1.358
Mississippi 0.67% 7,684 6.7 0.788
Missouri 0.50% 14,077 5 1.616
Montana 2.27% 10,599 22.7 0.807
Nebraska 0.27% 2,788 2.7 0.409
Nevada 1.25% 16,332 12.5 1.34
New Hampshire 0.71% 4,801 7.1 0.415
New Jersey 1.51% 61,544 15.1 4.97
New Mexico 3.86% 31,853 38.6 2.294
New York 0.56% 52,203 5.6 4.857
North Carolina 1.12% 48,925 11.2 5.056
North Dakota 0.56% 2,460 5.6 0.223
Ohio 0.91% 50,343 9.1 4.033
Oklahoma 0.38% 6,354 3.8 0.823
Oregon 2.28% 42,348 22.8 3.173
Pennsylvania 0.53% 31,387 5.3 3.078
Rhode Island 1.63% 8,036 16.3 0.616
South Carolina 0.37% 7,693 3.7 1.039
South Dakota 0.19% 825 1.9 0.126
Tennessee 0.80% 23,877 8 2.226
Texas 0.33% 40,550 3.3 5.366
Utah 0.22% 3,104 2.2 0.404
Vermont 0.95% 2,991 9.5 0.263
Virginia 0.26% 10,243 2.6 1.578
Washington 1.36% 44,654 13.6 3.525
West Virginia 2.00% 15,412 20 1.175
Wisconsin 0.28% 8,290 2.8 1.133
Wyoming 0.42% 1,168 4.2 0.162

Map is colored to illustrate relative impact by showing job loss as a share of total state employment.

Source: Spending cut and coverage loss numbers are from Linda Blumberg, Matthew Buettgens, and John Holahan, Implications of Partial Repeal of the ACA through Reconciliation, Urban Institute, 2016. The job loss analysis is from Josh Bivens, Repealing the Affordable Health Care Act would cost jobs in every state, Economic Policy Institute, 2017.

Economic Policy Institute

Gender pay gap calculator

What could you be making?

The gender wage gap has lowered pay for working women, and growing inequality affects nearly everyone who works.

Enter your information to find out how much you could be paid in a more equal economy.

[Or, convert your hourly pay]

How much does gender affect your pay?

Minimum Wage Tracker

The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. In the absence of action at the national level, many states and localities have raised their own minimum wages. Explore the map to see how these rapidly changing laws differ across the country, and read EPI’s recent research explaining the benefits of raising the minimum wage and eliminating the subminimum wage for tipped workersAs of January 2, 2018

