Employers Steal Billions From Workers' Paychecks Each Year

Employers steal billions from
workers’ paychecks each year

Survey data show millions of workers are paid less
than the minimum wage, at significant cost to
taxpayers and state economies
Report • By David Cooper and Teresa Kroeger • May 10, 2017
• Washington, DC View this report at epi.org/125116

What this report finds: This report assesses the
prevalence and magnitude of one form of wage
theft—minimum wage violations (workers being paid at an
effective hourly rate below the binding minimum wage)—in
the 10 most populous U.S. states. We find that, in these
states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually (an
average of $3,300 per year for year-round workers) to
minimum wage violations—nearly a quarter of their earned
wages. This form of wage theft affects 17 percent of low-
wage workers, with workers in all demographic categories
being cheated out of pay.
Why it matters: Minimum wage violations, by definition,

affect the lowest-wage workers—those who can least
afford to lose earnings. This form of wage theft causes
many families to fall below the poverty line, and it
increases workers’ reliance on public assistance, costing
taxpayers money. Lost wages can hurt state and local
economies, and it hurts other workers in affected industries
by putting downward pressure on wages.
What can be done about it: Strengthen states’ legal

protections against wage theft, increase penalties for
violators, bolster enforcement capacities, and protect
workers from retaliation when violations are reported.
Introduction and key

findings
For the past four decades, the majority of American
workers have been shortchanged by economic
policymaking that has suppressed the growth of hourly
wages and prevented greater improvements in living
standards. Achieving a secure, middle-class lifestyle has
become increasingly difficult as hourly pay for most
workers has either stagnated or declined. For millions of
the country’s lowest-paid workers, financial security is even
more fleeting because of unscrupulous employers stealing
a portion of their paychecks.
Wage theft, the practice of employers failing to pay

workers the full wages to which they are legally entitled, is
a widespread and deep-rooted problem that directly harms
1
millions of U.S. workers each year. Employers refusing to pay promised wages, paying less
than legally mandated minimums, failing to pay for all hours worked, or not paying
overtime premiums deprives working people of billions of dollars annually. It also leaves
hundreds of thousands of affected workers and their families in poverty. Wage theft does
not just harm the workers and families who directly suffer exploitation; it also weakens the
bargaining power of workers more broadly by putting downward pressure on hourly
wages in affected industries and occupations. For many low-income families who suffer
wage theft, the resulting loss of income forces them to rely more heavily on public
assistance programs, unduly straining safety net programs and hamstringing efforts to
reduce poverty.
Researchers have long known that measuring wage theft is challenging—it takes many
forms, violations are not always recognized or reported, and suitable public data sources
are limited. Yet in recent years, several studies have attempted to better quantify the harm
caused by wage theft. This study adds to those efforts by using data from the Current
Population Survey to assess the prevalence and magnitude of wage theft in the form of
minimum wage violations—i.e., workers being paid at an effective hourly rate below the
binding minimum wage. We look specifically at instances of such wage theft in the 10 most
populous U.S. states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. We limit our focus to these 10 states so that we
can carefully account for each state’s individual minimum wage policies and state-specific
exemptions to wage and hour laws. Data for the 10 most populous states also provide
adequate sample sizes to describe the severity of minimum wage violations and the
affected populations within each state. Our findings provide a better assessment of
minimum wage violations than previous studies that have only considered violations of the
federal minimum wage. And, because the total workforce in these 10 states accounts for
more than half of the entire U.S. workforce, our estimates shed new light on the scope of
wage theft nationwide.
Key findings
We find that:
In the 10 most populous states in the country, each year 2.4 million workers covered
by state or federal minimum wage laws report being paid less than the applicable
minimum wage in their state—approximately 17 percent of the eligible low-wage
workforce.
The total underpayment of wages to these workers amounts to over $8 billion
annually. If the findings for these states are representative for the rest of the country,
they suggest that the total wages stolen from workers due to minimum wage
violations exceeds $15 billion each year.
Workers suffering minimum wage violations are underpaid an average of $64 per
week, nearly one-quarter of their weekly earnings. This means that a victim who
works year-round is losing, on average, $3,300 per year and receiving only $10,500
in annual wages.
2
Young workers, women, people of color, and immigrant workers are more likely than
other workers to report being paid less than the minimum wage, but this is primarily
because they are also more likely than other workers to be in low-wage jobs. In
general, low-wage workers experience minimum wage violations at high rates across
demographic categories. In fact, the majority of workers with reported wages below
the minimum wage are over 25 and are native-born U.S. citizens, nearly half are white,
more than a quarter have children, and just over half work full time.
In the 10 most populous states, workers are most likely to be paid less than the
minimum wage in Florida (7.3 percent), Ohio (5.5 percent), and New York (5.0 percent).
However, the severity of underpayment is the worst in Pennsylvania and Texas, where
the average victim of a minimum wage violation is cheated out of over 30 percent of
earned pay.
The poverty rate among workers paid less than the minimum wage in these 10 states
is over 21 percent—three times the poverty rate for minimum-wage-eligible workers
overall. Assuming no change in work hours, if these workers were paid the full wages
to which they are entitled, less than 15 percent would be in poverty.
The next section provides background on the minimum wage, the problem of wage theft
in general, and previous research on the topic of wage theft. The subsequent sections
present our findings and analysis of minimum wage violations in the 10 most populous
states. The final section discusses the economic and social consequences of wage theft
and what can be done to fight it.
Background and previous research

The longstanding need to update the Fair Labor
Standards Act
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), enacted in 1938, established the basic protections
that have governed work in the United States since the Great Depression. With regard to
pay, the FLSA “put a floor under wages and a ceiling over hours” through the creation of
the federal minimum wage and provisions for overtime pay—i.e., a limit on the hours per
week employees may work without receiving additional compensation (Roosevelt 1938).
Over the years, the law has been periodically updated to strengthen protections or
expand coverage to new classes of workers—such as the 1966 amendments to the FLSA
that extended coverage to service sector and hospitality workers, and the Department of
Labor’s extension of FLSA protections to home care workers in 2016.
Unfortunately, over the past several decades, updates to the FLSA have been inadequate
or too infrequent to keep pace with changes in the economy and employment. For
example, as explained in Cooper (2015), the failure of federal lawmakers to adequately
raise the federal minimum wage has left millions of workers being paid 25 percent less in
inflation-adjusted terms than their counterparts almost 50 years ago. Similarly, Eisenbrey
3
and Kimball (2016) describe how neglect of federal overtime rules has drastically reduced
the share of the workforce that is eligible for overtime pay.
Additionally, in recent decades, employers have increasingly adopted business practices

that have weakened the scope of protection afforded by the law. Groundbreaking
research by the former Administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour
Division, David Weil, documents the “fissuring” of U.S. workplaces and the growth of
subcontracting (Weil 2014). Fissuring refers to the practice of companies contracting out
various functions that were previously done in-house. In such arrangements, unscrupulous
employers—be it the subcontractor or the contracting parent company—will sometimes
use the multilayered or “fissured” nature of the employer-employee relationship to attempt
to avoid responsibility when workers allege mistreatment. Weil also details how a growing
share of the workforce today are classified as independent contractors—and thereby not
covered by the FLSA—despite the fact that these workers perform tasks traditionally done
via direct employment. In some cases, such arrangements are deliberate and illegal
misclassification by employers seeking to dodge the tax and regulatory requirements of
regular employment. Carré (2015) notes that numerous studies find that 10 to 20 percent
of employers have misclassified a worker as an independent contractor.
What is wage theft?

Wage theft is the failure to pay workers the full wages to which they are legally
entitled. Wage theft can take many forms, including but not limited to:
Minimum wage violations: Paying workers less than the legal minimum
wage
Overtime violations: Failing to pay nonexempt employees time-and-a-half
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
Off-the-clock violations: Asking employees to work off-the-clock before or
after their shifts
Meal break violations: Denying workers their legal meal breaks
Pay stub and illegal deductions: Taking illegal deductions from wages or
not distributing pay stubs
Tipped minimum wage violations: Confiscating tips from workers or failing
to pay tipped workers the difference between their tips and the legal
minimum wage
Employee misclassification violations: Misclassifying employees as
independent contractors to pay a wage lower than the legal minimum
For more information about the different forms of wage theft, see Bernhardt et al.
(2009) or Gordon et al. (2012).
4
Even without employers trying to avoid the law, the FLSA has various built-in worker and
employer exemptions that limit its scope to only a portion of American workers. For
example, the law specifically excludes a variety of specific occupations from the minimum
wage, such as newspaper delivery workers, seasonal farm workers, workers in commercial
fisheries and canneries, private investigators, and telephone switchboard operators.
Similarly, many salaried white-collar workers whose duties are deemed executive,
administrative, or professional, and whose pay is above a set threshold, are excluded from
the overtime provisions of the law. Businesses with annual revenue less than $500,000
that do not engage in “interstate commerce” are exempt from the wage and hour
provisions of the FLSA altogether. In the 10 states analyzed in this study, we estimate that
the federal minimum wage law covers roughly 72 percent of civilian, noninstitutionalized
workers. When state minimum wage laws are also taken into account, about 88 percent of
the workforce is covered by either state or federal minimum wage laws.1
Many states provide stronger protections or expanded coverage beyond the FLSA in state
law. For example, California’s minimum wage—in addition to being significantly higher than
the federal minimum wage2—covers nearly 100 percent of workers in the state. Other
states, such as Michigan, have enacted higher wage standards yet allow a greater number
of exemptions than the FLSA. Other states simply defer to the federal statute either for the
level of the standard, the breadth of coverage, or both. In recent years, cities and counties
have increasingly adopted their own minimum wages and other labor standards in light of
federal or state inaction.3 The FLSA is explicit that when federal, state, or local labor laws
are inconsistent, workers are always entitled to the highest standard. Yet the patchwork of
varying levels of protection and coverage across the country can make it difficult for
workers to know what their rights are and complicate jurisdictions’ efforts to enforce the
law, leading to significantly different economic outcomes for people doing the same job in
different localities.
Enforcement of wage and hour laws

While federal labor protections have been left to erode, the agency charged with
enforcing wage and hour laws has been stretched increasingly thin. In 2015, the Wage and
Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor—the agency responsible for
investigating minimum wage violations—employed roughly the same number of
investigators as it did nearly 70 years ago: WHD employed 1,000 investigators in 1948 and
fewer than 1,000 in 2015 (Galvin 2016a; U.S. DOL 2017a). Yet today, the agency is expected
to protect a workforce nearly six times larger than it did in the 1940s—22.6 million in 1948
and more than 135 million in 2015 (Galvin 2016a; U.S. DOL 2017b). In 1948, there was one
investigator for every 22,600 covered workers; today it is one per every 135,000 workers.
As the number of investigators per worker has shrunk, so has the agency’s ability to
effectively police violations of labor law: from 1980 to 2015, the number of cases
investigated by the agency decreased by 63 percent (NELP 2008; U.S. DOL various years).
The lack of sufficient federal investigators is especially problematic for the many workers
in states that do not have a state wage and hour office or similar enforcement body.
Fourteen states, most of which use the federal minimum wage, either lack the capacity to
5
investigate wage theft claims or lack the ability to file lawsuits on behalf of victims (Galvin
2016b).4 These states effectively defer to the federal government for enforcement.
Workers in these states must seek any possible remedy from the federal government or
through private litigation. Some states, such as Florida, lack any state labor department
altogether.
Even in states with their own enforcement powers, filing a wage theft claim against an
employer can be extremely difficult. For example, Gordon et al. (2012) describe the
daunting process required by the Iowa Workforce Development Agency (IWD):
IWD currently requires every worker who files a wage claim to complete an
extensive written questionnaire and to subsequently respond to multiple rounds of
mailed notices and requests for documentation on very strict deadlines. At any
point in the process, failure to respond in writing or to provide requested
information in a timely manner results in IWD closing the case. Though employers
are allowed to have attorneys or other third parties represent them in the claims
process, workers are not. In fact, IWD will close a worker’s case if it learns that an
attorney or other third party (a pastor, union representative, or community organizer,
for example) is assisting the worker in contacting the employer, communicating with
enforcement agencies, or using other means to try recover the worker’s wages.
When a claim is filed, there is no clear mechanism for updating workers on the
status of a claim and—with the exception of the claim form—all communication from
the agency (including requests for additional necessary documentation) is in
English only. The Iowa complaint process contains a multitude of procedural
obstacles that may actively discourage workers from pursuing claims. (Gordon et al.
2012, 14)
Few workers who experience wage and hour violations are able to pursue a private
lawsuit against their employer, and even fewer employers end up paying any significant
restitution. Employers found to have illegally underpaid an employee are usually required
only to pay back a portion of the stolen wages—not even the full amount owed, much less
a penalty for violating the law (Galvin 2016a). Additional penalties are typically only
imposed in cases where the employer forged false documents. In addition to the
minuscule likelihood of being caught, employers who are found guilty of violating wage
and hour laws typically still pay less than they would have had they paid workers their
earned wages to begin with. Consequently, employers are effectively incentivized to
violate the law. (U.S. GAO 1981; Ashenfelter and Smith 1979).
Recent research by Daniel Galvin (2016a) finds that when states enact strong penalties
against wage theft—particularly “treble damages” statutes that award victims of wage theft
three times the value of their stolen wages—it does have a deterrent effect. Workers
experience measurably lower rates of wage theft in states with such laws. However, for the
greatest impact, such laws must be accompanied by sufficient investigatory resources and
authority, protections against retaliation for workers alleging mistreatment, payment of
victims’ attorneys’ fees by violators, and other legal provisions that empower victims to
speak out against abuse.
6
The many forms of wage theft
Wage theft is the failure to pay workers the full wages to which they are legally entitled. As
explained in Meixell and Eisenbrey (2014), “in essence, it involves employers taking money
that belongs to their employees and keeping it for themselves. Amounts that seem small,
such as not paying for time spent preparing a work station at the start of a shift, or
cleaning up at the end of a shift, can add up.”
Wage theft can take many forms. Minimum wage violations occur when employees are
paid less than the federal, state, or local minimum wage, depending on which is highest
and covers the employee in question. For employees to be considered victims of minimum
wage violations, those employees must be paid at an hourly wage rate less than the legal
minimum, although they need not be paid on an hourly basis. Nonexempt workers paid on
a weekly or salaried basis must still be paid at a level equivalent to an hourly rate of the
minimum wage for all the hours that they work; minimum wage violations may occur when
hourly workers are illegally required to work unpaid hours or when salaried employees
work excessive hours—either of which may cause their effective hourly wage rate to fall
below the legal minimum wage.5
Salaried workers who do not meet the requirements that would exclude them from the
overtime provisions of the FLSA (or state overtime laws) are also victims of wage theft if
their employers fail to pay them at 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked
beyond 40 in a single week. Even if nonexempt employees are paid at their regular hourly
rate for work hours beyond 40, they are still being cheated—failure to pay the time-and-a-
half overtime rate is illegal and constitutes wage theft.
Wage theft can also occur when employers deny workers meal breaks, make illegal
deductions from employees’ paychecks, or make illegal adjustments to reported work
hours (Sellekaerts and Welch 1983; Bernhardt et al. 2009; Gordon et al. 2012). Some of
these actions could result in minimum wage violations—e.g., if an employer illegally
adjusted reported work hours so that an employee was not paid for all hours worked,
thereby bringing their effective hourly rate below the minimum wage. However, they would
not need to result in a minimum wage violation for them to be unlawful. All of these actions
constitute wage theft.
Tipped workers are especially prone to suffer wage theft because of their separate
treatment under the law. In most states and under federal law, employers of workers who
customarily receive tips—such as restaurant servers and nail salon attendants—may credit
workers’ tips against their required minimum wage. For example, federal law allows
employers to pay tipped workers as little as $2.13 per hour, provided that the employees’
tips over the course of a week raise their effective hourly pay to at least the minimum
wage. If the tips are inadequate, employers are required to make up the difference.
Unfortunately, policing this requirement is largely left to the tipped workers themselves,
who would need to carefully track their weekly hours and tips to know if employers were
paying an adequate base wage. Moreover, the FLSA and most state tipped wage laws do
not specify the period over which weekly tips are supposed to be calculated, nor do they
specify how employers are to treat secondary tipping—when tipped workers share a
7
portion of their tips with support staff.
The opaqueness of tipped wage laws leaves most tipped workers with little knowledge of
their rights and particularly open to abuse. Allegretto and Cooper (2014) describe how
tipped workers subject to a lower tipped minimum wage have lower total hourly take-
home pay, have greater gender pay disparities, and experience poverty at much higher
rates than nontipped workers or tipped workers who receive the full minimum wage
before tips. Cooper (2017) shows that restaurant servers experience poverty at roughly
double the rate of nontipped workers, with the highest poverty rates occurring in states
with low tipped minimum wages.
Victims of wage theft are often already

struggling to make ends meet
Previous research has shown that wage theft disproportionately hurts low-wage workers,
often already the most vulnerable segment of the workforce. The literature
overwhelmingly finds that workers who experience wage theft are more likely to be
women, to be nonwhite or Hispanic, and to have less education (Ashenfelter & Smith 1979;
Bernhardt et al. 2009; ERG 2014; Galvin 2016; Sellekaerts & Welch 1984).
Among all forms of wage theft, minimum wage violations are particularly pernicious. By
definition, minimum wage violations withhold earnings from the lowest-paid workers in
society, who typically are the least able to afford a loss of income. Indeed, research by the
Eastern Research Group on wage theft in California and New York showed that minimum
wage violations took a significant percentage of pay from low-wage workers already
struggling to make ends meet (ERG 2014). The same study found that minimum wage
violations increased poverty rates among workers who experienced wage theft by 22.9
percent in California and 40.6 percent in New York. The authors note that when workers in
low-income households are illegally underpaid, not only do those workers and their
families suffer, but the public is harmed as well—the government collects less in tax
revenue, and taxpayers must provide additional funding for social welfare programs to fill
in the gaps that employers created.6
Analysis
This report looks closely at one form of wage theft—minimum wage violations—and
quantifies the impact of these violations on workers in the 10 most populous U.S. states:
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Texas.
Assessing the full impact of all forms of wage theft is exceedingly difficult. No public data
source exists with the requisite information to accurately assess workers’ exempt status,
total hours worked, total wages received, and what forms of compensation they
receive—e.g., hourly/weekly base pay, tips, overtime, etc. Bernhardt et al. (2009) is
perhaps the most comprehensive report on the occurrence of wage theft in its many
8
forms. Yet to produce such a report, the researchers conducted their own survey of front-
line workers in three major metropolitan areas; this survey was specially designed to
capture evidence of multiple forms of wage theft. The authors found that, among low-
wage workers in their sample, over a quarter were victims of minimum wage violations and
more than two-thirds experienced at least one type of wage theft violation.
Our study most closely resembles ERG (2014), a report commissioned for the U.S.
Department of Labor on minimum wage violations and their monetary effects in California
and New York. Like ERG, we use data from the Current Population Survey Outgoing
Rotation Group to identify workers whose reported weekly earnings and weekly hours of
work equate to an hourly wage below the binding minimum wage in their state. Our
methods and findings are in line with ERG and other recent and historical literature on
wage theft and minimum wage noncompliance.7 However, our study builds upon recent
research in several important ways. In assessing minimum wage violations in the 10 most
populous states, we account for each state’s specific minimum wage laws and exemptions,
in addition to those in the FLSA, thereby better isolating the workforce eligible for the
minimum wage.8 Because we study the 10 most populous states, our statistics on the
aggregate population across these states provides a more detailed picture of the breadth
and magnitude of minimum wage violations in the United States than analyses of fewer
states or select cities. Total nonfarm employment in these 10 states accounts for more than
half (53 percent) of all U.S. employment. We also examine these largest states because
doing so provides adequate sample sizes to produce detailed statistics within each state.
The statistics in this report are averages for 2013 through 2015, thus presenting the most
recent estimates of wage theft in the United States.9
Findings
In the 10 most populous states in the country, 2.4 million minimum-wage-eligible workers
report being paid less than the applicable minimum wage in their state. This represents
just over 4 percent of all eligible workers in these states. Of course, minimum wage policy
is most relevant for workers at the bottom of the wage distribution, and these 2.4 million
victims of minimum wage violations make up more than 17 percent of all low-wage workers
who are eligible for the minimum wage.10
As shown in Table 1, workers suffering minimum wage violations report being paid, on
average, $1.88 per hour less than the applicable state or federal minimum wage. Their lost
wages amount to about $64 per week on average weekly earnings of only
$203—meaning that victims are losing nearly one-quarter of their weekly earnings to
wage theft. For those workers that are employed 52 weeks per year, this implies average
annual losses of over $3,300 per year on average annual wages received of only $10,500.
The total annual wages denied these workers across all 10 states is over $8 billion. The
workforce in these 10 states accounts for 53 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Thus, if
the rates and magnitude of minimum wage violations are similar in the remaining states, it
suggests that the total wages stolen by employers when workers are illegally paid below
the minimum wage amounts to over $15 billion annually.
9
Table 1 In the 10 most populous states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually to
minimum wage violations
Statistics on minimum wage violations in the 10 most populous states
Eligible workers experiencing minimum wage violations
Average Average
Share Share of Average Average annual annual Share of Total earned
Minimum Total number of of eligible weekly weekly under- wages earned annual wages
wage in minimum-wage-eligible eligible low-wage under- wages payment if received if wages not paid to
2015 workers Number workers workers payment received full-year full-year not paid workers
Total 59,014,000 2,422,000 4.1% 17.2% $64 $203 $3,300 $10,500 23.9% $8,002,000,000
California $9.00 14,569,000 590,000 4.1% 19.2% $64 $224 $3,400 $11,700 22.3% $1,979,000,000
Florida $8.05 5,515,000 404,000 7.3% 24.9% $54 $213 $2,800 $11,100 20.1% $1,124,000,000
Georgia $7.25* 3,769,000 82,000 2.2% 9.4% $71 $203 $3,700 $10,600 25.9% $301,000,000
Illinois $8.25 5,185,000 243,000 4.7% 22.1% $53 $205 $2,800 $10,700 20.6% $675,000,000
Michigan $8.15 2,861,000 130,000 4.5% 17.2% $63 $169 $3,300 $8,800 27.3% $429,000,000
New York $8.75 6,047,000 300,000 5.0% 19.4% $62 $210 $3,200 $10,900 22.8% $965,000,000
North $7.25 3,111,000 84,000 2.7% 12.3% $72 $179 $3,800 $9,300 28.8% $316,000,000
Carolina
Ohio $8.10 3,915,000 217,000 5.5% 22.7% $53 $185 $2,800 $9,600 22.4% $601,000,000
Pennsylvania $7.25 4,299,000 107,000 2.5% 10.4% $80 $164 $4,200 $8,500 32.9% $448,000,000
Texas $7.25 9,743,000 265,000 2.7% 10.8% $85 $182 $4,400 $9,500 31.7% $1,165,000,000
*Workers in Georgia covered by the FLSA are subject to the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Workers exempt from the FLSA but covered under Georgia's
state minimum wage law have a minimum wage of $5.15.
Note: Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are comput-
ed based on unrounded numbers. “Eligible low-wage workers” includes all minimum-wage-eligible workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in each
state.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group data, 2013–2015
10
Figure A Share of low-wage minimum-wage-eligible workers
experiencing minimum wage violations, by state
Florida ($8.05)
24.9%
Ohio ($8.10)
22.7%
Illinois ($8.25)
22.1%
New York ($8.75)
19.4%
California ($9.00)
19.2%
Michigan ($8.15)
17.2%
North Carolina ($7.25)
12.3%
Texas ($7.25)
10.8%
Pennsylvania ($7.25)
10.4%
Georgia ($7.25*)
9.4%
*Workers in Georgia covered by the FLSA are subject to the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Workers ex-
empt from the FLSA but covered under Georgia's state minimum wage law have a minimum wage of $5.15.
Note: The 2015 minimum wage for each state is shown in parentheses. “Low-wage minimum-wage-eligible
workers” includes all minimum-wage-eligible workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in each state.
Table 1 also describes the rates at which workers experience minimum wage violations in
each of the 10 states included in this analysis, with some notable differences across states.
First, the state with the highest rate of minimum wage violations is Florida, where 7.3
percent of eligible workers—just over 400,000 people—report being paid less than the
minimum wage. This figure is even more shocking when considered as a share of the low-
wage workforce in Florida: the data suggest that one out of every four low-wage workers
in Florida is a victim of wage theft. (“Low-wage minimum-wage-eligible workers” includes
all minimum-wage-eligible workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in each state.)
Figure A shows the shares of each state’s minimum-wage-eligible low-wage workforce

