On Thursday, July 18, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a proposal to gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by October 2025. As shown in the tables below, such an increase in the federal wage floor would lift wages for 33.5 million workers across the country by 2025—more than one-fifth of the wage-earning workforce. The increase would boost total annual wages for these low-wage workers by $92.5 billion, lifting annual earnings for the average affected year-round worker by $2,800.
Who would benefit if the federal minimum wage is raised to $15 by 2025?
A total of 33.5 million workers would benefit, including:
- 30.1 million adults ages 20 or older
- 19.6 million full-time workers
- 19.5 million women
- 9.4 million parents
- 4.6 million single parents
- 6.2 million workers in poverty
More details on the schedule of increases, the affected workforce, the effect on workers’ wages, and the estimated impact by state can be found in the tables at the end of this fact sheet.
The proposal being voted on is similar to one that we analyzed in February, which would have raised the federal minimum wage to $15 by July 2024.1 In that analysis, we estimated that nearly 40 million workers would have gotten a raise from that proposed increase. The biggest difference between the estimates in that analysis and the estimates presented here are changes in state minimum wages that have been enacted since February. EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model, which we use to produce these estimates, accounts for all existing state and local minimum wage laws so that the results describe only the impact of the proposed federal minimum wage change.2 Since our February analysis, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, and Connecticut all enacted $15 state minimum wages, thus significantly reducing the number of workers who would be impacted by the change in the federal minimum wage, as these workers will already have received raises from their rising state minimum wages.3 Phasing in the increases over one additional year also reduces the number of workers affected and the wage impact of the proposal—as some workers who would have been paid wages in the affected range in 2024 will likely be paid wages above the affected range by 2025.
In a recent report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that a $15 minimum wage in 2025 would raise the wages of up to 27.3 million low-wage workers.4 As best we can tell, our estimates differ from theirs for two reasons:
- CBO is more restrictive than we are about including workers who report wages below the existing minimum wage. There is considerable measurement error in the hourly wage values reported in the Current Population Survey—the data source for both CBO’s and our analyses—particularly because some wage values must be imputed from nonhourly workers’ reported weekly wages and their reported usual hours worked. For this reason, EPI assumes that reported or imputed hourly wage values as low as 80 percent of the existing binding minimum wage are likely the result of measurement error and that these workers will benefit from a rising minimum. CBO assumes that wage values more than 25 cents below the existing minimum are the result of employer noncompliance and those workers will not be affected by the rising federal wage floor.
- CBO also assumes noticeably stronger baseline wage growth for low-wage workers than we do—i.e., wage growth occurring without any change in the federal minimum wage. This assumption means that CBO believes many more workers will experience sufficient wage growth to put them above the level at which they would be affected by the rising federal minimum wage.
The CBO report assumes baseline nominal wage growth averaging 3.5 percent annually for the “low-wage” workforce. This strikes us as very optimistic. CBO’s own projections for inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) are an average of 2.4 percent annually over the next six years—meaning that CBO believes low-wage workers will experience wage growth faster than inflation by 1.1 percent every year through 2025 without any change in the federal minimum wage.5 For comparison, that since 1973, there have only been 13 years in which the 10th percentile wage rose by 1.1 percent or more (after inflation), and this has never occurred for more than three years consecutively.6 The period from 1996 to 1999 is the only three-year span when this occurred, a period with an exceptionally strong labor market which also happened to coincide with an increase in the federal minimum wage. In fact, if the 10th percentile wage had grown at 1.1 percent above inflation annually since 1979, it would be $14.68 in 2018 instead of the $9.97 it actually was.7 In short, the failure of this group of workers to see wage growth as fast as that currently forecast by CBO is essentially the entire reason why we need a robust federal minimum wage.
To be clear, it would be a wonderful thing if the low-wage workforce did experience real wage growth of 1.1 percent (or more!) annually for the foreseeable future. We are just skeptical that we can expect this to happen, especially in the absence of a rising wage floor.
1. David Cooper, Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15 by 2024 Would Lift Pay for Nearly 40 Million Workers, Economic Policy Institute, February 2019.