[state] State [locality] Locality [min_wage] Minimum wage* [min_wage last_inc] Most recent increase [min_wage up_inc] Upcoming increases [min_wage indexing] Indexing [min_wage last_change] Most recent major change to minimum-wage law [min_wage notes] Notes [tip_wage] Subminimum wage for tipped workers / Tipped wage* [tip_wage last_inc] Most recent increase [tip_wage up_inc] Upcoming increases [tip_wage last_change] Most recent major change to tipped-wage law [tip_wage notes] Notes
Alabama
Alabama Birmingham $7.25 $8.50, effective 7-1-2016* / $10.10, effective 7-1-2017 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2018 Annual increases based on “the increase, if any, in the cost of living.” Birmingham enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. * The Alabama state legislature passed a law in March 2016, shortly before the ordinance was to go into effect, preempting local governments from adopting minimum wages above the state’s minimum wage. $4.25, effective 7-1-2016* / $5.05, effective 7-1-2017 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2018 Birmingham enacted its own tipped wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. * The Alabama state legislature passed a law in March 2016, shortly before the ordinance was to go into effect, preempting local governments from adopting minimum wages above the state’s minimum wage. The city ordinance sets a tipped minimum wage at 50 percent of the city’s regular minimum wage.
 Alaska $9.84 $9.80 to $9.84, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-U for Anchorage metropolitan area. 2014, by ballot measure $9.84 $9.80 to $9.84, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 2014, by ballot measure Same as regular minimum wage.
 Arizona $10.50 $10.00 to $10.50, effective 1-1-2018 $11.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $12.00, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 Annual increases based on the percentage change (August-to-August) in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 2016, by ballot measure $7.50 $7.00 to $7.50, effective 1-1-2017 $8.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $9.00, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 2016, by ballot measure Set at $3.00 per hour less than the regular minimum wage.
Arizona Flagstaff $11.00 $10.50 to $11.00, effective 1-1-2018 $12.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $13.00, effective 1-1-2020 / $15.00, effective 1-1-2021 / $15.50, effective 1-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2023 Annual increases based on the percentage change (August-to-August) in the CPI-U, U.S. city average, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 2016, by ballot measure Flagstaff enacted its own minimum wage by ballot measure in 2016. $8.00 $7.50 to $8.00, effective 1-1-2018 $9.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $10.00, effective 1-1-2020 / $12.00, effective 1-1-2021 /$13.00, effective 1-1-2022 / $2.00 less than the regular minimum, effective 1-1-2023 / $1.50 less than the regular minimum, effective 1-1-2024 / $1.00 less than the regular minimum, effective 1-1-2025 / same as regular minimum wage, effective 1-1-2026 2016, by ballot measure The Flagstaff tipped minimum wage will be gradually raised over a 10-year period until it is equal to the regular minimum wage in 2026. At that point, tipped employees will receive the regular minimum wage before tips.
 Arkansas $8.50 $8.00 to $8.50, effective 1-1-2017 2014, by ballot measure $2.63
 California $11.00 $10.50 to $11.00, effective 1-1-2018 $12.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $13.00, effective 1-1-2020 / $14.00, effective 1-1-2021 / $15.00, effective 1-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2023 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-U, rounded to the nearest 10 cents, beginning 1-1-2023. 2016, by legislation The law provides the governor with the ability to temporarily pause the raises in the case of a forecast budget deficit of more than 1 percent of annual revenue, or due to an economic downturn. Inflation indexing cannot go beyond 3.5 percent in any given year. Small businesses (those with 25 or fewer employees) will have an extra year to comply. $11.00 $10.50 to $11.00, effective 1-1-2018 $12.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $13.00, effective 1-1-2020 / $14.00, effective 1-1-2021 / $15.00, effective 1-1-2022 2016, by legislation Same as regular minimum wage.
 California Berkeley $13.75 $12.53 to $13.75, effective 10-1-2017 $15.00, effective 10-1-2018 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. The Berkeley City Council revised its minimum wage ordinance in 2016. Employees in the Employer Youth Works and job training participants up to 25 years of age may be paid a minium wage of $12.00 as of 10-1-2017, $13.25 as of 10-1-2018, and $14.50 as of 7-1-2019. As of 7-1-2020, these employees must be paid the regular minimum wage. $13.75 $12.53 to $13.75, effective 10-1-2017 $15.00, effective 10-1-2018 The Berkeley City Council revised its minimum wage ordinance in 2016. Same as regular minimum wage.
 California Cupertino $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. Cupertino enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. The law provides the city council with the ability to temporarily pause the raises in the event of significant reductions in statewide employment or state retail and use tax receipts. $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Cupertino enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance Same as regular minimum wage.
California El Cerrito $13.60 $12.25 to $13.60, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area. El Cerrito enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. $13.60 $12.25 to $13.60, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 El Cerrito enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
 California Emeryville $15.20 $14.82 to $15.20, effective 7-1-2017 For larger businesses: Annual indexing, effective 7-1-2017 / For smaller businesses: $14.00, effective 7-1-2017; $15.00, effective 7-1-2018; equivalent to larger business minimum, effective 7-1-2019 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area. Emeryville enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. A lower minimum wage of $13.00 applies for businesses with 55 or fewer employees. This small business minimum wage will be increased on a separate schedule from the larger business minimum wage, until July 1, 2019, when the larger business minimum wage will apply to all businesses. $15.20 $14.82 to $15.20, effective 7-1-2017 For larger businesses: Annual indexing 7-1-2017. / For smaller businesses: $14.00, effective 7-1-2017; $15.00, effective 7-1-2018; equivalent to larger business minimum effective 7-1-2019 Emeryville enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. For larger businesses, the Emeryville tipped minimum wage is the same as the regular minimum wage. For smaller businesses (fewer than 56 employees), the tipped minimum wage is currently $13.00 per hour, with increases scheduled that will gradually bring it to parity with the regular minimum wage.
California Los Altos $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. Los Altos enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. The law provides the city council with the ability to temporarily pause the raises in the event of significant reductions in statewide employment or state retail and use tax receipts. $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Los Altos enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Los Angeles $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-W for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, beginning July 1, 2022. Los Angeles enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. The minimum wage as listed applies to businesses with 26 or more employees. Businesses with fewer than 26 employees are subject to the listed minimum wage one year after the date effective for larger businesses. $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Los Angeles enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Los Angeles County $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-W for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, beginning July 1, 2022. Los Angeles County enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by county ordinance. The minimum wage as listed applies to businesses with 26 or more employees. Businesses with fewer than 26 employees are subject to the listed minimum wage one year after the date effective for larger businesses. $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Los Angeles County enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by county ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Malibu $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-W for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County metropolitan area, beginning July 1, 2022. Malibu enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by county ordinance. The minimum wage as listed applies to businesses with 26 or more employees. Businesses with fewer than 26 employees are subject to the listed minimum wage one year after the date effective for larger businesses. $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Malibu enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by county ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Milpitas $12.00 $11.00 to $12.00, effective 1-1-2018 $13.50, effective 7-1-2018 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2020 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. Milpitas enacted its own minimum wage in 2017 by city council ordinance. The minimum wage applies to adult and minor employees who work 2 or more hours per week. $12.00 $11.00 to $12.00, effective 1-1-2018 $13.50, effective 7-1-2018 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2020 Milpitas enacted its own minimum wage in 2017 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
 California Mountain View $15.00 $13.00 to $15.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, beginning January 1, 2019. Mountain View updated its minimum wage law on November 10, 2015, by city council ordinance. $15.00 $13.00 to $15.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Mountain View updated its minimum wage law on November 10, 2015, by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
 California Oakland $13.23 $12.86 to $13.23, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area. Oakland enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by ballot measure. $13.23 $12.86 to $13.23, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Oakland enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by ballot measure. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Palo Alto $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. Palo Alto updated its minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Palo Alto updated its minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Pasadena $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019* / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020* / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-W for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County metropolitan area, beginning July 1, 2022. Pasadena enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by county ordinance. The minimum wage as listed applies to businesses with 26 or more employees. Businesses with fewer than 26 employees are subject to the listed minimum wage one year after the date effective for larger businesses. Nonprofit employers with 26 or more employees may also qualify for a one-year deferral of the higher minimum wage requirements. *The 2019 and 2020 scheduled increases must be authorized by the city council following a review of the economic impact of the 2016-2018 increases. $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Pasadena enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by county ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
 California Richmond $13.00 $12.30 to $13.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, beginning January 1, 2019. Richmond enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by city council ordinance. Employers who pay at least $1.50 per hour toward an employee medical benefits plan may pay $1.50 less than the applicable minimum wage. $13.00 $12.30 to $13.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Richmond enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California San Diego $11.50 $10.50 to $11.50, effective 1-1-2017 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. San Diego enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. The city’s minimum wage is likely to be superceded by the state minimum wage in 2019, when the state minimum wage is scheduled to rise to $12.00. $11.50 $10.50 to $11.50, effective 1-1-2017 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 San Diego enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
 California San Francisco $14.00 $13.00 to $14.00, effective 7-1-2017 $15.00, effective 7-1-2018 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Annual increases based on the calendar year percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, beginning January 1, 2019. 2014, by ballot measure $14.00 $13.00 to $14.00, effective 7-1-2017 $15.00, effective 7-1-2018 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 2014, by ballot measure Same as regular minimum wage.
California San Jose $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 2016, by city council ordinance The law provides the city manager with the ability to temporarily pause the raises in the event of significant declines in state sales tax revenue and employment, with specific requirements outlined in the ordinance. Inflation indexing cannot go beyond 5 percent in any given year. $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 2016, by city council ordinance Same as regular minimum wage.
California San Leandro $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.00, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.00, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 2016, by city council ordinance Employees up to 25 years of age who are employed by a nonprofit or government entity for after-school or summer employment are not subject to the minimum wage. $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.00, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.00, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 2016, by city council ordinance Employees up to 25 years of age who are employed by a nonprofit or government entity for after-school or summer employment are not subject to the minimum wage.
California San Mateo $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, beginning January 1, 2020. San Mateo enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. The city’s ordinance sets a slower increase schedule for nonprofit organizations, with increases to $10.50 on January 1, 2017, $12.00 on January 1, 2018, and $13.50 on January 1, 2019. The same annual indexing will be applied beginning January 1, 2020. $13.50 $12.00 to $13.50, effective 1-1-2018 $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 San Mateo enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Santa Clara $13.00 $11.10 to $13.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. Santa Clara updated its minimum wage in 2017 by city council ordinance. $13.00 $11.10 to $13.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Santa Clara updated its minimum wage in 2017 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
California Santa Monica $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-W for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, beginning July 1, 2022. Santa Monica enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. Santa Monica’s minimum wage schedule applies to businesses with at least 26 employees. Smaller businesses will be subject to the same minimum-wage rates and raise schedule delayed by one year (i.e., an increase to $10.15 in July 2017 and reaching $15 in July 2021.) $12.00 $10.50 to $12.00, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 Santa Monica enacted its own minimum wage in 2016 by city council ordinance. Same as regular minimum wage.
 California Sunnyvale $15.00 $13.00 to $15.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. The Sunnyvale City Council updated its minimum wage ordinance in 2016. $15.00 $13.00 to $15.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 The Sunnyvale City Council updated its minimum wage ordinance in 2016. Same as regular minimum wage.
 Colorado $10.20 $9.30 to $10.20, effective 1-1-2018 $11.10, effective 1-1-2019 / $12.00, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 Annual increases based on the first-half-of-the-year to first-half-of-the-year percentage change in the CPI-U for the Boulder-Denver region, beginning 1-1-2021. 2016, by constitutional amendment $7.18 $6.28 to $7.18, effective 1-1-2018 $8.08, effective 1-1-2019 / $8.98, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 2016, by constitutional amendment Colorado’s tipped minimum wage is set at $3.02 less than the regular minimum wage.
 Connecticut $10.10 $9.60 to $10.10, effective 1-1-2017 2014, by legislation $6.38 $6.07 to $6.38, effective 1-1-2018 2014, by legislation Hotel workers and restaurant waitstaff are subject to a tipped minimum wage equal to 63.2 percent of the regular minimum wage. Bartenders have a separate minimum wage equal to 81.5 percent of the regular minimum wage. Thus, the tipped minimum wage for bartenders is $8.23.
 Delaware $8.25 $7.75 to $8.25, effective 6-1-2015 2014, by legislation $2.23 $2.23, effective 10-1-1996
Washington D.C. $12.50 $11.50 to $12.50, effective 7-1-2017 $13.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $14.00, effective 7-1-2019 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2021 Annual increases based on the 12-month percentage change in the CPI-U for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, rounded to the nearest 5 cents, beginning 7-1-2021. 2016, by city council ordinance The D.C. ordinance specifies that in the event the federal minimum wage is increased above the specified District minimum wage, the District minimum wage will equal $1 more than the federal minimum wage. The ordinance also specifies that the mayor must report biannually on employers’ compliance with the minimum wage, describing the volume of audits and inspections, compliance rates, and any actions taken to remedy infractions. $3.33 $2.77 to $3.33, effective 7-1-2017 $3.89, effective 7-1-2018 / $4.45, effective 7-1-2019 / $5.00, effective 7-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2021 2016, by city council ordinance The D.C. ordinance specifies that the mayor must report biannually on employers’ compliance with the minimum wage, describing the volume of audits and inspections, compliance rates, and any actions taken to remedy infractions.
 Florida $8.25 $8.10 to $8.25, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the annual percentage change in the CPI-W for the South census region. 2004, by ballot measure $5.23 $5.08 to $5.23, effective 1-1-2018 The tipped minimum wage is set at the regular minimum wage minus a fixed tip credit of $3.02.
 Georgia $5.15 $5.15, effective 1-1-2001 2001 Employees covered under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are subject to the federal minimum wage of $7.25, but those not covered under the FLSA may be paid the state minimum wage of $5.15. Georgia exempts tipped employees from its minimum-wage law.
 Hawaii $10.10 $9.25 to $10.10, effective 1-1-2018 2014, by legislation Employees guaranteed a monthly compensation of $2,000 or more are exempt from the state minimum wage law. $10.10 $9.25 to $10.10, effective 1-1-2018 2014, by legislation Generally the tipped minimum wage is the same as the regular minimum wage. Employers may pay $0.50 below the regular minimum wage if an employee’s combined base wage plus tips exceeds $7.00 per hour more than the regular minimum wage.
 Idaho $7.25 2007, by legislation Idaho’s minimum wage is set equal to the federal minimum wage by statute. $3.35
 Illinois $8.25 $8.00 to $8.25, effective 7-1-2010 2009, by legislation $4.95 $4.95, effective 7-1-2010 Illinois’s tipped minimum wage is set at 60 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 Illinois Chicago $11.00 $10.50 to $11.00, effective 7-1-2017 $12.00, effective 7-1-2018 / $13.00, effective 7-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2020 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-U beginning July 1, 2020, capped at 2.5 percent, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. Chicago enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by city council ordinance. The minimum wage will not increase when Chicago’s unemployment rate is greater than 8.5 percent for the preceding year. $6.10 $5.95 to $6.10, effective 7-1-2017 Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2017 2014, by city council ordinance Beginning July 1, 2020, Chicago’s tipped minimum wage will be increased by the percentage change in the CPI-U, capped at 2.5 percent, and rounded to the nearest 5 cents. No increase will take effect if the unemployment rate in Chicago is greater than 8.5 percent for the preceding year.
 Illinois Cook County $10.00 $8.25 to $10.00, effective 7-1-2017 $11.00, effective 7-1-2018 / $12.00, effective 7-1-2019 / $13.00, effective 7-1-2020 /  Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2021 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-U beginning July 1, 2021, capped at 2.5 percent, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. Cook County enacted its own minimum wage ordinance in 2016. The minimum wage will not increase when Cook County’s unemployment rate is greater than 8.5 percent for the preceding year. $4.95 $4.95, effective 7-1-2010 Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2018 2016, by county ordinance
 Indiana $7.25 Indiana’s minimum wage is set equal to the federal minimum wage by statute. $2.13 Indiana’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the federal tipped minimum wage by statute.
 Iowa $7.25 $7.25, effective 1-1-2008 Iowa’s minimum wage is set at the higher of $7.25 or the current federal minimum wage. $4.35 $4.35, effective 1-1-2008 Iowa’s tipped minimum wage is set at 60 percent of the regular minimum wage.
Iowa Johnson County $7.25 $9.15 to $10.10, effective 1-1-2017* Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2018* Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-U for the Midwest region for the preceding calendar year. 2015, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Johnson County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. This lowered the effective minimum wage in Johnson County from $10.10 down to $7.25. $4.35 $5.49 to $6.06, effective 1-1-2017* Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2018* 2015, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Johnson County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing any minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. This lowered the effective tipped minimum wage in Johnson County from $6.06 down to $4.35.
Iowa Linn County $7.25 $7.25 to $8.25, effective 1-1-2017* $9.25, effective 1-1-2018* / $10.25, effective 1-1-2019 2016, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Linn County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. This lowered the effective minimum wage in Linn County from $8.25 down to $7.25. $4.35 $4.35 to $4.95, effective 1-1-2017* $5.55, effective 1-1-2018* / $6.15, effective 1-1-2019 2016, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Linn County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing any minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. This lowered the effective tipped minimum wage in Linn County from $4.95 down to $4.35.
Iowa Polk County $7.25 $8.75, effective 4-1-2017* / $9.75, effective 1-1-2018 / $10.75, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-U, beginning January 1, 2020. 2016, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Polk County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. $4.35 $5.00, effective 4-1-2017* 2016, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Polk County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing any minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage.
Iowa Wapello County $7.25 $7.25 to $8.20, effective 1-1-2017* $9.15, effective 1-1-2018* / $10.10, effective 1-1-2019 2016, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Wapello County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. This lowered the effective minimum wage in Wapello County from $8.25 down to $7.25. $4.35 $4.35 to $4.92, effective 1-1-2017* $5.49, effective 1-1-2018* / $6.06, effective 1-1-2019 2016, by county ordinance* *On March 30, 2017, Iowa’s governor signed HF 295, a bill that nullified Wapello County’s minimum wage ordinance, and preempted any local government in Iowa from establishing any minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. This lowered the effective tipped minimum wage in Wapello County from $4.92 down to $4.35.
 Kansas $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 7-1-2009 2009, by legislation $2.13 Kansas’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the federal tipped minimum wage by statute.
 Kentucky $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 7-1-2009 2007, by legislation Kentucky’s minimum wage is set at the higher of $7.25 or the current federal minimum wage. $2.13 Kentucky’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the federal tipped minimum wage by statute.
 Kentucky Lexington $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 7-1-2009 Lexington’s Urban County Council enacted its own minimum wage in 2015.* *In October 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that cities do not have the authority to raise the minimum wage, and the Lexington minimum wage was rolled back to $7.25. $2.13
 Kentucky Louisville $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 7-1-2009 Louisville enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by metro council ordinance.* *In October 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that cities do not have the authority to raise the minimum wage, and the Louisville minimum wage was rolled back to $7.25. $2.13
 Louisiana