that reports being paid less than the minimum wage. After Florida (24.9 percent), Ohio has
the second highest share with 22.7 percent of low-wage workers experiencing minimum
wage violations, followed closely by Illinois, where 22.1 percent of low-wage workers are
paid below the minimum wage.
11
Florida’s high rate of minimum wage violations is noteworthy for two additional reasons.
First, Florida’s state minimum wage was higher than the federal minimum wage in all three
years of this study, although it was never the highest of the states analyzed in this report.
In theory, employers have a greater incentive to violate higher minimum wages because
they face greater potential savings from underpayment. But during the survey period,
California’s minimum wage was $8.00 per hour through June of 2014 and then $9.00 per
hour from July 2014 through December 2015. Florida’s minimum wage was $7.79 for all of
2013, $7.93 for all of 2014, and $8.05 for all of 2015 (IWC n.d.; Florida DEO 2016). In fact,
Florida’s minimum wage ranks in the middle of the pack among these 10 states for the
entire survey period. In other words, Florida’s unusually high violation rates do not appear
to be a result of the level of Florida’s minimum wage.
The second reason Florida’s high violation rate is noteworthy may explain why the state’s
high violation rate is occurring—namely, that in Florida employers have little reason to
think they will ever be caught. As explained in Galvin (2016), Florida has very weak state
labor laws—the fifth-weakest in the country, per Galvin—and the state has no enforcement
body to investigate abuse. Florida eliminated its Department of Labor and Employment
Security in 2002. Our findings, thus, seem to corroborate Galvin’s conclusion that the
strength of a state’s labor laws and its enforcement capacity do have a significant impact
on the likelihood that employers will commit wage theft.
Although workers in Florida are the most likely to suffer minimum wage violations, workers
in Texas and Pennsylvania suffer the most when their wages are stolen. Figure B shows
that workers in Texas whose employers fail to pay them at least the minimum wage for all
hours worked are deprived of $85 each week. These workers are losing nearly one-third
(31.7 percent) of their earned pay to wage theft. If these workers are employed 52 weeks
per year, they lose $4,400 on average each year and have average annual wages of only
$9,500. In Pennsylvania, workers experiencing minimum wage violations are underpaid by
an average of $80 per week. Employers in Pennsylvania who commit wage theft are
stealing, on average, 34.6 percent of the wages earned by victim employees. If these
workers are employed 52 weeks per year, this amounts to losses of $4,200 per year on
paid wages of only $8,500.
Workers in North Carolina have the third-highest average losses per victim due to
minimum wage violations. Workers who suffer minimum wage violations in North Carolina
lose an average of $72 per week, and their employers are illegally capturing 29 percent of
their earned wages. If these workers are employed 52 weeks per year, this amounts to
losses of $3,800 on paid wages of only $9,300 annually. The severity of minimum wage
violations in North Carolina may come as less of a surprise given that the state’s elected
labor commissioner during the period studied showed little interest in enforcing wage
laws. An investigation by The Charlotte Observer noted that during the commissioner’s
15-year tenure, her office “sued companies for failing to pay wages only 35 times, an
average of less than 2.5 times a year” (Locke 2015).
It is noteworthy that in all three of these states—Texas, Pennsylvania, and North

Carolina—the binding minimum wage is the federal minimum wage of $7.25. The
12
Figure B Workers in Texas and Pennsylvania suffer the most
when their wages are stolen
Average paid and unpaid weekly wages of workers experiencing minimum
wage violations, by state
$300
$64
$54 $62 $71
Weekly $53 $85
amount $53 $72
200 $80
stolen:
$63
Weekly $213 $210 $224

100 $205 $203
amount $185 $179 $182
paid: $164
$169
0
Mich. Ohio Pa. N.C. Ill. Fla. Texas N.Y. Ga. Calif.
Note: Weekly amount paid represents the average weekly wages received by workers experiencing mini-
mum wage violations. Weekly amount stolen represents the average weekly lost wages for workers expe-
riencing minimum wage violations.
particularly large lost wages for wage theft victims in these states, despite the relatively
low value of the minimum wage, raises questions about these states’ legal framework,
penalty structure, and enforcement practices for combating wage theft. To the extent that
these states are deferring enforcement to federal authorities, they may be placing their
state’s most vulnerable workers at risk of particularly harmful labor practices.
It should also be noted that these estimates were produced by calculating the difference
between the effective minimum wage and workers’ reported hourly wage. If some of these
workers were promised more than the minimum wage, then these figures understate the
true value of their lost wages.
Poverty and use of public assistance among

wage theft victims
As shown in Table 2, workers who experience minimum wage violations are far more likely
to be in poverty than the other minimum-wage-eligible workers. Among the 2.4 million
workers experiencing minimum wage violations in the analyzed states, 517,000—or 21.4
percent—had total family incomes below the poverty line. In contrast, the poverty rate of
all minimum-wage-eligible workers in these states was only 6.9 percent. In other words,
13
Table 2 Far fewer workers would be in poverty if their
employers paid them the legal minimum wage
Poverty status of all minimum-wage-eligible workers in the 10 most populous
states and of those paid less than the minimum wage, actual and if all workers
were paid correctly
If subminimum wages were raised to
At current wage values the applicable minimum wage
Number
Number Share of Share Change Change
of eligible of eligible of in in
Total number of workers workers workers workers number share
minimum-wage-eligible in in in in in in
workers poverty poverty poverty poverty poverty poverty
All 59,014,000 4,075,000 6.9% 3,916,000 6.6% -159,000 -0.3
minimum-wage-eligible ppt.
workers
Eligible workers paid 2,422,000 517,000 21.4% 358,000 14.8% -159,000 -6.6
less than the minimum ppt.
wage
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are computed based on unrounded numbers.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group and March Supplement data,
2013–2016
workers suffering minimum wage violations are more than three times as likely to be in
poverty as someone chosen at random in the eligible workforce.
Table 2 also shows that many of these workers are in poverty as a direct result of their
employers’ stealing from them. If all workers experiencing minimum wage violations were
paid the applicable minimum wage for all reported hours worked, it would lift 31 percent of
those in poverty above the poverty line. Consequently, the poverty rate among these
workers would fall from 21.4 percent to 14.8 percent, and the overall poverty rate among
the minimum-wage-eligible workforce would decline from 6.9 percent to 6.6 percent.
With such low levels of income, it is unsurprising that many of the workers who suffer
minimum wage violations must rely on public assistance programs to make ends meet.
Table 3 shows that roughly one in three workers experiencing minimum wage violations
receive some form of public assistance, either directly or through a family member.11 One
in five have a family member who receives free or reduced school lunch. Nearly 18 percent
receive food-purchasing assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP; formerly known as the Food Stamp Program). Just under 4 percent
receive housing subsidies, and 3.4 percent receive home energy assistance. While these
last two numbers may seem small, the rates of participation in these programs among
those suffering minimum wage violations are nearly three times and two-and-a-half times,
respectively, the rates of the overall minimum-wage-eligible workforce.
14
Table 3 Nearly one-third of workers experiencing minimum
wage violations receive some form of public
assistance
Public assistance usage among minimum-wage-eligible workers and those
experiencing minimum wage violations
Eligible workers
Minimum-wage-eligible experiencing minimum wage
workers violations
Share Share
receiving receiving
public public
assistance assistance
Category Number benefit Number benefit
All minimum-wage-eligible workers 59,014,000 2,422,000
Family receives some public assistance 13,517,000 22.9% 802,000 33.1%
Family receives food-purchasing 4,282,000 7.3% 429,000 17.7%
assistance
Family receives energy assistance 771,000 1.3% 81,000 3.4%
Child in family receives reduced or free 10,373,000 17.6% 496,000 20.5%
school lunch
Family receives housing subsidy 838,000 1.4% 95,000 3.9%
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are computed based on unrounded numbers.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group and March Supplement data,
2013–2016
Demographic characteristics of workers being

paid less than the minimum wage
The demographic characteristics of workers who experience minimum wage violations
closely resemble the demographics of the overall low-wage workforce (Cooper 2015). That
is, workers who experience minimum wage violations are by definition low-wage. Low-
wage workers are more likely to be vulnerable to minimum wage violations relative to the
workforce in general, but those within the low-wage workforce are not necessarily more
likely to experience minimum wage violations at a higher rate than other low-wage earners
in their respective demographic categories. In fact, when we examine violation rates
among just the low-wage workforce, many of the differences between demographic
groups diminish or disappear. This shows that the problem of wage theft is not limited to
any particular group; low-wage workers of all races, ethnicities, genders, and immigration
statuses are being cheated out of pay at significant rates. Below, we discuss which
minimum-wage-eligible workers experience minimum wage violations and the impact this
has on all workers.
Gender
Women are more likely than men to experience minimum wage violations, as shown in
Figure C. Women also make up a majority of victims of minimum wage violations despite
making up less than half of the minimum-wage-eligible workforce. While the average
15
annual amount stolen from men and women suffering minimum wage violations is
comparable—about $64 and $63 per week, respectively—women tend to be paid less to
begin with, meaning that the earned wages that they are denied constitute a greater share
of their earnings (24.8 percent of women’s wages compared with 22.8 percent of men’s).
Those workers that are employed 52 weeks per year lose $3,300 on average each year
and have average annual wages of only $11,300 for men and $9,900 for women. In other
words, women are paid less to begin with and thus are left even worse off after their
wages are stolen.
Men lose an average of $64 per week from minimum wage violations, totaling $3.6 billion
annually. The average woman suffering a minimum wage violation loses $63 each week,
but the larger number of women suffering violations brings the annual total of wages
stolen from women workers to $4.4 billion. (See Appendix Table A3.)
Age
Figure D shows that young workers (age 16 to 24) are three times as likely to be paid
below the minimum wage as older workers. Nearly 10 percent of young workers are paid
less than the minimum wage. Young workers account for nearly one-third of workers
experiencing minimum wage violations. However, older workers still make up the majority
of those experiencing minimum wage violations. In fact, more than half of all workers
suffering minimum wage violations are prime-age workers (age 25 to 54). Older workers
(age 55 to 85) experience violations at a lower rate than young workers, but still account
for about 16 percent of all workers suffering minimum wage violations.
Prime-age and older workers also lose a larger share of their income to minimum wage
violations. As shown in Figure D, workers age 25 to 54 experiencing minimum wage
violations lose 24.1 percent of their earned wages to this form of wage theft, averaging a
loss of $70 per week. If these workers are employed 52 weeks per year, they lose $3,600
on average each year. Victims age 55 and older lose a similar amount, but due to their
lower average wage levels, their losses represent more than a quarter of their earned
wages (25.5 percent). In total, $4.5 billion is stolen from prime-age workers and $1.4 billion
from older workers. Young workers suffering violations lose $2.1 billion annually. They are
denied, on average, $50 per week—22.5 percent of their earned wages—or $2,600 for
those that work the full year.
Race and ethnicity

Workers of color are more likely to experience minimum wage violations than white
workers, as shown in Figure E. Roughly 5 percent of black workers and Hispanic workers
are paid less than the minimum wage, compared with only 3.5 percent of white workers.
This is partly a function of the fact that people of color are disproportionately represented
among low-wage workers (Cooper 2015; Wilson & Rodgers 2016). Nevertheless, white
workers still make up the largest share (47.1 percent) of workers experiencing minimum
wage violations.
White workers suffering minimum wage violations have the largest share of annual wages
16
Figure C Women are more likely than men to suffer minimum wage
violations
Shares by gender of workers experiencing minimum wage
violations
Men Women
Workers experiencing 44.9% 55.1%

Total minimum-wage- 53.4% 46.6%

eligible workforce
Shares of men and women experiencing minimum wage

violations
Men
3.5%
Women 4.9%
Average paid and unpaid weekly wages of workers

experiencing minimum wage violations, by gender
$300
Weekly amount
stolen: $64
$63
200
Weekly amount
100 paid: $216 $191
0
Men Women
17
Figure D Young workers are three times as likely to suffer minimum
wage violations as other workers
Shares by age group of workers experiencing minimum wage
violations
16–24 25–54 55–85
Workers experiencing 32.7% 51.2% 16.1%

Total minimum-wage- 14.6% 66.1% 19.3%

eligible workforce
Share of each age group experiencing minimum wage

violations
16-24 9.2%
25-54 3.2%
55-85 3.4%

experiencing minimum wage violations, by age
$300
$70
$70
200 Weekly amount
stolen: $50
100 Weekly amount $221 $204

paid: $173
0
16-24 25-54 55-85
18
Figure E Workers of color are more likely to suffer minimum wage
violations than white workers
Shares by racial/ethnic group of workers experiencing
White Black Hispanic Other
Workers experiencing
47.1% 14.6% 29.2% 9.1%
Total minimum-wage- 55.7% 12.2% 23.4% 8.6%
eligible workforce
Share of each racial/ethnic group experiencing minimum

wage violations
White 3.5%
Black 4.9%
Hispanic
5.1%
Other
4.3%

experiencing minimum wage violations, by race and ethnicity
$300
$60 $69
Weekly amount $55
200 stolen: $67
100 Weekly amount $203 $225 $217

paid: $186
0
White Black Hispanic Other
19
stolen—26.5 percent—compared with 21.4 percent for black workers, 21.2 percent for
Hispanic workers, and 24.3 percent for workers of other races and ethnicities. White
workers lose an average of $67 each week, totaling $4 billion per year. If these workers
are employed 52 weeks per year, they lose $3,500 on average each year from minimum
wage violations. On average, minimum wage violations amount to $55 weekly for black
workers, $60 weekly for Hispanic workers, and $69 weekly for workers of other races. For
those with a full-year work schedule of 52 weeks, these weekly losses translate to an
annual total of $2,900 for black workers, $3,100 for Hispanic workers, and $3,600 for
workers of other races. The amount of annual wages lost to minimum wage violations for
nonwhite workers totals $4 billion per year.
Citizenship and nativity

The incidence of minimum wage violations for nonwhite workers is intertwined with their
nativity and citizenship status. Among workers who are victims of minimum wage
violations, U.S.-born citizens make up nearly three-quarters (72.3 percent) of workers
suffering violations—and over four-fifths of the total minimum-wage-eligible workforce are
U.S. citizens, as shown in Figure F. Workers who were not born in the United States have
higher minimum wage violation rates than those born in the U.S.; however, naturalized
citizens have rates more similar to those of U.S.-born citizens. The overall violation rate
among native-born citizens is 3.8 percent, and the rate for naturalized citizens is 4.1
percent. Noncitizens are significantly more likely to experience minimum wage violations
than either U.S.-born or naturalized citizens: 6.5 percent report being paid below the
minimum wage.
The higher violation rate among noncitizens is not surprising, as workers who lack the
protections of citizenship are more easily exploited. Immigrant workers may be forced to
suffer exploitive conditions out of fear that employers may question their immigration
status. Many authorized immigrant workers may have family or friends who lack
authorization; they may fear retribution against their community if they speak out against
abuse. The exploitation of immigrant workers is a problem, however, that has implications
for immigrants and nonimmigrants alike. Whenever any group of workers can be exploited
and paid artificially low wages, it lowers the wages of similarly skilled workers and other
workers in the same industry—regardless of those workers’ nativity (Costa, Cooper, and
Shierholz 2014).
Education
Workers with less education are more likely to experience minimum wage violations than
workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher. This is largely because workers with lower
educational attainment make up a disproportionate share of low-wage workers. Figure G
shows that nearly 9 percent of workers with less than a high school diploma are paid
below the minimum wage, compared with 4.5 percent of high school graduates, 4.3
percent of workers with some college experience, and only 1.9 percent of workers with a
bachelor’s degree or higher. The vast majority of workers suffering minimum wage
violations (86.0 percent) do not have a college degree.
20
Figure F Non-U.S. citizens are more likely to suffer minimum wage
violations than U.S. citizens
Shares by citizenship status of workers experiencing
U.S.-born citizen Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen
Workers experiencing 72.3% 9.7% 18.0%

Total minimum-wage- 78.8% 9.8% 11.4%

eligible workforce
Share of each citizenship status group experiencing minimum

wage violations
U.S.-born citizen 3.8%

Naturalized U.S. citizen 4.1%
Not a U.S. citizen 6.5%
Family type
As shown in Figure H, unmarried workers—with and without children—are more likely to
experience minimum wage violations than married workers. This is particularly troubling
for single parents who may be the sole provider for one or more children at home. Parents
make up about a quarter (26.4 percent) of workers experiencing minimum wage violations;
about a third of these are single parents.
Although single parents have slightly lower rates of minimum wage violations than
unmarried workers without children (4.7 percent, compared with 5.6 percent), single
parents who are victims of minimum wage violations lose a larger share of their earnings
than workers in any other family type. Employers who underpay single parents are stealing
a quarter (25.3 percent) of these workers’ earnings. Single parents are underpaid by an
average of $69 per week, which amounts to an average of $3,600 each year for those
that work 52 weeks per year. On average, married parents experiencing minimum wage
violations lose 23.5 percent of their earnings, married workers without children lose 24.6
percent, and unmarried workers without children lose 23.5 percent.
21
Figure G Workers with less education are more likely to experience
minimum wage violations than workers with a bachelor’s
degree or higher
Shares by educational attainment of workers experiencing
Less than high school High school Some college Bachelor’s degree or higher
23.1% 31.1% 31.9% 14.0%

eligible workforce
Share of each educational attainment group experiencing

Less than high school 8.9%

High school 4.5%
Some college 4.3%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 1.9%
Single and married parents lose a weekly average of $69 and $70, respectively, to
minimum wage violations. If these workers are employed 52 weeks per year, they lose
$3,600 on average each year. Across all victims in the 10 states studied, this adds up to
$2.3 billion each year that parents earn but are not paid. Among workers without children,
married workers lose an average of $71 each week to minimum wage violations—totaling
$3,700 for those working 52 weeks per year—and unmarried workers are robbed of an
average of $58 weekly—totaling $3,000 for those working the full year. Married workers
without children lose a total of $1.7 billion each year to minimum wage violations, and
unmarried workers without children lose a total of $4 billion each year.
Family income
As shown in Figure I, the majority of workers who experience minimum wage violations
come from families of modest means. Nearly 29 percent of all those with a violation have
total family incomes less than $25,000; nearly half have total family incomes less than
22
Figure H Unmarried workers—with and without kids—are more likely
to experience minimum wage violations than married
workers
Shares by family type of workers experiencing minimum
wage violations
Married parent Single parent Married, no kids Unmarried, no kids
17.2% 9.2% 18.6% 55.0%
eligible workforce
Share of each family type experiencing minimum wage

violations
Married parent 2.8%

Single parent 4.7%
Married, no kids
3.0%
Unmarried, no kids
5.6%

experiencing minimum wage violations, by family type
$300
Weekly amount
stolen: $70 $71
$69
$58
200
Weekly amount
100 paid: $229 $204 $219
$189
0
Married parent Single parent Married, no kids Unmarried, no kids
23
Figure H
(cont.)
Figure I The majority of workers who experience minimum

wage violations come from families of modest means
Family income of workers experiencing minimum wage violations
$60,000 or more: 34.4%
Less than $60,000: 65.6%
Note: For a more detailed breakdown of family income categories, see Appendix Table A3.
$40,000; and nearly two-thirds have family incomes less than $60,000.
Work hours
Part-time workers (those employed fewer than 35 hours per week) are three-and-a-half
times more likely to experience minimum wage violations than those who work full time
(35 hours or more per week), as shown in Figure J. Still, full-time workers make up more
than half (52.5 percent) of all workers suffering minimum wage violations.
Industries and occupations

The leisure and hospitality industry has historically had the highest rates of low-wage
workers and minimum wage violations (Bernhardt et al. 2009; ERG 2014). This is heavily
driven by food and drink service establishments where workers earn most of their pay
through tips and face special challenges in ensuring their employers are paying them
properly.12 In order to get a better picture of the degree to which food and drink service
workers are affected by minimum wage violations compared with other leisure and
hospitality workers, we extracted the data for food and drink service workers into a
separate category. Consistent with past research, our results show that workers in food
and drink service are more likely than workers in any other industry to experience
24
Figure J Part-time workers are 3.5 times more likely to experience
minimum wage violations than full-time workers
Shares by usual weekly work hours of workers experiencing
Part or mid time (<34 hours) Full time (35+ hours)
Workers experiencing 47.5% 52.5%

