The Potential Economic Effects of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage to $12 per Hour on the U.S. Economy

Transcription

1 Michael J. Chow Paul S. Bettencourt NFIB Research Foundation Washington, DC October 17, 2016 The Potential Economic Effects of Increasing the Federal to $12 per Hour on the U.S. Economy Raising the federal minimum wage has emerged as a focal point of domestic economic policy debates during the presidential election campaign cycle. Statements by both of the major party presidential candidates embracing an increase in the minimum wage have added weight to congressional efforts in recent years to raise the federal minimum wage. This report analyzes the potential economic impact of increasing the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour by 2019 and indexing the federal minimum wage in future years to a cost of living measurement. The schedule of wage increases analyzed herein is modeled after H.R of the 114 th Congress. Using the Business Size Insight Module (BSIM), a dynamic, multi-region model based on the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) structural economic forecasting and policy analysis model, it is estimated that over a ten-year period beginning in 2017, an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour would reduce U.S. private sector employment by over 1.8 million jobs and result in a cumulative reduction in U.S. real output of $2 trillion. 1

2 Introduction Employers in all fifty states are required to offer workers a minimum wage in exchange for their labor. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 which, as amended, establishes a basic minimum wage that must be paid to covered workers. States are permitted to establish their own minimum wages which have the potential to replace the federal rate as the effective minimum wage, provided that the state minimum wage established exceeds the federal rate. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour for all covered employees (Table 1). Table 1: Historical Effective Rates for U.S. Non-farm Employment Year Year 1975 $2.10 (per hour) Oct $ $2.30 Sept $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $3.35 July 2007 $ $3.35 July 2008 $ $3.35 July 2009 $ $ $7.25 Apr $ $7.25 Apr $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $7.25 Source: Department of Labor President Obama favored raising the federal minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011 during his 2008 campaign for the presidency. Years later during his 2012 State of the Union speech, he broached the idea of raising the minimum wage to a lower rate of $9.00 per hour sometime during his second term. In 2013, the president supported legislation introduced by Senator Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative George Miller (D-Calif.) that would have raised the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. 1 More recently, former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders advocated for a $15.00 per hour minimum wage during his primary campaign for the Democratic nomination, a position which likely motivated the introduction of H.R. 3164, which 1 The Fairness Act of the 113 th Congress or S

3 would increase the federal minimum wage from its current level to $15.00 per hour in stages over a four-year period, after which the minimum wage would increase on an annual basis dependent upon annual percentage increases in the median hourly wage of all employees. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour. This report quantifies the potential economic impacts of raising the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour by 2019, and indexing it to a cost-of-living measure in future years, on U.S. small businesses and their employees using the Business Size Insight Module (BSIM). The BSIM is a dynamic, multi-region model based on the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) structural economic forecasting and policy analysis model which integrates input-output, computable general equilibrium, econometric, and economic geography methodologies. The underlying mechanics of the REMI model are based on decades of peer-reviewed literature. 2 The model is used by numerous clients in both the private and public sectors. 3 The BSIM is a customized version of the REMI model that has the unique ability to forecast the economic impact of public policy and proposed legislation on different categories of U.S. businesses differentiated by employee-size-of-firm. Forecast variables include levels of private sector employment and real output. By comparing simulation results for proposed scenarios with the model s baseline forecast, the BSIM is able to obtain estimates of how these policy changes would impact employer firms of varying sizes and their employees. Assumed Structure of the Federal Increase to $12.00 per Hour and Description of New Employer Costs According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2015, 870,000 workers earned exactly the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, while about 1.7 million workers had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum make up 3.3 percent of the 78.2 million U.S. workers paid hourly rates. 4 Raising the minimum wage to $12.00 per hour from its current level would increase the cost of labor of this large pool of workers by 65.5 percent. To analyze the economic impact an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour might have on the U.S. economy, a wage schedule had to be constructed and subsequently analyzed. In constructing the wage schedule, we relied heavily on the bill language of H.R. 3164, which would increase the federal minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Introduced in July 2 A list of the peer-reviewed literature is contained in PI+ v1.7 Model Equations, downloadable at The list of references includes articles published in the American Economic Review and The Review of Economics and Statistics. 3 The REMI model is used by a diverse group of clients spanning academia, private consulting firms, local and regional governments, and nonprofits, to name a few categories. A list of clients that use the REMI model is available at The list has included consultancies like Boston Consulting Group and Ernst and Young, educational institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, nonprofit institutions like AARP and the Urban Institute, and federal, regional, and local government agencies. 4 Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2015, Report 1061, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, April