Maine $10.00 $9.00 to $10.00, effective 1-1-2018 $11.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $12.00, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W for the Northeast Region, rounded to the nearest 5 cents, beginning 1-1-2021. 2016, by ballot measure $5.00 $3.75 to $5.00, effective 1-1-2017 $5.50, effective 1-1-2019 / $6.00, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 2017, by legislation The 2016 ballot measure that raised Maine’s regular minimum wage also established gradual increases in Maine’s tipped minimum wage that would have eventually made it equal to the regular minimum wage. In 2017, the legislature passed a law that undid the scheduled increases in the tipped minimum wage, instead setting it at 50 percent of the regular minimum wage.
Maine Portland $10.68 $10.10 to $10.68, effective 1-1-2017 Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2018 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-U for the preceding calendar year. Portland enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city council ordinance. $5.00 $3.75 to $5.00, effective 1-1-2017 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI-U for the preceding calendar year. 2015, by city council ordinance Portland’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to $3.75 less than the city’s regular minimum wage.
 Maryland $9.25 $8.75 to $9.25, effective 7-1-2017 $10.10, effective 7-1-2018 2014, by legislation Amusement parks and recreational establishments are only required to pay 85 percent of the regular minimum wage. $3.63 2014 Prior to the legislation that increased the regular minimum wage in 2014, the Maryland tipped minimum wage was set at 50 percent of the regular minimum wage. As of 2014, it is set at the fixed amount of $3.63 per hour, and will no longer automatically go up as the regular minimum wage increases.
 Maryland Montgomery County $11.50 $10.75 to $11.50, effective 7-1-2017 $12.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $13.00, effective 7-1-2019 / $14.00, effective 7-1-2020 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2021 Annual increases based on the calendar-year increase in the CPI-W for the Washington-Baltimore region, beginning July 1, 2023. 2017, by county ordinance. Employers with fewer than 51 employees are subject to a separate increase schedule. For businesses with 10 to 50 employees: $12.00, effective 7-1-2018; $12.50, effective 7-1-2019; $13.25, effectuve 7-1-2020; $14.00, effective 7-1-2021; $14.50, effective 7-1-2022; $15.00, effective 7-1-2023. For businesses with 10 or fewer employees: $12.00, effective 7-1-2018; $12.50, effective 7-1-2019; $13.00, effectuve 7-1-2020; $13.50, effective 7-1-2021; $14.00, effective 7-1-2022; $14.50, effective 7-1-2023; $15.00, effective 7-1-2024. After reaching $15, the minimum wage for small- and medium-size employers will be increased by CPI-W plus 1 percent until it equals the large-employer minimum wage. Workers under age 19 who work no more than 20 hours per week are exempt from the county minimum wage.  Employers may pay 85 percent of the minimum wage to any employee under the age of 20 for the first six months of employment. $4.00 2015, by county ordinance The Montgomery County Council originally set the tipped minimum wage at 50 percent of the regular minimum wage. In 2015, it amended the ordinance to freeze the tipped minimum wage at $4.00 per hour, regardless of any subsequent changes in the regular minimum wage.
 Maryland Prince George’s County $11.50 $10.75 to $11.50, effective 10-1-2017 Prince George’s County enacted its own minimum wage in 2013 by county ordinance. Amusement parks and recreational establishments are only required to pay 85 percent of the regular minimum wage. $3.63 Prince George’s County’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the state tipped minimum wage.
 Massachusetts $11.00 $10.00 to $11.00, effective 1-1-2017 2014, by legislation The Massachusetts minimum wage automatically increases to 10 cents above the federal minimum wage if the federal minimum wage is set equal to or above the state minimum wage. $3.75 $3.35 to $3.75, effective 1-1-2017 2014, by legislation
 Michigan $9.25 $8.90 to $9.25, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 4-1-2019 Annual increases based on the 5-year average annual percentage change in the CPI for the Midwest census region, beginning April 1, 2019. Increases not to exceed 3.5 percent. No inflation adjustment will be made if the state unemployment rate is 8.5 percent or higher. 2014, by legislation $3.52 $3.38 to $3.52, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 4-1-2019 2014, by legislation Tipped employees must be paid 38 percent of the regular state minimum wage.
 Minnesota $9.65 $9.50 to $9.65, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the price deflator for national personal consumption expenditures (PCE), with a maximum increase of 2.5 percent, beginning January 1, 2018. 2014, by legislation Employers with less than $500,000 in annual sales volume are subject to a minimum wage of $7.75. $9.65 $9.50 to $9.65, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2018 2014, by legislation Same as the regular minimum wage. Employers with less than $500,000 in annual sales volume are subject to a minimum wage of $7.75.
 Minnesota Minneapolis $10.00 $9.50 to $10.00, effective 1-1-2018 $11.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $12.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $13.25, effective 7-1-2020 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2021 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2023 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the price deflator for national personal consumption expenditures (PCE), with a maximum increase of 2.5 percent. Minneapolis enacted its own minimum wage in 2017 by city council ordinance. Businesses with fewer than 100 employees are subject to separate increase schedule: $10.25, effective 7-1-2018; $11.00, effective 7-1-2019; $11.75 , effective 7-1-2020; $12.50, effective 7-1-2021; $13.50, effective 7-1-2022; $14.50, effective 7-1-2023; $15.00, effective 7-1-2024. $10.00 $9.50 to $10.00, effective 1-1-2018 $11.25, effective 7-1-2018 / $12.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $13.25, effective 7-1-2020 / $14.25, effective 7-1-2021 / $15.00, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2023 Minneapolis enacted its own minimum wage in 2017 by city council ordinance. Same as the regular minimum wage. Businesses with fewer than 100 employees are subject to separate increase schedule: $10.25, effective 7-1-2018; $11.00, effective 7-1-2019; $11.75 , effective 7-1-2020; $12.50, effective 7-1-2021; $13.50, effective 7-1-2022; $14.50, effective 7-1-2023; $15.00, effective
 Mississippi
 Missouri $7.85 $7.70 to $7.85, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the July-to-July percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, rounded to nearest 5 cents. 2006, by ballot measure $3.93 $3.85 to $3.93, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning January 1 2006, by ballot measure The Missouri tipped minimum wage is set at 50 percent of the regular minimum wage.
Missouri Kansas City $7.70 $8.50, effective 8-24-2015* / $9.82, effective 1-1-2017 / $10.96, effective 1-1-2018 / $11.98, effective 1-1-2019 / $13.00, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 Annual increases based on the July-to-July percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, rounded to nearest 5 cents, beginning 1-1-2021.* Kansas City enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city ordinance.* *The Missouri state legislature passed a law in September 2015 preempting local governments from adopting minimum wages above the state’s minimum wage. Kansas City’s ordinance may be “grandfathered in,” allowing the measure to take effect as planned; however, the law is currently under review. $3.85 $3.83 to $3.85, effective 1-1-2017 Annual indexing effective January 1* Kansas City enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city ordinance.* The Kansas City tipped minimum wage is set at 50 percent of the regular state minimum wage. * The Missouri state legislature passed a law in September 2015 preempting local governments from adopting minimum wages above the state’s minimum wage.
Missouri St. Louis $7.70 $7.70 to $10.00, effective 5-5-2017* $11.00, beginning 1-1-2018* Annual increases based on the July-to-July percentage change in the CPI-W, St. Louis metropolitan area, rounded to nearest 5 cents, beginning 1-1-2018.* St. Louis enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city ordinance.* *The Missouri state legislature passed a law in September 2015 preempting local governments from adopting minimum wages above the state’s minimum wage. St. Louis’s ordinance was originally thought to be “grandfathered in,” however, a circuit judge struck down the measure in October 2015 just before it was scheduled to take effect. The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently struck down the state wage law in February 2017, overturning the circuit judge’s decision. The ordinance went into effect on May 5, 2017. However, the state legislature subsequently passed a new premption law to undo the St. Louis increase. The governor allowed the bill to go into effect in July 2017, thereby lowering the city minimum wage back down to $7.70. $3.85 $3.85 to $5.00, effective 5-5-2017* $5.50, effective 1-1-2018* / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 St. Louis enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by city ordinance.* The St. Louis tipped minimum wage is set at 50 percent of the regular city minimum wage. *The Missouri state legislature passed a law in September 2015 preempting local governments from adopting minimum wages above the state’s minimum wage. St. Louis’s ordinance was originally thought to be “grandfathered in,” allowing the measure to take effect as planned; however, a circuit judge struck down the measure in October 2015. The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently struck down the state wage law in February 2017, overturning the circuit judge’s decision. The ordinance went into effect on May 5, 2017. However, the state legislature subsequently passed a new premption law to undo the St. Louis increase. The governor allowed the bill to go into effect in July 2017, thereby lowering the city tipped minimum wage back down to $3.85.
 Montana $8.30 $8.15 to $8.30, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-U, U.S. city average, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 2006, by ballot measure Minimum wage of $4.00 applies to all businesses that have gross annual sales less than $110,000 and that are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. $8.30 $8.15 to $8.30, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 2006, by ballot measure Same as the regular minimum wage.
 Nebraska $9.00 $8.00 to $9.00, effective 1-1-2016 2014, by ballot initiative $2.13
 Nevada $8.25 $7.55 to $8.25, effective 1-1-2014 Annual increases may occur on July 1 of each year based on the percentage change in the CPI-U, if certain circumstances apply. See notes. No single-year adjustments can exceed 3 percent. 2006, by constitutional amendment Nevada’s minimum wage is set at $1.00 above the federal minimum wage for firms not providing health insurance. The minimum may be increased more than $1.00 above the federal minimum wage if cumulative inflation, as measured by the CPI-U, is larger than the percentage change in the federal minimum wage since December 31, 2004. $8.25 Same as the regular minimum wage.
 New Hampshire $7.25 2011, by legislation In 2011, the New Hampshire legislature eliminated the minimum wage established by the state, setting it equal to the value set by the federal minimum wage. $3.26 The New Hampshire tipped minimum wage is set at 45 percent of the effective regular minimum wage.
 New Jersey $8.60 $8.44 to $8.60, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average. 2013, by constitutional amendment $2.13 Same as the federal tipped minimum wage.
 New Mexico $7.50 $6.50 to $7.50, effective 1-1-2009 2007 $2.13
 New Mexico Albuquerque $8.95 $8.80 to $8.95, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in CPI-W, U.S. city average, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 2012 Employees receiving health care or child care benefits at an annualized cost of $2,500 or more may be paid $1.00 less than the effective minimum wage hourly rate. $5.35 $5.28 to $5.35, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 2012 The Albuquerque tipped minimum wage is set at 60 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 New Mexico Bernalillo County $8.85 $8.70 to $8.85, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the percentage change in CPI, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 2013, by county ordinance Does not apply to the City of Albuquerque, which sets its own minimum wage. Employees receiving health care or child care benefits at an annualized cost of $2,500 or more may be paid $1.00 less than the effective minimum wage hourly rate. $2.13
 New Mexico Las Cruces $9.20 $8.40 to $9.20, effective 1-1-2017 $10.10, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing, beginning 1-1-2020 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in CPI-W for the West census region, rounded to the nearest 5 cents, beginning January 1, 2018. Las Cruces enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by city council ordinance. $3.68 $3.36 to $3.68, effective 1-1-2017 $4.04, effective 1-1-2019 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2020 Las Cruces enacted its own tipped minimum wage in 2014. The tipped minimum wage is set at 40 percent of the regular city minimum wage.
 New Mexico Santa Fe City $10.91 $10.84 to $10.91, effective 3-1-2016 Annual indexing effective March 1 Annual increases based on the previous year’s percentage change in the CPI-W for the West census region. 2003, by city ordinance Santa Fe’s minimum wage law is similar to “living wage” laws in other cities that require any business under contract with the city government to pay a determined “living wage.” Santa Fe, however, extends this requirement to any business granted a business license to operate within city limits. $2.13
 New Mexico Santa Fe County $10.91 $10.84 to $10.91, effective 3-1-2016 Annual indexing effective March 1 Annual increases based on the previous year’s percentage change in the CPI-W for the West census region. 2014, by county ordinance $3.27 $3.25 to $3.27, effective 3-1-2016 Annual indexing effective March 1 2014 The Santa Fe County tipped minimum wage is set at 30 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 New York $10.40 $9.70 to $10.40, effective 12-31-2017 $11.10, effective 12-31-2018 / $11.80, effective 12-31-2019 / $12.50, effective 12-31-2020 / Annual indexing starting 12-31-2021 to be determined on a year-to-year basis Indexed schedule (to reach but not exceed $15.00 per hour) to be set by the Director of the Division of Budget in consultation with the Department of Labor 2016, by legislation This is the base minimum wage for the state that applies to all areas outside New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties. State law establishes separate minimum wage rates for New York City and downstate counties. The New York minimum wage law allows for wage orders that govern wage requirements in specific industries. In 2015, a wage board for the fast food industry set the minimum wage in fast food at $10.50 in New York City and $9.75 for the rest of the state as of 12-31-2015. The fast food minimum wage will increase by $1.50 per year in New York City until it reaches $15 on 12-31-2018. In the rest of the state, it will increase by $1 each year until it reaches $13.75 on 12-31-2019. It will then increase by $0.75 on 12-31-2020 and by $0.50 on 7-1-2021, bringing it to $15. $7.50 $5.65 to $7.50, effective 12-31-2015 $7.85, effective 12-31-2019 / $8.35, effective 12-31-2020 / Annual indexing starting 12-31-2021 to be determined on a year-to-year basis 2016, by state legislation New York’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the greater of $7.50 or two-thirds of the regular minimum wage or the prevailing minimum wage of a given geography. This rate applies to all tipped workers except those in the fast food industry, who are subject to a separate minimum wage schedule.
 New York New York City $13.00 $11.00 to $13.00, effective 12-31-2017 $15.00, effective 12-31-2018 2016, by legislation Small businesses (those with 10 employees or fewer) would start at $10.50 by 12-31-2016, and increase by $1.50 each year thereafter until they reach $15 on 12-31-2019. $8.65 $7.50 to $8.65, effective 12-31-2017 $10.00, effective 12-31-2018 2016, by state legislation New York’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the greater of $7.50 or two thirds of the regular minimum wage or the prevailing minimum wage of a given geography and size employer. This rate applies to all tipped workers except those in the fast food industry, who are subject to a separate minimum-wage schedule.
 New York Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties $11.00 $10.00 to $11.00, effective 12-31-2017 $12.00, effective 12-31-2018 / $13.00, effective 12-31-2019 / $14.00, effective 12-31-2020 / $15.00, effective 12-31-2021 2016, by legislation $7.50 $8.00, effective 12-31-2018 / $8.65, effective 12-31-2019 / $9.35, effective 12-31-2020 / $10.00, effective 12-31-2021 2016, by state legislation New York’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the greater of $7.50 or two thirds of the regular minimum wage or the prevailing minimum wage of a given geography. This rate applies to all tipped workers except those in the fast food industry, who are subject to a separate minimum-wage schedule.
 North Carolina $7.25 The North Carolina minimum wage is set equal to the federal minimum wage by statute. $2.13 North Carolina’s tipped minimum wage is set equal to the federal tipped minimum wage by statute.
 North Dakota $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 6-24-2009 2007, by legislation $4.86 $4.39 to $4.86, effective 6-24-2009 North Dakota’s tipped minimum wage is set at 67 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 Ohio $8.30 $8.15 to $8.30, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W U.S., city average, rounded to nearest 5 cents. 2006, by constitutional amendment $4.15 $4.08 to $4.15, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Ohio’s tipped minimum wage is set at 50 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 Oklahoma $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 6-24-2009 State minimum wage of $2.00 applies to workers in companies with fewer than 10 employees or who work for businesses with gross annual sales less than $100,000. All others subject to federal minimum. $2.13
 Oregon $10.25 $9.75 to $10.25, effective 7-1-2017 $10.75, effective 7-1-2018 / $11.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $12.00, effective 7-1-2020 / $12.75, effective 7-1-2021 / $13.50, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2023 Annual increases based on the March-to-March change in the CPI-U, U.S. city average, rounded to nearest 5 cents. 2016, by legislation Base minimum wage for the state. State law establishes separate minimum-wage rates for the Portland Urban Growth Boundary area and designated non-urban counties. $10.25 $9.75 to $10.25, effective 7-1-2017 $10.75, effective 7-1-2018 / $11.25, effective 7-1-2019 / $12.00, effective 7-1-2020 / $12.75, effective 7-1-2021 / $13.50, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2022 2016, by legislation Same as regular minimum wage.
 Oregon Portland Urban Growth Boundary $11.25 $9.75 to $11.25, effective 7-1-2017 $12.00, effective 7-1-2018 / $12.50, effective 7-1-2019 / $13.25, effective 7-1-2020 / $14.50, effective 7-1-2021 / $14.75, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2023 Annual increases to base minimum wage based on the March-to-March change in the CPI-U, U.S. city average, rounded to nearest 5 cents. Portland UGB’s rate is then set to $1.25 greater than the base rate. 2016, by legislation Region’s minimum wage to be set at $1.25 greater than the base minimum wage when indexing begins on July 1, 2023. $11.25 $9.75 to $11.25, effective 7-1-2017 $12.00, effective 7-1-2018 / $12.50, effective 7-1-2019 / $13.25, effective 7-1-2020 / $14.50, effective 7-1-2021 / $14.75, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2023 2016, by legislation Same as regular minimum wage.
 Oregon Non-urban counties $10.00 $9.50 to $10.00, effective 7-1-2017 $10.50, effective 7-1-2018 / $11.00, effective 7-1-2019 / $11.50, effective 7-1-2020 / $12.00, effective 7-1-2021 / $12.50, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2023 Annual increases to base minimum wage based on the March-to-March change in the CPI-U, U.S. city average, rounded to nearest 5 cents. Non-urban counties’ rate is then set to $1.00 less than the base rate. 2016, by legislation Non-urban counties include Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties. The region’s minimum wage is to be set at $1.00 less than the base minimum wage when indexing begins on July 1, 2023. $10.00 $9.50 to $10.00, effective 7-1-2017 $10.50, effective 7-1-2018 / $11.00, effective 7-1-2019 / $11.50, effective 7-1-2020 / $12.00, effective 7-1-2021 / $12.50, effective 7-1-2022 / Annual indexing beginning 7-1-2023 2016, by legislation Same as regular minimum wage.
 Pennsylvania $7.25 Pennsylvania’s minimum wage is set equal to the federal minimum wage by statute. $2.83
 Rhode Island $10.10 $9.60 to $10.10, effective 1-1-2018 $10.50, effective 1-1-2019 2017, by legislation $3.89 $3.39 to $3.89, effective 1-1-2016 $3.89, effective 1-1-2017 2017, by legislation
 South Carolina
 South Dakota $8.85 $8.65 to $8.85, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the percentage change in the CPI, rounded to the nearest 5 cents. 2014, by ballot measure $4.43 $4.33 to $4.43, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 2014, by ballot measure South Dakota’s tipped minimum wage is set at 50 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 Tennessee Tennessee has a promised wage law whereby the employers are responsible for paying to the employees the wages promised by the employer.
 Texas $7.25 Texas’s minimum wage is set equal to the federal minimum wage by statute. $2.13
 Utah $7.25 Utah excludes from coverage any employment that is subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. $2.13
 Vermont $10.50 $10.00 to $10.50, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Annual increases of the smaller of 5 percent of the current minimum, or the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-U, U.S. city average, beginning January 1, 2019 2014, by legislation Vermont started indexing in January 2007. $5.25 $5.00 to $5.25, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 2014, by legislation Vermont’s tipped minimum wage is set at 50 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 Virginia $7.25 Virginia’s minimum wage is set to the federal minimum wage by statute. $2.13
 Washington $11.50 $11.00 to $11.50, effective 1-1-2018 $12.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $13.50, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, beginning 1-1-2021. 2016, by ballot measure Washington was the first state to enact annual inflation indexing in 2001. $11.50 $11.00 to $11.50, effective 1-1-2018 $12.00, effective 1-1-2019 / $13.50, effective 1-1-2020 / Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2021 2016, by ballot measure Same as regular minimum wage
 Washington Seattle $15.45 $15.00 to $15.45, effective 1-1-2018 For employers with more than 500 employees: annual indexing beginning 1-1-2018 / For employers with 500 or fewer employees: $14.00, effective 1-1-2018; $15.00, effective 1-1-2019 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W Seattle enacted its own minimum wage in 2014 by city council ordinance Employers may credit a portion of employee tips or benefits paid to employee health care benefits against the required minimum wage. Employers with 500 or fewer employees have a lower minimum wage of $13.00. $15.45 $15.00 to $15.45, effective 1-1-2018 For employers with more than 500 employees: annual indexing beginning 1-1-2018 / For employers with 500 or fewer employees: $11.50, effective 1-1-2018; $12.00, effective 1-1-2019; $13.50, effective 1-1-2020; $15.00, effective 1-1-2021 Seattle enacted its own tipped wage in 2014 by city council ordinance Large employers (more than 500 employees) are not allowed to credit tips against the city’s minimum wage. Small employers (500 or fewer employees) may credit $1.00 per hour in tips against the city’s minimum wage (for a tipped minimum wage of $10.50 per hour).
 Washington SeaTac $15.64 $15.34 to $15.64, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average 2013, by city council ordinance SeaTac’s minimum wage applies only to hospitality and transportation workers within the city. $15.64 $15.34 to $15.64, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing effective January 1 2013, by city council ordinance SeaTac’s tipped minimum wage is the same as the regular minimum wage. The ordinance specifies that service charges must be paid directly to the nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory workers who perform the direct service to customers.
Washington Tacoma $12.00 $11.15 to $12.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Annual increases based on the August-to-August percentage change in the CPI-W, U.S. city average, beginning 1-1-2019 Tacoma enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by ballot measure $12.00 $11.15 to $12.00, effective 1-1-2018 Annual indexing beginning 1-1-2019 Tacoma enacted its own minimum wage in 2015 by ballot measure Same as regular minimum wage
 West Virginia $8.75 $8.00 to $8.75, effective 12-31-2015 2014, by legislation $2.63 $2.40 to $2.63, effective 1-1-2016 2014, by legislation West Virginia’s tipped minimum wage is set at 30 percent of the regular minimum wage.
 Wisconsin $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 6-1-2009 $2.33
 Wyoming $5.15 $1.60 to $5.15, effective 1-1-2002 2001, by legislation $2.13
Federal $7.25 $6.55 to $7.25, effective 7-24-2009 2007 The Fair Labor Standards Act excludes any business with gross annual revenue less than $500,000 whose employees do not engage in “interstate commerce.” It also contains a variety of smaller occupational exclusions, such as those for telephone switchboard operators, private investigators, and babysitters. $2.13 $2.09 to $2.13 effective 4-1-1991 1996 Until 1996 the federal tipped minimum wage was set as a percentage of the regular minimum wage. When the regular minimum wage was increased in 1996, the tipped minimum wage was fixed at $2.13.
Filter states