2. David Cooper, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer, Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology, February 2019.
3. New Mexico and Nevada also enacted state minimum wage increases to $12, though these changes do not meaningfully affect our estimates.
4. Congressional Budget Office, The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage, July 2019; Ben Zipperer, “Low-wage Workers Will See Huge Gains from Minimum Wage Hike, CBO Finds,” Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), July 9, 2019.
5. EPI’s simulation assumes baseline hourly wage growth of CBO’s projection for CPI + 0.5 percent, equaling an average of 2.9 percent annually from 2018 to 2025.
6. Economic Policy Institute, “Wages by Percentile,” State of Working America Data Library, last updated February 19, 2019.
7. Author’s calculations using data from Economic Policy Institute, “Wages by Percentile,” State of Working America Data Library, last updated February 19, 2019.
Summary of minimum wage increases under the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, and number of workers affected by the increases, 2019–2025
| Date | Minimum wage | Increase | Tipped minimum wage | Tipped minimum increase | Total estimated U.S. workforce (thousands) | Directly affected (thousands) | Indirectly affected (thousands) | Total affected (thousands) | Affected workers’ share of U.S. workforce |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2019 | $7.25 | 2.13 | |||||||
| October 2019 | $8.40 | $1.15 | $3.55 | $1.42 | 145,357 | 2,152 | 4,216 | 6,368 | 4.4% |
| October 2020 | $9.50 | $1.10 | $5.00 | $1.45 | 146,148 | 5,013 | 7,008 | 12,021 | 8.2% |
| October 2021 | $10.60 | $1.10 | $6.45 | $1.45 | 146,963 | 8,034 | 8,578 | 16,612 | 11.3% |
| October 2022 | $11.70 | $1.10 | $7.90 | $1.45 | 147,801 | 13,071 | 7,233 | 20,303 | 13.7% |
| October 2023 | $12.80 | $1.10 | $9.35 | $1.45 | 148,665 | 15,487 | 9,273 | 24,760 | 16.7% |
| October 2024 | $13.90 | $1.10 | $10.80 | $1.45 | 149,554 | 19,350 | 11,210 | 30,560 | 20.4% |
| October 2025 | $15.00 | $1.10 | $12.25 | $1.45 | 150,469 | 23,237 | 10,222 | 33,459 | 22.2% |
Notes: Values reflect the result of the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate exceeds their existing hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage. Wage increase totals are cumulative of all preceding steps.
Source: Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See David Cooper, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer, Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology, February 2019.
Wage impacts of increasing the minimum wage under the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, 2019–2025 (2018$)
| Directly affected workers | All (directly & indirectly) affected workers | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Minimum wage (nominal $) | Minimum wage (2018$) | Tipped minimum wage (nominal $) | Tipped minimum wage (2018$) | Total wage increase (thousands) | Change in avg. hourly wage | Change in avg. annual income (year-round workers) | Real percent change in avg. annual earnings | Total wage increase (thousands) | Change in avg. hourly wage | Change in avg. annual income (year-round workers) | Real percent change in avg. annual earnings |
| July 2019 | $7.25 | $7.08 | $2.13 | $2.08 | ||||||||
| October 2019 | $8.40 | $8.21 | $3.55 | $3.47 | $2,308,932 | $0.77 | $1,070 | 10.4% | $4,386,358 | $0.46 | $690 | 4.8% |
| October 2020 | $9.50 | $9.06 | $5.00 | $4.77 | $7,164,773 | $1.00 | $1,430 | 11.7% | $10,431,478 | $0.58 | $870 | 5.5% |
| October 2021 | $10.60 | $9.86 | $6.45 | $6.00 | $14,549,451 | $1.23 | $1,810 | 13.4% | $19,355,468 | $0.77 | $1,170 | 7.0% |
| October 2022 | $11.70 | $10.62 | $7.90 | $7.17 | $26,848,613 | $1.36 | $2,050 | 13.4% | $32,310,715 | $1.04 | $1,590 | 9.0% |
| October 2023 | $12.80 | $11.34 | $9.35 | $8.28 | $42,106,884 | $1.77 | $2,720 | 16.9% | $49,365,973 | $1.28 | $1,990 | 10.6% |
| October 2024 | $13.90 | $12.03 | $10.80 | $9.34 | $61,250,277 | $2.01 | $3,170 | 18.3% | $69,762,064 | $1.44 | $2,280 | 11.4% |
| October 2025 | $15.00 | $12.68 | $12.25 | $10.35 | $83,120,275 | $2.23 | $3,580 | 19.3% | $92,402,765 | $1.71 | $2,760 | 13.3% |
Notes: Values reflect the result of the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI's Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage. Wage increase totals are cumulative of all preceding steps.