Total minimum-wage- 20.3% 79.7%

eligible workforce
Share of each work hours group experiencing minimum wage

violations
Part or mid time (<34 hours)

9.6%
Full time (35+ hours) 2.7%
minimum wage violations. As shown in Figure K, over 14 percent of all workers in food and
drink service (one out of every seven) report being paid less than the minimum wage. (See
Appendix Table A3 for data on other industries and occupations.) Food and drink service
workers make up over a quarter (25.9 percent) of all workers suffering minimum wage
violations—the largest share of any single industry.
The industries with the next highest rates of violations are agriculture, forestry, and fishing
(9.1 percent); leisure and hospitality excluding food and drink service (6.8 percent); and
retail (4.7 percent). Many agriculture workers—particularly seasonal agriculture
workers—are exempt from the minimum wage under federal law and under many state
laws.13 Still, those who are subject to the minimum wage have higher rates of minimum
wage violations than workers in most other industries. This is likely because the
agriculture workforce is predominantly nonwhite and immigrant, with lower levels of
education—all factors that correlate with higher rates of wage theft.
Among major occupations, as shown in Figure L, workers who experience minimum wage
violations are more likely to work in a service job than in any other occupation. Service
workers make up 46.5 percent of all workers suffering minimum wage violations. The next
closest occupational categories are sales workers (15.0 percent) and office and
25
Figure K Workers in the food and drink service industry are more
likely to suffer minimum wage violations than workers in
other industries
Shares of workers in select industries experiencing minimum
wage violations
Food and drink service 14.3%
Agriculture, forestry, and

9.1%
fishing
Leisure and hospitality, 6.8%
excluding food and drink
Retail 4.7%
Industries of workers experiencing minimum wage violations
Food and drink service: 25.9%
Retail: 14.8%
Education and health: 13.4%
Note: Industries with the highest rates of minimum wage violations are shown. Other industry-specific data
can be found in Appendix Table A3.
administrative support (8.1 percent).
Union coverage
Figure M shows that workers not covered by unions—those who are neither in a union
themselves nor covered by a union contract—are almost twice as likely (4.4 percent) to
26
Figure L Workers who experience minimum wage violations
are much more likely to work in a service occupation
than in any other occupation
Occupations of workers experiencing minimum wage violations
Service: 46.5%
Office support: 8.1%
Sales: 15.0%
experience minimum wage violations as those in a union or covered by a union contract

(2.3 percent). Workers are less likely to be victims of wage theft when they have
bargaining power. Not only are non-union workers more likely to experience wage
theft—those who are victims lose a larger share of their income compared to workers
covered by a union. Among workers suffering minimum wage violations, those not
covered by a union lose nearly one-quarter (24.0 percent) of their earnings on average.
Those who are covered by a union lose an average of 17.4 percent of their earnings (see
Appendix Table A3).
Discussion and conclusions

The findings in this paper should help illuminate the severity of the problem of wage theft
in the United States. Accurately measuring wage theft is a difficult task. State and federal
violation records undoubtedly understate the true severity of the problem because most
wage theft goes unreported and enforcement is under-resourced. Public surveys that
collect wage and hour information do not capture the requisite information to assess wage
theft in all the ways it can occur. Even studies that use the best publicly available data
sources, such as this one, must cope with a high degree of measurement error—which we
discuss more fully in the appendix.
Nevertheless, the findings in this report—and similar previous studies—indicate that even
27
Figure M Workers not covered by a union are almost twice as
likely to experience minimum wage violations
Share of each union status group experiencing minimum wage violations
Union covered
2.3%
Not union covered

4.4%
Note: Union status was not available for 11.5 percent of the sample. The share experiencing minimum
wage violations from these cases is 1.8 percent.
when examining only one form of possible wage theft, the magnitude of the crime being
committed against American workers is huge. Workers in the 10 most populous states,
home to about half of the country’s total workforce, are being cheated out of $8 billion
annually. If these findings hold true for the other half of the U.S. workforce, it would mean
that bad employers across the country are stealing around $15 billion annually from their
employees just from minimum wage violations alone.
It is worth noting that this number, $15 billion, exceeds the value of property crimes
committed in the United States each year: according to the FBI, the total value of all
robberies, burglaries, larceny, and motor vehicle theft in the United States in 2015 was
$12.7 billion (FBI 2016; Meixell & Eisenbrey 2014). Property crime is a better understood,
more tangible form of crime than wage theft, and federal, state, and local governments
spend tremendous resources to combat it. In contrast, lawmakers in much of the country
allocate little, if any, resources to fighting wage theft, yet the cost of wage theft is at least
comparable to—and likely much higher than—the cost of property crime. (It is important to
note that our estimate doesn’t include all forms of wage theft: if minimum wage violations
total $15 billion on their own, it is likely the full cost of all forms of wage theft—including
failure to pay overtime, misclassification, off-the-clock violations, illegal deductions, and
others—dwarfs the cost of property crime.) It is beyond the scope of this report to assess
the efficiency of spending public dollars to fight one form of crime versus another;
however, our findings should raise questions among lawmakers as to whether adequate
resources are being dedicated to ensuring the economic security of Americans not just in
public and in their homes, but at their jobs.
Fiscally responsible lawmakers and concerned citizens should also recognize that when
employers steal from their employees, there are public costs. At the simplest level, when
earned wages are not paid to workers, there is a straightforward loss in payroll and
income tax revenue. States with sales taxes are also likely to forego sales tax revenues
from the stolen income that workers will never spend and that employers may choose to
save.
28
This report also shows that many workers who suffer minimum wage violations have total
family incomes below the federal poverty line, and one-third of workers experiencing
violations rely on taxpayer-funded public assistance programs. As discussed in Cooper
(2016), considerable public savings could come from raising wages more broadly among
low-wage workers—for example, by raising the federal minimum wage or pursuing policies
that strengthen these workers’ bargaining power—and this savings could go a long way
toward bolstering safety net programs or funding new public investments. But the
“savings” to be had from eliminating wage theft is different—it is actually a recouping of
money employers have stolen from both employees and taxpayers, since at least some
portion of public dollars going to support these low-wage workers and their families are
dollars they already earned on the job.
The loss of income for victims of wage theft also weakens the consumer demand that
drives the U.S. economy. The majority of workers suffering minimum wage violations come
from families of modest means, most of which spend every dollar of income they receive
simply because they must in order to make ends meet. In contrast, corporations and
business owners are likely to save a larger portion of their income. This implies that when
money is taken from low-wage workers and kept by employers, it leads to a net loss in
consumer demand. The $8 billion in illegally withheld earnings identified in this study is
not a huge sum in the context of the macro economy—but it certainly is a large sum for the
low-wage workers from whom it is stolen, and especially for those who live in low-income
households where their wages make up a significant portion of family income. Improving
the welfare of low-income households has the potential not just for short-term increases in
consumer demand, but also for longer-term improvements in those households’ ability to
better their own financial footing. Research has shown that raising incomes for low-income
households improves health outcomes, educational outcomes, and social mobility—the
likelihood that children will be able to achieve greater financial success than their parents
(Leigh 2016; Mishel et al. 2012b; Duncan, Ziol-Guest, and Kalil 2008).
If there is a silver lining in our findings, it is that our results seem to corroborate Galvin
(2016a), who finds that tougher wage and hour laws and stronger enforcement against
wage theft deter higher rates of violations. In other words, this is a solvable problem.
Although we do not attempt to replicate Galvin’s more rigorous causal assessment of the
relationship between the strength of a state’s labor laws and violation rates, our
descriptive results do fit with Galvin’s conclusions. They suggest that strengthening a
state’s legal protections against wage theft, increasing penalties, and bolstering
enforcement capacities may help to reduce the incidence of employers cheating their
workers out of pay.
Arguments that strengthening labor laws or cracking down on violators might hurt
business growth or disadvantage one jurisdiction’s “business climate” versus another’s are
specious and damaging to law-abiding business owners. Employers that commit wage
theft have artificially lower labor costs and thus may be able to undercut competitors who
follow the law. No business should be able to gain a competitive advantage by cheating its
employees. If a business cannot succeed without breaking the law, it should not exist.
Finally, wage theft has ramifications for the trajectory of wages and incomes for the broad
29
middle class. When employers can exploit millions of people, it harms an even larger
group, because it puts downward pressure on wages for similarly skilled workers and
others in the same industries. As discussed in Bivens et al. (2014), many factors have
suppressed wage growth for U.S. workers over the past four decades. The ability of
employers to steal earned wages from their employees—largely with impunity—is but one
more factor that has kept a generation of American workers from achieving greater
improvements in their standard of living. Lawmakers who care about the long-term
economic health of American households and the ability of ordinary working people to get
ahead should be paying more attention to whether those workers are actually being paid
all the wages they have earned.
Acknowledgments
This paper was made possible by a grant from the Public Welfare Foundation. The
statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. The
authors wish to thank Krista Faries for her valuable contributions to this report.
About the authors

David Cooper joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2011. He conducts national and state-
level research, with a focus on the minimum wage, employment and unemployment,
poverty, and wage and income trends. He also coordinates and provides technical support
to the Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN), a national network of over 60
state-level policy research and advocacy organizations. Cooper has testified in a half-
dozen states on the challenges facing low-wage workers and their families. His analyses
on the impact of minimum wage laws have been used by policymakers and advocates in
city halls and statehouses across the country, as well as in Congress and the White House.
Cooper has been interviewed and cited by numerous local and national media,
including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC,
and NPR. He received his Master of Public Policy degree from Georgetown University.
Teresa Kroeger is a research assistant supporting EPI’s research on labor economics. She
works closely with economists and researchers to analyze trends in the labor market
affecting low- and middle-income workers. She specializes in research on gender and
racial wage gaps, widespread wage stagnation and inequality, and the employment and
wages of young high school and college graduates who are just entering the labor market.
Kroeger’s work has been cited by numerous broadcast, radio, print, and online news
outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and
the Economic Report of the President. Before joining EPI in 2016, Kroeger conducted
research at the American Institutes for Research and the Center for Economic and Policy
Research. She earned her B.A. in economics and sociology at the University of California,
Santa Cruz.
30
Appendix: Data and methodology
This paper uses data from the outgoing rotation group of the Current Population Survey
(CPS-ORG) to assess the incidence of workers reporting hourly wages below the binding
minimum wage. The CPS-ORG data is widely recognized as the best publicly available
source of hourly wage information. Past research on wage theft has found that the CPS
works well for identifying minimum wage violations, although the CPS does have some
limitations, which are discussed later in this section. In order to have sufficient samples of
low-wage workers in all states, we use three years of data for calendar years 2013–2015.
The CPS is the longest-running government survey of labor market conditions in the
United States. CPS data are used to calculate the monthly unemployment rate, and
supplements to the CPS are used to measure a host of other government statistics on
wages, incomes, union membership, health insurance coverage, and poverty.
Respondents to the CPS are surveyed for four consecutive months, excluded for the next
eight months, and then surveyed again for four more months. In the fourth month and in
the final month—i.e., before going “out of rotation”—participants are asked about their
hourly and weekly pay, as well as the number of hours they worked in the preceding
week. With this information, we can identify minimum wage violations by comparing
respondents’ reported hourly wage against the state minimum wage that was in effect in
the month they were surveyed.
There are, however, some challenges that must be addressed in the CPS hourly wage
data. First, the ORG data only report hourly wages for those workers that indicate they are
paid on an hourly basis. For non-hourly workers, the ORG data report only weekly
earnings inclusive of any overtime, tips, bonuses, and commissions (OTBC). Ideally, to
compare workers’ regular hourly wage against the minimum wage, we would need an
estimate of weekly earnings inclusive of tips and commissions, but not bonuses or
overtime. Although some respondents do report working more than 40 hours in a week, it
is not possible to easily disaggregate wages paid at their regular hourly rate from wages
potentially paid at an overtime premium rate (“time-and-a-half”).
Similar challenges arise for tipped workers who do report being paid hourly. Tipped
workers are supposed to report their base wage before tips in response to one survey
question and their total weekly earnings, inclusive of OTBC, in a second. This should allow
researchers to analyze hourly wages both inclusive and exclusive of tips, but the inclusion
of overtime and bonuses in the weekly earnings data can be problematic for tipped
workers who may be receiving both tips and overtime.
To address these challenges, we calculate hourly wages in the sample using the most
conservative approach. For hourly workers that do not report receiving any OTBC, we use
their reported hourly wage. For hourly workers that do report receiving OTBC, we use the
greater of their reported hourly wage or their weekly earnings, inclusive of OTBC, divided
by weekly hours. For all non-hourly workers, we calculate hourly wages using their
reported weekly earnings, inclusive of OTBC, divided by their reported weekly hours. This
approach means that our estimates may be understating the true incidence of minimum
31
wage violations and the volume of wages stolen, since we are treating bonuses, overtime,
and commissions as part of the hourly base wage.
Consistent with ERG (2014) and Galvin (2016a), we exclude from our final sample all
observations of workers not specifying hourly/nonhourly status, observations of nonhourly
workers with weekly earnings less than $10, and all observations of workers with hourly
wages less than $1. We then distribute the weights from these observations to all
remaining valid observations.
Coverage of the FLSA and state minimum wage

laws
As explained in the body of the report, not all workers are eligible for the minimum wage.
The FLSA has a variety of exemptions for different occupations and classes of workers.
State minimum wage laws also vary greatly in the volume and types of exemptions
allowed for businesses to pay workers less than the minimum wage. For example, virtually
all workers in California are subject to the state minimum wage. In contrast, Florida’s state
minimum wage law explicitly exempts all workers exempted from the federal minimum
wage.
To limit our sample to minimum-wage-eligible workers, we carefully account for all possible
exemptions to the minimum wage portions of the FLSA and each state’s specific minimum
wage exemptions. In cases where the data do not allow for the straightforward exemption
of a particular industry or occupation, we either take the broadest possible interpretation
of the exemption or randomly assign exempt status to the proportion of workers in that
industry or occupation that the Department of Labor estimates to be exempt from the
FLSA. For example, DOL estimates that 3 percent of seasonal amusement and recreational
establishment workers are exempt. (See Kimball and Mishel 2015 and U.S. DOL 2015 for
further detail.) Thus, we mark as exempt from the FLSA 3 percent of workers in those
industries that can include seasonal amusement and recreational establishment workers:
independent artists, performing arts, spectator sports, and related industries; museums, art
galleries, historical sites, and similar institutions; bowling centers; other amusement,
gambling, and recreation industries; and recreational vehicle parks, camps, and rooming
and boarding houses.
The list of all federal and state exemptions is too long to include here; however, we are
happy to provide greater detail upon request.
Appendix Table A1 shows the share of the workforce in each of the 10 most populous
states that we estimate to be covered under federal or state minimum wage laws. Of the
roughly 67.3 million workers in these 10 states, we estimate that 71.7 percent are covered
under the FLSA, 84.8 percent are covered under state minimum wage laws, and 87.6
percent are covered under either the FLSA or state minimum wage laws. Although
California does have some exemptions to the minimum wage—such as door-to-door
salespeople and individuals who are the parent, spouse, or child of the employer—they
are very limited and most cannot be identified in the CPS data. Thus, in our sample, we
32
Appendix Federal and state minimum wage coverage rates
Table A1
Share of Share of
workers Share of workers
covered by workers covered by
federal covered by state federal or state
Total workforce minimum wage minimum wage minimum wage
Total 67,349,000 71.7% 84.8% 87.6%
California 14,575,000 70.6% 100.0% 100.0%

Florida 7,626,000 72.3% 72.3% 72.3%
Georgia 3,831,000 71.0% 92.8% 98.4%
Illinois 5,248,000 70.9% 98.3% 98.8%
Michigan 3,819,000 74.9% 69.3% 74.9%
New York 7,806,000 66.6% 70.1% 77.5%
North Carolina 3,822,000 72.6% 80.8% 81.4%
Ohio 4,685,000 76.3% 83.2% 83.6%
Pennsylvania 5,290,000 72.7% 80.7% 81.3%
Texas 10,649,000 73.0% 83.8% 91.5%
Note: California's minimum wage covers 99.96% of workers in the state. Numbers may not add due to
rounding. Shares are computed based on unrounded numbers.
consider nearly all California workers to be covered by the state minimum wage. (We
exempt door-to-door salespeople, which reduces the minimum-wage-eligible workforce by
0.04 percent to 99.96 percent.) Florida’s 72.3 percent of workers covered by either the
state or federal minimum wage is the lowest share covered of all the states analyzed in
this report. Florida’s state minimum wage law does not cover any additional workers
beyond those already covered by the FLSA.
Sensitivity analysis
As noted in the body of this report, accurately measuring minimum wage violations is
challenging, and even the best public data sources—such as the CPS-ORG data we
use—contain measurement error that can confound results. In this section, we describe
the results of a series of sensitivity tests we performed, similar to those in ERG (2014), to
assess how measurement error may be influencing our findings.
Appendix Table A2 shows the results of three different sensitivity tests. The first row
presents our original results. The second row shows results for only those CPS
respondents that report being hourly workers; these workers should have less
measurement error in their hourly wage data than workers paid on a weekly or salaried
basis. In this specification, the workforce analyzed shrinks by roughly one-third and the
share of workers experiencing minimum wage violations drops by 0.5 percentage points
to 3.6 percent. The amount of wages stolen falls by 16.5 percent on an hourly basis and 25
percent on a weekly or annual basis. The share of affected workers’ earned wages that
are not paid shrinks by 3.8 percentage points to 20.1 percent.
33
Appendix Table Sensitivity analysis
A2
Eligible workers experiencing minimum wage violations
Average
Average Average annual Share of
Total number of Share of Average weekly annual wages earned
minimum-wage-eligible eligible Average hourly weekly wages under-payment received if wages not
Category workers Number workers under-payment under-payment received if full-year full-year paid
Baseline 59,014,000 2,422,000 4.1% $1.88 $64 $203 $3,300 $10,500 23.9%
analysis
Hourly 37,887,000 1,352,000 3.6% $1.57 $48 $189 $2,500 $9,800 20.1%
workers
only
Change -35.8% -44.2% -0.5 ppt -16.5% -25.0% -6.5% -25.0% -6.5% -3.8 ppt
from
baseline
Excluding 28,629,000 948,000 3.3% $2.08 $73 $207 $3,800 $10,700 26.1%
proxy
responses
Change -51.5% -60.9% -0.8 ppt 11.0% 14.7% 1.9% 14.7% 1.9% 2.2 ppt
from
baseline
Only hourly 59,014,000 1,999,000 3.4%
violations
>$0.25
Change 0.0% -17.5% -0.7 ppt
from
baseline
Note: Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are comput-
ed based on unrounded numbers.
34
The third row of Appendix Table A2 shows results excluding all CPS responses that were
given by a member of the household on another member’s behalf—i.e., proxy responses.
Because household members may not be fully informed of each other’s exact wage rates
and work schedules, proxy responses can be more susceptible to measurement error.
When we exclude proxy responses, the analyzed workforce is cut roughly in half. We find
that 3.3 percent report being paid wages below the minimum wage—a reduction of 0.8
percentage points from the baseline analysis. The average hourly wages lost actually
increases by 11.0 percent, and the weekly wages lost increases by 14.7 percent. In this
specification, workers report losing, on average, 26.1 percent of their earned pay.
For the last row of Appendix Table A2, we do not count instances of minimum wage
violations if the reported or calculated hourly wage is within 25 cents of the applicable
minimum wage. Researchers have found that CPS respondents are prone to round their
hourly wage rates to the nearest dollar—e.g., reporting an hourly wage of $7.00 when they
are actually paid $7.25.14 Thus, in this specification, we assume that reported wages as low
as $0.25 below the applicable minimum wage are instances of errors in reporting, not
wage theft. With this leeway, the share of the workforce experiencing minimum wage
violations falls by 0.7 percentage points to 3.4 percent. Since we are restricting the pool of
affected workers to those that experience wage theft of more than 25 cents, we do not
report changes in the amount of lost wages as we would be directly biasing any such
calculations.
While there is undoubtedly measurement error in the CPS-ORG data, it is still the best
available public data source on hourly wages. Where possible, we have taken the more
conservative approach in our estimates, particularly in how we handle exemptions and
how we construct hourly wage values for non-hourly workers. The results of these
sensitivity tests show that even when we limit our sample to those observations with the
most accurate wage information, or allow for greater error in the wage measure before
designating a violation, we see that there are still millions of workers who appear to be
victims of wage theft and that their losses are substantial.
Additional tables
Appendix Table A3 shows the full demographic and wage statistics for the minimum-wage-
eligible workforce and workers suffering minimum wage violations in the 10 states studied.
Appendix Tables A4 through A13 show the same statistics for each individual state.
35
Summary
Appendix Table statistics on minimum wage violations in the 10 most populous states
A3
Minimum-wage-eligible
workers Eligible workers experiencing minimum wage violations
Average Total annual Share
annual wages received of
Average Total earned Average wages by workers earned
Share Group’s Average Average annual annual wages weekly received experiencing wages
Total Share of of total share of hourly weekly underpayment not paid to wages if minimum wage not
Category number total Number group category underpayment underpayment if full-year workers received full-year violations paid
All workers 59,014,000 100.0% 2,422,000 4.1% 100.0% $1.88 $64 $3,300 $8,002,000,000 $203 $10,500 $25,500,000,000 23.9%
Low-wage earners 14,094,000 23.9% 2,422,000 17.2% 100.0% $1.88 $64 $3,300 $8,002,000,000 $203 $10,500 $25,500,000,000 23.9%
Gender
Men 31,521,000 53.4% 1,088,000 3.5% 44.9% $1.78 $64 $3,300 $3,624,000,000 $216 $11,300 $12,200,000,000 22.8%
Women 27,493,000 46.6% 1,334,000 4.9% 55.1% $1.95 $63 $3,300 $4,378,000,000 $191 $9,900 $13,300,000,000 24.8%
Age
Under 20 2,031,000 3.4% 276,000 13.6% 11.4% $1.26 $31 $1,600 $439,000,000 $151 $7,900 $2,200,000,000 16.8%
20 and over 56,983,000 96.6% 2,145,000 3.8% 88.6% $1.95 $68 $3,500 $7,564,000,000 $209 $10,900 $23,300,000,000 24.5%
16–24 8,607,000 14.6% 791,000 9.2% 32.7% $1.69 $50 $2,600 $2,060,000,000 $173 $9,000 $7,100,000,000 22.5%
25–54 39,012,000 66.1% 1,240,000 3.2% 51.2% $1.95 $70 $3,600 $4,524,000,000 $221 $11,500 $14,300,000,000 24.1%
55–85 11,395,000 19.3% 390,000 3.4% 16.1% $2.00 $70 $3,600 $1,418,000,000 $204 $10,600 $4,100,000,000 25.5%
Race/ethnicity
White 32,872,000 55.7% 1,141,000 3.5% 47.1% $2.04 $67 $3,500 $3,966,000,000 $186 $9,700 $11,000,000,000 26.5%
Black 7,205,000 12.2% 353,000 4.9% 14.6% $1.67 $55 $2,900 $1,013,000,000 $203 $10,600 $3,700,000,000 21.4%
Hispanic 13,834,000 23.4% 708,000 5.1% 29.2% $1.69 $60 $3,100 $2,227,000,000 $225 $11,700 $8,300,000,000 21.2%
Other 5,103,000 8.6% 220,000 4.3% 9.1% $1.94 $69 $3,600 $795,000,000 $217 $11,300 $2,500,000,000 24.3%
Marital & family status

