The Don Jones Index, 9/4/26

the DON JONES INDEX…
	GAINS POSTED in GREEN LOSSES POSTED in RED 9/4/26... 14,376.51 8/28/26... 14,378.09 8/21/26... 14,381.39 6/27/13... 15,000.00 Original
*(THE DOW* JONES INDEX: 9/4/26... 53,686.11; 8/28/26... 53,569.49; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)**

LESSON for FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER FOURTH, 2026 – “THE SIN in our WAGES!”

@ dji.250904 (ATTACHMENT ONE

Labor Day is Monday, and Time kicked off the weekend early Saturday morning by reprinting an essay by Antara Haldar on why GDP, wages and prices may not tell the full story of whether workers are worse or better off. (ATTACHMENT TWO)

“Price growth has moderated, equity markets are humming, and joblessness is minimal and steady,” according to Indexbox (ATTACHMENT THREE)... “by a range of indicators, the economy is thriving. Yet a large share of Americans do not share that sense of prosperity.”

For months now, the cost of living has consistently outpaced gains in take-home pay. That mismatch... and the ongoing war in Iran... “helps clarify why trips to the supermarket, monthly energy bills, and searches for homes feel so discouraging.”

Even when after-tax personal income meets or exceeds inflation, consumer confidence in August dropped to its weakest point since the beginning of the year. “Yelena Shulyatyeva, the Conference Board's senior U.S. economist, explained that confidence is tightly linked to whether households believe their earnings are matching the cost of living. She noted that while the trajectory of inflation matters, what truly affects daily life is purchasing power. Inflation may be decelerating, but prices remain markedly above levels from a few years ago, and numerous workers—especially those dealing with sharp jumps in housing, food, insurance, and borrowing expenses—still perceive that their wages have not caught up.”

The numbers, further, are skewed in the favor of the wealthiest, meaning that “more than 40% of workers who remained with the same employer from 2021 to 2024 saw their real wages decline,” according to a study by (@) ADP (2016 – 2025)

The right-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) disputes these numbers, reporting that prices have increased 20 percent since the fourth quarter of 2019, while wages for a typical worker have grown 23 percent.5 (see Figure 1 on website @here – ATTACHMENT “A”)

Data from November 2023 show that 57 percent of workers’ wages grew, on an annual basis, more quickly than inflation since November 2022. (see Figure 2) “Three and a half years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, then, this share stands above its pre-pandemic (2017–2019) average. After the onset of the Great Recession, it took essentially six years—until the end of 2013—for a similar share of workers to begin seeing real annual wage raises.”

Charts, graphs and tables provided by CAP may be interpreted to mean that the COVID-19 recovery “has the second-highest real wage growth for a typical worker at 2 percent when compared with other recent recessions” (and this largely during the administration of the despised Ol’ Joe Biden!) when, according to a subsequent CAP report (Jan. 3, 2024 – ATTACHMENT THREE) all and every demographic... by age, race, gender and location... saw improvement.

The liberal Guardian U.K., on the other hand, attributes the happy stats to the fact that – as of August 27^th – the average CEO of the US’s 100 largest, lowest-paying corporations “earned 614 times more than their average worker last year, according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).”

The wealth of at least 36 billionaires is linked to these low-wage 100 corporations, including Walmart’s eight Walton family members, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Mackenzie Scott, and Carvana co-founders Ernie Garcia II and Ernie Garcia III.

“This is really a big problem for society, that we have such extremes,” said Sarah Anderson, lead author of the report and director of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. (ATTACHMENT FOUR)

“To me, it seems like these CEOs are just living on a remote economic planet from the one that their employees are living on, and it makes it really hard for them to fathom what it’s like to have to worry about putting food on your family’s table,” GUK reported, or even, tossing in a bit of pro-migrant, anti MAGA candy, “coming home at night if you are at risk of being detained by ICE.”

“Low-wage workers are now facing the biggest cuts to Medicaid and Snap [food benefits] in history. Many of the employees at these companies have to rely on those programs, and then so many of them have also been terrorized and detained by ICE agents,” added Anderson. “So it’s really astounding that the leaders of these companies have turned a blind eye to this surge of threats against many of their workers, and instead they’ve just continue to be fixated on enriching themselves,” she doubled down – despite contentions from other sources that removing lower-wage and less powerful aliens is supposed to raise the aggregate earnings for “real” Americans.

The Guardians do touch upon the DJI’s long standing discrimination between productive and degenerate capital – reporting on the effects of stock buybacks, tax tricks and... in another GUK fluck... the costs of supporting an ageing population, paying for what appears to be an inevitable surge in military spending and caving to intense populist pressure for more public spending “will probably rise at least as fast as revenues.”

A Reddit post offers a novel explanation for why US wages “plummet(ed) to 43% of national income — lowest since the Great Depression”: that President Nixon’s “gold breakup kill(ed) paychecks!” (ATTACHMENT FIVE)

On August 15, 1971 Tricky Dick “stopped allowing dollars to be converted into gold, helping bring the Bretton Woods system to an end.” No less authority than former Rep. Ron Paul, one of the country's best-known supporters of gold-backed money, has even called Aug. 15, 1971, "the turning point in the people's economic fortunes."

Redditor Thomas Kent added, however, that other factors responsible for holding back wages may have come into play... a 2025 study from the Federal Reserve “even argue(d) that rising household debt may have played a role.”

So, Nixon's gold decision isn't necessarily a smoking gun. “But it did mark the start of a very different era for the American dollar, and it's easy to see why some investors still don't want all of their wealth tied to the dollar.”

The billionaire class has also been “loading up” on rental real estate with its attendant tax breaks. “Stocks can give you ownership in businesses. Real estate can give you a share of rental income. Gold can add an asset that sits outside the stock market and today's dollar-based money system...” Kent concluded... and “(i)f earning a paycheck is giving workers a smaller slice of America's economic pie, owning assets gives you another way to get a piece.”

Peanut Gallerians attributed present-day inequality to Chinese offshoring, AI and the societal fetish for expensive college educations promoting “white collar jobs in offices doing analytical work, pushing paper etc.” now being robotized. Others complained that not everyone is “salivating at the thought of becoming a millionaire”, that “we can't all be cheating each other or (society) falls apart and that we're at “levels of wealth inequality that surpass the Gilded Age, and people won't do anything about it.”

“The federal minimum wage is $7.25. Wages are not tied to productivity or profit. You can't make an hourly wage and become a billionaire,” a little Hazel Nut pointed out. “It wouldn't bother me so much if people could afford basic necessities with a full time job but that isn't the case anymore since so many go without housing or healthcare while working.”

Benzinga (ATTACHMENT SIX) interviewed The Bern who cited billionaire-turned-trillionaire-bounced back to billionaire Elon Musk as the epitome of a "rigged economy" leading to “increasingly concentrated wealth.”

"Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history,” Sen. Sanders (I-Vt) alleged... “worse than the ‘Gilded Age’ of Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Carnegie."

Even such a... creature... as former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci also warned of a backlash, saying, "When inequality gets this extreme, history is very clear about what happens next. People show up with pitchforks."

Some Benzinga peanuts denounced The Bern as a Commonist gumment crook and “hypocrite Socialist” but – in the view of the DJI, Sanders’ sin is common among partisans left and right... failure to discriminate.

Even the three gilded devils above are differentiated by their means of acquiring means... the Rock a hybrid speculator whose investments included wealth extraction in the form of oil and other valuables; Morgan a full fledged parasite – contributing nothing save a gumment enhanced lockbox, taking, making and faking a living or, beyond that, a killing; Carnegie a nasty bloke cheating competitors and customers, exploiting workers and gouging America but, for his part, producing (or enabling the production of) genuine wealth in the form of the steel and the railroads as drove the American Dream west and, in fact, everywhere.

Musk, also, is a right and right-wing South African bastard, but the working classes as can find funds or credit can drive his cars and enjoy the spectacle of his space explorations.

And now, the AI robotics brain boom can even draw a warning by a dangerous parasite – the neo-Fascist Palantir security and surveillance goons (drawn up from below by the likes of Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison) whose successor regime, at least, now recognizes that an escalating replacement of the working class by machines leaves the working people behind... angry, bitter, unable to feed their families but, against the day, owning and prepping their guns.

“AI will cause major worker dislocation,” Palantir CEO Alex Karp told Benzinga. (6/11/26, ATTACHMENT SEVEN)

Karp said AI is creating a massive period of dislocation and warned that leaders should not ignore the social and economic pressures it may create. He said the issue is not simply mass job loss, but the need to retrain, retool, and change how people work.

Karp warned that artificial intelligence could accelerate wealth concentration and fuel political unrest unless policymakers and businesses address the technology’s social consequences.

“We’re going to have massive resources, but they’re going to disproportionately go to people who are already wealthy,” Karp said. “That is a political problem.”

As the likes of Saddam Hussein, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nicholas Maduro and, more than a century ago, Mexico’s Porfirio Diaz could have warned.

“(Karp) told CNBC that most of the things Anthropic talks about in public are running on Palantir, framing the company as an important layer for applying AI within real-world organizations.

“Karp said frontier AI companies may remain important, but businesses still need platforms that understand enterprise workflows, security needs and operational constraints.”

Or, failing that, a supportive, tougher gumment like that of the Iraniacs – ready, willing and eager to use deadly force on thousands... perhaps millions... of dissidents.

In Zorro’s now-Socialist Gotham, a pre-Labor Day AI Overview reported on the city’s partisan reportage... while media outlets like the New York Times “highlighted the staggering local divide where the top 1% commands 37% of all city income”, the New York Post approached the economic landscape with an “alternate, sharply critical perspective”... pushing back on progressive narratives by highlighting “data showing working-class wage gains, warning against socialist policies, and calling out the flight of high-earners.” (ATTACHMENT EIGHT)

The AIO also explored “key drivers” widening the divide – included “the automation and AI boom” and between low-wage service sectors and elite tech/finance sectors have grown, middle-income jobs have steadily declined in New York, leaving fewer pathways to the middle class.

A report by the New York City Comptroller Mark Levine, summarized in the Sept. 2 New York Times (ATTACHMENT NINE), concluded that anybody not in the top 10 percent was “treading water.”

“It is a very good time to be rich in New York City,” opined Timeswoman Eliza Shapiro. “Almost two-thirds of the city’s inflation-adjusted income growth went to the top 1 percent of earners between 2019 and 2024, according to 2024 tax return data analyzed by Mr. Levine’s office.”

Only the top two income brackets saw what the comptroller’s office called “real income growth,” adjusted for inflation. And that trend was largely driven by capital gains, dividends, interest and other sources that are not straightforward hourly wages.

What that means is that “wealth is pulling away from work,” Mr. Levine said. “What is driving the top 10 percent into the stratosphere is not what they’re getting in their paychecks.”

The “One Percent” has been shorthand for the city’s highest earners since the Occupy Wall Street protests sprung up 15 years ago, but lately, Shapiro contends, “you’d really prefer to be in the top 0.1 percent, or, even better, the .01 percent. Those subgroups had a larger share of the city’s overall income in 2024 than they did before the pandemic.

“The most exclusive ring of earners in the .001 percent, which represents about 50 New York City families, saw the largest growth in incomes of any city tax bracket between 2019 and 2024. Their average income was almost $600 million a year in 2024, up from roughly $315 million in 2019.”

The report found fresh evidence that employment has been dropping for jobs with midrange pay, a trend that is causing increasing alarm among local economists. (Low-wage jobs, “like home health work and food preparation, have seen significant growth” – charity is stepping in but many New Yorkers do not want to be perceived as bums.)

About half of city households can’t keep up with what it costs to afford basics like housing, food and transportation. New York is unique among the country’s largest cities for recording a significant decline in median household income since 2019.

“Part of why the bottom 90 percent is stagnating, even as their wages are going up, is that it’s not enough to keep up with the cost of living here,” Mr. Levine said.

Nor is keeping up possible for workers in states where the minimum wage remains at the Federal $7.25 hour rate (or even less, due to spotty enforcement and intimidation)... the Department of Labor’s (“Consolidated State Minimum Wage Update Tableas of July 1, 2026 – ATTACHMENT TEN) counted thirty states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands with minimum wage rates set higher than the federal minimum wage... thirteen states plus the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that have a minimum wage requirement that is the same as the federal minimum wage requirement and the remaining 7 states and American Samoa as “do not have an established minimum wage requirement or have a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage.”

Another Benzinga report (March 27^th, ATTACHMENT ELEVEN) differentiated between minimum wages and living wages by interviewing e-con-mystik Mihir Torsekar of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), who argues that the U.S. “doesn't have a price problem, it has a wage problem,” one that has been decades in the making.

CPA... contra Trump administration spokesthings and the New York Post (above)... argues that, for the majority of American workers, wages have failed to keep pace with the growth of the economy and corporate profitability. “While the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that real average hourly earnings did increase by 1.4% from February 2025 to February 2026, this modest gain is a drop in the bucket when viewed against the larger economic picture.”

Since the year 2000, the American economy has generated immense wealth, but it hasn't been shared equally. Data from the Federal Reserve shows that after-tax corporate profits have gone from around $800 billion at the turn of the millennium to $3.59 trillion by the third quarter of 2025.

“That massive accumulation of wealth at the corporate level stands in stark contrast to the incremental gains seen by the average worker,” Benzinga’s Ryan Peterson opined, “explaining why a majority of households feel like they are running in place,” and dating the deindustrialization damage back to the "China Shock" of the 2000s and a . phenomenon known as "Baumol's Cost Disease"... coined by economist William Baumol... attributing the rise in costs in certain sectors of the economy to differentiation between manufacturing (where technology allows for huge productivity gains with fewer workers) and “labor-intensive service sectors like healthcare, education, and childcare (where) productivity gains are much harder to come by.”

“When wages lag and essential costs keep climbing, the gap has to be filled somehow,” Peterson concludes, “and for millions of Americans it gets filled with revolving debt at double-digit interest rates.” The debate now being how to fix it, “whether through trade policy, increased unionization, or other measures designed to ensure that the prosperity of the nation is more broadly shared by the people who build it,” the DJI contends that alternative is either a return to slavery or violent revolution.

A “living wage calculator” created by the smart folks at M.I.T.edu (ATTACHMENT TWELVE) included a factotum to inspect hundreds of American communities with detailed data on “living”, “poverty level” and local minimum wages as applicable to demographics such as number of adults and children in households and typical expenses for food, child care, medical, housing, taxes, transportation and other costs.

On the income side, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics detailed average annual salaries... applicable to a “given metro area” and ranging from occupations in Management, down through tech, legal, healthcare, arts, sports and media and at the bottom end, restaurant, janitorial, personal care and... ominously... farming.

We chose four representative communities for study.

1, 2, 3, 4

Around the world, Google and Visual Capitalist ranked minimum wages in 130 countries from the highest (Switzerland, at $3,804 per month, variable by region) to lowest (Gambia at $67). “The U.S. rank(ed) 25th out of 130 countries at $1,257 per month, based on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.” (ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN)

WHY THE U.S. MINIMUM WAGE RANKS 25TH

One reason for America’s position, cited by the rankers, “is that the federal minimum wage hasn’t increased in 17 years. It has remained at $7.25 an hour since July 2009, the longest stretch without an increase since the federal minimum wage was established.

“Inflation has steadily eroded what that $7.25 paycheck can buy. To match the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage when it took effect in 2009, workers would need to earn $11.47 an hour today. In other words, its purchasing power has fallen by roughly 37% since 2009.”

@begin

IN the NEWS: AUGUST 28^TH to SEPTEMBER 4^TH, 2026

Friday, August 28, 2026

Dow: 53,559.99

Under a full blood moon lunar eclipse, it’s the sixth anniversary of the start of the Iran war.

President Trump now says we don’t have to meet with Iran because we are winning even as new Fed Chief Warsh says that the war is contributing to inflation (above) and that he has “work to do” as he waffles over raising the interest rate; as Communists keep insisting our munitions supplies are running low, the Pentagon warns that the NATO missile shortage is “beyond critical”, that 100 tech companies warn that cyberhackers are waging war on our utilities and that Bill Gates is leaping about saying that POTUS “does not even have a plan to have a plan.”

He has, however, an agenda: renaming Lake Ontario Lake America amidst escalating reciprocal Canadian tariffs, Communists lies that American businesses will start going out of business and bad acting mediots charge that he is “selling out America” based on his private crypto deal with the UAE spy chief.

And Mother Nature remains hostile... here and elsewhere... severe storms on the I-95 corrider from Virginia to Vermont, flash flood delays on the Atlantic coast and wildfires now including the Ross in Texas, Plaskett near Monterey and temperatures topping 118° in aptly named Furnace Creek, CA.

Saturday, August 29, 2026

Dow: Closed

The “defeated” Iranians offer surrender terms to America including intervention to drive Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza but now Trump, citing Iran’s “vacuum of leadership”, has a plan to have a plan and a plan, too, confiscate and merch Venezuelan oil – despite its crumbling refinery infrastructure he calls the plan “the biggest oil deal in world history.”.

America joins China in sending aid workers to Nepal as the death toll from the landslides reach 625 with at least 3,000 missing (including ninety Americans) and corpses are being washed down the river to India, 150 miles away. But there is still hope... a 7 year old girl is pulled from the rubble while over six hundred are surviving, trapped in subterranean hydroelectric tunnels.

And there is, as ever, the law. SCOTUS hands Trump a win – greenlighting more restrictions on mail-in ballots. On the docket are transgender military bans, sending death penalty appeals back to lower courts and Anthropic’s claim that autonomous killer AI robots are protected by the First Amendments. Old, cold cases include the Tupac murder, the jury deliberations on Clancey and @. Trump’s tame dog National Park Service approves sale of portions of Yosemite to real estate speculators and the construction of the triumphal Trump Arch.

Sunday, August 30, 2026

Dow: Closed

It’s Talkshow Sunday and, after State Department spokesman Tom Piggott describes US response to the landslide and expresses sympathy for victims’ families, disbelieving Ontarian PM Doug Ford (brother of iconic alcoholic Rob) calls Trump “a loser” and declares he has more smarts in his baby toe; Trump replies “this whole Canada thing has to stop” adding “someone should get these clowns to fall in line” as Ford threatens “there are other countries who want our minerals.” (China?)

ABC roundtablers discuss the midterms, which Donna Brazile calls “generational” not ideological; former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says gerrymandering has resulted in record low competitive seats. USA Today’s Susan Page says Republicans have no message, but Dems have too many and RINO Chris Christie cites Zorro’s taxes and asserts the DSA has taken over the party, adding “prayer is good for you and (Dems) will need it.” McCarthy adds that donkeys are crucifying Hakeem Jeffries for meeting with Jared Kushner.

On 5^th anniversary of Afghan pullout, Gen. Scott Miller blames Biden for the cowardly and chaotic withdrawal leaving pro-American Afghans to be executed; the upcoming 25^th anniversary of 9/11, already memorialized (if not celebrated) draws contentions that it made Americans “remember they were Americans.”

Face the Nation talkers on war include Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct), who says “mob thug” Putin is losing in Ukraine and so massacring children and threatening nuclear war by attacking NATO countries like Poland and Romania. Republican candidate for Governor John James says Democrats say America “deserved” Nine Eleven and supports Trump on Canada (“Carney is bullying Michigan!”) and Iran: (“When somebody says ‘Death to America” they mean it.”)

Monday, August 31, 2026,

Dow: 53,188.90

Following James, President Trump resumes bombing Iran.

As the war passes sixth month, military leaders say it’s hurting our ability to respond elsewhere (as, for example, Russia attacking NATO members – above) and Army Sec. Dan Driscoll resigns after dispute with WarSec Hegseth. Freedom Fuel accused of stealing gas.

Autonomous robots from AI hack competitors “Hugging Face” as techsters say the people in charge “can’t control them.” CBS say the robots show emotion and celebrate destruction.

Eating outside might be difficult in the Rockies where Nepal-ish flooding causes mass evacuations. Reporters over there speak of a four foot high wall of debris, a river of corpses washing down as far as India and mass burials but, also, heroic rescues and hopes that hundreds are surviving in “air pockets”.

Wild woman on Times Square stabbing spree kills two before being shot by police. Authorities say she had no connections to terror and are looking into mental health issues.

Tuesday, August 25, 2026

Dow: 52,768.88

It’s National Eat Outside Day. Not very viable in many places due to te weather. Tropical storm Edouard, weak but moving slowly, dumps torrents of rain on Texas east of Houston – some towns getting 21 inches in two days. More rain and flooding east and west... surfers snarling in the Jersey Shore bars and tourists flee for their lives from the Grand Canyon flooding and falling rocks. Half a year’s worth of rain in two days! Utah deluge strikes heaven and hell – Mount Zion and Goblin Valley.

Nepalese official death toll passes 1,000 – the unofficial toll is much higher. Many thousands more missing including Americans who came for a religious experience but there are a few sensational and emotional rescues and hundreds believed hiding deep in tunnels beneath rubble.

As WarSec Hegseck continues purging senior military leaders, Pentagon insiders warn about running low or out of munitions, not only for Iran but to sell to Ukraine. Putin meets with Iranians and promises military support. American Thom Tillis (R-NC) calls Petey “inept”.

Dolly Parton is buried in a private family ceremony even as the world pays tribute. On GMA, Little Big Town remembers her as “charming, quick and kind” as flags fly at half mast, but...

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Dow: 53,081.95

...idiot vandalizes her star on the Hollywood walk of Fame. Well, she was never Hollywood and politicians in Nashville want to rename the city airport after her.

Congress kicks the can on the budget long enough for incumbents to slide into the midterms without voting on items that might cost votes – borrowing costs already up to 6.89% (highest since 2025). Credit card interest up to 20%.

With the cease fire over, Iran and the US exchange drone and missile fire. Iran bombs neighbors Jordan and Kuwait and claims US bombed a wedding; Trump denies but then renames the straits of Hormuz to the Straits of Trump. With the cold war on Canada heating up, PM Carney tells POTUS to “stop trying to look tough.” DHS brings Operation Rotten Apple to migrant roundup in Zorro’s New York while a Haitian immigrant commits suicide in Ohio.

Animal adventures begin with Tiger Woods joining Tony Romo in copping drunk driving free amidst tabloid tizzy and Tiger King successor producing TV series on reptile smuggling. Possibly rabid fox chases humans in New Hampshire while good dolphins “stampede” fascinates beachgoers off the LA coast. Bad killer whales, on the other hand, attack boat off the coast of Spain.

Thursday, August 27, 2026

Dow: 53,686.11

East of Houston, Edouard loses its weak tropical storm status but hangs around as a rainmaker for several days, dumping 21 inches of rain and flooding rivers as snakes and fire ants drift along and winds hit 90 mph; record heat forecast through at least Sept. 15^th.

It’s a great day for the Reaper as he collects feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem, jazz singer Cassandra Wilson and Disney “Zombies” actress Carla Jeffrey at only 33. His criminal accomplices include a gunboy who shoots school employees, killing one, and then takes his own life, another “Islamist” boy who shoots up a rival mosque, synagogue shooting foiled.

ComSec Lutnick denies the killing of 18 Americans by Iran and Veep Vance also says that there is no war with Iran. In the ghost world, however, US and Iran exchange drone and missile strikes, Iran claims America blew up a wedding and Bad Vlad Putin promises them more munitions and support. Materiel is at issue in the U.S. as MAGA denies shortage; rogue Republican Thom Tillis calls WarSec Hegseck “imept”.

A final round of tributes to Dolly Parton as she is laid to rest in a family-only service in Nashville... family will hold a public Dollyfest in 2027. Pollsters report she was “far more popular” than most US or global politicians. Numerous celebrities voice tributes; Little Big Town on ABC calls her “charming, quick and kind”, Newsweek compares her to Steinem, 1440 cites her Imagination Library giving books to children.

The Dow and the Don are both volatile but... ultimately... barely moving from last week. The rich are getting richer on bond market speculation while workers, as Labor Day approaches Monday, are stagnant or... due to inflation... even poorer. But there are plenty of distractions to comfort or distract them: plenty of movie sequels and prequels in theatres and on the tube, football season beginning and Dancing With the Stars ahead. And we all remember Dolly!

THE DON JONES INDEX

CHART of CATEGORIES w/VALUE ADDED to EQUAL BASELINE of 15,000

(REFLECTING… approximately… DOW JONES INDEX of June 27, 2013)

Gains in indices as improved are noted in GREEN. Negative/harmful indices in RED as are their designation. (Note – some of the indices where the total went up created a realm where their value went down... and vice versa.) See a further explanation of categories HERE

ECONOMIC INDICES (60%) THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS...

CATEGORY

VALUE

BASE

LAST

CHANGE

NEXT

VALUE (ORIG.)**

CHANGE (to JAN – JUNE 2026) from 100%

JULY 17

Reconfigured

AUG. 21

LAST WEEK

THIS WEEK

OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS

INCOME

(24%)

6/17/13*

% UP – DOWN

Wages (hrly. Per cap)

1350

8/21/26

-0.053%

8/26

1,909.78

70.89%

1,353.92

1,353.20

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/average-hourly-earnings 37.62

Median Inc. (yearly)

600

8/21/26

+0.047%

9/4/26

1,474.31

40.75%

600.80

601.46

602.49

602.82

603.10

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 68,129 161 199 204 241 273

Unempl. (BLS – in mi)

600

8/21/26

+2.44%

8/26

555.52

614.28

629.26

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/ 4.1

Official (DC – in mi)

300

8/21/26

-0.087%

9/4/26

216.73

299.92

309.27

318.34

318.71

318.99

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,098 099 6,895 887 881

Unofficl. (DC – in mi)

300

8/21/26

+0.007%

9/4/26

259.80

299.62

284.26

283.90

283.86

283.84

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 13,895 897 14,038 040 041

Workforce Participation

Number

Percent

300

8/21/26

-0.0093%

-0.036%

9/4/26

295.81

299.98

298.74

297.95

297.84

297.81

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ In 162,151 137 2,120 098 083 Out 106,084 127 357 419 465 Total: 268,235 264 477 548

60.451 439 385 .377 .355

WP % (ycharts)*

150

8/21/26

-0.163%

8/26

149.25

149.27

149.03

https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 61.50 61.40

OUTGO

(15%)

Total Inflation

1050

8/21/26

+0.1%

8/26

901.77

1050

1052.10

1051.05

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm -0.4 +.1

Food

300

8/21/26

+0.1%

8/26

257.37

300

299.40

299.19

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.2 +.1

Gasoline

300

8/21/26

-2.9%

8/26

181.96

300

320.10

329.38

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm -9.7 -2.9

Medical Costs

300

8/21/26

+0.6%

8/26

267.14

300

300.30

298.50

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm -0.1 +0.6

Shelter

300

8/21/26

+0.1%

8/26

238.38

300

299.70

299.40

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.1 +0.1

WEALTH

(6%)

Dow Jones Index

300

8/21/26

+0.22%

9/4/26

400.18

299.80

295.37

300.67

305.29

305.95

https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/ 53,885.10 53,839.99 52,759.21 53,569.49 3,686.11

Home (Sales)

(Valuation)

150

8/21/26

-0.73%

-2.09%

9/4/26

137.08

155.60

154.17

152.61

158.23

150.38

151.69

150.38

151.69

150.38

151.69

https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics

Sales (M): 4.09 06 Valuations (K): 440.6 431.4

Millionaires (New Cat,)

150

8/21/26

+0.041%

9/4/26

137.72

150.15

150.32

159.66

159.78

159.85

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 24,385 397 411 429 439

Paupers (New Category)

150

8/21/26

+0.024%

9/4/26

134.69

149.92

149.82

149.63

145.53

145.49

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 36,014 024 035 7049 058

GOVERNMENT

(10%)

Revenue (trilns.)

300

8/21/26

+0.107%

9/4/26

485.69

300.85

301.77

302.70

302.65

302.96

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 5,573 579 587 586 592

Expenditures (tr.)

300

8/21/26

+0.094%

9/4/26

287.16

299.59

298.86

297.98

292.19

291.91

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,253 258 263 407 414

National Debt (tr.)

450

8/21/26

+0.062%

9/4/26

344.44

448.90

446.23

440.85

440.49

440.22

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 39,832 907 40.053 086 111

Aggregate Debt (tr.)

450

8/21/26

+0.18%

9/4/26

352.67

448.15

445.20

441.60

440.68

439.89

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 113,877 4.083 4,356 4595 801

TRADE

(5%)

Foreign Debt (tr.)

300

8/21/26

-0.062%

9/4/26

252.18

295.57

293.90

293.46

293.22

293.04

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 9,564 570 595 9603 609

Exports (in billions)

150

8/21/26

-0.94%

8/26

197.73

145.70

140.98

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 314.7

Imports (in billions))

150

8/21/26

-1.88%

8/26

130.49

145.32

150.83

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 388.0

Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.)

150

8/21/26

-5.87%

8/26

182.61

108.06

121.12

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 73.3

SOCIAL INDICES

(40%)

-25 Events of the Week

ACTS of MAN

(15%)

World Affairs

450

8/21/26

+0.1%

9/4/26

466.24

448.20

448.65

444.17

444.61

Trump renaming Lake Ontario Lake America, embarrassing even Republicans and then doubles down by renaming Hormuz the Straits of Trump. USS Lincoln finally docks in Thailand, giving four days shore leave to 5,000 tired sailors. Iceland rejects invitation to join EU.

War and terrorism

300

8/21/26

-0.1%

9/4/26

280.07

298.80

298.22

296.44

295.85

295.55

Veep Vance says the war in Iran is not a war. ComSec Lutnick denies 18 American deaths in the non-war while POTUS asks when the people of Iran are going to rise up and revolt. Russian drones strike warehouse of Uke explosives killing 37, ramp up cyber attacks as Putin visits Iran to promise support for fellow Fascists against the Great Satan of the West. Ecumenical teens shoot up San Diego mosque; plan attack on synagogue. Swiss rave shooter called not a terrorist, just a nut.

Politics

450

8/21/26

-0.2%

9/4/26

450.15

448.20

447.75

446.40

445.96

445.07

Midterm media awash in negative commercials backed by oodles of dark money; Texas counties close polling places, provoking outrage and allegations of corruption. Former Ky Governor Matt Bevin gets 60 days jail in child support dispute.

Economics

450

8/21/26

-0.2%

9/4/26

426.64

450.00

449.55

447.31

446.40

445.51

Trump fights inflation by releasing $10M solid gold ego coin for the rich and $1 fake gold coin to the proles... also cutting tariffs on foreign beef, angering cattle ranchers in the USA but offering a choice of cheap (allegedly inferior) meat to the masses, Bond market interest soars, also raising mortgage rates and student loan debt. DHS shuts down 110 truck driving schools over English proficiency,

Crime

150

8/21/26

-0.2%

9/4/26

201.34

149.55

149.40

149.70

149.40

149.10

Wild woman on stabbing spree at Times Square killed by police as is cop killer in Georgia while police kill student who went to the wrong house in Pennsylvania. School shooter in suburban Washington DC kills employees then commits suicide. Thieves steal 600 diamond Egyptian necklace in Vienna. Tenant uses flamethrower on deputies trying to evict him. Football follies include bad dad rushing out onto field to trip enemy ballers to save a touchdown, coaches brawling in Pittsburgh suburb, NFL impersonator scamming dozens of women and outrage over dark money payouts to LA Clippers and advertising on NCAA uniforms. Frank Boothian truck hijacker in LA garners 50K cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon. Party time!!!!

ACTS of GOD

Environment/Weather

450

8/21/26

-0.1%

9/4/26

275.85

447.30

446.85

444.60

444.16

443.28

Edouard hangs on, flooding Texas east of Houston. Summer hangs on too, with triple digit heat from Washington DC to OK City closes un-air-conditioned schools in Milwaukee while Biblical deluge in Utah washes away tourists visiting the sacred (Mt. Zion) and profane (Goblin Valley).

Disasters

450

8/21/26

+0.1%

9/4/26

463.08

450.00

449.55

449.10

448.65

449.10

Ferry capsizes off Cyprus – 8 die, 20 missing. Rescues and recovery continue in Nepal as death toll tops 1,000 with thousands more “buried under a mountain of sludge.” Staten Island stroller survives lightning strike – gets up, wipes off and continues to church.

LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX

15%

Science, Tech, Education

600

8/21/26

+0.1%

9/4/26

617.97

600.00

598.20

598.80

599.40

Florida blocks Flock and Gov. Abbott likewise cancels surveillance cameras in Texas. Artemis crew awarded the “Space Medal of Honor”. NASA launches powerful telescope named after pioneering Nancy Grace Roman called 1000A more powerful than the Hubble. Nexus dark web hackers sell 153M US drivers’ license data to Russians. Data Center producers accused of bribing locals with gifts and subsidies, as Gallup polls find 70-30% opposed.

Equality (econ/social)

600

8/21/26

-0.1%

9/4/26

675.06

603.00

602.41

601.81

ICE has record 47K arrests in July, will be attacking aliens with shock gloves and robot dogs. But surprise!... they deport far-right influencer Milo Yiannopolous to England. Deadly shooting at Tucson gay bar called a hate crime. Woke fashionistas not satisfied with cancelling anti-Semite Galliano now haunting and hunting Ana Wintour to terminate the Met Gala.

Health

600

8/21/26

+0.1%

9/4/26

440.46

595.06

593.25

593.84

Trump orders reduction in child vaxxing as measles spikes; CDC counsels noncompliance. USDA cuts off funding for cyclo research. Goats at petting zoo transmitting rabies. Recalls include Metal grill cleaners, infant car seats, jasmine rice and Halloween chocolate eyeball candy. Escalation of Cyclo to radish sprouts sends vegans out of chain stores and back to local farmers’ markets. Daraxonrasibpancreatic cancer medicine explored as cure for lung cancer. Similac whole milk infant formula introduced as a substitute for breast milk.

Freedom and Justice

450

8/21/26

9/4/26

477.76

449.55

448.20

447.75

Thousands gather on National Mall on 63^rd anniversary of MLK’s dreamy speech. In the criminal courts, Duane Davis found guilty of killing Tupac Shakur, Tyler Robinson trial for killing Charlie Kirk begins and Clancey child killing jury still hung. In civil cases FTC sues Amazon for false advertising and price gouging, Apple sues Open AI for destroying evidence in trade secret trial

CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS

Diversive incidents***

Cultural

Sporting

Transitional

*** Diversive value raised from 3 to 4% 8/1/26

600

8/21/26

+0.1%

9/4/26

595.85

450.45

453.15

453.60

454.05

Olivia Rodrigo’s all female Daisy Chain fest raises $10M for charity, Jason Isbell and four others sue for online music impersonations, Sirius debuts an entire Earth, Wind and Fire 50^th anniversary channel. “Dancing With the Stars” 2026 contestants revealed here. “Bachelor” favorite Grocery Store Joe gets unexpected brain surgery.

In sports, high school, college and pro football begins as some schools cancel season due to lack of players. In baseball, tiny Curacao wins Little League world series, Cubs hit nine home runs in smackdown of Brewers and Rams owner Stan Kroenke makes $9B bid to buy the L.A. Angels. U.S. Open begins with upsets, late nite thrillers and Americans advancing (but not the Williams sisters).

RIP: Feminist Gloria Steinem, jazz singer Cassandra Wilson, Disney “Zombies” child actress Carla Jeffrey. R(etire) in Peace: Apple CEO Tim Cook in memorial headlined by President Trump, “golden” Kelly Clarkson (who will move on to become a coach on “The Voice”).

Miscellaneous incidents

450

8/21/26

9/4/26

555.05

450.90

454.06

454.51

It’s animal week – in SoCal good news, five great apes (3 chimps, one Ourang, one gorilla) born at the LA zoo while DJ distraught after dog dies in “Smart Dogs” dog training school. Other corrupt zoos accused of colluding with Anson Wong “the Escobar of snake smugglers” in the extinction of rare turtles.

The Don Jones Index for the week of September 4th through September 10th, 2026 was DOWN 1.58 points

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator. The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action againth parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com.

ATTACHMENT ONE –

A1 X50.0

AI Overview

Wages are payments an employer gives to an employee in exchange for their work or services. [1]

Definition and Types

· Hourly or Daily Wages: Payments calculated based on the exact amount of time worked.

· Piecework: Pay determined by the number of units or items produced.

· Salaries vs. Wages: A salary is a fixed annual amount paid in regular increments (like monthly), while a wage often fluctuates based on hours worked. [1, 2]

Regulations and Standards

· Federal Minimum Wage: The federal minimum wage under the U.S. Department of Labor is $7.25 per hour for covered non-exempt workers.

· State Laws: Many states set their own higher minimum wage rates to match local living costs.

· Overtime: Non-exempt workers generally receive at least one and a half times their regular pay rate for hours worked past 40 hours in a single workweek. [1, 2, 3]

FROM THE DJI OF SEPT. 4, 2025 (Excerpted)

Also in America, we celebrated Labor Day on Monday. Schools, Federal offices and most local gumment hideaways were closed, but the stores were open and sales were especially frantic, due to the prospect of tariffs as might destroy holiday shopping for procrastinators.

A history of unionization dating back to the 18^th century and a directory of “pros and cons” by Workers United (ATTACHMENT ONE HUNDRED TEN) sort of spoils the suspense as to the pros and cons – depending on perspective. Employers, from small bodegas to giant corporations, don’t want to pay higher wages or pursue fair hiring and firing practices. WU... that sop to fairness and balance done... pointed out the influence of government in creating, for example, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Child Labor Committee while, in fact, rasslin’ with such creatures in their own back yard as the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Education Association, localized Police Benevolent Associations or PATCO (representing the much maligned, often overstressed Air Traffic Controllers).

Time (August 27, ATTACHMENT ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN) reported that, after days of demonstrations on May Day, Trump’s June 14^th military parade cum birthday party and Independence Day, unions and other lobbying groups are planning to hit the streets again while Trump, if not necessarily employers, is planning to hit back at his enemies – warning that “people that want to protest will be met with big force,” saying participants are “people that hate our country.”

Labor, by now, has competing... if not necessarily hostile... lobby-loos: May Day Strong, Workers Over Billionaires, the women-only “Solidarity September” and smaller craft, ethnic and regional groupings, as well as the dominant AFL-CIO which, in a statement of support for as many as 765 Labor Day actions in states and territories ranging from Puerto Rico to Guam posted its connivance, saying: ““At marches and rallies, picnics and parades, Workers' Labor Day is a celebration of working people. And it’s a celebration of the power we have when we come together in a union—the power to take back our country for working people, not billionaires.”

“Fight the Trump Takeover” protests will spotlight other issues, ranging from changing climates to political gerrymandering. And academics as well as tech workers worried about workers being replaced by robots pointed to a new report from the Stanford Digital Economy Lab... finding that in the professions most exposed to AI automation, including software engineering and customer service, employment for 22- to 25-year-olds has declined significantly. The numbers back up mounting anecdotal evidence of college graduates in certain fields struggling to find jobs—and serve as “canaries in the coal mine,” the report’s authors write, warning of the potentially destabilizing effects that AI could have on the labor market. (Time, ATTACHMENT ONE HUNDRED TWELVE)

The Stanford researchers published statistical evidence that new report from the Stanford Digital Economy Lab finds that in the professions most exposed to AI automation, including software engineering and customer service, employment for 22- to 25-year-olds has declined significantly. The numbers back up mounting anecdotal evidence of college graduates in certain fields struggling to find jobs—and serve as “canaries in the coal mine,” the report’s authors write, warning of the potentially destabilizing effects that AI could have on the labor market.

Early career workers in the most AI-exposed occupations—like software engineering, marketing, and customer service—“have experienced a 16% relative decline in employment, even after controlling for firm-level impacts.”

By contrast, “workers in more hands-on (and usually lower-paying) professions, including health aides, maintenance workers, and taxi drivers, have seen employment hold steady or actually grow.”

The (gas?)light at the end of the tunnel may lie in the professions where “AI is used to augment workers rather than automate their tasks. For instance, workers who use AI to learn about topics or validate their work once completed seem less susceptible to being replaced than those who are asked to delegate entire tasks to AI.”