Notes

In states with no minimum-wage law (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee) or minimum wages below the federal minimum wage (Georgia and Wyoming), the federal minimum wage of $7.25 applies.

Many states exclude very small businesses, such as those with fewer than five employees or those with gross annual revenue below a specified threshold. Many also contain a variety of smaller occupational exclusions and in some cases, exclusions for seasonal and part-time youth workers. The exclusions listed here are not exhaustive; they only highlight the more significant or noteworthy exclusions to minimum-wage laws.

“CPI” refers to the Consumer Price Index, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“CPI-U” refers to the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“CPI-W” refers to the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Fast Track to Lost Jobs: Free Trade Agreements Are Bad Deals for Working Americans

President Obama is currently negotiating two massive new free trade agreements that, if enacted, are likely to result in increased outsourcing and growing job losses, especially in the manufacturing sector. He has asked Congress for “Fast Track” authority, which would allow him to submit trade agreements to Congress without giving members of Congress the opportunity to amend the deal. Experience has shown that these trade deals have resulted in massive job losses for American workers, as shown in the infographic below. Fast track trade legislation will speed the ratification of more job-destroying trade deals.

Free trade agreements have
hurt american workers

Claims that trade deals increase exports and create jobs are based on flawed trade models, and on distorted and one-sided interpretations of the findings of those models.

The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS)

70,000 jobs promised

Click to see what happened

______ jobs delivered

60,000 jobs lost


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

200,000 jobs promised

Click to see what happened

______ jobs delivered

682,900 jobs lost

As the infographic shows, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in growing U.S.-Mexico trade deficits that caused nearly 700,000 lost U.S. jobs between 1993 and 2010.

Likewise, in the first two years the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) took effect, U.S. exports to Korea declined, and growing trade deficits with that country resulted in nearly 60,000 lost U.S. jobs.

Interactive Infographic: Free Trade Agreements Have Hurt American Workers

Click here to view the updated 2014 version of this 2013 infographic

Free Trade Agreements Have
hurt american workers

Claims that trade deals increase exports and create jobs are based on flawed trade models, and on distorted and one-sided interpretations of the findings of those models.

The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS)

70,000 jobs promised

Click to see what happened

______ jobs delivered

60,000 jobs lost


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

200,000 jobs promised

Click to see what happened

______ jobs delivered

682,900 jobs lost

State jobs data calls for ‘super shift’ to job creation

Employment and unemployment data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics remind us once again that the so-called “recovery” continues to leave millions of Americans behind. While national policymakers have focused their attention on the “supercommittee,” the very real jobs crisis persists in nearly every state. (See interactive maps below.)

This month’s data show that 10 states and the District of Columbia continue to struggle with unemployment rates at or above 10.0 percent (led by Nevada at 13.4 percent, California at 11.7 percent, and the District of Columbia at 11.0 percent), while 19 states plus the District of Columbia have unemployment rates of 9.0 percent or higher.

The geographic impact of the weak recovery is noteworthy. Over the past three months, states in the Northeast lost more than 29,000 jobs, led by New York, which has lost 22,400 jobs since July. Unemployment rates remain persistently very high in the West and the Southeast.

There is some good news in this month’s unemployment rate data: All of the 12 states with statistically significant changes in their unemployment rates from Sept. 2011 to Oct. 2011 experienced declines in their unemployment rates. Similarly, of the 14 states showing statistically significant changes in employment, 13 experienced positive employment growth. (Only Wisconsin lost jobs between Sept. 2011 and Oct. 2011).

Now that the supercommittee has failed to come to an agreement on deficit reduction, Congress needs to shift its focus decisively to job-creation efforts—including investment in infrastructure such as bridges, schools, broadband—vital to the economic prosperity of every state and the nation as a whole.

State employment trends stuck in neutral (or reverse)

State employment data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows ample evidence that the weak economic recovery continues to scar working families throughout the nation.

In September, 19 states and the District of Columbia continued to have unemployment rates of 9 percent or higher, and unemployment surpassed 10 percent in 9 states and the District of Columbia. Even more troubling is the trend over the past three months.  Since June 2011, 28 states and the District of Columbia have seen their unemployment rates rise, and 22 states have lost jobs.  The states that have lost the most jobs over this period are Georgia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

When accounting for population growth since the beginning of the recession, every state except North Dakota has a jobs deficit (jobs needed to get back to the pre-recession unemployment rate).  The states with the largest jobs deficits are California (1,780,300), Florida (972,200), Texas (654,100), Georgia (554,300) and North Carolina (515,000).

States continue to see the harmful effects of meeting revenue shortfalls by cutting state budgets, which hurts private sector employment even more dramatically than public sector employment.  Employment trends will improve in every state if the federal government passes a substantial jobs bill as soon as possible.  Unless such a bill passes soon, too many states will continue to see flat or even negative employment growth.

Four in 10 state economies heading in wrong direction

State employment data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in many states, the economic engine is either stalled or in reverse, losing jobs rather than gaining them.  The continued weak recovery is still crippling the economy and scarring working families throughout the nation.

In August, 20 states and the District of Columbia continued to have unemployment rates of 9 percent or higher, and unemployment surpassed 10 percent in 9 states and the District of Columbia. Even more troubling is the trend over the past three months.  Since May 2011, 20 states and the District of Columbia have lost jobs.

When accounting for population growth since the beginning of the recession, every state except North Dakota has a jobs deficit (jobs needed to get back to pre-recession unemployment rate).  The states with the largest jobs deficits are California (1,807,000), Florida (986,000) and Texas (634,000).

Too many states are seeing the harmful effects of meeting revenue shortfalls by cutting budgets.  Recently unemployed teachers, police officers and firefighters aren’t able to contribute to a sound economic recovery.  Workers in every state need the federal government to pass a substantial jobs bill as soon as possible.