Source: Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See David Cooper, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer, Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology, February 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2018.
Demographic characteristics of workers affected by increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025
| Group | Total estimated workforce (thousands) | Directly affected (thousands) | Share of total directly affected | Indirectly affected (thousands) | Share of total indirectly affected | Total affected (thousands) | Share of total affected | Group’s share of total affected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All workers | 150,469 | 23,237 | 15.4% | 10,222 | 6.8% | 33,459 | 22.2% | 100.0% |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Women | 72,988 | 13,656 | 18.7% | 5,851 | 8.0% | 19,508 | 26.7% | 58.3% |
| Men | 77,481 | 9,581 | 12.4% | 4,370 | 5.6% | 13,951 | 18.0% | 41.7% |
| Age | ||||||||
| Age 19 or younger | 5,258 | 2,872 | 54.6% | 486 | 9.2% | 3,358 | 63.9% | 10.0% |
| Age 20 or older | 145,211 | 20,366 | 14.0% | 9,736 | 6.7% | 30,102 | 20.7% | 90.0% |
| Ages 16–24 | 20,500 | 9,053 | 44.2% | 2,322 | 11.3% | 11,375 | 55.5% | 34.0% |
| Ages 25–39 | 50,705 | 7,325 | 14.4% | 3,824 | 7.5% | 11,149 | 22.0% | 33.3% |
| Ages 40–54 | 48,076 | 3,791 | 7.9% | 2,423 | 5.0% | 6,214 | 12.9% | 18.6% |
| Age 55 or older | 31,188 | 3,068 | 9.8% | 1,653 | 5.3% | 4,721 | 15.1% | 14.1% |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||||
| White | 89,040 | 11,631 | 13.1% | 5,749 | 6.5% | 17,380 | 19.5% | 51.9% |
| Black | 17,784 | 4,448 | 25.0% | 1,267 | 7.1% | 5,715 | 32.1% | 17.1% |
| Hispanic | 29,595 | 5,648 | 19.1% | 2,405 | 8.1% | 8,053 | 27.2% | 24.1% |
| Asian or other race/ethnicity | 14,051 | 1,511 | 10.8% | 801 | 5.7% | 2,312 | 16.5% | 6.9% |
| Men of color | 31,715 | 5,063 | 16.0% | 2,153 | 6.8% | 7,217 | 22.8% | 21.6% |
| Women of color | 29,714 | 6,543 | 22.0% | 2,320 | 7.8% | 8,863 | 29.8% | 26.5% |
| Family status | ||||||||
| Married parent | 38,042 | 3,007 | 7.9% | 1,826 | 4.8% | 4,833 | 12.7% | 14.4% |
| Single parent | 13,940 | 3,233 | 23.2% | 1,329 | 9.5% | 4,562 | 32.7% | 13.6% |
| Married, no children | 38,588 | 3,245 | 8.4% | 1,931 | 5.0% | 5,175 | 13.4% | 15.5% |
| Unmarried, no children | 59,899 | 13,753 | 23.0% | 5,137 | 8.6% | 18,889 | 31.5% | 56.5% |
| Usual work hours | ||||||||
| Part time (<20 hours) | 8,690 | 2,786 | 32.1% | 821 | 9.4% | 3,607 | 41.5% | 10.8% |
| Mid time (20–34 hours) | 22,353 | 7,768 | 34.8% | 2,436 | 10.9% | 10,204 | 45.7% | 30.5% |
| Full time (35+ hours) | 119,426 | 12,683 | 10.6% | 6,965 | 5.8% | 19,648 | 16.5% | 58.7% |