4 2015, H.R would increase the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour beginning on January 1, 2016 (the start of the first calendar year after passage of the bill), $10.50 per hour in the second calendar year, $12.00 per hour in the third year, $13.50 per hour in the fourth year, and $15.00 per hour in the fifth year. In out years, the minimum wage would increase by an amount based on increases in the median hourly wage of all employees as determined using data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Eventually, the assumed federal minimum wage schedule would surpass all existing state minimum wage schedules by the end of the ten-year forecast window (with the exception of California), resulting in increased wage costs for employers in virtually all states. However, in the short-to-medium term, the state minimum wage for a number of states would continue to exceed the federal minimum wage even assuming the wage schedule described above. In years where the state minimum wage exceeds the federal minimum wage, for those states to which this applies, new employer costs are assumed to be zero, as there is no change from the baseline scenario (i.e., the preexisting state minimum wage continues to establish the wage floor). For illustrative purposes, the assumed federal minimum wage schedule and effective minimum wage schedules for two states, one of which experiences new employer costs for the entirety of the tenyear forecast window and the other which experiences new employer costs for just part of the forecast window, are provided in Table 2. Table 2: New Hourly Costs Associated with Workers with a $12.00 per Hour, Alabama and Washington Alabama Washington Assumed Federal Status Quo Effective Assumed Effective New Hourly Employer Cost per Status Quo Effective Assumed Effective New Hourly Employer Cost per Worker Worker 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $9.47 $9.47 $ $9.00 $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $9.63 $9.63 $ $10.50 $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $9.79 $10.50 $ $12.00 $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $9.95 $12.00 $ $12.25 $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $10.11 $12.25 $ $12.51 $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $10.28 $12.51 $ $12.77 $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $10.45 $12.77 $ $13.04 $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $10.62 $13.04 $ $13.31 $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $10.80 $13.31 $ $13.59 $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $10.98 $13.59 $ $13.88 $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $11.16 $13.88 $2.72 States for which the state minimum wages would remain below the federal minimum wage in the absence of the assumed federal minimum wage increase would experience a staggered increase in their states effective minimum wages to $12.00 per hour in The 4

5 Median Hourly minimum wage in such states would then increase annually based on increases in the median hourly wage paid to all employees. 5 Creating a wage schedule for years beyond 2019 requires an assumption regarding the annual increase in median hourly wages as measured by BLS. For this analysis, the assumed annual rate of increase was set equal to the annualized rate of increase in the hourly median wage for years 2001 to 2015, a time period that includes at least one full business cycle and over which the hourly median wage increased year-over-year every single year. The annualized rate of increase over this time period is 2.1 percent (Figure 1). $20.00 $18.00 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 Median Hourly for All U.S. : Median Hourly (All ) Annual Percentage Change in Median Hourly 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% Annual Percentage Change $ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Authors' Calculations Figure % An important aspect of modeling minimum wage increases is tipped employees. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), tipped employees are employees who 5 Calculations of the historical annual increase in the median hourly wage for all workers utilized data from the Occupational Employment Statistics data series from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at 5

6 customarily and regularly receive more than $30 per month in tips. 6 Employers may use tips received by such employees as a credit towards their minimum wage obligations to the employees, provided that a minimum cash wage, currently set to $2.13 per hour at the federal level, is also paid to the employees. States have the option of establishing their own cash wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are approximately 1.7 million U.S. workers who earn below the minimum wage. H.R directly addresses this class of workers and, once again, we use the proposal outlined in the bill as guidance for our own hypothetical wage schedule for tipped workers. Specifically, H.R would mandate a wage schedule for tipped employees that would eventually result in tipped employees earning the full minimum wage by requiring employers to pay tipped employees $3.15 per hour during the first year of the bill s implementation. In subsequent years, the per-hour wage of tipped employees would increase by the lesser of $1.50 or the amount necessary for the wages of tipped employees to equal the full minimum wage. As with workers earning the full minimum wage, for modeling purposes, we are interested in the wage differential between what tipped workers would earn under the new hypothetical wage schedule and the status quo wage schedule. For illustrative purposes, the calculated wage differentials for tipped workers in New Jersey are provided in Table 3. Table 3: New Hourly Costs Associated with Tipped in New Jersey with a $12.00 per Hour Status Quo Tipped Assumed Tipped New Hourly Cost per Tipped Employee 2016 $2.13 $2.13 $ $2.13 $3.15 $ $2.13 $4.65 $ $2.13 $6.15 $ $2.13 $7.65 $ $2.13 $9.15 $ $2.13 $10.65 $ $2.13 $12.15 $ $2.13 $13.31 $ $2.13 $13.59 $ $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 Source: Department of Labor and Authors Calculations A second issue is business size exemptions. Some states exempt businesses of a certain size from minimum wage requirements. The state of Illinois, for example, exempts employer firms with three or fewer employees from minimum wage laws. Very few states have such exemptions, however, and for simplicity, we discard any such business size exemptions with the assumption that a major overhaul of the federal minimum wage would seek to raise wages for all minimum wage workers, regardless of the size of their employers. 6 For detailed information on tipped employees, a useful resource is the DOL fact sheet available here: 6

