SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Raising the minimum wage is vital to safeguard workers who have historically been marginalized and left behind.
The minimum wage is a New Deal era policy established initially through the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, of 1938. The original bill set a wage floor, instituted a 44-hour work week, and protected children from prematurely entering the workforce. Since its inception, the FLSA has been amended multiple times, with added exemptions and expansions specifying which groups of workers are covered under different aspects of the law. The latest proposed changes in Congress—the Raise the Wage Act of 2023—would increase the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour.
In light of this new legislation, we take a look back at the 85-year history of the minimum wage, how it differs in states and localities, and how minimum wage laws continue to have implications for racial, gender, and economic justice today.
The concept behind the FLSA began in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression, a time when about 25% of workers were unemployed, people lost their life savings due to bank failures, and many struggled to secure housing and food. In 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded with the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and establishing the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Through these policies, the Roosevelt administration sought to revive the economy and help the nation recover by instituting industrywide “fair competition” codes intended to set wages and prices, create jobs, and permit collective bargaining. From the NRA, over two million businesses sought to earn pro-worker “Blue Eagle” branding by signing agreements for policies such as a weekly $12–$15 minimum wage, a commitment not to hire workers younger than 16 years old, and a work week no longer than 40 hours.
However, the Supreme Court invalidated the NIRA by ruling that the executive branch did not have the power to institute the codes. The court’s opposition warranted another vehicle for worker protections; therefore, the Roosevelt administration sought to craft legislation that would protect workers, garner enough support to pass Congress, and explicitly align with the Constitution to avoid legal challenges.
Efforts to pass this legislation increased as public outcry over the Supreme Court decision grew. When Roosevelt was campaigning for reelection in Massachusetts, a young girl working at a factory attempted to hand him a note, but a policeman blocked her. Roosevelt instructed his aid to get the note which pleaded for help stating, “We have been working in a sewing factory… and up to a few months ago we were getting our minimum pay of $11 a week… Today the 200 of us girls have been cut down to $4 and $5 and $6 a week.” Responding to the girl’s plea, Roosevelt was resolute to create a minimum wage law.
“Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day… tell you… that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.”
The process for the final bill was extensive—beginning with Roosevelt’s efforts to secure workers’ rights advocate Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor, who shared his goals for labor standards. Perkins became the first woman to hold a cabinet position and proposed a law to establish a minimum wage, set a cap on hours worked per week, and set restrictions on child labor. One of the bills became the FLSA and after three sessions of Congress, the legislation finally passed. Roosevelt signed the FLSA into law on June 25, 1938, and it became effective on October 24, 1938.
Supporters and opponents of the minimum wage
Supporters of the bill emphasized the necessity to create better conditions for the one-third of Americans who were financially struggling, noting the law would improve labor standards for the labor force. Proponents said the bill would end “unnecessarily long hours which wear out part of the working population while they keep the rest from having work to do.” They noted that a minimum wage would support the entire wage infrastructure by creating a floor that workers could leverage to achieve higher wages through collective bargaining.
Some labor organizers of the time worried that employers would not pay above the minimum wage set by the law, so they advocated for the bill to only cover low-paid workers that were not part of unions. Consequently, the initial bill excluded work protected by collective bargaining. By the 1950s, unions began to support and advocate for expanding the minimum wage to also cover union workers.
Opponents of the bill insisted that higher wages would cause labor cuts, but the administration fought back harder. In a fireside chat discussing the bill, President Roosevelt said, “Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day… tell you… that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” Incorrect statements from businesses opposing the minimum wage continue to the present day with assertions that minimum wage increases would cause businesses to close or reduce jobs. Studies demonstrate how these predictions did not come true.
The Fair Labor Standards Act has been amended several times since the original 1938 bill. The most recent change became effective July 24, 2009, increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25. Despite numerous efforts, there have been no federal minimum wage increases since then.
Table 1 highlights federal minimum wage increases over time in nominal dollars compared with what that wage would be in inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars. Congress raised the minimum wage fairly consistently for decades, but that began to change in the 1980s, with increases becoming fewer and farther between.
Without any mechanisms in place to automatically adjust it for rising prices, the real value of the federal minimum wage has gradually declined, reaching a 66-year low in 2023, where it is now worth 42% less than its highest point in 1968. Moreover, the federal minimum wage is worth 30% less today than when it was last raised 14 years ago. This significant loss in purchasing power means that the federal minimum wage today is nowhere close to a living wage.