Married parent 15,139,000 25.7% 417,000 2.8% 17.2% $1.92 $70 $3,600 $1,519,000,000 $229 $11,900 $5,000,000,000 23.5%
Single parent 4,713,000 8.0% 223,000 4.7% 9.2% $2.06 $69 $3,600 $800,000,000 $204 $10,600 $2,400,000,000 25.3%
Married, no kids 15,246,000 25.8% 451,000 3.0% 18.6% $1.95 $71 $3,700 $1,675,000,000 $219 $11,400 $5,100,000,000 24.6%
Unmarried, no kids 23,916,000 40.5% 1,331,000 5.6% 55.0% $1.80 $58 $3,000 $4,008,000,000 $189 $9,800 $13,100,000,000 23.5%
Family income
Less than $10,000 2,186,000 3.7% 185,000 8.4% 7.6% $1.99 $68 $3,500 $649,000,000 $196 $10,200 $1,900,000,000 25.6%
$10,000–$24,999 6,991,000 11.8% 512,000 7.3% 21.2% $1.83 $62 $3,200 $1,662,000,000 $207 $10,800 $5,500,000,000 23.1%
36
Appendix Table Minimum-wage-eligible
A3 (cont.)
$25,000–$39,999 9,707,000 16.4% 478,000 4.9% 19.7% $1.81 $62 $3,200 $1,546,000,000 $208 $10,800 $5,200,000,000 23.0%
$40,000–$59,999 10,630,000 18.0% 415,000 3.9% 17.1% $1.85 $64 $3,300 $1,377,000,000 $208 $10,800 $4,500,000,000 23.5%
$60,000–$99,999 15,051,000 25.5% 470,000 3.1% 19.4% $1.86 $62 $3,200 $1,528,000,000 $201 $10,400 $4,900,000,000 23.7%
$100,000–$149,999 8,178,000 13.9% 205,000 2.5% 8.5% $1.94 $62 $3,200 $664,000,000 $189 $9,800 $2,000,000,000 24.9%
$150,000 or more 6,272,000 10.6% 157,000 2.5% 6.5% $2.07 $71 $3,700 $577,000,000 $186 $9,700 $1,500,000,000 27.6%
Industry
Construction 3,570,000 6.0% 77,000 2.2% 3.2% $1.85 $70 $3,700 $283,000,000 $237 $12,300 $1,000,000,000 22.9%
Manufacturing 6,760,000 11.5% 130,000 1.9% 5.4% $1.84 $68 $3,600 $461,000,000 $236 $12,300 $1,600,000,000 22.4%
Retail 7,582,000 12.8% 358,000 4.7% 14.8% $1.25 $41 $2,100 $763,000,000 $208 $10,800 $3,900,000,000 16.4%
Agriculture, 467,000 0.8% 43,000 9.1% 1.8% $1.65 $71 $3,700 $157,000,000 $276 $14,400 $600,000,000 20.4%
forestry, and fishing
Wholesale 1,659,000 2.8% 41,000 2.5% 1.7% $1.58 $62 $3,200 $131,000,000 $254 $13,200 $500,000,000 19.5%
Transportation and 3,456,000 5.9% 96,000 2.8% 4.0% $1.77 $72 $3,800 $362,000,000 $253 $13,100 $1,300,000,000 22.3%
utilities
Information 1,323,000 2.2% 36,000 2.7% 1.5% $2.03 $64 $3,400 $122,000,000 $167 $8,700 $300,000,000 27.9%
Financial activities 3,625,000 6.1% 84,000 2.3% 3.5% $2.25 $83 $4,300 $362,000,000 $209 $10,900 $900,000,000 28.5%
Professional and 6,432,000 10.9% 192,000 3.0% 7.9% $1.81 $64 $3,300 $635,000,000 $223 $11,600 $2,200,000,000 22.2%
business
Education and 12,027,000 20.4% 324,000 2.7% 13.4% $1.90 $64 $3,300 $1,073,000,000 $202 $10,500 $3,400,000,000 23.9%
health
Food and drink 4,394,000 7.4% 627,000 14.3% 25.9% $2.21 $68 $3,500 $2,209,000,000 $168 $8,700 $5,500,000,000 28.8%
service
Other leisure and 1,840,000 3.1% 124,000 6.8% 5.1% $1.72 $60 $3,100 $388,000,000 $194 $10,100 $1,300,000,000 23.6%
hospitality
Other industries 5,880,000 10.0% 289,000 4.9% 12.0% $2.01 $70 $3,700 $1,057,000,000 $205 $10,700 $3,100,000,000 25.5%
Occupation
Management 6,935,000 11.8% 98,000 1.4% 4.1% $2.74 $115 $6,000 $589,000,000 $211 $11,000 $1,100,000,000 35.3%
Professional 11,630,000 19.7% 192,000 1.6% 7.9% $2.26 $78 $4,100 $778,000,000 $200 $10,400 $2,000,000,000 28.0%
Service 11,704,000 19.8% 1,126,000 9.6% 46.5% $2.05 $66 $3,400 $3,849,000,000 $187 $9,700 $10,900,000,000 26.0%
Sales 6,970,000 11.8% 364,000 5.2% 15.0% $1.37 $46 $2,400 $877,000,000 $206 $10,700 $3,900,000,000 18.4%
Office and 7,674,000 13.0% 197,000 2.6% 8.1% $1.46 $44 $2,300 $447,000,000 $203 $10,500 $2,100,000,000 17.7%
37
A3 (cont.)
administrative
support
Farming, forestry, 351,000 0.6% 41,000 11.6% 1.7% $1.70 $77 $4,000 $164,000,000 $281 $14,600 $600,000,000 21.6%
and fishing
Construction and 3,090,000 5.2% 73,000 2.4% 3.0% $1.73 $65 $3,400 $249,000,000 $241 $12,500 $900,000,000 21.3%
extraction
Installation, 2,281,000 3.9% 39,000 1.7% 1.6% $2.06 $82 $4,300 $167,000,000 $219 $11,400 $400,000,000 27.2%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 4,030,000 6.8% 104,000 2.6% 4.3% $1.71 $61 $3,200 $330,000,000 $234 $12,200 $1,300,000,000 20.7%
Transportation 4,350,000 7.4% 188,000 4.3% 7.8% $1.53 $56 $2,900 $552,000,000 $235 $12,200 $2,300,000,000 19.4%
Worker status
Part time (<20 3,156,000 5.3% 307,000 9.7% 12.7% $1.54 $20 $1,100 $323,000,000 $85 $4,400 $1,400,000,000 19.2%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 8,817,000 14.9% 844,000 9.6% 34.9% $1.88 $48 $2,500 $2,101,000,000 $158 $8,200 $6,900,000,000 23.2%
hours)
Full time (35+ 47,042,000 79.7% 1,271,000 2.7% 52.5% $1.95 $84 $4,400 $5,578,000,000 $261 $13,500 $17,200,000,000 24.5%
hours)
Education
Less than high 6,281,000 10.6% 559,000 8.9% 23.1% $1.49 $51 $2,700 $1,482,000,000 $212 $11,000 $6,200,000,000 19.4%
school
High school 16,789,000 28.4% 752,000 4.5% 31.1% $1.83 $63 $3,300 $2,451,000,000 $206 $10,700 $8,100,000,000 23.3%
Some college 18,152,000 30.8% 772,000 4.3% 31.9% $2.02 $65 $3,400 $2,630,000,000 $191 $9,900 $7,700,000,000 25.5%
Bachelor’s degree 17,791,000 30.1% 338,000 1.9% 14.0% $2.30 $82 $4,300 $1,439,000,000 $207 $10,700 $3,600,000,000 28.4%
or higher
Nativity & citizenship

U.S.-born 45,934,000 77.8% 1,731,000 3.8% 71.5% $1.92 $63 $3,300 $5,657,000,000 $189 $9,900 $17,100,000,000 24.9%
Foreign born 13,080,000 22.2% 691,000 5.3% 28.5% $1.76 $65 $3,400 $2,345,000,000 $235 $12,200 $8,500,000,000 21.7%
U.S.-born citizen 46,500,000 78.8% 1,750,000 3.8% 72.3% $1.92 $63 $3,300 $5,705,000,000 $190 $9,900 $17,300,000,000 24.8%
Naturalized U.S. 5,786,000 9.8% 236,000 4.1% 9.7% $1.87 $69 $3,600 $842,000,000 $230 $12,000 $2,800,000,000 23.0%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 6,728,000 11.4% 436,000 6.5% 18.0% $1.71 $64 $3,300 $1,455,000,000 $239 $12,400 $5,400,000,000 21.2%
38
A3 (cont.)
Union status
Union covered 615,000 1.0% 14,000 2.3% 0.6% $1.63 $46 $2,400 $34,000,000 $217 $11,300 $200,000,000 17.4%
Not union covered 51,596,000 87.4% 2,288,000 4.4% 94.5% $1.88 $63 $3,300 $7,551,000,000 $201 $10,500 $23,900,000,000 24.0%
Union status not 6,804,000 11.5% 120,000 1.8% 4.9% $1.82 $67 $3,500 $417,000,000 $229 $11,900 $1,400,000,000 22.7%
available
State
California 14,569,000 24.7% 590,000 4.1% 24.4% $1.88 $64 $3,400 $1,979,000,000 $224 $11,700 $6,900,000,000 22.3%
Florida 5,515,000 9.3% 404,000 7.3% 16.7% $1.57 $54 $2,800 $1,124,000,000 $213 $11,100 $4,500,000,000 20.1%
Georgia 3,769,000 6.4% 82,000 2.2% 3.4% $1.94 $71 $3,700 $301,000,000 $203 $10,600 $900,000,000 25.9%
Illinois 5,185,000 8.8% 243,000 4.7% 10.0% $1.62 $53 $2,800 $675,000,000 $205 $10,700 $2,600,000,000 20.6%
Michigan 2,861,000 4.8% 130,000 4.5% 5.4% $2.05 $63 $3,300 $429,000,000 $169 $8,800 $1,100,000,000 27.3%
New York 6,047,000 10.2% 300,000 5.0% 12.4% $1.82 $62 $3,200 $965,000,000 $210 $10,900 $3,300,000,000 22.8%
North Carolina 3,111,000 5.3% 84,000 2.7% 3.5% $2.14 $72 $3,800 $316,000,000 $179 $9,300 $800,000,000 28.8%
Ohio 3,915,000 6.6% 217,000 5.5% 9.0% $1.65 $53 $2,800 $601,000,000 $185 $9,600 $2,100,000,000 22.4%
Pennsylvania 4,299,000 7.3% 107,000 2.5% 4.4% $2.46 $80 $4,200 $448,000,000 $164 $8,500 $900,000,000 32.9%
Texas 9,743,000 16.5% 265,000 2.7% 10.9% $2.38 $85 $4,400 $1,165,000,000 $182 $9,500 $2,500,000,000 31.7%
Note: Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are computed based on
unrounded numbers. “Low-wage earners” includes all minimum-wage-eligible workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in each state.
39
Summary
Appendix Table statistics on minimum wage violations in California
A4
All workers 14,569,000 100.0% 590,250 4.1% 100.0% $1.88 $64 $3,400 $1,979,000,000 $224 $11,700 $6,886,000,000 22.3%
Low-wage earners 3,071,000 21.1% 590,250 19.2% 100.0% $1.88 $64 $3,400 $1,979,000,000 $224 $11,700 $6,886,000,000 22.3%
Gender
Men 7,855,000 53.9% 273,340 3.5% 46.3% $1.76 $64 $3,300 $910,000,000 $238 $12,400 $3,388,000,000 21.2%
Women 6,714,000 46.1% 316,910 4.7% 53.7% $1.98 $65 $3,400 $1,069,000,000 $212 $11,000 $3,498,000,000 23.4%
Age
Under 20 376,000 2.6% 49,640 13.2% 8.4% $1.32 $31 $1,600 $80,000,000 $174 $9,100 $450,000,000 15.2%
20 and over 14,193,000 97.4% 540,610 3.8% 91.6% $1.93 $68 $3,500 $1,898,000,000 $229 $11,900 $6,437,000,000 22.8%
16–24 1,988,000 13.6% 183,400 9.2% 31.1% $1.75 $51 $2,700 $487,000,000 $193 $10,000 $1,841,000,000 20.9%
25–54 9,878,000 67.8% 311,750 3.2% 52.8% $1.88 $69 $3,600 $1,121,000,000 $243 $12,700 $3,946,000,000 22.1%
55–85 2,703,000 18.6% 95,100 3.5% 16.1% $2.13 $75 $3,900 $371,000,000 $222 $11,600 $1,100,000,000 25.2%
Race/ethnicity
White 5,784,000 39.7% 168,980 2.9% 28.6% $2.23 $75 $3,900 $663,000,000 $209 $10,900 $1,834,000,000 26.5%
Black 730,000 5.0% 41,950 5.7% 7.1% $1.65 $51 $2,600 $111,000,000 $220 $11,400 $480,000,000 18.7%
Hispanic 5,498,000 37.7% 283,270 5.2% 48.0% $1.64 $58 $3,000 $849,000,000 $238 $12,400 $3,510,000,000 19.5%
Other 2,557,000 17.5% 96,050 3.8% 16.3% $2.08 $71 $3,700 $356,000,000 $213 $11,100 $1,063,000,000 25.1%

Married parent 4,051,000 27.8% 112,030 2.8% 19.0% $1.82 $67 $3,500 $390,000,000 $249 $13,000 $1,451,000,000 21.2%
Single parent 1,039,000 7.1% 48,620 4.7% 8.2% $1.57 $58 $3,000 $147,000,000 $253 $13,200 $640,000,000 18.7%
Married, no kids 3,621,000 24.9% 111,220 3.1% 18.8% $2.14 $77 $4,000 $445,000,000 $231 $12,000 $1,334,000,000 25.0%
Unmarried, no kids 5,858,000 40.2% 318,380 5.4% 53.9% $1.86 $60 $3,100 $996,000,000 $209 $10,900 $3,461,000,000 22.3%
Family income
Less than $10,000 515,000 3.5% 44,120 8.6% 7.5% $2.04 $69 $3,600 $158,000,000 $211 $11,000 $484,000,000 24.6%
$10,000–$24,999 1,557,000 10.7% 120,060 7.7% 20.3% $1.91 $67 $3,500 $416,000,000 $224 $11,700 $1,399,000,000 22.9%
40
A4 (cont.)
$25,000–$39,999 2,179,000 15.0% 114,000 5.2% 19.3% $1.57 $54 $2,800 $321,000,000 $239 $12,400 $1,418,000,000 18.5%
$40,000–$59,999 2,287,000 15.7% 95,200 4.2% 16.1% $1.76 $62 $3,200 $306,000,000 $240 $12,500 $1,188,000,000 20.5%
$60,000–$99,999 3,552,000 24.4% 107,380 3.0% 18.2% $1.99 $69 $3,600 $385,000,000 $219 $11,400 $1,222,000,000 24.0%
$100,000–$149,999 2,227,000 15.3% 55,640 2.5% 9.4% $1.90 $65 $3,400 $188,000,000 $214 $11,100 $619,000,000 23.3%
$150,000 or more 2,252,000 15.5% 53,860 2.4% 9.1% $2.33 $73 $3,800 $204,000,000 $198 $10,300 $556,000,000 26.9%
Industry
Construction 805,000 5.5% 15,320 1.9% 2.6% $1.82 $72 $3,800 $57,000,000 $262 $13,600 $209,000,000 21.6%
Manufacturing 1,526,000 10.5% 40,140 2.6% 6.8% $1.96 $74 $3,800 $154,000,000 $244 $12,700 $509,000,000 23.2%
Retail 1,669,000 11.5% 81,650 4.9% 13.8% $1.55 $49 $2,500 $207,000,000 $224 $11,600 $951,000,000 17.9%
Agriculture, 276,000 1.9% 29,360 10.7% 5.0% $1.69 $66 $3,500 $101,000,000 $277 $14,400 $422,000,000 19.4%
Wholesale 394,000 2.7% 9,670 2.5% 1.6% $1.46 $53 $2,700 $27,000,000 $270 $14,100 $136,000,000 16.4%
Transportation and 757,000 5.2% 23,870 3.2% 4.0% $1.53 $58 $3,000 $72,000,000 $262 $13,600 $325,000,000 18.1%
utilities
Information 424,000 2.9% 10,150 2.4% 1.7% $2.46 $82 $4,300 $44,000,000 $195 $10,200 $103,000,000 29.7%
Financial activities 878,000 6.0% 21,290 2.4% 3.6% $2.61 $93 $4,800 $103,000,000 $211 $11,000 $233,000,000 30.5%
Professional and 1,798,000 12.3% 56,710 3.2% 9.6% $1.92 $69 $3,600 $204,000,000 $241 $12,600 $712,000,000 22.3%
business
Education and 3,091,000 21.2% 97,000 3.1% 16.4% $2.09 $70 $3,600 $352,000,000 $209 $10,900 $1,055,000,000 25.0%
health
Food or drink 958,000 6.6% 87,630 9.1% 14.8% $1.79 $55 $2,900 $251,000,000 $195 $10,100 $888,000,000 22.0%
service
Other leisure and 504,000 3.5% 28,370 5.6% 4.8% $1.59 $49 $2,500 $72,000,000 $210 $10,900 $310,000,000 18.9%
hospitality
Other industries 1,491,000 10.2% 89,090 6.0% 15.1% $2.05 $72 $3,800 $336,000,000 $223 $11,600 $1,034,000,000 24.5%
Occupation
Management 2,162,000 14.8% 32,580 1.5% 5.5% $2.91 $114 $5,900 $193,000,000 $217 $11,300 $368,000,000 34.5%
Professional 3,291,000 22.6% 64,590 2.0% 10.9% $2.42 $80 $4,200 $269,000,000 $207 $10,800 $694,000,000 27.9%
Service 2,717,000 18.6% 231,170 8.5% 39.2% $1.88 $62 $3,200 $750,000,000 $216 $11,200 $2,593,000,000 22.4%
Sales 1,480,000 10.2% 88,140 6.0% 14.9% $1.61 $54 $2,800 $245,000,000 $219 $11,400 $1,004,000,000 19.6%
Office and 1,889,000 13.0% 44,370 2.3% 7.5% $1.71 $47 $2,500 $109,000,000 $204 $10,600 $470,000,000 18.9%
41
A4 (cont.)
administrative
support
and fishing
Construction and 655,000 4.5% 13,890 2.1% 2.4% $1.32 $53 $2,800 $38,000,000 $272 $14,200 $197,000,000 16.3%
extraction
Installation, 453,000 3.1% 12,830 2.8% 2.2% $2.02 $77 $4,000 $51,000,000 $227 $11,800 $151,000,000 25.3%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 805,000 5.5% 33,380 4.1% 5.7% $1.81 $67 $3,500 $116,000,000 $253 $13,100 $438,000,000 20.9%
Transportation 902,000 6.2% 43,180 4.8% 7.3% $1.37 $52 $2,700 $118,000,000 $260 $13,500 $583,000,000 16.8%
Worker status
Part time (<20 770,000 5.3% 66,920 8.7% 11.3% $1.58 $20 $1,100 $71,000,000 $94 $4,900 $326,000,000 17.8%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 2,250,000 15.4% 203,600 9.0% 34.5% $1.80 $44 $2,300 $470,000,000 $176 $9,200 $1,867,000,000 20.1%
hours)
Full time (35+ 11,548,000 79.3% 319,740 2.8% 54.2% $2.00 $86 $4,500 $1,438,000,000 $282 $14,700 $4,693,000,000 23.5%
hours)
Education
Less than high 1,822,000 12.5% 164,160 9.0% 27.8% $1.55 $55 $2,900 $471,000,000 $242 $12,600 $2,069,000,000 18.5%
school
High school 3,241,000 22.2% 156,570 4.8% 26.5% $1.88 $65 $3,400 $530,000,000 $225 $11,700 $1,830,000,000 22.5%
Some college 4,336,000 29.8% 181,960 4.2% 30.8% $1.94 $64 $3,300 $602,000,000 $210 $10,900 $1,985,000,000 23.3%
Bachelor’s degree 5,170,000 35.5% 87,560 1.7% 14.8% $2.38 $83 $4,300 $376,000,000 $220 $11,400 $1,002,000,000 27.3%
or higher