“I think it's fair to say that technology has always been destroying jobs and always been creating jobs,” Erik Brynjolfsson, an award-winning economist and the director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab told Time. “If we want to create not just higher productivity, but widely shared prosperity, using AI to augment and not just automate work is a good direction to go.”

ATTACHMENT TWO

Everyman Economics: Why Growth Requires Measuring More than GDP

Sep 5, 2026 6:00 AM ET

By Antara Haldar

Antara Haldar is an associate professor at the University of Cambridge and the author of Everyman: The Untold Story of Economics.

In its 250th year, America finds itself confronting an age-old question with new urgency: what, exactly, counts as progress? 1776 was a hinge year for the modern world. Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, America adopted the Declaration of Independence, and Matthew Boulton and James Watt commercialized the steam engine—three developments that unleashed an age of capitalism, bringing unprecedented growth and unprecedented inequality.

And while growth and inequality are often treated as separate stories, fetishized respectively by the right and the left, corporate America and labor unions, and Wall Street and Main Street, this November’s midterm elections will put them on a collision course. But they have always gone hand in hand, their fates inextricably intertwined.

America’s triumphs are real. The United States is still the world’s largest economy. It remains a global engine of innovation. Its stock market is booming thanks to artificial intelligence, while its capital markets remain the deepest and most powerful in the world. And despite tariffs, a labor market slowed by restrictive immigration and repeated energy price shocks, its growth—as attested to by its $32.3 trillion GDP, larger than China, India, and Germany combined—appears to defy the odds and remains resilient.

Yet this dynamism is only half the story. Affordability has become the defining issue of the moment, and many signs indicate that the midterms in November will be decided on that basis. The Pew Research Center has found that the voters place the economy front and center by a wide margin, even as only 24% of Americans describe it as “good” or “excellent.” Gallup, meanwhile, reports that voters identify the cost of living as their foremost concern in the election.

GDP, the single statistic that now determines a country’s economic might, traces its roots to the scholarship of the American economist Simon Kuznets during the Great Depression, particularly his landmark 1934 report, National Income, 1929-1932. But as the Cambridge economist Diane Coyle points out, Kuznets was, himself, aware of the many flaws and pitfalls of the metric he had developed and warned against confusing economic output with human welfare.

What even fewer people know is that the “godfather” of GDP was also a pioneer in the study of inequality. The Kuznets curve—his famous prediction that inequality would eventually decline as economies grew richer—is not one history has obliged, but it points to the Janus-headed quality of modern capitalism.

Indeed, it’s been exactly 15 years since the Occupy Wall Street protests radiated out of Zuccotti Park in New York’s Financial District. Born in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008, the movement became the most visible public outcry against economic inequality in recent American history and gave the country an enduring rallying cry: “We are the 99%.”

While the movement dissipated, the issues it raised have not. If anything, the concerns it foregrounded have migrated from the political margins to the mainstream in American politics, championed by progressive figures like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani.

The World Inequality Report 2026 finds that the top 0.001% of the globe’s population own “three times more wealth” than the entire bottom half of humanity combined, and within “almost every region, the top 1% alone” hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. Inequality in America is no longer only a question of who has more; increasingly, it is a question of who has enough to make ends meet. According to the Brookings Institution, 45.5% of American households do not earn enough to cover even basic necessities, with housing, health care, and childcare among the most acute pressures.

The problem is that a single statistic can conceal as much as it reveals. GDP can tell us how the economy is performing without telling us how Americans are faring. It can tell us how much an economy produces, but not who receives the rewards, whether those gains improve people’s lives, or what is destroyed and what is sacrificed in producing them.

Some of the things on which society most depends—unpaid caregiving, clean air, cohesive communities—barely register in its accounts. Economists classify many of these costs as “externalities”: consequences borne by people and places that fall outside the transaction being measured.

Climate change provides perhaps the starkest example of GDP’s glaring blind spots. A natural disaster can destroy homes, lives, and ecosystems without being registered as an equivalent loss in GDP; the money spent to rebuild afterward, meanwhile, counts as additional economic activity. The meter can rise even as human welfare falls.

But the two metrics—GDP, our shorthand for growth, and the Gini coefficient, our shorthand for inequality—are not rival ways of describing the economy so much as incomplete halves of the same story; the two key consequences of capitalism, joined at the hip. One shows us how large the pie has grown; the other, something about how it has been sliced.

ON GROWTH AND INEQUALITY

When it comes to growing the pie, the relentless efficiency of global capitalism in allocating resources is hard to match. It has allowed, in the aggregate, societies to eke out more from finite resources than ever before. Its advocates point out that most people live longer and better lives: they are better fed, more securely housed, and better protected against diseases that once routinely killed them.

Capitalism’s champions can reasonably claim that it has helped lift much of humanity above bare subsistence while proving more compatible with individual freedom than its major rivals. It holds out the promise of a game that everyone has an equal chance to play—and win. Its defenders often invoke the specter of repression and unfreedom associated with state-led communism or socialism as a cautionary tale.

Capitalism’s unique two-plus-two-equals-five quality—its capacity to produce more than the sum of its parts—may also have helped pave the way for the material foundations of modernity. The shift from sustenance to surplus created, in many ways, the foundations for our moral revolutions, from liberalism and feminism to cosmopolitanism.

Yet, beyond some vague gestures toward “trickle-down economics,” the discipline’s approach has largely been to focus on growing the pie and argue about slicing it later. Economics has tried to separate the two: markets create wealth; politics distributes it. Friedrich von Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, who was an early and influential proponent of free-market economics, warned against the “fatal conceit” that governments could know enough to design an economic order from above.

The Kaldor–Hicks principle, a dominant idea in modern economics, offered a technical basis for avoiding the reckoning with distributive questions. An outcome counts as an improvement if the winners gain enough that they could compensate the losers—even if they never do. That “even if” is a significant caveat.

Kenneth Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, another foundational result in economics, exposes the deeper difficulty: there is no perfect mathematical procedure for turning individual preferences into a coherent collective choice. At some point, as even mainstream economists recognize, economic calculation must give way to political judgment. It follows that morality should trump mathematics.

But what if inequality is baked into the pie itself? Thomas Piketty coined the famous formulation for the notion that the odds may be stacked against the ordinary person: r > g, the proposition that the return on capital tends to exceed the rate of economic growth. History suggests that the playing field was never level.

In Empire of Cotton and, now, Capitalism, Sven Beckert excavates the blood-soaked origins of modern capitalism through slavery, colonialism, and state power; Ha-Joon Chang shows how rich countries used tariffs and industrial policy before prescribing freer markets to poorer ones. Such empirical evidence reinforces a broader idea: markets do not simply materialize, as the spectral metaphor of the “invisible hand” suggests. Markets are made—by human hands.

If the economy is a game, then the question is not merely who wins and who loses. The question instead is: Who designed the board, who wrote the rules, and whether the game was rigged from the start? Today, capitalism treats Monopoly money as real while human beings are reduced to pieces on a chessboard.

Perhaps the most important omission from the current economic paradigm concerns the psychology of the sport. Research on “inequality aversion,” the idea that who gets what matters as much as how much there is, suggests that people care deeply about how the pie is sliced, even when a fairer division means settling for a slightly smaller one.

THE ECONOMICS OF THE EVERYMAN

Can growth, given enough time, deliver widely shared prosperity, as capitalism’s champions still insist? Or does the way the game is designed predetermine who benefits from growth? Far from disappearing, could excessive inequality gnaw away at the very foundations of economic growth?

GDP’s shortcomings have inspired repeated attempts to devise a better answer. In Mismeasuring Our Lives, Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi argued for moving beyond economic production and measuring well-being, distribution, and sustainability. Sen’s capabilities approach asks a still more fundamental question: not merely what resources people possess, but what those resources actually enable them to be and to do.

The late Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq’s Human Development Index, inspired in part by Sen’s work, was an attempt to translate that insight into numbers, treating health, education, and income as measures of human progress.

The point is not to dispense with GDP. Growth matters enormously. It has financed scientific discovery, lengthened lives, reduced material deprivation, and expanded the range of human possibility. But human progress may be better represented by a dashboard of indicators rather than by a single number. More fundamentally, what should be a means to an end has too often become an end in itself. A metric intended to crudely measure the output of the market economy has gradually acquired the authority to tell us whether society itself is succeeding.

America’s 250th anniversary offers an unusually apt moment to question that bargain. The Declaration of Independence did not promise Americans the pursuit of economic growth. It promised something considerably more ambitious: the pursuit of happiness. Two and a half centuries later, perhaps the most important economic question America can ask is also the simplest: Who is the economy for?

Fittingly, this fall, American voters will have an opportunity to offer their answer. If the elections of the past decade were won in part by rejecting an outdated economic playbook, 2026 may present a more constructive opportunity: not merely to discard the economic playbook, but to redesign and rewrite it with Everyman, the ordinary American, as its protagonist.

Adapted with permission from Everyman: The Untold Story of Economics by Antara Haldar.

A3 X63

X63 from INDEXBOX

August 29, 2026 at 12:20 PM GMT-4

Why Many Americans Still Feel Economic Pessimism Despite Cooling Inflation

Price growth has moderated, equity markets are humming, and joblessness is minimal and steady. By a range of indicators, the economy is thriving. Yet a large share of Americans do not share that sense of prosperity.

Although inflation has eased relative to earlier this year, prices are still advancing, and for months now, the cost of living has consistently outpaced gains in take-home pay. That mismatch helps clarify why trips to the supermarket, monthly energy bills, and searches for homes feel so discouraging.

Moody's Mark Zandi described the mood as one of frustration. He said people feel frustrated because they recognize they are falling behind. They cannot purchase the same volume of goods as they could one or two years ago, as their buying power is steadily shrinking. He added that their frustration is well-founded. Wages are increasing, but not enough to keep pace. The Personal Consumption Expenditures index showed consumer prices up 3.7% in July compared with a year earlier. After-tax personal income rose more quickly than prices during that month, yet consumer spending did not rise accordingly. That trio of trends is driving how consumers view the economy, and the outlook is not favorable.

Fresh figures from the Conference Board indicate that close to three-quarters of consumers anticipate price increases will exceed their income growth in the year ahead. The same data showed U.S. consumer confidence in August dropped to its weakest point since the beginning of the year. Yelena Shulyatyeva, the Conference Board's senior U.S. economist, explained that confidence is tightly linked to whether households believe their earnings are matching the cost of living. She noted that while the trajectory of inflation matters, what truly affects daily life is purchasing power. Inflation may be decelerating, but prices remain markedly above levels from a few years ago, and numerous workers—especially those dealing with sharp jumps in housing, food, insurance, and borrowing expenses—still perceive that their wages have not caught up.

She further stated that households assess the economy based on what their paychecks can actually buy, and for many, affordability continues to be a struggle.

A study by ADP looked at payroll data for 16 million private-sector employees in the United States from 2016 through 2025. The findings show that while inflation has eased, a significant number of individuals never regained the purchasing power they lost during the earlier price surge. Specifically, more than 40% of workers who remained with the same employer from 2021 to 2024 saw their real wages decline. Even after accounting for those who switched jobs and secured bigger raises, 37% of workers were still in a worse financial position in real terms by the close of 2024.

Source: https://www.indexbox.io/blog/why-many-americans-still-feel-economic-pessimism-despite-cooling-inflation/

X67 attachment “A” @to B

X67 from CENTER for AMERICAN PROGRESS (CAP)

Most workers’ raises have been larger than inflation

Rose Khattar, Lily Roberts Nov 2, 2023

Most workers’ raises have been larger than inflation

If wages rise more quickly than prices, workers can maintain or improve their standard of living—and since the start of the pandemic, wage growth for a typical worker has been higher than inflation.4 Prices have increased 20 percent since the fourth quarter of 2019, while wages for a typical worker have grown 23 percent.5 (see Figure 1 on website) In fact, real wages for a typical worker stand at about the level expected if there had been no pandemic or recession in early 2020 and if they had kept growing at the same rate as in years prior. 6

FIGURE 1

Both wages and prices have grown since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, but wages have grown more

Cumulative growth of wages for private-sector production and nonsupervisory workers and the consumer price index, Q4 2019–November 2023

Bar graph showing that since late 2019, both prices and wages have seen growth, with 20 percent and 23 percent increases, respectively, in November 2023.

25%

+20%+23%

PricesWages

Note: Inflation is measured using the Consumer Price Index Retroactive Series Using Current Methods (R-CPI-U-RS) for years before 2023 and the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for 2023.

Source: Author's analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Current Employment Statistics - CES (National)," available at https://www.bls.gov/ces/ (last accessed December 2023); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Price Index: R-CPI-U-RS Homepage," available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/research-series/r-cpi-u-rs-home.htm (last accessed December 2023); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Price Index (CPI) Databases," available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm (last accessed December 2023).

Chart: Center for American Progress

The analysis above, similar to the overall discussion about wages and inflation, focuses on the average wage among a group of workers. This only indirectly relates to workers’ actual experience, as no single worker represents the average or median worker, especially when analyzing their experience over time.7 That the inflation-adjusted wage for a typical worker has grown 1 percent over the past year does not necessarily mean that most workers received a 1 percent wage increase after adjusting for inflation.

CAP analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey provides a new measure of worker well-being: the share of individual workers whose inflation-adjusted wages were higher in a given month than that same month one year ago.

Data from November 2023 show that 57 percent of workers’ wages grew, on an annual basis, more quickly than inflation since November 2022. (see Figure 2) Three and a half years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, then, this share stands above its pre-pandemic (2017–2019) average. After the onset of the Great Recession, it took essentially six years—until the end of 2013—for a similar share of workers to begin seeing real annual wage raises. The share of workers of color who received an inflation-adjusted raise in November 2023 is identical to the share of workers overall.8

FIGURE 2

Almost 6 in 10 workers are getting raises larger than inflation, above pre-pandemic levels

Share of workers with annual wage increases exceeding inflation (3-month moving average), January 2016–November 2023

Line graph showing that the percentage of workers receiving raises above inflation is around pre-pandemic levels; for example, 54 percent of workers received a raise above inflation in October 2023, compared with the 2016–2019 average of 53 percent.

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

65%

Share of workers with a raise above inflation (2017–2019 average)Share of workers with a raise above inflation (2017–2019 average)

Drop in inflation due to initial COVID-19 recessionDrop in inflation due to initial COVID-19 recession

Source: Author's analysis of Sarah Flood and others, “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey Data for Social, Economic, and Health Research: Version 8.0 (dataset)” (Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center, 2020), available at https://cps.ipums.org/cps/; National Bureau of Economic Research, "Current Population Survey (CPS) Basic Monthly Data," available at https://www.nber.org/research/data/current-population-survey-cps-basic-monthly-data (last accessed December 2023); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Price Index (CPI) Databases," available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm (last accessed December 2023).

Chart: Center for American Progress

The median inflation-adjusted change in hourly wages is about a 45-cent-per-hour increase,9 which translates to a median raise of more than $900 per year for a worker who works full time, year-round.

The share of workers receiving an inflation-adjusted raise hit 50 percent in February 2023 and has hovered around its pre-pandemic level of 55 percent since May 2023. These widespread raises follow a period from April 2021 to October 2022 in which the share of workers receiving raises fell from about 55 percent to 45 percent. This decrease resulted from a surge in inflation mostly due to pandemic-driven supply chain disruptions and the war in Ukraine.10 As these disruptions and their effect on prices have eased in 2023, the share of workers experiencing raises higher than inflation has improved. This was also a period of rapid employment growth, so measuring the share of workers who received a raise does not fully capture the state of the labor market during this time because it excludes newly employed workers who do not have an initial wage to calculate the wage growth from.

The only periods since 2003 when a larger share of workers consistently experienced real annual wage growth was during the middle of the Great Recession, throughout 2015, and during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. (see Figure 3) In each of these instances, the growth mostly came from extremely low inflation: Inflation hit lows of -2 percent in 2009, -0.2 percent in 2015, and 0.2 percent in 2020.11 Following these periods of unusually low inflation, fewer workers saw real wage growth.

FIGURE 3

The share of workers receiving raises above inflation has been consistently higher only during temporary bouts of inflation below 2 percent

Share of workers with annual wage increases exceeding inflation (3-month moving average), January 2003–November 2023

Line graph showing the relatively high share of workers who have received raises above inflation; since 2003, workers have only experienced consistent real annual wage growth during times of low inflation, such as the Great Recession and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

80%

Drop in inflation due to Great Recession

Drop in inflation due to low gas prices

Drop in inflation due to initial COVID-19 recession

2017–2019 average share of workers with a raise above inflationShare of workers with a raise above inflation

Hover or click to see values.

Chart: Center for American Progress

One shortcoming of focusing on the share of workers who receive a raise is that it treats a large, inflation-adjusted increase or decrease in wages the same as a small one—masking some of the variation in wage increases. Therefore, it makes sense to consider the share of workers whose real wages increase or decrease by a much larger percentage, such as 5 percent.

In November, for example, 41 percent of workers saw an annual real wage increase above 5 percent (see Figure 4), which is the same as the 2017–2019 average. The 24 percent of workers whose real wages fell 5 percent or more in November 2023 was also essentially the same as in 2017 and 2019. What this shows is that even in an economy where real wage growth is strong—as it was immediately before the COVID-19 pandemic and is now—about one-quarter of workers’ wages are growing much more slowly than inflation.

FIGURE 4

The share of workers receiving pay raises significantly above inflation has skyrocketed in 2023 to pre-pandemic levels

Share of workers with annual inflation-adjusted wage increases or wage cuts above 5 percent (3-month moving average), January 2006–November 2023

Line graph showing that 40 percent of workers received an annual real wage increase above 5 percent in 2023, similar to that of the pre-pandemic average.

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

50%

Inflation-adjusted pay raise above 5 percentInflation-adjusted pay cut above 5 percent

Inflation-adjusted pay raise above 5 percent (2017–2019 average)Inflation-adjusted pay raise above 5 percent (2017–2019 average)

Inflation-adjusted pay cut above 5 percent (2017–2019 average)Inflation-adjusted pay cut above 5 percent (2017–2019 average)

Hover or click to see values.

Chart: Center for American Progress

Evidence suggests most workers’ inflation-adjusted wages have gotten higher

Purchasing power of wages relative to last year may be of less interest to workers than the purchasing power of wages relative to before the pandemic, given the drastic changes in both prices and wages since 2020. Unfortunately, data tracking individual workers’ wages from the start of the pandemic through 2023 do not yet exist.12

However, there are data available to approximate whether groups of workers are earning more. For example, one can track the median wages of age cohorts over time, as the 25- to 34-year-olds in 2019 census wage data are the 29- to 38-year-olds in 2023 census wage data. These data show that cohorts of prime-age workers—those ages 25 to 54 years old—in each 10-year age group (25 to 34, 35 to 44, and 45 to 54) in 2019 have higher inflation-adjusted median wages in 2023 (see Figure 5); this suggests that a majority of individual workers’ wages have grown faster than inflation over this four-year period.

FIGURE 5

Cohorts of prime-age workers of all ages have experienced real wage growth over the past four years

Inflation-adjusted median wage growth, Q4 2019–November 2023

Bar graph showing that each 10-year age group of prime-age workers saw real wage growth from the last quarter of 2019 to November 2023, with those ages 25–34 in 2019 seeing an 11.1 percent increase.

15%

+12.2%+2.3%+1.8%

Ages 25–34 in 2019,

29–38 in 2023Ages 35–44 in 2019,

39–48 in 2023Ages 45–54 in 2019,

49–58 in 2023

Note: Wages are median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers. November 2023 marks the end of a 3-month average from September through November 2023. Wages are adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index Retroactive Series Using Current Methods (R-CPI-U-RS) for years before 2023 and the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for 2023.

Source: Author's analysis of Sarah Flood and others, “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey Data for Social, Economic, and Health Research: Version 8.0 (dataset)” (Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center, 2020), available at https://cps.ipums.org/cps/; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Price Index: R-CPI-U-RS Homepage," available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/research-series/r-cpi-u-rs-home.htm (last accessed December 2023); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Consumer Price Index (CPI) Databases," available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm (last accessed December 2023).

Chart: Center for American Progress

Overall real wage growth exiting a recession has been historically strong

Despite the drawbacks of analyzing overall real wages to understand the experiences of workers, comparing such wages in the context of economic recoveries can be useful because they are a consistent measure. For a typical worker, overall real wages can grow quickly when the economy is at a peak—as it was in the months before the COVID-19 pandemic—but they do not always grow quickly in the aftermath of a recession.

An important yardstick for measuring recent real wage growth, therefore, is how it compares to growth during other recession recoveries over the same length of time.13 (see Table 1) November 2023, the most recent month for which wage and inflation data were available, marks 45 months after February 2020, the month preceding the start of the United States’ COVID-19 recession and the peak of the business cycle. During the recovery from the recession, real wage growth for a typical worker has been the second highest of any post-1980 recovery over the same 45-month period following the business cycle peak. In contrast, the recoveries from the 1980 and 1990 recessions featured negative real wage growth over the same length of time.

The only recovery that featured stronger real wage growth was the recovery from the Great Recession. However, the wage figures over that period may be misleading: The employment rate for workers with education levels less than an associate degree fell about 5 percentage points during a period of the Great Recession recovery that was similar to where the economy is currently in the COVID-19 recovery, 14 and the employment rate decline for workers with a bachelor’s degree was less than half as large. This drop in employment among workers with less education relative to higher-educated workers artificially boosted statistics that measure average wages.15 In the current recovery, on the other hand, both the unemployment rate and the prime-age employment rate have recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

TABLE 1

Real wage growth in the COVID-19 recession recovery has been stronger than most recession recoveries

Recoveries from recessions ranked by real wage growth for a typical worker

Table showing that the COVID-19 recovery has the second-highest real wage growth for a typical worker at 2 percent when compared with other recent recessions.

Table with 5 columns and 5 rows.

Rank Recovery Pre-recession average real wage (2023 dollars) Average real wage 45 months after previous business cycle peak (2023 dollars) Percentage change

1 Great Recession

(December 2007–September 2011)

$26.00 $26.50 +2.3%

2 COVID-19 recession

(February 2020—November 2023)

$28.60 $29.10 +2.0%

3 2001 recession

(March 2001–December 2004)

$25.20 $25.60 +1.6%

4 1990 recession

(July 1990–April 1994)

$23.50 $23.40 -0.6%

5 1980 recession

(January 1980–October 1983)

$24.80 $24.10 -2.9%

Note: Real wages are average wages of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees deflated with the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for 2023 and the Consumer Price Index Retroactive Series Using Current Methods (R-CPI-U-RS) for 1980–2022. Wage growth is measured between the business cycle peak month and 45 months later using trailing three-month averages; for the COVID-19 recession, this is the December–February 2020 average compared with the September–November 2023 average. The 1981 recession is treated as an extension of the 1980 recession to avoid double counting the same months.

Table: Center for American Progress

Assessing economic recoveries requires measuring real wage growth and unemployment—not only because both outcomes matter but also because an incomplete labor market recovery can distort real wage growth statistics. The unemployment rate following the COVID-19 recession recovery is essentially back to its pre-recession level, something that no other post-1980 recovery achieved after 45 months. Indeed, the unemployment rate during the Great Recession recovery was still 4 percentage points above its pre-recession level at the same point. (see Table 2)

TABLE 2

Recovery of unemployment rate from the COVID-19 recession has been faster than other recession recoveries

Recoveries from recessions ranked by change in unemployment rate

Table showing that the unemployment rate has almost returned to its level prior to the COVID-19 recession, which did not happen after other recent recessions.

Table with 5 columns and 5 rows.

Rank Recovery Pre-recession unemployment rate Unemployment rate 45 months after business cycle peak Percentage-point change

1 COVID-19 recession

(February 2020—November 2023)

3.5% 3.8% +0.3

2 1990 recession

(July 1990–April 1994)

5.4% 6.5% +1.1

3 2001 recession

(March 2001–December 2004)

4.2% 5.4% +1.2

4 1980 recession

(January 1980–October 1983)

6.1% 9.2% +3.1

5 Great Recession

(December 2007–September 2011)

4.8% 9.0% +4.2

Note: Pre-recession unemployment is the unemployment rate of the month of the business cycle peak using a three-month trailing average. The 1981 recession is treated as an extension of the 1980 recession to avoid double counting the same months.

Source: Author's analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey," available at https://www.bls.gov/cps/ (last accessed December 2023).

Table: Center for American Progress

What makes the recovery from the COVID-19 recession truly unique, however, is that it has included this rapid reduction in the unemployment rate along with relatively strong real wage growth.

Conclusion

This new CAP analysis shows that real wage growth has been a point of strength in the recovery from the COVID-19 recession: Real average wage growth for a typical worker during this recovery has been the second highest of all recoveries from post-1980 recessions, and only the COVID-19 recovery has combined robust wage growth with a near-complete recovery of the unemployment rate.

Real average wage growth for a typical worker during this recovery has been the second highest of all recoveries from post-1980 recessions.

The data reveal that as of late 2023, most workers are earning more, in inflation-adjusted terms, than they were one year prior, and the fraction of workers receiving real wage increases is about the same as it was in the years before the pandemic. The data also suggest that most individual workers are earning more today than they were before the pandemic; every prime-age worker cohort has higher inflation-adjusted median wages than before the pandemic. Nevertheless, policymakers should continue to focus on ways to drive up real wage growth—including by raising wages and reducing the cost of living.

Methodology: Calculating workers’ raises

This analysis calculates the share of workers who have received an inflation-adjusted raise by linking individual workers’ wage records from two consecutive years of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.16 It then calculates the share of workers whose inflation-adjusted wages grew (using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers17), reported as a three-month average.

This new measure is closely related to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s Wage Growth Tracker, which calculates nominal percentage wage growth for all continually employed workers and then provides the median nominal percentage wage growth.18 CAP’s analysis uses essentially the same U.S. Current Population Survey data as the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta to determine how widespread inflation-adjusted wage growth has been.

Some drawbacks of this measure are that it excludes newly employed workers, since they do not have a wage from the previous year, and that it uses overall inflation instead of individual workers to calculate inflation, as the data to measure individual workers’ inflation do not exist.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

X66

X66 from center for amer progress

Report

Jan 3, 2024

Workers’ Paychecks Are Growing More Quickly Than Prices

Most workers’ wages are growing more quickly than prices, and the economic recovery following the COVID-19 recession has featured historically strong real wage growth.

By Brendan Duke

The United States has experienced a historically strong economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession, with more jobs and a larger inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023 than expected before the pandemic.1 GDP growth has been stronger in the United States than in other advanced economies, and the latest data show that U.S. inflation is among the lowest in the Group of Seven (G7) economies.2

For many families, however, these statistics only matter if they are reflected in higher real wages—that is, wages adjusted for cost of living—since that means purchasing power also rises. And the news on that front is also good: Many economists have pointed out that real wages for a typical worker today are higher than they were before the pandemic and are growing at about the pre-pandemic rate.3 A new Center for American Progress analysis of wages and inflation finds:

In November 2023, nearly 6 in 10 workers (57 percent) earned higher annual inflation-adjusted wages than the year before, a share higher than its 2017–2019 pre-pandemic average. The median inflation-adjusted change in workers’ hourly earnings was about 45 cents, which translates to a more than $900 annual increase for a worker who works full time, year-round.

Young adult workers who were between ages 25 and 34 in 2019—and are now between ages 29 and 38—have seen their real median wage rise 12 percent since the onset of the pandemic. The real median wage also grew among cohorts of workers who were ages 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 in 2019.

Real average wage growth for a typical worker has seen the second-fastest recovery during this recession recovery of all five recession recoveries since 1980. Notably, the current economic recovery is the only one in which robust real wage growth has occurred in tandem with a rapid recovery of the unemployment rate.

These results indicate an economy that is delivering historic, broad-based real wage gains for workers while emerging from one of the deepest recessions on record. Policymakers should look to build on this momentum through policies that raise wages and cut costs of living, such as increasing the federal minimum wage, making more workers eligible for overtime pay, and improving the affordability of child care and health care.

Policymakers should look to build on this momentum through policies that raise wages and cut costs of living.

X55

A4X55 FROM GUARDIAN U.K.

CEOs earn 614 times more than workers at US’s 100 lowest-paying corporations

Analysis by Institute for Policy Studies found that between 2019 and 2025, CEO compensation increased 41.4%

BY Michael Sainato Thu 27 Aug 2026 07.00 EDT

The average CEO of the US’s 100 largest, lowest-paying corporations earned 614 times more than their average worker last year, according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

IPS’s latest executive excess report analyzed compensation at the 100 S&P 500 corporations with the lowest median worker pay. Between 2019 and 2025, CEO compensation increased 41.4%, unadjusted for inflation, twice as much as the median worker pay increased at these firms during the same period, at 20.7%.

Inflation also outpaced worker pay increases, rising by 25.9%.

The CEO-to-worker pay ratio at the low-wage 100 firms increased 8.4% between 2019 and 2025.

The average CEO compensation among low-wage 100 corporations was $17.5m in 2025, compared with median worker pay of $36,571.

“To me, it seems like these CEOs are just living on a remote economic planet from the one that their employees are living on, and it makes it really hard for them to fathom what it’s like to have to worry about putting food on your family’s table or even coming home at night if you are at risk of being detained by ICE.”

The report notes that the low-wage 100 corporations have a combined force of 1,282 registered federal lobbyists and that many of these companies did not denounce aggressive immigration enforcement actions toward their workforce or on their property.

Stock buybacks among these firms increased in 2025, to $108.6bn from $105bn in 2024. Between 2019 and 2025, the low-wage 100 firms spent $718bn on stock buybacks.

Among the 100 low-wage firms, Walmart spent the most on stock buybacks, at $8.1bn, equivalent to a $3,851 bonus to each of the company’s 2.1 million workers. Walmart’s CEO, Doug McMillan, who stepped down in January 2026, received $29.2m in compensation in 2025, 958 times more than the median worker pay at Walmart of $30,520.

The report cites several policy solutions to excessive executive pay at corporations, including a tax hike on corporations that pay CEOs more than 50 times what they pay their median employees, an increase on stock buyback taxes and leveraging government contracts and subsidies to bar contractors from engaging in stock buybacks.

Walmart did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

There are many reasons to think that pain-free budget consolidation is wishful thinking, not least because AI profits are likely to prove much harder to tax than labour income. In the near term, the costs of supporting an ageing population, paying for what appears to be an inevitable surge in military spending and caving to intense populist pressure for more public spending will probably rise at least as fast as revenues. Guk a2

X53

A5X53 from REDDIT

US wages plummet to 43% of national income — lowest since the Great Depression. Did Nixon’s gold breakup kill paychecks?

Thomas Kent August 8, 2026

American workers are getting a smaller slice of the economic pie — and some people blame it on a decision made more than 50 years ago.

A Kobeissi Letter chart (1 – see links below for more graphs and charts) based on Federal Reserve Bank (FRED) data (2) has been making the rounds online (3). It shows wages and salaries at roughly 43% of U.S. gross domestic income in the first quarter of 2026. Taken from a government data series going back to 1929, that share is nearly the lowest since the Great Depression began.

More to Read

· Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one

· JPMorgan still sees gold hitting $5,000/oz by Q4 — and savvy investors are protecting their wealth with a tax-advantaged Gold IRA. Learn more with a free guide from Priority Gold

· The tax breaks in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' expire after 2028 — and experts say most people won't act in time. What to do before the window closes

But it doesn't mean Americans suddenly took a 57% pay cut. The figure only counts wages and salaries. It leaves out benefits that employers pay for workers, such as health insurance and retirement plans.

Americans are still getting raises, too. The latest Employment Cost Index (4) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found wages and salaries rose 3.2% over the 12 months leading up to June 2026.

However, when you zoom out, there remains a problem. Workers are producing much more than they did decades ago — but their pay hasn't kept up, to say the least.

So, what happened?

One popular theory points to a decision made on Aug. 15, 1971 — the day when President Richard Nixon cut the U.S. dollar's last tie to gold.

CUTTING ALL TIES TO GOLD

For years, the U.S. dollar had a link to gold through the Bretton Woods system (5), which was established at the tail-end of World War II to regulate the global monetary system with a series of new rules and institutions, including the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Among other things, it required foreign governments and central banks to guarantee the convertibility of their currencies into U.S. dollars, which could then be traded for gold bullion at a fixed price of $35 an ounce.

By the late 1960s, though, that system was under pressure. There were more dollars held overseas than the U.S. had gold to back them. Inflation was also rising.

Then, on Aug. 15, 1971, Nixon stopped allowing dollars to be converted into gold (6), helping bring the Bretton Woods system to an end.

DID TAKING THE DOLLAR OFF GOLD HURT AMERICAN WORKERS?

After World War II, worker compensation and productivity moved up together. From 1947 to 1973, productivity grew by an average of 2.8% per year, according to the BLS (7). Real hourly compensation grew by almost the same amount, 2.6% per year.

By the end of the 1970s, the two started to pull apart.

Today, the gap is huge. The Economic Policy Institute's Productivity-Pay Tracker (8) says productivity rose 93.2% from late 1979 through the first quarter of 2026. At the same time, its measure of hourly pay rose just 33.7%.

The timing has made 1971 famous among critics of today's money system. Former Rep. Ron Paul (9), one of the country's best-known supporters of gold-backed money, has even called Aug. 15, 1971, "the turning point in the people's economic fortunes."

His argument is simple: Once Nixon cut the dollar's last tie to gold, there was less holding back the creation of new money. Paul says that helped weaken the dollar's buying power over time. Thus, workers are left with paychecks that don't stretch as far.

But there's an important catch: Timing doesn't prove cause.

Economists have pointed to plenty of other changes that could have held wages back. They include globalization, new technology, automation and weaker unions. A 2025 study from the Federal Reserve (10) even argues that rising household debt may have played a role.

So, Nixon's gold decision isn't necessarily a smoking gun. But it did mark the start of a very different era for the American dollar, and it's easy to see why some investors still don't want all of their wealth tied to the dollar.

MAKE YOUR OWN GOLD STANDARD

Whatever you think happened in 1971, there's one big difference today: The government no longer promises to swap your dollars for a fixed amount of gold.

Investors can still buy gold, however.

If you're worried about inflation, the value of the dollar or the next economic shock, gold has long been regarded as a safe haven asset. It doesn't depend on one company's profits and isn't tied directly to the stock market's performance.

If the story of what happened after 1971 has you worried about the dollar losing buying power, there's a way you can add physical gold to your retirement mix without hoarding bars of it in your closet.

For example, Goldco helps investors open IRAs that can hold qualifying physical gold and silver while keeping the tax benefits of a retirement account. Their gold IRAs allow investors to hold physical gold or gold-related assets within a retirement account, combining the tax advantages of an IRA with the protective benefits of investing in gold. (See website for advertisement)

FROM EARNER TO OWNER

Most people earn money by working. But wages are only one part of the U.S. economy. Owners can also make money from businesses, stocks and real estate.

If workers are getting a smaller share of the pie, owning assets gives you another way to take a slice.

Real estate is one good option. A rental property can produce monthly income while still having the chance to rise in value over time. The problem is that buying a rental home usually takes a big down payment — and then you have tenants, repairs and other work to deal with.

That hasn't stopped wealthy investors from loading up on real estate. In fact, it makes up nearly 25% of the typical family office portfolio. But for everyday investors, the big down payment, ongoing costs and work of being a landlord can make it much harder to get in on the action.

That's where mogul comes in. This real estate investing platform offers fractional ownership in blue-chip rental properties, giving investors access to monthly rental income, property appreciation and tax benefits — without buying an entire home or dealing with late-night tenant calls.

Each property goes through a vetting process that requires a minimum 12% projected return even in downside scenarios. Across the platform, mogul reports an average annual IRR of 18.8%, with average cash-on-cash yields between 10% and 12% annually. Offerings often sell out in under three hours, with investments typically ranging from $15,000 to $40,000 per property.

Getting started is simple. Sign up for an account, browse the available properties and verify your information with the mogul team. From there, you can start building a rental property portfolio in just a few clicks — without becoming a full-time landlord.

And for investors with more money to put to work, multifamily real estate offers another option.

REAL ESTATE WITH A BIGGER PORTFOLIO

JPMorgan notes in its research on multifamily real estate during a recession (11) that home sales may fall in a downturn. However, people who put off buying a home still need somewhere to live, which can keep them in the rental market longer.

That's why you could also leverage multifamily real estate investing. In the same report prepared by JPMorgan, Al Brooks — the firm's vice chair of Commercial Banking — said, "I think multifamily housing is absolutely where you want to be as an investor."

That's quite an endorsement.

PUT MORE THAN ONE KIND OF ASSET TO WORK FOR RETIREMENT

There's no single investment that fixes the problem shown by America's wage chart.

But there is a simple takeaway: Your paycheck doesn't have to be your only tool for building wealth.

Stocks can give you ownership in businesses. Real estate can give you a share of rental income. Gold can add an asset that sits outside the stock market and today's dollar-based money system.

And you don't necessarily need separate retirement accounts for each idea.

Bottom line

You don't need to solve a 55-year-old economics debate to take a lesson from it. If earning a paycheck is giving workers a smaller slice of America's economic pie, owning assets gives you another way to get a piece.

Article Sources

We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our ethics and guidelines.

X (1), (3); Federal Reserve Economic Data (2); Bureau of Labor Statistics (4), (7); Federal Reserve History (5), (6); Economic Policy Institute (8); Ron Paul Institute (9); U.S. Federal Reserve (10); J.P. Morgan (11)

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

PEANUT GALLERY

zxc123zxc123

•4d ago

1. "Bidencome lowest since since the Great Depression"

2. US wages plummet? "Dems did it!"

3. Thanks Obama.

And there you go. GOP/MAGA will vote for more plates of shit for everyone in America in 2026/2028.

5 more replies

a_little_hazel_nuts

•4d ago

The federal minimum wage is $7.25. Wages are not tied to productivity or profit. You can't make an hourly wage and become a billionaire. It wouldn't bother me so much if people could afford basic necessities with a full time job but that isn't the case anymore since so many go without housing or healthcare while working.

bbusiello

•4d ago

This is a rather succinct and accurate point. Not everyone is salivating at the thought of becoming a millionaire. Most people just want to be able to provide for themselves and their families.

Capitalism (at this stage) with no checks in place is making that impossible.

•3d ago

A full time job should provide MORE than basic necessities.

Electronic-Yam-69

•4d ago

"But if you have a toilet and a refrigerator you're richer than a medieval King. RICHER THAN A KING!" --FOXNEWS

discgman

•4d ago

This version of capitalism is a no go.

bogglingsnog

•4d ago

unrestrained free markets never do well in the long run. society needs rules of conduct for a reason. we can't all be cheating each other or it all falls apart

harbison215

•4d ago

It’s called republicanism

Metro2005

•3d ago

Crony capitalism

Background-Chart-713

•4d ago

Please Mr. President stop i can't take all this winning

•4d ago

You’ll take it and say thank you sir! /s

24Seven

•4d ago

This doesn't surprise me. We have a record number of people out of the job market. Fewer people working = fewer wages earned in aggregate = smaller percentage of domestic income.

Ok_Ball_788

•4d ago

We're at levels of wealth inequality that surpass the Gilded Age, and people won't do anything about it.

Mr_Dude12

•4d ago

Wages are relative (to) the value they produce. Post WWII we moved into cities and took factory jobs. Vietnam era Boomers went to college to avoid the war creating an educated workforce pushing tech etc to where we are. Those not as educated took office jobs etc. In an attempt to make China pick our side in the Cold War we opened trade with them, the result shifted our manufacturing base out of country. That was a larger portion of high income non college earners. Workers flocked to white collar jobs in offices doing analytical work, pushing paper etc. Between computers and AI the demand for those jobs have plummeted. This leaves retail and service industry which while jobs are plentiful the value added is not as much. The challenge will be to educate people that white collar jobs disappearing but blue collar earns a living,

pirateboy27

•4d ago

"Wages continue to go up and up" Yeah right

kickasstimus

•4d ago

A higher minimum wage pushes all wages up with diminishing effect as you go up - but still very real.