Exemptions
The FLSA provided several exemptions for specific categories of workers, including executives, administrators, professionals, and certain outside sales employees. However, another major group of workers exempted under the FLSA was agricultural, domestic, and other service-sector employees.
The implications of these exemptions were significant for workers earning low wages, particularly those in marginalized communities. Excluded workers were left vulnerable to exploitation and unable to access basic labor rights under the law, such as a fair minimum wage and overtime pay. The exemptions deepened economic disparities and perpetuated a two-tiered system where some workers were entitled to protections and benefits, while others were left unprotected, exacerbating a cycle of poverty and wage inequality. It was not until later amendments to the FLSA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that many of these exclusions were addressed. However, many of these workers—including in the agricultural sector—continue to face exploitative working conditions, long hours, and meager pay.
When the FLSA was first introduced, many of the industries that were exempted from a minimum wage were also industries that Black workers were heavily represented in. Some have argued that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had excluded industries that were predominately held by Black workers to gain favor from Southern lawmakers. These exemptions kept Black workers vulnerable to wage theft, excessively long hours without overtime, and an overall lack of workplace protections.
As amendments were made to the FLSA over the subsequent decades, more of the labor force was covered. The 1966 amendments expanded coverage and introduced a $1 wage floor to several new sectors, including agriculture, schools, nursing homes, and restaurants—sectors where Black workers were disproportionately employed. As a result, the expansion of the minimum wage had an especially positive impact on Black workers, nearly double that of white workers.
However, the 1966 amendments also allowed employers to credit a portion of employees tips toward workers’ minimum wages, permitting employers to reduce wage obligations to tipped staff. That means that tipped workers, predominately working in restaurants and other service sectors, saw both an expansion of coverage and a reduction of payfrom employers simultaneously. Sadly, many of these workers were also women and workers of color.
Without eliminating the lower subminimum wage for tipped workers, workers of color will struggle to sustain economic security.
Additionally, the failure to adjust the minimum wage adequately to keep pace with inflation and economic growth has undermined its effectiveness in addressing racial income inequality. Today, Black workers are paid 10%-15% less than white workers with the same characteristics. Similarly, maintaining a lower minimum wage for tipped workers continues to preserve racial inequities. Without eliminating the lower subminimum wage for tipped workers, workers of color will struggle to sustain economic security.
States have the authority to set minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage to account for higher regional wage levels or costs of living. This has led to significant variation in minimum wages across the country, as shown in EPI’s interactive minimum wage tracker.
Thirty states and Washington, D.C. currently set their minimum wages higher than the federal level. And this year alone, 27 states and 42 cities and counties will increase their minimum wages. Across the nation, 19 states and DC have minimum wages that increase with inflation, meaning that their minimums will likely increase each year. This year’s increases ranged from $0.23 to $1.50 an hour.
Meanwhile, 20 other states set their minimums at or below the federal level. Employers in states with lower minimums than the federal level can only pay their workers less if they are not covered by the FLSA. To be subject to the FLSA, companies must gross at least $500,000 in annual sales and engage in interstate commerce. Of these 20 states, seven states have either no minimum-wage law or a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage. Six of these states are in the South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Accounting for only 12% of U.S. states, these six Southern states represent 23% of the Black workforce.
The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage is the Raise the Wage Act of 2023, which would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour by 2028. Additionally, the bill seeks to progressively raise and eventually eliminate subminimum wages for tipped workers, workers with disabilities, and youth workers, thereby ensuring that all employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act receive equal wages. EPI’s analysis of the Raise the Wage Act of 2023 estimates over 27.8 million workers would be impacted, with the average affected worker who works year-round receiving an extra $3,100 per year.
Raising the minimum wage is vital to safeguard workers who have historically been marginalized and left behind. For Black workers specifically, a higher minimum wage would be a critical step in raising living standards and promoting economic justice. For generations, Black workers have been disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, making them particularly vulnerable to economic hardships. A higher federal minimum wage would provide much-needed relief to many Black workers, with nearly 30% of Black workers benefiting if the federal minimum wage is raised to $17 by 2028. In short, the Raise the Wage Act of 2023 would provide a long overdue boost in wages and administer a stronger, more equitable wage floor for states to follow.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The minimum wage is a New Deal era policy established initially through the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, of 1938. The original bill set a wage floor, instituted a 44-hour work week, and protected children from prematurely entering the workforce. Since its inception, the FLSA has been amended multiple times, with added exemptions and expansions specifying which groups of workers are covered under different aspects of the law. The latest proposed changes in Congress—the Raise the Wage Act of 2023—would increase the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour.