Job growth retreats in some states, mirrors national trend

State employment data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics mirrors national patterns of the past two months.  American workers continue to pay a staggering price for the lack of concerted action to create jobs for the millions who are unemployed.  In June, 19 states and the District of Columbia continued to have unemployment rates of 9.0% or higher, and seven states and DC continued to have rates of 10.0% or more.  Ten states and DC have lost jobs since June 2010, even though the economy has technically been experiencing a recovery.

These numbers highlight the necessity of shifting national policy discussions to the immediate economic needs of the American people.  State and federal lawmakers need to work together to put America back to work.  The lack of jobs remains the real crisis facing the nation—other matters, such as the political wrangling over the debt ceiling, are distractions.

Some state job gains stall or slip into reverse

State employment data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms what the national data released earlier in the month showed: employment growth has stalled in many states—and slipped into reverse in some.  The tentative economic recovery is very much in danger, and millions of American families are paying a staggering price for the lack of concerted action to create jobs for the millions of unemployed Americans.  In May, 18 states and the District of Columbia continued to have unemployment rates of 9.0% or higher, and seven states continued to have rates of 10.0% or more. (See interactive maps below.)

Nearly half the states—24—continue to have total employment that is at least 5.0% less than at the beginning of the recession.  Two states—Nevada and Arizona—have job losses that still exceed 10.0% of December 2007 employment levels (13.8% and 10.3% respectively).  The number of states that have lost jobs over the past year (since May 2010) has grown to 12 (including the District of Columbia).  The number of states that have lost jobs in the previous three months has similar spiked, to 18 (including the District of Columbia), up from just seven in April.

On a more positive note, Texas, Alaska, North Dakota and the District of Columbia continue to have employment levels greater than at the beginning of the recession.

These numbers highlight the importance of shifting the national discussion to the immediate economic needs of the American people.  The best way to address longer-term deficit and debt issues is to put Americans back to work today.  State and federal lawmakers need to work together to put America back to work.

Interactive map: State unemployment, April 2011

Mexico trade deficit costs jobs in every state

The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico displaced a total of 682,900 U.S. jobs as of 2010, affecting every state (as shown in the map below).  The United States had a trade surplus with Mexico in 1993 before the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect.  Since then, imports from Mexico have grown much faster than U.S. exports, resulting in large trade deficits.  Exports support domestic jobs and imports displace them, so large trade deficits have resulted in growing job displacement in the United States.  For a thorough analysis of the job displacement resulting from NAFTA and what it tells us about other potential trade agreements, read EPI’s Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA.

Interactive map: Unemployment then and now

While all 50 states lost jobs in the Great Recession, Nevada, Florida and California suffered particularly steep losses that have resulted in significantly higher unemployment rates today than at start of the recession three years ago. The Interactive Map shows the latest state unemployment data for December 2010, the third anniversary of the start of the Great Recession, along with the change in the unemployment rate over that period. Nevada’s unemployment rate has risen 9.3 percentage points, to a current 14.5%, the highest in the nation. Florida’s has risen 7.3 percentage points to a current rate of 12.0%, and California’s has risen 6.7 percentage points to 12.5%. Nationwide, the unemployment rate was 5.0 in December 2007, peaked at 10.1% in October of 2009 and stood at 9.4% in December 2010. (New unemployment data for the month of January will be released on Friday).

Click on any state to see current unemployment rate and the increase since the start of the recession, below.

<object data=”http://www.epi.org/page/-/Map_state_%20unemployment_%20rates-feb2011.swf” height=”600″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”550″>

Although the recession officially ended in June 2009, all states have higher rates of unemployment today than when the downturn began. Ten states today have unemployment rates of 10% or higher, and 24 states and the District of Columbia have unemployment rates of 9% or higher. States with comparatively small rises in unemployment include Alaska, whose unemployment rate is up 1.9 percentage points since the start of the recession; New Hampshire, with a 2.1 percentage point rise; and Minnesota, up 2.3 percentage points. It is important to note that the states with the highest rates of unemployment are not always the ones that have seen the largest jump. Michigan’s unemployment rate of 11.7%, for example, is one of the nation’s highest, but since it started the recession with a comparatively high rate of 7.1%, it has not seen the most dramatic change.

A new paper, The Great Recession’s Long Tail, by Policy Analyst Rebecca Thiess, takes a more detailed look at the job market on the third anniversary of the start of the Great Recession.

<param name=”src” value=”http://www.epi.org/page/-/Map_Payroll_change.swf” />
</object>
</p>
<p>For several states, the loss of jobs has been staggering. Nevada has lost 14.2% of its jobs since December 2007, and Arizona has lost 10.3%. The percentage of jobs lost is 10% in Michigan, 9.4% in Florida, 9% in California, 8.3% in Oregon and 8.1% in Georgia. Rates of job loss approaching or exceeding 10% in many of the country&rsquo;s most populous states help to explain the difficulty those without jobs face finding new work. Importantly, these percentages reflect total jobs lost&nbsp;but do not include the jobs that should have been created over the past three years just to keep up with population growth. The country as a whole has lost 7.8 million, or 5.6% of its total jobs since the start of the recession. Because it should have created around 100,000 jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, there is a nationwide shortage of more than 11 million jobs today.</p>
<p>These data on rates of job loss by state are from EPI&rsquo;s <a href=”http://www.economytrack.org/mainchart_4.php?_tab=payroll”>EconomyTrack</a> site. The site offers additional state data along with tools to compare the current downturn to past recessions, which also helps illustrate the unusual severity of the current jobs crisis.</p>

Job loss by state: An interactive map

The health of the labor market is commonly described in terms of the official unemployment rate, but another key detail, the percentage of jobs lost, underscores how a severe shortage of jobs lies at the root of the current jobs crisis. The Map shows the percentage of jobs each state has lost since the start of the recession in December 2007. Although the recession officially ended in June of 2009, all states except Alaska, North Dakota and the District of Columbia continue to see a jobs deficit.

For several states, the loss of jobs has been staggering. Nevada has lost 14.2% of its jobs since December 2007, and Arizona has lost 10.3%. The percentage of jobs lost is 10% in Michigan, 9.4% in Florida, 9% in California, 8.3% in Oregon and 8.1% in Georgia. Rates of job loss approaching or exceeding 10% in many of the country’s most populous states help to explain the difficulty those without jobs face finding new work. Importantly, these percentages reflect total jobs lost but do not include the jobs that should have been created over the past three years just to keep up with population growth. The country as a whole has lost 7.8 million, or 5.6% of its total jobs since the start of the recession. Because it should have created around 100,000 jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, there is a nationwide shortage of more than 11 million jobs today.

These data on rates of job loss by state are from EPI’s EconomyTrack site. The site offers additional state data along with tools to compare the current downturn to past recessions, which also helps illustrate the unusual severity of the current jobs crisis.

Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs

An update of this paper, titled The China Toll, was released in 2012.


  • Supplemental Table A: Net job loss due to growing trade deficits with China, 2001-08, by Congressional district [PDF] [Excel]
  • Supplemental Table B: Net job loss in Congressional districts due to growing trade deficits with China, 2001-08, alphabetical [PDF] [Excel]

The computers, electronic equipment, and parts industries experienced the largest growth in trade deficits with China, leading with 627,700 (26%) of all jobs displaced between 2001 and 2008. As a result, the hardest hit Congressional districts were located in California and Texas, where remaining jobs in those industries are concentrated, and in North Carolina, which was hard hit by job displacement in a variety of manufacturing industries.

But the jobs impact of the China trade deficit is not restricted to job loss and displacement. Competition with low-wage workers from less-developed countries has also driven down wages for other workers in manufacturing and reduced the wages and bargaining power of similar workers throughout the economy. The impact has affected essentially all production workers with less than a four-year college degree—roughly 70% of the private-sector workforce, or about 100 million workers. For a typical full-time median-wage earner in 2006, these indirect losses totaled approximately $1,400 per worker (Bivens 2008). China is the most important source of downward pressure from trade with less-developed countries, because it pays very low wages and because it was responsible for nearly 40% of U.S. non-oil imports from less-developed countries in 2008.

This study finds the following:

  • The 2.4 million jobs lost/workers displaced nationwide since 2001 are distributed among all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, with the biggest losers, in numeric terms: California (370,000 jobs), Texas (193,700), New York (140,500), Illinois (105,500), Florida (101,600), Pennsylvania (95,700), North Carolina (95,100), Ohio (91,800), Georgia (78,100), and Massachusetts (72,800).
  • The hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are New Hampshire (16,300, 2.35%), North Carolina (95,100, 2.30%), Massachusetts (72,800, 2.25%), California (370,000, 2.23%), Oregon (38,600, 2.19%), Minnesota (58,800, 2.17%), Rhode Island (10,600, 2.01%), Alabama (39,300, 1.97%), Idaho (13,500, 1.97%), and South Carolina (38,400, 1.97%).
  • Rapidly growing imports of computer and electronic parts (including computers, parts, semiconductors, and audio-video equipment) accounted for more than 40% of the $186 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2008. The $73 billion deficit in advanced technology products with China in 2008 was responsible for 27% of the total U.S.-China trade deficit. The growth of this deficit contributed to the elimination of 627,700 U.S. jobs in computer and electronic products in this period. Other hard-hit industrial sectors include apparel and accessories (150,200 jobs), miscellaneous manufactured goods (136,900), and fabricated metal products (108,700); several service sectors were also hard hit by indirect job losses, including administrative support services (153,300) and professional, scientific, and technical services (139,000).
  • The hardest-hit Congressional districts had large numbers of workers displaced by manufacturing trade, especially in computer and electronic parts, apparel, and durable goods manufacturing. The three hardest hit Congressional districts were all located in Silicon Valley in California, including the 15th (Santa Clara county, 26,900 jobs, 8.3% of all jobs in the district), the 14th (Palo Alto and nearby cities, 20,300 jobs, 6.3%), and the 16th (San Jose and other parts of Santa Clara county, 18,200 jobs, 6.0%).
  • The hardest hit Congressional districts were concentrated in states that were heavily exposed to growing China trade deficits in computer and electronic products and other industries such as furniture, textiles, and apparel. Of the top 20 hardest hit districts (see Table 5, below), eight were in California (in rank order, the 15th, 14th, 16th, 13th, 31st, 34th, 50th, and 47th), four were in North Carolina (10th, 6th, 4th and 5th), three were in Texas (31st, 10th and 3rd), two were in Massachusetts (5th and 3rd), and one each in Oregon (1st), Georgia (9th), and Alabama (5th). Each of these districts lost more than 8,600 jobs (2.8% of total jobs in the district).

Currency manipulation

A major cause of the rapidly growing U.S. trade deficit with China is currency manipulation. Unlike other currencies, the Chinese yuan does not fluctuate freely against the dollar. While the value of its currency should have increased as China exported more and more goods, it has instead remained artificially low, and China has aggressively acquired dollars to further depress the value of its own currency. China has tightly pegged its currency to the U.S. dollar at a rate that encourages a large bilateral surplus with the United States. China had to purchase $453 billion in U.S. treasury bills and other securities between December 2008 and December 2009, alone, to maintain this peg.1 China has acquired a total of $2.4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves as of December 2009 (Chinability 2010). About 70% of these reserves are held in U.S. dollars. This intervention makes the yuan artificially cheap relative to the dollar, effectively subsidizing Chinese exports. The best estimates place this effective subsidy at roughly 40% of the U.S. dollar, even after recent appreciation in the yuan (Cline and Williamson 2010).2 Currency intervention also artificially raises the cost of U.S. exports to China by a similar amount, making U.S. goods less competitive in that country.

Other policies by the Chinese government also encourage exports. China extensively suppresses labor rights, which lowers production costs within China. An AFL-CIO study estimated that repression of labor rights by the Chinese government has lowered manufacturing wages of Chinese workers by 47% to 86% (AFL-CIO 2006, 138). China has also been shown to provide massive direct subsidization of export production in many key industries (see, e.g., Haley 2008, 2009). Finally, it maintains strict, non-tariff barriers to imports. As a result, China’s exports to the United States of $337.5 billion in 2008 were more than five times greater than U.S. exports to China, which totaled only $67.2 billion (Tabl
e 1
). China’s trade surplus was responsible for 68.5% of the U.S. total non-oil trade deficit in 2008, making the China trade relationship this country’s most imbalanced by far.

[Table 1]

Unless China raises the real value of the yuan by at least 40% and eliminates these other trade distortions, the U.S. trade deficit and job losses will continue to grow rapidly in the future. While the overall U.S. trade deficit improved slightly in 2008—largely as a result of collapse in world trade associated with the onset of the great recession of 2008-09—the U.S. deficit with China increased $8.3 billion, mostly because China engaged in currency manipulation designed to suppress the value of the yuan. The increase in the U.S.-China trade deficit declined from $26.6 billion in 2007 to $8.3 billion in 2008, reflecting the collapse in demand in the United States.