U.S.-born 9,569,000 65.7% 339,780 3.6% 57.6% $1.89 $62 $3,200 $1,091,000,000 $211 $11,000 $3,721,000,000 22.7%
Foreign born 5,000,000 34.3% 250,470 5.0% 42.4% $1.87 $68 $3,500 $888,000,000 $243 $12,600 $3,166,000,000 21.9%
U.S.-born citizen 9,735,000 66.8% 344,380 3.5% 58.3% $1.89 $62 $3,200 $1,105,000,000 $211 $11,000 $3,784,000,000 22.6%
Naturalized U.S. 2,398,000 16.5% 91,930 3.8% 15.6% $2.21 $77 $4,000 $370,000,000 $223 $11,600 $1,067,000,000 25.7%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 2,435,000 16.7% 153,940 6.3% 26.1% $1.67 $63 $3,300 $505,000,000 $254 $13,200 $2,035,000,000 19.9%
42
Appendix
Note:Table
Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are computed based
A4 (cont.)
on unrounded numbers. “Low-wage earners” includes all minimum-wage-eligible workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in the state.
43
Summary
Appendix Table statistics on minimum wage violations in Florida
A5
All workers 5,515,000 100.0% 404,040 7.3% 100.0% $1.57 $54 $2,800 $1,124,000,000 $213 $11,100 $4,465,000,000 20.1%
Low-wage earners 1,623,000 29.4% 404,040 24.9% 100.0% $1.57 $54 $2,800 $1,124,000,000 $213 $11,100 $4,465,000,000 20.1%
Gender
Men 2,931,000 53.1% 186,210 6.4% 46.1% $1.60 $55 $2,900 $537,000,000 $218 $11,300 $2,113,000,000 20.3%
Women 2,584,000 46.9% 217,830 8.4% 53.9% $1.55 $52 $2,700 $587,000,000 $208 $10,800 $2,353,000,000 20.0%
Age
Under 20 209,000 3.8% 54,940 26.3% 13.6% $0.88 $20 $1,100 $58,000,000 $166 $8,600 $474,000,000 10.9%
20 and over 5,306,000 96.2% 349,100 6.6% 86.4% $1.68 $59 $3,100 $1,066,000,000 $220 $11,400 $3,992,000,000 21.1%
16–24 803,000 14.6% 121,200 15.1% 30.0% $1.29 $39 $2,000 $245,000,000 $188 $9,800 $1,184,000,000 17.1%
25–54 3,572,000 64.8% 216,710 6.1% 53.6% $1.72 $60 $3,100 $681,000,000 $225 $11,700 $2,533,000,000 21.2%
55–85 1,139,000 20.7% 66,130 5.8% 16.4% $1.61 $58 $3,000 $199,000,000 $218 $11,300 $749,000,000 21.0%
Race/ethnicity
White 3,047,000 55.3% 195,980 6.4% 48.5% $1.86 $61 $3,200 $623,000,000 $191 $9,900 $1,947,000,000 24.2%
Black 830,000 15.1% 72,380 8.7% 17.9% $1.32 $44 $2,300 $167,000,000 $221 $11,500 $832,000,000 16.7%
Hispanic 1,411,000 25.6% 116,870 8.3% 28.9% $1.21 $43 $2,200 $260,000,000 $237 $12,300 $1,443,000,000 15.3%
Other 226,000 4.1% 18,800 8.3% 4.7% $1.75 $76 $4,000 $75,000,000 $248 $12,900 $243,000,000 23.5%

Married parent 1,210,000 21.9% 66,870 5.5% 16.6% $1.71 $64 $3,300 $223,000,000 $237 $12,300 $825,000,000 21.3%
Single parent 467,000 8.5% 39,480 8.5% 9.8% $1.67 $54 $2,800 $111,000,000 $215 $11,200 $441,000,000 20.0%
Married, no kids 1,453,000 26.3% 75,190 5.2% 18.6% $1.78 $64 $3,300 $249,000,000 $222 $11,500 $866,000,000 22.3%
Family income
Less than $10,000 219,000 4.0% 33,350 15.2% 8.3% $1.69 $51 $2,700 $89,000,000 $205 $10,600 $355,000,000 20.1%
$10,000–$24,999 850,000 15.4% 95,890 11.3% 23.7% $1.37 $48 $2,500 $239,000,000 $221 $11,500 $1,104,000,000 17.8%
44
A5 (cont.)
$25,000–$39,999 1,097,000 19.9% 84,770 7.7% 21.0% $1.41 $48 $2,500 $212,000,000 $221 $11,500 $976,000,000 17.8%
$40,000–$59,999 1,169,000 21.2% 66,350 5.7% 16.4% $1.66 $58 $3,000 $199,000,000 $208 $10,800 $718,000,000 21.7%
$60,000–$99,999 1,300,000 23.6% 76,890 5.9% 19.0% $1.72 $59 $3,100 $237,000,000 $211 $11,000 $843,000,000 21.9%
$100,000–$149,999 583,000 10.6% 25,470 4.4% 6.3% $1.74 $56 $2,900 $75,000,000 $199 $10,400 $264,000,000 22.1%
$150,000 or more 297,000 5.4% 21,310 7.2% 5.3% $1.92 $66 $3,400 $73,000,000 $186 $9,700 $206,000,000 26.3%
Industry
Construction 385,000 7.0% 17,440 4.5% 4.3% $1.40 $50 $2,600 $45,000,000 $237 $12,300 $215,000,000 17.3%
Manufacturing 305,000 5.5% 15,790 5.2% 3.9% $1.21 $41 $2,100 $34,000,000 $265 $13,800 $218,000,000 13.4%
Retail 929,000 16.8% 71,750 7.7% 17.8% $0.90 $28 $1,400 $104,000,000 $212 $11,000 $792,000,000 11.6%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 167,000 3.0% 9,830 5.9% 2.4% $0.97 $40 $2,100 $21,000,000 $295 $15,300 $151,000,000 12.0%
utilities
Information 100,000 1.8% 4,710 4.7% 1.2% $1.91 $61 $3,200 $15,000,000 $158 $8,200 $39,000,000 27.8%
Professional and 625,000 11.3% 43,380 6.9% 10.7% $1.69 $60 $3,100 $135,000,000 $222 $11,600 $501,000,000 21.2%
business
Education and 891,000 16.2% 29,970 3.4% 7.4% $1.67 $57 $3,000 $89,000,000 $207 $10,800 $322,000,000 21.7%
health
Food or drink 541,000 9.8% 108,670 20.1% 26.9% $1.86 $60 $3,100 $342,000,000 $195 $10,100 $1,100,000,000 23.7%
service
hospitality
Other industries 592,000 10.7% 46,130 7.8% 11.4% $1.96 $64 $3,300 $154,000,000 $197 $10,200 $472,000,000 24.6%
Occupation
Management 393,000 7.1% 13,940 3.5% 3.4% $2.78 $119 $6,200 $86,000,000 $222 $11,500 $161,000,000 34.8%
Professional 787,000 14.3% 15,340 2.0% 3.8% $2.13 $83 $4,300 $66,000,000 $207 $10,700 $165,000,000 28.7%
Service 1,393,000 25.3% 200,850 14.4% 49.7% $1.73 $57 $3,000 $593,000,000 $204 $10,600 $2,134,000,000 21.8%
Sales 918,000 16.7% 68,930 7.5% 17.1% $1.10 $36 $1,900 $130,000,000 $220 $11,400 $787,000,000 14.2%
Office and 740,000 13.4% 33,370 4.5% 8.3% $1.34 $42 $2,200 $72,000,000 $198 $10,300 $344,000,000 17.4%
45
A5 (cont.)
administrative
support
Farming, forestry, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 267,000 4.8% 7,390 2.8% 1.8% $2.00 $71 $3,700 $27,000,000 $183 $9,500 $70,000,000 28.0%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 247,000 4.5% 13,150 5.3% 3.3% $1.08 $38 $2,000 $26,000,000 $253 $13,200 $173,000,000 12.9%
Transportation 422,000 7.7% 33,790 8.0% 8.4% $1.33 $48 $2,500 $85,000,000 $230 $12,000 $404,000,000 17.4%
Worker status
Part time (<20 258,000 4.7% 44,930 17.4% 11.1% $1.29 $18 $900 $42,000,000 $88 $4,600 $206,000,000 17.1%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 939,000 17.0% 133,420 14.2% 33.0% $1.55 $40 $2,100 $277,000,000 $166 $8,600 $1,151,000,000 19.4%
hours)
Full time (35+ 4,318,000 78.3% 225,690 5.2% 55.9% $1.64 $69 $3,600 $805,000,000 $265 $13,800 $3,108,000,000 20.6%
hours)
Education
Less than high 514,000 9.3% 84,310 16.4% 20.9% $1.06 $35 $1,800 $152,000,000 $220 $11,400 $963,000,000 13.6%
school
High school 1,875,000 34.0% 149,150 8.0% 36.9% $1.43 $49 $2,600 $381,000,000 $220 $11,500 $1,710,000,000 18.2%
Some college 1,858,000 33.7% 121,290 6.5% 30.0% $1.82 $60 $3,100 $377,000,000 $201 $10,400 $1,265,000,000 23.0%
Bachelor’s degree 1,268,000 23.0% 49,290 3.9% 12.2% $2.28 $84 $4,300 $214,000,000 $206 $10,700 $527,000,000 28.9%
or higher

U.S.-born 4,130,000 74.9% 276,150 6.7% 68.3% $1.64 $54 $2,800 $773,000,000 $199 $10,300 $2,853,000,000 21.3%
Foreign born 1,384,000 25.1% 127,890 9.2% 31.7% $1.43 $53 $2,700 $351,000,000 $242 $12,600 $1,612,000,000 17.9%
U.S.-born citizen 4,187,000 75.9% 281,200 6.7% 69.6% $1.63 $53 $2,800 $780,000,000 $199 $10,400 $2,916,000,000 21.1%
Naturalized U.S. 676,000 12.3% 42,100 6.2% 10.4% $1.40 $53 $2,800 $116,000,000 $246 $12,800 $539,000,000 17.8%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 651,000 11.8% 80,740 12.4% 20.0% $1.46 $54 $2,800 $228,000,000 $241 $12,500 $1,010,000,000 18.4%
46
Appendix
Note:Table
Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Data are not shown where sample sizes are too small to provide reli-
A5 (cont.)
able estimates. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are computed based on unrounded numbers. “Low-wage earners” includes all minimum-wage-eligible
workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in the state.
47
AppendixSummary
Table statistics on minimum wage violations in Georgia
A6
Total annual
wages
Average received by Share
annual workers of
Average Total earned Average wages experiencing earned
Share Group’s Average Average annual annual wages weekly received minimum wages
Total Share of of total share of hourly weekly underpayment not paid to wages if wage not
All workers 3,769,000 100.0% 81,570 2.2% 100.0% $1.94 $71 $3,700 $301,000,000 $203 $10,600 $862,000,000 25.9%
Low-wage earners 869,000 23.0% 81,570 9.4% 100.0% $1.94 $71 $3,700 $301,000,000 $203 $10,600 $862,000,000 25.9%
Gender
Men 1,959,000 52.0% 38,400 2.0% 47.1% $1.77 $72 $3,700 $144,000,000 $218 $11,400 $436,000,000 24.8%
Women 1,810,000 48.0% 43,170 2.4% 52.9% $2.08 $70 $3,600 $157,000,000 $190 $9,900 $426,000,000 27.0%
Age
Under 20 92,000 2.4% 2,790 3.0% 3.4% $1.49 $54 $2,800 $8,000,000 $140 $7,300 $20,000,000 27.9%
20 and over 3,677,000 97.6% 78,780 2.1% 96.6% $1.95 $72 $3,700 $293,000,000 $206 $10,700 $842,000,000 25.8%
16–24 453,000 12.0% 17,130 3.8% 21.0% $2.22 $69 $3,600 $61,000,000 $162 $8,400 $145,000,000 29.8%
25–54 2,644,000 70.2% 52,230 2.0% 64.0% $1.83 $70 $3,700 $191,000,000 $218 $11,400 $593,000,000 24.3%
55–85 672,000 17.8% 12,210 1.8% 15.0% $1.99 $77 $4,000 $49,000,000 $196 $10,200 $125,000,000 28.1%
Race/ethnicity
White 2,097,000 55.7% 39,300 1.9% 48.2% $2.14 $84 $4,400 $172,000,000 $207 $10,800 $423,000,000 28.9%
Black 1,142,000 30.3% 23,840 2.1% 29.2% $1.83 $64 $3,300 $79,000,000 $194 $10,100 $241,000,000 24.7%
Hispanic 305,000 8.1% 10,920 3.6% 13.4% $1.42 $47 $2,500 $27,000,000 $225 $11,700 $128,000,000 17.4%
Other 224,000 5.9% 7,510 3.4% 9.2% $1.94 $58 $3,000 $23,000,000 $180 $9,400 $70,000,000 24.4%

Married parent 1,010,000 26.8% 19,660 1.9% 24.1% $1.75 $58 $3,000 $60,000,000 $208 $10,800 $212,000,000 22.0%
Single parent 332,000 8.8% 7,570 2.3% 9.3% $2.12 $71 $3,700 $28,000,000 $193 $10,100 $76,000,000 26.9%
Married, no kids 1,024,000 27.2% 17,700 1.7% 21.7% $2.09 $90 $4,700 $83,000,000 $223 $11,600 $205,000,000 28.8%
Unmarried, no kids 1,403,000 37.2% 36,650 2.6% 44.9% $1.92 $68 $3,600 $130,000,000 $194 $10,100 $369,000,000 26.1%
Family income
Less than $10,000 148,000 3.9% 6,190 4.2% 7.6% $1.89 $59 $3,100 $19,000,000 $199 $10,300 $64,000,000 22.8%
48
A6 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
$10,000–$24,999 463,000 12.3% 18,030 3.9% 22.1% $1.59 $66 $3,400 $61,000,000 $236 $12,300 $222,000,000 21.7%
$25,000–$39,999 645,000 17.1% 15,950 2.5% 19.6% $2.02 $72 $3,800 $60,000,000 $185 $9,600 $154,000,000 28.0%
$40,000–$59,999 701,000 18.6% 16,740 2.4% 20.5% $2.02 $72 $3,700 $62,000,000 $195 $10,100 $170,000,000 26.9%
$60,000–$99,999 983,000 26.1% 15,320 1.6% 18.8% $1.79 $62 $3,200 $49,000,000 $200 $10,400 $160,000,000 23.7%
$100,000–$149,999 497,000 13.2% 4,070 0.8% 5.0% $3.93 $140 $7,300 $30,000,000 $132 $6,800 $28,000,000 51.6%
$150,000 or more 332,000 8.8% 5,290 1.6% 6.5% $1.57 $70 $3,600 $19,000,000 $241 $12,500 $66,000,000 22.5%
Industry
Construction 217,000 5.8% 3,990 1.8% 4.9% $1.27 $57 $3,000 $12,000,000 $289 $15,000 $60,000,000 16.5%
Manufacturing 431,000 11.4% 6,360 1.5% 7.8% $2.27 $93 $4,800 $31,000,000 $208 $10,800 $69,000,000 30.9%
Retail 464,000 12.3% 6,390 1.4% 7.8% $1.33 $59 $3,100 $20,000,000 $229 $11,900 $76,000,000 20.6%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 109,000 2.9% 1,640 1.5% 2.0% $2.43 $120 $6,300 $10,000,000 $239 $12,500 $20,000,000 33.5%
utilities
Information 96,000 2.5% 1,530 1.6% 1.9% $1.36 $50 $2,600 $4,000,000 $191 $9,900 $15,000,000 20.7%
business
Education and 770,000 20.4% 12,290 1.6% 15.1% $1.38 $53 $2,800 $34,000,000 $214 $11,100 $137,000,000 20.0%
health
Food or drink 267,000 7.1% 19,420 7.3% 23.8% $2.68 $74 $3,900 $75,000,000 $131 $6,800 $133,000,000 36.2%
service
hospitality
Occupation
Management 576,000 15.3% 3,600 0.6% 4.4% $2.71 $129 $6,700 $24,000,000 $200 $10,400 $37,000,000 39.3%
Professional 815,000 21.6% 5,800 0.7% 7.1% $1.71 $66 $3,400 $20,000,000 $184 $9,600 $56,000,000 26.3%
Service 598,000 15.9% 32,950 5.5% 40.4% $2.49 $78 $4,100 $134,000,000 $161 $8,400 $276,000,000 32.7%
49
A6 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Sales 428,000 11.4% 12,320 2.9% 15.1% $1.39 $59 $3,100 $38,000,000 $230 $12,000 $148,000,000 20.5%
Office and 511,000 13.6% 8,600 1.7% 10.5% $1.16 $47 $2,500 $21,000,000 $249 $13,000 $111,000,000 16.0%
administrative
support
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 143,000 3.8% 2,890 2.0% 3.5% $2.48 $115 $6,000 $17,000,000 $245 $12,800 $37,000,000 31.9%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 237,000 6.3% 2,550 1.1% 3.1% $1.40 $55 $2,800 $7,000,000 $217 $11,300 $29,000,000 20.1%
Transportation 282,000 7.5% 6,660 2.4% 8.2% $1.25 $48 $2,500 $17,000,000 $248 $12,900 $86,000,000 16.3%
Worker status
Part time (<20 136,000 3.6% 3,890 2.9% 4.8% $1.96 $32 $1,700 $7,000,000 $68 $3,500 $14,000,000 32.2%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 452,000 12.0% 20,820 4.6% 25.5% $2.45 $63 $3,300 $68,000,000 $121 $6,300 $131,000,000 34.3%
hours)
Full time (35+ 3,181,000 84.4% 56,870 1.8% 69.7% $1.75 $77 $4,000 $226,000,000 $243 $12,600 $718,000,000 24.0%
hours)
Education
Less than high 312,000 8.3% 11,650 3.7% 14.3% $1.35 $50 $2,600 $30,000,000 $201 $10,500 $122,000,000 19.9%
school
High school 1,054,000 28.0% 24,000 2.3% 29.4% $1.91 $70 $3,600 $87,000,000 $213 $11,100 $266,000,000 24.6%
Some college 1,120,000 29.7% 26,950 2.4% 33.0% $2.32 $82 $4,200 $115,000,000 $186 $9,700 $261,000,000 30.5%
or higher

U.S.-born 3,237,000 85.9% 66,420 2.1% 81.4% $2.01 $76 $3,900 $261,000,000 $202 $10,500 $697,000,000 27.3%
Foreign born 532,000 14.1% 15,150 2.8% 18.6% $1.62 $50 $2,600 $40,000,000 $210 $10,900 $166,000,000 19.3%
U.S.-born citizen 3,271,000 86.8% 66,420 2.0% 81.4% $2.01 $76 $3,900 $261,000,000 $202 $10,500 $697,000,000 27.3%
50
A6 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Naturalized U.S. 206,000 5.5% 1,430 0.7% 1.8% $3.28 $86 $4,400 $6,000,000 $128 $6,700 $10,000,000 40.0%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 291,000 7.7% 13,720 4.7% 16.8% $1.45 $47 $2,400 $33,000,000 $219 $11,400 $156,000,000 17.6%
Note: Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Data are not shown where sample sizes are too small to provide re-
liable estimates. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are computed based on unrounded numbers. “Low-wage earners” includes all minimum-wage-eligi-
ble workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in the state.
51
Summary
Appendix Table statistics on minimum wage violations in Illinois
A7
All workers 5,185,000 100.0% 243,250 4.7% 100.0% $1.62 $53 $2,800 $675,000,000 $205 $10,700 $2,598,000,000 20.6%
Low-wage earners 1,100,000 21.2% 243,250 22.1% 100.0% $1.62 $53 $2,800 $675,000,000 $205 $10,700 $2,598,000,000 20.6%
Gender
Men 2,660,000 51.3% 113,310 4.3% 46.6% $1.52 $54 $2,800 $319,000,000 $220 $11,500 $1,299,000,000 19.7%
Women 2,526,000 48.7% 129,940 5.1% 53.4% $1.71 $53 $2,700 $356,000,000 $192 $10,000 $1,299,000,000 21.5%
Age
Under 20 173,000 3.3% 28,990 16.7% 11.9% $1.29 $27 $1,400 $41,000,000 $125 $6,500 $188,000,000 17.9%
20 and over 5,012,000 96.7% 214,260 4.3% 88.1% $1.66 $57 $3,000 $634,000,000 $216 $11,200 $2,410,000,000 20.8%
16–24 698,000 13.5% 77,030 11.0% 31.7% $1.33 $36 $1,900 $143,000,000 $172 $9,000 $690,000,000 17.2%
25–54 3,447,000 66.5% 122,450 3.6% 50.3% $1.80 $64 $3,300 $409,000,000 $224 $11,600 $1,426,000,000 22.3%
55–85 1,040,000 20.1% 43,770 4.2% 18.0% $1.62 $54 $2,800 $123,000,000 $212 $11,000 $482,000,000 20.3%
Race/ethnicity
White 3,445,000 66.4% 136,830 4.0% 56.3% $1.74 $56 $2,900 $397,000,000 $192 $10,000 $1,363,000,000 22.5%
Black 650,000 12.5% 48,020 7.4% 19.7% $1.41 $47 $2,500 $118,000,000 $215 $11,200 $537,000,000 18.0%
Hispanic 755,000 14.6% 42,600 5.6% 17.5% $1.36 $45 $2,400 $100,000,000 $227 $11,800 $503,000,000 16.6%
Other 336,000 6.5% 15,800 4.7% 6.5% $1.90 $73 $3,800 $60,000,000 $236 $12,300 $194,000,000 23.6%