In light of this new legislation, we take a look back at the 85-year history of the minimum wage, how it differs in states and localities, and how minimum wage laws continue to have implications for racial, gender, and economic justice today.
The concept behind the FLSA began in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression, a time when about 25% of workers were unemployed, people lost their life savings due to bank failures, and many struggled to secure housing and food. In 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded with the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and establishing the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Through these policies, the Roosevelt administration sought to revive the economy and help the nation recover by instituting industrywide “fair competition” codes intended to set wages and prices, create jobs, and permit collective bargaining. From the NRA, over two million businesses sought to earn pro-worker “Blue Eagle” branding by signing agreements for policies such as a weekly $12–$15 minimum wage, a commitment not to hire workers younger than 16 years old, and a work week no longer than 40 hours.
However, the Supreme Court invalidated the NIRA by ruling that the executive branch did not have the power to institute the codes. The court’s opposition warranted another vehicle for worker protections; therefore, the Roosevelt administration sought to craft legislation that would protect workers, garner enough support to pass Congress, and explicitly align with the Constitution to avoid legal challenges.
Efforts to pass this legislation increased as public outcry over the Supreme Court decision grew. When Roosevelt was campaigning for reelection in Massachusetts, a young girl working at a factory attempted to hand him a note, but a policeman blocked her. Roosevelt instructed his aid to get the note which pleaded for help stating, “We have been working in a sewing factory… and up to a few months ago we were getting our minimum pay of $11 a week… Today the 200 of us girls have been cut down to $4 and $5 and $6 a week.” Responding to the girl’s plea, Roosevelt was resolute to create a minimum wage law.
“Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day… tell you… that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.”
The process for the final bill was extensive—beginning with Roosevelt’s efforts to secure workers’ rights advocate Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor, who shared his goals for labor standards. Perkins became the first woman to hold a cabinet position and proposed a law to establish a minimum wage, set a cap on hours worked per week, and set restrictions on child labor. One of the bills became the FLSA and after three sessions of Congress, the legislation finally passed. Roosevelt signed the FLSA into law on June 25, 1938, and it became effective on October 24, 1938.
Supporters and opponents of the minimum wage
Supporters of the bill emphasized the necessity to create better conditions for the one-third of Americans who were financially struggling, noting the law would improve labor standards for the labor force. Proponents said the bill would end “unnecessarily long hours which wear out part of the working population while they keep the rest from having work to do.” They noted that a minimum wage would support the entire wage infrastructure by creating a floor that workers could leverage to achieve higher wages through collective bargaining.
Some labor organizers of the time worried that employers would not pay above the minimum wage set by the law, so they advocated for the bill to only cover low-paid workers that were not part of unions. Consequently, the initial bill excluded work protected by collective bargaining. By the 1950s, unions began to support and advocate for expanding the minimum wage to also cover union workers.
Opponents of the bill insisted that higher wages would cause labor cuts, but the administration fought back harder. In a fireside chat discussing the bill, President Roosevelt said, “Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day… tell you… that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” Incorrect statements from businesses opposing the minimum wage continue to the present day with assertions that minimum wage increases would cause businesses to close or reduce jobs. Studies demonstrate how these predictions did not come true.
The Fair Labor Standards Act has been amended several times since the original 1938 bill. The most recent change became effective July 24, 2009, increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25. Despite numerous efforts, there have been no federal minimum wage increases since then.
Table 1 highlights federal minimum wage increases over time in nominal dollars compared with what that wage would be in inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars. Congress raised the minimum wage fairly consistently for decades, but that began to change in the 1980s, with increases becoming fewer and farther between.
Without any mechanisms in place to automatically adjust it for rising prices, the real value of the federal minimum wage has gradually declined, reaching a 66-year low in 2023, where it is now worth 42% less than its highest point in 1968. Moreover, the federal minimum wage is worth 30% less today than when it was last raised 14 years ago. This significant loss in purchasing power means that the federal minimum wage today is nowhere close to a living wage.