Beginning in 2002, the dollar declined more than 30% against several major currencies such as the Euro and the Canadian dollar. However, yuan appreciation was largely delayed until late 2007 and 2008—too little and too late to be of any help in slowing the current U.S.-China trade gap to date.3 Furthermore, the appreciation of the yuan has had little effect on the prices of U.S. imports from China, which rose only 2.5% between July 2005 (when the yuan was first adjusted) and May 2008, much less than the 19% appreciation of the yuan in that period (Congressional Budget Office 2008, 2). While Chinese exporters were able to absorb the impact of a higher yuan by lowering profit margins, at least through mid-2008, further appreciation is likely to be reflected in higher prices.4

China’s currency manipulation has compelled other countries to follow similar policies in order to protect their relative competitiveness and to promote their own exports. Widespread currency manipulation has also contributed to the growth of very large, global current account imbalances. Cline and Williamson (2010) call for a substantial realignment of the dollar against currencies from five Asian countries that are undervalued relative to the dollar, in order to rebalance global current account flows: China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Singapore. They call for reducing the U.S. current account deficit to 2.8% of GDP in 2012 (from a projected 5.6% if currencies are not realigned). They estimate that the yuan needs to rise 41% against the U.S. dollar, and the other countries listed by 25% to 32%. Cline and Williamson project that global currency realignment would result in a 5.6% fall in the trade-weighted value of the U.S. dollar across all currencies. Reducing the U.S. current account to a lower level, such as 1% of GDP, would require proportionately greater rebalancing of currencies, especially those of Asian countries.

Undervaluation of the yuan has forced other countries to bear the burden of global current account realignment pressures. As a result, the currencies of many other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Brazil, as well as the United States, have become overvalued on a trade-weighted basis.

As a result of China’s currency manipulation and other trade distorting practices, including extensive subsidies, legal and illegal barriers to imports, dumping and suppression of wages and labor rights, China’s share of the U.S. trade surplus has soared, especially in 2009. Between 2008 and 2009, the U.S. goods trade deficit declined 38.5%, while the U.S.-China trade deficit fell only 15.4%. China’s share of the total, U.S. non-oil trade deficit jumped from 68.6% in 2008 to 80.2% in 2009 (Scott 2010).

China’s entry into the WTO was supposed to bring it into compliance with an enforceable, rules-based regime that would require that it open its markets to imports from the United States and other nations. The United States also negotiated a series of special safeguard measures designed to limit the disruptive effects of surging Chinese imports on domestic producers. However, the core of the agreement failed to include any protections to maintain or improve labor or environmental standards and, prior to 2007, the administration rejected all requests for special safeguards protection. In September 2009, the Obama administration announced that it would take action to restrict imports of Chinese tires for three years under the special safeguard measures, the first time since 2001 that these measures had been utilized.

China’s entry into the WTO has further tilted the international economic playing field against domestic workers and firms and in favor of multinational companies from the United States and other countries as well as state- and privately owned exporters in China. This shift has increased the global “race to the bottom” in wages and environmental quality and closed thousands of U.S. factories, decimating employment in a wide range of communities, states, and entire regions of the United States. U.S. national interests have suffered while U.S. multinationals have enjoyed record profits on their foreign direct investments (Scott 2008).

Failed expectations

Proponents of China’s entry into the WTO frequently claimed that it would create jobs in the United States, increase U.S. exports, and improve the trade deficit with China. President Clinton claimed that the agreement allowing China into the WTO, which was negotiated during his administration, “creates a win-win result for both countries” (Clinton 2000, 9). He argued that exports to China “now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs” and that “these figures can grow substantially with the new access to the Chinese market the WTO agreement creates” (Clinton 2000, 10). Others in the White House, such as Kenneth Liberthal, the special advisor to the president and senior director for Asia affairs at the National Security Council, echoed Clinton’s assessment:

Let’s be clear as to why a trade deficit might decrease in the short term. China exports far more to the U.S. than it imports [from] the U.S….It will not grow as much as it would have grown without this agreement and over time clearly it will shrink with this agreement.5

Promises about jobs and exports misrepresented the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, but increases in imports will lead to job loss—by destroying existing jobs and preventing new job creation—as imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.

The impact of trade changes on employment is estimated here by calculating the labor content of changes in the trade balance—the difference between exports and imports. Each $1 billion in computer exports to China from the United States supports American jobs. However, each $1 billion in computer imports from China displaces the American workers who would have been employed making them in the United States. On balance, the net employment effect of trade flows depends on the growth in the trade deficit, not just exports.

Another critically important promise made by the promoters of liberalized U.S.-China trade was that the United States would benefit because of increased exports to a large and growing consumer market in China. However, despite widespread reports of the rapid growth of the Chinese middle class, this growth has not resulted in a significant increase in U.S. consumer exports to China. The most rapidly growing exports to China are bulk commodities such as grains, scrap, and chemicals; intermediate products such as semiconductors; and producer durables such as aircraft (see Table 3 below). Furthermore, the increase in U.S. exports to Chi
na since 2001 has been overwhelmed by the growth of U.S. imports, as shown below.

Growing trade deficits and job losses

The U.S. trade deficit with China has risen from $84 billion in 2001 to $270 billion in 2008, an increase of $186 billion, as shown in Table 1. Since China entered the WTO in 2001, this deficit has increased by $26.6 billion per year, on average, or 18% per year.

While it is true that exports support jobs in the United States, it is equally true that imports displace them. The net effect of trade flows on employment is determined by changes in the trade balance.6 The employment impacts of growing trade deficits are estimated in this paper using an input-output model that estimates the direct and indirect labor requirements of producing output in a given domestic industry. The model includes 201 U.S. industries, 84 of which are in the manufacturing sector.7 The model estimates the amount of labor (number of jobs) required to produce a given volume of exports and the labor displaced when a given volume of imports is substituted for domestic output.8 The net of these two numbers is essentially the jobs displaced by growing trade deficits, holding all else equal.

Jobs displaced by the growing China trade deficit are a net drain on employment in trade-related industries, especially those in the manufacturing sector. Even if increases in demand in other sectors absorb all the workers displaced by trade (an unlikely event), it is likely that job quality will suffer, as many non-traded industries such as retail trade and home health care pay lower wages and have less-comprehensive benefits than traded-goods industries.

U.S. exports to China in 2001 supported 166,200 jobs, but U.S. imports displaced production that would have supported 1,188,200 jobs, as shown in the bottom half of Table 1. Therefore, the $84 billion trade deficit in 2001 displaced 1,022,000 jobs in that year. Job displacement rose to 3,349,300 jobs in 2007 and 3,440,700 jobs in 2008.

Since China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 through 2008, the increase in U.S.-China trade deficits eliminated or displaced 2,418,800 U.S. jobs, as shown in the bottom half of Table 1. In 2008 alone 91,400 jobs were lost, either by the elimination of existing jobs or by the prevention of new job creation. On average, 345,500 jobs per year have been lost or displaced since China’s entry into the WTO.

Trade and jobs, industry details

The composition of imports from China is changing in fundamental ways, with serious implications for certain kinds of high-skill, high-wage jobs once thought to be the hallmark of the U.S. economy. China is moving rapidly “upscale,” from low-tech, low-skilled, labor-intensive industries such as apparel, footwear, and basic electronics to more capital- and skills- intensive sectors such as computers, electrical machinery, and motor vehicles; it has also developed a rapidly growing trade surplus in high technology products.

U.S. trade with China in 2001 and 2008 is summarized in Table 2. Trade flows increased dramatically in this period, especially imports, which rose from $102 billion in 2001 to $337 billion in 2008.9 Manufactured goods were 99% of total imports and included a wide array of commodities. Computer and electronic products were responsible for one-third of total imports, including computer equipment ($46 billion, or 13.6%) and communications, audio, and video equipment ($47 billion, 13.9%). Other major importing sectors included apparel ($26 billion, 7.8%) and miscellaneous manufactured products ($44 billion, 13.0%).

[Table 2]

U.S. exports rose rapidly in this period, but from a much smaller base, from $18 billion in 2001 to $67 billion in 2008. Manufacturing was the top industry exporting to China—72% of exports to China in 2008 were manufactured goods. Scrap and second-hand goods industries (that support no jobs in the BLS models) made up 11.3% ($7.5 billion) of the total. Within manufacturing, key export sectors included chemicals ($8.6 billion, or 12.8% of total exports), aerospace products and parts ($5.4 billion, 8.1%), machinery ($7.2 billion, 10.8%), and semiconductors and components ($6.1 billion, 9.2%). However, the scale of U.S. exports is dwarfed by imports, which exceeded the value of exports by more than 5 to 1.

The data in Table 2 show that China is rapidly diversifying its export base and expanding into higher value-added commodities such as computer and electronic products, aircraft, and auto parts and machinery. The United States has had a trade deficit with China in advanced technology products (ATP) throughout this period, but it increased more than six-fold, from $11.8 billion in 2002 to $74.0 billion in 2008.

The United States had a deficit in its ATP trade with the rest of the world in 2002. However, rapid growth of U.S. ATP exports to the rest of the world, which increased 7.1% per year between 2002 and 2008, generated a $13 billion surplus in 2008. This sector is enjoying some trade success at the moment. However, this small surplus was completely overwhelmed by the U.S. ATP deficit with China in 2008. As a result, the United States ran an overall deficit in ATP products in 2008, as is has in every year since 2002. The U.S. global ATP trade deficit was $61.1 billion in 2008.

Trade deficits are highly correlated with job losses by industry, as shown in Table 3. Growing trade deficits with China eliminated 1,616,300 manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2008, more than two-thirds (66.9%) of the total. By far the largest job losses occurred in the computer and electronic products sectors, which lost nearly 627,700 jobs (26.0% of the 2.4 million jobs lost overall). This sector included computer and peripheral equipment (330,200 jobs, 13.7%) and semiconductors and components (137,400 jobs, 5.7%). Other hard-hit sectors included apparel and accessories (150,200 jobs, 6.2%), fabricated metal products (108,700 jobs, 4.5%), and miscellaneous manufacturing (136,900 jobs, 5.7%). Several service industries, which provide key inputs to traded-goods production, experienced large job losses, including administrative and support services (153,300 jobs, 6.3%) and professional, scientific, and technical services (139,000 jobs, 5.8%).

[Table 3]

Trade, jobs, and the states

Growth in trade deficits with China has reduced demand for goods produced in every region of the United States and has led to job displacement in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as shown in Table 4a. Jobs displaced due to growing deficits with China exceeded 1.95% of total employment in states such as New Hampshire, North Carolina, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Alabama, Idaho, and South Carolina, as shown in Table 4a and Figure A. More than 300,000 jobs were lost in California and more than 100,000 each in Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida, as shown in Table 4b. An alphabetical list of job losses by state is shown in Table 4c.

[Table 4A]

[Figure A]

[Table 4B]

[Table 4C]

The state job loss map shows that the effects of growing trade deficits with China have been felt widely across the United States and that no area has been exempt from their impact. Job losses have been concentrated in s
tates, with high-tech industries such as Massachusetts, California, and Oregon, and in a variety of manufacturing states, including New Hampshire, North Carolina, Minnesota, Alabama, and Rhode Island. Traditional manufacturing states, such as Wisconsin, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, and the Carolinas, were also hard hit.

Growing trade deficits with China have clearly reduced domestic employment in traded goods industries, especially in the manufacturing sector, which has been hard hit by plant closings and job losses. Workers displaced by trade from the manufacturing sector have had particular difficulty in securing comparable employment elsewhere in the economy. More than one-third of workers displaced from manufacturing dropped out of the labor force (Kletzer 2001, 101, Table D2), and average wages of those who found new jobs fell 11% to 13%.

Some economists have argued that job loss numbers extrapolated from trade flows are uninformative because aggregate employment levels in the United States are set by a broad range of macroeconomic influences, not just by trade flows. However, while the trade balance is but one of many variables affecting aggregate job creation, the employment impacts of trade identified in this paper can be interpreted as the “all else equal” effect of trade on domestic employment. The Federal Reserve, for example, may decide to cut interest rates to make up for job loss stemming from deteriorating trade balances (or any other economic influence), leaving net employment unchanged. This, however, does not change the fact that trade deficits by themselves are a net drain on employment.

Further, even in the best-case scenario in which other jobs rise up one-for-one to replace those displaced by trade flows, the job numbers in this paper are a (conservative) measure of the involuntary job displacement caused by growing trade deficits and a potent indicator of imbalance in the U.S. labor market and wider economy. Economists may label it a wash when the loss of a hundred manufacturing jobs in Ohio or Pennsylvania is offset by the hiring of a hundred construction workers in Phoenix, but in the real world these displacements often result in large income losses and even permanent damage to workers’ earning power (Bivens 2008b).