7 A third issue involves emulation effects associated with individuals earning near (just above) the current minimum wage. Some of these individuals will earn between $7.25 per hour and the higher wages mandated in subsequent years (beginning with $9.00 per hour in 2017). In the absence of employer action, these workers would see their wages raised automatically to the new levels. However, wages for these workers may increase to even higher levels if employers attempt to maintain the pre-implementation wage distribution. Failure to increase the wages of near-minimum-wage earners sufficiently and allowing wage compression to occur may result in workers expressing their dissatisfaction by reducing work effort or leaving. Research suggests that relative wages are important to workers, and firms may find it in their profit-maximizing interest to increase [near-minimum-wage] workers wages when minimum wages increase, in an attempt to restore work effort. 7 Based upon state-level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it was assumed that 15 percent 8 of U.S. private sector employees less those individuals earning at or below the minimum wage would also see per capita raises equal to the dollar amount in wage increases experienced by workers earning at the minimum wage in years 2017 and beyond. 9 Besides the direct cost of higher wages in an increased minimum wage scenario, there are significant additional employer costs in the form of additional payroll taxes that must be paid on wage differentials. In general, an employer s share of payroll taxes equals 7.65 percent of employee wages and salary. Of this 7.65 percent, 6.2 percentage points are intended to help fund old age, survivors, and disability insurance, and 1.45 percentage points go toward helping to pay for Medicare hospital insurance. Employers can expect to pay more in payroll taxes as a consequence of a minimum wage increase. 7 Grossman, Jean Baldwin, The Impact of the on Other s, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Summer 1983). 8 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. wage earners at the 10 th percentile earn $9.07 per hour, while those at the 25 th percentile earned $11.27 per hour. Emulation effects can be assumed to occur among workers who earn near (within a few dollars of) the minimum wage. Workers at the 15 th percentile will earn above the proposed wage level of $9.00 in 2017 and will also earn below the proposed final wage level of $12.00 per hour. These workers would eventually and automatically see their wages increase to the new minimum wage of $12.00 in three years if the hypothetical wage schedule was implemented, all else unchanged, but a reasonable scenario is that these workers will press for the restoration of the original wage structure (such that these workers would earn more than the minimum wage). It is assumed that emulation effects do not occur for workers earning above the 15 th percentile. To give an example, in the state of Alabama, it was assumed that all workers earning at or below the 15 th percentile would see their earning increase by $1.75 per hour in 2017 if the act the new wage schedule is implemented, by an additional $1.50 per hour in 2018, and so on and so forth (the difference between the anticipated minimum wage if the hypothetical wage schedule was implemented and the anticipated minimum wage under current law). In this analysis, emulation effects were calculated on a state by state basis for all fifty states. 9 The assumption that wage changes due to emulation effects occur simultaneously with the minimum wage increase is supported by research suggesting that any substantial emulation effects are not long delayed, which seems plausible because increases in the minimum are [typically] well-advertised in advance. See Gramlich, Edward M., Impact of s on Other s, Employment, and Family Incomes, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, The Brookings Institution, 1974, downloadable at: 7