X72

X72 FROM BENZINGA

Bernie Sanders Sounds Alarm on ‘Rigged’ US Economy Amid Growing Wealth Inequality, Says Elon Musk Is Richer Than Half of American Households

by Snigdha Gairola, Benzinga Staff Writer August 31, 2026 5:04 AM3 min read

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said America’s growing wealth gap shows what a "rigged economy" looks like, pointing to Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (NASDAQ:SPCX) CEO Elon Musk’s fortune as evidence of increasingly concentrated wealth.

SANDERS SLAMS US WEALTH INEQUALITY

On Sunday, in a post on X, Sanders criticized the state of the U.S. economy, arguing that wealth inequality has reached levels exceeding those seen during the Gilded Age.

"This is what a rigged economy looks like," he wrote.

"Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history, worse than the ‘Gilded Age’ of Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Carnegie."

Sanders also said that the wealthiest Americans now control a greater share of wealth than most of the country.

"Today, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%," he wrote.

The senator then singled out Musk, saying, "one man, Mr. Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of American households."

Sanders ended his post by calling for changes to the economic system.

"Not acceptable. We can, and must, create an economy that works for all, not just the few," he wrote.

This is what a rigged economy looks like: Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history, worse than the “Gilded Age” of Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Carnegie. Today, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% and one man, Mr. Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of American households.

Not acceptable. We can, and must, create an economy that works for all, not just the few.

Bernie Sanders Warns Of 'Massive Wealth Inequality' Surge As Billionaires Add $2.5 Trillion, Global Fortunes Hit $18.3 Trillion

Bernie Sanders warns of global wealth inequality, citing $2.5T billionaire gains and extreme concentration of wealth among the world's richest.

2 min read

Read this article

WEALTH INEQUALITY GROWS

Earlier, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the "K-shaped" economy had shifted to a "C-economy," with lower-income workers gaining ground.

However, Navellier & Associates founder and chief investment officer Louis Navellier said, "The wealth divide persists," arguing that "there is no doubt that the rich are getting richer" while the bottom 50% owned virtually no stocks.

Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci also warned of a backlash, saying, "When inequality gets this extreme, history is very clear about what happens next. People show up with pitchforks."

US WEALTH GAP WIDENED

U.S. wealth inequality widened over the past five decades, with gains concentrated among the richest households.

Data shared by The Kobeissi Letter showed that the real wealth of the top 0.001% surged about 3,500% since 1976, compared with a 200% increase for the average household.

The data also estimated that about 430,000 U.S. households held at least $30 million in net worth, while wealthier households held much of their assets in stocks, mutual funds and private businesses.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of households had more debt than assets for nearly two decades before their net worth turned positive after 2020, helped by stimulus payments and rising home values.

PEANUT GALLERY

·
Sen. Bernie Sanders

@SenSanders

3:00 PM · Aug 30, 2026370.4KViews

Rock Chartrand

@RockChartrand

Aug 31

What rigs an economy isn’t inequality of outcome. It’s giving politicians the power to dictate outcomes, pick winners, punish losers, grant favors, subsidies, protections and privileges. Ironically, that’s exactly the power Bernie constantly demands more of. Concentrated Show more

Bulldog

@StefBulldog

Aug 30

Christos Blanco

@sickofdischit

Aug 30

This is what a Hypocrite Socialist Looks like

Palantir CEO Warns AI Could Supercharge Wealth Inequality

Palantir CEO Alex Karp warns AI will cause major worker dislocation, says frontier AI labs fail to understand enterprise requirements.

4 min read

A7X71

X71 FROM BENZINGA

June 11, 2026 6:43 AM4 min read

Palantir CEO Warns AI Could Supercharge Wealth Inequality

by Anusuya Lahiri

Palantir Technologies Inc (NASDAQ:PLTR) stock gained by over half a percent during Thursday’s premarket session as risk appetite improves alongside firmer index futures, keeping buyers engaged even after the stock’s recent pullback. Nasdaq futures are up 1.22% while S&P 500 futures have gained 0.81%.

With no single headline driving the tape, the early move looks more like a “macro bid” tied to stronger futures, while traders keep an eye on whether PLTR can stabilize near recent lows after April’s breakdown.

Meanwhile, CEO Alex Karp said AI will force businesses, workers, and governments to adapt, while arguing that many frontier AI labs still do not understand the demands of enterprise deployment.

AI WILL CREATE MAJOR DISLOCATION

Karp warned that artificial intelligence could accelerate wealth concentration and fuel political unrest unless policymakers and businesses address the technology’s social consequences.

“We’re going to have massive resources, but they’re going to disproportionately go to people who are already wealthy,” Karp said. “That is a political problem.”

Karp said discussions around AI often underestimate the scale of disruption the technology could bring. He argued that businesses, governments and society must openly acknowledge challenges tied to workforce displacement and economic inequality rather than assume rising prosperity will solve those issues.

“The American people are really wondering what is going to happen to them,” Karp said. “The answers aren’t all good or bad.”

He said the U.S. has an advantage because of its ability to adapt and rebuild, but that the country needs a stronger common purpose as AI reshapes the labor market and stirs fear among workers.

ENTERPRISES WANT PRACTICAL AI

Karp told CNBC on Wednesday that businesses are unhappy with frontier AI labs because they often do not understand enterprise problems, technical complexity, or security requirements. He said large companies need AI systems that work inside real-world operations, not just models that solve simple or self-contained tasks.

Karp said Palantir works with major governments and enterprises where software must perform reliably in high-stakes settings. He said the value in AI will come from validation, deployment, and integration into complex systems, especially over the next several years.

ANTHROPIC RELIES ON PALANTIR

Karp said large language models remain important, but he argued that enterprise deployment is where much of the value sits.

He told CNBC that most of the things Anthropic talks about in public are running on Palantir, framing the company as an important layer for applying AI within real-world organizations.

Karp said frontier AI companies may remain important, but businesses still need platforms that understand enterprise workflows, security needs and operational constraints.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

From a trend perspective, PLTR is still in a repair phase: the stock is trading 5.9% below its 20-day SMA, 6.8% below its 50-day SMA, 9.4% below its 100-day SMA, and 18.6% below its 200-day SMA. That stack keeps rallies vulnerable to selling pressure until price can reclaim at least the short-to-intermediate moving averages.

The moving-average structure reinforces that caution, with the 20-day SMA below the 50-day SMA and a death cross in February (the 50-day SMA below the 200-day SMA). Longer-term, the stock is down 4.53% over the past 12 months, and it’s still well off the $207.52 52-week high set in November 2025.

Momentum is also leaning defensive: MACD is below its signal line and the histogram is negative, which points to upside pressure cooling versus the prior upswing. In plain terms, MACD compares faster and slower trend momentum, and being below the signal line suggests buyers may need a fresh push to regain control.

Key levels are getting clearer as the stock trades closer to the bottom of its 52-week range ($122.68 to $207.52). A hold above nearby support can keep the bounce attempt intact, but failed rebounds can run into overhead supply where prior breakdowns and moving averages tend to cap price.

· Key Resistance: $149.50 — a nearby ceiling that lines up with a logical rebound-stall zone below the longer-term trend gauges

· Key Support: $128.50 — a near-term floor near the lower end of the 52-week range where buyers have recently shown up

X84

A8X84 FROM AI OVERVIEW

AI Overview

New York City's extreme wealth gap took center stage for Labor Day 2026 following a bombshell New York City Comptroller report revealing that nearly two-thirds (64%) of all real income growth in NYC went to the top 1% of earners. While media outlets like the New York Times highlighted the staggering local divide where the top 1% commands 37% of all city income, the New York Post approached the economic landscape with an alternate, sharply critical perspective. True to its editorial style, the New York Post pushed back on progressive narratives by highlighting data showing working-class wage gains, warning against socialist policies, and calling out the flight of high-earners. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

The New York Post's Stance on Labor & Income

While local officials raised alarms over the city's affordability crisis, the New York Post focused its coverage on three main economic themes: [1]

· Working-Class Wage Growth Outpacing Inflation: The New York Post emphasized Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data showing that working-class wage gains outpaced inflation. Earners at or below the national median income saw weekly wage gains of 4.6%, while the poorest quarter of workers saw a 5.5% pay jump, beating the inflation rate. [1]

· Criticism of "Tax the Rich" Policies: The New York Post aggressively covered the political fallout surrounding democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration. The paper consistently warned that aggressive "tax the rich" strategies and policies like the pied-à-terre tax were backfiring, pointing to a Citizens Budget Commission study that linked an exodus of millionaires to an $11 billion loss in state tax revenue. [1, 2, 3]

· Rejection of Relative Poverty Metrics: In its opinion pages, the New York Post slammed progressive figures like Senator Bernie Sanders, arguing that critiques of American wealth inequality rely on misleading relative metrics rather than actual material deprivation, defending the broader strength of the U.S. economy. [1]

New York City vs. National Inequality Metrics

Data contextualizing the Labor Day 2026 economic debate shows how sharply New York City diverges from national averages:

Economic Metric	New York City	United States (National)
Income Share of Top 1%	37%	22%
Income Share of Top 0.1%	22% (approx. 5,000 households)	11%
Real Median Income Change (2019–2024)	Decreased 3.2%	Stagnant / Modest Gains
Income Growth Distribution	64% went to the top 1%	More evenly distributed nationally

Key Drivers Widen the Divide

1. Capital vs. Labor: The local surge at the top has been fueled by non-wage income like stock market gains, investments, and corporate dividends, while ordinary families rely strictly on hourly wages eroded by past inflation. [1, 2, 3]

2. The Automation & AI Boom: Economists warn that stock gains from the AI boom are disproportionately benefiting the top 20% of households who own 90% of the stock market, creating a "wealth effect" that widens the spending gap between the rich and the rest of the country. [1]

3. Disappearing Mid-Wage Jobs: While low-wage service sectors and elite tech/finance sectors have grown, middle-income jobs have steadily declined in New York, leaving fewer pathways to the middle class. [1]

X85

A9 X85 FROM NEW YORK TIMES

New York’s Top .001 Percent Have Grown Even Richer

Income inequality is as entrenched as ever, according to a new report by New York City’s comptroller.

“For anyone who’s not in the top 10 percent, they are treading water,” said Mark Levine, the city comptroller.

By Eliza Shapiro Sept. 2, 2026 Updated 2:43 p.m. ET

New York is even more unequal today than it was before the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new report released on Wednesday by Mark Levine, the city’s comptroller.

More and more of the city’s wealth is concentrated among a tiny sliver of its population, which has exacerbated the city’s longstanding affordability crisis for everyone else, Mr. Levine said in an interview.

“For anyone who’s not in the top 10 percent, they are treading water,” he said.

The findings paint a stark picture of the city post-pandemic and raise urgent and uncomfortable questions for Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration: How much can this mayor — or any mayor — do to actually drive down inequality and reverse decades of worsening affordability? Is New York today a runaway train, with entrenched patterns of who makes and spends money, that will make it nearly impossible to reverse course, regardless of political will?

It is a very good time to be rich in New York City. Almost two-thirds of the city’s inflation-adjusted income growth went to the top 1 percent of earners between 2019 and 2024, according to 2024 tax return data analyzed by Mr. Levine’s office. The analysis accounts for New Yorkers’ income before taxes are taken out and before benefits like unemployment were added.

What that means is that “wealth is pulling away from work,” Mr. Levine said. “What is driving the top 10 percent into the stratosphere is not what they’re getting in their paychecks.”

The “One Percent” has been shorthand for the city’s highest earners since the Occupy Wall Street protests sprung up 15 years ago, but lately you’d really prefer to be in the top 0.1 percent, or, even better, the .01 percent. Those subgroups had a larger share of the city’s overall income in 2024 than they did before the pandemic.

The most exclusive ring of earners in the .001 percent, which represents about 50 New York City families, saw the largest growth in incomes of any city tax bracket between 2019 and 2024. Their average income was almost $600 million a year in 2024, up from roughly $315 million in 2019.

The One Percent is still faring quite well. The people in that group had an average income of over $4 million in 2024, up from about $2.9 million before the pandemic. They took home over a third of all the income earned in the city that year.

Mr. Mamdani’s pledge to tax the rich to help pay for an expanded social safety net has remained popular among his supporters. But New York still needs its wealthiest residents to remain prosperous, said Sherry Glied, a professor of public service at New York University.

“The flight of high income people from cities, as in the 1960s and 1970s, was associated with reduced housing costs,” said Ms. Glied, who has written extensively on inequality in New York. “But I don’t think it made those who remained better off.”

The average income for all city families was just under $107,000 in 2024. And for everyone not in the top 20 percent or so of earners, inflation mostly erased modest gains in hourly wages.

The report found fresh evidence that employment has been dropping for jobs with midrange pay, a trend that is causing increasing alarm among local economists. (Low-wage jobs, like home health work and food preparation, have seen significant growth.)

The mayor has focused on expanding the city’s free child care offerings and subsidizing groceries, but there is more he could be doing, said Jonathan Bowles, the director of the Center for an Urban Future, a think tank.

“City leaders also need a plan for the other side of affordability: boosting incomes, building wealth, creating more good jobs and expanding pathways to the well-paying jobs that are growing here,” he said.

Dora Pekec, a spokeswoman for Mr. Mamdani, said the report “underscores the urgency” of the mayor’s agenda.

“Addressing an affordability crisis of this scale requires bold, ambitious programs to reduce the cost of living, and an intentional focus on raising wages and improving working conditions,” she said in a statement.

The comptroller’s report is the latest in a series of alarming data to be released about the city’s affordability crisis.

“Part of why the bottom 90 percent is stagnating, even as their wages are going up, is that it’s not enough to keep up with the cost of living here,” Mr. Levine said.

Eliza Shapiro reports on New York City for The Times.

X100 for text, ATT. “A” at end

A10 begin

MINIMUM WAGES V. LIVING WAGES

X54

X54 from dept of labor

Consolidated Minimum Wage Table

Consolidated State Minimum Wage Update Table¹ (Effective Date: July 1, 2026)
Greater than federal MW	Equals federal MW of $7.25	No state MW or state MW is lower than $7.25. Employers covered by the FLSA must pay the federal MW of $7.25.
AK $14.00	CNMI	AL
AR $11.00	IA	GA
AZ $15.15	ID	LA
CA $16.90	IN	MS
CO $15.16	KS	SC
CT $16.94	KY	TN
DC $18.40	NC	WY
DE $15.00	ND	AS²
FL $14.00	NH
HI $16.00	OK
IL $15.00	PA
MA $15.00	TX
MD $15.00	UT
ME $15.10	WI
MI $13.73
MN $11.41
MO $15.00
MT $10.85³
NE $15.00
NJ $15.92 or $15.23⁴
NM $12.00
NV $12.00
NY $17.00 or $16.00⁵
OH $11.00 or $7.25⁶
OR $16.80 or $15.55 or $14.55⁷
PR $10.50
RI $16.00
SD $11.85
VA $12.77
VT $14.42
WA $17.13
WV $8.75
VI $10.50
GU $9.25
30 States + DC, GU, PR& VI	13 States + CNMI	7 States + AS

¹Like the federal wage and hour law, State law often exempts particular occupations or industries from the minimum labor standard generally applied to covered employment. Some states also set subminimum rates for minors and/or students or exempt them from coverage, or have a training wage for new hires. Additionally, some local governments set minimum wage rates higher than their respective state minimum wage. Such differential provisions are not identified in this table. Users are encouraged to consult the laws of particular States in determining whether the State's minimum wage applies to a particular employment. This information often may be found at the websites maintained by State labor departments. Links to these websites are available at www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/contacts.

²American Samoa has special minimum wage rates.

³A Montana business not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act whose gross annual sales are $110,000 or less may pay $4.00 per hour.

⁴The minimum wage for employers who employ fewer than 6 people and employees engaged in seasonal employment in New Jersey is $15.23 per hour.

⁵The minimum wage in New York City, Nassau County, Suffolk County, and Westchester County is $17.00 per hour. The minimum wage in the remainder of the state is $16.00 per hour.

⁶Ohio employers with annual gross receipts under $405,000 must pay no less than $7.25 per hour.

⁷The standard minimum wage in Oregon is $15.55 per hour. The minimum wage in the Portland metro area is $16.80 per hour and the minimum wage in nonurban counties is $14.55 per hour.

Additional Minimum Wage Information

· The state minimum wage rate requirements, or lack thereof, are generally controlled by the legislatures within the individual states.

· Employers must pay the highest applicable minimum wage rate (whether federal, state, or local). Where the federal minimum wage is greater than the state minimum wage, the federal minimum wage must be paid. And where the state minimum wage is greater than the federal minimum wage, the state minimum wage must be paid.

· There are 30 states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands with minimum wage rates set higher than the federal minimum wage.

· There are 13 states plus the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that have a minimum wage requirement that is the same as the federal minimum wage requirement. The remaining 7 states and American Samoa do not have an established minimum wage requirement or have a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage.

· The District of Columbia has the highest minimum wage at $17.50/hour. Note: There are multiple states that have scheduled annual adjustments for their minimum wages based on varying formulas. Most of these increases occur around January 1st. Individuals should consult the relevant state labor offices for information on the particular formula used to adjust the state minimum wage.

This document was last revised on July 1, 2026.

@living wages

A11 X62

X62 from benzinga

March 27, 2026 11:01 am

Economist Warns America Has a 'Wage Problem, Not A Price Problem' — Why Your Paycheck Still Feels Too Small Even As Inflation Cools

by Ryan Peterson

The headline inflation numbers are cooling, the stock market is holding its own, and yet, for millions of Americans, the monthly budget feels tighter than ever.

The cost of groceries, housing, and healthcare seems to be in a league of its own, defying the broader economic narrative.

According to a recent analysis, this isn't just a feeling, it's the result of a deep-seated structural issue. Economist Mihir Torsekar of the Coalition for a Prosperous America argues that the U.S. doesn't have a price problem, it has a wage problem, one that has been decades in the making.

For households already stretched thin by that gap, high-interest credit card balances tend to be where the pressure shows up first, and where the cost of doing nothing adds up fastest. Platforms like AmONE match borrowers with multiple lenders in minutes and show personalized loan offers without affecting credit scores, which gives people a real picture of their options before they commit to anything.

The core of the argument is that for the majority of American workers, wages have failed to keep pace with the growth of the economy and corporate profitability. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that real average hourly earnings did increase by 1.4% from February 2025 to February 2026, this modest gain is a drop in the bucket when viewed against the larger economic picture.

That massive accumulation of wealth at the corporate level stands in stark contrast to the incremental gains seen by the average worker, explaining why a majority of households feel like they are running in place.

This divergence between corporate profits and worker pay isn't a recent phenomenon. It has its roots in major economic shifts, most notably the "China Shock" of the 2000s. Research by economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson detailed how a surge in import competition from China led to the disappearance of roughly 3.4 million U.S. factory jobs.

The deindustrialization didn't just affect the workers who lost their jobs, it had a cascading effect, suppressing wages across entire communities and weakening the bargaining power of labor for years to come. The promise that cheaper imported goods would offset the loss of manufacturing jobs never fully materialized for those whose livelihoods were tied to the factory floor.

Compounding the issue of stagnant wages is a phenomenon known as "Baumol's Cost Disease." Coined by economist William Baumol, the theory explains why costs in certain sectors of the economy seem to rise relentlessly, regardless of overall inflation.

In industries like manufacturing, technology allows for huge productivity gains, it takes far fewer workers to build a car or a computer today than it did 30 years ago. But in labor-intensive service sectors like healthcare, education, and childcare, productivity gains are much harder to come by.

That is precisely why so many households find themselves carrying credit card balances that grow faster than their paychecks. When wages lag and essential costs keep climbing, the gap has to be filled somehow, and for millions of Americans it gets filled with revolving debt at double-digit interest rates.

The difference between a 24% card rate and a consolidation loan at a significantly lower fixed rate can amount to thousands of dollars a year on a balance of even $5,000 or $10,000. AmONE’s matching tool lets borrowers fill out one short form and see offers from multiple lenders side by side, including the total repayment cost over the life of the loan, so the math is visible before any decision is made.

Torsekar's analysis points to a potential path forward, arguing that targeted trade policies can help rebalance the scales. He points to the Section 232 steel tariffs imposed in 2018 as a case study.

According to reports from the U.S. International Trade Commission, the tariffs were followed by a significant drop in steel imports and a rise in domestic production, with U.S. steelmakers announcing billions in new investments. The argument is that by protecting key domestic industries from unfair foreign competition, it's possible to create higher-paying jobs and stimulate domestic investment, providing a countervailing force against the decades-long trend of wage suppression.

Ultimately, the feeling of being financially squeezed in an ostensibly growing economy isn't a mystery. It's the predictable result of a long-term trend where the rewards of economic growth have flowed disproportionately to corporate profits, while the wages of the average worker have stagnated.

The rising cost of essential, non-tradable services only tightens the vise. The debate now is how to fix it. Whether through trade policy, increased unionization, or other measures designed to ensure that the prosperity of the nation is more broadly shared by the people who build it. Or violent revolution - DJI

A12 X95

X95 FROM M.I.T. edu

LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR

See here for app by states, counties

WHAT IS THE LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR?

Today, families and individuals working in low-wage jobs make too little income to meet minimum standards of living in their community. We developed the Living Wage Calculator to help individuals, communities, employers, and others estimate the local wage rate that a full-time worker requires to cover the costs of their family’s basic needs where they live. Explore the living wage in your county, metro area, or state for 12 different family types below. The data was last updated on February 15, 2026.

X66 dupe

Sample – Bullock County, AL

Living Wage Calculation for Bullock County, Alabama

The living wage shown is the hourly rate that an individual in a household must earn to support themselves and/or their family, working full-time or 2080 hours per year. The tables below provide living wage estimates for individuals and households with one or two working adults and zero to three children. In households with two working adults, all hourly values reflect what one working adult requires to earn to meet their families’ basic needs, assuming the other adult also earns the same.

The poverty wage and minimum wage are for reference purposes. Poverty wage estimates come from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Poverty Guidelines for 2026 and have been converted from an annual value to an hourly wage for ease of comparison. The minimum wage data is sourced from the Labor Law Center and includes the minimum wage in a given state as of January 2026. When a county has enacted a minimum wage ordinance, the data reflects that county-level minimum wage. Municipal ordinances applying only to specific cities or towns within a county are not referenced.

For further detail, please reference the Methodology page. The data on this page was last updated on February 15, 2026.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Living Wage	$19.14	$32.53	$41.21	$49.19	$27.45	$33.12	$35.98	$40.20	$13.72	$19.17	$22.96	$26.76
Poverty Wage	$7.67	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$18.60	$5.20	$6.57	$7.93	$9.30
Minimum Wage	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25

Typical Expenses

The table below shows the costs of each basic need that go into estimating the living wage. Like with the living wage, their values vary by location and family size.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Food	$4,405	$6,462	$9,682	$12,886	$8,076	$10,022	$12,891	$15,728	$8,076	$10,022	$12,891	$15,728
Child Care	$0	$8,288	$15,755	$21,046	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$8,288	$15,755	$21,046
Medical	$3,535	$10,061	$10,209	$10,370	$6,984	$10,988	$11,288	$11,624	$6,984	$10,988	$11,288	$11,624
Housing	$6,948	$9,360	$9,360	$11,217	$8,540	$9,360	$9,360	$11,217	$8,540	$9,360	$9,360	$11,217
Transportation	$9,887	$11,442	$14,413	$16,584	$11,442	$14,413	$16,584	$18,567	$11,442	$14,413	$16,584	$18,567
Civic	$2,583	$4,360	$5,749	$6,547	$4,360	$5,749	$6,547	$7,330	$4,360	$5,749	$6,547	$7,330
Internet & Mobile	$1,598	$1,598	$1,598	$1,598	$2,172	$2,172	$2,172	$2,172	$2,172	$2,172	$2,172	$2,172
Other	$4,067	$7,395	$8,083	$8,801	$7,395	$8,279	$8,801	$9,854	$7,395	$8,279	$8,801	$9,854
Required annual income after taxes	$33,022	$58,966	$74,850	$89,050	$48,967	$60,983	$67,644	$76,493	$48,967	$69,272	$83,400	$97,539
Annual taxes	$6,794	$8,696	$10,858	$13,265	$8,129	$7,908	$7,204	$7,124	$8,129	$10,495	$12,114	$13,776
Required annual income before taxes	$39,816	$67,663	$85,708	$102,315	$57,096	$68,892	$74,848	$83,617	$57,096	$79,767	$95,514	$111,315

Typical Annual Salaries

The average annual salaries for various occupations in the table below comes from the latest state-level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. When available, this data is specific to a given metro area.

Occupational Area	Typical Annual Salary
Management	$118,670
Business & Financial Operations	$82,220
Computer & Mathematical	$101,140
Architecture & Engineering	$105,480
Life, Physical, & Social Science	$77,430
Community & Social Service	$52,680
Legal	$93,270
Education, Training, & Library	$52,120
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media	$57,030
Healthcare Practitioners & Technical	$81,770
Healthcare Support	$33,290
Protective Service	$48,830
Food Preparation & Serving Related	$28,170
Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance	$33,000
Personal Care & Service	$30,270
Sales & Related	$43,870
Office & Administrative Support	$43,030
Farming, Fishing, & Forestry	$43,420
Construction & Extraction	$50,150
Installation, Maintenance, & Repair	$57,740
Production	$46,110
Transportation & Material Moving	$41,660

Sample - Muscogee County, CA

Living Wage Calculation for Muscogee County, Georgia

For further detail, please reference the Methodology page. The data on this page was last updated on February 15, 2026.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Living Wage	$20.53	$32.74	$41.11	$49.38	$27.61	$32.80	$35.27	$40.88	$13.81	$18.94	$22.62	$26.46
Poverty Wage	$7.67	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$18.60	$5.20	$6.57	$7.93	$9.30
Minimum Wage	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25	$7.25

Typical Expenses

The table below shows the costs of each basic need that go into estimating the living wage. Like with the living wage, their values vary by location and family size.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Food	$4,452	$6,530	$9,784	$13,022	$8,161	$10,129	$13,028	$15,895	$8,161	$10,129	$13,028	$15,895
Child Care	$0	$7,947	$15,574	$18,836	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$7,947	$15,574	$18,836
Medical	$2,975	$7,868	$8,015	$8,176	$6,172	$8,794	$9,095	$9,431	$6,172	$8,794	$9,095	$9,431
Housing	$11,348	$13,795	$13,795	$18,322	$11,906	$13,795	$13,795	$18,322	$11,906	$13,795	$13,795	$18,322
Transportation	$7,873	$9,111	$11,477	$13,206	$9,111	$11,477	$13,206	$14,785	$9,111	$11,477	$13,206	$14,785
Civic	$2,583	$4,360	$5,749	$6,547	$4,360	$5,749	$6,547	$7,330	$4,360	$5,749	$6,547	$7,330
Internet & Mobile	$1,890	$1,890	$1,890	$1,890	$2,463	$2,463	$2,463	$2,463	$2,463	$2,463	$2,463	$2,463
Other	$4,067	$7,395	$8,083	$8,801	$7,395	$8,279	$8,801	$9,854	$7,395	$8,279	$8,801	$9,854
Required annual income after taxes	$35,187	$58,895	$74,368	$88,801	$49,568	$60,687	$66,936	$78,080	$49,568	$68,633	$82,510	$96,916
Annual taxes	$7,506	$9,210	$11,150	$13,917	$7,862	$7,537	$6,431	$6,944	$7,862	$10,168	$11,580	$13,167
Required annual income before taxes	$42,693	$68,106	$85,518	$102,718	$57,430	$68,224	$73,367	$85,024	$57,430	$78,801	$94,089	$110,083

Typical Annual Salaries

Occupational Area	Typical Annual Salary
Management	$137,790
Business & Financial Operations	$90,150
Computer & Mathematical	$106,140
Architecture & Engineering	$96,950
Life, Physical, & Social Science	$84,260
Community & Social Service	$60,870
Legal	$131,710
Education, Training, & Library	$60,460
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media	$74,780
Healthcare Practitioners & Technical	$104,190
Healthcare Support	$37,360
Protective Service	$51,480
Food Preparation & Serving Related	$30,550
Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance	$35,580
Personal Care & Service	$33,920
Sales & Related	$51,800
Office & Administrative Support	$46,490
Farming, Fishing, & Forestry	$43,010
Construction & Extraction	$54,630
Installation, Maintenance, & Repair	$58,720
Production	$45,590
Transportation & Material Moving	$51,120

Sample – Manhattan, NY

Living Wage Calculation for New York County, New York

For further detail, please reference the Methodology page. The data on this page was last updated on February 15, 2026.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Living Wage	$38.21	$60.92	$78.77	$98.60	$48.09	$54.62	$57.98	$69.02	$24.05	$32.77	$40.61	$50.80
Poverty Wage	$7.67	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$18.60	$5.20	$6.57	$7.93	$9.30
Minimum Wage	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00	$17.00

Typical Expenses

The table below shows the costs of each basic need that go into estimating the living wage. Like with the living wage, their values vary by location and family size.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Food	$7,116	$10,438	$15,640	$20,815	$13,045	$16,190	$20,824	$25,407	$13,045	$16,190	$20,824	$25,407
Child Care	$0	$16,551	$32,026	$42,512	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$16,551	$32,026	$42,512
Medical	$4,695	$11,168	$11,357	$11,564	$10,176	$12,357	$12,742	$13,173	$10,176	$12,357	$12,742	$13,173
Housing	$35,525	$40,877	$40,877	$51,188	$37,295	$40,877	$40,877	$51,188	$37,295	$40,877	$40,877	$51,188
Transportation	$4,710	$5,451	$6,866	$7,901	$5,451	$6,866	$7,901	$8,845	$5,451	$6,866	$7,901	$8,845
Civic	$3,456	$5,834	$7,694	$8,762	$5,834	$7,694	$8,762	$9,810	$5,834	$7,694	$8,762	$9,810
Internet & Mobile	$1,627	$1,627	$1,627	$1,627	$2,203	$2,203	$2,203	$2,203	$2,203	$2,203	$2,203	$2,203
Other	$4,715	$8,573	$9,371	$10,204	$8,573	$9,598	$10,204	$11,424	$8,573	$9,598	$10,204	$11,424
Required annual income after taxes	$61,844	$100,519	$125,458	$154,572	$82,577	$95,784	$103,513	$122,049	$82,577	$112,335	$135,538	$164,561
Annual taxes	$17,624	$26,186	$38,387	$50,520	$17,454	$17,832	$17,081	$21,516	$17,454	$23,972	$33,389	$46,758
Required annual income before taxes	$79,469	$126,705	$163,845	$205,092	$100,031	$113,616	$120,594	$143,566	$100,031	$136,307	$168,927	$211,319

Typical Annual Salaries

Occupational Area	Typical Annual Salary
Management	$182,530
Business & Financial Operations	$114,110
Computer & Mathematical	$127,570
Architecture & Engineering	$103,800
Life, Physical, & Social Science	$92,580
Community & Social Service	$69,110
Legal	$172,450
Education, Training, & Library	$81,970
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media	$106,490
Healthcare Practitioners & Technical	$115,540
Healthcare Support	$41,870
Protective Service	$65,370
Food Preparation & Serving Related	$44,630
Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance	$46,480
Personal Care & Service	$44,770
Sales & Related	$72,700
Office & Administrative Support	$57,030
Farming, Fishing, & Forestry	$47,620
Construction & Extraction	$76,180
Installation, Maintenance, & Repair	$66,940
Production	$52,830
Transportation & Material Moving	$55,700

Sample - San Francisco, CA

Living Wage Calculation for San Francisco County, California

For further detail, please reference the Methodology page. The data on this page was last updated on February 15, 2026.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Living Wage	$32.44	$68.19	$96.15	$127.54	$44.12	$54.45	$57.52	$68.43	$22.06	$36.03	$48.99	$63.53
Poverty Wage	$7.67	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$10.40	$13.13	$15.87	$18.60	$5.20	$6.57	$7.93	$9.30
Minimum Wage	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90	$16.90

Typical Expenses

The table below shows the costs of each basic need that go into estimating the living wage. Like with the living wage, their values vary by location and family size.

	1 ADULT				2 ADULTS (1 WORKING)				2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING)
	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children	0 Children	1 Child	2 Children	3 Children
Food	$5,807	$8,518	$12,763	$16,987	$10,646	$13,212	$16,995	$20,735	$10,646	$13,212	$16,995	$20,735
Child Care	$0	$25,898	$54,401	$74,797	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$25,898	$54,401	$74,797
Medical	$3,828	$12,604	$12,756	$12,923	$8,142	$13,561	$13,871	$14,218	$8,142	$13,561	$13,871	$14,218
Housing	$27,517	$39,908	$39,908	$50,981	$32,965	$39,908	$39,908	$50,981	$32,965	$39,908	$39,908	$50,981
Transportation	$6,691	$7,743	$9,754	$11,223	$7,743	$9,754	$11,223	$12,565	$7,743	$9,754	$11,223	$12,565
Civic	$3,876	$6,543	$8,629	$9,827	$6,543	$8,629	$9,827	$11,002	$6,543	$8,629	$9,827	$11,002
Internet & Mobile	$1,971	$1,971	$1,971	$1,971	$2,594	$2,594	$2,594	$2,594	$2,594	$2,594	$2,594	$2,594
Other	$4,992	$9,077	$9,923	$10,804	$9,077	$10,163	$10,804	$12,096	$9,077	$10,163	$10,804	$12,096
Required annual income after taxes	$54,682	$112,264	$150,105	$189,513	$77,710	$97,821	$105,222	$124,191	$77,710	$123,719	$159,623	$198,988
Annual taxes	$12,787	$29,573	$49,897	$75,771	$14,055	$15,431	$14,412	$18,153	$14,055	$26,183	$44,184	$65,298
Required annual income before taxes	$67,469	$141,837	$200,002	$265,284	$91,765	$113,251	$119,633	$142,344	$91,765	$149,902	$203,808	$264,285

Typical Annual Salaries

Occupational Area	Typical Annual Salary
Management	$167,520
Business & Financial Operations	$106,440
Computer & Mathematical	$149,800
Architecture & Engineering	$127,090
Life, Physical, & Social Science	$103,310
Community & Social Service	$74,040
Legal	$186,670
Education, Training, & Library	$80,140
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media	$99,800
Healthcare Practitioners & Technical	$131,360
Healthcare Support	$41,210
Protective Service	$73,030
Food Preparation & Serving Related	$42,530
Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance	$45,680
Personal Care & Service	$45,120
Sales & Related	$60,730
Office & Administrative Support	$57,810
Farming, Fishing, & Forestry	$40,480
Construction & Extraction	$77,920
Installation, Maintenance, & Repair	$70,310
Production	$53,500
Transportation & Material Moving	$51,800

X61 – dupe from below

X61 dupe FROM A@ above THE DEBATE OVER RAISING IT

For text, not attachments

The question of an increased federal minimum wage has become a polarizing economic debate in Washington.

Supporters argue that higher wages would reduce poverty, strengthen consumer spending, and help workers keep up with the rising cost of living.

Critics warn that dramatic increases could force small businesses to reduce hiring, automate more jobs, or raise prices.

Others argue that the minimum wage should vary by region, and not be set federally, reflecting the dramatically different costs of living between major cities and rural areas.

The minimum wage debate raises a fundamental question about the structure of the American economy: should workers share proportionally in the productivity gains they help create?

If the answer is yes, today’s minimum wage should be closer to $25 per hour. A figure that reflects inflation as well as the full value of American workers’ contributions to the modern economy.

@global

A13X51

X51 FROM GOOGLE

MAPPED: MINIMUM WAGES AROUND THE WORLD

(See charts and graphs here)

Key Takeaways

· Switzerland has the highest figure in the dataset at $3,804 per month, although its minimum wages are set regionally rather than nationwide.

· Eight of the top 10 countries are European, with Australia and New Zealand rounding out the group.

· The U.S. ranks 25th out of 130 countries at $1,257 per month, based on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Minimum wages vary widely around the world, but comparing headline wage rates alone can obscure how much workers can actually buy with them.

This visualization compares monthly minimum wages using 2024 data from the International Labour Organization. Figures are expressed in purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted U.S. dollars, making wages more comparable based on what they can buy locally.

Where no single national minimum exists, ILOSTAT uses other applicable wage floors to make comparisons across countries.

THE COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGES

Switzerland tops the dataset at $3,804 per month, based on a regional rather than nationwide minimum wage. Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands follow at roughly $2,900. Eight of the top 10 countries are in Europe, while Australia and New Zealand are the only two outside the region.

South Korea stands out at $2,362, the highest figure in Asia. The U.S. sits much lower at $1,257 per month, ranking 25th overall. The ILO uses the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour rather than the $10.69 average state minimum in 2024.

Rank	Country	Monthly Minimum Wage, PPP-Adjusted
1	🇨🇭 Switzerland	$3,804
2	🇩🇪 Germany	$2,928
3	🇬🇧 UK	$2,902
4	🇳🇱 Netherlands	$2,876
5	🇦🇺 Australia	$2,819
6	🇧🇪 Belgium	$2,752
7	🇮🇸 Iceland	$2,730
8	🇳🇿 New Zealand	$2,673
9	🇫🇷 France	$2,465
10	🇮🇪 Ireland	$2,433
11	🇰🇷 South Korea	$2,362
12	🇸🇲 San Marino	$2,339
13	🇨🇦 Canada	$2,324
14	🇪🇸 Spain	$2,248
15	🇵🇱 Poland	$2,141
16	🇯🇵 Japan	$1,839
17	🇷🇴 Romania	$1,799
18	🇴🇲 Oman	$1,757
19	🇬🇷 Greece	$1,735
20	🇵🇹 Portugal	$1,713

Showing 1 to 20 of 130 entries

Rank	Country	Monthly Minimum Wage, PPP-Adjusted
21	🇮🇱 Israel	$1,630
22	🇧🇭 Bahrain	$1,590
23	🇭🇺 Hungary	$1,409
24	🇨🇿 Czechia	$1,319
25	🇺🇸 U.S.	$1,257
26	🇭🇰 Hong Kong SAR	$1,186
27	🇨🇷 Costa Rica	$1,093
28	🇧🇴 Bolivia	$1,078
29	🇨🇱 Chile	$1,076
30	🇲🇾 Malaysia	$1,035
31	🇧🇸 Bahamas	$1,017
32	🇫🇯 Fiji	$1,010
33	🇩🇲 Dominica	$1,000
34	🇮🇩 Indonesia	$993
35	🇵🇾 Paraguay	$986
36	🇬🇹 Guatemala	$963
37	🇵🇦 Panama	$943
38	🇧🇿 Belize	$940
39	🇭🇳 Honduras	$929
40	🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago	$909
Rank	Country	Monthly Minimum Wage, PPP-Adjusted
41	🇵🇼 Palau	$889
42	🇪🇬 Egypt	$863
43	🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina	$850
44	🇨🇴 Colombia	$843
45	🇩🇴 Dominican Republic	$826
46	🇹🇭 Thailand	$822
47	🇯🇴 Jordan	$809
48	🇲🇦 Morocco	$773
49	🇻🇨 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	$766
50	🇸🇨 Seychelles	$766
51	🇧🇾 Belarus	$766
52	🇸🇻 El Salvador	$760
53	🇲🇺 Mauritius	$753
54	🇰🇳 Saint Kitts and Nevis	$740
55	🇬🇩 Grenada	$705
56	🇦🇬 Antigua and Barbuda	$702
57	🇻🇳 Viet Nam	$693
58	🇯🇲 Jamaica	$670
59	🇷🇺 Russia	$662
60	🇦🇿 Azerbaijan	$654
Rank	Country	Monthly Minimum Wage, PPP-Adjusted
61	🇮🇶 Iraq	$626
62	🇿🇦 South Africa	$620
63	🇬🇾 Guyana	$619
64	🇲🇽 Mexico	$599
65	🇧🇧 Barbados	$592
66	🇲🇳 Mongolia	$591
67	🇲🇻 Maldives	$587
68	🇵🇰 Pakistan	$570
69	🇦🇷 Argentina	$568
70	🇳🇮 Nicaragua	$565
71	🇧🇷 Brazil	$559
72	🇱🇾 Libya	$553
73	🇨🇳 China	$544
74	🇬🇦 Gabon	$529
75	🇵🇪 Peru	$526
76	🇨🇬 Congo	$517
77	🇹🇳 Tunisia	$513
78	🇳🇵 Nepal	$490
79	🇰🇿 Kazakhstan	$483
80	🇦🇲 Armenia	$476
Rank	Country	Monthly Minimum Wage, PPP-Adjusted
81	🇩🇿 Algeria	$473
82	🇮🇷 Iran	$466
83	🇻🇺 Vanuatu	$458
84	🇼🇸 Samoa	$440
85	🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea	$425
86	🇰🇼 Kuwait	$408
87	🇵🇭 Philippines	$400
88	🇦🇫 Afghanistan	$393
89	🇧🇩 Bangladesh	$379
90	🇲🇿 Mozambique	$379
91	🇶🇦 Qatar	$363
92	🇰🇪 Kenya	$361
93	🇧🇼 Botswana	$354
94	🇱🇧 Lebanon	$344
95	🇨🇮 Côte d'Ivoire	$320
96	🇺🇿 Uzbekistan	$311
97	🇱🇸 Lesotho	$306
98	🇰🇮 Kiribati	$289
99	🇱🇦 Laos	$286
100	🇸🇷 Suriname	$283
Rank	Country	Monthly Minimum Wage, PPP-Adjusted
101	🇨🇻 Cape Verde	$282
102	🇸🇳 Senegal	$280
103	🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea	$268
104	🇧🇯 Benin	$261
105	🇹🇱 Timor-Leste	$252
106	🇹🇩 Chad	$252
107	🇹🇯 Tajikistan	$252
108	🇳🇬 Nigeria	$245
109	🇲🇷 Mauritania	$244
110	🇹🇬 Togo	$235
111	🇮🇳 India	$233
112	🇹🇿 Tanzania	$228
113	🇧🇫 Burkina Faso	$226
114	🇦🇴 Angola	$225
115	🇸🇧 Solomon Islands	$219
116	🇰🇲 Comoros	$218
117	🇨🇲 Cameroon	$212
118	🇲🇬 Madagascar	$210
119	🇲🇱 Mali	$208
120	🇱🇰 Sri Lanka	$200
Rank	Country	Monthly Minimum Wage, PPP-Adjusted
121	🇳🇪 Niger	$196
122	🇧🇹 Bhutan	$180
123	🇭🇹 Haiti	$167
124	🇬🇳 Guinea	$153
125	🇨🇫 Central African Republic	$133
126	🇸🇱 Sierra Leone	$121
127	🇬🇭 Ghana	$100
128	🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan	$91
129	🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau	$83
130	🇬🇲 Gambia	$67

Showing 121 to 130 of 130 entries

‹1234567›

After adjusting for purchasing power, the U.S. federal minimum wage is less than half Germany’s, despite the U.S. having one of the highest average incomes in the world.