Lastly, many of the mechanisms that help push back against employment losses from growing trade deficits are not operating in the current recession (or jobless recovery). The Federal Reserve cannot cut interest rates any lower than it already has, and interest-sensitive industries like residential construction are not seeing employment gains from lower rates. In short, in today’s economy with high rates of unemployment, jobs displaced due to trade deficits with China are much more likely to be actual net, economy-wide losses, not just job reallocations.

Job loss by Congressional district

This study also reports, for the first time, on results of a new model which shows that growing trade deficits cost jobs in every Congressional district, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.10 Because the computer, electronic equipment, and parts industries experienced the largest growth in trade deficits with China, the hardest-hit Congressional districts were located in California and Texas, where remaining jobs in that industry are concentrated, and also in North Carolina, which was hard hit by job displacement in a variety of manufacturing industries.

The top 50 hardest-hit Congressional districts are shown in Table 5. The greatest concentrations of these districts are in California (15), Texas (5), North Carolina (5), Massachusetts (4), Minnesota (3), South Carolina (3), Colorado (2), and Illinois (2). These distributions reflect both the size of some states (e.g., California and Texas) and also the concentration of the industries hardest hit such as electronics, furniture, and other manufactured products.

[Table 5]

The Congressional district job model is based on new data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). Prior studies in this series (such as Scott 2008) used state and demographic data drawn from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS). The Current Population Survey (CPS) provides labor force estimates for various demographic groups at the national and state levels. It is a monthly survey of about 50,000 housing units that is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Census (BOC) for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). According to the Census Bureau,

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a new program that is meant to collect census “long form” type data giving basic population characteristics continuously throughout the decade. Starting in 2003, the ACS will use a rolling sample of about 250,000 different housing units per month, spread evenly throughout the country, based on a continuously updated address list. Both the regular availability of “census” type data and the updated address list provide opportunities and additional flexibility for the CPS design and estimates.

The greatest potential benefit to BLS from the ACS, because of its large sample size of 3,000,000 addresses per year, lies in enhancements of the models for labor force estimates at the state and sub-state levels.11

The ACS thus provides a much richer dataset for analyzing the effects of trade on employment in the states and, for the first time, provides information that was used to estimate the distribution of employment by industry at the Congressional district level.

The CPS data suffered from small sample sizes in some smaller states with lower industrial densities, which may have resulted in some underestimates of employment by state. More important, the ACS sample used for this survey contained pooled data for the 2005-07 period. The large number (approximately 9 million) of observations in this dataset allowed for the generation of reliable estimates of job displacement by Congressional district.

Conclusion

The growing U.S. trade deficit with China has displaced huge numbers of jobs in the United States and has been a prime contributor to the crisis in manufacturing employment over the past seven years. Moreover, the United States is piling up foreign debt, losing export capacity, and facing a more fragile macroeconomic environment.

Is America’s loss China’s gain? The answer is most certainly no. China has become dependent on the U.S. consumer market for employment generation, suppressed the purchasing power of its own middle class with a weak currency, and, most important, held trillions of dollars in hard currency reserves instead of investing them in public goods that could benefit Chinese households. Its vast purchases of foreign exchange reserves have stimulated the overheating of its domestic economy, and inflation in China has accelerated rapidly in the past year. Its repression of labor rights has suppressed wages, thereby artificially subsidizing exports.

The U.S-China trade relationship needs a fundamental change. Addressing the exchange rate policies and labor standards issues in the Chinese economy are important first steps.

—The author thanks Algernon Austin, Josh Bivens, and John Irons for comments.

—This research was made possible by support from the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Methodology

The trade and employment analyses in this report are based on a detailed, industry-based study of the relationships between changes in trade flows and employment for each of approximately 201 individual industries of the U.S. economy, specially grouped into 56 custom sectors and using North American Industry Classification Sys
tem (NAICS) data obtained from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).

This study separates exports produced domestically from foreign exports—which are goods produced in other countries, exported to the United States, and then re-exported from the United States. However, because only domestically produced exports generate jobs in the United States, employment calculations here are based only on domestic exports. The measure of the net impact of trade used here to calculate the employment content of trade is the difference between domestic exports and consumption imports. This measure is referred to in this report as “net exports,” to distinguish it from the more commonly reported gross trade balance. Both concepts are measures of net trade flows.

The number of jobs supported by $1million of exports or imports for each of 201 different U.S. industries is estimated using a labor requirements model derived from an input-output table developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This model includes both the direct effects of changes in output (for example, the number of jobs supported by $1 million of auto assembly) and the indirect effects on industries that supply goods used in the manufacture of cars. The indirect impacts include jobs in auto parts, steel, and rubber, as well as service industries such as accounting, finance, and computer programming. This model estimates the labor content of trade using empirical estimates of labor content and trade flows between U.S. industries in a given base year (an input-output table for the year 2006 was used in this study) that were developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is not a statistical survey of actual jobs gained or lost in individual companies, or the opening or closing of particular production facilities (Bronfenbrenner and Luce 2004 is one of the few studies based on news reports of individual plant closings).

Nominal trade data used in this analysis were converted to constant 2000 dollars using industry-specific deflators (see next section for further details). This was necessary because the labor requirements table was estimated using price levels in that year. Data on real trade flows were converted to constant 2000 dollars using export and import price deflators from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009a). Use of constant 2000 dollars was required for consistency with the other BLS models used in this study.

Estimation and data sources

Data requirements

Step 1. U.S.-China trade data were obtained from the USITC DataWeb (2009) in four-digit, three-digit, and two-digit NAICS format. Consumption imports and domestic exports are downloaded for each year.

Step 2. To conform to the BLS Employment Requirements tables (BLS 2009b), trade data must be converted into the BLS industry classifications system. For NAICS-based data, there are 201 BLS industries. The data are then mapped from NAICS classifications onto their respective BLS classification.

The trade data, which are in current dollars, are deflated into real 2000 dollars using published price deflators from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009a).

Step 3. BLS real domestic employment requirements tables are downloaded from the BLS. These matrices are input-output tables industry by industry that show the employment requirements for $1,000,000 in outputs in 2000 dollars. So, for the i-th industry, the aij entry is the employment indirectly supported in industry i by final sales in industry j and where i=j, the employment directly supported.

Analysis

Step 1. Job equivalents

BLS trade data is compiled into matrices. Let [T2001] be the 201×2 matrix made up of a column of imports and a column of exports. [T2007] is defined as the 201×2 matrix of 2007 trade data. Finally, [T2008] is defined as the 201×2 matrix of 2008 trade data. Define [E2001] as the 201×201 matrix consisting of the real 2006 domestic employment requirements tables. To estimate the jobs displaced by trade, perform the following matrix operations.

[J2001]=[T2001]×[E2006]

[J2007]=[T2007]×[E2007]

[J2008]=[T2008]×[E2006]

[J2001] is a 201×2 matrix of job displacement by imports and jobs supported by exports for each of 201 industries. Similarly, [J2007] and [J2008] are 201×2 matrices of job displaced or supported by imports and exports (respectively) for each of 201 industries.

The employment estimates for retail trade, wholesale trade, and advertising were set to zero for this analysis. We assume that goods must be sold and advertised whether they are produced in the United States or imported for consumption.

To estimate jobs created/lost over certain time periods, we perform the following operations:

[Jnx01-08]=[J2008]-[J2001]

[Jnx01-07]=[J2007]-[J2001]

[Jnx07-08]=[J2008]-[J2007]

Step 2. State-by-state analysis

For states, employment by industry data is obtained for the ACS data from 2005-07 and is mapped into 56 custom sectors. We look at job displacement from 2001 to 2008, so from this point, we use [Jnx01-08]. In order to work with 56 sectors, we group the 201 BLS industries into a new matrix, defined as [Jnew01-08], a 56×2 matrix of job displacement numbers. Define [St05-07] as the 56×52 matrix of state employment shares (with the addition of the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) of employment in each industry. Calculate:

[Stjnx01-08]=[St05-07]T [Jnew01-08]

Where [Stjnx01-08] is the 56×52 matrix of job displacement/support by state by industry. To get state total job displacement, we add up the subsectors in each state.

Step 3. Congressional district analysis

Employment by congressional district by industry by state is obtained from the ACS data from 2005-2007. In order to calculate job displacement in each Congressional district, we use each column in [Stjnx01-08] which represent individual state job displacement by industry numbers, and define them as [Stj01], [Stj02], [Stji]…[Stj52], with i representing the state number and each matrix being 56×1.

Each state has Y congressional districts, so [Cdi] is defined as the 56xY matrix of Congressional district employment shares for each state. Congressional district shares are calculated thus:

[Cdj01]=[Stj01]T [Cd01]

[Cdji]=IStji]T [Cdi]

[Cdj52]=[Stj52]T Cd52]

Where [Cdji] is defined as the 56xY job displacement in state i by congressional district by industry.

To get Congressional district total job displacement, we add up the subsectors in each Congressional district in each state.

Endnotes

  1. These purchases were sufficient to finance the entire U.S. current account deficit in 2009 (the broadest measure of all U.S. trade and income flows) of $420 billion. Without these purchases, the reduced demand would have put significant downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A substantial depreciation in the dollar would begin to improve the U.S. trade deficit within a few years.
  2. The official name of the Chinese currency is the renminbi (RMB). The RMB is convertible for current account transactions but not for capital account flows. “Unlike the United States and many other countries, China uses a different word—yuan—for the unit in which product prices, exchange rates, and other such values are denominated from the word used for its currenc
    y” (Congressional Budget Office 2008, note 3). Here after, the word yuan will be used when referring to the Chinese exchange rate.
  3. The trade balance usually responds to a fall in the dollar with a substantial lag of at least one to two years, due to “J-curve” effects. The major initial impact of a depreciation is usually to raise the price and total value of imports, and hence the trade deficit. In the medium- and long-term, the trade flows usually respond to the increase in the relative competitiveness of domestic products as the rate of growth of imports slows or imports decrease, and the rate of growth of exports accelerates, ultimately leading to an improvement in the trade balance for large currency adjustments. Most of the dollar adjustment against major currencies occurred between February 2002 and December 2004. For example, the dollar fell 36.4% against the euro in this period, and then fell only 4.0% between December 2004 and December 2007.
  4. If maintained, price suppression (in response to recent appreciation of the yuan) is likely to result in an increase in unfair trade complaints. In fact, a number of successful anti-dumping cases were filed against Chinese makers of steel pipe in 2008 and 2009, including Oil Country Tubular Goods.
  5. NewsHour with Jim Lehrer transcript. 1999. “Online NewsHour: Opening Trade – November 15, 1999.” <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec99/wto_11-15.html>
  6. Output (gross domestic product or GDP) is the sum of consumption, investment, government spending, and the trade balance. The trade balance is the sum of exports less imports. A declining trade balance lowers GDP. The growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China has therefore reduced U.S. GDP and the demand for labor. Holding all other sources of demand constant, growing trade deficits therefore reduce the demand for labor in the United States.
  7. See the Appendix for a technical presentation and details on data sources used. This model has been completely updated and expanded for this study using new data on employment by state, industry, and Congressional District from the American Community Survey, and employment requirements tables for 2006 and related economic data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009a, 2009b). Trade data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau were downloaded from the U.S. International Trade Commission (2009).
  8. For the purposes of this report it is necessary to distinguish between exports produced domestically and re-exports—which are goods produced in other countries, imported into the United States, and then re-exported to other countries, in this case to China. Since re-exports are not produced domestically, their production does not support domestic employment and they are excluded from the model used here. See Table 1 for information about the levels of U.S. re-exports to China in 2008.
  9. Table 2 reports U.S. imports for consumption and domestic exports to China. These flows were chosen to emphasize goods produced and consumed in the United States. News reports from the Census Bureau and Commerce Department usually emphasize general imports and total exports. Total exports as reported by the Census Bureau include re-exports, i.e., goods produced in other countries and shipped through the United States. For 2007, the Census Bureau reported general imports from China of $337.8 billion, total exports of $71.5 billion, and a trade balance of -$266.3 billion.
  10. Data for 437 districts total are shown in companion tables available with the posting of this report. <http://www.epi.org/publications/bp260/>
  11. http://www.fcsm.gov/99papers/acsasa.html

References

AFL-CIO, U.S. Representative Benjamin L. Cardin, and U.S. Representative Christopher H. Smith (AFL-CIO et al). 2006. “Section 301 Petition [on China’s repression of workers’ rights].” June 8.