8 No Changes to Government Demand Given that a mandated minimum wage has been in effect for decades, it is assumed that government mechanisms to monitor compliance with the statute are established and welldeveloped. An increase in the minimum wage therefore should not require the development of new government mechanisms or materially increase government administrative costs. Hence, the analysis assumes no projected increases in government demand resulting from the implementation of the proposed minimum wage increase. Additional Private Spending in the Economy Consumers in an economy have two choices of what to do with their after-tax income. They can either choose to spend it, thereby increasing consumption within the economy, or they can elect to save it, and in doing so potentially increase investment in the economy. Government stimulus programs frequently focus on transferring wealth to lower-earning individuals because of the strong likelihood that these individuals will elect to spend the additional wealth, producing a consumption-fueled boost to the economy. 10 Consistent with expectations pertaining to increases in income for low-income workers, this analysis assumes that new additional income received by minimum wage earners is spent (and not saved), leading to an increase in consumption. In the analysis, the conversion of higher labor costs for employers into increased consumption by workers receiving wage increases occurs automatically due to the way in which wage costs are inputted into the BSIM. Since employer costs described in this analysis derive from an increase in the minimum wage, the costs were inputted into the BSIM under the Labor Cost variable. The costs were distributed across different industry categories and different employee-size-of-business categories according to existing industry and business size distributions published in the Census Bureau s Statistics on U.S. Businesses dataset. This distribution allows the BSIM to generate results for separate employee-size-of-firm categories. Increases in the Labor Cost variable in the BSIM translate directly to increases in the Compensation Rate policy variable which is used in intermediate calculations during the simulation process. During simulations, such compensation rate increases are directly fed back into the economy in the form of higher consumer spending on the part of workers who now have extra money to spend. Concerns that minimum wage increases may provide a countervailing spending stimulus effect to the economy are therefore satisfied automatically in this analysis According to the Congressional Budget Office, increases in disposable income are likely to boost purchases more for lower-income than for higher-income households. That difference arises, at least in part, because a larger share of people in lower-income households cannot borrow as much money as they would wish in order to spend more than they do currently. See: The Economic Outlook and Fiscal Policy Choices: Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf, before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, Congressional Budget Office, September 28, 2010, p The fact that the BSIM automatically accounts for an increase in consumer spending as a consequence of an increase in the Labor Cost variable is an important point that should not be missed. That increased consumption is automatically accounted for by the model in an analysis of a minimum wage increase means that exogenous increases in private sector demand are unnecessary for a model to be complete. Including such exogenous increases makes the resulting forecasts conservative. 8

9 Simulation Results BSIM simulation results for the modeled scenario in which the minimum wage proposal becomes law are provided below. All employment figures are expressed as number of employees, while output figures are expressed as billions of 2009 dollars. Under the modeled assumptions: There would be more than 1.8 million fewer jobs in the United States in 2026 compared to a baseline forecast in which the minimum wage proposal does not become law. Business owners are forecast to reduce the number of employees hired to adjust to higher labor costs, which outweigh any demand-side effects due to additional private consumption. Small businesses would be particularly impacted by the proposal, as businesses with fewer than 500 employees are forecast to experience 57 percent of job losses (over 1 million lost jobs), and businesses with fewer than 100 employees are forecast to lose nearly 800,000 jobs, about 43 percent of all jobs lost (Table 3). Industries such as retail trade, administrative and support services, and food services and drinking places (a sub-industry of the NAICS leisure and hospitality industry category) are forecast to experience large numbers of job losses. While proponents of a higher minimum wage tout benefits for industries with large numbers of low-wage employees, this simulation forecasts a large reduction in employment that offsets increased wages for workers who are able to keep or find jobs in these three industries. The retail trade industry is forecast to have more than 213,000 fewer jobs by 2026 (Table 4), administrative and support services to have more than 96,000 fewer jobs (Table 5), and food services and drinking places to have more than 154,000 fewer jobs (Table 6). The forecast reduction in employment of the three industries combined is more than 464,000 lost jobs, approximately 25 percent of total forecast jobs lost. In addition to forecast reductions in employment, real output 12 is also forecast to decrease by approximately $280 billion by 2026 compared to a baseline in which the proposal is not enacted (Table 7). Over the ten-year forecast window, the cumulative real output lost is forecast to exceed $2 trillion. 12 The term output refers to the aggregate output of the U.S. economy (GDP). GDP has three possible definitions: (1) the value of final goods and services produced in an economy during a given period (as opposed to raw materials or intermediate goods which are produced or sourced earlier in the production process), (2) the sum of value added during a given period, or (3) the sum of incomes in the economy during a given period. It is a technical term whose significance may be better understood by the reader if she considers that because of the first definition, output serves as a rough proxy for sales. 9