Minimum-wage systems aren’t identical across countries. The U.S. figure uses the federal minimum, while Canada’s figure represents the median of provincial rates. As a result, the figures should be read as standardized country comparisons rather than the wage floor faced by every worker.

Countries where wage floors are set primarily through collective bargaining, including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and Italy, are shown as having no comparable data.

Why the U.S. Minimum Wage Ranks 25th

One reason for America’s position is that the federal minimum wage hasn’t increased in 17 years. It has remained at $7.25 an hour since July 2009, the longest stretch without an increase since the federal minimum wage was established.

Inflation has steadily eroded what that $7.25 paycheck can buy. To match the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage when it took effect in 2009, workers would need to earn $11.47 an hour today. In other words, its purchasing power has fallen by roughly 37% since 2009.

Many Americans earn above the federal wage floor. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have minimum wages above $7.25, while some cities set even higher rates. Still, the long federal freeze helps explain why the U.S. sits significantly below many other high-income economies.

How Cost of Living Reshuffles the Ranking

Adjusting for local prices produces some surprising comparisons. Poland ranks 15th globally at $2,141 per month, close to Spain at $2,248 and ahead of Japan at $1,839.

In Latin America, Costa Rica leads at $1,093, just $164 below the U.S. federal minimum on a purchasing-power basis. Last year, Costa Rica raised private-sector minimum wages using a formula that considers both the cost of living and productivity growth.

These figures offer a better sense of what minimum wages can buy locally, but they don’t account for taxes or benefits. Because the adjustments are national, they can also mask large differences in housing costs between cities and regions.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic comparing minimum wages across countries and U.S. states, adjusted for living costs.

ATTACHMENT “C”

X92 FROM STANDARDOFLIVING.ORG

The Standard of Living Index was created with the goal of creating a holistic scoring system to measure every facet of a country’s standard of living. Countries are scored based on nine weighted categories, human rights (25%), democracy (18%), freedom (12%), economy (12%), health (10%), corruption (8%), competency (5%), future (5%), and actions abroad (5%). Countries are sorted into categories representing a range of ten points (blue is the highest, and black is the lowest). Pages for each country can be found under these categories in the banner at the top of the page.

Norway	97.43	100	94	93	100	100	100	100	100	87	0.0684	Northern Europe
Finland	97.21	96	99	93	94	100	100	97	99	91	0.0699	Northern Europe
Ireland	96.08	100	98	91	100	98	84	95	95	90	0.0632	Northern Europe
Netherlands	95.26	96	94	92	100	100	100	97	88	84	0.2268	Western Europe
Iceland	94.77	98	97	89	95	100	91	99	70	100	0.0047	Northern Europe
Luxembourg	94.63	100	95	78	97	100	91	100	95	90	0.008	Western Europe
Uruguay	94.43	98	100	100	87	92	98	96	78	75	0.0447	South America
Denmark	94.29	96	95	83	96	100	97	98	95	86	0.0747	Northern Europe
San Marino	94.2	100	100	86	100	100	81	80	85	83	0.000424	Western Europe
Realm of NZ	94.06	93	92	95	100	96	100	95	90	80	0.0649	Oceania
Switzerland	93.97	91	97	88	100	100	100	92	96	76	0.11	Western Europe
Estonia	93.95	92	98	100	89	96	86	98	95	90	0.0168	Northern Europe
Sweden	93.27	97	93	86	93	100	95	94	96	74	0.132	Northern Europe
Canada	91.03	94	95	81	94	98	81	95	94	74	0.487	North America
Austria	91.02	96	92	84	92	98	87	92	82	80	0.113	Western Europe
Costa Rica	90.84	90	100	96	71	95	80	91	97	100	0.0651	Central America
Portugal	90.82	91	98	100	88	100	69	87	88	72	0.13	Western Europe
Northern Europe	90.6
Belgium	90.4	98	91	87	95	96	86	64	85	75	0.146	Western Europe
Germany	88.07	94	93	77	93	97	86	91	45	81	1.05	Western Europe
Slovenia	87.82	90	96	77	99	100	64	87	85	64	0.0256	Southern Europe
Czechia	87.34	88	91	93	99	92	54	78	85	85	0.133	Central Europe
Taiwan	87.14	91	92	81	100	100	82	58	66	67	0.294	East Asia
Western Europe	86.89
Andorra	86.88	82	86	80	90	97	85	75	90	95	0.001	Western Europe
Slovakia	86.71	87	91	84	99	94	59	80	85	85	0.0684	Central Europe
Japan	86.55	82	94	88	85	100	99	95	33	81	1.58	East Asia
South Korea	86.46	82	94	78	91	95	87	89	84	73	0.651	East Asia
Malta	86.28	81	92	84	99	96	78	84	93	60	0.0065	Southern Europe
Lithuania	85.14	86	95	86	93	84	57	77	95	70	0.0352	Northern Europe
Australia	84.99	89	95	71	91	87	90	73	60	73	0.327	Oceania
North America	84.4	84.5	89	84.5	88.5	89	83	85	70.5	64.5	4.717
France	83.79	81	97	79	80	92	77	80	79	58	0.8626	Western Europe
Croatia	81.82	81	85	88	87	95	54	71	85	73	0.049	Southern Europe
Liechtenstein	81.3	91	30	82	94	100	96	97	90	100	0.0005	Western Europe
Chile	81.08	70	96	84	75	83	80	86	91	77	0.248	South America
US	77.76	75	83	88	83	80	85	75	46	55	4.23	North America
Latvia	76.98	83	92	76	83	86	68	61	54	70	0.0236	Northern Europe
UK	76.89	83	76	56	85	93	83	78	59	55	0.843	Northern Europe
Monaco	76.48	83	25	86	100	98	67	90	95	90	0.0005	Western Europe
Palau	76.39	70	100	81	74	76	73	67	10	100	0.0002	Oceania
Mauritius	76.38	71	93	67	78	81	78	73	40	90	0.016	South Africa
Italy	76.24	78	88	86	81	100	32	61	40	65	0.744	Western Europe
Central Europe	76.19
Cabo Verde	75.9	82	96	93	59	44	51	53	71	100	0.0071	West Africa
Barbados	75.75	68	94	96	78	75	60	54	66	65	0.0036	Caribbean
Cyprus	75.59	84	86	81	83	100	36	57	52	22	0.0112	Southern Europe
Panama	74.46	71	97	81	76	81	17	64	76	79	0.0539	Central America
Argentina	73.58	86	89	92	63	88	9	50	65	43	0.577	South America
Spain	73.5	81	83	68	69	100	59	58	38	47	0.596	Western Europe
Tuvalu	72.43	75	92	91	54	53	74	69	1	100	0.000134	Oceania
The Bahamas	72.27	58	88	87	77	69	70	60	45	90	0.005	Caribbean
Seychelles	71.81	75	82	64	73	77	68	64	55	59	0.00125	East Africa
Greece	71.32	82	87	82	73	92	27	35	33	40	0.135	Southern Europe
St. Lucia	70.59	69	91	82	55	80	64	65	40	44	0.00225	Caribbean
SV&G	69.34	70	85	86	62	71	61	58	52	44	0.00139	Caribbean
Poland	67.77	77	74	64	85	91	36	44	24	46	0.48	Central Europe
A&B	67.6	62	88	82	72	73	41	36	55	55	0.0013	Caribbean
Romania	67.37	67	91	72	72	54	22	58	68	70	0.242	Eastern Europe
Southern Europe	66.53
Ecuador	66.26	74	77	75	63	78	13	55	65	50	0.226	South America
Singapore	65.78	58	34	21	97	100	100	100	90	70	0.0686	Southeast Asia
SK&N	65.15	65	77	88	59	72	45	45	50	37	0.00068	Caribbean
North Macedonia	65.07	74	71	67	64	69	24	45	70	70	0.0231	Southern Europe
Oceania	64.81
Marshall Islands	64.05	71	95	87	37	21	74	23	13	90	0.0007	Oceania
South Africa	64.05	73	91	84	45	42	18	38	45	83	0.757	South Africa
Dominica	64.02	60	82	86	33	66	46	54	50	90	0.0009	Caribbean
Mongolia	63.79	68	84	68	61	44	28	48	77	66	0.0432	East Asia
Albania	63.68	68	73	76	67	66	16	45	65	60	0.0357	Southern Europe
Hungary	62.93	68	68	58	78	72	29	67	45	45	0.122	Central Europe
Guyana	62.03	66	62	73	54	71	16	67	90	58	0.0094	South America
Moldova	61.71	68	61	65	82	53	23	43	76	60	0.0327	Eastern Europe
FSM	61.55	72	88	81	43	34	31	34	19	86	0.0013	Oceania
Namibia	61.45	67	69	87	47	28	55	46	67	67	0.0321	South Africa
Trinidad	61.24	57	89	82	57	67	23	61	45	66	0.0172	Caribbean
Botswana	61.07	77	56	61	43	34	72	47	78	77	0.0304	South Africa
Bulgaria	60.41	46	85	64	80	72	21	33	56	60	0.0822	Eastern Europe
Georgia	59.31	66	36	65	70	70	76	57	60	24	0.047	Middle East
Kosovo	59.27	78	48	64	77	63	27	37	40	38	0.0225	Southern Europe
Vanuatu	58.82	71	77	72	39	48	33	26	13	90	0.00376	Oceania
Fiji	58.58	78	68	56	54	46	38	62	13	45	0.0113	Oceania
ST&P	58.37	83	77	85	14	32	6	4	90	70	0.0027	Central Africa
Ghana	57.92	64	84	73	30	33	8	55	80	75	0.388	West Africa
TRNC	57.41	62	63	69	73	78	16	19	40	30	0.0048	Southern Europe
South America	57.24
Kiribati	57.15	62	99	90	29	12	45	30	1	64	0.0015	Oceania
Samoa	56.66	58	51	61	65	72	52	24	19	85	0.00252	Oceania
Montenegro	56.63	62	50	44	63	69	23	66	75	70	0.0078	Southern Europe
Grenada	56.39	61	79	76	34	57	24	17	34	71	0.0014	Caribbean
Bhutan	56.34	62	73	50	61	42	82	55	57	72	0.0095	South Asia
Caribbean	56.14	50.75
Colombia	55.66	34	81	75	58	66	19	38	80	52	0.643	South America
Tunisia	54.95	53	44	56	72	79	24	61	38	73	0.148	North Africa
East Asia	54.68
Malaysia	54.54	31	53	23	92	81	70	74	63	58	0.412	Southeast Asia
Paraguay	54.42	46	68	74	57	54	17	33	59	72	0.0926	South America
Mexico	54.39	36	78	71	64	76	5	31	60	52	1.59	Central America
Jamaica	54.2	34	72	82	53	63	28	45	45	70	0.0345	Caribbean
Nauru	54	61	91	77	56	29	17	38	1	4	0.00015	Oceania
Solomon Islands	53.85	73	73	77	28	43	7	28	15	57	0.00916	Oceania
Peru	53.5	45	69	64	57	62	12	8	82	73	0.416	South America
Senegal	52.61	46	65	69	30	38	41	53	80	76	0.217	West Africa
Belize	52.52	32	89	72	42	59	9	22	63	79	0.0054	Central America
El Salvador	52.23	28	84	73	51	49	21	36	76	61	0.086	Central America
Indonesia	52.13	42	79	34	65	56	6	45	70	74	3.42	Southeast Asia
Qatar	51.77	33	20	26	88	92	93	95	33	64	0.0353	Middle East
Algeria	50.83	48	36	32	74	78	25	60	65	63	0.572	North Africa
Median Country	50.83	46	63	60	57	59	23	43	55	61
Ukraine	50.7	27	64	61	76	66	13	33	64	70	0.517	Eastern Europe
The Gambia	50.58	58	68	65	32	15	12	39	80	80	0.0313	West Africa
Central America	50.42
Maldives	50.38	43	54	37	67	72	36	76	1	70	0.0048	Southern Asia
Tonga	50.09	63	33	68	55	59	23	39	18	61	0.00125	Oceania
Morocco	50.07	48	33	35	72	74	38	64	77	36	0.46	North Africa
Philippines	48.96	27	68	66	66	48	11	23	74	72	1.41	Southeast Asia
Average Country	48.59	45.45	52.84	49.96	53.5	54.02	33.14	41.35	51.25	53.97	100
Timor-Leste	48.52	59	72	61	23	16	1	28	83	70	0.0166	Southeast Asia
Sri Lanka	48.46	34	55	31	68	77	21	48	58	70	0.279	Southern Asia
Nepal	48.21	45	67	58	48	36	1	39	77	54	0.368	Southern Asia
Israel	47.72	16	74	63	77	78	45	21	33	-10	0.12	Middle East
Somaliland	47.5	57	71	48	19	39	1	36	68	65	0.071	East Africa
Serbia	47.26	53	33	46	61	72	21	52	39	36	0.0865	Southern Europe
BiH	46.16	63	27	58	39	60	32	24	50	33	0.0419	Southern Europe
Thailand	45.29	39	13	18	90	88	23	54	74	64	0.84	Southeast Asia
Gabon	44.79	48	5	46	62	55	51	60	60	67	0.0281	Central Africa
Jordan	44.58	36	20	16	82	73	54	36	60	76	0.141	Middle East
Armenia	44.45	46	59	51	41	56	23	17	58	7	0.0374	Middle East
Brazil	44.28	33	59	69	64	61	-10	3	1	70	2.7	South America
Lesotho	43.11	52	66	63	28	2	17	10	45	60	0.0272	South Africa	23.5470138692, brazil completed
Malawi	43.06	37	79	64	9	12	26	7	80	64	0.238	South Africa
Eastern Europe	41.84
Sierra Leone	41.61	41	76	61	5	-3	12	28	90	64	0.104	West Africa
Brunei	40.91	16	1	12	85	95	93	82	29	52	0.0054	Southeast Asia
Liberia	40.51	47	71	56	16	8	18	1	60	41	0.0587	West Africa
South Asia	40.46
Oman	40.29	27	8	7	73	82	80	64	24	70	0.0571	Middle East
Turkiye	39.06	24	34	23	69	67	35	46	44	39	1.06	Middle East
South Africa	38.74
West Africa	38.64
Southeast Asia	38.57
Average Person	38.52
DR	38.24	31	55	66	47	25	1	7	45	37	0.133	Caribbean
Kuwait	37.5	22	25	16	67	74	48	53	16	57	0.0589	Middle East
North Africa	37.36
Bolivia	36.84	37	41	56	38	33	1	9	79	23	0.149	South America
India	36.2	31	78	36	31	26	19	1	33	11	17.3	Southern Asia
Kenya	35.95	38	48	44	21	9	7	18	79	74	0.599	East Africa
PNG	34.83	29	52	60	20	9	1	1	77	70	0.115	Southeast Asia
Kazakhstan	34.81	22	2	9	78	72	17	64	60	76	0.242	Stans
Zambia	34.59	32	62	46	24	7	6	9	38	70	0.231	South Africa
Rwanda	33.7	21	8	24	31	38	72	67	84	66	0.163	East Africa
Honduras	33.26	13	63	38	34	42	1	1	70	44	0.12	Central America
Bahrain	32.94	19	4	9	69	86	77	46	8	13	0.0189	Middle East
Guatemala	32.34	12	56	38	31	41	21	14	50	40	0.216	Central America
UAE	31.2	-3	1	-3	59	94	70	78	84	39	0.117	Middle East
Togo	30.42	27	14	39	28	35	12	25	82	64	0.0992	West Africa
Middle East	30.15
Madagascar	29.98	26	71	32	5	-3	7	-10	60	70	0.339	South Africa
Cote d'Ivoire	28.96	31	38	35	24	8	3	10	65	50	0.341	West Africa
Lebanon	28.44	27	38	42	33	53	-10	1	1	25	0.0684	Middle East
Cuba	27.41	28	2	13	32	73	10	30	70	31	0.141	Caribbean
Iraq	27.05	9	69	11	44	29	1	-10	33	33	0.519	Middle East
Niger	26.84	20	54	43	2	4	24	1	50	37	0.304	Sahel
Egypt	26.76	6	12	5	57	63	13	62	64	41	1.3	North Africa
Kyrgyzstan	26.41	34	8	41	47	38	7	3	24	4	0.084	Stans
Burkina Faso	25.68	20	62	23	7	6	9	1	58	33	0.271	Sahel
Azerbaijan	25.63	16	2	15	64	66	3	53	36	1	0.128	Middle East
Abkhazia	25.46	32	35	17	22	42	1	6	10	28	0.0031	Middle East
Laos	24.92	22	2	17	36	27	35	44	45	60	0.0925	Southeast Asia
Mauritania	24.64	-2	36	23	56	19	6	8	70	58	0.0538	North Africa
Pakistan	22.59	14	44	22	35	12	1	-10	64	7	2.84	Southern Asia
Guinea-Bissau	22.41	20	56	34	5	-5	-10	1	45	33	0.0207	West Africa
Nigeria	22.37	7	56	24	19	3	1	1	44	55	2.66	West Africa
Djibouti	22.33	24	14	17	27	16	1	20	60	57	0.0123	East Africa
Sudan	21.74	18	1	31	33	42	1	19	50	33	0.559	Sahel
Viet Nam	21.29	18	1	6	45	59	17	43	62	64	1.24	Southeast Asia
Tanzania	20.75	21	8	19	10	13	6	26	67	83	0.747	East Africa
Central Africa	20.72
Guinea	20.67	25	5	45	11	6	20	50	90	33	0.163	West Africa
Congo-Brazzaville	20.2	28	3	21	17	31	1	4	25	70	0.0713	Central Africa
Cambodia	20.04	18	2	26	29	19	1	17	45	70	0.196	Southeast Asia
Benin	19.83	27	30	30	12	8	3	1	13	18	0.158	West Africa
East Africa	19.8
Belarus	19.75	3	3	12	67	59	26	18	1	5	0.118	Eastern Europe
Russia	19.41	4	2	3	63	72	6	61	8	-20	1.83	Eastern Europe
Bangladesh	18.95	16	19	19	22	7	1	6	53	58	2.17	Southern Asia
Saudi Arabia	18.22	-20	1	-10	78	87	36	75	1	-10	0.441	Middle East
Stans	18.17
Libya	16.89	6	1	15	39	45	1	-10	60	33	0.0877	North Africa
Sahel	16.76
Palestine	16.49	6	13	18	40	26	-2	-8	47	26	0.0659	Middle East
Eswatini	16.19	26	2	23	11	7	-10	17	20	70	0.0148	South Africa
China	15.83	-28	5	-40	81	77	27	70	50	23	17.8	East Asia
South Ossetia	14.99	12	5	9	39	44	1	11	1	5	0.000674	Middle East
Transnistria	13.52	21	6	12	26	17	1	-10	6	21	0.00385	Eastern Europe
Nicaragua	13.28	8	3	13	45	29	1	1	1	14	0.0831	Central America
Angola	13.14	18	8	14	7	8	1	1	25	50	0.405	South Africa
Zimbabwe	12.4	19	13	14	19	9	-25	1	8	22	0.198	South Africa
Tajikistan	11.59	12	2	-7	26	21	-10	23	37	33	0.12	Stans
Ethiopia	11.37	1	8	18	16	5	15	-5	49	33	1.49	East Africa
Uganda	11.23	3	5	13	12	6	1	1	47	70	0.539	East Africa
Uzbekistan	10.9	-2	2	-10	25	41	-10	38	56	23	0.447	Stans
Iran	10.83	-20	3	-20	78	66	1	40	1	-10	1.07	Middle East
Comoros	10.78	7	21	12	19	3	1	1	2	20	0.0096	East Africa
Cameroon	10.62	5	2	14	20	2	2	-10	33	70	0.307	Central Africa
Mozambique	9.46	9	12	24	2	1	1	1	1	33	0.389	South Africa
Mali	8.41	7	1	26	9	0	1	1	10	33	0.263	Sahel
Venezuela	8.04	16	1	18	1	24	-35	1	1	34	0.361	South America
Haiti	7.86	7	11	14	6	11	1	1	5	5	0.148	Caribbean
Turkmenistan	7.15	-6	2	-20	7	47	-30	73	8	70	0.0796	Stans
Syria	6.66	-32	6	3	47	53	1	-10	51	3	0.23	Middle East
Myanmar	5.57	-25	1	1	47	46	1	-10	1	33	0.697	Southeast Asia
DRC	5.57	7	6	11	4	2	-7	1	10	15	1.16	Central Africa
EQ Guinea	5.28	10	3	4	4	-5	-6	1	1	24	0.019	Central Africa
Burundi	4.58	9	4	6	1	1	1	1	1	8	0.158	East Africa
Afghanistan	2.14	-5	1	-3	8	4	2	15	3	8	0.414	Southern Asia
Chad	1.12	4	1	2	1	-5	1	-10	2	8	0.212	Sahel
CAR	0.24	3	4	5	1	-4	-20	-10	1	10	0.071	Central Africa
Yemen	-1.18	-20	1	8	16	-10	1	-20	1	13	0.383	Middle East
Somalia	-2.09	-5	1	13	1	-5	-10	-30	12	-10	0.135	East Africa
Eritrea	-2.35	-10	1	-10	1	-10	-10	10	26	21	0.0454	East Africa
Sudan, South	-8.11	-45	1	13	1	-5	1	-10	15	29	0.167	East Africa
DPRK	-11.68	-40	1	-55	5	20	33	20	10	-40	0.323	East Asia

GLOBAL

A14

X86/X02 FROM LABOUR.ie IRELAND

Labour Party Away Day to focus on tackling cost of living crisis

Ivana Bacik 02 September 2026

The Labour Party will gather in Galway tomorrow (3-4 September) for the annual Party Away Day and Think In, where discussions will focus on the cost of living crisis in advance of Budget 2027.

Speaking ahead of the Think In, Labour Leader Ivana Bacik TD said that the Party’s focus will be on driving down household bills as families face enormous back to school costs this week.

Deputy Bacik said:

“This Government has left people behind. With housing and childcare increasingly unaffordable, energy costs soaring, and back to school costs rising, the Labour Party has a plan to drive down people’s bills, tackle the cost of living and revolutionise energy generation in Ireland.

“We are calling on the Government to use Budget 2027 to deliver meaningful supports for families, rather than untargeted measures that are ineffective in reducing household costs.

“We know that the pressures on many families are particularly acute as children made the return to school this week. This year, primary school parents expected on average to spend over €1,600 across the school year, including over €600 in upfront costs. The average cost of digital devices alone for second level schools has now reached €430.

“In July, the Labour Party brought forward a Dáil motion proposing practical measures to tackle back to school costs and address the growing ‘digital divide’. We want to see the Government adopt our proposals and reduce the cost of education for hard pressed families.

“As we see a growing crisis in childcare and early years education, with many families unable to access creche places, we also want to see Government adopt our proposals for a public childcare scheme, to reduce costs for parents, ensure decent wages for childcare workers and most importantly deliver greater quality care and equality for children.

“Budget 2027 also needs to deliver targeted energy supports for families. Rapidly rising energy costs are eating into people’s incomes, with many thousands now in arrears on energy bills.

“Labour put forward mini-Budget proposals in May, including targeted energy credits to support families when energy bills rise. We are calling on the Government to adopt our proposals in their own Budget this October.

“Labour campaigned on the need for a retrofitting revolution during the General Election, and that call remains just as important today, particularly in the context of the war in the Middle East. We have called for delivery of a massive street-by-street retrofitting programme for homes, to ensure lower energy bills for households, along with reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

“In last year’s Budget, the Government offered a subsidy to fast food chains, with nothing for PAYE workers. How Budget 2027 delivers for hardworking people will be a crucial test for this Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael/Independent coalition.”

A15

X FROM ANN (INDONESIA)

Inequality in Indonesia worsens as wealth gap widens

The economic disparity is most apparent in the eastern part of Indonesia, such as Sulawesi and Papua, where extractive industries, which are done by businesses led by wealthy people and driven by Jakarta-centered development, have exacerbated the wealth gap.

By Gembong Hanung The Jakarta Post September 2, 2026

JAKARTA – Inequality in Indonesia has multiplied over the past three decades, a situation mirrored across many resource-dependent Global South countries, with the solution being an inclusive economic growth rather than excessive state intervention, according to academics.

More than 220 scholars from at least 20 countries gathered for the three-day 2026 Institute for Advanced Research (IFAR) Consortium Conference hosted by the Indonesian International Islamic University in Depok, West Java.

Aiming to examine the current landscape of inequality across Southeast Asia, many scholars pointed to the widening socioeconomic gap in Indonesia, where wealth is increasingly concentrated in a small web of politically-wired individuals.

In countries such as Indonesia, economic growth often came at the expense of shrinking share of labor wages in the national economy, according to sociology professor Vivek Chibber of New York University in the United States.

“Since the 1980s, what policy shifts occurred have overwhelmingly favored the wealthy as against the general population, especially the working population [or] labor in countries like Indonesia,” Chibber said in his keynote address on Wednesday.

Income inequality can be seen in the measurement of the country’s Gini coefficient as deduced in reports issued by the Statistics Indonesia (BPS).

The latest score for the coefficient, issued by the agency on Aug. 5, was 0.368 in March, slightly rising from 0.363 in September last year. A coefficient of zero represents perfect equality, while one captures a complete unequal condition.

But the coefficient, which was included in BPS’ biannual National Socioeconomic Survey (Susenas) report, has not been able to explain the whole spectrum of wealth and income inequality in the country, according to Pierre van der Eng, an associate professor at Australian National University.

He drew from his past study calculating the relative concentration of Indonesian billionaires’ wealth to the gross domestic product (GDP), using multiple wealth data listings, including those published by Forbes magazine and others.

After analyzing the data, van der Eng found that between 2010 and 2025, concentration increased mimicking that recorded in the 1990s, when Indonesia was still under the authoritarian rule of late president Soeharto.

He cited the expansion of extractive industries as major wealth sources that have been exploited by billionaires to accumulate wealth over the past 15 years. The approach might resemble cronyism and nepotism under Soeharto’s New Order.

“That is the similarity that we have to find and look at the reason for the significant increase in what looks like wealth inequalities,” van der Eng said.

The richest 1 percent of individuals in Indonesia held around 20 percent of the country’s wealth in 2024, according to data from the World Inequality Database.

The inequality is most evident in eastern parts of the country. In regions such as East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), Sulawesi, Maluku and Papua, factors such as geographical isolation, cultural barrier and poor governance have worsened the gaps, said development economist Umbu Reku Raya of education NGO Sumba Cendekia Bestari.

Based on his research on entrenched inequality impacting Sumba Island in East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) and Papua Highlands, the Jakarta-centered development agenda has put these regions in a more vulnerable position for further discrimination.

“Negative external [factors] such as mining, logging and tourism have also displaced the communities, degraded the environment and hurt subsistence livelihoods,” Umbu said in his presentation on Wednesday.

MILITARISM WON’T HELP

The country’s current political landscape has further exacerbated inequality in Indonesia, as highlighted by other researchers.

Economist Zulfan Tadjoeddin of Western Sydney University, Australia, described the current situation under President Prabowo Subianto’s administration as showing a “parallel convergence” with what had happened in the Philippines, where a small web of businesspeople who owned a large share of wealth were backed by discriminatory state intervention.

While noting a relatively slowing trend of Gini ratio over the past decades, Zulfan noted that on the other hand, “we’ve seen an increasing wealth concentration”.

To “discipline” businesses, NYU’s Chibber believes any countries will not need to resort to a “military dictatorship” in order to ensure economic reciprocity and performance benchmarks adhered by businesses.

“If you have a vibrant citizenry and society that are demanding development and anticorruption, that would benefit you,” Chibber said.

To ease the wealth and income inequality, he also suggested Indonesia to move beyond exporting raw materials, and instead start expanding manufacturing industries.

Civil society groups have criticized the growing militarism in civilian affairs and aggressive state intervention on the economy under Prabowo for harming both the political and business sphere in the country.

The President has repeatedly conveyed his commitment to slash the wealth gap between the rich and poor in the country, with among the latest was mentioned in his address to the House of Representatives in May.

The Government Communication Office (Bakom) and the Social Affairs Ministry did not respond to The Jakarta Post’s requests for comment.

A16 X88 PAYWALLED

https://www.washingtonpost.com › World › Asia paywall

1 day ago — Income inequality in China is now by some measures worse than in the U.S. as blue-collar jobs dwindle and workers turn to the gig economy.

@usa regional and demographical

A17X91

INFLATION/STANDARD of LIVING

AI Overview

The American standard of living is high in terms of average GDP per capita and material goods like large homes and cheap consumer items. However, high costs for healthcare, housing, and childcare, paired with wide income inequality, leave many middle- and lower-income households feeling financially insecure. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Key Economic Indicators

· GDP Per Capita: Reached over $70,000, showing strong overall national output.

· Poverty Line: Set at $33,000 for a family of four, with a national poverty rate near 10.6%.

· Middle-Class Wealth: Average household net worth hovers around $496,000. [1]

Major Cost Pressures

· Housing: Average home prices near $486,000 and average monthly rents around $1,890 strain affordability.

· Family Care: Annual child care costs average over $29,000 for two young children.

· Healthcare & Debt: High out-of-pocket medical and insurance expenses lead to significant household debt compared to other wealthy nations. [1, 3, 4]

A18X94

X94 FROM SO FI

Average US Salary by State

By Jacqueline DeMarco. August 06, 2026 ·

Table of Contents

· What Is the Average US Salary (2026)

· Average Salary vs Median Salary: What’s the Difference?

· US Average and Median Salary by State in 2026

· Why Do States Have Different Average Salaries?

· Which Regions Pay the Most?

· Which Regions Pay the Least?

· Should You Move to Make More Money?

· FAQ

Table of Contents

· WHAT IS THE AVERAGE US SALARY (2026)

· AVERAGE SALARY VS MEDIAN SALARY: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

· US AVERAGE AND MEDIAN SALARY BY STATE IN 2026

· WHY DO STATES HAVE DIFFERENT AVERAGE SALARIES?

· WHICH REGIONS PAY THE MOST?

· WHICH REGIONS PAY THE LEAST?

· SHOULD YOU MOVE TO MAKE MORE MONEY?

· FAQ

The average salary in the U.S. is $69,846.57, according to the latest data from the Social Security Administration. How your salary compares will depend on your industry and skilI set, as you’d expect. What you might not realize is that your salary is also greatly influenced by where you live, since salaries go hand in hand with the cost of living.

Here’s a closer look at the average salary in the U.S. and how income varies from state to state.

Key Points

• The average salary in the U.S. varies depending on factors such as occupation, location, and experience.

• Recent data indicates that the average household income is $69,846.57 in the U.S.

• The cost of living and regional differences can impact salary levels across the country.

• High-paying states are typically on the East and West Coasts, while pay tends to be lower in the South.

• It’s important to research salary ranges for specific occupations and locations when considering job opportunities.

WHAT IS THE AVERAGE US SALARY (2026)

The national average salary is $69,846.57. That is the sum of all incomes divided by the number of workers. Where someone lives, their industry, their education level, and the current demand for their job all contribute to how much a worker earns per year.

AVERAGE SALARY VS MEDIAN SALARY: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides data on median pay. As of Q2 2026, the median weekly earnings of full-time workers was $1,251, or $65,052 per year. The median is the midpoint in the data set, with 50% of incomes falling above that figure and 50% below.

Why are the average and median income figures different? With averages, unusually high or low numbers can skew the results. For instance, multi-millionaires or billionaires might drive the average higher than what the typical worker actually makes. The median is less affected by outliers.

US AVERAGE AND MEDIAN SALARY BY STATE IN 2026

The following chart shows both the average and median incomes (in single-income households) in each state, according to data from Forbes and the U.S. Census Bureau.

State	Average	Median
Alabama	$55,350	$66,659
Alaska	$72,810	$95,665
Arizona	$65,740	$81,486
Arkansas	$53,070	$62,106
California	$79,900	$100,149
Colorado	$75,560	$97,113
Connecticut	$76,050	$96,049
Delaware	$67,640	$87,534
Florida	$62,990	$77,735
Georgia	$64,210	$79,991
Hawaii	$68,280	$100,745
Idaho	$58,440	$81,166
Illinois	$69,020	$83,211
Indiana	$58,800	$71,959
Iowa	$58,350	$75,501
Kansas	$58,230	$75,514
Kentucky	$56,310	$64,526
Louisiana	$55,130	$60,986
Maine	$63,760	$76,442
Maryland	$76,130	$102,905
Massachusetts	$83,050	$104,828
Michigan	$63,120	$72,389
Minnesota	$68,880	$87,117
Mississippi	$49,740	$59,127
Missouri	$59,630	$71,589
Montana	$58,160	$75,340
Nebraska	$60,230	$76,376
Nevada	$60,310	$81,134
New Hampshire	$68,800	$99,782
New Jersey	$76,320	$104,294
New Mexico	$60,290	$67,816
New York	$80,630	$85,820
North Carolina	$62,440	$73,958
North Dakota	$61,810	$77,871
Ohio	$62,280	$72,212
Oklahoma	$54,960	$66,148
Oregon	$70,290	$85,220
Pennsylvania	$63,690	$77,545
Rhode Island	$69,270	$83,504
South Carolina	$56,990	$72,350
South Dakota	$55,480	$76,881
Tennessee	$58,700	$71,997
Texas	$63,660	$79,721
Utah	$63,960	$96,658
Vermont	$66,330	$82,730
Virginia	$72,060	$92,090
Washington	$81,550	$99,389
West Virginia	$54,940	$60,798
Wisconsin	$61,690	$77,488
Wyoming	$60,200	$75,532

Sources: Forbes, U.S. Census Bureau

Recommended: Salary to Hourly Calculator

WHY DO STATES HAVE DIFFERENT AVERAGE SALARIES?

The chart shows that the average salary in some states is quite different from the average salary nationwide. That’s partly because the cost of living, which affects how much a company pays its employees, varies significantly by state.

Also, inflation impacts states to varying degrees.

In addition, industries with a concentrated presence in certain states, such as banking or automobile manufacturing, can affect the overall quality of job opportunities in that area.

WHICH REGIONS PAY THE MOST?

Salaries tend to be higher in some areas of the country. Cities on the West Coast and in the Northeast have some of the highest average salaries:

• Massachusetts

• New York

• Washington

• California

• New Jersey

• Connecticut

• Maryland

Remember, while these states have higher incomes, they may also have a much higher cost of living and higher housing prices.

Recommended: 25 Highest-Paying Jobs in the US

WHICH REGIONS PAY THE LEAST?

The South is home to states that tend to pay the least:

• South Carolina

• Kentucky

• Louisiana

• Alabama

• Arkansas

• West Virginia

• Mississippi

To determine what your personal cost of living is, try tracking your expenses with a free budget app for a few months.

Recommended: Biweekly Money-Saving Challenge

SHOULD YOU MOVE TO MAKE MORE MONEY?

It’s important to remember that just because a state has a higher average salary, that doesn’t mean it’s more profitable for workers to live there. Higher salaries tend to correlate with a higher cost of living.

Before making a major move, first try living below your means. One reason that people who make more money still have trouble paying their bills is the phenomenon of lifestyle creep. This is when your so-called needs expand to consume your current salary.

One of the most effective ways to counteract lifestyle creep is to downsize your home. Reducing your housing expenses to less than 30% of your gross income could help you pay down debt, increase savings, and become more conscious of how lifestyle choices affect spending.

💡 Quick Tip: Income, expenses, and life circumstances can change. Consider reviewing your budget a few times a year and making any adjustments if needed.

THE TAKEAWAY

The average annual salary in the U.S. is $69,846.57. The median annual salary, which is often less skewed by outlying numbers, is $65,052. It’s worth noting that average and median salaries vary quite a bit by state. States in the Northeast and on the West Coast tend to pay higher salaries, while those in the South often pay less. What’s stopping people from moving to a higher-paying state? Often, it’s housing prices, which rise along with the cost of living in “richer” states.

Take control of your finances with SoFi. With our financial insights and credit score monitoring tools, you can view all of your accounts in one convenient dashboard. From there, you can see your various balances, spending breakdowns, and credit score. Plus you can easily set up budgets and discover valuable financial insights — all at no cost.

SoFi helps you stay on top of your finances.

FAQ

HOW MUCH DO THE TOP 10% OF AMERICANS MAKE PER YEAR?

The top 10% of Americans earn $128,560 per year. Some top earners live in higher cost of living areas, so it could be more revealing to see how much the top 10% earn in your state.

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS MAKE OVER $75K?

Only 12% of Americans make in the $75,000-$99,999 range. An additional 16.7% make between $100,000 and $149,999, and 15.1% earn in the $50,000-$74,999 range.

WHICH US STATE HAS THE HIGHEST SALARY?

Massachusetts is the state with the highest average annual income of $83,050. This salary is significantly more than the national average salary of $69,846.57.

WHAT IS A GOOD SALARY TO HAVE IN THE US?

What’s considered a good or comfortable salary in the U.S. varies. Cost of living and regional differences affect salary levels, so what is considered a high income in one state may not get you as far in another state. With the national average salary being $69,846.57, being around or above that amount can be a good salary depending on your location.

WHICH US STATE HAS THE LOWEST SALARY?

Generally, states in the South pay the lowest salaries. According to Forbes’ most recent data, Mississippi has the lowest average salary at $49,740, followed by Arkansas at $53,070 and West Virginia at $54,940.