Exemptions
The FLSA provided several exemptions for specific categories of workers, including executives, administrators, professionals, and certain outside sales employees. However, another major group of workers exempted under the FLSA was agricultural, domestic, and other service-sector employees.
The implications of these exemptions were significant for workers earning low wages, particularly those in marginalized communities. Excluded workers were left vulnerable to exploitation and unable to access basic labor rights under the law, such as a fair minimum wage and overtime pay. The exemptions deepened economic disparities and perpetuated a two-tiered system where some workers were entitled to protections and benefits, while others were left unprotected, exacerbating a cycle of poverty and wage inequality. It was not until later amendments to the FLSA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that many of these exclusions were addressed. However, many of these workers—including in the agricultural sector—continue to face exploitative working conditions, long hours, and meager pay.
When the FLSA was first introduced, many of the industries that were exempted from a minimum wage were also industries that Black workers were heavily represented in. Some have argued that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had excluded industries that were predominately held by Black workers to gain favor from Southern lawmakers. These exemptions kept Black workers vulnerable to wage theft, excessively long hours without overtime, and an overall lack of workplace protections.
As amendments were made to the FLSA over the subsequent decades, more of the labor force was covered. The 1966 amendments expanded coverage and introduced a $1 wage floor to several new sectors, including agriculture, schools, nursing homes, and restaurants—sectors where Black workers were disproportionately employed. As a result, the expansion of the minimum wage had an especially positive impact on Black workers, nearly double that of white workers.
However, the 1966 amendments also allowed employers to credit a portion of employees tips toward workers’ minimum wages, permitting employers to reduce wage obligations to tipped staff. That means that tipped workers, predominately working in restaurants and other service sectors, saw both an expansion of coverage and a reduction of payfrom employers simultaneously. Sadly, many of these workers were also women and workers of color.
Without eliminating the lower subminimum wage for tipped workers, workers of color will struggle to sustain economic security.
Additionally, the failure to adjust the minimum wage adequately to keep pace with inflation and economic growth has undermined its effectiveness in addressing racial income inequality. Today, Black workers are paid 10%-15% less than white workers with the same characteristics. Similarly, maintaining a lower minimum wage for tipped workers continues to preserve racial inequities. Without eliminating the lower subminimum wage for tipped workers, workers of color will struggle to sustain economic security.
States have the authority to set minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage to account for higher regional wage levels or costs of living. This has led to significant variation in minimum wages across the country, as shown in EPI’s interactive minimum wage tracker.
Thirty states and Washington, D.C. currently set their minimum wages higher than the federal level. And this year alone, 27 states and 42 cities and counties will increase their minimum wages. Across the nation, 19 states and DC have minimum wages that increase with inflation, meaning that their minimums will likely increase each year. This year’s increases ranged from $0.23 to $1.50 an hour.
Meanwhile, 20 other states set their minimums at or below the federal level. Employers in states with lower minimums than the federal level can only pay their workers less if they are not covered by the FLSA. To be subject to the FLSA, companies must gross at least $500,000 in annual sales and engage in interstate commerce. Of these 20 states, seven states have either no minimum-wage law or a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage. Six of these states are in the South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Accounting for only 12% of U.S. states, these six Southern states represent 23% of the Black workforce.
The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage is the Raise the Wage Act of 2023, which would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour by 2028. Additionally, the bill seeks to progressively raise and eventually eliminate subminimum wages for tipped workers, workers with disabilities, and youth workers, thereby ensuring that all employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act receive equal wages. EPI’s analysis of the Raise the Wage Act of 2023 estimates over 27.8 million workers would be impacted, with the average affected worker who works year-round receiving an extra $3,100 per year.
Raising the minimum wage is vital to safeguard workers who have historically been marginalized and left behind. For Black workers specifically, a higher minimum wage would be a critical step in raising living standards and promoting economic justice. For generations, Black workers have been disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, making them particularly vulnerable to economic hardships. A higher federal minimum wage would provide much-needed relief to many Black workers, with nearly 30% of Black workers benefiting if the federal minimum wage is raised to $17 by 2028. In short, the Raise the Wage Act of 2023 would provide a long overdue boost in wages and administer a stronger, more equitable wage floor for states to follow.