10 Table 3: Employment from (Number of ) under the Hypothetical Firm Size Percent of Total (2026) ,529-50,761-84,332-96, , , , , , , % ,013-56,137-92, , , , , , , , % ,298-65, , , , , , , , , % , , , , , , , , , , % , , , , , , , , , , % , , , , , , , , , , % < 20-76, , , , , , , , , , % < , , , , , , , , , , % < , , , , , ,329-1,009,713-1,041,838-1,056,083-1,064, % All Firms -333, ,943-1,239,709-1,417,966-1,564,242-1,684,549-1,770,371-1,827,790-1,853,553-1,868, % Table 4: Employment from (Number of ) under the Hypothetical, Retail Trade Firm Size Percent of Total (2026) ,163-4,657-7,562-8,204-8,772-9,297-9,668-9,917-10,004-10, % ,718-5,865-9,513-10,404-11,208-11,931-12,448-12,800-12,943-13, % ,014-6,523-10,576-11,602-12,528-13,360-13,952-14,359-14,533-14, % ,854-12,664-20,533-22,538-24,348-25,976-27,133-27,928-28,269-28, % ,447-7,462-12,086-13,283-14,374-15,346-16,039-16,519-16,728-16, % ,111-58,528-94, , , , , , , , % < 20-7,895-17,045-27,651-30,210-32,508-34,588-36,068-37,076-37,480-37, % < ,749-29,709-48,184-52,748-56,856-60,564-63,201-65,004-65,749-66, % < ,196-37,171-60,270-66,031-71,230-75,910-79,240-81,523-82,477-83, % All Firms -44,307-95, , , , , , , , , % 10

11 Table 5: Employment from (Number of ) under the Hypothetical, Administrative and Support Services Firm Size Percent of Total (2026) ,266-2,091-2,360-2,582-2,761-2,884-2,959-2,980-2, % ,302-2,149-2,431-2,666-2,855-2,983-3,064-3,089-3, % ,655-2,732-3,090-3,387-3,627-3,792-3,895-3,927-3, % ,116-4,695-7,740-8,751-9,582-10,258-10,718-11,008-11,092-11, % ,770-6,155-10,158-11,508-12,624-13,533-14,157-14,553-14,678-14, % ,404-25,346-41,776-47,400-52,058-55,832-58,412-60,044-60,555-60, % < 20-1,904-4,223-6,972-7,881-8,635-9,243-9,659-9,918-9,996-10, % < 100-4,020-8,918-14,712-16,632-18,217-19,501-20,377-20,926-21,088-21, % < 500-6,790-15,073-24,870-28,140-30,841-33,034-34,534-35,479-35,766-35, % All Firms -18,194-40,419-66,646-75,540-82,899-88,866-92,946-95,523-96,321-96, % Table 6: Employment from (Number of ) under the Hypothetical, Food Services and Drinking Places Firm Size Percent of Total (2026) ,780-2,905-3,147-3,368-3,593-3,778-3,919-3,998-4, % ,543-3,365-5,464-5,945-6,393-6,833-7,192-7,468-7,629-7, % ,934-6,402-10,381-11,336-12,229-13,096-13,801-14,345-14,670-14, % ,174-17,836-28,876-31,626-34,212-36,700-38,725-40,293-41,247-42, % ,028-8,774-14,149-15,512-16,793-18,017-19,007-19,776-20,242-20, % ,378-27,038-43,610-48,028-52,197-56,139-59,334-61,820-63,366-64, % < 20-5,295-11,547-18,750-20,428-21,990-23,522-24,771-25,732-26,297-26, % < ,469-29,383-47,626-52,054-56,202-60,222-63,496-66,025-67,544-68, % < ,497-38,157-61,775-67,566-72,995-78,239-82,503-85,801-87,786-89, % All Firms -29,875-65, , , , , , , , , % 11