A19X52

X52 FROM FIDELITY

What is the average salary in the US? July 22, 2026

· According to (BLS), the typical full-time worker in the US earned a median wage of $1,235 per week in the first quarter of 2026, which would total about $64,220 per year.¹Pay can vary significantly depending on factors like age, sex, location, and education.

Average salary in the US

In the first quarter of 2026, the median weekly wage for full-time US workers was $1,235, according to data collected as part of the Current Population Survey and reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).² That translates to roughly $5,352 per month or $64,220 per year. That was 3.4% higher than a year earlier, when the median weekly wage was $1,194.³

The Consumer Price Index (CPI), a popular inflation measure, grew by just 2.7% between the first quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026.⁴ This means that for American workers with median salaries, wage growth continued to outpace inflation over this time.

Note: Throughout this article, we reference median, not average, wages. The BLS tracks median earnings because these tend to better represent the typical American's earnings. Especially high or low earnings can easily skew averages, but because medians are the exact middle of a data set, outliers are less likely to affect them.

AVERAGE US SALARY BY SEX

In the BLS’ survey sample of 60,000 US households, men earned a median wage of $1,362 per week, compared with $1,098 per week for women—meaning women earned close to 20% less than men.⁵

With race and ethnicity factored in, the pay disparity between the sexes changes a bit. On average, Black women earned 94% of what Black men earn, Hispanic women earn 86% as much as their male counterparts, white women earn 80% as much, and Asian women earn 79% as much.⁶

AVERAGE US SALARY BY AGE

Age tends to be one of the most influential factors on how much a worker gets paid, with earnings peaking between 45 and 54 years of age:

· 16 to 19: $603 per week ($31,356 per year)

· 20 to 24: $810 per week ($42,120 per year)

· 25 to 34: $1,140 per week ($59,280 per year)

· 35 to 44: $1,384 per week ($71,968 per year)

· 45 to 54: $1,435 per week ($74,620 per year)

· 55 to 64: $1,348 per week ($70,096 per year)

· 65 and older: $1,246 per week ($64,792 per year)⁷

Pay tends to be lowest for teenagers and young adults, who are likely to be working part-time jobs while attending high school or college. Average pay then increases as workers age, until they hit age 55. That’s when average earnings dip as more people enter retirement.

AVERAGE US SALARY BY EDUCATION LEVEL

As you might expect, education can also have a big impact on how much money a person earns. BLS data shows that more education generally means more earning potential. This is largely because, historically, having more degrees unlocks more job opportunities—and higher-paying ones. And it’s expected that the number of roles in jobs requiring bachelor’s degrees will grow faster through 2034 than roles for workers with less education.

Here's a breakdown of the median salary for US workers by educational attainment.

· Less than a high school diploma: $784 per week ($40,768 per year)

· High school graduates: $977 per week ($50,804 per year)

· Some college (including associate degree): $1,138 per week ($59,176 per year)

· Bachelor’s degree: $1,609 per week ($83,668 per year)

· Advanced degree: $1,982 per week ($103,064 per year)⁸

So median annual earnings for those with a bachelor’s degree are more than $32,850 (or about 65%) higher than those who didn’t receive any higher education.

AVERAGE US SALARY BY STATE

Where you live is another significant influencer on how much you earn. Because of differences in the job market and cost of living, median pay varies state by state.

Here’s a breakdown of average pay for each US state and Washington, DC, as of December 2025, according to BLS data.⁹

State	Average weekly wages	Average annual wages
Alabama	$1,301	$67,652
Alaska	$1,497	$77,844
Arizona	$1,446	$75,192
Arkansas	$1,213	$63,076
California	$1,954	$101,608
Colorado	$1,683	$87,516
Connecticut	$1,801	$93,652
Delaware	$1,502	$78,104
Florida	$1,471	$76,492
Georgia	$1,440	$74,880
Hawaii	$1,411	$73,372
Idaho	$1,303	$67,756
Illinois	$1,588	$82,576
Indiana	$1,276	$66,352
Iowa	$1,282	$66,664
Kansas	$1,268	$65,936
Kentucky	$1,235	$64,220
Louisiana	$1,267	$65,884
Maine	$1,332	$69,264
Maryland	$1,616	$84,032
Massachusetts	$1,980	$102,960
Michigan	$1,427	$74,204
Minnesota	$1,505	$78,260
Mississippi	$1,075	$55,900
Missouri	$1,324	$68,848
Montana	$1,296	$67,392
Nebraska	$1,275	$66,300
Nevada	$1,395	$72,540
New Hampshire	$1,652	$85,904
New Jersey	$1,691	$87,932
New Mexico	$1,275	$66,300
New York	$1,975	$102,700
North Carolina	$1,409	$73,268
North Dakota	$1,350	$70,200
Ohio	$1,358	$70,616
Oklahoma	$1,217	$63,284
Oregon	$1,468	$76,336
Pennsylvania	$1,470	$76,440
Rhode Island	$1,429	$74,308
South Carolina	$1,276	$66,352
South Dakota	$1,230	$63,960
Tennessee	$1,424	$74,048
Texas	$1,549	$80,548
Utah	$1,389	$72,228
Vermont	$1,378	$71,656
Virginia	$1,585	$82,420
Washington	$1,948	$101,296
Washington, DC	$2,587	$134,524
West Virginia	$1,203	$62,556
Wisconsin	$1,346	$69,992
Wyoming	$1,297	$67,444

Workers in Washington, DC, had the highest average salary, coming in at $2,587 per week (or $134,524 per year). Meanwhile, workers in Mississippi saw the lowest average pay, at $1,075 per week (or $55,900 per year).

@ EFFECTS OF GOVT. DEBT ON WORKERS

X07 usa today

A20 X07 FROM USA TODAY

Is the US government's spending problem killing your American dream?

By Medora Lee Updated Aug. 21, 2026, 4:03 p.m. ET

The U.S. federal debt has topped $40 trillion, and economists warn that the growing deficit will push up inflation, interest rates and taxes while crowding out private investment, ultimately lowering wages and living standards for Americans.

The U.S. government's massive spending spree is going to make it even harder for Americans to keep pace with rising costs and reach the American dream, economists said.

The U.S. gross federal debt surpassed $40 trillion for the first time in history, the U.S. Treasury said this week. That's a number with 13 zeros and looks like this:

$40,000,000,000,000.

It's more than double the $19.95 trillion when President Donald Trump was sworn in for the first time in January 2017, and it includes $32.266 trillion in Treasury securities held by the public and $7.782 trillion in intra-governmental debt holdings.

Even if most Americans may not be able to fathom those numbers, they're already feeling the effects of them everyday, economists said. Soaring debt, if unchecked, boosts inflation and interest rates and reduces wages and opportunities for Americans, they said.

"The $40 trillion national debt has a direct influence on everyday living costs," said Caleb Quakenbush, director of fiscal policy at the nonpartisan, nonprofit Bipartisan Policy Center thinktank. "Our nation's lenders, concerned about the lack of a plan to get our fiscal house in order, are asking taxpayers to pay more for what government borrows. That also raises the cost of debt for everyone else. If a mortgage is out of reach, or financing for your business has gotten more expensive, the debt is part of the reason."

HOW DOES NATIONAL DEBT HURT SALARIES?

To pay for increased spending, the government issues debt like Treasuries and bonds with higher interest rates to attract investors. When investors put money into government debt, they do so at the expense of more productive private investments – what economists refer to as the "crowding out effect."

Those private investments might include the development of new products and technologies, construction of buildings and roads through loans, or buying company stock or bonds.

If there's less investment in technologies that make it easier and cheaper to produce goods and services, prices are likely to increase, and shortages may be more likely, the Government Accountability Office said.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that for every dollar added to the deficit, private investment loses 33 cents, which diminishes economic growth and wages over time.

After three decades, CBO found that the average annual per-person income would be $9,000 lower, or reduced by 10%, if government debt continued to grow instead of being pared down.

Americans won't actually see a drop in their paychecks, but it's money they will potentially never pocket, economists said. Americans, especially younger and future generations, will feel the loss with a lower standard of living.

WHAT EVEN IS THE AMERICAN DREAM? YOUNG PEOPLE ARE REJECTING BOOMERS' VIEW OF SUCCESS

Not only will the economy and wage growth slow, but there’s potential for higher taxes and interest rates, economists said.

RISING DEBT EQUALS RISING INTEREST RATES

A key figure of the debt report is the public debt-to-gross domestic product, or GDP, ratio, which measures how much of the government debt is held by non-government entities relative to what the nation produces annually. The ratio has consistently risen.

CBO estimates that debt-to-GDP ratio will rise from 101% this year to 120% in 2036. That's well above the previous record of 106% reached after World War II. Every 10% increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio translates into a 0.2 to 0.3 percentage-point increase in interest rates, a 2019 CBO study said.

"More debt leads to higher interest rates, making credit less affordable," The Budget Lab at Yale said in March.

For example, the rise in long-term interest rates since 2015 due to the ballooning deficit significantly raised the costs of a 30-year mortgage on a median home price in 2025 by about $2,500 annually. That's roughly $76,000 more that people paid over the life of the loan compared to if federal debt had remained static.

HOW DOES EXPLODING GOVERNMENT DEBT AFFECT SOCIAL PROGRAMS?

Similar to how a growing deficit crowds out private investments, it also squeezes public investments, economists said. Just the interest payments alone on the massive debt are the third-largest part of the government budget, after healthcare and Social Security.

"The cost of servicing our debt is already consuming resources that could be used to grow our economy, strengthen our national security, and improve Americans’ lives," said Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pennsylvania, vice chair of the House Budget Committee, in a statement.

The main way to reduce the swelling deficit is to put an ice pack on it, economists said. Some economists suggest Congress commit to limiting spending, especially in the fastest-growing areas.

"Much of that borrowing is to sustain fast-growing Social Security and Medicare costs, which face looming trust fund shortfalls in 2032 and 2033," Quakenbush said. "Any path to stabilizing the debt will require lawmakers to confront the challenges of those programs head on."

Some options for Social Security have included reducing benefits for high earners, raising the full retirement age and raising the income cap for the payroll tax that helps fund Social Security benefits.

Medora Lee is a money, markets and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@usatoday.com and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday morning.

X09 fortune

A21 X09 from fortune

Here’s how much the $40 trillion national debt is costing you — whether you have student loans, a mortgage or Social Security

Story by Nick Lichtenberg

How much is the national debt costing me today?

The U.S. national debt crossed $40 trillion on Aug. 18, a record high and a milestone that sounds abstract until you convert it into something more familiar: your loan payments.

New economic modeling from The CEO Center, the public policy arm of The Conference Board, puts a dollar figure on what rising federal borrowing actually costs ordinary Americans — a student paying off loans, a family saving for a house, a small business owner expanding, and a retiree counting on Social Security.

The answer, in short: the gap between a responsible deficit path and a reckless one is worth tens of thousands of dollars over a decade, and jumps to six figures in a true fiscal crisis.

The mechanism is simple, even if the debt figures aren’t

Divide $40 trillion by the U.S. population and every American is on the hook for roughly $117,000. But that number doesn’t explain why it matters to someone who will never personally owe the Treasury a cent.

Here’s the actual chain of cause and effect: when the federal government runs a bigger deficit, it sells more bonds to cover the gap. Investors, wary of a less creditworthy borrower, demand higher interest rates on those bonds. Because student loans, mortgages, and small-business loans are all priced off the same benchmark — the 10-year Treasury yield — those higher government borrowing costs flow directly into the interest rate on everyone else’s debt too. Bond. T- bond.

The Conference Board modeled five versions of the next decade: a baseline matching current Congressional Budget Office projections (deficits of 6%–7% of GDP), a “good case” where Washington cuts the deficit to 3% of GDP, a “bad case” where it balloons to 9%, a scenario simulating a one-week government default in 2029, and an extreme shock in which interest rates double to 1980s levels.

Under the current baseline, debt as a share of GDP climbs to 154% by 2036. If lawmakers get serious about cutting deficits, it settles at 126%. More reckless spending, however, puts it at 180%.

The student: an extra $20,000 by graduation

Take a high schooler heading to a four-year university in 2028, borrowing $45,000 for undergrad and another $30,000 for a two-year graduate program in 2032. Federal loan rates are pegged to the 10-year Treasury yield plus a fixed margin — 2.05 percentage points for undergraduate loans, 3.6 points for graduate loans — locked in whenever the loan originates.

Under the baseline scenario, that student repays $103,645 over a standard 10-year term. If Congress gets deficits under control, the bill drops to $102,776, saving roughly $870. If deficits worsen instead, it rises to $104,648. A one-week government default in 2029 would push it to $106,495.

But the real gut punch would be the extreme rate-shock scenario, driving total repayment to $123,736 — nearly $20,000 more than the baseline.

The family of four: waiting to buy a house gets more expensive, not less

A family targeting a $600,000 home with a 20% down payment and a 30-year fixed mortgage faces a similar squeeze — and it compounds the longer they wait. Buying in 2031, the gap between the good-case and bad-case scenarios is about $25,000 on total mortgage payments.

Push the purchase to 2036, and rising deficits widen the gap further: the family pays $24,000 more than baseline in the bad-case scenario, and a staggering $200,000 more — a 19.2% premium — if an extreme rate shock hits. The one-week default scenario alone tacks on $45,000 by 2036.

That’s money competing directly against costs already squeezing this household. For example, center-based childcare now averages $15,570 a year, rising 1.5 times faster than inflation, while long-term care for an aging parent can run anywhere from $75,000 a year for a home health aide to over $128,000 for a private nursing home room.

The small-business owner: financing growth costs more when Washington borrows more

A small-business owner planning two expansion loans — $100,000 in 2031, $150,000 in 2036, each priced at the 10-year Treasury yield plus a 2% bank premium — pays $334,747 in total under the baseline.

Deficit reduction saves about $6,300; a bad-case deficit path costs about $6,500 more. A government default adds $20,000. The extreme rate shock is the worst outcome across any case study in the report: $65,000 more than baseline, a 19.5% increase, at a moment when small-business profitability is already falling and gas costs for small businesses are up 31% year over year.

THE RETIREE: NO INTEREST RATE, JUST A SHRINKING CHECK

The fourth case study works differently because there’s no loan to reprice. Instead, it’s about Social Security’s Trust Fund, which the CBO projects will run out of reserves in 2032. By law, once that happens, benefits automatically drop to whatever payroll tax revenue can cover, unless Congress intervenes. A retiree scheduled to receive $2,466 a month in 2032 would instead get $2,293 — a $173 cut — and by 2036 the shortfall widens to $754 a month. @no min?

Congress could avoid the cuts by transferring roughly $2.7 trillion from the general fund between 2032 and 2036. But doing so would add directly to the deficit, pushing the country further toward the “bad case” scenario and, by extension, higher costs for the student, the family, and the small-business owner in the other three case studies. There’s no version of this where the bill simply disappears; it just moves to a different balance sheet.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Three of the four Americans in this analysis pay more in interest, because Washington is borrowing more. The fourth pays through a smaller retirement check, because the money to keep it whole would have to come from more of the same borrowing.

The report’s authors argue that reframing the debt this way — not as a distant trillion-dollar abstraction, but as a line item on a 22-year-old’s student loan bill or a 67-year-old’s Social Security deposit — is what’s been missing from the political conversation.

The CEO Center is pushing Congress to establish a bipartisan fiscal commission, overhaul Social Security financing, modernize Medicare payment models, and reform the federal budget process. Whether lawmakers act may determine which of the report’s five debt scenarios — and which version of these four Americans’ bills — actually plays out.

WORKER WAGES NOT KEEPING UP WITH DEBT

A22 X64

X64 FROM AI OVERVIEW

U.S. Wages and Prices in August 2026

In August 2026, U.S. average hourly earnings for all private-sector workers were $37.62, up 5.1% year-over-year, while overall wage growth was steady but real wages were slightly down after inflation adjustments keepingupwithinflation.com+1.

Average Wages

· BLS data (July 2026, seasonally adjusted): $37.62/hour for all private-sector employees, about 34% above the 2019 baseline of $28.00/hour keepingupwithinflation.com.

· Year-over-year change: +5.1% nominal growth keepingupwithinflation.com

· Inflation-adjusted: Wages and salaries rose 3.2% over the 12 months ending June 2026, but constant-dollar wages fell 0.4% due to inflation U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Labor Market Conditions

· Job postings: Indeed’s Job Postings Index was 101.8 (1.8% above pre-pandemic Feb 2020 level), with demand decelerating after a spring slowdown hiringlab.indeed.com.

· Sector trends: Manufacturing and loading/stocking postings rose ~8–11% year-over-year; healthcare demand was easing hiringlab.indeed.com.

Specific Wage Rate Updates

· H-2A farmworker AEWR: Effective August 3, 2026 (or Aug 17 in 17 states under Kansas v. DOL), the national average fell to $15.96/hour from $17.74, a ~10% drop www.visaverge.com.

· Davis-Bacon prevailing wages: Updated August 23, 2026, with state/county-specific rates for trades like electrician, carpenter, plumber, etc. davisbaconwages.com.

Price Context

· ECI wages & salaries: +3.2% YoY in June 2026; real wages down 0.4% after inflation U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

· Inflation impact: Nominal wage growth has been strong, but cumulative CPI since 2019 means real pay depends on the comparison period keepingupwithinflation.com.

Summary: August 2026 saw solid nominal wage growth nationally, with average private-sector pay near $37.62/hour, but real wages were slightly eroded by inflation. Sector-specific wage floors (H-2A AEWR, Davis-Bacon) and labor market demand patterns varied, reflecting both cyclical and structural shifts.

A22X93

X12/x93 from debt clock

Current Debt

38.52T

Debt-to-GDP

130.6%

Debt per Person

$114,136

Annual Interest

952.00B

Year Total Debt Debt/GDP Per Person Deficit Interest President

2025

Projected FY2025 38.52T 130.6% $114,136 -1,850,000,000,000 952.00B Donald Trump

2024

2024 official year-end (122.9%) 35.46T 122.9% $105,423 -1,832,800,000,000 882.00B Joe Biden

2023

First $33T 33.17T 121.2% $99,034 -1,695,241,000,000 658.95B Joe Biden

2022 30.82T 121% $92,486 -1,375,401,000,000 474.72B Joe Biden

2021 28.43T 121.9% $85,660 -2,775,581,000,000 352.26B Joe Biden

2020

COVID-19 pandemic 26.95T 127.9% $81,778 -3,131,917,000,000 345.45B Donald Trump

2019 22.72T 106.3% $69,214 -984,388,000,000 375.58B Donald Trump

2018 21.46T 104.5% $65,599 -779,048,000,000 325.03B Donald Trump

2017

First $20T 20.24T 103.9% $62,264 -665,712,000,000 262.73B Donald Trump

2016 19.54T 104.4% $60,465 -584,651,000,000 240.00B Barack Obama

2015 18.12T 99.5% $56,496 -438,496,000,000 223.18B Barack Obama

2014 17.79T 101.6% $55,874 -484,602,000,000 228.97B Barack Obama

2013 16.72T 99.6% $52,888 -679,544,000,000 220.85B Barack Obama

2012 16.05T 99.1% $51,134 -1,086,963,000,000 220.39B Barack Obama

2011

S&P downgrade 14.76T 95% $47,390 -1,299,591,000,000 230.04B Barack Obama

2010 13.53T 90.2% $43,726 -1,294,373,000,000 196.19B Barack Obama

2009

Great Recession stimulus 11.88T 82.2% $38,710 -1,412,688,000,000 187.26B Barack Obama

2008

First $10T, financial crisis 9.99T 67.9% $32,838 -458,553,000,000 252.76B George W. Bush

2007 8.95T 61.9% $29,714 -160,701,000,000 237.11B George W. Bush

2006 8.45T 61.2% $28,322 -248,181,000,000 226.60B George W. Bush

2005 7.91T 60.6% $26,748 -318,346,000,000 184.00B George W. Bush

2004 7.35T 60.2% $25,118 -412,727,000,000 160.25B George W. Bush

2003 6.76T 59% $23,302 -377,585,000,000 153.07B George W. Bush

2002 6.20T 56.7% $21,542 -157,758,000,000 170.95B George W. Bush

2001

9/11, surplus 5.77T 54.5% $20,239 +128.24B 206.17B George W. Bush

2000

Surplus 5.63T 54.9% $19,950 +236.24B 222.95B Bill Clinton

1999

Surplus 5.61T 58.2% $20,089 +125.61B 229.77B Bill Clinton

1998

Surplus 5.48T 60.5% $19,859 +69.27B 241.15B Bill Clinton

1997 5.37T 62.6% $19,691 -21,884,000,000 244.01B Bill Clinton

1996 5.18T 64.2% $19,234 -107,431,000,000 241.09B Bill Clinton

1995 4.92T 64.4% $18,481 -163,952,000,000 232.17B Bill Clinton

1994 4.64T 63.7% $17,645 -203,186,000,000 202.96B Bill Clinton

1993 4.35T 63.4% $16,740 -255,051,000,000 198.81B Bill Clinton

1992 4.00T 61.4% $15,601 -290,321,000,000 199.38B George H.W. Bush

1991 3.60T 58.4% $14,224 -269,238,000,000 194.50B George H.W. Bush

1990 3.21T 53.8% $12,844 -221,036,000,000 184.20B George H.W. Bush

1989 2.86T 50.5% $11,576 -152,639,000,000 169.02B George H.W. Bush

1988 2.60T 49.5% $10,638 -155,178,000,000 151.74B Ronald Reagan

1987 2.35T 48.2% $9,682 -149,730,000,000 138.65B Ronald Reagan

1986 2.12T 46.2% $8,831 -221,227,000,000 136.00B Ronald Reagan

1985 1.82T 41.9% $7,662 -212,308,000,000 129.46B Ronald Reagan

1984 1.57T 38.9% $6,668 -185,367,000,000 111.09B Ronald Reagan

1983 1.37T 37.7% $5,867 -207,802,000,000 89.77B Ronald Reagan

1982

First $1T 1.14T 34% $4,909 -127,977,000,000 85.05B Ronald Reagan

1981 997.86B 31.1% $4,349 -78,968,000,000 68.75B Ronald Reagan

1980 907.70B 31.7% $3,994 -73,830,000,000 52.53B Jimmy Carter

1975 533.19B 31.6% $2,468 -53,242,000,000 23.24B Gerald Ford

1970 370.92B 34.6% $1,809 -2,842,000,000 14.38B Richard Nixon

1965 317.27B 44.1% $1,633 -1,411,000,000 10.36B Lyndon B. Johnson

1960 286.33B 53.3% $1,585 +301.00M 9.18B Dwight D. Eisenhower

1955 274.37B 66.2% $1,653 -2,993,000,000 6.37B Dwight D. Eisenhower

1950 256.85B 85.6% $1,687 -3,119,000,000 5.75B Harry S. Truman

1945

WWII peak 258.68B 113.5% $1,849 -47,553,000,000 3.62B Franklin D. Roosevelt

1940 42.97B 42.4% $325 -2,920,000,000 1.04B Franklin D. Roosevelt

About This Data

The U.S. national debt represents the total amount of money the federal government has borrowed over time to cover budget deficits. When the government spends more than it collects in taxes and other revenue, it borrows the difference by issuing Treasury securities (bonds, notes, and bills).

The data in this table comes from the U.S. Treasury Department's "Historical Debt Outstanding" dataset and the "Debt to the Penny" API. Figures are reported at the end of each fiscal year (September 30). GDP figures come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Key milestones: The debt first reached $1 trillion in 1982, $10 trillion in 2008, $20 trillion in 2017, $30 trillion in 2023, and exceeded $38 trillion in 2025. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 caused the single largest one-year increase at over $4.2 trillion.

Sources & Methodology

• Primary Source: U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

• Coverage: 1940 to 2025

• Last Updated: March 1, 2026

• License: Public domain (U.S. government data)

When citing this data, please use: "Source: US-Debt-Clock.com, U.S. National Debt by Year (1940–2025), accessed August 2026."

Frequently Asked Questions

How much is the U.S. national debt in 2025?

As of fiscal year 2025, the U.S. national debt is approximately $38.5 trillion. This includes both debt held by the public (~$30.8 trillion) and intragovernmental holdings (~$7.7 trillion). The debt grows by roughly $5-6 billion per day.

When did the national debt first reach $1 trillion?

The U.S. national debt first exceeded $1 trillion in fiscal year 1982, during Ronald Reagan's first term. It took the country 206 years (1776-1982) to accumulate the first $1 trillion of debt. By contrast, the debt now grows by $1 trillion approximately every 100 days.

How fast is the national debt growing?

The national debt is growing at roughly $5-6 billion per day, or about $1.8-2 trillion per year. The pace has accelerated dramatically: it took 40 years to go from $1T to $10T (1982-2008), but only 17 years to go from $10T to $38T (2008-2025).

What is the difference between total debt and debt held by the public?

Total national debt includes two components: (1) Debt held by the public — bonds held by individuals, institutions, foreign governments, and the Federal Reserve (~80% of total); and (2) Intragovernmental holdings — money the government owes to itself through trust funds like Social Security (~20% of total).

Where can I download U.S. national debt data?

You can download our complete U.S. national debt dataset as a free CSV file from this page. The dataset includes total debt, debt held by public, GDP, debt-to-GDP ratio, population, debt per person, annual deficit, and interest on debt for every year from 1940 to 2025. The primary source is the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data API.

A23 X81 FROM MIDDLE EAST ONLINE

Behind Iran war, US military families face stress, lost income

During the war’s on-and-off fighting, shuttle diplomacy and failed peace talks, military families have experienced a “roller coaster of emotions.”

Sunday 30/08/2026

WASHINGTON – Since the United States went to war with Iran six months ago, Courtney Sanders has been helping soldiers’ families fill the gaps left by their loved ones.

There are school pickups to coordinate, lost incomes to supplement and the ever-present separation anxiety.

“It’s like being on pins and needles all of the time,”‌ Sanders said.

She leads the Chicagoland chapter of Blue Star Families, the nation’s largest nonprofit serving military families, and her own daughters are in the US Navy. They have served in various overseas locations over the past six months, including the Middle East.

The US has more than 50,000 troops stationed across the region and has deployed thousands of additional Marines and sailors to support the war effort. Eighteen US service members have been killed in the conflict and more than 750 wounded.

During the war’s on-and-off fighting, shuttle diplomacy and failed peace talks, military families have experienced a “roller coaster of emotions,”‌ Sanders said.

“The moment that you feel you’re able to take a breath, you get gut-punched again.”

These are familiar pressures for the partners and children, mothers and fathers, of American troops. But the suddenness of the Iranian conflict, and its fitful pace, have had a compounding effect, relatives said.

SUICIDE ATTEMPTS, DECLINING MORALE

In a Blue Star Families poll of some 200 active-duty military families in early March, 81 percent reported elevated stress from the Iran conflict.

The group has responded by stepping up its programming, creating online resource hubs, hosting webinars and in-person meet-ups, and matching military spouses going through a deployment for the first time with those who have been through it before.

Many service members’ deployments have been extended unexpectedly.

The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier went more than 200 days without a port call, a modern-day record, according to Democratic lawmakers, and military outlets reported suicide attempts and declining morale among its 5,000 sailors and Marines.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the reports “completely misrepresented”‌ the conditions on board.

LOST INCOMES

Some military families find themselves in financial straits.

National Guard members, for example, often work regular jobs when they are not deployed. The sudden loss of their main paycheck can make it hard for those left behind to keep food on the table, Sanders said.

“There is a huge misconception in the civilian world that if you are in the military, all of your bills are taken care of,”‌ she said. “And that is just frankly not true”‌

In a statement, the Pentagon said: “We see these families (and) we hear their concerns. We will do whatever is necessary to provide the resources, assistance, and stability they need and deserve during these challenging times.”

‘A LOT OF EMOTIONS’

Shannon, an Army spouse and mother of three in North Carolina who requested Reuters use only her first name for security reasons, tries to tune out the news and the political debate surrounding the war.

In February, her husband deployed to the region with five days’ notice and could only contact her sporadically for the first several months.

Although they have maintained near-daily communication since June, “there are a lot of emotions,”‌ Shannon said, “especially when people are dying over there.”

Her children started therapy over the summer. She tries to be strong in front of them, but cries sometimes when they’re not around.

Soon after her husband’s deployment, Shannon joined an Army-sponsored soldier-and-family “readiness group” within her husband’s unit, helping organize meal trains and other support for family members in need.

“Every day is not going to be a great day, but you’ve gotta just keep going and keep yourself busy,” she said.

In Virginia, Pat, a Navy spouse who also asked to be identified by her first name for security reasons, has tried to keep life as normal as possible for her children, who are in middle and high school.

Since her husband deployed about five months ago, Pat said, her neighbours have been “amazing” about helping with kid pickups and other chores.

Her family wears red on Fridays, a show of support for deployed service members, and so do many of her children’s classmates, even those without military connections.

Pat’s husband has deployed before. She was pleasantly surprised this time to discover his ship had Wi-Fi, making communication easier.

Still, her family is grappling with the uncertainty of when he will return.

“Having older kids and knowing that dad wasn’t there to see those sporting events, some of that’s been a little emotional,” she said. “But my kids are very resilient.”

X82

A24 X82 FROM PEW

Latinos Are Split on Whether the American Dream Is Achievable

How immigrant and U.S.-born Latinos see economic mobility and the American dream

By Luis Noé-Bustamante, Ziyao Tian, Carolyne Im and Sahana Mukherjee September 1, 2026

ABOUT THIS RESEARCH:

This Pew Research Center analysis focuses on U.S. Latinos’ views of the American dream and their outlook on economic mobility.

WHY DID WE DO THIS?

Pew Research Center conducts high-quality research to inform the public, journalists and decision-makers. This analysis builds on a larger body of work that explores the attitudes and experiences of Latinos in the U.S.

Learn more about Pew Research Center, our research on Hispanics in the U.S. and other research on race and ethnicity.

HOW DID WE DO THIS?

This analysis is based on Pew Research Center’s latest National Survey of Latinos, conducted from Oct. 6 to 16, 2025, among a sample of 8,046 U.S. adults. Some 4,923 Hispanics were surveyed, with 1,125 respondents who are members of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and 3,798 respondents who are members of SSRS’s Opinion Panel. The survey also included 3,114 non-Hispanic ATP members. Here are the questions used for this analysis, detailed responses and the methodology.

The survey was conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents were recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This kind of recruitment gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection.

Interviews took place either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education, presidential vote (among voters) and other factors. Read more about the ATP’s methodology.

LIST OF KEY TERMS

The terms Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably in this report.

The term immigrant refers to respondents born outside the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico. When data is available, this group also includes people born outside these places to parents born outside these places. The terms immigrant and foreign born are used interchangeably.

The term U.S. born refers to respondents born in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico. When the data is available, this group also includes those born elsewhere to at least one parent who was born in these places.

Second generation refers to respondents who are U.S. born with at least one immigrant parent.

Third or higher generation refers to respondents who are U.S. born with both parents also U.S. born.

This analysis includes comparisons between Latino adults and other adults. In these cases, the term other U.S. adults refers to are those who are not Hispanic. The terms other U.S. adults, other adults and other Americans are used interchangeably.

We asked respondents whether they have achieved the American dream, are on their way to achieving it, believe it’s out of reach or that it doesn’t exist. We use the phrase believe the American dream exists to refer to those who say they have achieved it, they are on their way to achieving it, or that it is out of reach. This group excludes those who say the American dream does not exist.

Latinos in the United States broadly view living standards as improving across generations – both when looking back at their parents and looking ahead for their children.

Overall, immigrant Latinos hold more positive views about intergenerational economic progress than those born in the U.S. At the same time, immigrants are less likely than the U.S. born to say the American dream has become harder to achieve. Many Latinos define the American dream in economic terms, such as financial stability, economic opportunity and homeownership.

These findings come from Pew Research Center ’s National Survey of Latinos, a nationally representative, bilingual survey including 4,923 U.S. Latino adults, conducted Oct. 6-16, 2025. Read key findings from the survey via charts and graphs here.

HISPANIC IMMIGRANTS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN U.S.-BORN HISPANICS TO SEE IMPROVING LIVING STANDARDS

Hispanic adults share broadly positive views about how standards of living have improved for themselves and are likely to improve for their children. Immigrants are more upbeat than U.S.-born Hispanics across these measures.

When comparing their own standard of living with their parents’:

· 70% of immigrant Latinos say their standard of living is better than that of their parents at the same age, while about half of U.S.-born Latinos (49%) say the same.

· Among U.S.-born Latinos, 53% of second-generation adults (those with at least one immigrant parent) say their standard of living is better than their parents’, while 46% of third or higher generation adults (those with both parents born in the U.S.) say the same.

When comparing their children’s standard of living with their own:

· Immigrant Latinos (63%) are also more likely than U.S.-born Latinos (48%) to say their children’s standard of living will be better than their own.

· Among U.S.-born Latinos, views are similar across the second generation and third or higher generation.

How do Latino immigrants compare with other U.S. immigrants?

Optimism among Latino immigrants mirrors a similar pattern in the rest of the U.S. population: Immigrants are generally more hopeful about their economic future than U.S.-born adults.

Even so, Latino immigrants are more optimistic than other U.S. immigrants.

· 70% of Latino immigrants say their own standard of living is better than that of their parents, compared with 59% among other U.S. immigrants.

· 63% of Latino immigrants say their children’s standard of living will be better, while 35% of other U.S. immigrants say this.

Refer to the appendix for detailed tables showing responses by more Latino subgroups and how they compare with other U.S. adults.

HAS THE AMERICAN DREAM BECOME HARDER TO ACHIEVE? LATINOS BORN IN THE U.S. ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAY YES

Overall, Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos are about as likely to say they have achieved the American dream. But attitudes toward whether the American dream has become harder or easier to achieve vary across immigrant generations:

· 48% of U.S.-born Latinos say the American dream is now harder to achieve than it was for their parents, while 35% of immigrant Latinos say the same.

· Among U.S.-born Latinos, 52% of the third or higher generation say the American dream has become harder to achieve, while 44% of the second generation say the same.

Next: Appendix: Detailed tables

← Prev Page

1 234 5 6

Next Page →

X77

A25X77 FROM FORTUNE

Law Economics

AI productivity gains are making the rich richer, and they’ll wipe out jobs—but the IMF chief sees a silver lining for low-wage workers

By Tristan Bove Contributing Reporter January 24, 2026, 7:30 AM ET

Productivity gains from artificial intelligence are disproportionately boosting high earners, but an argument exists that the dynamic can lift low-wage workers at the same time. It all has to do with a longstanding economic theory.

Nvidia CEO says AI buildout is creating six-figure jobs for plumbers and electricians

AI is often viewed as a catalyst for widening wealth inequality, but rising wages at the top end of the economic spectrum could spill over to benefit all income levels, argued Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

In a panel conversation on the closing day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Georgieva described AI as a “tsunami” hitting the labor market, with the potential to transform or eliminate 60% of jobs in advanced economies and 40% globally. However, she noted that for a specific segment of the workforce, AI-driven productivity gains at the top could translate into increased demand for services at the bottom.

The “Spillover” Argument

The core of Georgieva’s optimistic outlook for low-wage earners lies in the increased spending power of AI-enhanced professionals. As high-skilled workers become more productive and see their wages rise, their consumption patterns shift, benefiting the local service economy.

Georgieva detailed this phenomenon during the panel:

“One in 10 jobs is already enhanced [by AI],” she said. “And the people in these jobs are paid better. When they’re paid better, they spend more money in the local economy. They spend more money in restaurants here, there. Demand for low-skilled jobs goes up. And actually total employment seems to slightly increase because of it.”

There is evidence that AI exposure could amount to higher wages in certain jobs. A PwC survey last year, based on an analysis of nearly one billion job ads worldwide, found that AI-skilled workers would earn an average premium of 56% over similar jobs that did not require AI skills. And the economic spillover effect, where rising wages and productivity translate to a rise in service sector jobs as high earners spend more money locally, is well-documented. Studies in San Francisco, for instance, have found that for each new local tech job, 4.4 new jobs are created for positions such as retail clerks, cooks, teachers and dentists.

Despite this potential silver lining, Georgieva warned of an “accordion of opportunities that is open to some and not others”—a risk where the gap between the winners and losers of the AI revolution expands rapidly. While the top tier of workers sees wage growth and the bottom tier sees increased demand for manual or local services, the middle class is getting squeezed.

The IMF’s research indicates two primary areas of concern: One is stagnating middle-class wages, as jobs that are not enhanced by AI are beginning to pay less in relative terms. Another is barriers to youth employment, as AI rapidly eliminates the tasks typically found in entry-level positions, making it harder for young people to enter the workforce in meaningful roles..

A FRAGILE GLOBAL CONTEXT

These labor shifts are occurring against a backdrop of moderate economic growth and high debt. While the IMF recently upgraded its global growth projections from 3.1% to 3.3%, Georgieva cautioned against complacency. With global sovereign debt nearing 100% of GDP, she argued that growth is “not strong enough” to carry the heavy burden of debt while simultaneously funding the massive technological transition required by AI.

Other leaders on the panel echoed these concerns regarding wealth distribution. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde emphasized the need to be “careful about the distribution of wealth” and the widening disparities both within and across countries. Lagarde noted that AI is capital, energy, and data-intensive, meaning its benefits may naturally accrue to those who already control those resources unless cooperative rules are established.

For AI to be a net positive, the panel suggested that global cooperation is non-negotiable. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, director-general of the World Trade Organization, noted that while AI could reduce trade costs and boost productivity by 40% by 2040, these gains depend on equal adoption. If the technology remains concentrated in wealthy nations, it will only deepen global inequalities, she said.

Ultimately, Georgieva’s message was a call for urgency. “Wake up,” she urged the audience, “AI is for real and it is transforming our world faster than we are getting a handle.” While economic spillover offers hope for low-skilled labor, she stressed that the world must still develop inclusive guardrails to ensure the AI “tsunami” doesn’t leave the middle class and developing nations behind.

X83

A26 X83 FROM FOX NEWS

Driven by progressive doomism, liberals are having fewer babies than conservative families

Self-identified conservatives average 1.4 children compared to 1.09 for liberals, a gap persisting across demographics

By Madison Colombo Published August 24, 2026 7:00am EDT

Video: More conservative women are having children before launching their careers, new report finds

American Dynamism co-founder Katherine Boyle joins ‘America’s Newsroom’ to discuss a report suggesting a trend of conservative women starting families at a younger age.

America’s political divide is extending into the nursery, as data shows conservatives are having more children than liberals.

The Atlantic, citing research from the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), reported that self-identified conservatives have an average of 1.4 children, compared to 1.09 for liberals. It’s a gap IFS researchers said remained even after controlling for other variables, such as sex, religion, race, income, age, marital status and education.

"Having children — particularly lots of children — has become a bit right-coded, as the kids say. Americans and Europeans who identify as leftist or liberal tend to have fewer children than those who identify as conservative or right-leaning," Atlantic staff writer Olga Khazan wrote in her article, "Another Big Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives."

FORMER NEBRASKA SENATOR BATTLING CANCER WARNS PEOPLE HAVE 'STOPPED MAKING BABIES'

The Trump administration has positioned itself as pro-family, with prominent members, including Vice President JD Vance, urging the country to have more babies.

The administration has also proposed financial incentives aimed at raising the birthrate, including a $5,000 "baby bonus" for mothers giving birth, while Trump signed an executive order expanding access to in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Khazan argues that research shows that the birthrate divide between parties may have more to do with lifestyle choices and different priorities between the two groups. She argues that conservatives are more likely to view family as vital to a fulfilled life, while liberals may place greater emphasis on higher education, creative pursuits or career success.

"In one recent Pew Research Center poll, for instance, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say that having children was ‘highly important’ for living a fulfilling life, and in another, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say that creative activities were ‘one of the most important things’ to them," Khazan said.

"Democrats, then, may be less willing to choose parenthood when it competes as a priority with career, friendships, travel, and other pursuits," she added.

The article also suggested that liberal anxiety extends beyond daily stress to include systemic worries over climate change, reproductive healthcare access and therapy-driven fears of repeating family trauma.