The minimum wage is a New Deal era policy established initially through the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, of 1938. The original bill set a wage floor, instituted a 44-hour work week, and protected children from prematurely entering the workforce. Since its inception, the FLSA has been amended multiple times, with added exemptions and expansions specifying which groups of workers are covered under different aspects of the law. The latest proposed changes in Congress—the Raise the Wage Act of 2023—would increase the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour.
In light of this new legislation, we take a look back at the 85-year history of the minimum wage, how it differs in states and localities, and how minimum wage laws continue to have implications for racial, gender, and economic justice today.
The concept behind the FLSA began in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression, a time when about 25% of workers were unemployed, people lost their life savings due to bank failures, and many struggled to secure housing and food. In 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded with the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and establishing the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Through these policies, the Roosevelt administration sought to revive the economy and help the nation recover by instituting industrywide “fair competition” codes intended to set wages and prices, create jobs, and permit collective bargaining. From the NRA, over two million businesses sought to earn pro-worker “Blue Eagle” branding by signing agreements for policies such as a weekly $12–$15 minimum wage, a commitment not to hire workers younger than 16 years old, and a work week no longer than 40 hours.
However, the Supreme Court invalidated the NIRA by ruling that the executive branch did not have the power to institute the codes. The court’s opposition warranted another vehicle for worker protections; therefore, the Roosevelt administration sought to craft legislation that would protect workers, garner enough support to pass Congress, and explicitly align with the Constitution to avoid legal challenges.
Efforts to pass this legislation increased as public outcry over the Supreme Court decision grew. When Roosevelt was campaigning for reelection in Massachusetts, a young girl working at a factory attempted to hand him a note, but a policeman blocked her. Roosevelt instructed his aid to get the note which pleaded for help stating, “We have been working in a sewing factory… and up to a few months ago we were getting our minimum pay of $11 a week… Today the 200 of us girls have been cut down to $4 and $5 and $6 a week.” Responding to the girl’s plea, Roosevelt was resolute to create a minimum wage law.
“Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day… tell you… that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.”
The process for the final bill was extensive—beginning with Roosevelt’s efforts to secure workers’ rights advocate Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor, who shared his goals for labor standards. Perkins became the first woman to hold a cabinet position and proposed a law to establish a minimum wage, set a cap on hours worked per week, and set restrictions on child labor. One of the bills became the FLSA and after three sessions of Congress, the legislation finally passed. Roosevelt signed the FLSA into law on June 25, 1938, and it became effective on October 24, 1938.
Supporters and opponents of the minimum wage
Supporters of the bill emphasized the necessity to create better conditions for the one-third of Americans who were financially struggling, noting the law would improve labor standards for the labor force. Proponents said the bill would end “unnecessarily long hours which wear out part of the working population while they keep the rest from having work to do.” They noted that a minimum wage would support the entire wage infrastructure by creating a floor that workers could leverage to achieve higher wages through collective bargaining.
Some labor organizers of the time worried that employers would not pay above the minimum wage set by the law, so they advocated for the bill to only cover low-paid workers that were not part of unions. Consequently, the initial bill excluded work protected by collective bargaining. By the 1950s, unions began to support and advocate for expanding the minimum wage to also cover union workers.
Opponents of the bill insisted that higher wages would cause labor cuts, but the administration fought back harder. In a fireside chat discussing the bill, President Roosevelt said, “Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day… tell you… that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” Incorrect statements from businesses opposing the minimum wage continue to the present day with assertions that minimum wage increases would cause businesses to close or reduce jobs. Studies demonstrate how these predictions did not come true.
The Fair Labor Standards Act has been amended several times since the original 1938 bill. The most recent change became effective July 24, 2009, increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25. Despite numerous efforts, there have been no federal minimum wage increases since then.
Table 1 highlights federal minimum wage increases over time in nominal dollars compared with what that wage would be in inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars. Congress raised the minimum wage fairly consistently for decades, but that began to change in the 1980s, with increases becoming fewer and farther between.
Without any mechanisms in place to automatically adjust it for rising prices, the real value of the federal minimum wage has gradually declined, reaching a 66-year low in 2023, where it is now worth 42% less than its highest point in 1968. Moreover, the federal minimum wage is worth 30% less today than when it was last raised 14 years ago. This significant loss in purchasing power means that the federal minimum wage today is nowhere close to a living wage.