12 Table 7: Real Output from (Billions of 2009 $s) under the Hypothetical Firm Size Percent of Total (2026) B -5.9B -9.9B -11.6B -12.9B -13.9B -14.6B -15.1B -15.3B -15.4B 5.5% B -5.9B -10.0B -11.7B -13.1B -14.2B -15.0B -15.6B -15.8B -16.0B 5.7% B -7.1B -12.1B -14.2B -15.9B -17.3B -18.3B -19.0B -19.4B -19.6B 7.0% B -17.3B -29.7B -35.2B -39.7B -43.3B -46.0B -47.9B -48.9B -49.5B 17.6% B -14.3B -24.6B -29.3B -33.3B -36.6B -39.0B -40.8B -41.9B -42.5B 15.1% B -46.4B -79.2B -94.0B B B B B B B 49.1% < B -18.9B -32.0B -37.5B -42.0B -45.4B -48.0B -49.7B -50.5B -50.9B 18.1% < B -36.2B -61.7B -72.7B -81.6B -88.7B -94.0B -97.6B -99.4B B 35.8% < B -50.5B -86.2B B B B B B B B 50.9% All Firms -41.8B -96.9B B B B B B B B B 100.0% 12

13 Jobs Lost (Employment from ) U.S. Jobs Lost (Employment from ) by 2026 Due to a $12 per Hour, by Employee-Size-of-Firm 0-200, , , , <20 <100 <500 All Firms -400, , , , , , , ,428-1,000,000-1,064,216-1,200,000-1,400,000-1,600,000-1,800,000-2,000,000 Employee-Size-of-Firm Category Figure 1-1,868,349 13

14 100% 90% Percentage Shares of Jobs Lost by 2026 Due to a $12 per Hour, by Industry and Employee-Size-of-Firm Retail Trade Administrative and Support Services Food and Drinking Places 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <20 <100 <500 All Firms Employee-Size-of-Firm Category Figure 2 14

15 Cumulative Real Ouput Lost (Billions of 2009 $s) Cumulative Real Output Lost from 2017 to 2026 Due to a $12 per Hour, by Employee-Size-of-Firm $ $117B -$120B -$146B <20 <100 <500 All Firms -$500 -$365B -$308B -$383B -$748B -$1,000 -$993B -$1,056B -$1,500 -$2,000 -$2,050B -$2,500 Employee-Size-of-Firm Category Figure 3 15

16 Cumulative Real Output Lost (Billions of 2009 $s) $0 Cumulative Real Output Lost (All Firms) from 2017 to 2026 Due to a $12 per Hour $42B -$139B -$500 -$304B -$500B -$722B -$1,000 -$964B -$1,223B -$1,500 -$1,493B -$1,769B -$2,000 -$2,050B -$2,500 Figure 4 16

17 100% Percentage Shares of Jobs Lost and Cumulative Real Output Lost Due to a $12 per Hour, by Employee-Size-of-Firm 90% Percentage Share of Jobs Lost by 2026 Percentage Share of Cumulative Real Output Lost ( ) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <20 <100 <500 All Firms Employee-Size-of-Firm Category Figure 5 17

18 Concluding Remarks This BSIM simulation forecasts that a federal minimum wage bill that would increase the minimum wage to $12.00 per hour according to a wage scheduled modeled after the one outlined in H.R would reduce U.S. private sector employment by over 1.8 million jobs over a tenyear period and result in a cumulative reduction in U.S. real output of $2 trillion over the same time period (even after accounting for any demand-side stimulus caused by workers receiving increased wages). The negative impact of the proposed legislation would fall disproportionately on small employers, which are less likely to have the cash reserves or profit margins to absorb the increase in labor costs than larger businesses. While low-wage workers able to find or retain a job would benefit from the proposed legislation, such gains come at the expense of a very large number of low-wage workers who would lose their jobs due to businesses unable to absorb the costs of a higher minimum wage, resulting in net negative employment and output effects. At a more disaggregated level, pronounced differences between states in income level and cost of living should persuade policymakers to exercise caution before applying a uniform policy approach to address disparate regional and local situations. A one-size-fits-all federal minimum wage policy is a blunt instrument that is ill-suited to address slow wage growth among low-income workers across states with a large variance in average incomes and the cost of living. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the cost of living in Hawaii (the state with the highest cost of living) is approximately 35 percent higher than Mississippi (the state with the lowest cost of living). A uniform federal minimum wage would treat both Hawaii and Mississippi the same despite the vast difference in average income and cost of living between those two states. In states with a high cost of living, the market wage for low-wage workers is higher than in states with a low cost of living. In principle, an increased federal minimum wage has the potential to have relatively larger negative impacts on state economies with lower costs of living than state economies with higher costs of living. Since the last federal minimum wage increase, some states particularly those with high costs of living and high average incomes have chosen to enact state-level minimum wage increases. Among those states, two have created tiered systems that differentiate urban and rural communities. New York has created three different minimum wage increase schedules based on cost of living. New York City s is the most aggressive, reaching $15 per hour in Long Island and several suburban counties have a minimum wage scheduled to increase until reaching $15 per hour in 2022, and upstate New York s is scheduled to increase at an even slower pace. Similarly, Oregon has enacted a three-tiered minimum wage increase based on the population density of each county. Under this system, the increased cost burden on businesses in lower cost of living areas in both states is reduced. The reasoning of policymakers in these states to apply policies appropriate to localities with diverse costs of living is analogous to the argument that federal minimum wage policy should reflect differences in state costs of living. 18