Bivens, L. Josh. 2008a. Everybody Wins, Except for Most of Us: What Economics Teaches (But Economists Generally Don’t) About Globalization. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Bivens, L. Josh. 2008b. “Trade, Jobs, and Wages: Are the Public’s Worries about Globalization Justified?” Issue Brief No. 244. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epinet.org.

Bronfenbrenner, Kate, and Stephanie Luce. 2004. “The Changing Nature of Corporate Global Restructuring: The Impact of Production Shifts on Jobs in the U.S., China, and Around the Globe.” Commissioned research paper for the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission. http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/cornell_u_mass_report.pdf.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment Projections. 2009a. Special Purpose Files—Industry Output and Employment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/emp/empind2.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment Projections. 2009b. Special Purpose Files—Employment Requirements. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. http://stats.bls.gov/emp/empind4.htm.

Chinability. 2010. China’s foreign exchange reserves, 1977-2009. http://www.chinability.com/Reserves.htm

Cline, William R., and John Williamson. 2010. “Notes on Equilibrium Exchange Rates: January 2010.” Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics. Policy Brief 10-2. http://iie.com/publications/interstitial.cfm?ResearchIDs=1472.

Clinton, Bill. 2000. Expanding trade, protecting values: Why I’ll fight to make China’s trade status permanent. New Democrat, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 9-11.

Congressional Budget Office. 2008. “How Changes in the Value of the Chinese Currency Affect U.S. Imports.” Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office.

Haley, Usha C.V. 2008. “Shedding Light on Energy Subsidies in China: An Analysis of China’s Steel Industry from 2000-2007.” Washington, D.C.: Alliance for American Manufacturing. http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/energy-subsidies-in-china-jan-8-08.pdf

Haley, Usha C.V. 2009. “Through China’s Looking Glass—Subsidies to the Chinese Glass Industry from 2004-08.” Briefing Paper No. 242. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. October 8. http://www.epi.org/publications/bp242/

Kletzer, Lori G. 2001. Job Loss from Imports: Measuring the Costs. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.

Scott, Robert E. 2008. “International Picture: Increase in oil prices, fall in investment income exacerbates current account deficit woes.” June 18. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publicatio
ns/entry/indicators_intlpict_20080618/

Scott, Robert E. 2010. “International Picture: U.S. Trade Deficit Falls in 2009, but Larger Share Goes to China.” Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. February 11. http://www.epi.org/publications/international_picture_20100211/

U.S. International Trade Commission. 2009. USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp

  • Supplemental Table A: Net job loss due to growing trade deficits with China, 2001-08, by Congressional district [PDF] [Excel]
  • Supplemental Table B: Net job loss in Congressional districts due to growing trade deficits with China, 2001-08, alphabetical [PDF] [Excel]

Economic Snapshots

Economic Snapshots

Corporate profits have recovered, but job market still depressed
Corporate profits are 5.7% higher than at the start of the recession; job base is 5.9% smaller. Read more

Running out of steam
Weekly jobless claims have held steady in the mid-400,000 range for the last four-and-a-half months, suggesting an excruciatingly slow recovery. Read more

Older men face longer job searches
39.9% of unemployed men have been looking for work for more than six months. Read more

Unemployment spells in Michigan and South Carolina are the longest in the nation
An interactive map showing median length of unemployment by state. Read more

Many jobless cannot collect unemployment benefits
Millions of the nation’s unemployed are not collecting unemployment benefits and are not eligible to do so under the laws in their state. Read more

Trading test anxiety for job market jitters
The class of 2010 will enter a labor market that has not only the highest rate of unemployment in a generation, but also an unusually high rate of joblessness for recent college graduates. Read more

Women now hold close to half of all jobs
Massive job loss of the recession has affected men disproportionately. Read more

Counting the jobs lost to China
An estimated 2.4 million American jobs were lost between 2001 and 2008 as a result of increased trade with China. Read more

American factories operating near record low utilization
U.S. manufacturing sector has suffered a steady decline over the past decade. Read more

Unemployed wait longer and longer for  jobs
Typical job search takes close to five months. Read more

Leaving in droves
Large number of discouraged young unemployed workers drop out of the labor force. Read more

The Recovery Act worked
One year later, the benefits are undeniable Read more

Worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? By a long shot.
A comparison of the current downturn to nine previous recessions. Read more

Layoffs moderating but hiring not yet picking up
Fewer people are losing their jobs, but the unemployed still struggle to find work. Read more

Jobs creation effort needs to focus on good jobs
Male workers face shortage of good jobs with health and retirement benefits. Read more

Minorities, less-educated workers see staggering rates of underemployment
One in six workers cannot find the amount of work they want. Read more

Lost investment during a recession can prolong pain
Lower investment spending during a recession can lead to slower economic growth long after a recession is over. Read more

Economic downturn largest contributor to deficit woes
Recovery Act spending amounts to a small slice of the budget deficit pie. Read more

Costly COBRA: For the jobless, health care costs may exceed unemployment benefits
Workers must pay dearly to keep health insurance after losing a job. Read more

Mass layoffs at highest level since at least 1995
While some businesses might let go of a couple of workers, many others are laying off entire divisions, or are simply going belly up. Read more

Germany protects jobs
Germany’s unemployment has remained stable, thanks, in part, to their labor market policies. Read more

Commencing unemployment
The latest unemployment data for young college graduates show that 2009 is the second worst year on record. Read more

College-educated, African Americans hardest hit by unemployment
The March 2009 unemployment rate for college-educated African Americans was 7.2%–almost twice as high as the white rate. Read more

Recovery package eases but does not eliminate job woes
Even with the recently passed stimulus package, most states will still have fewer jobs at the end of 2010 than they did before the recession began. Read more

COBRA expansion won’t benefit most low-income workers
Proposed changes to COBRA health insurance coverage won’t help poor families. Read more

Federal grants key to recovery for states in recession
Because of the current recession, revenue from taxes is very low and most states now face troubling budget shortfalls.  Read more

Downtime: Workers forced to settle for fewer hours
The past year has been a tough one for workers wanting full-time jobs. Read more

How long would a job-market recovery take?
Evidence from the last two recessions suggests that employment levels may not fully recover until mid-2010 or beyond.  Read more

More job seekers, fewer jobs
Read more


Download entire plan (PDF)

American Jobs Plan main page

EPI launches Economy Track

Gross domestic product is up, but unemployment is still growing. U.S. auto manufacturers are operating at higher capacity, following a steep drop earlier this year, but Michigan — home of the major car makers — has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. The unemployment rate is lower than average for white women, but significantly higher for black men. It is comparatively low in North Dakota and Nebraska, but much higher in Florida, California, and other states.

That is what an economy as large and diverse as the United States’ looks like, and a full understanding of its complexities requires the ability to look deeper than last month’s national averages.

Introducing Economy Track: a new Web site created by EPI featuring a collection of charts containing our exclusive data. Economy Track offers a detailed picture of the recession and the current jobs crisis unavailable elsewhere.

The site (www.economytrack.org) presents a collection of often complex economic data in an interactive, easy-to-use format that lets users see the context behind the numbers by comparing the latest employment data to that from past recessions. Users can also parse the numbers by race, gender, region, and level of education. Rather than just charting total unemployment, for example, Economy Track illustrates how unemployment is higher for blacks and Hispanics than for whites, higher for men than for women, and much higher for blue-collar workers than for those with white-collar jobs.

One image that best shows the severity of the current recession in comparison to past downturns is the underemployment rate, a figure that measures the number of people who have been unable to find full-time work and are working either part time or not at all. Underemployment now stands at 17% — meaning that more than one in six workers are now unemployed or underemployed — and Economy Track charts how that number steeply rose over the course of the latest recession. During the prior recession of 2001, underemployment showed a much more modest increase and never rose much above 10%.

Economy Track also features a state-by-state unemployment map of the United States that provides a quick, color-coded picture of the regions hardest hit by the recession. Other charts on the site allow users to flesh out some of the most dramatic stories of the downturn, with interactive charts on unemployment, underemployment, and many other measures of the labor market. One group of charts focuses on gross domestic product and capacity utilization, offering another way of measuring the economy’s performance.

Data on total underemployment, underemployment among black workers, and among those with less than a high school degree are the sort of indicators that EPI’s economists watch closely. Our attention to detail and to labor market trends that are not always reflected in the overall unemployment numbers signaled to us more than a year ago that the current recession was far more severe than past downturns and was likely to have more devastating consequences.

Economy Track tells the story of the current economy through a series of images that policy makers, advocates, students, and journalists will all find useful, such as the six-to-one ratio between job seekers and job openings. During this critical juncture in the economy, when some experts say the recession is over while others see more pain in the pipeline, EPI’s team of economists will regularly update these charts with all of the latest economic data, making it an invaluable source of information and insight.

Recovery package eases but does not eliminate job woes

Economic Snapshot for March 4, 2009

Recovery package eases but does not eliminate states’ job woes

by Kai Filion

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recently approved by Congress and signed by the president is a great first step toward economic recovery, but it is not a panacea for our economic problems. Even with the jobs created by this plan, many states will still suffer.

This interactive map shows projected job loss and creation by the end of 2010 as a percentage of total jobs in each state.  Although a few states are expected to show some job growth, a total of 39 states—representing more than 80% of the population—will have fewer jobs at the end of 2010 than before the recession began. The hardest hit (Michigan, Florida, Arizona, and Rhode Island) will each have lost more than 5% of their jobs. California alone is expected to lose over 700,000 jobs, while New York, Florida, and Michigan combined will shed more than 1.1 million jobs. Although the recovery plan will help to ease this pain, there is still work to be done.

[Download printable PDF version of this map

Note:
1. Expected jobs in 2010 are calculated by adding the White House estimates of jobs created by the stimulus to Mark Zandi’s estimates of employment in the fourth quarter of 2010. This result is then compared to pre-recession employment levels (fourth quarter of 2007) to calculate the percentage of jobs lost or created.

Most states suffer large declines in employer-sponsored health coverage

By Elise Gould, with research assistance from Emily Garr  

The majority of states experienced significant declines in employer-sponsored coverage this decade. A new analysis of the under-65 population documents the variation in both the level and extent of coverage lost between 2000-01 and 2006-07. Forty-one states experienced significant losses in coverage across every region of the United States. South Carolina, Missouri, North Carolina, and Maryland experienced losses in excess of 7 percentage points, while no state experienced an increase. The interactive map below illustrates the loss in employer-sponsored coverage by state, accompanied by coverage of kids and workers.

Employer-sponsored health insurance coverage by state, under 65, 2000/01 to 2006/07

Printable version of map (PDF)

Among children, employer-sponsored health insurance losses exceeded 10 percentage points in Missouri, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Iowa. In five states, less than half of children received health insurance from an employer (Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana), while the highest rates of coverage were in New Hampshire (76.7%), Minnesota (71.4%), Connecticut (71.4%), and Massachusetts (71.0%).

Among workers insured through their own or a spouse’s job, the largest declines in coverage occurred in South Carolina and Colorado (7.6 and 7.2 percentage points, respectively). The state with the highest rate of employer-sponsored coverage among workers was Hawaii, a state that mandates employers to provide health insurance to workers who work at least 20 hours per week. Hawaii had a coverage rate in 2006-07 of 80.6%, compared to the national average of 70.9%.

The author would like to thank Sylvia Saab for her assistance on this Snapshot.

See also this companion Briefing Paper from the author.

Check out the archive for past Economic Snapshots.

The unemployment trend by state

Since the economic downturn began in December 2007, the United States has lost over 600,000 jobs, and the national unemployment rate has risen to a five-year high of 6.1%. States most affected are concentrated largely in the Pacific West, Midwest, and South Atlantic regions, and are led by Michigan (8.9%), Rhode Island (8.5%), California (7.7%), and Mississippi (7.7%). This interactive map shows the unemployment rate of each state in August, accompanied by employment gains and losses incurred by each state since the economic downturn.

Interactive map: Unemployment rates by state, August 2008

Printable version of this map [PDF]

Though 22 states increased net employment since December, job growth for the vast majority of those states has been grossly insufficient compared to that of the working-age population. Consequently, the percentage of people in the labor force actively—but unsuccessfully—looking for work has steadily gone up, even in states that saw an increase in employment. For example, in Texas, which gained more jobs since December than any other state, the unemployment rate rose from 4.2% to 5.0% in nine months. The story in manufacturing is more dismal, with all but six states shedding jobs. This follows ongoing job loss since late 2000 that totals more than 3.5 million.

Help could be on the way. In the past three weeks, both the Senate and the House have introduced legislation (S. 3507 and H.R. 6867) that would extend unemployment benefits to eligible workers in every state, with an additional 13 weeks in states with unemployment rates above 6.0%.