Married parent 1,391,000 26.8% 44,720 3.2% 18.4% $1.58 $56 $2,900 $129,000,000 $239 $12,400 $555,000,000 18.9%
Single parent 393,000 7.6% 18,640 4.7% 7.7% $2.07 $71 $3,700 $69,000,000 $195 $10,100 $189,000,000 26.7%
Married, no kids 1,355,000 26.1% 52,540 3.9% 21.6% $1.77 $63 $3,300 $172,000,000 $223 $11,600 $610,000,000 22.0%
Family income
Less than $10,000 168,000 3.2% 17,940 10.7% 7.4% $1.76 $59 $3,100 $55,000,000 $197 $10,200 $184,000,000 23.2%
$10,000–$24,999 502,000 9.7% 42,400 8.4% 17.4% $1.53 $47 $2,400 $103,000,000 $210 $10,900 $463,000,000 18.2%
52
A7 (cont.)
$25,000–$39,999 702,000 13.5% 43,610 6.2% 17.9% $1.84 $62 $3,200 $142,000,000 $207 $10,800 $469,000,000 23.2%
$40,000–$59,999 933,000 18.0% 43,310 4.6% 17.8% $1.46 $49 $2,600 $111,000,000 $215 $11,200 $484,000,000 18.6%
$60,000–$99,999 1,346,000 26.0% 51,120 3.8% 21.0% $1.58 $54 $2,800 $143,000,000 $214 $11,100 $569,000,000 20.0%
$100,000–$149,999 791,000 15.3% 21,440 2.7% 8.8% $1.92 $62 $3,200 $69,000,000 $188 $9,800 $210,000,000 24.7%
$150,000 or more 744,000 14.3% 23,440 3.2% 9.6% $1.40 $44 $2,300 $53,000,000 $181 $9,400 $220,000,000 19.5%
Industry
Construction 230,000 4.4% 5,980 2.6% 2.5% $1.54 $57 $3,000 $18,000,000 $248 $12,900 $77,000,000 18.7%
Manufacturing 662,000 12.8% 18,880 2.9% 7.8% $1.72 $64 $3,300 $63,000,000 $249 $12,900 $244,000,000 20.5%
Retail 584,000 11.3% 38,240 6.5% 15.7% $1.26 $39 $2,100 $78,000,000 $180 $9,300 $357,000,000 18.0%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 160,000 3.1% 2,800 1.8% 1.2% $1.39 $54 $2,800 $8,000,000 $269 $14,000 $39,000,000 16.7%
utilities
Information 104,000 2.0% 5,100 4.9% 2.1% $1.26 $39 $2,000 $10,000,000 $160 $8,300 $42,000,000 19.7%
business
Education and 1,182,000 22.8% 41,550 3.5% 17.1% $1.91 $58 $3,000 $126,000,000 $198 $10,300 $429,000,000 22.8%
health
Food or drink 345,000 6.7% 54,860 15.9% 22.6% $1.75 $48 $2,500 $137,000,000 $173 $9,000 $492,000,000 21.8%
service
hospitality
Occupation
Management 800,000 15.4% 8,360 1.0% 3.4% $2.47 $97 $5,000 $42,000,000 $213 $11,100 $93,000,000 31.1%
Professional 1,126,000 21.7% 21,770 1.9% 9.0% $2.40 $80 $4,100 $90,000,000 $190 $9,900 $215,000,000 29.6%
Service 904,000 17.4% 106,710 11.8% 43.9% $1.57 $49 $2,500 $271,000,000 $208 $10,800 $1,152,000,000 19.1%
Sales 566,000 10.9% 38,520 6.8% 15.8% $1.34 $41 $2,100 $81,000,000 $174 $9,000 $349,000,000 18.9%
Office and 721,000 13.9% 21,840 3.0% 9.0% $0.96 $30 $1,500 $34,000,000 $195 $10,200 $222,000,000 13.2%
53
A7 (cont.)
administrative
support
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 175,000 3.4% 3,590 2.1% 1.5% $2.13 $82 $4,200 $15,000,000 $193 $10,000 $36,000,000 29.7%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 347,000 6.7% 11,940 3.4% 4.9% $1.25 $46 $2,400 $28,000,000 $270 $14,100 $168,000,000 14.4%
Transportation 361,000 7.0% 24,280 6.7% 10.0% $2.01 $74 $3,900 $94,000,000 $220 $11,400 $278,000,000 25.3%
Worker status
Part time (<20 307,000 5.9% 45,250 14.7% 18.6% $1.19 $16 $800 $37,000,000 $90 $4,700 $212,000,000 14.7%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 739,000 14.2% 84,300 11.4% 34.7% $1.50 $37 $1,900 $164,000,000 $170 $8,800 $744,000,000 18.1%
hours)
Full time (35+ 4,139,000 79.8% 113,700 2.7% 46.7% $1.87 $80 $4,200 $475,000,000 $278 $14,400 $1,642,000,000 22.4%
hours)
Education
Less than high 389,000 7.5% 46,800 12.0% 19.2% $1.20 $41 $2,100 $99,000,000 $215 $11,200 $524,000,000 15.8%
school
High school 1,249,000 24.1% 73,750 5.9% 30.3% $1.76 $61 $3,200 $235,000,000 $213 $11,100 $817,000,000 22.3%
Some college 1,540,000 29.7% 86,920 5.6% 35.7% $1.53 $48 $2,500 $216,000,000 $196 $10,200 $884,000,000 19.7%
or higher

U.S.-born 4,279,000 82.5% 190,500 4.5% 78.3% $1.66 $52 $2,700 $519,000,000 $192 $10,000 $1,905,000,000 21.4%
Foreign born 906,000 17.5% 52,750 5.8% 21.7% $1.48 $57 $3,000 $156,000,000 $252 $13,100 $693,000,000 18.4%
U.S.-born citizen 4,326,000 83.4% 190,850 4.4% 78.5% $1.66 $52 $2,700 $519,000,000 $192 $10,000 $1,909,000,000 21.4%
Naturalized U.S. 406,000 7.8% 21,030 5.2% 8.6% $1.50 $60 $3,100 $65,000,000 $259 $13,500 $283,000,000 18.7%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 453,000 8.7% 31,370 6.9% 12.9% $1.47 $55 $2,900 $90,000,000 $249 $12,900 $406,000,000 18.2%
54
Appendix Table
Note: Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Data are not shown where sample sizes are too small to provide reli-
A7 (cont.)
55
AppendixSummary
Table statistics on minimum wage violations in Michigan
A8
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
All workers 2,861,000 100.0% 130,200 4.5% 100.0% $2.05 $63 $3,300 $429,000,000 $169 $8,800 $1,144,000,000 27.3%
Low-wage earners 759,000 26.5% 130,200 17.2% 100.0% $2.05 $63 $3,300 $429,000,000 $169 $8,800 $1,144,000,000 27.3%
Gender
Men 1,528,000 53.4% 50,110 3.3% 38.5% $1.83 $57 $3,000 $148,000,000 $175 $9,100 $455,000,000 24.6%
Women 1,333,000 46.6% 80,090 6.0% 61.5% $2.19 $67 $3,500 $281,000,000 $165 $8,600 $689,000,000 29.0%
Age
Under 20 145,000 5.1% 15,510 10.7% 11.9% $1.39 $35 $1,800 $29,000,000 $140 $7,300 $113,000,000 20.2%
20 and over 2,716,000 94.9% 114,690 4.2% 88.1% $2.14 $67 $3,500 $401,000,000 $173 $9,000 $1,031,000,000 28.0%
16–24 512,000 17.9% 55,500 10.8% 42.6% $1.60 $44 $2,300 $127,000,000 $153 $7,900 $441,000,000 22.3%
25–54 1,785,000 62.4% 58,090 3.3% 44.6% $2.43 $78 $4,000 $235,000,000 $179 $9,300 $541,000,000 30.3%
55–85 565,000 19.8% 16,600 2.9% 12.8% $2.23 $78 $4,000 $67,000,000 $187 $9,700 $162,000,000 29.3%
Race/ethnicity
White 2,244,000 78.4% 91,520 4.1% 70.3% $2.11 $63 $3,300 $298,000,000 $168 $8,700 $801,000,000 27.1%
Black 348,000 12.1% 22,500 6.5% 17.3% $1.72 $55 $2,800 $64,000,000 $172 $8,900 $201,000,000 24.1%
Hispanic 148,000 5.2% 9,750 6.6% 7.5% $2.47 $90 $4,700 $46,000,000 $160 $8,300 $81,000,000 35.9%
Other 122,000 4.3% 6,420 5.3% 4.9% $1.75 $64 $3,300 $21,000,000 $181 $9,400 $61,000,000 26.1%

Married parent 652,000 22.8% 15,430 2.4% 11.9% $1.96 $65 $3,400 $52,000,000 $209 $10,900 $168,000,000 23.7%
Single parent 234,000 8.2% 13,240 5.7% 10.2% $2.46 $72 $3,700 $49,000,000 $162 $8,400 $112,000,000 30.7%
Married, no kids 721,000 25.2% 20,720 2.9% 15.9% $2.30 $78 $4,100 $84,000,000 $188 $9,800 $203,000,000 29.4%
Family income
Less than $10,000 105,000 3.7% 9,600 9.1% 7.4% $2.05 $63 $3,300 $32,000,000 $156 $8,100 $78,000,000 28.8%
56
A8 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
$10,000–$24,999 311,000 10.9% 23,190 7.5% 17.8% $2.44 $76 $3,900 $91,000,000 $172 $8,900 $207,000,000 30.6%
$25,000–$39,999 474,000 16.6% 27,100 5.7% 20.8% $1.95 $63 $3,300 $89,000,000 $173 $9,000 $243,000,000 26.8%
$40,000–$59,999 569,000 19.9% 24,060 4.2% 18.5% $2.37 $71 $3,700 $89,000,000 $179 $9,300 $224,000,000 28.5%
$60,000–$99,999 807,000 28.2% 28,980 3.6% 22.3% $1.81 $58 $3,000 $88,000,000 $175 $9,100 $263,000,000 25.1%
$100,000–$149,999 405,000 14.2% 13,460 3.3% 10.3% $1.50 $39 $2,000 $28,000,000 $146 $7,600 $102,000,000 21.2%
$150,000 or more 190,000 6.6% 3,800 2.0% 2.9% $2.09 $63 $3,300 $12,000,000 $134 $7,000 $27,000,000 32.0%
Industry
Construction 136,000 4.8% 2,660 1.9% 2.0% $1.39 $48 $2,500 $7,000,000 $213 $11,100 $29,000,000 18.3%
Manufacturing 625,000 21.8% 7,770 1.2% 6.0% $2.39 $97 $5,100 $39,000,000 $194 $10,100 $78,000,000 33.4%
Retail 422,000 14.7% 21,000 5.0% 16.1% $0.89 $27 $1,400 $30,000,000 $202 $10,500 $221,000,000 11.9%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 77,000 2.7% 2,760 3.6% 2.1% $0.72 $31 $1,600 $5,000,000 $282 $14,700 $41,000,000 10.0%
utilities
Information 40,000 1.4% 1,670 4.2% 1.3% $2.80 $72 $3,700 $6,000,000 $109 $5,700 $9,000,000 39.8%
business
Education and 508,000 17.7% 9,980 2.0% 7.7% $1.87 $61 $3,200 $31,000,000 $169 $8,800 $88,000,000 26.4%
health
Food or drink 234,000 8.2% 49,720 21.3% 38.2% $2.66 $77 $4,000 $199,000,000 $138 $7,200 $358,000,000 35.7%
service
hospitality
Occupation
Management 214,000 7.5% 3,720 1.7% 2.9% $2.27 $85 $4,400 $16,000,000 $174 $9,100 $34,000,000 32.8%
Professional 467,000 16.3% 4,180 0.9% 3.2% $2.96 $92 $4,800 $20,000,000 $162 $8,400 $35,000,000 36.3%
Service 541,000 18.9% 67,820 12.5% 52.1% $2.65 $79 $4,100 $278,000,000 $142 $7,400 $502,000,000 35.6%
57
A8 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Sales 378,000 13.2% 20,460 5.4% 15.7% $0.81 $28 $1,500 $30,000,000 $218 $11,400 $232,000,000 11.4%
Office and 364,000 12.7% 16,420 4.5% 12.6% $0.98 $29 $1,500 $25,000,000 $195 $10,200 $167,000,000 13.0%
administrative
support
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 133,000 4.6% 1,090 0.8% 0.8% $0.88 $35 $1,800 $2,000,000 $243 $12,600 $14,000,000 12.5%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 390,000 13.6% 6,770 1.7% 5.2% $2.36 $95 $4,900 $34,000,000 $173 $9,000 $61,000,000 35.5%
Transportation 240,000 8.4% 7,130 3.0% 5.5% $1.59 $41 $2,100 $15,000,000 $198 $10,300 $74,000,000 17.0%
Worker status
Part time (<20 207,000 7.2% 21,160 10.2% 16.3% $1.66 $22 $1,100 $24,000,000 $84 $4,400 $92,000,000 20.7%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 531,000 18.6% 59,530 11.2% 45.7% $1.93 $49 $2,500 $151,000,000 $150 $7,800 $466,000,000 24.5%
hours)
Full time (35+ 2,124,000 74.2% 49,500 2.3% 38.0% $2.36 $99 $5,100 $254,000,000 $228 $11,800 $586,000,000 30.2%
hours)
Education
Less than high 197,000 6.9% 20,380 10.4% 15.7% $1.67 $55 $2,800 $58,000,000 $168 $8,800 $178,000,000 24.5%
school
High school 921,000 32.2% 39,770 4.3% 30.5% $2.05 $66 $3,400 $137,000,000 $177 $9,200 $366,000,000 27.2%
Some college 1,114,000 38.9% 57,810 5.2% 44.4% $2.07 $60 $3,100 $180,000,000 $162 $8,400 $487,000,000 27.0%
Bachelor’s degree 630,000 22.0% 12,230 1.9% 9.4% $2.59 $85 $4,400 $54,000,000 $177 $9,200 $113,000,000 32.4%
or higher

U.S.-born 2,630,000 91.9% 116,560 4.4% 89.5% $2.04 $62 $3,200 $376,000,000 $167 $8,700 $1,010,000,000 27.1%
Foreign born 231,000 8.1% 13,630 5.9% 10.5% $2.11 $74 $3,900 $53,000,000 $188 $9,800 $134,000,000 28.3%
U.S.-born citizen 2,644,000 92.4% 117,380 4.4% 90.2% $2.04 $62 $3,200 $377,000,000 $166 $8,600 $1,013,000,000 27.1%
58
A8 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Naturalized U.S. 104,000 3.6% 4,830 4.7% 3.7% $1.47 $47 $2,500 $12,000,000 $205 $10,700 $52,000,000 18.7%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 114,000 4.0% 7,980 7.0% 6.1% $2.57 $96 $5,000 $40,000,000 $191 $9,900 $79,000,000 33.5%
59
Summary
Appendix Table statistics on minimum wage violations in New York
A9
All workers 6,047,000 100.0% 299,860 5.0% 100.0% $1.82 $62 $3,200 $965,000,000 $210 $10,900 $3,270,000,000 22.8%
Low-wage earners 1,543,000 25.5% 299,860 19.4% 100.0% $1.82 $62 $3,200 $965,000,000 $210 $10,900 $3,270,000,000 22.8%
Gender
Men 3,198,000 52.9% 145,670 4.6% 48.6% $1.84 $64 $3,400 $488,000,000 $215 $11,200 $1,629,000,000 23.1%
Women 2,849,000 47.1% 154,190 5.4% 51.4% $1.80 $59 $3,100 $477,000,000 $205 $10,600 $1,641,000,000 22.5%
Age
Under 20 181,000 3.0% 29,630 16.3% 9.9% $1.21 $29 $1,500 $45,000,000 $153 $7,900 $236,000,000 16.0%
20 and over 5,866,000 97.0% 270,220 4.6% 90.1% $1.89 $65 $3,400 $920,000,000 $216 $11,200 $3,035,000,000 23.3%
16–24 851,000 14.1% 92,020 10.8% 30.7% $1.58 $45 $2,300 $214,000,000 $174 $9,100 $834,000,000 20.4%
25–54 3,946,000 65.2% 162,910 4.1% 54.3% $1.89 $70 $3,600 $589,000,000 $232 $12,000 $1,961,000,000 23.1%
55–85 1,250,000 20.7% 44,920 3.6% 15.0% $2.06 $69 $3,600 $162,000,000 $203 $10,600 $475,000,000 25.4%
Race/ethnicity
White 3,457,000 57.2% 124,830 3.6% 41.6% $1.93 $62 $3,200 $405,000,000 $189 $9,800 $1,225,000,000 24.8%
Black 894,000 14.8% 56,910 6.4% 19.0% $1.81 $62 $3,200 $184,000,000 $215 $11,200 $637,000,000 22.4%
Hispanic 1,102,000 18.2% 79,910 7.3% 26.6% $1.75 $63 $3,300 $261,000,000 $228 $11,900 $949,000,000 21.6%
Other 595,000 9.8% 38,210 6.4% 12.7% $1.61 $58 $3,000 $115,000,000 $232 $12,000 $460,000,000 20.0%

Married parent 1,392,000 23.0% 50,080 3.6% 16.7% $1.95 $72 $3,700 $187,000,000 $231 $12,000 $603,000,000 23.7%
Single parent 474,000 7.8% 26,170 5.5% 8.7% $2.24 $78 $4,000 $106,000,000 $205 $10,700 $279,000,000 27.5%
Married, no kids 1,499,000 24.8% 59,080 3.9% 19.7% $1.86 $72 $3,800 $222,000,000 $231 $12,000 $710,000,000 23.8%
Family income
Less than $10,000 220,000 3.6% 21,870 9.9% 7.3% $2.29 $87 $4,500 $98,000,000 $200 $10,400 $228,000,000 30.2%
$10,000–$24,999 664,000 11.0% 58,070 8.7% 19.4% $1.75 $58 $3,000 $174,000,000 $214 $11,100 $646,000,000 21.2%
60
A9 (cont.)
$25,000–$39,999 969,000 16.0% 60,010 6.2% 20.0% $1.72 $59 $3,100 $183,000,000 $219 $11,400 $683,000,000 21.2%
$40,000–$59,999 1,003,000 16.6% 50,610 5.0% 16.9% $1.81 $66 $3,500 $175,000,000 $223 $11,600 $587,000,000 22.9%
$60,000–$99,999 1,549,000 25.6% 59,270 3.8% 19.8% $1.70 $55 $2,900 $170,000,000 $205 $10,700 $633,000,000 21.1%
$100,000–$149,999 904,000 14.9% 31,880 3.5% 10.6% $2.06 $63 $3,300 $105,000,000 $191 $10,000 $317,000,000 24.8%
$150,000 or more 739,000 12.2% 18,140 2.5% 6.0% $1.82 $63 $3,300 $60,000,000 $187 $9,700 $176,000,000 25.3%
Industry
Construction 361,000 6.0% 12,020 3.3% 4.0% $2.65 $102 $5,300 $64,000,000 $213 $11,100 $133,000,000 32.3%
Manufacturing 464,000 7.7% 11,680 2.5% 3.9% $1.96 $61 $3,200 $37,000,000 $219 $11,400 $133,000,000 21.9%
Retail 804,000 13.3% 53,920 6.7% 18.0% $1.12 $34 $1,800 $96,000,000 $209 $10,900 $586,000,000 14.0%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 135,000 2.2% 3,890 2.9% 1.3% $1.43 $56 $2,900 $11,000,000 $263 $13,700 $53,000,000 17.4%
utilities
Information 189,000 3.1% 4,790 2.5% 1.6% $1.72 $68 $3,500 $17,000,000 $208 $10,800 $52,000,000 24.7%
business
Education and 1,545,000 25.5% 49,760 3.2% 16.6% $1.71 $61 $3,200 $157,000,000 $223 $11,600 $578,000,000 21.4%
health
Food or drink 439,000 7.3% 76,990 17.5% 25.7% $1.86 $59 $3,100 $235,000,000 $198 $10,300 $794,000,000 22.8%
service
hospitality
Occupation
Management 491,000 8.1% 7,910 1.6% 2.6% $2.47 $92 $4,800 $38,000,000 $188 $9,800 $77,000,000 32.9%
Professional 1,344,000 22.2% 27,910 2.1% 9.3% $1.81 $65 $3,400 $94,000,000 $239 $12,400 $346,000,000 21.4%
Service 1,541,000 25.5% 140,530 9.1% 46.9% $1.94 $66 $3,400 $479,000,000 $199 $10,400 $1,457,000,000 24.8%
Sales 727,000 12.0% 50,070 6.9% 16.7% $1.34 $44 $2,300 $115,000,000 $214 $11,100 $557,000,000 17.2%
Office and 664,000 11.0% 26,670 4.0% 8.9% $1.71 $47 $2,500 $65,000,000 $202 $10,500 $281,000,000 18.9%
61
A9 (cont.)
administrative
support
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 219,000 3.6% 2,510 1.1% 0.8% $3.26 $109 $5,700 $14,000,000 $181 $9,400 $24,000,000 37.6%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 303,000 5.0% 11,080 3.7% 3.7% $1.73 $58 $3,000 $34,000,000 $231 $12,000 $133,000,000 20.2%
Transportation 432,000 7.1% 22,530 5.2% 7.5% $1.69 $65 $3,400 $76,000,000 $233 $12,100 $273,000,000 21.8%
Worker status
Part time (<20 360,000 5.9% 34,220 9.5% 11.4% $1.70 $20 $1,000 $36,000,000 $79 $4,100 $140,000,000 20.3%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 916,000 15.1% 103,960 11.4% 34.7% $1.69 $42 $2,200 $226,000,000 $165 $8,600 $891,000,000 20.3%
hours)
Full time (35+ 4,772,000 78.9% 161,680 3.4% 53.9% $1.93 $84 $4,300 $703,000,000 $266 $13,800 $2,239,000,000 23.9%
hours)
Education
Less than high 616,000 10.2% 72,860 11.8% 24.3% $1.56 $54 $2,800 $204,000,000 $219 $11,400 $829,000,000 19.8%
school
High school 1,679,000 27.8% 85,620 5.1% 28.6% $1.75 $59 $3,100 $262,000,000 $206 $10,700 $917,000,000 22.2%
Some college 1,729,000 28.6% 94,210 5.4% 31.4% $1.97 $64 $3,300 $315,000,000 $196 $10,200 $962,000,000 24.7%
or higher

U.S.-born 4,299,000 71.1% 187,840 4.4% 62.6% $1.81 $58 $3,000 $563,000,000 $195 $10,100 $1,905,000,000 22.8%
Foreign born 1,748,000 28.9% 112,020 6.4% 37.4% $1.83 $69 $3,600 $402,000,000 $234 $12,200 $1,366,000,000 22.7%
U.S.-born citizen 4,356,000 72.0% 192,100 4.4% 64.1% $1.81 $57 $3,000 $572,000,000 $195 $10,100 $1,948,000,000 22.7%
Naturalized U.S. 914,000 15.1% 46,700 5.1% 15.6% $1.70 $66 $3,500 $161,000,000 $240 $12,500 $582,000,000 21.7%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 777,000 12.9% 61,070 7.9% 20.4% $1.95 $73 $3,800 $231,000,000 $233 $12,100 $740,000,000 23.8%
62
Appendix Table
A9 (cont.)
63
AppendixSummary
Table statistics on minimum wage violations in North Carolina
A10
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
All workers 3,111,000 100.0% 83,780 2.7% 100.0% $2.14 $72 $3,800 $316,000,000 $179 $9,300 $779,000,000 28.8%
Low-wage earners 681,000 21.9% 83,780 12.3% 100.0% $2.14 $72 $3,800 $316,000,000 $179 $9,300 $779,000,000 28.8%
Gender
Men 1,624,000 52.2% 36,610 2.3% 43.7% $1.76 $68 $3,500 $130,000,000 $208 $10,800 $395,000,000 24.7%
Women 1,487,000 47.8% 47,170 3.2% 56.3% $2.44 $76 $3,900 $186,000,000 $156 $8,100 $383,000,000 32.7%
Age
Under 20 116,000 3.7% 8,710 7.5% 10.4% $1.59 $36 $1,800 $16,000,000 $119 $6,200 $54,000,000 23.0%
20 and over 2,994,000 96.3% 75,070 2.5% 89.6% $2.20 $77 $4,000 $300,000,000 $186 $9,700 $725,000,000 29.2%
16–24 467,000 15.0% 26,890 5.8% 32.1% $2.36 $75 $3,900 $105,000,000 $139 $7,200 $195,000,000 35.0%
25–54 2,048,000 65.8% 42,980 2.1% 51.3% $2.12 $75 $3,900 $168,000,000 $203 $10,500 $453,000,000 27.1%
55–85 595,000 19.1% 13,910 2.3% 16.6% $1.76 $59 $3,100 $43,000,000 $181 $9,400 $131,000,000 24.5%
Race/ethnicity
White 1,929,000 62.0% 48,020 2.5% 57.3% $2.13 $65 $3,400 $162,000,000 $168 $8,700 $420,000,000 27.9%
Black 655,000 21.1% 16,620 2.5% 19.8% $2.24 $83 $4,300 $72,000,000 $162 $8,400 $140,000,000 33.9%
Hispanic 353,000 11.4% 14,010 4.0% 16.7% $1.79 $72 $3,800 $53,000,000 $236 $12,300 $172,000,000 23.5%
Other 173,000 5.6% 5,120 3.0% 6.1% $2.86 $109 $5,700 $29,000,000 $176 $9,100 $47,000,000 38.2%