19 Appendix A: Actual and s by State Alabama (no state law) $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 Alaska 13 COLA: 2.1% $12 and 2016 $9.75 $9.75 $0.00 $9.75 $9.75 $ $9.95 $10.00 $0.05 $9.95 $9.95 $ $10.16 $11.50 $1.34 $10.16 $10.16 $ $10.37 $13.00 $2.63 $10.37 $10.37 $ $10.59 $13.25 $2.66 $10.59 $10.59 $ $10.81 $13.51 $2.70 $10.81 $10.81 $ $11.03 $13.77 $2.74 $11.03 $11.05 $ $11.26 $14.04 $2.78 $11.26 $12.55 $ $11.50 $14.31 $2.81 $11.50 $13.31 $ $11.74 $14.59 $2.85 $11.74 $13.59 $ $11.98 $14.88 $2.90 $11.98 $13.88 $ Alaska state law requires the state minimum wage to be at least one dollar higher than the federal minimum wage. 19

20 Arizona COLA: 1.7% $12 and 2016 $8.05 $8.05 $0.00 $5.05 $5.05 $ $8.18 $9.00 $0.82 $5.13 $5.13 $ $8.32 $10.50 $2.18 $5.22 $5.22 $ $8.46 $12.00 $3.54 $5.31 $6.72 $ $8.60 $12.25 $3.65 $5.39 $8.22 $ $8.74 $12.51 $3.77 $5.48 $9.72 $ $8.88 $12.77 $3.89 $5.57 $11.22 $ $9.03 $13.04 $4.01 $5.67 $12.72 $ $9.18 $13.31 $4.13 $5.76 $13.31 $ $9.33 $13.59 $4.26 $5.86 $13.59 $ $9.49 $13.88 $4.39 $5.95 $13.88 $7.93 Arkansas $12 and 2016 $8.00 $8.00 $0.00 $2.63 $2.63 $ $8.50 $9.00 $0.50 $2.63 $3.15 $ $8.50 $10.50 $2.00 $2.63 $4.65 $ $8.50 $12.00 $3.50 $2.63 $6.15 $ $8.50 $12.25 $3.75 $2.63 $7.65 $ $8.50 $12.51 $4.01 $2.63 $9.15 $ $8.50 $12.77 $4.27 $2.63 $10.65 $ $8.50 $13.04 $4.54 $2.63 $12.15 $ $8.50 $13.31 $4.81 $2.63 $13.31 $ $8.50 $13.59 $5.09 $2.63 $13.59 $ $8.50 $13.88 $5.38 $2.63 $13.88 $

21 California 14 $12 and 2016 $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 $10.00 $10.00 $ $10.50 $10.50 $0.00 $10.50 $10.50 $ $11.00 $11.00 $0.00 $11.00 $11.00 $ $12.00 $12.00 $0.00 $12.00 $12.00 $ $13.00 $13.00 $0.00 $13.00 $13.00 $ $14.00 $14.00 $0.00 $14.00 $14.00 $ $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $15.00 $15.00 $ $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $15.00 $15.00 $ $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $15.00 $15.00 $ $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $15.00 $15.00 $ $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 Colorado COLA: 2.4% $12 and 2016 $8.31 $8.31 $0.00 $5.29 $5.29 $ $8.51 $9.00 $0.49 $5.42 $5.42 $ $8.71 $10.50 $1.79 $5.54 $5.54 $ $8.92 $12.00 $3.08 $5.68 $6.15 $ $9.13 $12.25 $3.13 $5.81 $7.65 $ $9.34 $12.51 $3.17 $5.95 $9.15 $ $9.56 $12.77 $3.21 $6.09 $10.65 $ $9.79 $13.04 $3.25 $6.23 $12.15 $ $10.02 $13.31 $3.29 $6.38 $13.31 $ $10.26 $13.59 $3.33 $6.53 $13.59 $ $10.50 $13.88 $3.38 $6.69 $13.88 $ This simulation did not include any modeled costs for California because the state s recently enacted minimum wage increase is more aggressive than the modeled proposal. 21