TRUMP BEAT BACK ANTI-FAMILY TAXES IN 2025. HERE’S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NEXT

The Institute for Family Studies research also found that liberals report significantly higher levels of concern about parenting and their mental health.

Ken Burchfiel, an IFS research fellow who worked on the study, told Fox News Digital that where Democrats live could also help explain the difference.

"We found that partisan differences in parenting attitudes held up even when controlling for age, sex, race, household income, relationship status, education, religion, and parental status. That means that these differences aren't merely a result of diverging faith preferences or income gaps," Burchfiel said.

"The question remains, then: what is driving this change? My hypothesis is that Democrats' tendency to live in more urban areas may help explain these gaps. If you live in a small apartment in a major city, you probably are more likely to see parenting as very stressful and difficult; after all, raising a child is more expensive and complicated in the heart of an urban area than in the suburbs," he added.

Burchfiel also suggested that adults in major urban centers may have fewer daily opportunities to interact with parents and children, potentially leaving them less confident about starting families of their own.

AMERICA’S BABY BUST MAY BE LINKED TO THE IPHONE, STUDY SAYS

"As a result, you might feel less confident about your own ability to be a parent. Such opportunities might continue to decline now that major cities are experiencing a drop in the numbers of children," Burchfiel added.

Overall, the number of births in the United States and the general fertility rate have decreased, according to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.

A CDC report shows that provisional U.S. births decreased by 1% from 2024 to 2025.

Madison Colombo is a writer for Fox News Digital’s Flash, Media, and Culture team, covering daily breaking news and trending topics with an award-winning background in broadcast and digital journalism.

A27 X10 FROM THE STREET

The U.S. national debt has grown so enormous that another trillion can almost sound like a rounding error. But for Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk, the numbers point to a much bigger problem — and his proposed solution involves artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and a race against the clock.

Musk issued the warning during an episode of the “Dwarkesh Podcast” in February 2026, arguing that the U.S. could face financial failure without AI and robotics.

“In the absence of AI and robotics, we’re actually totally screwed because the national debt is piling up like crazy,” Musk said during the interview.

He then pointed to the cost of servicing the debt.

“The interest payments [on the] national debt exceed the military budget, which is a trillion dollars. So [we have] over a trillion dollars just in interest payments,” Musk said.

Musk took the warning even further.

Sponsored Content: The Clean Coal Comeback Just Passed $30M. See Why Investors Are Watching ‘FASF.’

“It’s the only thing that could solve the national debt. We are 1,000% going to go bankrupt as a country, and fail as a country, without AI and robots,” Elon Musk said during the February 2026 podcast. “Nothing else will solve the national debt. We just need enough time to build the AI and robots to not go bankrupt before then.”

The Debt Problem Is Measured in Trillions

Musk’s comments came as the national debt was already approaching $40 trillion. By August, it had crossed that mark.

On Aug. 18, 2026, the U.S. national debt officially crossed $40 trillion for the first time, with U.S. Treasury figures putting total public debt outstanding at just over $40.05 trillion.

The interest bill has become an equally striking figure. Through the first 10 months of fiscal 2026, the federal government had paid roughly $963 billion in net interest costs, putting the annual bill on track to exceed $1 trillion.

That interest expense is now among the largest items in the federal budget. It can also compete with other major government priorities for limited federal dollars.

Musk’s concern is that the debt isn’t simply large — it’s becoming increasingly expensive to carry.

The U.S. debt held by the public accounts is roughly $32.3 trillion of the total, while intragovernmental holdings make up the rest. As more debt is refinanced at higher rates, the government’s interest costs can continue rising.

Musk’s Bet on Productivity

Musk’s argument is that traditional approaches won’t be enough to solve a problem of this size. His bet is that AI and robotics could dramatically increase economic productivity, allowing the U.S. economy to produce far more goods and services with fewer human hours.

In theory, that kind of productivity boom could help the economy grow faster than the debt burden, while a larger economy could also generate more taxable income and revenue.

That’s why Musk isn’t presenting AI and robotics as simply another technology trend. He sees them as a potential economic lifeline.

The challenge is the timeline and the people.

AI adoption is already accelerating across industries, while robotics companies are working to bring increasingly capable machines into factories, warehouses, and other workplaces. But there’s no guarantee that the productivity gains will arrive quickly enough or at a large enough scale to offset the United States' fiscal imbalance.

There is also a fundamental distinction between growing the economy and fixing the federal budget. Even rapid economic growth wouldn’t automatically eliminate the gap between government spending and revenue.

Still, the investment implications are significant.

If AI and robotics produce the productivity boom Musk expects, companies building the infrastructure and software behind that transformation could stand to benefit. Semiconductor manufacturers, AI developers, automation companies, and robotics firms are among the businesses positioned around the theme.

If the productivity revolution falls short, investors still have to contend with the other side of the equation — a national debt above $40 trillion and an annual interest bill moving beyond $1 trillion.

Musk’s forecast is deliberately extreme. But the underlying numbers are difficult to ignore.

The debt has crossed $40 trillion. The cost of servicing it is approaching another trillion-dollar milestone. And Musk’s argument is that the U.S. needs AI and robots to dramatically expand economic productivity before the debt becomes impossible to manage.

For investors, the question isn’t whether robots can literally pay the United States' bills. It’s whether the productivity gains from AI and automation can become large enough to change the economic equation before the interest bill gets even bigger.

Not mentioned...

The war

Ageing

Migrants

@ solutions

X61

A28 X61 FROM FORBES

$25 An Hour? A New Bill Seeks To Keep Federal Minimum Wage In Line With Inflation.

By Doug Melville, Jul 24, 2026, 12:35am EDT

Summary

The American economy faces a growing imbalance as corporate profits surge while the federal minimum wage, stagnant at $7.25 since 2009, leaves millions struggling. Historically, worker pay grew with productivity, but this link severed post-1970s, causing the minimum wage's real value to hit a 77-year low. Had it kept pace with inflation and productivity since 1968, it would now be around $25 per hour. A "Living Wage For All Act" in Congress aims to address this, sparking debate between advocates for poverty reduction and critics warning of job losses. The core question remains: should workers proportionally share in the economy's gains?

Is it time America shared its corporate profits with all workers?

For millions of American workers, the federal minimum wage is unlivable. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour has remained unchanged since 2009, making it one of the longest stretches without an increase in the policy's history.

But if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation and worker productivity since its high point in 1968, it would likely be closer to $25 per hour today. And a new ‘Living Wage For All Act’ has now been brought up in Congress to address this.

While where you live depends on what wage you need to create a livable lifestyle, the gap between today’s minimum wage and reality tells a larger story about how the American economy has evolved—and about who has benefited from that growth.

The 1968 Benchmark

The late 1960s marked the historical high-water mark for the real value of the federal minimum wage. At $1.60 per hour, which, after adjusting for inflation, would equal roughly $14 to $15 per hour in today’s dollars.

But inflation alone doesn’t capture the full picture. During the decades following World War II, wages for lower-income workers rose alongside the productivity of the American economy. When businesses produced more value per worker, workers themselves tended to share in those gains.

Since the 1970s, however, that relationship has gradually weakened. While productivity - how much economic value workers produce per hour -has continued to grow dramatically, wages at the bottom of the income ladder have not kept pace. Today, workers’ compensation is at 51% of gross domestic income, while corporate profits climbed to a record 12.1%, and inflation-adjusted hourly wages have risen just 3% since 2019, compared to this 50% jump in profits.

In fact, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest real value in 77 years, and has lost 30% of its purchasing power since 2009. If the wage had kept up with inflation, it is estimated it would hover somewhere around $25 per hour.

THE REALITY FACING WORKERS TODAY

Beyond the federal level, $7.25 per hour is still the minimum wage across 18 states. This translates into a full-time worker employed for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year earns roughly $15,080 annually before taxes. Even when combined with state-level wage increases or multiple jobs, many workers earning near the federal minimum wage remain close to or below the poverty line. At the same time, the cost of basic needs - housing, healthcare, education, and food - has continued to rise causing workers to struggle to cover basic living expenses.

If the minimum wage instead reached $23 per hour, a full-time worker could earn more than $47,000 annually, a salary that more closely resembles a basic middle-class income rather than a poverty wage.

But not all minimum wage is created equally. Thirty-two states and countless cities have taken a leadership position on this topic and introduced higher local minimum wages—some approaching $15 per hour or more.

A29X78 FROM WASHINGTON TIMES

Tax cuts, not hikes, raise the tide for all

The 'Kohl's Curve' principal

By Scott Walker - Thursday, August 20, 2026

OPINION:

President Ronald Reagan made history 45 years ago when he signed the largest tax cuts ever at his beloved California Rancho del Cielo. His actions were part of a major economic boom that lasted well past his presidency into the next decade.

Prior to his election in 1980, Americans faced stagflation, a mixture of stagnant economic growth, very high unemployment and rapidly increasing inflation. Typically, inflation and unemployment move in different directions, but both rose dramatically during President Jimmy Carter’s administration.

During the 1980 campaign, candidate Reagan made this issue the centerpiece when asking Americans if they were better off than they had been four years earlier. They were not.

Reagan told people: “Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

The voters responded, with Reagan carrying 40 of the 50 states. It was a blowout that gave him a resounding mandate. He used it to take swift action, including passage of his tax cuts with the support of many Democrats, who held the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was signed on August 13 of that year. It lowered federal income tax brackets across the board by about 25%. Prior to the reductions, the top marginal income tax rate was 70%. When combined with the Reagan tax cuts five years later, the top rate went down to 28%.

President John F. Kennedy had pushed for similar tax cuts two decades earlier. His plan was passed in 1964 and moved the highest income bracket from 91% to 70%. The lowest income bracket fell from 20% to 14%.

The original income tax cut champions were President Warren Harding and President Calvin Coolidge, who took over after Warren’s death. They slashed the top marginal rates down to 25% a century ago. The Roaring ’20s saw robust economic expansion, reduced unemployment and federal budget surpluses. That would be something to see today. Followed by a great Depression

Dr. Arthur Laffer frequently speaks with students through a partnership with Young America’s Foundation. A key economic adviser to Reagan, he is considered the father of supply-side economics, which holds that economic growth comes from making more goods and services. Lower taxes and less red tape help businesses produce more.

The extensive research of Dr. Laffer and his colleagues showed that high taxes caused capital flight, stagnation and tax avoidance as earners shifted their focus away from real economic activity.

In contrast, good things happened during the era of tax cuts pushed by Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan.

Dr. Laffer has consistently argued that high tax rates crush productivity and shrink the tax base, while tax cuts spur output, employment and overall prosperity by rewarding production and investment. His explanation of the sweet spot for taxation is commonly referred to as the “Laffer Curve.”

Here in Wisconsin, we call it the Kohl’s Curve. In fact, I was at the Kohl’s store near our home in Delafield tonight with my wife, who was returning a few items she purchased via Amazon and buying some other items.

Years ago, I learned from Tonette to wait to buy things at Kohl’s until they’ve gone on sale. Then we have used a coupon to drop the price further. Often, we lower the cost even more with something called Kohl’s Cash.

How does a major retailer like Kohl’s make any money if it keeps lowering the price of merchandise? Volume.

Kohl’s and other retailers could keep prices high and make more money per product — but sell a small number of items. Or it can lower the price, making less per product but more overall by dramatically increasing sales volume. Most successful retainers fit into the second category. Hence, the Kohl’s Curve.

Lowering tax rates puts more money into the hands of people who invest those dollars into more jobs, higher pay and greater productivity. Dr. Laffer notes that history shows that low-income earners actually fare better when tax rates are lower on the top income brackets. They fare worse when these go up.

As Dr. Laffer states, these are not opinions; they are the facts. Think about them the next time a democratic socialist launches into a “Tax the rich” tirade.

We need to teach high school students basic economics (along with objective American and world history) so they can make informed decisions — and not solely emotional ones.

• Scott Walker is a columnist for The Washington Times. He was the 45th governor of Wisconsin and launched a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. He lives in Milwaukee and is the proud owner of a 2003 Harley-Davidson Road King. He can be reached at swalker@washingtontimes.com.

A30X70 FROM FORTUNE

Mark Cuban says he has the solution to growing income inequality, and it’s to reward every employee—from CEO to janitor—with company stock

By Sasha Rogelberg July 20, 2026, 1:35 PM ET

Mark Cuban has advocated for a $20 minimum wage and has other forms of increasing compensation for employees.Nathan Laine/Bloomberg—Getty Images

Following SpaceX’s blockbuster $1.77 trillion initial public offering, Juan Hernandez, a former welder for the aerospace and satellite company, saw his wealth balloon overnight as a result of his stake in the firm. Hernandez, who joined SpaceXin 2015 earning $28 per hour, now holds an estimated $880,000 in shares following the company’s IPO, the Wall Street Journal reported. According to billionaire investor Mark Cuban, this model of employees owning shares of the companies they work for should be the norm, not the exception.

Recommended Video

From $160K to $19K: Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs Saves Millions for Employers

Company stock options don’t just offer the possibility of a hefty payday for a business’ perhaps unsung workers, Cuban said; it’s a way to address the pervasive problem of growing income inequality. In a recent episode of the “What It Takes” podcast by Unmoderated News, Cuban outlined his own philosophy around how to close wealth disparities.

“I would like to see it so that every single CEO, founder, entrepreneur does what I did, which was to give equity to every single employee,” he said. “The way you’re going to reduce income inequality for anybody who works with somebody is making sure they get shares of stock and then they benefit.”

Cuban gave 330 employees at his media company Broadcast.com stock ahead of Yahoo acquiring it for $5.7 billion 1999, making 300 of them millionaires, he said. He similarly gave equity and cash bonuses to employees of his first IT consulting company MicroSolutions

This isn’t the first time Cuban has made remarks regarding a more equitable distribution of wealth. Cuban has previously advocated for a $20 federal minimum wage, recalling instances in which a company he invested in, but didn’t run or name, had employees in need of government assistance.

“I made sure they all got raises,” Cuban wrote in an X post. “It was embarrassing to me that we didn’t pay enough. I’ve made, or helped make, at least a thousand millionaires. And I’ll keep working to increase that number.”

The K-shaped economy of the rich getting rich and the poor poorer is reflected in the growing wage gap among U.S. employees: In 2024, S&P 500 CEOS made 285 times more than the median pay of their workers, up from 268 times in 2023, according to a report by the AFL-CIO. The chief executives saw an average compensation of $18.9 million with an average increase of $1.4 million, a 7% year-over-year increase.

Other tech leaders like the world’s richest man Elon Musk, who saw his wealth increase by $215 billion in 2025, have similarly advocated for employee ownership, arguing the strategy aligns company incentives. A little more than a month later, SpaceX’s IPO has already minted at least 4,400 millionaires.

“I’ve always had the philosophy that everyone at the company should receive stock in the company, so that they can participate in the upside of the company,” Musk told Texas Gov. Greg Abbott earlier this month.

How would Cuban’s vision for more company stock ownership play out?

Amid a rise of democratic socialist politicians like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani championing affordability platforms, Cuban—a believer in “compassionate capitalism”—has argued a free-market economy can generate similar solutions to those generated by government-owned social services. One such example is his launching of the pharmaceutical company Cost Plus Drugs in 2022, which is able to slash the cost of prescription medications by selling mostly generic products without the typical middlemen of Pharmacy Benefit Managers.

He’s taking the same mechanism to the income side as well, believing he found a viable way to encourage more companies to adopt his employee-ownership philosophy. For example, Cuban explained, governments can incentivize CEOs to give every employee the same percentage of stock warrants, options, or other equities by dangling the carrot of a lower corporate tax rate than the set 21%. In other words, if a CEO receives a stock valued at 10% of their cash compensation, workers should likewise receive 10% in stock of their own earnings.

“So if the CEO gets $100,000 worth of stock because they make $1 million in cash, and the janitor makes $50,000, then they deserve the same percentage in stock, and that will change the game,” Cuban said.

How viable is Cuban’s philosophy?

Research suggests employee-ownership can be an effective means of closing the wealth gap. A 2021 Harvard Business School study citing government data found that if all private firms in the U.S. became 30% employee-owned, household wealth in the country would effectively double. In contrast, the wealth of the richest Americans would decrease as a result of this model, with the top 1% of wealth holders seeing an average 14% decrease in their net wealth.

Allowing employees to hold company equity is also associated with increased productivity and less turnover, and a 2004 Rutgers University study found companies offering employee ownership stakes of at least 5% have a higher likelihood of survival than those without the benefit, which researchers attributed to greater employment security.

“When you align everyone’s incentives with a common goal, everyone will work harder to achieve that goal,” Ethan Rouen, a Harvard Business School professor of business administration, said in an interview for the college about Harvard’s research. “When you have an equity stake, all of a sudden you have a claim on the upside, and so that incentivizes you to work harder to increase that upside. It is something that has the potential to grow the pie and create wealth for everyone involved.”

A31

X1 FROM AL JAZEERA

US House passes funding bill to avert government shutdown ahead of midterms

The temporary measure gives Congress until December to fully fund the federal government for fiscal year 2027.

By Al Jazeera Staff and Reuters

Published On 1 Sep 2026

The United States House of Representatives has approved a temporary spending measure that will keep the federal government funded through December 11.

The measure passed by a vote of 370 to 48 on Tuesday after clearing the Senate on August 8. It now goes to President Donald Trump for his signature.

White House unveils more details of Trump’s Venezuela oil deal (for above)

Prior to Tuesday’s stopgap measure, existing government funding was set to expire on October 1, after the new fiscal year begins.

Normally, Congress must pass 12 spending bills to fully fund the federal government’s programmes. Those spending bills are divided into categories such as homeland security, energy, housing and defence.

But Congress has yet to finish such bills for the 2027 fiscal year, which runs through September 30, 2027.

The stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution, allows lawmakers more time to negotiate the full-year spending bills.

The vote also removes the immediate threat of another government shutdown as lawmakers prepare for the midterm elections on November 3. The elections will decide which party controls each of Congress’s two chambers — a factor that could shape upcoming budget negotiations.

Government shutdowns are widely unpopular in the US. If one were to happen before an election, political analysts speculate it would dampen the chances of re-election for sitting lawmakers.

“This will give Congress time to get past the November elections,” Republican House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole said during debate, in a seeming acknowledgement of the voting-season predicament.

Democrats have been embroiled in fights with Republicans, who hold the majority in both legislative chambers, since the start of Trump’s second term.

Get instant alerts and updates based on your interests. Be the first to know when big stories happen.

Yes, keep me updated

Those disputes have resulted in three government shutdowns, lasting a combined 161 days.

The first came in October 2025, with the extension of healthcare subsides serving as a primary sticking point between the two parties. At 43 days, it was the longest-ever government shutdown in US history.

Afterwards, a partial shutdown took place in January, lasting roughly four days. But several weeks later, a third shutdown occurred targeting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The third shutdown came after the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, who were shot by immigration agents in Minnesota. Democrats tried to withhold funding from the department to advance reforms to agencies under DHS control, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Critics have called such shutdowns ineffective in pushing forward policy change.

Many analysts have also noted that the Trump administration has used the shutdowns to justify unilateral cuts to federal spending and staffing.

Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro argued that Tuesday’s stopgap bill would allow Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over government spending.

“The power of the purse resides within the Congress. It is our exclusive responsibility,” DeLauro said, adding, “The first step in exercising that authority is passing this bill today.”

The temporary measure does not address the country’s broader fiscal challenges. The US national debt crossed $40 trillion last month, while affordability remains a major concern for voters.

With Congress delaying decisions on spending priorities for another 15 weeks, lawmakers will also face a tighter timeline in December to write and pass the full-year spending bills.

A32 FROM NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK.ORG

Labor Day 2026: Celebrate Workers, Reject Big Labor Coercion

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2026:

Labor Day exists to honor the hardworking men and women who build and sustain the most prosperous and innovative country in the world. Yet every year as we celebrate them, union officials hijack this holiday to push a coercive agenda that most workers oppose.

Polling clearly shows that Americans at large, and union members in particular, reject Big Labor’s agenda of coercion and forced dues. Celebrating workers must include protecting their Right to Work: trusting each worker to decide for themselves whether to join and financially support a union.

That freedom is too often threatened by those in the halls of power in Washington, D.C. For four years, the Biden Labor Board used one-sided decisions and rule changes to make it harder for workers to vote out unwanted unions, and easier for union officials to organize workplaces without workers ever casting a ballot at all.

Only in recent weeks has the NLRB gained a Trump-appointed majority with the votes to reverse those precedents. Much work remains, including in dozens of cases brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, to undo the damage the Biden Board did to employee freedom.

The fight is also playing out in Congress as Big Labor funnels billions in forced dues to advance the so-called ‘PRO Act,’ which would wipe out all 26 state Right to Work laws and force millions more workers to pay up or be fired. The one-page National Right to Work Act, by contrast, would make union membership and dues strictly voluntary nationwide.

That’s what this Labor Day should be about: not forced dues and coerced representation, but the freedom to choose. On behalf of the 8 in 10 Americans who support the Right to Work, we’ll keep fighting until workers everywhere have that fundamental freedom secured.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share

A33 FROM SYRACUSE.COM

Labor Day reminds us that working people deserve more than survival (Guest Opinion by Mark Spadafore)

By Mark Spadafore | Greater Syracuse Labor Council, AFL-CIO

Mark Spadafore is president of the Greater Syracuse Labor Council, AFL-CIO, in Syracuse

Updated: Sep. 02, 2026, 9:06 a.m. |Published: Sep. 02, 2026, 8:54 a.m.

Every Labor Day, we pause to recognize the generations of working people who built our communities, strengthened our economy and fought for the rights many Americans now take for granted. Labor Day weekend often marks the unofficial end of summer, but its true meaning runs much deeper. Labor Day is about honoring the dignity of work and recommitting ourselves to ensuring that every worker has the opportunity not just to scrape by, but the opportunity to build a secure and prosperous life.

This year, that mission feels more urgent than ever as I talk to workers from different parts of Central New York.

Across our community, families are feeling squeezed from every direction. Housing costs continue to rise. Grocery bills remain unreasonably high. Utility payments, childcare, transportation and health care costs consume a larger share of household budgets than they did just a few years ago. While union workers have some cushion against all these factors, non-union workers are feeling the brutal economic impact.

This affordability crisis is not simply about inflation. It is about the growing chasm between the value workers create and the compensation they receive. For too many people, wages have failed to keep pace with the real cost of living. Worker productivity has increased while corporate profits have reached record highs in many industries. Yet too many working families are still forced to make distressing choices between paying rent, buying groceries, filling a prescription or buying what their children need for school.

That is exactly why labor unions matter.

Here in Central New York, we are witnessing tremendous opportunities. Historic investments in infrastructure, healthcare and Micron have the potential to transform our home for generations to come. These projects promise thousands of jobs and renewed economic growth.

But growth alone is not enough. The benefits of growth need to reach everyone, not just company executives and shareholders. The true success of economic development will be determined by whether working people see meaningful improvements in their daily lives.

It’s time to recognize that unions remain one of the most effective tools available for addressing the affordability crisis. Unions give workers the power to negotiate wages that reflect the true value of their work. Through union negotiations, workers secure affordable health care, retirement security, paid leave and safer working conditions.

The benefits of union contracts extend far beyond union members themselves. Good wages feed our local economy. Strong unions ensure that working families have money to spend at neighborhood businesses. When workers earn fair wages, everyone benefits. The jobs of today and tomorrow must be jobs that allow workers to afford a home, support a family, and retire with dignity.

As we celebrate Labor Day at the New York State Fair with our annual parade, we should remember that our economy is strongest when working families are strong. While no single policy can solve every challenge facing working families, empowering workers to form unions without employer interference helps ensure that economic gains are shared more fairly.

We must support prevailing wage laws, protect project labor agreements (like the one for Interstate 81), invest in registered apprenticeship programs, defend collective bargaining rights, and ensure that public investments create family-sustaining careers rather than low-wage employment with few or no benefits. We must recommit ourselves to policies that make housing more affordable, lower the cost of healthcare, expand access to quality childcare and create pathways into good union careers. We should continue investing in education and workforce development while protecting the rights of workers to organize without intimidation or retaliation.

The labor movement has always been about opportunity and fairness. It has been about ensuring that hard work is rewarded with economic security rather than financial anxiety. The affordability crisis did not emerge overnight, and it will not disappear overnight.

But we know from history that when wages rise, families become more secure. When unions are strong, the middle class grows stronger. When workers have a voice, communities prosper.

This Labor Day, let us honor workers whose labor keeps our communities alive and kicking every day — not simply with words, but with action. We can build an economy where every worker can afford not only the necessities of life, but the opportunity to dream, to save, to invest in their families and to look toward the future with confidence.

That is the promise of the labor movement. It is a promise worth fighting for, and one we must keep.

A34 FROM PEW

Who Sees Themselves as Working Class?

By Steven Shepard, Hannah Hartig, Andy Cerda and Jocelyn Kiley

August 31, 2026

See graphs and charts here

Most Americans think of themselves as “working class” today: Overall, 60% of U.S. adults say the term describes them well. And the identity is widely adopted by people across all income and educational groups – including half of both Americans who have a bachelor’s degree and those who are upper income.

Many Americans say ‘working class’ describes them well, but some are more likely than others to adopt the term

Working-class identification does vary by education and income: It is highest among Americans without a four-year degree and those who are middle income. But an analysis of data from a Pew Research Center survey conducted earlier this year finds that seeing oneself as working class also has a heavy political tinge and differs by race and ethnicity.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to identify as working class – even after taking economics, occupation, education and other factors into account. Overall, 67% of Republicans and Republican leaners say “working class” describes them well, as do 55% of Democrats. And wide partisan gaps are evident across many demographic and economic groups.

Working-class identification differs by race and ethnicity. In particular, White adults are more likely than Black adults to identify as working class. About six-in-ten White (62%) and Hispanic adults (59%) overall view themselves as working class, as do roughly half of Black (54%) and Asian adults (52%).

Who identifies as working class? Many factors matter

Americans without a college degree and those who are middle income are most likely to identify as working class. But large shares of higher-income and more-educated adults also say they are part of the working class:

· 66% of adults without bachelor’s degrees say “working class” describes them extremely or very well – but half of those with degrees (50%) say this, too.

· 67% of middle-income Americans say “working class” describes them well – but so do plenty of lower- (57%) and upper-income adults (50%).

The many meanings of ‘working class’

While the working class is central to many social and political discussions in America today, those discussions often use the term in different ways – sometimes referring to very different groups of people. Is the working class made up of adults who:

· Don’t have a bachelor’s degree?

· Earn less than a certain amount of income?

· Work in “blue-collar,” service or manual labor occupations, such as manufacturing, construction or the skilled trades?

· Earn their living primarily through work in any way – regardless of their income, occupation or education?

The term’s ambiguity has gotten attention in its own right in recent months. At the same time, some political figures – particularly on the left – have been pressed to explain who they are including when they invoke the term.

Looking at Americans’ self-reported financial stressors, rather than income, those with lower financial stress are less likely than others to describe themselves as working class.

Even so, 50% of Americans who consistently pay their bills in full, have several months of emergency savings and report being able to meet their expenses comfortably say they consider themselves to be working class.

And while those working in blue-collar occupations are particularly likely to identify as working class (77%), so do a majority of those working in other occupations (61%).

How we defined ‘blue-collar’

For the purposes of this analysis, we defined “blue-collar workers” as those who do manual or physical labor in their jobs and work in one of five specific industrial sectors: manufacturing, mining and construction; agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; retail and trade; hospitality and service; and transportation. The data on occupation and physical labor was collected in an October 2024 Pew Research Center American Trends Panel survey and linked to the January 2026 survey analyzed here. For more details on the blue-collar analysis and the 2024 survey, read our 2025 analysis.

Working-class identification has ticked up from a few years ago: In 2024, 54% of Americans said the term described them well, and 60% do so today. The shift is seen across many demographic, socioeconomic and political groups.

Partisanship is associated with working-class identification

Majorities of Republicans across every educational, economic and occupational groups see themselves as working class. Democrats are generally less likely to do so – especially among higher-income and financially comfortable adults.

Education and party

While college graduates are less likely to identify as working class than those without a degree, the partisan gap is nearly identical among both those with and without a bachelor’s degree:

· 72% of Republicans without a bachelor’s degree describe themselves as working class, compared with 61% of Democrats without a degree – an 11 percentage point gap.

· There is a 12-point gap among those with a four-year degree: 56% of Republican college grads say they’re working class vs. 44% of Democratic college grads.Income and party

Among both low- and middle-income adults, Republicans are about 10 points more likely than Democrats to identify as working class. For instance, 72% of middle-income Republicans identify as working class, compared with 63% of Democrats.

The partisan gap is much wider – 23 points – among upper-income adults, reflecting that upper-income Democrats are much less likely than middle- or lower-income Democrats to see themselves as working class, while upper-income Republicans are about as likely as lower-income Republicans to say “working class” describes them well.

Financial stress and party

As with income, the partisan gap is widest among those who are the most financially comfortable: 60% of Republicans with few financial stresses say “working class” describes them well, compared with 39% of Democrats who are similarly financially comfortable.

In contrast, there is a relatively modest partisan gap among those under substantial financial stress: 67% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats who have substantial financial strain see themselves as working class.

Type of work and party

The partisan gap in self-identification as working class is also evident among both blue-collar workers and workers in other fields. Drawing upon occupational data collected in a 2024 Pew Research Center survey, we find:

· 82% of Republicans with blue-collar jobs identify as working class, compared with 72% of Democrats in these types of jobs.

· Among all other workers, 68% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats identify with the term.Overall, 62% of White adults, 59% of Hispanic adults, 54% of Black adults and 52% of Asian adults identify as working class.

There are wide differences within educational and partisan groups.

Education

About seven-in-ten White adults without a college degree (71%) identify as working class, compared with smaller shares of Hispanic (59%), Asian (59%) and Black adults without bachelor’s degrees (53%).

In contrast, about six-in-ten Hispanic (61%) and Black adults with college degrees (58%) describe themselves as working class. Smaller shares of White (48%) and Asian college graduates (45%) also say this.

As a result, while there are wide differences between the share of college grads and non-college grads who say they are working class among White and Asian Americans, there is not a substantial educational gap in this identification among Hispanic and Black Americans.

Partisanship

The partisan gap in identification as working class is also particularly pronounced among White adults: 69% of White Republicans and 54% of White Democrats say this description applies to them. That is a larger partisan gap than among Black adults.

A35 FROM US NEWS

Most Americans See Themselves as ‘Working Class’

September 03, 2026.

Certain cohorts get fetishized in American politics.

Listen to any presidential campaign speech over the last half-century. Everything the candidate is proposing will benefit “the middle class” or “the working class” or will pump up “small business.” And won’t voters please consider that children are our future?

There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of lower, working, middle, upper-middle or upper class. And that suits politicians just fine: They want as many voters as possible to think the policies they’re promoting will benefit them.

In 2026 America, that means promising the world to the “working class,” if a new poll from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center is any guide.

Why? Because 60% of Americans say that label describes them. That’s up 6 percentage points from 2024.

THE RICH ARE ‘WORKING CLASS’ NOW

Yes, 66% of Americans without a college degree say “working class” fits them well, as do 67% of middle-income folks and 57% of the lower-income bracket.

But 50% of Americans who consistently pay their bills in full, have several months of emergency savings and say they can comfortably meet their expenses – folks under relatively little economic stress, in other words – report themselves to be working class. It’s also over 50% for those with a bachelor’s degree who are designated as upper-income.

Americans with a blue-collar job are likeliest to identify as working class – 77% of them do. But so do a majority working in other occupations (61%).

If the same sociological term can be claimed by a shift worker in Scranton and a six-figure software engineer in San Francisco, maybe it’s not a question of economics anymore. Maybe it’s more of a cultural signifier?

OF WORKING-CLASS POLITICS

Politicians often cloak themselves in working-class personae, even those born on the economic equivalent of third base. Especially in Republican politics, it’s sometimes articulated in opposition to the dreaded “Coastal Elites.”

I got a dose of this early on in my first tour as a White House correspondent, when I spent a large chunk of August in sweltering Waco, Texas, covering President George W. Bush. He poked fun at journalists not accustomed to the heat and perhaps longing for other locales.

“I know a lot of you wish you were in the East Coast, lounging on the beaches, sucking in the salt air,” he said. “But when you’re from Texas – and love Texas – this is where you come home.”

This was obviously not an economic point – the man was a millionaire – but a cultural one.

THE PARTISAN GAP

Dig into the Pew poll, and you find that there is a pretty deep partisan gap: Many more Republicans than Democrats claim they are working class.

The divide is especially striking among the relatively affluent.

Among upper-income Americans, 61% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats report being working class – a 23-point chasm.

Among Americans with a four-year degree, 56% of Republicans say they are working class, versus 44% of Democrats, a 12-point difference.

What about Americans who report being under financial stress?

Once again, the partisan divide is deepest among the most comfortable. Among Americans with few stressors, 60% of Republicans say they are working class, compared with 39% of Democrats.

The split is smaller among Americans who say they are under substantial financial stress: 67% of Republicans vs. 58% of Democrats.

‘AFFORDABILITY’ AND WORKING-CLASS POLITICS

The shift in self-perception and the partisan gap can make the politics of appealing to the “working class” a bit tricky.

It’s not all straight economics because we’re talking about a broad majority of the American electorate spanning income brackets. And it’s not just cultural issues because the watchword for this cycle is “affordability” – indicating broad concerns about the cost of living.

But if everyone is “working class,” then no one is. That may suit some politicians just fine: They can promise almost everything to almost everybody. And everyone seems prepared to believe that the system is rigged against them.

X100 from brittanica

ATTACHMENT “A” – FROM

X100 FROM BRITTANICA

Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased? Retail employees frequently earn the minimum wage.

By The Editors of ProCon July 23, 2026

The first federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), itself part of Roosevelt’s larger New Deal package of measures to battle the Depression. The first federal minimum wage was set at $0.25 per hour. The federal minimum wage has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. Most states plus D.C. have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage, though several states do not have minimum wage laws (which means workers in those states default to the federal minimum wage). [7] [85] [186]

Early History of the Minimum Wage

What do you think?

· Should the United States Implement a Universal Basic Income?

Explore the ProCon debate

In 1890 the annual wages of the average American were $380, well below the poverty line of $500 per year. Progressivism, a social and political reform movement, emerged at this time with the aim of improving American working conditions and wages. Following the example of Australia and New Zealand, which enacted the world’s first minimum wage laws in the 1890s, the Progressives introduced the idea of a U.S minimum wage, arguing that it should be high enough to support an average employee’s needs. [95] [96] [97] [98]

While men generally earned higher wages, enjoyed freedom of contract, and could join and rely on the protection of unions, women and minors were not afforded such luxuries. Barred from joining unions and prevented from the free negotiation of contracts, they suffered from low wages and poor working conditions, which drove women to prostitution to cover their costs of living. It was thought that a minimum wage would give these especially vulnerable groups a level of protection not needed by the male workforce. [142] [176]

As a direct result of pressure from the Progressive movement, the first state minimum wage laws were introduced, exclusively for women and minors—the first one was established in Massachusetts in 1912. Between 1913 and 1917, 11 more states enacted minimum wage laws for women and minors. [99]

The Oregon minimum wage legislation of 1913 stated, “the State of Oregon requires that women and minors should be protected from conditions of labor which have a pernicious effect on their health and morals, and inadequate wages and unduly long hours and unsanitary conditions of labor have such a pernicious effect.” This law instituted a weekly state minimum wage of $8.25 for experienced women, $6 for inexperienced women and girls aged 16-18, and higher rates for employees in Portland. [143]

In 1937 Oklahoma became the first state to enact minimum wage legislation covering men. These provisions were deemed void by the state’s 1939 Supreme Court ruling in Oklahoma v. Industrial Welfare Commission; however, this was due to the language used in the law, not the concept of a minimum wage for men. [99] [112]

In 1939, the Women’s Party of Connecticut argued that, while the minimum wage law covering women and minors was designed to protect them, it actually harmed them, because the conditions placed on their employment made them less employable than men. Their challenge resulted in a 1939 amendment to the Connecticut law that extended minimum wage provisions to men and set a precedent for other states to follow. [144]

The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), passed by Congress and signed by President Roosevelt in 1933, was the first piece of legislation that attempted to establish a federal minimum wage. However, the NIRA was declared an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative power” by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935 in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. et al v. United States. [109] [110]

However, elements of the NIRA, such as minimum wage and maximum hour provisions, were carried over into future legislative acts. The Public Contracts Act (PCA) of 1936 covered workers employed in the manufacture of goods under government contracts worth in excess of $10,000. The PCA stipulated a minimum wage based on locally prevailing rates, an eight-hour work day, 40-hour work week, and a ban on the employment of minors. [99] [111]

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 set a national minimum wage of $0.25 an hour, a 44-hour work week, and the prohibition of “oppressive” child labor. At that time, the FLSA covered employees engaged in interstate commerce and those working in industries that produced goods for interstate commerce. [113] [114]

Early Supreme Court Decisions on the Minimum Wage

Stettler v. O’Hara (1917) was the first case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenged the constitutionality of minimum wage laws. An evenly divided court (4-4) upheld the state of Oregon’s minimum wage law. Following the success of this case, three more states and D.C. passed minimum wage laws between 1918 and 1923. [99] [102]

In 1923 the U.S. Supreme Court in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital determined (5-3) that D.C.’s law was unconstitutional and “an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land.” By December 1932, minimum wage laws in six states had been repealed or deemed unconstitutional. [99] [103] [104] [105]

In March 1937 the constitutionality of state minimum wage laws was again debated in the U.S. Supreme Court in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. The Supreme Court overturned (5-4) its prior anti-minimum wage ruling in Adkins by declaring that “the legislature has necessarily a wide field of discretion in order that there may be suitable protection of health and safety, and that peace and good order may be promoted through regulations designed to insure wholesome conditions of work and freedom from oppression.” By mid-1941, 26 states, D.C., and Alaska (still a territory at this time) had minimum wage laws.[99] [115] [116] [117]

In 1940, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of federal minimum wage provisions within the Public Contracts Act (PCA) in case of Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co. The PCA is still in force today with the minimum wage provisions tied to the federal minimum wage as set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). [118]

In 1941, the constitutionality of the FLSA was upheld by the Supreme Court in the United States v. Darby, in which the court ruled unanimously that the “wage and hour provisions of the Act do not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment” and that the “statute is not objectionable because [it is] applied alike to both men and women.” [114]

State Minimum Wage Levels and Restrictions

As of February 18, 2026, 45 states plus D.C. and all five inhabited U.S. territories had their own minimum wage laws in place. Twenty-nine of those states, D.C., and three territories had minimum wages higher than that of the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour—the highest being D.C. at $17.50 an hour. When a state minimum wage is set at a higher rate than the federal minimum wage, the highest rate prevails. Thirteen states and the Northern Mariana Islands set their minimum wage in line with the federal minimum wage; and two states—Georgia and Wyoming—set their rates lower at $5.15 an hour. However, Georgia and Wyoming must pay the federal minimum wage to those employed in positions covered by the FLSA (meaning employees engaged in interstate commerce and those working in industries that produced goods for interstate commerce). Only workers employed in positions not covered by the FLSA, such as outside salespersons and certain domestic service workers providing companionship services, may be paid $5.15 an hour. Five states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee—do not have minimum wage legislation on their statute books and as such are required to pay workers covered by the FLSA a minimum of $7.25 an hour. [85] [117] [120]

Many cities and counties now have minimum wages higher than their state-mandated minimum. As of January 1, 2025, the five cities paying the highest minimum wage were all in the state of Washington: Burien ($21.16 per hour), Tukwila ($21.10 per hour for large employers and $20.10 for mid-sized employers), Renton ($20.90 per hour for large employers and $18.90 per hour for mid-sized employers), Seattle ($20.76 per hour), and SeaTac ($20.17 per hour). When a city or county minimum wage is set higher than its respective state and the federal minimum wage, the highest rate prevails.[136] [208]

Many states also have laws prohibiting cities and counties from setting their own minimum wage levels. [167]

Proposals to Raise the Federal Minimum Wage

Since the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 raised the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour starting in 2009, there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts by the U.S. Congress to raise the wage further. The two main efforts are the Harkin-Miller proposal to raise the wage to $10.10 and the Living Wage Movement to raise the wage to $15. [150] [151] [153] [154] [156]

U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and U.S. Representative George Miller (D-CA) introduced legislation in 2012, 2013, and 2014 to raise the minimum wage, but none of those efforts passed. When their proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 was re-introduced for a third time in 2014 under the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, it was supported by President Obama. However, the bill failed by four votes to overcome a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate on April 30, 2014. [150] [151] [153] [154] [156] [168] [169]

On January 14, 2021, President Joe Biden included a $15 minimum wage in the America Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 (coronavirus) rescue package. The Senate Parliamentarian ruled that the measure could not be included. As a result, Biden signed an executive order on April 27 that increased the minimum wage for federal contractors to $17.75 for 2025, with annual adjustments to account for inflation. President Trump, however, rescinded Biden’s executive order in March 2025, thus resetting the minimum wage to $13.30 per hour for federal contractors.[191] [192] [193] [209]

While generally considered a progressive plight, a few Republicans have also made efforts to raise the federal minimum wage. In September 2023, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced the Higher Wages for American Workers Act of 2023 that would have increased the federal minimum wage to $11 over five years. The bill did not make it out of committee. In June 2025, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the Higher Wages for American Workers Act of 2025 that proposed to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 on January 1 following the law’s enactment (should it be passed) and to automatically increase the minimum wage on September 30 of each year to stay in line with inflation. [214]

Who Earns the Federal Minimum Wage?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 82,000 workers earned the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and 760,000 workers earned below the federal minimum wage in 2024. Those earning the federal minimum wage or less represented 1 percent of all hourly workers. [210]

Those earning the minimum wage and lower were mostly:

· young: 43 percent are under 25 years old

· female: of hourly workers, 1.3 percent of women and 0.8 percent of men earned below minimum wage

· of any race: about 1 percent of white, Black, Asian, and Hispanic workers earned the minimum wage or less

· never married: 1.5 percent of minimum wage or less workers have never been married versus 0.7 percent who have been or are married

· do not have a high school diploma: 1.5 percent of workers without a high school diploma earned the minimum wage or less versus 1 percent of workers with a high school degree or higher

· part-time employees: 2.4 percent of part-time workers earned the minimum wage or less versus 1 percent of full-time employees

· service industry workers: 3.2 percent of service workers (such as food preparation or serving) earned the minimum wage or less, the highest percentage of any occupation.