| Educational attainment | ||||||||
| Less than high school | 15,314 | 5,201 | 34.0% | 1,483 | 9.7% | 6,684 | 43.6% | 20.0% |
| High school | 37,401 | 8,537 | 22.8% | 3,715 | 9.9% | 12,252 | 32.8% | 36.6% |
| Some college, no degree | 35,005 | 7,043 | 20.1% | 3,090 | 8.8% | 10,132 | 28.9% | 30.3% |
| Associate degree | 13,569 | 1,455 | 10.7% | 919 | 6.8% | 2,374 | 17.5% | 7.1% |
| Bachelor’s degree or higher | 49,181 | 1,002 | 2.0% | 1,015 | 2.1% | 2,017 | 4.1% | 6.0% |
| Family income | ||||||||
| Less than $25,000 | 20,317 | 8,712 | 42.9% | 2,628 | 12.9% | 11,340 | 55.8% | 33.9% |
| $25,000–$49,999 | 30,681 | 5,783 | 18.9% | 3,216 | 10.5% | 8,999 | 29.3% | 26.9% |
| $50,000–$74,999 | 27,946 | 3,585 | 12.8% | 1,840 | 6.6% | 5,424 | 19.4% | 16.2% |
| $75,000–$99,999 | 21,875 | 2,111 | 9.6% | 1,069 | 4.9% | 3,180 | 14.5% | 9.5% |
| $100,000–$149,999 | 26,859 | 1,978 | 7.4% | 949 | 3.5% | 2,927 | 10.9% | 8.7% |
| $150,000 or more | 22,791 | 1,069 | 4.7% | 520 | 2.3% | 1,589 | 7.0% | 4.7% |
| Family income-to-poverty ratio | ||||||||
| At or below the poverty line | 10,421 | 5,071 | 48.7% | 1,166 | 11.2% | 6,237 | 59.8% | 18.6% |
| 101–200% of poverty line | 21,924 | 7,047 | 32.1% | 2,939 | 13.4% | 9,986 | 45.5% | 29.8% |
| 201–400% of poverty line | 47,296 | 6,856 | 14.5% | 3,932 | 8.3% | 10,788 | 22.8% | 32.2% |
| 401% or above | 69,885 | 3,793 | 5.4% | 2,104 | 3.0% | 5,897 | 8.4% | 17.6% |
| Poverty status not available | 943 | 471 | 49.9% | 81 | 8.6% | 552 | 58.5% | 1.6% |
| Industry | ||||||||
| Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting | 2,463 | 453 | 18.4% | 151 | 6.1% | 604 | 24.5% | 1.8% |
| Construction | 8,311 | 841 | 10.1% | 482 | 5.8% | 1,322 | 15.9% | 4.0% |
| Manufacturing | 16,562 | 1,694 | 10.2% | 822 | 5.0% | 2,516 | 15.2% | 7.5% |
| Wholesale trade | 4,101 | 437 | 10.7% | 203 | 4.9% | 640 | 15.6% | 1.9% |
| Retail trade | 17,702 | 5,046 | 28.5% | 1,497 | 8.5% | 6,542 | 37.0% | 19.6% |
| Transportation, warehousing, utilities | 7,834 | 639 | 8.2% | 347 | 4.4% | 985 | 12.6% | 2.9% |
| Information | 3,207 | 213 | 6.6% | 105 | 3.3% | 318 | 9.9% | 1.0% |
| Finance, insurance, real estate | 9,587 | 540 | 5.6% | 324 | 3.4% | 864 | 9.0% | 2.6% |
| Professional, scientific, management, technical services | 9,307 | 313 | 3.4% | 170 | 1.8% | 483 | 5.2% | 1.4% |
| Administrative, support, and waste management | 6,037 | 1,353 | 22.4% | 494 | 8.2% | 1,846 | 30.6% | 5.5% |
| Education | 14,746 | 1,438 | 9.7% | 606 | 4.1% | 2,044 | 13.9% | 6.1% |
| Healthcare | 21,591 | 3,265 | 15.1% | 1,279 | 5.9% | 4,544 | 21.0% | 13.6% |
| Arts, entertainment, recreational services | 3,048 | 782 | 25.7% | 360 | 11.8% | 1,142 | 37.5% | 3.4% |