Exemptions
The FLSA provided several exemptions for specific categories of workers, including executives, administrators, professionals, and certain outside sales employees. However, another major group of workers exempted under the FLSA was agricultural, domestic, and other service-sector employees.
The implications of these exemptions were significant for workers earning low wages, particularly those in marginalized communities. Excluded workers were left vulnerable to exploitation and unable to access basic labor rights under the law, such as a fair minimum wage and overtime pay. The exemptions deepened economic disparities and perpetuated a two-tiered system where some workers were entitled to protections and benefits, while others were left unprotected, exacerbating a cycle of poverty and wage inequality. It was not until later amendments to the FLSA and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that many of these exclusions were addressed. However, many of these workers—including in the agricultural sector—continue to face exploitative working conditions, long hours, and meager pay.
When the FLSA was first introduced, many of the industries that were exempted from a minimum wage were also industries that Black workers were heavily represented in. Some have argued that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had excluded industries that were predominately held by Black workers to gain favor from Southern lawmakers. These exemptions kept Black workers vulnerable to wage theft, excessively long hours without overtime, and an overall lack of workplace protections.
As amendments were made to the FLSA over the subsequent decades, more of the labor force was covered. The 1966 amendments expanded coverage and introduced a $1 wage floor to several new sectors, including agriculture, schools, nursing homes, and restaurants—sectors where Black workers were disproportionately employed. As a result, the expansion of the minimum wage had an especially positive impact on Black workers, nearly double that of white workers.
However, the 1966 amendments also allowed employers to credit a portion of employees tips toward workers’ minimum wages, permitting employers to reduce wage obligations to tipped staff. That means that tipped workers, predominately working in restaurants and other service sectors, saw both an expansion of coverage and a reduction of payfrom employers simultaneously. Sadly, many of these workers were also women and workers of color.
Without eliminating the lower subminimum wage for tipped workers, workers of color will struggle to sustain economic security.
Additionally, the failure to adjust the minimum wage adequately to keep pace with inflation and economic growth has undermined its effectiveness in addressing racial income inequality. Today, Black workers are paid 10%-15% less than white workers with the same characteristics. Similarly, maintaining a lower minimum wage for tipped workers continues to preserve racial inequities. Without eliminating the lower subminimum wage for tipped workers, workers of color will struggle to sustain economic security.
States have the authority to set minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage to account for higher regional wage levels or costs of living. This has led to significant variation in minimum wages across the country, as shown in EPI’s interactive minimum wage tracker.
Thirty states and Washington, D.C. currently set their minimum wages higher than the federal level. And this year alone, 27 states and 42 cities and counties will increase their minimum wages. Across the nation, 19 states and DC have minimum wages that increase with inflation, meaning that their minimums will likely increase each year. This year’s increases ranged from $0.23 to $1.50 an hour.
Meanwhile, 20 other states set their minimums at or below the federal level. Employers in states with lower minimums than the federal level can only pay their workers less if they are not covered by the FLSA. To be subject to the FLSA, companies must gross at least $500,000 in annual sales and engage in interstate commerce. Of these 20 states, seven states have either no minimum-wage law or a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage. Six of these states are in the South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Accounting for only 12% of U.S. states, these six Southern states represent 23% of the Black workforce.
The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage is the Raise the Wage Act of 2023, which would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour by 2028. Additionally, the bill seeks to progressively raise and eventually eliminate subminimum wages for tipped workers, workers with disabilities, and youth workers, thereby ensuring that all employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act receive equal wages. EPI’s analysis of the Raise the Wage Act of 2023 estimates over 27.8 million workers would be impacted, with the average affected worker who works year-round receiving an extra $3,100 per year.
Raising the minimum wage is vital to safeguard workers who have historically been marginalized and left behind. For Black workers specifically, a higher minimum wage would be a critical step in raising living standards and promoting economic justice. For generations, Black workers have been disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, making them particularly vulnerable to economic hardships. A higher federal minimum wage would provide much-needed relief to many Black workers, with nearly 30% of Black workers benefiting if the federal minimum wage is raised to $17 by 2028. In short, the Raise the Wage Act of 2023 would provide a long overdue boost in wages and administer a stronger, more equitable wage floor for states to follow.
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."