Married parent 783,000 25.2% 14,750 1.9% 17.6% $2.09 $76 $3,900 $58,000,000 $205 $10,700 $158,000,000 27.0%
Single parent 280,000 9.0% 8,830 3.2% 10.5% $2.35 $80 $4,100 $37,000,000 $179 $9,300 $82,000,000 30.9%
Married, no kids 875,000 28.1% 15,950 1.8% 19.0% $1.68 $57 $3,000 $47,000,000 $198 $10,300 $164,000,000 22.4%
Family income
Less than $10,000 153,000 4.9% 7,210 4.7% 8.6% $2.34 $90 $4,700 $34,000,000 $186 $9,700 $70,000,000 32.5%
64
A10 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
$10,000–$24,999 508,000 16.3% 18,350 3.6% 21.9% $2.39 $80 $4,100 $76,000,000 $167 $8,700 $160,000,000 32.3%
$25,000–$39,999 578,000 18.6% 17,920 3.1% 21.4% $1.96 $68 $3,500 $64,000,000 $196 $10,200 $182,000,000 25.8%
$40,000–$59,999 609,000 19.6% 9,810 1.6% 11.7% $2.65 $75 $3,900 $38,000,000 $133 $6,900 $68,000,000 36.0%
$60,000–$99,999 796,000 25.6% 21,090 2.6% 25.2% $1.93 $68 $3,600 $75,000,000 $189 $9,800 $207,000,000 26.5%
$100,000–$149,999 323,000 10.4% 6,990 2.2% 8.3% $1.84 $59 $3,100 $21,000,000 $192 $10,000 $70,000,000 23.5%
$150,000 or more 144,000 4.6% 2,400 1.7% 2.9% $1.60 $63 $3,300 $8,000,000 $178 $9,300 $22,000,000 26.1%
Industry
Construction 215,000 6.9% 5,030 2.3% 6.0% $1.74 $64 $3,300 $17,000,000 $234 $12,100 $61,000,000 21.6%
Manufacturing 444,000 14.3% 4,100 0.9% 4.9% $1.90 $84 $4,400 $18,000,000 $243 $12,600 $52,000,000 25.8%
Retail 437,000 14.1% 11,630 2.7% 13.9% $1.28 $43 $2,200 $26,000,000 $188 $9,800 $114,000,000 18.4%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 79,000 2.5% 360 0.5% 0.4% $3.76 $150 $7,800 $3,000,000 $148 $7,700 $3,000,000 50.3%
utilities
Information 50,000 1.6% 900 1.8% 1.1% $3.69 $136 $7,100 $6,000,000 $91 $4,700 $4,000,000 59.9%
business
Education and 691,000 22.2% 9,430 1.4% 11.3% $1.42 $42 $2,200 $20,000,000 $199 $10,300 $97,000,000 17.4%
health
Food or drink 238,000 7.6% 25,960 10.9% 31.0% $3.04 $96 $5,000 $129,000,000 $126 $6,600 $170,000,000 43.2%
service
hospitality
Occupation
Management 232,000 7.5% 5,760 2.5% 6.9% $2.23 $100 $5,200 $30,000,000 $217 $11,300 $65,000,000 31.6%
Professional 683,000 22.0% 9,630 1.4% 11.5% $1.86 $55 $2,900 $28,000,000 $185 $9,600 $92,000,000 23.0%
Service 552,000 17.8% 39,130 7.1% 46.7% $2.62 $82 $4,200 $166,000,000 $148 $7,700 $300,000,000 35.6%
65
A10 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Sales 397,000 12.8% 9,780 2.5% 11.7% $1.44 $55 $2,800 $28,000,000 $180 $9,400 $92,000,000 23.3%
Office and 358,000 11.5% 6,310 1.8% 7.5% $1.44 $53 $2,800 $18,000,000 $188 $9,800 $62,000,000 22.1%
administrative
support
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 149,000 4.8% 330 0.2% 0.4% $0.05 $2 $100 $0 $292 $15,200 $5,000,000 0.7%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 291,000 9.3% 1,200 0.4% 1.4% $3.83 $126 $6,500 $8,000,000 $180 $9,400 $11,000,000 41.1%
Transportation 256,000 8.2% 6,030 2.4% 7.2% $0.96 $49 $2,500 $15,000,000 $292 $15,200 $92,000,000 14.3%
Worker status
Part time (<20 176,000 5.7% 11,210 6.4% 13.4% $1.23 $17 $900 $10,000,000 $87 $4,500 $51,000,000 16.0%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 483,000 15.5% 28,170 5.8% 33.6% $2.72 $72 $3,700 $105,000,000 $122 $6,400 $179,000,000 36.9%
hours)
Full time (35+ 2,452,000 78.8% 44,400 1.8% 53.0% $2.00 $87 $4,500 $201,000,000 $238 $12,400 $549,000,000 26.8%
hours)
Education
Less than high 366,000 11.8% 18,520 5.1% 22.1% $1.69 $55 $2,800 $53,000,000 $174 $9,000 $168,000,000 23.9%
school
High school 942,000 30.3% 24,680 2.6% 29.5% $2.05 $71 $3,700 $91,000,000 $183 $9,500 $235,000,000 28.0%
Some college 980,000 31.5% 26,350 2.7% 31.5% $2.58 $85 $4,400 $117,000,000 $167 $8,700 $228,000,000 33.9%
Bachelor’s degree 823,000 26.4% 14,230 1.7% 17.0% $2.08 $74 $3,800 $55,000,000 $200 $10,400 $148,000,000 27.0%
or higher

U.S.-born 2,703,000 86.9% 70,100 2.6% 83.7% $2.22 $73 $3,800 $265,000,000 $170 $8,900 $621,000,000 29.9%
Foreign born 407,000 13.1% 13,670 3.4% 16.3% $1.73 $71 $3,700 $50,000,000 $221 $11,500 $157,000,000 24.2%
U.S.-born citizen 2,727,000 87.7% 71,380 2.6% 85.2% $2.21 $73 $3,800 $271,000,000 $172 $8,900 $637,000,000 29.9%
66
A10 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Naturalized U.S. 99,000 3.2% 1,300 1.3% 1.6% $2.36 $73 $3,800 $5,000,000 $181 $9,400 $12,000,000 28.6%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 284,000 9.1% 11,100 3.9% 13.2% $1.66 $69 $3,600 $40,000,000 $225 $11,700 $130,000,000 23.4%
67
Summary
Appendix Table statistics on minimum wage violations in Ohio
A11
All workers 3,915,000 100.0% 216,990 5.5% 100.0% $1.65 $53 $2,800 $601,000,000 $185 $9,600 $2,084,000,000 22.4%
Low-wage earners 956,000 24.4% 216,990 22.7% 100.0% $1.65 $53 $2,800 $601,000,000 $185 $9,600 $2,084,000,000 22.4%
Gender
Men 2,005,000 51.2% 82,160 4.1% 37.9% $1.51 $55 $2,900 $235,000,000 $208 $10,800 $887,000,000 20.9%
Women 1,911,000 48.8% 134,830 7.1% 62.1% $1.73 $52 $2,700 $366,000,000 $171 $8,900 $1,196,000,000 23.4%
Age
Under 20 195,000 5.0% 49,470 25.4% 22.8% $0.81 $19 $1,000 $50,000,000 $153 $7,900 $393,000,000 11.2%
20 and over 3,721,000 95.0% 167,520 4.5% 77.2% $1.89 $63 $3,300 $551,000,000 $194 $10,100 $1,691,000,000 24.6%
16–24 666,000 17.0% 105,870 15.9% 48.8% $1.34 $41 $2,100 $224,000,000 $166 $8,600 $915,000,000 19.7%
25–54 2,431,000 62.1% 71,950 3.0% 33.2% $1.93 $66 $3,400 $247,000,000 $211 $11,000 $789,000,000 23.8%
55–85 819,000 20.9% 39,170 4.8% 18.1% $1.95 $64 $3,300 $130,000,000 $186 $9,700 $379,000,000 25.5%
Race/ethnicity
White 3,254,000 83.1% 164,600 5.1% 75.9% $1.68 $54 $2,800 $466,000,000 $183 $9,500 $1,565,000,000 23.0%
Black 405,000 10.3% 35,120 8.7% 16.2% $1.44 $46 $2,400 $84,000,000 $193 $10,000 $353,000,000 19.2%
Hispanic 130,000 3.3% 7,730 5.9% 3.6% $1.66 $59 $3,100 $24,000,000 $210 $10,900 $84,000,000 21.9%
Other 126,000 3.2% 9,550 7.6% 4.4% $1.87 $55 $2,800 $27,000,000 $165 $8,600 $82,000,000 24.8%

Married parent 922,000 23.6% 22,520 2.4% 10.4% $2.38 $86 $4,500 $100,000,000 $201 $10,500 $235,000,000 29.9%
Single parent 327,000 8.4% 20,590 6.3% 9.5% $1.86 $59 $3,100 $63,000,000 $193 $10,100 $207,000,000 23.4%
Married, no kids 1,026,000 26.2% 31,140 3.0% 14.4% $1.68 $58 $3,000 $94,000,000 $209 $10,900 $339,000,000 21.7%
Family income
Less than $10,000 159,000 4.0% 19,290 12.2% 8.9% $1.41 $47 $2,500 $47,000,000 $200 $10,400 $201,000,000 19.1%
$10,000–$24,999 423,000 10.8% 48,020 11.4% 22.1% $1.75 $53 $2,700 $132,000,000 $181 $9,400 $452,000,000 22.5%
68
A11 (cont.)
$25,000–$39,999 678,000 17.3% 36,040 5.3% 16.6% $1.94 $65 $3,400 $121,000,000 $181 $9,400 $339,000,000 26.3%
$40,000–$59,999 802,000 20.5% 42,020 5.2% 19.4% $1.47 $50 $2,600 $109,000,000 $201 $10,400 $439,000,000 19.9%
$60,000–$99,999 1,136,000 29.0% 46,290 4.1% 21.3% $1.66 $49 $2,500 $117,000,000 $176 $9,100 $423,000,000 21.7%
$100,000–$149,999 521,000 13.3% 18,540 3.6% 8.5% $1.35 $52 $2,700 $50,000,000 $180 $9,400 $174,000,000 22.3%
$150,000 or more 197,000 5.0% 6,780 3.4% 3.1% $1.85 $68 $3,600 $24,000,000 $157 $8,200 $55,000,000 30.4%
Industry
Construction 187,000 4.8% 2,390 1.3% 1.1% $2.57 $103 $5,300 $13,000,000 $218 $11,300 $27,000,000 32.0%
Manufacturing 688,000 17.6% 9,910 1.4% 4.6% $1.34 $51 $2,600 $26,000,000 $258 $13,400 $133,000,000 16.4%
Retail 503,000 12.9% 33,930 6.7% 15.6% $1.01 $29 $1,500 $52,000,000 $188 $9,800 $332,000,000 13.5%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 114,000 2.9% 2,730 2.4% 1.3% $2.08 $84 $4,400 $12,000,000 $227 $11,800 $32,000,000 27.0%
utilities
Information 62,000 1.6% 3,220 5.2% 1.5% $1.92 $41 $2,100 $7,000,000 $140 $7,300 $23,000,000 22.6%
business
Education and 877,000 22.4% 30,240 3.4% 13.9% $1.98 $70 $3,600 $110,000,000 $189 $9,800 $297,000,000 27.1%
health
Food or drink 335,000 8.6% 84,820 25.3% 39.1% $1.82 $54 $2,800 $237,000,000 $160 $8,300 $705,000,000 25.2%
service
hospitality
Occupation
Management 314,000 8.0% 7,970 2.5% 3.7% $2.80 $124 $6,400 $51,000,000 $213 $11,100 $88,000,000 36.7%
Professional 822,000 21.0% 21,370 2.6% 9.8% $2.29 $80 $4,200 $89,000,000 $184 $9,600 $204,000,000 30.4%
Service 715,000 18.3% 106,700 14.9% 49.2% $1.69 $50 $2,600 $278,000,000 $168 $8,700 $930,000,000 23.0%
Sales 434,000 11.1% 33,570 7.7% 15.5% $0.92 $27 $1,400 $48,000,000 $179 $9,300 $312,000,000 13.3%
Office and 510,000 13.0% 15,150 3.0% 7.0% $1.46 $43 $2,200 $34,000,000 $201 $10,400 $158,000,000 17.6%
69
A11 (cont.)
administrative
support
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 164,000 4.2% 2,460 1.5% 1.1% $2.06 $79 $4,100 $10,000,000 $225 $11,700 $29,000,000 26.1%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 415,000 10.6% 5,560 1.3% 2.6% $1.82 $70 $3,600 $20,000,000 $233 $12,100 $68,000,000 23.0%
Transportation 351,000 9.0% 18,120 5.2% 8.4% $1.47 $48 $2,500 $46,000,000 $227 $11,800 $214,000,000 17.6%
Worker status
Part time (<20 268,000 6.8% 42,310 15.8% 19.5% $1.07 $15 $800 $32,000,000 $93 $4,800 $204,000,000 13.6%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 680,000 17.4% 93,900 13.8% 43.3% $1.61 $42 $2,200 $205,000,000 $164 $8,500 $799,000,000 20.4%
hours)
Full time (35+ 2,968,000 75.8% 80,780 2.7% 37.2% $1.99 $87 $4,500 $364,000,000 $257 $13,400 $1,081,000,000 25.2%
hours)
Education
Less than high 293,000 7.5% 51,030 17.4% 23.5% $0.99 $27 $1,400 $72,000,000 $168 $8,700 $445,000,000 13.9%
school
High school 1,431,000 36.5% 76,150 5.3% 35.1% $1.65 $55 $2,900 $219,000,000 $192 $10,000 $760,000,000 22.4%
Some college 1,178,000 30.1% 63,900 5.4% 29.4% $1.75 $53 $2,800 $176,000,000 $187 $9,700 $621,000,000 22.1%
or higher

U.S.-born 3,683,000 94.1% 207,000 5.6% 95.4% $1.64 $53 $2,800 $571,000,000 $184 $9,600 $1,980,000,000 22.4%
Foreign born 232,000 5.9% 9,990 4.3% 4.6% $1.85 $56 $2,900 $29,000,000 $200 $10,400 $104,000,000 22.0%
U.S.-born citizen 3,701,000 94.5% 207,990 5.6% 95.9% $1.65 $53 $2,800 $577,000,000 $184 $9,500 $1,985,000,000 22.5%
Naturalized U.S. 93,000 2.4% 3,770 4.1% 1.7% $1.92 $58 $3,000 $11,000,000 $207 $10,700 $41,000,000 21.8%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 121,000 3.1% 5,220 4.3% 2.4% $1.37 $45 $2,300 $12,000,000 $212 $11,000 $58,000,000 17.4%
70
Appendix Table
A11 (cont.)
71
AppendixSummary
Table statistics on minimum wage violations in Pennsylvania
A12
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
All workers 4,299,000 100.0% 107,150 2.5% 100.0% $2.46 $80 $4,200 $448,000,000 $164 $8,500 $916,000,000 32.9%
Low-wage earners 1,034,000 24.1% 107,150 10.4% 100.0% $2.46 $80 $4,200 $448,000,000 $164 $8,500 $916,000,000 32.9%
Gender
Men 2,226,000 51.8% 43,600 2.0% 40.7% $2.34 $83 $4,300 $188,000,000 $188 $9,800 $425,000,000 30.6%
Women 2,073,000 48.2% 63,550 3.1% 59.3% $2.55 $79 $4,100 $261,000,000 $148 $7,700 $491,000,000 34.7%
Age
Under 20 193,000 4.5% 12,320 6.4% 11.5% $2.15 $52 $2,700 $33,000,000 $122 $6,400 $78,000,000 29.8%
20 and over 4,106,000 95.5% 94,830 2.3% 88.5% $2.50 $84 $4,400 $415,000,000 $170 $8,800 $837,000,000 33.1%
16–24 696,000 16.2% 39,180 5.6% 36.6% $2.12 $58 $3,000 $119,000,000 $152 $7,900 $310,000,000 27.7%
25–54 2,652,000 61.7% 48,780 1.8% 45.5% $2.62 $91 $4,700 $230,000,000 $178 $9,300 $451,000,000 33.8%
55–85 951,000 22.1% 19,200 2.0% 17.9% $2.76 $100 $5,200 $99,000,000 $155 $8,000 $154,000,000 39.2%
Race/ethnicity
White 3,447,000 80.2% 78,360 2.3% 73.1% $2.60 $83 $4,300 $338,000,000 $155 $8,100 $633,000,000 34.8%
Black 412,000 9.6% 12,920 3.1% 12.1% $2.50 $79 $4,100 $53,000,000 $145 $7,600 $98,000,000 35.3%
Hispanic 279,000 6.5% 9,070 3.2% 8.5% $1.80 $83 $4,300 $39,000,000 $240 $12,500 $113,000,000 25.7%
Other 161,000 3.7% 6,810 4.2% 6.4% $1.67 $49 $2,600 $17,000,000 $204 $10,600 $72,000,000 19.5%

Married parent 962,000 22.4% 16,420 1.7% 15.3% $2.54 $91 $4,700 $77,000,000 $189 $9,900 $162,000,000 32.3%
Single parent 327,000 7.6% 12,570 3.8% 11.7% $2.79 $94 $4,900 $61,000,000 $156 $8,100 $102,000,000 37.5%
Married, no kids 1,201,000 27.9% 15,080 1.3% 14.1% $2.50 $95 $4,900 $74,000,000 $171 $8,900 $134,000,000 35.7%
Family income
Less than $10,000 138,000 3.2% 8,550 6.2% 8.0% $2.19 $83 $4,300 $37,000,000 $161 $8,400 $72,000,000 34.1%
72
A12 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
$10,000–$24,999 408,000 9.5% 18,730 4.6% 17.5% $2.24 $77 $4,000 $75,000,000 $183 $9,500 $178,000,000 29.5%
$25,000–$39,999 663,000 15.4% 22,460 3.4% 21.0% $2.97 $99 $5,100 $115,000,000 $151 $7,800 $176,000,000 39.6%
$40,000–$59,999 825,000 19.2% 16,980 2.1% 15.8% $2.29 $84 $4,400 $74,000,000 $180 $9,300 $158,000,000 31.9%
$60,000–$99,999 1,262,000 29.4% 21,770 1.7% 20.3% $2.29 $73 $3,800 $83,000,000 $174 $9,100 $197,000,000 29.6%
$100,000–$149,999 621,000 14.4% 9,800 1.6% 9.1% $2.70 $60 $3,100 $31,000,000 $123 $6,400 $63,000,000 32.9%
$150,000 or more 381,000 8.9% 8,870 2.3% 8.3% $2.41 $72 $3,700 $33,000,000 $154 $8,000 $71,000,000 31.8%
Industry
Construction 227,000 5.3% 850 0.4% 0.8% $1.04 $42 $2,200 $2,000,000 $246 $12,800 $11,000,000 14.5%
Manufacturing 599,000 13.9% 5,350 0.9% 5.0% $2.52 $68 $3,500 $19,000,000 $179 $9,300 $50,000,000 27.6%
Retail 567,000 13.2% 12,170 2.1% 11.4% $1.99 $80 $4,100 $50,000,000 $193 $10,000 $122,000,000 29.2%
Agriculture, – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Wholesale 124,000 2.9% 2,910 2.4% 2.7% $2.56 $97 $5,000 $15,000,000 $171 $8,900 $26,000,000 36.0%
utilities
Information 71,000 1.7% 1,150 1.6% 1.1% $2.06 $44 $2,300 $3,000,000 $102 $5,300 $6,000,000 30.4%
business
Education and 926,000 21.5% 14,870 1.6% 13.9% $2.34 $76 $3,900 $59,000,000 $161 $8,400 $125,000,000 32.0%
health
Food or drink 316,000 7.3% 40,450 12.8% 37.8% $2.70 $77 $4,000 $161,000,000 $134 $7,000 $282,000,000 36.3%
service
hospitality
Occupation
Management 384,000 8.9% 6,260 1.6% 5.8% $3.08 $154 $8,000 $50,000,000 $195 $10,100 $63,000,000 44.2%
Professional 774,000 18.0% 6,360 0.8% 5.9% $2.98 $103 $5,300 $34,000,000 $147 $7,600 $49,000,000 41.2%
Service 932,000 21.7% 55,930 6.0% 52.2% $2.60 $76 $4,000 $221,000,000 $142 $7,400 $414,000,000 34.8%
73
A12 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Sales 495,000 11.5% 15,680 3.2% 14.6% $1.93 $64 $3,300 $52,000,000 $185 $9,600 $151,000,000 25.6%
Office and 556,000 12.9% 4,490 0.8% 4.2% $1.95 $51 $2,700 $12,000,000 $168 $8,800 $39,000,000 23.3%
administrative
support
and fishing
Construction and 217,000 5.0% 850 0.4% 0.8% $1.04 $42 $2,200 $2,000,000 $246 $12,800 $11,000,000 14.5%
extraction
Installation, 169,000 3.9% 720 0.4% 0.7% $2.16 $107 $5,600 $4,000,000 $250 $13,000 $9,000,000 30.0%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 360,000 8.4% 7,100 2.0% 6.6% $2.49 $76 $4,000 $28,000,000 $172 $9,000 $64,000,000 30.6%
Transportation 387,000 9.0% 6,610 1.7% 6.2% $2.30 $85 $4,400 $29,000,000 $193 $10,000 $66,000,000 30.7%
Worker status
Part time (<20 314,000 7.3% 16,700 5.3% 15.6% $2.44 $33 $1,700 $29,000,000 $62 $3,200 $54,000,000 34.7%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 670,000 15.6% 37,490 5.6% 35.0% $2.77 $72 $3,700 $140,000,000 $117 $6,100 $228,000,000 38.0%
hours)
Full time (35+ 3,315,000 77.1% 52,960 1.6% 49.4% $2.25 $102 $5,300 $280,000,000 $230 $12,000 $634,000,000 30.6%
hours)
Education
Less than high 330,000 7.7% 18,710 5.7% 17.5% $2.11 $69 $3,600 $67,000,000 $156 $8,100 $152,000,000 30.6%
school
High school 1,639,000 38.1% 41,900 2.6% 39.1% $2.46 $84 $4,400 $183,000,000 $181 $9,400 $394,000,000 31.8%
Some college 1,236,000 28.7% 30,810 2.5% 28.7% $2.49 $79 $4,100 $127,000,000 $159 $8,200 $254,000,000 33.3%
or higher