| Accommodation | 1,827 | 600 | 32.8% | 255 | 14.0% | 855 | 46.8% | 2.6% |
| Restaurants and food service | 10,405 | 4,141 | 39.8% | 2,087 | 20.1% | 6,227 | 59.8% | 18.6% |
| Other services | 6,088 | 1,200 | 19.7% | 852 | 14.0% | 2,052 | 33.7% | 6.1% |
| Public administration | 7,652 | 283 | 3.7% | 190 | 2.5% | 473 | 6.2% | 1.4% |
| Tipped occupations | ||||||||
| Nontipped workers | 146,034 | 21,948 | 15.0% | 7,828 | 5.4% | 29,776 | 20.4% | 89.0% |
| Tipped workers | 4,436 | 1,290 | 29.1% | 2,394 | 54.0% | 3,684 | 83.0% | 11.0% |
| Sector | ||||||||
| For-profit | 114,498 | 20,079 | 17.5% | 8,749 | 7.6% | 28,828 | 25.2% | 86.2% |
| Government | 22,777 | 1,684 | 7.4% | 815 | 3.6% | 2,499 | 11.0% | 7.5% |
| Nonprofit | 13,194 | 1,474 | 11.2% | 658 | 5.0% | 2,133 | 16.2% | 6.4% |
Notes: Values reflect the population likely to be affected by the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage. The last two columns show what share of the workforce subgroup is affected, and that subgroup's share of all affected workers. So for example, it shows that 26.7% of working women are affected, and that working women constitute 58.3% of all affected workers.
Source: Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See David Cooper, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer, Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology, February 2019.
Summary of impact of increasing the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 (in 2025), by state
| State | Total estimated state workforce (thousands) | Directly affected (thousands) | Share of state workforce directly affected | Indirectly affected (thousands) | Share of state workforce indirectly affected | Total affected (thousands) | Total share of state workforce affected | State’s share of total affected nationally | Change in total annual wages of state’s affected workers (2018$, thousands) | Change in avg. annual earnings of state’s affected year-round affected workers (2018$) | Real percent change in avg. annual earnings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National total | 150,469 | 23,237 | 15.4% | 10,222 | 6.8% | 33,459 | 22.2% | 100.0% | $109,327,417 | $3,300 | 13.3% |
| Alabama | 2,016 | 565 | 28.0% | 153 | 7.6% | 717 | 35.6% | 2.1% | $2,880,374 | $4,000 | 16.6% |
| Alaska | 352 | 66 | 18.8% | 19 | 5.4% | 85 | 24.2% | 0.3% | $220,584 | $2,600 | 9.2% |
| Arizona | 3,020 | 149 | 4.9% | 850 | 28.2% | 999 | 33.1% | 3.0% | $830,454 | $800 | 3.0% |
| Arkansas | 1,246 | 360 | 28.9% | 97 | 7.8% | 457 | 36.7% | 1.4% | $1,017,352 | $2,200 | 8.3% |
| California | 19,073 | 5 | 0.0% | 5 | 0.0% | 9 | 0.0% | 0.0% | $15,863 | $1,700 | 5.9% |