· in the leisure and hospitality industry: 5.6 percent of leisure and hospitality workers (such as in restaurants and bars) earned the minimum wage or less

· living in Lousiana and South Carolina: the states each had 2 percent of hourly workers earning the minimum wage or less [210]

Public Opinion

Public support for raising the minimum wage has been around or over 70 percent as far back as 1994. [93]

A 2013 Gallup poll found that 50 percent of small business owners were opposed to raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour and 60 percent believed such an increase would hurt most small business owners. A 2015 poll by the Wall Street Journal and Vistage International found that 49 percent of small business owners favored raising the minimum wage while 49 percent were opposed. [50] [178]

A May 2015 poll conducted by CBS and the New York Times found that 86 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of Republicans, and 76 percent of independents were in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, and 67 percent of men and 75 percent of women were in favor. [91]

A 2017 poll by the University of Maryland and Voice of the People found that 73.8 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour, while 56.8 percent support raising it to $10.10 an hour. A 2017 Quinnipiac University poll found that 54 percent of Americans would support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour with 44 percent opposing. [184] [185]

A July 30, 2019, poll found 67 percent of Americans supported raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. An April 22, 2021, poll reported similar support at 62 percent. By December 2, 2022, support for raising the federal minimum wage was up to 70 percent, with American adults reporting that the federal rate was “not sustainable to live on for any period of time.” [194] [195] [196]

An August 7, 2023, Payscale poll found that 75 percent of HR professionals and others who set wages at companies believed that the minimum wage should be increased, and 66 percent believe it should increase automatically annually. The same survey found that 68 percent of companies covered minimum wage hikes by setting their base pay above the new minimum wage.[213]

A majority of small business owners (61 percent) supported raising the minimum wage according to a January-February 2024 poll, even though 50 percent also believed raising wages could make affording their workers difficult, and only 19 percent believed a higher wage would help their businesses. [212]

A June 3, 2025, analysis of the November 2024 election found that 67 percent of working-class voters and 58 percent of college-educated ones supported a minimum wage increase to $17 an hour. [211]

Pros and Cons at a Glance

PROS	CONS
Pro 1: Raising the minimum wage helps workers to afford basic living expenses and reduces income, gender, and racial inequalities. Read More.	Con 1: Raising the minimum wage increases housing and consumer goods costs for everyone and greatly disadvantages minimum-wage workers. Read More.
Pro 2: Raising the minimum wage to match inflation and productivity benefits the economy, spurring consumer activity, job growth, and a lower federal deficit. Read More.	Con 2: Raising the minimum wage artificially (instead of allowing the free market to set the wage) spurs business closures, layoffs, and more automation and outsourcing. Read More.
Pro 3: Raising the minimum wage has social benefits including reducing poverty and crime and improving school attendance and family health. Read More.	Con 3: Raising the minimum wage exacerbates income disparities and the cycle of poverty. Read More.

Pro Arguments

(Go to Con Arguments)

Pro 1: Raising the minimum wage helps workers to afford basic living expenses and reduces income, gender, and racial inequalities.

The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, “In 2022, a full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $25.82 on average to afford a modest, two-bedroom rental home in the U.S. This… is $18.57 higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25…. A full-time worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $21.25 on average in order to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home in the U.S.” [198]

Further, 35 percent of families with full-time year-round employment do not earn enough to pay for essentials including food and childcare. 59 percent of Hispanic families, 52 percent of Black families, 25 percent of white families, and 23 percent of Asian families that work full-time year-round cannot cover basic needs. Overall, families would need to earn $11 more an hour to cover basic costs, with Black and Hispanic families needing $12 more an hour. [199]

Approximately 91 percent of workers who would benefit from a raised minimum wage are over 20 years old, with 68 percent over the age of 25. Most are the primary wage earners for their families, averaging about 52 percent of their family’s income, and most are women and people of color. The current federal minimum wage prevents these individuals and families from meeting basic needs like shelter and food, as well as creating significant obstacles to healthcare, finances for an emergency, and other expenses such as car upkeep. [201]

Thus, the unaffordability of basic needs drives income, gender, and racial inequality. Workers who have to pinch pennies do not have the money, time, or other resources to invest in more education or job training for themselves and their families, meaning they remain stuck in low-paying jobs with few to no benefits such as sick days, health insurance, or retirement plans. Minimum wage workers are then also subjected to irregular schedules that can make the rest of life, such as picking up kids from school, difficult or impossible. [199] [200] [201] [205]

Increasing the minimum wage would not only bring relief to workers struggling to make ends meet, it would also raise the incomes of people who make slightly more than minimum wage. The Brookings Institution found that increasing the minimum wage would result in higher wages for the 3.7 million people earning minimum wage and up to 35 million workers who make up to 150 percent of the federal minimum wage. [28]

The White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) found that an increase to just $10.10 an hour would raise wages for 28 million Americans—about nine million of those due to the ripple effect. [29]

Pro 2: Raising the minimum wage to match inflation and productivity benefits the economy, spurring consumer activity, job growth, and a lower federal deficit.

Because the federal minimum wage is not indexed for inflation, its purchasing power (the number of goods that can be bought with a unit of currency) has dropped considerably, hitting the lowest mark since 1956. [14] [15] [16] [204]

As journalist Megan Cerullo summarizes, “The federal minimum wage of $7.25 buys less today than it has at any point over the past 66 years…. The current value of the minimum wage in real dollars is at its lowest level since February 1956, when the lowest U.S. wage was 75 cents — the equivalent of $7.19 in June 2022 dollars.” Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation would ensure that low-wage workers could adopt a standard of living commensurate with the current economy. [204]

Further, while the estimates of how much the minimum wage should be increased vary, many economists agree that if the wage had kept pace with rising productivity and incomes, it would be higher than the current $7.25 an hour. [14] [17] [18]

If the minimum wage matched inflation as well as worker productivity and other incomes, worker productivity would increase while employee turnover decreased. Alan Manning, Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, explains, “As the minimum wage rises and work becomes more attractive, labor turnover rates and absenteeism tend to decline.” [30] [31] [32] [33]

In turn, economic activity would increase, spurring job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. And economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. [1] [2]

With an economic boom and more securely employed workers, the federal deficit would decrease. According to James K. Galbraith, Professor of Government at the University of Texas in Austin, “[b]ecause payroll- and income-tax revenues would rise [as a result of an increase in the minimum wage], the federal deficit would come down.” [43]

Further, raising the minimum wage would help reduce the federal budget deficit “by lowering spending on public assistance programs and increasing tax revenue. Since firms are allowed to pay poverty-level wages to 3.6 million people—5 percent of the workforce—these workers must rely on Federal income support programs. This means that taxpayers have been subsidizing businesses, whose profits have risen to record levels over the past 30 years,” according to Aaron Pacitti, Associate Professor of Economics at Siena College. [42]

Pro 3: Raising the minimum wage has social benefits including reducing poverty and crime and improving school attendance and family health.

A 2022 Urban Institute study found that “increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would lift 7.6 million people in the United States out of poverty.” A higher minimum wage would also reduce government welfare spending. If low-income workers earned more money, their dependence on, and eligibility for, government benefits would decrease. The Economic Policy Institute determined that by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10, more than 1.7 million Americans would no longer be dependent on government assistance programs. They report the increase would shave $7.6 billion off annual government spending on income-support programs. [10] [206]

Raising the minimum wage also lifts children out of poverty, increasing their school attendance and decreasing dropout rates. One study found that raising the California minimum wage to $13 an hour would increase the incomes of 7.5 million families, meaning fewer would live in poverty. Teens who live in poverty are twice as likely to miss three or more days of school per month. The study found that “recent experimental studies show that increasing income can improve school performance.” Increasing the minimum wage would also allow teens to work fewer hours for the same amount of pay, giving them more time to study and reducing the likelihood that they would drop out of high school. Alex Smith, Assistant Professor of Economics at the United States Military Academy at West Point, found that “an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (39 percent)… would lead to a 2-4 percentage point decrease in the likelihood that a low-SES [socio-economic status] teen will drop out.” [38] [41]

Raising the minimum wage would lead to a healthier population and prevent premature deaths. California study found that those earning a higher minimum wage would have enough to eat, be more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke, suffer from fewer emotional and psychological problems, and even prevent 389 premature deaths a year. [38]

Because minimum wage workers are more likely to report poor health, suffer from chronic diseases, and be unable to afford balanced meals, “policies that reduce poverty and raise the wages of low-income people can be expected to significantly improve overall health and reduce health inequities.” [38] [39]

A society with less poverty, fewer school attendance and health issues, and a higher minimum wage correlates to lower crime rates. According to one study, “higher wages for low-income individuals reduce crime by providing viable and sustainable employment . . . raising the minimum wage to $12 by 2020 would result in a 3 to 5 percent crime decrease (250,000 to 540,000 crimes) and a societal benefit of $8 to $17 billion dollars.” A study of crime rates and the minimum wage in New York City over a 25-year period found that “increases in the real minimum wage are found to significantly reduce robberies and murders . . . a 10 percent increase in the real minimum wage results in a 6.3 to 6.9 percent decrease in murders” and a 3.4 to 3.7 percent decrease in robberies. [179] [181]

Con Arguments

(Go to Pro Arguments)

Con 1: Raising the minimum wage increases housing and consumer goods costs for everyone and greatly disadvantages minimum-wage workers.

In a study of minimum wage raises from 2000 to 2009, researchers found that three months after a raise, housing rents increased. Lucas Hall, founder of Landlordology.com, explains, “Raising the minimum wage causes a temporary spike in spending power … [but landlords] raise rents as tenants are willing and able to pay more.” As a result, after “rents went up in response to the increase in income, people still had some additional income compared to before. But it wasn’t as big of a surplus as people would like to think raising the minimum wage leads to,” according to Brent Ambrose, Jason and Julie Borrelli Faculty Chair in Real Estate at Pennsylvania State University. [73] [202]

Plus, that small surplus may end up covering the increased costs of everyday items instead of going into a savings account or paying for additional education. James Sherk, Research Fellow in Labor Economics at the Heritage Foundation, argues, “Most minimum-wage employees work for small firms in competitive markets. These companies have small profit margins. They can only pay higher wages if they raise prices. Customers—not business owners—pay that cost.” For example, NBC News found that the price of a cup of coffee went up by 10-20 percent in Oakland, California, after a 36 percent minimum wage hike, while coffee prices in Chicago rose 6.7 percent after the minimum wage rose to $10. [54] [203]

Raising the minimum wage could decrease employee benefits and increase tax payments, further costing the employees. According to James Sherk, MA, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a single mother working full time and earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would be more than $260 a month worse off if the minimum wage were raised to $10.10: “While her market income rises by $494, she loses $71 in EITC [earned income tax credit] refunds, pays $37 more in payroll taxes and $45 more in state income taxes. She also loses $88 in food stamp benefits and $528 in child-care subsidies.” [77]

Raising the minimum wage also creates more jobs for more skilled workers, disadvantaging teenagers, young adults, and those with less education and experience. If employers have to pay an employee more, they will expect the employee to have a more experienced skill set, essentially removing the job from the tier of jobs available to minimum wage workers. [48]

This dynamic also makes it more difficult for minimum wage workers to gain upward mobility. As Don Boudreaux, Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, explains, “the minimum wage cuts off the first rung of the employment ladder, and it’s that first lowest paying rung that provides the skills and experience workers need to reach the next rung and to continue climbing their way to a better life.” Increasing minimum wage decreases entry-level jobs that are the “route to the top” of the job ladder. [66] [166]

Con 2: Raising the minimum wage artificially (instead of allowing the free market to set the wage) spurs business closures, layoffs, and more automation and outsourcing.

Increasing the minimum wage increases costs for businesses. If a business cannot or will not support the increased cost, the first method of cost correction is to cut hours or lay off employees. Researchers found that “For every $1 increase in the minimum wage …the total number of workers scheduled to work each week increased by 27.7 percent, while the average number of hours each worker worked per week decreased [sic] by 20.8 percent. For an average store in California, these changes translated into four extra workers per week and five fewer hours per worker per week — which meant that the total wage compensation of an average minimum wage worker in a California store actually fell by 13.6 percent.” The decrease in hours also meant erratic schedules that are difficult for employees to maintain and a decrease in eligibility for benefits such as retirement packages and healthcare. [205]

If a business cannot afford to pay an appropriate amount of employees, the business may be forced to close. Jamie Richardson, Vice President of White Castle, said that the company would be forced to close almost half its stores and let go thousands of workers if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15. Forbes reported that an increase in the minimum wage has led to the closure of several Wal-Mart stores and the cancellation of promised stores yet to open. [51] [52]

Businesses that cannot or will not pay a higher minimum wage may also turn to more robots and automated processes to replace service employees. Oxford University researchers explain “robots are already performing many simple service tasks such as vacuuming, mopping, lawn mowing, and gutter cleaning” and that “commercial service robots are now able to perform more complex tasks in food preparation, health care, commercial cleaning, and elderly care.” [67]

Businesses may also choose to outsource jobs to countries where costs would be lower. According to the Statistic Brain Research Institute, nearly 2.4 million U.S. jobs were outsourced in 2015, with 44 percent of companies saying they did so to reduce or control costs. A survey of 400 U.S. Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) found that 70 percent of CFOs would “increase contracting, outsourcing, or moving actual production outside the United States” if the minimum wage were raised to $10 an hour. [78] [84]

To avoid these negative outcomes, the free market should determine minimum wages, not the federal government. 82 percent of small businesses agreed that “the government should not be setting wage rates.” According to Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute, government-mandated minimum wages “are always arbitrary and almost never based on any sound economic/cost-benefit analysis…. [I]n contrast market-determined wages reflect supply and demand conditions that are specific to local market conditions and vary widely by geographic region and by industry.” Perry said market-determined wages result in more employment opportunities for unskilled workers, increased profits for companies, and lower prices for the consumer. [74] [76]

Con 3: Raising the minimum wage exacerbates income disparities and the cycle of poverty.

Cost of living varies wildly in the United States. For example, living in New York, California, and Hawaii costs significantly more than living in Mississippi, Kansas, or Alabama. If the federal government raises the minimum wage significantly, the impact will be greater on employers in lower-income states, where the cost of living is lower compared to higher-income metropolitan areas and where employees can manage on a lower wage. Businesses in smaller urban areas, and especially in rural communities, especially suffer from these uniform, nationwide wage increases. As policy analyst Andrew G. Biggs has argued, when it comes to the minimum wage, one size does not fit all—one size fits none.[70] [71]

Further, a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that although low-income workers see wage increases when the minimum wage is raised, “their hours and employment decline, and the combined effect of these changes is a decline in earned income … minimum wages increase the proportion of families that are poor or near-poor.” [47] [48]

As explained by George Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University, “The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them.” Thus, raising the minimum wage would actually increase poverty among minimum-wage workers. [47] [48]

The increase in poverty combined with an increase in minimum wages could also entice high-school students with limited opportunities to drop out of school to begin earning. Students from impoverished backgrounds may also drop out of school in order to increase their family’s income. As Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute explains, the students are then further disadvantaged: “the attraction to higher wages from minimum wage legislation reduces high school completion rates for some students with limited skills, who are then disadvantaged with lower wages and career opportunities over the long-run if they never finish high school.” [80] [81] [82] [83]

Similarly, raising the minimum wage can increase crime. According to a study by Boston College economists, increasing the minimum wage leads to reduced employment, which leads to an increase in thefts, drug sales, and violent crime. Their results indicate that “crime will increase by 1.9 percentage points” among 14- to 30-year-olds as the minimum wage increases.[182] [183]

State-by-State Minimum Wage Levels

Highlights

· The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour.

· 34 U.S. jurisdictions have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage:

· 13 states and the Northern Mariana Islands have the same minimum wage as the federal government

· 5 states (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee) have no law about minimum wage (and thus default to the federal wage)

· Only Georgia and Wyoming have minimum wages ($5.15/hour) lower than the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour.

· D.C. has the highest minimum wage at $17.50/hour. Connecticut is second with $16.94.

When a state or territory minimum wage is set at a higher rate than the federal minimum wage, the highest rate prevails. When a state minimum wage is lower than the federal minimum wage, the state must pay the federal minimum wage to all those employed in roles covered by federal laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Some cities and jurisdictions have higher minimum wages than the state rates.

Please note that some states have different minimum wages for specific groups of workers, such as seasonal, agricultural, and tipped workers. For information on those wages, please consult the state in question. Also note that individual counties, cities, and towns may have higher minimum wages than the state.

Some states may have laws or plans in place to raise the minimum wage over time. Those changes in rates are not tracked here. [207]

U.S. Territory Minimum Wage
Jurisdiction	Minimum Wage
Source: U.S. Department of Labor
American Samoa	wages are industry-specific
Guam	$9.25
Northern Mariana Islands	$7.25
Puerto Rico	$10.50
Virgin Islands	$10.50

Subminimum Wage Bans for People with Disabilities

On December 3, 2024, the Biden Administration’s Department of Labor proposed phasing out the rule that allows employers to pay employees with disabilities a subminimum wage. The new rule would require that employers pay employees with disabilities the federal minimum wage (or the state minimum wage, depending on state law). While it remains to be seen if the new rule will take effect under the Trump administration, in the meantime several states have implemented bans on subminimum wages for people with disabilities. In many cases, subminimum wages may still be paid to trainees, students, prisoners, and others.

State	Law	Date law went into effect	Additional information
Alaska	SB185	September 13, 2022	According to a press release from Governor Mike Dunleavy, Alaska repealed a law (8 AAC 15.120) that allowed residents of Alaska to be hired with a subminimum wage. Senate Bill 185 repealed AS 23.10.070 that regulated of subminimum wages.
California	SB639	January 1, 2025	The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 27, 2021, allowed for a multi-year phase-out of subminimum wages with full implementation at the start of 2025.
Colorado	SB21-039	July 1, 2025	The law, signed by Governor Jared Polis on June 29, 2021, included a multi-year phase-out of subminimum wages with full implementation mid-2025.
Delaware	HB122	July 1, 2023	The law, signed by Governor John Carney on October 20, 2021, included a multi-year phase-out of subminimum wages with full implementation mid-2023.
Hawaii	SB793	June 21, 2021	The law went into effect upon Governor David Ige’s signature on June 21, 2021.
Maine	LD 1874, HP 1340	Mar 18, 2020	The law, signed by Governor Janet Mills on March 18, 2020, went into effect immediately and amended existing law Sec. 1. 26 MRSA §666.
Maryland	HB420	October 1, 2020	The law, signed by Governor Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr. on May, 19 2016, included a multi-year phase-out of subminimum wages.
New Hampshire	SB47	June 6, 2015	The bill was signed into law by Governor Maggie Hassan on May 7, 2015.
Nevada	AB259	January 1, 2028	The law, signed by Governor Joe Lombardo on June 15, 2023, included a multi-year phase-out of subminimum wages.
Oregon	SB494	July 1, 2023	The law, signed by Governor Kate Brown on June 21, 2019, included a multi-year phase-out of subminimum wages.
Rhode Island	H 7511 S 2242	June 15, 2022	The law, signed by Governor Daniel McKee on June 15, 2022, repealed Section 28-12-9 of the General Laws in Chapter 28-12 and took effect upon his signature.
South Carolina	Act No. 209	August 2024	The law, signed by Governor Henry McMaster on May 23, 2022, included time for a task force to be formed and submit a report.
Tennessee	SB2042	July 1, 2022	The bill was signed into law by Governor Bill Lee on April 14, 2022.
Virginia	HB1924	July 1, 2030	The law, signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin in 2023, included a multi-year phase-out of subminimum wages.
Washington	SB5284	expiration of all existing federal certificates in the state	The law, signed by Governor Jay Inslee on April 16, 2021, includes time for the expiration of federal certificates allowing subminimum wages rather than canceling the certificates or setting a strict phase-out end date. According to the 2024 annual report on the subject to the Washington legislature, there were 54 active subminimum wage certificates held by employers (each employee requires an individual certificate) in the state as of June 30, 2024.

Discussion Questions

1. Should the federal minimum wage be raised? Why or why not?

2. Should state and local governments be allowed to set their own minimum wages? Why or why not?

3. Should there be any exceptions to the minimum wage? Explain your answer.

4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?

5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?

6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why?. If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.

7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

Sources

1. David Cooper, "Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost," Economic Policy Institute website, December 19, 2013

2. Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, "How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending?," Chicago Fed Letter, August 2013

3. David Card and Alan B. Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," The American Economic Review, September 1994

4. Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, June 2009

5. Congressional Budget Office, "The Effects of Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income," cbo.gov, February 2014

6. Arindrajit Dube, "Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Family Incomes," arindube.com, December 30, 2013

7. US Department of Labor, "History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938-2009," dol.gov (accessed February 4, 2016)

8. US Census Bureau, "Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children," census.gov (accessed February 24, 2016)

9. Rachel West and Michael Reich, "The Effects of Minimum Wages on SNAP Enrollments and Expenditures," Center for American Progress website, March 2014

10. David Cooper, "Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Save Safety Net Programs Billions and Help Ensure Businesses Are Doing Their Fair Share," Economic Policy Institute website, October 16, 2014

11. Saving.org, "Inflation Calculator," saving.org (accessed February 3, 2016)

12. Drew DeSilver, "Five Facts about the Minimum Wage," Pew Research Center website, July 23, 2015

13. Liana Fox, "Indexing the Minimum Wage for Inflation," Economic Policy Institute website, December 20, 2005

14. Salvaotre Babones, "The Minimum Wage Is Stuck at $7.25; It Should Be $21.16 - or Higher," Inequality.org, July 24, 2012

15. National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisors, Domestic Policy Council and the US Department of Labor, "The Impact of Raising the Minimum Wage on Women; And the Importance of Ensuring a Robust Tipped Minimum Wage," whitehouse.gov, March 2014

16. Caitlin Biegler, "Why the Minimum Wage Should Be Indexed to Inflation," MinnPost, March 10, 2014

17. John Schmitt, "The Minimum Wage Is Too Damn Low," Center for Economic and Policy Research website, March 2012

18. The Economist, "Pay Dirt," economist.com, May 20, 2015

19. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, "OECD Income Distribution Database (IDD): Gini, Poverty, Income, Methods and Concepts," oecd.org (accessed February 4, 2016)

20. Bernie Sanders, "Income Wealth and Inequality," berniesanders.com (accessed February 9, 2016)

21. David Autor, Alan Manning, and Christopher L. Smith, "The Contribution of the Minimum Wage to U.S. Wage Inequality over Three Decades: A Reassessment," economics.mit.edu, February 2015

22. Jeanne Sahadi, "Will a Higher Minimum Wage Really Reduce Income Inequality?," money.cnn.com, January 15, 2014

23. David Cooper and Douglas Hall, "Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Give Working Families, and the Overall Economy, a Much-Needed Boost," Economic Policy Institute website, March 13, 2013

24. Jens Manuel Krogstad, "More Women than Men Earn the Federal Minimum Wage," Pew Research Center website, May 5, 2014

25. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity, 2013," bls.gov, August 2014

26. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012," bls.gov, February 23, 2016

27. Bourree Lam, "Black, White, Asian, Hispanic: The Disparities in Household Income," The Atlantic, September 16, 2014

28. Melissa S. Kearney and Benjamin H. Harris, "The ’Ripple Effect’ of a Minimum Wage Increase on American Workers," The Hamilton Project website, January 10, 2014

29. Council of Economic Advisors, "The Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage," whitehouse.gov, February 12, 2014

30. Janet L. Yellen, "Efficiency Wage Models of Unemployment," Information and Macroeconomics, May 1984

31. Alan Manning, "Why Increasing the Minimum Wage Does Not Necessarily Reduce Employment," Social Europe, January 27, 2014

32. Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich, "Minimum Wage Shocks, Employment Flows and Labor Market Frictions," irle.berkeley.edu, October 2014

33. American Sustainable Business Council and Business for a Fair Minimum Wage, "Small Business Owners Favor Raising Federal Minimum Wage," asbcouncil.org, July 2014

34. Ana Swanson, "What You’d Need to Earn in Every State to Rent a Decent Apartment," Washington Post, June 9, 2015

35. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Living Wage Calculator for Rawlins County, Kansas," livingwage.mit.edu (accessed February 8, 2016)

36. Oxfam America, "Hard Work, Hard Lives: Survey Exposes Harsh Reality Faced by Low-Wage Workers in the US," oxfamamerica.org, 2013

37. Allyson Fredericksen, "Pay Up! Long Hours and Low Pay Leave Workers at a Loss," Alliance for a Just Society website, October 2015

38. Rajiv Bhatia, "Health Impacts of Raising California’s Minimum Wage," Human Impact Partners website, May 2014

39. Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) "The Minimum Wage and Health: A Bay Area Analysis," barhii.org, October 2014

40. Kim Krisberg, "Raising Minimum Wage Good for Public Health, Not Just Wallets: Advocates Call for Federal Increase," The Nation’s Health, March 2015

41. Alex Smith "Working Paper: The Minimum Wage and Schooling Decisions of Teenagers," curry.virginia.edu, September 2014

42. Aaron Pacitti, "Raising the Minimum Wage Boosts Growth and Does Not Cause Unemployment," Huffington Post, June 27, 2015

43. James Galbraith, "How to Save the Global Economy: Raise the Minimum Wage. A Lot.," Foreign Policy, January 3, 2012

44. Sherry Kast, "New Express Employment Professionals Survey of Employers Shows 38 percent of Those Who Pay Minimum Wage Will Lay off Workers If Wage Is Hiked," prweb.com, March 19, 2014

45. Office of the Controller, City and County of San Francisco, "Increasing the Minimum Wage: Economic Impact Report," sfcontroller.org, July 17, 2014

46. Steve H. Hanke, "Let the Data Speak: The Truth Behind Minimum Wage Laws," Cato Institute website, April 2014

47. David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer, and William Wascher, "The Effects of Minimum Wages throughout the Wage Distribution," citeseerx.ist.psu.edu, December 1999

48. George Reisman, "How Minimum Wage Laws Increase Poverty," Mises Institute website, April 4, 2014

49. Thomas Grennes and Andris Strazds, "Is the Minimum Wage an Effective Way to Reduce Poverty or Inequality?," EconoMonitor, June 2, 2015

50. Gallup, "US Small-Business Owners Split on Raising Minimum Wage," gallup.com, November 22, 2013

51. Sean Williams "Bernie Sanders’ Plan to Raise the Minimum Wage Has Plenty of Flaws," Business Insider, August 23, 2015

52. Tim Worstall, "Walmart’s Oakland Store Closure: Oakland’s Minimum Wage Is Blamed," Forbes, January 18, 2016

53. Greg McClure, "Study: Raising Wages to $15 an Hour for Limited-Service Restaurant Employees Would Raise Prices 4.3 Percent," purdue.edu, July 27, 2015

54. Allegra Abramo, "Cost of Cup of Coffee Often Climbs after Minimum Wage Hikes," nbcnews.com, July 19, 2015

55. Alberta Hotel and Lodging Association, "Alberta’s Minimum Wage," ahla.ca (accessed February 25. 2016)

56. Drew DeSilver, "Who Makes Minimum Wage?," Pew Research Center website, September 8, 2014

57. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Civilian Labor Force by Age, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity," bls.gov, December 8, 2015

58. Matthew Rousu, "Let’s Eliminate the Minimum Wage for Teenagers," Forbes, April 7, 2014

59. Casey B. Mulligan, "The Minimum Wage and Teenage Jobs," New York Times, November 18, 2009

60. Thomas A. Mroz and Timothy H. Savage, "The Long-Term Effects of Youth Unemployment," Employment Policies Institute website, October 2001

61. David Brooks, "The Minimum Wage Muddle," New York Times, July 24, 2015

62. Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither, "The Minimum Wage and the Great Recession: Evidence of Effects on the Employment and Income Trajectories of Low-Skilled Workers," econoweb.ucsd.edu, November 24, 2014

63. James Dorn, "The Minimum Wage Delusion, and the Death of Common Sense," Forbes, May 7, 2013

64. Let’s Go LA, "The Minimum Wage & Housing Prices," letsgola.wordpress.com, May 31, 2015

65. Seth Zimmerman, "Labor Market Institutions and Economic Mobility," urban.org (accessed February 25, 2016)

66. John W. O’Neill, "Extreme Wage Initiatives & the Hotel Industry: Impact on Local Communities and the Nation," ahla.com, June 2014

67. Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation," oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk, September 17, 2013

68. Andrew Woodman, "Automation Is the Elephant in the Room of the Minimum Wage Debate," Huffington Post, June 2, 2014

69. Lydia DePillis, "Minimum-Wage Offensive Could Speed Arrival of Robot-Powered Restaurants," Washington Post, August 16, 2015

70. Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC), "Cost of Living Data Series: 2015 Annual Average," missourieconomy.org (accessed February 8, 2016)

71. Andrew G. Biggs and Mark J. Perry, "A National Minimum Wage Is a Bad Fit for Low-Cost Communities," American Enterprise Institute website, March 26, 2014

72. Kristen Lepore, "Minimum Wage Hike Could Increase LA Rents, Economists Say," scpr.org, May 21, 2015

73. Brian Davis, "How Does the Minimum Wage Affect Rents?," ezlandlordforms.com, July 20, 2015

74. Jim Blasingame, "It’s Time to Tell the Truth about Minimum Wage," Forbes, June 26, 2015

75. Per Bylund, "Raising the National Minimum Wage Would Destroy the Job Market," Library of Law and Liberty website, June 22, 2015

76. Mark J. Perry, "Ten Reasons that Market-Determined Wages Are Better than Government-Mandated Minimum Wages," American Enterprise Institute website, November 29, 2015

77. James Sherk, "What Is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy," Heritage Foundation website, June 25, 2013

78. Washington Free Beacon, "Duke Prof: $10/hour Minimum Wage Would Cause Mass Layoffs, Slash Benefits," freebeacon.com, September 10, 2014

79. Natasha Chen, "Nonprofit Employer: Workers Requested Reduced Hours to Stay in Subsidized Housing," kiro7.com, June 8, 2015

80. Mark J. Perry, "Some Minimum Wage Research Showing Negative Effects on Both the Demand and Supply Side," American Enterprise Institute website, December 8, 2014

81. Stephanie O. Crofton, William L. Anderson, and Emily C. Rawe, "Do Higher Real Minimum Wages Lead to More High School Dropouts? Evidence from Maryland across Races, 1993-2004," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April 2009

82. Dan A. Black, Terra G. McKinnish, and Seth G. Sanders, "Tight Labor Markets and the Demand for Education: Evidence from the Coal Boom and Bust," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October 2005

83. James Sherk, "Raising the Minimum Wage Hurts Vulnerable Workers’ Job Prospects without Reducing Poverty," Heritage Foundation website, July 25, 2006

84. Statistic Brain Research Institute, "Jobs Overseas Outsourcing Statistics," statisticbrain.com (accessed March 3, 2016)

85. US Department of Labor, "Minimum Wage Laws in the States – January 1, 2018," dol.gov, January 1, 2025

86. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2014," bls.gov, April 2015

87. Drew DeSilver and Steve Schwarzer, "Making More than Minimum Wage, but Less than $10.10 an Hour," Pew Research Center website, November 5, 2014

88. Economic Policy Institute, "Over 600 Economists Sign Letter in Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage," Economic Policy Institute website, January 14, 2014

89. Danielle Gewurz, "Sharp Divisions in GOP Base on Raising the Minimum Wage," Pew Research Center website, August 20, 2013

90. David Cooper, "A Stagnating Minimum Wage Has Left Low-Wage Workers Facing a Longer Climb to Reach the Middle Class," Economic Policy Institute website, April 1, 2015

91. New York Times-CBS News Poll, "Americans’ Views on Income Inequality and Workers’ Rights,” New York Times, June 3, 2015

92. Lydia Saad, "In U.S., 71 percent Back Raising Minimum Wage," gallup.com, March 6, 2013

93. Office of the Chief Economist, US Department of Labor, "Making Work Pay: The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage," dol.gov, March 1996

94. Borderlands Books, "Borderlands Books to Close in March," borderlands-books.blogspot.com, February 1, 2015

95. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), "Gilded Age," pbs.org (accessed January 20, 2016)

96. Kay Davis, "Gilded Age Reform," xroads.virginia.edu (accessed January 20, 2016)

97. George Washington University, "The Progressive Era (1890-1920)," gwu.edu (accessed February 3, 2016)

98. Jerold Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000

99. US Government Printing Office, Handbook of Labor Statistics: 1941 Edition – Volume 2: Wages and Wage Regulation, 1941

100. Kevin Lang, Poverty and Discrimination, 2011

101. Alice Kessler-Harris, "Law and a Living: The Gendered Content of ’Free Labor’," in Noralee Frankel and Nancy S. Dye, Gender, Class, Race, and Reform in the Progressive Era, 1991

102. Burdett A. Rich, Henry P. Farnham, and George H. Parmele, The Lawyers Reports Annotated: 1918F, 1918

103. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), "Landmark Cases: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)," pbs.org (accessed January 21, 2016)

104. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), "Landmark Cases: Lochner v. New York (1905)," pbs.org (accessed January 20, 2016)

105. US Supreme Court, "198 U.S. 45 (1905): Lochner v. New York," scholar.google.com, April 17, 1905

106. Mary Elizabeth Pidgeon, "Women in the United States," fraser.stlouisfed.org, 1937

107. US Congress, "National Industrial Recovery Act," legisworks.org, June 16, 1933

108. Kenneth F. Warren, Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior, 2008

109. Paul Volpe, "Industrial Recovery: Reviving the Heart of America," xroads.virginia.edu (accessed January 20, 2016)

110. US Supreme Court, "295 U.S. 495 (1935): A.L.A. Schechter v. United States," scholar.google.com, May 27, 1935

111. Hether C. Macfarlane, "Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act (1936)," encyclopedia.com, 2004

112. Supreme Court of Oklahoma, "Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 1939 OK 155," law.justia.com, March 21, 1939

113. Jonathan Grossman, "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage," Monthly Labor Review, June 1978

114. Harry S. Kantor, "Two Decades of the Fair Labor Standards Act," Monthly Labor Review, October 1958

115. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), "Landmark Cases: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)," pbs.org (accessed January 20, 2016)

116. US Supreme Court, "West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)," supreme.justia.com, March 29, 1937

117. US Department of Labor, "Changes in Basic Minimum Wages in Non-Farm Employment under State Law: Selected Years 1968-2016," dol.gov (accessed January 27, 2016)

118. US Supreme Court, "Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 US 113 (1940)," supreme.justia.com, April 29, 1940

119. US Department of Labor, "History of Changes to the Minimum Wage Law," dol.gov (accessed February 3, 2016)

120. Gerald Mayer, Benjamin Collins, and David H. Bradley, "The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): An Overview," fas.org, June 4, 2013

121. Gillian B. White, "Why the Gap between Worker Pay and Productivity Is So Problematic," The Atlantic, February 25, 2015

122. US Department of Labor, "About Minimum Wage," dol.gov (accessed July 21, 2015)

123. US Department of Labor, "Percent of Hourly Paid Workers, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

124. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

125. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, 16 to 24 Years," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

126. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, 25 Years and Over," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

127. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, Men," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

128. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, Women," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

129. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, White," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

130. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, White," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

131. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, Black or African American," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

132. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, Asian," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

133. US Department of Labor, "Employed Full Time, Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

134. US Department of Labor, "Employed Part Time, Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage," beta.bls.gov, March 16, 2016

135. David Cooper, "Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost: Supplementary Data," Economic Policy Institute website, December 19, 2013

136. University of California at Berkeley, "Inventory of US City and County Minimum Wage Ordnances," laborcenter.berkeley.edu, January 5, 2018

137. Sara Lemos, "The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Prices," ftp.iza.org, March 2004

138. Ted Egan and Asim Khan, "Increasing the Minimum Wage: Economic Impact Report," sfcontroller.org, July 17, 2014

139. Harry J. Holzer, "Harry J. Holzer: Use Caution in Raising the Minimum Wage," Washington Post, December 9, 2013

140. Libertarian Party, "Poverty and Welfare: Highlights of the Libertarian Party’s ’Ending the Welfare State’ Proposal," lp.org (accessed January 20, 2016)

141. Jared Bernstein, "Minimum Wage: Who Makes It?," New York Times, June 9, 2014

142. Oren M. Levin-Waldman, "Why the Minimum Wage Is Important," laborpress.org, July 9, 2014

143. Caroline J. Gleason, "A Living Wage by Legislation and the Oregon Experience," in F.G. Young, Ed. The Commonwealth Review of the University of Oregon, January 1916

144. W.B. Wilson, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the Association of Governmental Labor Officials of the United States and Canada: Held at Madison, Wis. June 2-4, 1919, 1920

145. Al Green, "H.R.3041 - Living American Wage (LAW) Act of 2009," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

146. Al Green, "H.R.283 - Living American Wage (LAW) Act of 2011," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

147. Al Green, "H.R.6076 - Original Living American Wage (LAW) Act," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

148. Al Green, "H.R.3041 - Original Living American Wage (LAW) Act of 2015," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

149. Cliff Stearns, "H.R.3086 - Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2011," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

150. George Miller, "H.R.6211 - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2012," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

151. Tom Harkin, "S.3453 - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2012," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

152. Jesse Jackson, "H.R.5901 - Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2012," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

153. George Miller, "H.R.1010 - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

154. Tom Harkin, "S.460 - Minimum Wage Fairness Act," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

155. John Larson, "H.R.3746 – Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

156. Tom Harkin "S.2223 – Minimum Wage Fairness Act," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

157. Gregg Harper, "H.R.188 - TIME Act," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

158. Kelly Ayotte, "S.2001 - TIME Act," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

159. Patty Murray, "S.1150 - Raise the Wage Act of 2015," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

160. Bernie Sanders, "S.1832 - Pay Workers a Living Wage Act," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

161. Donald Norcross, "H.R.4508 - Fair Wage Act of 2015," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

162. Barbara Lee, "H.R.2721 - Pathways out of Poverty Act," congress.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