U.S.-born 3,958,000 92.1% 95,130 2.4% 88.8% $2.58 $82 $4,300 $408,000,000 $155 $8,000 $765,000,000 34.8%
Foreign born 341,000 7.9% 12,020 3.5% 11.2% $1.56 $65 $3,400 $40,000,000 $242 $12,600 $151,000,000 21.1%
U.S.-born citizen 3,982,000 92.6% 95,240 2.4% 88.9% $2.58 $82 $4,300 $408,000,000 $155 $8,000 $766,000,000 34.8%
74
A12 (cont.)
Total annual
wages
annual workers of
Naturalized U.S. 149,000 3.5% 2,250 1.5% 2.1% $1.28 $55 $2,900 $6,000,000 $279 $14,500 $33,000,000 16.6%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 167,000 3.9% 9,660 5.8% 9.0% $1.63 $67 $3,500 $34,000,000 $233 $12,100 $117,000,000 22.4%
75
Summary
Appendix Table statistics on minimum wage violations in Texas
A13
All workers 9,743,000 100.0% 264,690 2.7% 100.0% $2.38 $85 $4,400 $1,165,000,000 $182 $9,500 $2,507,000,000 31.7%
Low-wage earners 2,458,000 25.2% 264,690 10.8% 100.0% $2.38 $85 $4,400 $1,165,000,000 $182 $9,500 $2,507,000,000 31.7%
Gender
Men 5,535,000 56.8% 118,290 2.1% 44.7% $2.28 $86 $4,500 $526,000,000 $197 $10,300 $1,214,000,000 30.2%
Women 4,208,000 43.2% 146,390 3.5% 55.3% $2.46 $84 $4,400 $638,000,000 $170 $8,800 $1,293,000,000 33.0%
Age
Under 20 351,000 3.6% 24,320 6.9% 9.2% $2.29 $62 $3,200 $79,000,000 $132 $6,800 $166,000,000 32.1%
20 and over 9,392,000 96.4% 240,360 2.6% 90.8% $2.39 $87 $4,500 $1,086,000,000 $187 $9,700 $2,341,000,000 31.7%
16–24 1,474,000 15.1% 73,210 5.0% 27.7% $2.68 $88 $4,600 $335,000,000 $144 $7,500 $550,000,000 37.9%
25–54 6,610,000 67.8% 152,390 2.3% 57.6% $2.25 $82 $4,300 $653,000,000 $200 $10,400 $1,582,000,000 29.2%
55–85 1,659,000 17.0% 39,090 2.4% 14.8% $2.32 $87 $4,500 $176,000,000 $185 $9,600 $376,000,000 31.9%
Race/ethnicity
White 4,168,000 42.8% 92,360 2.2% 34.9% $2.68 $92 $4,800 $441,000,000 $167 $8,700 $801,000,000 35.5%
Black 1,139,000 11.7% 22,560 2.0% 8.5% $2.21 $70 $3,600 $82,000,000 $176 $9,100 $206,000,000 28.5%
Hispanic 3,853,000 39.6% 133,970 3.5% 50.6% $2.25 $82 $4,200 $569,000,000 $188 $9,800 $1,308,000,000 30.3%
Other 583,000 6.0% 15,790 2.7% 6.0% $2.03 $88 $4,600 $72,000,000 $233 $12,100 $192,000,000 27.3%

Married parent 2,765,000 28.4% 54,060 2.0% 20.4% $2.29 $86 $4,500 $242,000,000 $209 $10,900 $589,000,000 29.1%
Single parent 840,000 8.6% 27,720 3.3% 10.5% $2.77 $89 $4,600 $128,000,000 $164 $8,500 $237,000,000 35.2%
Married, no kids 2,472,000 25.4% 51,930 2.1% 19.6% $1.96 $75 $3,900 $203,000,000 $209 $10,800 $563,000,000 26.5%
Family income
Less than $10,000 361,000 3.7% 16,510 4.6% 6.2% $2.71 $92 $4,800 $79,000,000 $176 $9,100 $151,000,000 34.4%
$10,000–$24,999 1,305,000 13.4% 69,650 5.3% 26.3% $2.26 $81 $4,200 $295,000,000 $190 $9,900 $687,000,000 30.0%
76
A13 (cont.)
$25,000–$39,999 1,723,000 17.7% 56,200 3.3% 21.2% $2.29 $82 $4,300 $239,000,000 $186 $9,700 $543,000,000 30.6%
$40,000–$59,999 1,732,000 17.8% 49,680 2.9% 18.8% $2.40 $82 $4,300 $213,000,000 $178 $9,200 $459,000,000 31.7%
$60,000–$99,999 2,321,000 23.8% 42,370 1.8% 16.0% $2.40 $82 $4,300 $181,000,000 $177 $9,200 $390,000,000 31.7%
$100,000–$149,999 1,306,000 13.4% 17,350 1.3% 6.6% $2.29 $75 $3,900 $68,000,000 $178 $9,200 $160,000,000 29.8%
$150,000 or more 996,000 10.2% 12,920 1.3% 4.9% $3.01 $133 $6,900 $89,000,000 $175 $9,100 $117,000,000 43.2%
Industry
Construction 806,000 8.3% 11,520 1.4% 4.4% $2.14 $83 $4,300 $50,000,000 $215 $11,200 $129,000,000 27.8%
Manufacturing 1,016,000 10.4% 9,900 1.0% 3.7% $1.86 $78 $4,100 $40,000,000 $214 $11,100 $110,000,000 26.7%
Retail 1,204,000 12.4% 27,620 2.3% 10.4% $1.71 $70 $3,600 $101,000,000 $225 $11,700 $324,000,000 23.7%
Agriculture, 70,000 0.7% 3,150 4.5% 1.2% $1.31 $65 $3,400 $11,000,000 $297 $15,400 $49,000,000 17.9%
Wholesale 301,000 3.1% 4,450 1.5% 1.7% $2.55 $91 $4,700 $21,000,000 $183 $9,500 $42,000,000 33.3%
utilities
Information 187,000 1.9% 3,080 1.6% 1.2% $2.12 $61 $3,200 $10,000,000 $129 $6,700 $21,000,000 32.0%
Professional and 1,103,000 11.3% 23,060 2.1% 8.7% $1.90 $63 $3,300 $75,000,000 $189 $9,800 $226,000,000 24.9%
business
Education and 1,547,000 15.9% 29,050 1.9% 11.0% $1.88 $61 $3,200 $93,000,000 $186 $9,700 $281,000,000 24.8%
health
Food or drink 722,000 7.4% 78,720 10.9% 29.7% $3.32 $108 $5,600 $444,000,000 $135 $7,000 $552,000,000 44.5%
service
hospitality
Other industries 1,229,000 12.6% 37,570 3.1% 14.2% $2.19 $79 $4,100 $154,000,000 $194 $10,100 $378,000,000 28.9%
Occupation
Management 1,370,000 14.1% 8,260 0.6% 3.1% $2.76 $134 $6,900 $57,000,000 $214 $11,100 $92,000,000 38.4%
Professional 1,520,000 15.6% 14,680 1.0% 5.5% $2.34 $88 $4,600 $67,000,000 $184 $9,600 $140,000,000 32.3%
Service 1,811,000 18.6% 144,160 8.0% 54.5% $2.75 $90 $4,700 $677,000,000 $157 $8,200 $1,178,000,000 36.5%
Sales 1,146,000 11.8% 26,120 2.3% 9.9% $2.10 $81 $4,200 $110,000,000 $199 $10,300 $270,000,000 28.9%
Office and 1,361,000 14.0% 19,700 1.4% 7.4% $1.67 $56 $2,900 $57,000,000 $214 $11,100 $219,000,000 20.7%
77
A13 (cont.)
administrative
support
and fishing
extraction
Installation, 410,000 4.2% 5,400 1.3% 2.0% $1.79 $92 $4,800 $26,000,000 $258 $13,400 $73,000,000 26.3%
maintenance, and
repairs
Production 634,000 6.5% 10,810 1.7% 4.1% $1.48 $53 $2,700 $30,000,000 $210 $10,900 $118,000,000 20.1%
Transportation 716,000 7.4% 20,080 2.8% 7.6% $1.53 $56 $2,900 $58,000,000 $219 $11,400 $229,000,000 20.2%
Worker status
Part time (<20 361,000 3.7% 20,380 5.7% 7.7% $2.71 $35 $1,800 $37,000,000 $54 $2,800 $57,000,000 39.1%
hours)
Mid time (20–34 1,157,000 11.9% 78,880 6.8% 29.8% $2.69 $72 $3,700 $295,000,000 $118 $6,200 $486,000,000 37.8%
hours)
Full time (35+ 8,225,000 84.4% 165,420 2.0% 62.5% $2.19 $97 $5,000 $833,000,000 $228 $11,900 $1,964,000,000 29.8%
hours)
Education
Less than high 1,443,000 14.8% 70,550 4.9% 26.7% $2.11 $75 $3,900 $276,000,000 $192 $10,000 $703,000,000 28.2%
school
High school 2,759,000 28.3% 80,460 2.9% 30.4% $2.22 $78 $4,100 $326,000,000 $182 $9,500 $761,000,000 30.0%
Some college 3,062,000 31.4% 82,120 2.7% 31.0% $2.75 $95 $4,900 $404,000,000 $168 $8,700 $717,000,000 36.0%
or higher

U.S.-born 7,444,000 76.4% 181,560 2.4% 68.6% $2.53 $88 $4,600 $829,000,000 $169 $8,800 $1,597,000,000 34.2%
Foreign born 2,298,000 23.6% 83,130 3.6% 31.4% $2.05 $78 $4,000 $336,000,000 $211 $11,000 $910,000,000 26.9%
U.S.-born citizen 7,569,000 77.7% 183,080 2.4% 69.2% $2.52 $87 $4,500 $833,000,000 $169 $8,800 $1,612,000,000 34.1%
Naturalized U.S. 741,000 7.6% 20,460 2.8% 7.7% $2.14 $84 $4,300 $89,000,000 $192 $10,000 $205,000,000 30.3%
citizen
Not a U.S. citizen 1,433,000 14.7% 61,150 4.3% 23.1% $2.04 $76 $4,000 $243,000,000 $217 $11,300 $690,000,000 26.0%
78
Appendix
Note:Table
Full-year annual wages are calculated by multiplying weekly wages by 52 weeks per year. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Shares are computed based
A13 (cont.)
on unrounded numbers. “Low-wage earners” includes all minimum-wage-eligible workers in the bottom quintile of wage earners in the state.
79
80
Endnotes
1. See Appendix Table A1 for more information about coverage of federal and state minimum wage
laws.
2. On January 1, 2017, California’s state minimum wage was raised to $10.50 per hour. It is scheduled
to rise to $15 per hour on January 1, 2022.
3. To see a complete list of cities and counties that have adopted higher minimum wages, see EPI’s
Minimum Wage Tracker (EPI 2017).
4. Ten states have no investigatory capacity; seven of these use the federal minimum wage. Four
additional states have investigatory capacity but do not have the ability to file civil suits on behalf
of harmed workers; of these four, three use the federal minimum wage. See Galvin (2016b) for
details.
5. Note that overtime violations are distinct from minimum wage violations, though both may occur in
the same incident. That is, an employer who fails to pay a worker for hours worked over 40, such
that the employee’s average wage falls below the minimum wage, is guilty of both an overtime
violation (failure to pay the time-and-a-half premium for hours over 40 in a week) and a minimum
wage violation (failure to pay the minimum wage for each hour worked). The data used in this
study do not allow us to identify overtime violations separately; however, we do observe instances
of minimum wage violations that are also overtime violations—provided that the affected worker is
eligible for overtime.
6. For more research on wages and government assistance, see Cooper (2016).
7. Studies from within the last 10 years find violation rates between 2.3 and 4.3 percent for all
workers and between 11.1 and 19.5 percent for low-wage workers (Bernhardt et al. 2009; ERG
2014; Galvin 2016a). An in-depth discussion of our findings can be found in the next section.
8. We do not account for cities or counties with minimum wages higher than their state minimum
wage. Thus, our estimates may understate the volume of minimum wage violations in states
containing localities with higher minimum wages.
9. As detailed in the appendix, minimum wage violations are calculated based upon the minimum
wage in effect in each state in each year.
10. Throughout this report, “low-wage workers” are identified as all workers in the bottom quintile of
wage earners within each state. In our data, that is an hourly wage of $10.21 in California, $10.04 in
Florida, $10.07 in Georgia, $10.30 in Illinois, $10.13 in Michigan, $10.73 in New York, $9.96 in North
Carolina, $10.26 in Ohio, $10.43 in Pennsylvania, and $10.02 in Texas.
11. Workers receiving any public assistance reflect those workers whose families receive benefits
through at least one of these programs: SNAP, LIHEAP, Section-8 housing assistance, or the
reduced school lunch program.
12. See Allegretto and Cooper (2014).
13. Over two-thirds (69 percent) of minimum wage violations in the agriculture industry take place in
California, where all agriculture workers are entitled to the state minimum wage.
81
14. See Mishel et al. (2012a), Appendix B, for more information.
References
Allegretto, Sylvia, and David Cooper. 2014. Twenty-Three Years and Still Waiting for Change: Why It’s
Time to Give Tipped Workers the Regular Minimum Wage. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper
no. 379.
Ashenfelter, Orley, and Robert S. Smith. 1979. “Compliance with the Minimum Wage Law.” The
Journal of Political Economy, vol. 87, no. 2, 333–350.
Bernhardt, Annette, Ruth Milkman, Nik Theodore, Douglas Heckathorn, Mirabai Auer, James
DeFilippis, Ana Luz Gonzalez, Victor Narro, Jason Perelshteyn, Diana Polson, and Michael Spiller.
2009. Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America’s
Cities. Center for Urban Economic Development, National Employment Law Project, and UCLA
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
Bivens, Josh, Elise Gould, Lawrence Mishel, and Heidi Shierholz. 2014. Raising America’s Pay: Why
It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper no. 378.
Carré, Françoise. 2015. (In)Dependent Contractor Misclassification. Economic Policy Institute Briefing
Paper no. 403.
Cooper, David. 2015. Raising the Minimum Wage to $12 by 2020 Would Lift Wages for 35 Million
American Workers. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper no. 405.
Cooper, David. 2016. Balancing Paychecks and Public Assistance: How Higher Wages Would
Strengthen What Government Can Do. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper no. 418.
Cooper, David. 2017. “Valentine’s Day is Better on the West Coast (at Least for Restaurant Servers).”
Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), February 9.
Costa, Daniel, David Cooper, and Heidi Shierholz. 2014. “Facts About Immigration and the U.S.
Economy: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.” Economic Policy Institute Fact Sheet.
Duncan, Greg, Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, and Ariel Kalil. 2008. “Early Childhood Poverty and Adult
Attainment, Behavior and Health.” Paper presented at the Conference on Health and Attainment
over the Lifecourse: Reciprocal Influences from Before Birth to Old Age, Chicago, May 16, 2008.
Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2017. Minimum Wage Tracker. Last updated March 13.
Eastern Research Group (ERG). 2014. “The Social and Economic Effects of Wage Violations:
Estimates for California and New York.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
Eisenbrey, Ross, and Will Kimball. 2016. The New Overtime Rule Will Directly Benefit 12.5 Million
Working People: Who They Are and Where They Live. Economic Policy Institute.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2016. “Table 23: Offense Analysis.” 2015 Crime in the United
States. Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (Florida DEO). 2016. “Florida Minimum Wage History:
2000 to 2017.” State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Accessed April 4, 2017.
Galvin, Daniel. 2016a. “Deterring Wage Theft: Alt-Labor, State Politics, and the Policy Determinants of
82
Minimum Wage Compliance.” Perspectives on Politics vol. 14, no. 2.
Galvin, Daniel. 2016b. Supplementary materials for “Deterring Wage Theft: Alt-Labor, State Politics,
and the Policy Determinants of Minimum Wage Compliance.”
Gordon, Colin, Matthew Glasson, Jennifer Sherer, and Robin Clark-Bennett. 2012. “Wage Theft in
Iowa.” The Iowa Policy Project, August.
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC). n.d. “History of California Minimum Wage.” State of California
Department of Industrial Relations. Accessed April 4, 2017.
Kimball, Will, and Lawrence Mishel. 2015. Estimating the Number of Workers Directly Benefiting from
the Proposed Increase in the Overtime Salary Threshold. Economic Policy Institute.
Leigh, J. Paul. 2016. “Raising the Minimum Wage Could Improve Public Health.” Working
Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), July 28.
Locke, Mandy. 2015. “At NC Department of Labor, Little Help for Unpaid Workers.” The Charlotte
Observer, October 10.
Meixell, Brady, and Ross Eisenbrey. 2014. “An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds
of Millions of Dollars a Year.” Economic Policy Institute Issue Brief no. 385.
Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012a. “Appendices.” In The State
of Working America: 12th Edition, an Economic Policy Institute book. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012b. “Mobility: Not Offsetting
Growing Inequality.” In The State of Working America: 12th Edition, an Economic Policy Institute
book. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
National Employment Law Project (NELP). 2008. Rebuilding a Good Jobs Economy: A Blueprint for
Recovery and Reform.
Roosevelt, Franklin D. 1938. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Franklin D.
Roosevelt, 1938. Volume 7, page 224.
Sellekaerts, Brigitte, and Stephen Welch. 1983. “Noncompliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act:
Evidence and Policy Implications.” Labor Studies Journal vol. 8, no. 2 (Fall).
U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). Various years. “Fiscal Year Data for WHD” [data tables]. Wage
and Hour Division.
U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). 2015. Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive,
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees. (Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.) 29 CFR Part 541. Wage and Hour Division.
U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). 2016. FY 2016 Congressional Budget Justification: Wage and
Hour Division.
U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). 2017a. FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification: Wage and
Hour Division.
U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). 2017b. “Resources for Workers.” Wage and Hour Division.
Accessed March 23.
U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). 1981. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General
83
of the United States: Changes Needed to Deter Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Report
no. HRD-81-60. Washington, D.C.: USGPO.
Weil, David. 2014. The Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can
Be Done to Improve It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Wilson, Valerie, and William M. Rodgers III. 2016. Black-White Wage Gaps Expand with Rising Wage
Inequality. Economic Policy Institute Report.
84

Employers Steal Billions From Workers' Paychecks Each Year

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employers Steal Billions From Workers' Paychecks Each Year

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employers Steal Billions From Workers' Paychecks Each Year

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employers steal billions from

workers’ paychecks each year

• Washington, DC View this report at epi.org/125116

Why it matters: Minimum wage violations, by definition,

What can be done about it: Strengthen states’ legal

Introduction and key

Wage theft, the practice of employers failing to pay

Background and previous research

Additionally, in recent decades, employers have increasingly adopted business practices

What is wage theft?

Enforcement of wage and hour laws

Victims of wage theft are often already

Figure A shows the shares of each state’s minimum-wage-eligible low-wage workforce

It is noteworthy that in all three of these states—Texas, Pennsylvania, and North

Weekly $213 $210 $224

Poverty and use of public assistance among

Demographic characteristics of workers being

Race and ethnicity

Workers experiencing 44.9% 55.1%

Total minimum-wage- 53.4% 46.6%

Shares of men and women experiencing minimum wage

Average paid and unpaid weekly wages of workers

16–24 25–54 55–85

Workers experiencing 32.7% 51.2% 16.1%

Total minimum-wage- 14.6% 66.1% 19.3%

Share of each age group experiencing minimum wage

Average paid and unpaid weekly wages of workers

100 Weekly amount $221 $204

White Black Hispanic Other

Share of each racial/ethnic group experiencing minimum

Average paid and unpaid weekly wages of workers

100 Weekly amount $203 $225 $217

Citizenship and nativity

U.S.-born citizen Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen

Workers experiencing 72.3% 9.7% 18.0%

Total minimum-wage- 78.8% 9.8% 11.4%

Share of each citizenship status group experiencing minimum

U.S.-born citizen 3.8%

Total minimum-wage- 10.6% 28.4% 30.8% 30.1%

Share of each educational attainment group experiencing

Less than high school 8.9%

Married parent Single parent Married, no kids Unmarried, no kids

Share of each family type experiencing minimum wage

Married parent 2.8%

Average paid and unpaid weekly wages of workers

Figure I The majority of workers who experience minimum

$60,000 or more: 34.4%

Less than $60,000: 65.6%

Industries and occupations

Part or mid time (<34 hours) Full time (35+ hours)

Workers experiencing 47.5% 52.5%

Total minimum-wage- 20.3% 79.7%

Share of each work hours group experiencing minimum wage

Part or mid time (<34 hours)

Food and drink service 14.3%

Agriculture, forestry, and

Industries of workers experiencing minimum wage violations

Food and drink service: 25.9%

Education and health: 13.4%