| Colorado | 2,684 | 97 | 3.6% | 621 | 23.1% | 718 | 26.8% | 2.1% | $532,839 | $700 | 2.7% |
| Connecticut | 1,778 | 8 | 0.5% | 44 | 2.5% | 52 | 2.9% | 0.2% | $72,685 | $1,400 | 5.1% |
| Delaware | 436 | 102 | 23.5% | 32 | 7.3% | 134 | 30.8% | 0.4% | $438,661 | $3,300 | 13.9% |
| District of Columbia | 364 | 2 | 0.6% | 9 | 2.3% | 11 | 3.0% | 0.0% | $34,029 | $3,100 | 9.3% |
| Florida | 8,969 | 2,397 | 26.7% | 712 | 7.9% | 3,109 | 34.7% | 9.3% | $10,803,265 | $3,500 | 14.0% |
| Georgia | 4,564 | 1,197 | 26.2% | 333 | 7.3% | 1,530 | 33.5% | 4.6% | $6,381,944 | $4,200 | 17.4% |
| Hawaii | 729 | 174 | 23.9% | 51 | 7.0% | 225 | 30.9% | 0.7% | $561,361 | $2,500 | 9.7% |
| Idaho | 712 | 194 | 27.3% | 54 | 7.6% | 248 | 34.9% | 0.7% | $1,001,496 | $4,000 | 17.0% |
| Illinois | 6,164 | 52 | 0.8% | 167 | 2.7% | 219 | 3.6% | 0.7% | $467,096 | $2,100 | 8.1% |
| Indiana | 3,026 | 776 | 25.6% | 240 | 7.9% | 1,016 | 33.6% | 3.0% | $3,618,793 | $3,600 | 15.3% |
| Iowa | 1,525 | 386 | 25.3% | 105 | 6.9% | 491 | 32.2% | 1.5% | $1,619,966 | $3,300 | 14.5% |
| Kansas | 1,381 | 329 | 23.8% | 119 | 8.6% | 447 | 32.4% | 1.3% | $1,490,682 | $3,300 | 13.7% |
| Kentucky | 1,860 | 513 | 27.6% | 139 | 7.5% | 652 | 35.1% | 1.9% | $2,781,378 | $4,300 | 18.0% |
| Louisiana | 1,993 | 557 | 27.9% | 163 | 8.2% | 720 | 36.1% | 2.2% | $3,271,408 | $4,500 | 18.7% |
| Maine | 616 | 32 | 5.1% | 160 | 26.0% | 192 | 31.1% | 0.6% | $176,685 | $900 | 3.5% |
| Maryland | 3,056 | 24 | 0.8% | 87 | 2.8% | 111 | 3.6% | 0.3% | $324,647 | $2,900 | 10.6% |
| Massachusetts | 3,470 | 25 | 0.7% | 90 | 2.6% | 115 | 3.3% | 0.3% | $263,292 | $2,300 | 8.6% |
| Michigan | 4,375 | 1,001 | 22.9% | 356 | 8.1% | 1,357 | 31.0% | 4.1% | $3,547,310 | $2,600 | 11.0% |
| Minnesota | 2,777 | 333 | 12.0% | 97 | 3.5% | 430 | 15.5% | 1.3% | $733,545 | $1,700 | 7.6% |
| Mississippi | 1,204 | 378 | 31.4% | 100 | 8.3% | 478 | 39.7% | 1.4% | $2,176,212 | $4,600 | 18.7% |
| Missouri | 2,762 | 636 | 23.0% | 210 | 7.6% | 846 | 30.6% | 2.5% | $1,336,602 | $1,600 | 6.3% |
| Montana | 457 | 123 | 26.9% | 33 | 7.2% | 156 | 34.1% | 0.5% | $421,124 | $2,700 | 11.6% |
| Nebraska | 951 | 203 | 21.4% | 95 | 9.9% | 298 | 31.3% | 0.9% | $721,848 | $2,400 | 10.0% |
| Nevada | 1,396 | 393 | 28.2% | 146 | 10.4% | 539 | 38.6% | 1.6% | $1,050,316 | $1,900 | 7.0% |
| New Hampshire | 678 | 116 | 17.1% | 43 | 6.4% | 159 | 23.5% | 0.5% | $460,966 | $2,900 | 13.3% |
| New Jersey | 4,439 | 15 | 0.3% | 139 | 3.1% | 154 | 3.5% | 0.5% | $336,402 | $2,200 | 7.7% |
| New Mexico | 940 | 264 | 28.0% | 88 | 9.3% | 351 | 37.4% | 1.0% | $777,868 | $2,200 | 8.5% |
| New York | 9,535 | 135 | 1.4% | 966 | 10.1% | 1,101 | 11.5% | 3.3% | $902,245 | $800 | 3.0% |