163. Alabama State Government, "HB 174 - Alabama Uniform Minimum Wage and Right-to-Work Act," alisondb.legislature.state.al.us (accessed March 24, 2016)

164. General Assembly of North Carolina, Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, ncleg.net (accessed March 24, 2016)

165. Legislature of the State of Idaho, "House Bill No. 463," legislature.idaho.gov (accessed March 24, 2016)

166. Learn Liberty, "Economics: Is Raising Minimum Wage a Bad Idea? - Learn Liberty," youtube.com, January 14, 2016

167. Cora Lewis, "States Are Barring Cities from Raising the Minimum Wage," buzzfeed.com, March 26, 2016

168. Sean Sullivan, "White House Official: Obama Supports Harkin/Miller Bid to Increase Minimum Wage," Washington Post, November 7, 2013

169. New York Times, "Senate Vote 117 - Blocks Minimum Wage Increase Proposal," politics.nytimes.com (accessed March 29, 2016)

170. Peter J. Sammon, "The Living Wage Movement," American Magazine, August 26, 2000

171. New York Times Editorial Board, "New Minimum Wages in the New Year," New York Times, December 26, 2015

172. Charlotte Alter, "Transcript: Read the Full Text of the Fourth Republican Debate in Milwaukee," TIME, November 11, 2015

173. US Chamber of Commerce, "Labor," uschamber.com (accessed March 16, 2016)

174. Associated Press, "California Gov. Jerry Brown Hails Proposal to Raise Minimum Wage to $15," foxnews.com, March 28, 2016

175. MoveOn, "Raise the Minimum Wage to $15 per Hour," youtube.com, May 29, 2014

176. Clifford F. Thies, "Minimum Wages for Women Only," Independent Institute website, April 2001

177. US Department of Labor, "Employed Wage and Salary Workers Paid Hourly Rates, Total at or below Prevailing Federal Minimum Wage, Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations," beta.bls.gov, March 30, 2016

178. Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisors, "Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System," whitehouse.gov, April 2016

179. Jose Fernandez, Thomas Holman, and John V. Pepper, "The Impact of Living Wage Ordinances on Urban Crime," people.virginia.edu, July 5, 2013

180. Hope Corman and Naci Moran, "Carrots, Sticks, and Broken Windows, " nber.org, July 2002

181. Andrew Beauchamp and Stacey Chan, "The Minimum Wage and Crime," bc.edu, November 18, 2013

182. Dawn Fuller, "Multilevel Study Finds No Link Between Minimum Wage and Crime Rates," uc.edu, November 18, 2013

183. Adam Janofsky, "Small-Business Owners Split on Raising Minimum Wage," blogs.wsj.com, June 12, 2015

184. Quinnipiac University Poll, "U.S. Voters Say 68-27 percent Let Transgender People Serve, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Disapprove 5-1 Of GOP Handling Of Health Care," poll.qu.edu, August 3, 2017

185. Program for Public Consultation, University of Maryland, "Americans Support Greater Federal Efforts to Reduce Poverty," publicconsultation.org, June 1, 2017

186. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2017," bls.gov, March 2018

187. Joseph Pisani, "Amazon Ups Hourly Wage to $15, Will Advocate for Higher Pay," usnews.com, October 2, 2018

188. Rich Duprey, "20 Chains That Pay More Than Minimum Wage," fool.com, March 20, 2018

189. Daniel B. Kline, "Amazon, Target and More: Here Are the Companies Committed to $15 Hourly Minimum Wage," usatoday.com, October 2, 2018

190. Ben & Jerry’s, "Livable Wage," benjerry.com (accessed October 18, 2018)

191. Thomas Franck, "Biden’s $1.9 Trillion Covid Relief Plan Calls for Stimulus Checks, Unemployment Support and More," cnbc.com, January 15, 2021

192. Ella Nilsen, "Biden Doesn’t Think the $15 Minimum Wage Will Make It into His Stimulus Bill," vox.com, February 8, 2021

193. Noam Scheiber, "President Biden Plans to Order a $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors," nytimes.com, April 27, 2021

194. Leslie Davis and Hannah Hartig, "Two-Thirds of Americans Favor Raising Federal Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour," pewresearch.org, July 30, 2019

195. Amina Dunn, "Most Americans Support a $15 Federal Minimum Wage," pewresearch.org, April 22, 2021

196. Gianna Melillo, "Most Americans Agree the Federal Minimum Wage Is Too Low: Poll," thehill.com, December 2, 2022

197. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2021," bls.gov, April 2022

198. National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach, nlihc.org (accessed January 11, 2023)

199. Pamela Joshi, Abigail N. Walters, Clemens Noelke, and Dolores Acevedo-Garcia, Families’ Job Characteristics and Economic Self-Sufficiency: Differences by Income, Race-Ethnicity and Nativity, diversitydatakids.org, August 31, 2022

200. Kimberly Amadeo, Minimum Wage: Its Purpose, History, and $15 Wage Battle, thebalancemoney.com, March 29, 2022

201. Ben Zipperer, Gradually Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 Would Be Good for Workers, Good for Businesses, and Good for the Economy, epi.org, February 7, 2019

202. Katie Bohn, Higher Minimum Wage May Reduce Rent Defaults but Raise Rent Payments, psu.edu, March 3, 2022

203. James Sherk, $15 Minimum Wages Will Substantially Raise Prices, heritage.org, January 19, 2017

204. Megan Cerullo, Most U.S. Workers Say Their Pay Isn’t Keeping Up with Inflation, cbsnews.com, September 14, 2022

205. Qiuping Yu, Shawn Mankad, and Masha Shunko, Research: When a Higher Minimum Wage Leads to Lower Compensation, hbr.org, June 10, 2021

206. G. Acs, L. Giannarelli, K. Werner, and O. Biu, Exploring the Effects of a $15 an Hour Federal Minimum Wage on Poverty, Earnings, and Net Family Resources, rwjf.org, September 7, 2022

207. U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, “Consolidated Minimum Wage Table.” dol.gov, January 1, 2024

208. Greg DePersio, “The 5 U.S. Cities with the Highest Minimum Wage,” investopedia.com, January 3, 2025

209. Justin R. Barnes, Brian E. Lewis & Laura A. Mitchell, “Trump Revokes Biden Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Mandate: What to Expect Next,” jacksonlewis.com. March 21, 2025

210. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers,” bls.gov, June 2025

211. Aurelia Glass and David Madland, “Working-Class and College-Educated Voters Want New Progressive Economic Policies,” americanprogress.org, June 3, 2025

212. Eric Johnson, “A Majority of America’s Small Business Owners Support Minimum Wage Increase, Even as They Worry About Worker Affordability,” cnbc.com, February 22, 2024

213. Kathryn Mayer, “Most Employers Support Raising Federal Minimum Wage,” shrm.org, August 7, 2023

214. Caitlin Huey-Burns, “Conservative Sen. Josh Hawley Wants to Raise Federal Minimum Wage,” cbsnews.com, June 10, 2025

Britannica Editors

July 20, 2026 •History

Britannica AI

Top Questions

· What is poverty in sociology?

· How do sociologists define and measure poverty?

· What are the main causes of poverty according to sociological theories?

· How does poverty affect individuals and families in society?See all videos for this article

poverty, the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Poverty is said to exist when people lack the means to satisfy their basic needs. In this context, the identification of poor people first requires a determination of what constitutes basic needs. These may be defined as narrowly as “those necessary for survival” or as broadly as “those reflecting the prevailing standard of living in the community.” The first criterion would cover only those people near the borderline of starvation or death from exposure; the second would extend to people whose nutrition, housing, and clothing, though adequate to preserve life, do not measure up to those of the population as a whole. The problem of definition is further compounded by the noneconomic connotations that the word poverty has acquired. Poverty has been associated, for example, with poor health, low levels of education or skills, an inability or an unwillingness to work, high rates of disruptive or disorderly behaviour, and improvidence. While these attributes have often been found to exist with poverty, their inclusion in a definition of poverty would tend to obscure the relation between them and the inability to provide for one’s basic needs. Whatever definition one uses, authorities and laypersons alike commonly assume that the effects of poverty are harmful to both individuals and society.

Although poverty is a phenomenon as old as human history, its significance has changed over time. Under traditional (i.e., nonindustrialized) modes of economic production, widespread poverty had been accepted as inevitable. The total output of goods and services, even if equally distributed, would still have been insufficient to give the entire population a comfortable standard of living by prevailing standards. With the economic productivity that resulted from industrialization, however, this ceased to be the case—especially in the world’s most industrialized countries, where national outputs were sufficient to raise the entire population to a comfortable level if the necessary redistribution could be arranged without adversely affecting output.

Several types of poverty may be distinguished depending on such factors as time or duration (long- or short-term or cyclical) and distribution (widespread, concentrated, individual).

(Read Indira Gandhi’s 1975 Britannica essay on global underprivilege.)

Cyclical poverty

Cyclical poverty refers to poverty that may be widespread throughout a population, but the occurrence itself is of limited duration. In nonindustrial societies (present and past), this sort of inability to provide for one’s basic needs rests mainly upon temporary food shortages caused by natural phenomena or poor agricultural planning. Prices would rise because of scarcities of food, which brought widespread, albeit temporary, misery.

In industrialized societies the chief cyclical cause of poverty is fluctuations in the business cycle, with mass unemployment during periods of depression or serious recession. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the industrialized nations of the world experienced business panics and recessions that temporarily enlarged the numbers of the poor. The United States’ experience in the Great Depression of the 1930s, though unique in some of its features, exemplifies this kind of poverty. And until the Great Depression, poverty resulting from business fluctuations was accepted as an inevitable consequence of a natural process of market regulation. Relief was granted to the unemployed to tide them over until the business cycle again entered an upswing. The experiences of the Great Depression inspired a generation of economists such as John Maynard Keynes, who sought solutions to the problems caused by extreme swings in the business cycle. Since the Great Depression, governments in nearly all advanced industrial societies have adopted economic policies that attempt to limit the ill effects of economic fluctuation. In this sense, governments play an active role in poverty alleviation by increasing spending as a means of stimulating the economy. Part of this spending comes in the form of direct assistance to the unemployed, either through unemployment compensation, welfare, and other subsidies or by employment on public-works projects. Although business depressions affect all segments of society, the impact is most severe on people of the lowest socioeconomic strata because they have fewer marginal resources than those of a higher strata.

Collective poverty

In contrast to cyclical poverty, which is temporary, widespread or “collective” poverty involves a relatively permanent insufficiency of means to secure basic needs—a condition that may be so general as to describe the average level of life in a society or that may be concentrated in relatively large groups in an otherwise prosperous society. Both generalized and concentrated collective poverty may be transmitted from generation to generation, parents passing their poverty on to their children.

Explore Britannica Premium!

The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.

Collective poverty is relatively general and lasting in parts of Asia, the Middle East, most of Africa, and parts of South America and Central America. Life for the bulk of the population in these regions is at a minimal level. Nutritional deficiencies cause disease seldom seen by doctors in the highly developed countries. Low life expectancy, high levels of infant mortality, and poor health characterize life in these societies.

Collective poverty is usually related to economic underdevelopment. The total resources of many developing nations in Africa, Asia, and South and Central America would be insufficient to support the population adequately even if they were equally divided among all of the citizens. Proposed remedies are twofold: (1) expansion of the gross national product (GNP) through improved agriculture or industrialization, or both, and (2) population limitation. Thus far, both population control and induced economic development in many countries have proved difficult, controversial, and at times inconclusive or disappointing in their results.

An increase of the GNP does not necessarily lead to an improved standard of living for the population at large, for a number of reasons. The most important reason is that, in many developing countries, the population grows even faster than the economy does, with no net reduction in poverty as a result. This increased population growth stems primarily from lowered infant mortality rates made possible by improved sanitary and disease-control measures. Unless such lowered rates eventually result in women bearing fewer children, the result is a sharp acceleration in population growth. To reduce birth rates, some developing countries have undertaken nationally administered family-planning programs, with varying results. Many developing nations are also characterized by a long-standing system of unequal distribution of wealth—a system likely to continue despite marked increases in the GNP. Some authorities have observed the tendency for a large portion of any increase to be siphoned off by persons who are already wealthy, while others claim that increases in GNP will always trickle down to the part of the population living at the subsistence level.

Concentrated collective poverty

In many industrialized, relatively affluent countries, particular demographic groups are vulnerable to long-term poverty. In city ghettos, in regions bypassed or abandoned by industry, and in areas where agriculture or industry is inefficient and cannot compete profitably, there are found victims of concentrated collective poverty. These people, like those afflicted with generalized poverty, have higher mortality rates, poor health, low educational levels, and so forth when compared with the more affluent segments of society. Their chief economic traits are unemployment and underemployment, unskilled occupations, and job instability. Efforts at amelioration focus on ways to bring the deprived groups into the mainstream of economic life by attracting new industry, promoting small business, introducing improved agricultural methods, and raising the level of skills of the employable members of the society.

Case poverty

Similar to collective poverty in relative permanence but different from it in terms of distribution, case poverty refers to the inability of an individual or family to secure basic needs even in social surroundings of general prosperity. This inability is generally related to the lack of some basic attribute that would permit the individual to maintain himself or herself. Such persons may, for example, be blind, physically or emotionally disabled, or chronically ill. Physical and mental handicaps are usually regarded sympathetically, as being beyond the control of the people who suffer from them. Efforts to ameliorate poverty due to physical causes focus on education, sheltered employment, and, if needed, economic maintenance.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

This article was most recently revised and updated by Adam Augustyn.

Top Questions

· What does 'regulation' mean in government?

· Why do governments make rules and regulations?

· How do governments enforce their regulations?

· What are some examples of government regulations in everyday life?

regulation, in government, a rule or mechanism that limits, steers, or otherwise controls social behaviour.

Defining regulation

Regulation has a variety of meanings that are not reducible to a single concept. In the field of public policy, regulation refers to the promulgation of targeted rules, typically accompanied by some authoritative mechanism for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Accordingly, for a long time in the United States, for example, the study of regulation has been synonymous with the study of the independent agencies enforcing it. In political economy, it refers to the attempt of the state to steer the economy, either narrowly defined as the imposition of economic controls on the behaviour of private business or, more broadly, to include other governmental instruments, such as taxation or disclosure requirements. The two meanings share a focus on the state’s attempt to intervene in private activities.

A third definition of regulation moves beyond an interest in the state and focuses on all means of social control, either intentional or unintentional. This understanding is commonly applied in anthropology, sociolegal studies, and international relations because it includes mechanisms such as voluntary agreements or norms that exercise social control outside the reach of a sovereign state and not necessarily as an intentional act of steering.

Thus, different strands of regulation studies share an agreement on the subject of regulation (the state), the object (the behaviour of nongovernmental actors), the instruments (an authoritative set of rules), or the domain of application (e.g., the economy). However, they do not necessarily agree on all those elements. The concept of regulation points to the rules that structure the behaviour of individuals within a given context without postulating where the rules come from and how they are imposed.

Regulation and free-market interactions

The diversity of meanings of regulation has led to controversy and misunderstandings between scholars, most notably on the topic of deregulation. In the economic tradition, deregulation refers to the elimination of specific controls imposed by the government on market interactions, in particular the attempt to control market access, prices, output, or product quality. However, if regulation is conceived of more broadly as a form of economic governance, it is difficult to imagine the total elimination of state intervention. Moreover, the relationship between regulation and competition has been transformed. Regulation used to be depicted as the enemy of free-market interactions. However, many scholars came to believe that some regulations facilitate competition whereas other regulations impede competition. Thus, regulation is not necessarily the antonym of free markets or liberalization (relaxation of government controls). In this perspective, many scholars preferred using the terms reregulation or regulatory reform instead of the term deregulation. (See also competition policy.)

Regulation as state activity

The theoretical debates around the concept of regulation reflect different disciplines and research agendas and can be broadly divided into approaches to regulation as an act of government and perspectives on regulation as governance. Regulation as a governmental activity has been studied extensively, including the reasons for regulation and the process by which it is effected.

Public versus private interests

The original justification of government intervention in economic interactions was public interest. This perspective considers the market as an efficient allocation mechanism of social and economic welfare while also cautioning against market failures. Market failures commonly include natural monopolies, externalities, public goods, asymmetric information, moral hazard, or transaction costs. Regulation was considered necessary to overcome those difficulties.

Conceiving regulation as a tool for overcoming market imperfections, however, has been criticized on a number of points. First, with the evolution of economic theory, several scholars have questioned the understanding of market failure underlying the explanation of government regulation. Second, economists have pointed out the often considerable transaction costs of imposing regulation, which might make it an ineffective policy tool and harmful to social or economic welfare. Finally, the market failure approach argues that regulation is put into place with the goal of achieving economic efficiency. However, this makes it hard to account for other objectives, such as procedural fairness or redistribution at the expense of efficiency.

The Chicago school of economics, known for its advocacy of laissez-faire economics, focused instead on private interests as the source of regulation. The principal aim of this perspective is to understand how private interests and public officials interact. A central claim made by theorists following this approach was that policy outcomes are most often contrary to societal or public interest because industry representatives lobby the government for benefits they might gain through protectionism or other forms of economic controls. Politicians are susceptible to these demands because they are interested in financial contributions that business actors can offer. Thus, interest groups compete for specific policies in a political market for governmental regulation. As long as interest groups exist, regulation can be expected, which impedes the achievement of maximal social and economic welfare.

The theory of economic regulation has been criticized for its risk of tautology. Regulation is in place because private interests lobbied for it effectively, and, as a consequence, one can only know who asked for it by determining who benefits from it. Therefore, a particular industry advantage is the cause and effect of regulation. Furthermore, if regulation is defined in a narrow sense as specific economic policies aimed at the control of prices or market entry and access, the decrease in regulation of several industries in the United States during the 1970s and ’80s seemingly refutes the theory. Nonetheless, as a model of business-government interactions, the theory of economic regulation directly or indirectly informs a large number of studies in the field of political economy.

Pragmatic-administrative analyses

A large number of studies have also grappled with the empirical fact of regulation. Such pragmatic-administrative perspectives shed light on regulation as an act of policy making. The study of the politics of regulations is informed by the tools of public policy analysis, organizational sociology, and political science. In the 1950s American economist Marver H. Bernstein described the rhythm of regulation as a life cycle of regulatory commissions, with phases of gestation, youth, maturity, and old age. This view facilitated the analysis of the initial activism in the formulation of a regulatory policy approach and the specific management problems that occur in the course of its lifetime. Regulation had been classified as a specific type of public policy, indicating that policies should be categorized according to the degree and application of governmental coercion and that regulatory policy should be separated from distributive and redistributive policy making.

Other studies of regulation have aimed at characterizing different policy regimes or, more ambitiously, state capacity. The predominantly European literature on the regulatory state sought to show that governmental action was increasingly based on the use of authority, rules, and standard setting, rather than distributional or redistributional tasks, such as public service provision. In an extension of this debate to the European level, it was argued that the governmental capacity of the European Union (EU) was strongly biased toward regulation. As a political system, the EU could therefore develop into a regulatory state but not into an interventionist welfare state.

Regulation as governance

In the context of economic globalization, regulatory studies moved away from focusing on independent agencies and governmental control of the economy only. Scholars recognized that some interactions of market participants, product standards, or processes were no longer regulated through state intervention. Rather, they were regulated through international agreements or even self-regulation arrangements between private actors. Because it seemed pertinent to address these new modes of economic governance, it became common to address regulation in the absence of direct governmental authority. Other studies pointed at patterns that govern the behaviour of certain actors without reference to a unitary subject of regulation.

Regulation without the state

As in the context of the EU, scholars of regulatory reform also became interested in regulation at the international level. In certain sectors, such as e-commerce or telecommunications, international agreements had become decisive for controlling the market behaviour of individuals. Moreover, many studies pointed out the effect of self-regulation of firms or various sets of public-private partnerships for the elaboration, monitoring, or implementation of targeted rules. They showed how different forms of private authority structure the economic behaviour of firms in sectors as diverse as maritime transport, mineral markets, or financial services.

It is often difficult to identify exactly who or what leads to the rise or fall of regulatory reforms. While regulation and deregulation in the United States can be identified closely with specific political leaders and parties, a growing literature investigates what mechanisms lead to the diffusion of regulatory reforms across countries or policy contexts. Animated by the desire to understand regulatory emulation, this research agenda connects the study of regulation with the ongoing debate about the roots and consequences of liberalization and globalization.

Cornelia Woll The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

ATTACHMENT “D”

X FROM DOLLARSANDSENSE.ORG

September/October 2026

The Plutonomy—AI Edition—and the Coming Crisis

Driven by speculative finance, stagnant wages, and AI hype, today’s tech-heavy economy mirrors the fragile plutonomy that collapsed into the Great Crash of 1929.

Yeva Nersisyan and L. Randall Wray

September 01 2026 12:00 PM

A 2005 Citigroup memo addressed to invstors described the rise of “plutonomies”—plutocratic economies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Written as a roadmap for investors, the memo described economies powered not by the average consumer, but by a wealthy minority. In a plutonomy, the spending habits, consumer confidence, and balance sheets of most households become largely irrelevant. Instead, the performance of the economy depends on the fortunes of the rich.

Citigroup strategists recognized that the rise of plutonomy in the United States represented a return to the highly unequal, finance-driven economy of the 1920s—a system that ultimately collapsed into the Great Depression. @WashTimes above That crash led to the creation of institutions—including a progressive tax system—that helped turn the United States into a more egalitarian society.

One of the defining characteristics of plutonomies is the erosion of the share of national income going to workers. Citigroup strategists noted that labor’s share of GDP in plutonomies had steadily declined since the early 1980s, a trend that has continued ever since. While this would be a serious problem in an economy driven by broadly shared wage growth, in a plutonomy what matters is spending by the rich. Because the rich derive most of their income from financial assets rather than wages, maintaining aggregate demand in plutonomies requires continuously rising asset prices. Domestic asset bubbles attract investments by foreign plutocrats, boosting asset prices still higher. Serial asset-price bubbles are therefore not an unfortunate byproduct of plutonomy—they have been one of the essential features of the U.S. economy since at least the 1990s.

Five Telltale Signs of Plutonomy

1. Labor’s Share of the Economic Pie Is Smaller Than Ever By the middle of this year (the second quarter of 2026) workers’ compensation (wages and benefits) as a share of national income (which is measured as nonfarm business output) had fallen to 52.9%, the lowest level on record.

2. The Rich Dominate Consumer Spending Last year (the second quarter of 2025) the richest 10% of households accounted for nearly half (49.2%) of consumer spending, according to economist Mark Zandi. That’s higher than at any time since 1989, the earliest year in his study.

3. Extreme Income Inequality Returns Since its mid-1970s low, U.S. income inequality has rapidly worsened. By 2024 the income share of the richest 1% of households had reached 20.2%, more than double their mid-70s share, and nearly equal to their 22.2% share in 1929 at the onset of the Great Depression.

4. More Wealth for the Wealthy Since the 1990s more and more wealth has gone to the super-wealthy and less to the rest of the population. In 1989, a mind-boggling 7.1% share of wealth went to just the top 0.1% of households. But in 2026 their wealth share had nearly doubled to 13.0%. At the same time, the wealth share of the bottom 90% of the population had shrunk from 55.3% to 36.1% from 1989 to 2026.

5. The High Cost of Finance The profits of today’s overgrown financial sector have come at the cost of a well-functioning economy. Economists Gerald Epstein and James Crotty report that in the 2000s, the financial sector received $1.74 in payments for every dollar of savings it transferred to finance economic activity in the real (nonfinancial) sector of the economy. That was nearly six times the 30 cents the financial sector received on average from 1946 to 1959. —John Miller

Sources: Max Gottlich, “Labor’s Share of economic pie plummets to record low as AI threat looms,” Seeking Alpha News, August 17, 2026 (seekingalpha.com); Rachel Louise Ensign, “The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People,” Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2025 (wsj.com); Lucas Chancel, Ricardo Gómez-Carrera, Rowaida Moshrif, Thomas Piketty, et al., World Inequality Report 2026, World Inequality Lab (wir2026.wid.world); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, DFA: Distributional Financial Accounts, Distribution of Wealth (federalreserve.gov); Gerald Epstein and James Crotty, “How big is too big? On the social efficiency of the financial sector in the United States,” in Capitalism on Trial: Explorations in the Tradition of Thomas E. Weisskopf, edited by Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Robert Pollin (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2013).

Citigroup strategists expected that the “technology revolution, and financial revolution, are likely to continue,” a prediction that was prescient given the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and financial “innovations,” including cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. Today, we are living in a new plutonomy—the AI edition. In this economy, the very technology that threatens the jobs and livelihoods of average workers is at the same time fueling a financial bubble that the wealthy rely on for their consumption and accumulation of wealth.
These are not separate phenomena, but two sides of the same coin. While the working class faces stagnating wages and an uncertain job market, the financial sector generates massive amounts of paper wealth, further fueling the consumption and asset accumulation of the top one-tenth of the 1%.

Today’s plutonomy did not arise naturally. Technology is not destiny, nor are financial bubbles inevitable. The return of America’s Gilded Age economy is the product of decades of political and economic choices. In the neoliberal period that began almost a half-century ago, Western governments abandoned their commitment to full employment, embracing counter-cyclical monetary policy as the solution to the business cycle (lowering interest rates in recessions and raising them in recoveries). Meanwhile, fiscal policy was hamstrung by both political parties in the name of so-called fiscal discipline—given all the tax cuts for the plutocracy, government supposedly could no longer afford to spend money to improve living standards.

Since the era of Paul Volcker, who was Fed chair from 1979 to 1987, monetary policy has been focused like a laser against labor—raising interest rates whenever labor markets improved under the assumption that rising wages would cause inflation. On the other hand, the Fed always looked favorably on rising profits and asset prices because those induce investment and productivity increases. Implicitly, the Fed assumes that rising wages do not generate more worker effort, and that rising wealth stimulates innovation by the plutocrats.

On the financial side, the New Deal’s reforms were gradually weakened and dismantled, allowing for the emergence of large banking conglomerates. These banks, which take deposits from regular people, are now allowed to engage in a whole host of risky financial dealings with unregulated “shadow banking.” The rise of what the mid-20th-century economist Hyman P. Minsky called money manager capitalism created an insatiable demand for tradeable financial instruments that Wall Street was happy to provide. Each time a bubble driven by this “creative finance” burst, the Fed reliably stepped in to prevent the plutocratic class from taking big losses on their assets.

This combination of a macroeconomic policy framework that favors asset markets, technological disruption, and globalization led to the weakening of U.S. labor and consequently to a continuous drop in its share of national income. The result is an economy in which workers increasingly bear the costs of technological change while the gains are privatized at the top.

Galbraith and the Great Crash

To understand how the contemporary AI-driven plutonomy functions, we must look back to the Great Depression era. The bootstrapping of “fictitious wealth” by today’s techno-feudalists and financiers mirrors the financial architecture that precipitated the end of America’s original plutonomy. John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Great Crash, 1929 offers the clearest explanation of what led to the financial collapse that precipitated the Great Depression. Galbraith’s analysis could easily be mistaken for commentary on today’s speculative bubble that is minting millionaires by the tens of thousands, billionaires by the thousands, and even the world’s first trillionaire.

As Galbraith argued, the economy grew in the late 1920s with rising labor productivity but stagnant wages. Growth was driven by investment and rising nonwage income that boosted inequality. The top 5% received about a third of all personal income (largely in the form of interest, dividends, and rent). Growth relied excessively on investment and luxury consumption, so as investment slowed, effective demand was insufficient to maintain growth.

Further, corporate and banking structures created financial fragility. The corporate structure favored grifters, swindlers, and fraudsters, leading to a wave of corporate larceny. Holding companies and investment trusts used holdings as cash cows to service debt, cutting actual investment spending to pay dividends to artificially boost share prices, adding to deflationary pressure.

Galbraith explained that the pre-Depression riches were generated by excess demand for stocks. But despite the common misperception that average citizens were caught up in the fever, Galbraith estimates that total participation at the peak involved fewer than a million buyers, and most stocks were hoovered up by investment trusts. A newly formed trust would issue shares to other trusts, using the proceeds to buy shares in still other trusts. During 1928, an estimated 186 investment trusts were formed. By early 1929, Wall Street was launching one new investment company each day, with the securities of these companies valued at 11 times greater than their 1927 level. Through the bootstrapping of circular finance—a self-reinforcing cycle in which trusts bought one another’s shares and pushed up each other’s valuations—the trusts drove each other’s stocks ever higher.

It all came to an end in the fall of 1929 when trusts tried to unwind positions in other trusts. A general liquidation was the inevitable consequence of this financial daisy chain: selling positions to support their own shares meant that, according to Galbraith, “[t]hey bought their own worthless stock... The autumn of 1929 was, perhaps the first occasion when men succeeded on a large scale in swindling themselves.”
Galbraith blamed the crash on what he terms “embezzlement” that was largely revealed only with the crash:

At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in—or more precisely not in—the country’s businesses and banks. This inventory—it should perhaps be called the bezzle—amounts at any moment to many millions of dollars. It also varies in size with the business cycle. In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases rapidly. In depression this is reversed… Just as the boom accelerated the rate of growth, so the crash enormously advanced the rate of discovery.

As the journalist and businessman Walter Bagehot had earlier put it, “[e]very great crisis reveals the excessive speculations of many houses which no one before suspected.” After the fact, the tsunami of bezzles that drove the boom is revealed. Financial assets crashed by 85%; GDP fell by half; and unemployment reached 25%. That financial crash is what made the Great Depression so great.

Galbraith insisted that the collapse was implicit in the speculative frenzy that preceded it. He rejected common conjectures about the causes—such as excessively easy monetary policy (Milton Friedman’s claim)—as “obviously nonsense.” It was instead a “pervasive sense of confidence and optimism and conviction that ordinary people were meant to be rich.”

Minsky and Money Manager Capitalism

The Great Depression created an opening for reforming finance capitalism—an economic system where the financial sector has an oversized share of economic activity, employment, and profits—that had failed. The New Deal put in place comprehensive safeguards against the financialization of the economy. Furthermore, as Minsky argued, in the post-war period we had the “Big Bank” (central bank) and “Big Government” (fiscal policy) that stabilized the economy, allowing for a generation-long period of growth without crises.

When Minsky Gets Noticed

In August 2007, with the onset of the financial crisis, the Wall Street Journal ran an article on its front page entitled “In Time of Tumult, Obscure Economist Gains Currency.” That obscure economist was Hyman Minsky, whose writings were well known to economists not blind to the excesses of capital markets and their instability.

For Journal readers unlikely to be familiar with Minsky’s writing, the article’s author, Justin Lahart, provided the following description of “the Minsky view”:

"At its core, the Minsky view was straightforward: When times are good, investors take on risk; the longer times stay good, the more risk they take on, until they’ve taken on too much. Eventually, they reach a point where the cash generated by their assets no longer is sufficient to pay off the mountains of debt they took on to acquire them. Losses on such speculative assets prompt lenders to call in their loans. 'This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values,' Mr. Minsky wrote. "'When investors are forced to sell even their less-speculative positions to make good on their loans, markets spiral lower and create a severe demand for cash. At that point, the Minsky moment has arrived.'"

And Minsky may soon get rediscovered. —John Miller

Source: Justin Lahart, “In Time of Tumult, Obscure Economist Gains Currency,” Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2007 (wsj.com).

However, he predicted in the late 1950s that relative stability with government backstops would encourage financial adventurism, such as the increased use of repurchase agreements, negotiable certificates of deposit, the rise of commercial paper and Eurodollar markets, and eventually securitization. This was rational behavior because backstops reduced the perception of risk. The evolution of financial practice appeared safe because in a stable economy most bets paid off. It was profitable to create new financial products to escape the New Deal’s constraints. When pushed too far, market players treated the government backstops as free insurance against loss. (See Gerald Epstein, “From Boring Banking to Roaring Banking,” D&S, July/August 2015.)

The role of finance in the economy gradually increased as regulations were scrapped or “reinterpreted”—so much so that Minsky argued we had entered a new phase he called “money manager capitalism.” The New Deal temporarily replaced finance capitalism with managerial or welfare-state capitalism. In this new era, the financial sector was significantly downsized through regulations, widespread default-driven “clearing of the slate” during the Great Depression, and reduced household and corporate reliance on debt due to wartime savings, growing wages, and robust profits. However, relative stability, financial engineering, and deregulation allowed finance to assume greater importance. Eventually, finance became the “tail” that wags the “dog” of our economy. By the time of the Global Financial Crisis (2008–2009), the financial sector took 40% of corporate profits while accounting for 20% of value added—both figures indicating that it was far too big.

The financial practices that led to the Global Financial Crisis looked remarkably like those that Galbraith identified in the Great Crash of 1929. Investment banks found ways around regulatory constraints while government actively gutted the last remnants of New Deal regulations, including the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 (which separated dangerous investment banking from commercial banking). Instead of the 1920s investment trusts, modern finance created bank holding companies with off-balance-sheet special-purpose vehicles that supposedly created firewalls between FDIC-insured commercial banks and risky speculative activities. When the crisis hit, these firewalls turned out to be more like paper walls, leading the Fed to backstop every part of the financial system.

The New Plutonomy and the AI Bezzle

While the Great Depression wiped out a large swath of plutocrats, the Fed’s actions rescued the plutocracy—setting the stage for today’s AI-driven edition. Just as the 1920s bubble engineered the investment trusts’ bezzle—what Galbraith called “inventory of undiscovered embezzlement … in the country’s businesses and banks”—we are currently dealing with the AI bezzle. The promise of future productivity gains is being transformed into financial wealth for the few, subsidizing the lavish lifestyles of the rich while the technology threatens to permanently disenfranchise workers. At the same time, AI’s enormous energy demands are contributing to both the affordability crisis and climate catastrophe.
By some measures, inequality in the United States is the highest it has ever been. The top 10th of the 1% hold about 14.5% of the nation’s wealth. With wages stagnant, economic growth relies largely on spending by those who receive profits, interest, and rents, and those who avoid income tax by borrowing against capital gains. That is how the plutonomy benefits from rising asset prices, and our economy has never relied more on the plutonomy to keep it pumping along than it does today.

The problem is that this is an inherently fragile base. Traders have long been using algorithms, which account for 60% of trading today. A growing share of trading is now controlled by AI agents that quickly process data. Because these AI agents have access to the same data, they tend to make the exact same moves, amplifying market volatility.
As in previous bubbles, the AI boom is supported by “innovative” finance. The private credit industry has become an important lender to software and AI companies, funding a significant portion of data center buildouts. Private credit funds have filled the gap left by traditional banks, which became subject to stricter capital regulations after the Global Financial Crisis. Unlike banks, private credit offers risky innovations like payment-in-kind options that allow the borrower to add interest to the principal. This is exactly what Minsky called “Ponzi finance”—an inherently unsustainable arrangement in which borrowers take on ever-growing debt because unpaid interest is added to the principal, causing the balance to grow at a compound rate.

These funds serve a purpose similar to the 1920s investment trusts by distributing risks throughout the financial system. But even though banks seem to have lost business to private credit funds, they remain indirectly involved by granting these funds lines of credit, essentially backstopping their lending. This mirrors how banks were intertwined with the shadow banking system leading up to the Global Financial Crisis, as explained above. While that crisis began in the shadow banking system, it quickly spread throughout the regulated banking system, forcing the Federal Reserve to bail out the entire apparatus. Similarly, while the private credit industry lacks direct access to the Fed, its lines of credit from traditional banks provide de facto access to the Fed’s discount window.

The processes that brought on the Great Crash parallel the circular valuation we are witnessing in the tech sector today, where Big Tech companies invest in AI start-ups using cloud computing credits rather than cash. These start-ups then turn around and use those credits to buy services from these Big Tech firms. The magic of circular finance artificially inflates the value of both companies: start-ups boast big investments while tech firms book artificial revenue.

TROUBLE AHEAD: DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN?

This time around, much of the investment in AI infrastructure looks like the 1920s investment in trusts: investment made for a purpose to be revealed later, or perhaps not at all. There is an assumption that AI will prove useful for something other than parlor tricks and hacking, but there is significant disagreement over what and when.

Meanwhile, the financing of the bubble appears to be thoroughly speculative. Circular finance links the balance sheets of various players in the same way that the investment trusts of the 1920s were linked. These linkages ensure that “liquidation” is unavoidable; debtors will have to sell their assets to service their debts, creating an asset-price deflation process where everyone is a seller and nobody wants to buy. That makes history repeat itself.

An article published by Bloomberg recently worried that a “bruising selloff, or ‘chip-wreck,’ in several technology giants was the latest trigger for concern that the AI frenzy... might be overblown.” As AI providers scale back planned investment, the value of chip producers falls. Just as the value of the investment trusts of the late 1920s consisted of shares of other trusts, a significant amount of the worth of AI-related firms resides in the shares of other firms. But the deflation of the AI bubble might look more like the crash of the 17th century’s tulip bulb mania—which took about a week—than the Great Crash’s many months.

The main physical investment during this AI boom is in data centers. The business model of data centers corresponds directly to Minsky’s “Ponzi” classification: it generates no revenue while being built, but expenses add up. Borrowers must continuously borrow to service the principal and interest. That is why payment-in-kind was invented—to allow borrowers to add interest to the principal rather than paying it out of their income. Unlike the dot-com investments in fiber optic cables that could lay underground for decades and still remain usable, the chips in data centers become obsolete very quickly. They may be obsolete before they even come online, meaning guaranteed default on debts.

In some respects, AI represents the ultimate plutonomy experiment: an attempt to achieve mass production without needing mass human labor or mass consumer demand, relying instead on asset appreciation among the wealthiest households. This is highly unlikely to work. While rich folks do have an insatiable demand for luxury goods, they are relatively small in number and what makes luxury goods appealing to plutocrats is that they are relatively rare. Yet, AI is supposed to create an abundance of everything—which necessarily eliminates the snob appeal. And the masses released from exploitation won’t have the income necessary to purchase the abundance AI is meant to create.

Silicon Valley has proclaimed that a basic income guarantee (providing regular, unconditional cash payments to people regardless of income) is the answer to giving displaced humans the income to buy up the abundance created by AI. We have many objections to this, but Pope Leo XIV has raised the strongest argument. As his recent encyclical put it:
…work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response, since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her own work.

A basic income guarantee cannot be an adequate replacement for participating in productive life. Humans are not going to tolerate relegation to mere consumerism funded by welfare. Consuming without contributing to production has always been the role of the idle and miserable rich. That will not be our future.

Sources: Walter Bagehot, The Works and Life of Walter Bagehot, edited by Mrs. Russell Barrington, vol. 6. (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1915); J. K. Galbraith, The Great Crash (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955); Ajay Kapur, Niall MacLeod, and Narendra Singh, “Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances,” Citigroup, Industry Note, October 16, 2005; Pope Leo XIV, “The dignity of work at a time of digital transition,” Magnifica Humanitas, 149, The Vatican, 2026; Yeva Nersisyan, “The repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Federal Reserve’s extraordinary intervention during the global financial crisis,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2015; Yeva Nersisyan and L. Randall Wray, “The global financial crisis and the shift to shadow banking,” European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies, 2010; David Rovella, “Wall Street ‘Chip-Wreck’ Triggers AI Bubble Fear,” Bloomberg, June 23, 2026 (bloomberg.com); L. Randall Wray, “$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bailout of the Financial System,” Levy Economics Institute, One-Pager No. 23, 2011 (levyinstitute.org); L. Randall Wray, “Artificial Intelligence: Friend, Foe, Fraud,” Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 1107, 2026 (levyinstitute.org).

Published in: September/October 2026

Author

Yeva Nersisyan and L. Randall Wray

Yeva Nersisyan is an associate professor of economics at Franklin and Marshall College. L. Randall Wray is a professor of economics at Bard College and senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute

the DON JONES INDEX…