| North Carolina | 4,496 | 1,192 | 26.5% | 308 | 6.8% | 1,500 | 33.4% | 4.5% | $6,204,993 | $4,100 | 17.3% |
| North Dakota | 380 | 72 | 19.0% | 27 | 7.2% | 100 | 26.2% | 0.3% | $299,781 | $3,000 | 12.7% |
| Ohio | 5,309 | 1,365 | 25.7% | 370 | 7.0% | 1,735 | 32.7% | 5.2% | $5,476,859 | $3,200 | 13.4% |
| Oklahoma | 1,724 | 427 | 24.8% | 135 | 7.9% | 563 | 32.6% | 1.7% | $2,355,164 | $4,200 | 17.1% |
| Oregon | 1,824 | 19 | 1.1% | 270 | 14.8% | 289 | 15.9% | 0.9% | $147,427 | $500 | 1.8% |
| Pennsylvania | 5,920 | 1,391 | 23.5% | 449 | 7.6% | 1,840 | 31.1% | 5.5% | $6,840,333 | $3,700 | 16.4% |
| Rhode Island | 518 | 87 | 16.8% | 44 | 8.5% | 131 | 25.3% | 0.4% | $278,357 | $2,100 | 8.9% |
| South Carolina | 2,140 | 502 | 23.5% | 182 | 8.5% | 684 | 32.0% | 2.0% | $2,772,993 | $4,100 | 16.9% |
| South Dakota | 414 | 98 | 23.6% | 35 | 8.5% | 133 | 32.0% | 0.4% | $323,404 | $2,400 | 9.8% |
| Tennessee | 2,933 | 766 | 26.1% | 243 | 8.3% | 1,009 | 34.4% | 3.0% | $3,949,924 | $3,900 | 15.9% |
| Texas | 13,345 | 3,543 | 26.6% | 996 | 7.5% | 4,539 | 34.0% | 13.6% | $19,553,032 | $4,300 | 17.5% |
| Utah | 1,369 | 354 | 25.8% | 99 | 7.2% | 453 | 33.1% | 1.4% | $1,451,431 | $3,200 | 14.4% |
| Vermont | 301 | 58 | 19.2% | 22 | 7.4% | 80 | 26.6% | 0.2% | $109,636 | $1,400 | 5.4% |
| Virginia | 4,058 | 863 | 21.3% | 263 | 6.5% | 1,126 | 27.7% | 3.4% | $4,261,538 | $3,800 | 15.9% |
| Washington | 3,360 | 3 | 0.1% | 3 | 0.1% | 6 | 0.2% | 0.0% | $10,222 | $1,800 | 6.6% |
| West Virginia | 717 | 185 | 25.8% | 51 | 7.1% | 236 | 32.9% | 0.7% | $784,426 | $3,300 | 13.7% |
| Wisconsin | 2,834 | 643 | 22.7% | 186 | 6.6% | 829 | 29.2% | 2.5% | $2,920,966 | $3,500 | 16.2% |
| Wyoming | 279 | 63 | 22.6% | 19 | 6.7% | 82 | 29.4% | 0.2% | $317,643 | $3,900 | 16.2% |
Notes: Values reflect the result of the proposed change in the federal minimum wage. Wage changes resulting from scheduled state and local minimum wage laws are accounted for by EPI’s Minimum Wage Simulation Model. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Shares calculated from unrounded values. Directly affected workers would see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and 115 percent of the new minimum). They would receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.
Source: Economic Policy Institute Minimum Wage Simulation Model using data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Congressional Budget Office. See David Cooper, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer, Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology, February 2019. Dollar values adjusted by projections for CPI-U in CBO 2019.