22 Connecticut 15 $12 and 2016 $9.60 $9.60 $0.00 $6.07 $6.07 $ $10.10 $10.10 $0.00 $6.38 $6.38 $ $10.10 $11.03 $0.93 $6.38 $6.38 $ $10.10 $12.60 $2.50 $6.38 $6.38 $ $10.10 $12.86 $2.76 $6.38 $7.65 $ $10.10 $13.14 $3.04 $6.38 $9.15 $ $10.10 $13.41 $3.31 $6.38 $10.65 $ $10.10 $13.69 $3.59 $6.38 $12.15 $ $10.10 $13.98 $3.88 $6.38 $13.31 $ $10.10 $14.27 $4.17 $6.38 $13.59 $ $10.10 $14.57 $4.47 $6.38 $13.88 $7.50 Delaware $12 and 2016 $8.25 $8.25 $0.00 $2.23 $2.23 $ $8.25 $9.00 $0.75 $2.23 $3.15 $ $8.25 $10.50 $2.25 $2.23 $4.65 $ $8.25 $12.00 $3.75 $2.23 $6.15 $ $8.25 $12.25 $4.00 $2.23 $7.65 $ $8.25 $12.51 $4.26 $2.23 $9.15 $ $8.25 $12.77 $4.52 $2.23 $10.65 $ $8.25 $13.04 $4.79 $2.23 $12.15 $ $8.25 $13.31 $5.06 $2.23 $13.31 $ $8.25 $13.59 $5.34 $2.23 $13.59 $ $8.25 $13.88 $5.63 $2.23 $13.88 $ Connecticut state law requires the state minimum wage to be at least five percent higher than the federal minimum wage. 22

23 District of Columbia COLA: 1.7% $12 and 2016 $11.50 $11.50 $0.00 $2.77 $2.77 $ $11.50 $11.50 $0.00 $2.77 $3.15 $ $12.50 $12.50 $0.00 $3.33 $4.65 $ $13.25 $13.25 $0.00 $3.89 $6.15 $ $14.00 $14.00 $0.00 $4.45 $7.65 $ $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $5.00 $9.15 $ $15.26 $15.26 $0.00 $5.09 $10.65 $ $15.51 $15.51 $0.00 $5.17 $12.15 $ $15.78 $15.78 $0.00 $5.26 $13.31 $ $16.05 $16.05 $0.00 $5.35 $13.59 $ $16.32 $16.32 $0.00 $5.44 $13.88 $8.44 Florida COLA: 1.7% $12 and 2016 $8.05 $8.05 $0.00 $5.03 $5.03 $ $8.19 $9.00 $0.81 $5.12 $5.12 $ $8.33 $10.50 $2.17 $5.21 $5.21 $ $8.48 $12.00 $3.52 $5.30 $6.15 $ $8.62 $12.25 $3.63 $5.39 $7.65 $ $8.77 $12.51 $3.74 $5.48 $9.15 $ $8.92 $12.77 $3.85 $5.58 $10.65 $ $9.08 $13.04 $3.96 $5.67 $12.15 $ $9.23 $13.31 $4.08 $5.77 $13.31 $ $9.39 $13.59 $4.20 $5.87 $13.59 $ $9.56 $13.88 $4.32 $5.97 $13.88 $

24 Georgia (state: $5.15) $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 Hawaii $12 and 2016 $8.50 $8.50 $0.00 $7.75 $7.75 $ $9.25 $9.00 $0.00 $8.50 $8.50 $ $10.10 $10.50 $0.40 $9.35 $9.35 $ $10.10 $12.00 $1.90 $9.35 $10.85 $ $10.10 $12.25 $2.15 $9.35 $12.25 $ $10.10 $12.51 $2.41 $9.35 $12.51 $ $10.10 $12.77 $2.67 $9.35 $12.77 $ $10.10 $13.04 $2.94 $9.35 $13.04 $ $10.10 $13.31 $3.21 $9.35 $13.31 $ $10.10 $13.59 $3.49 $9.35 $13.59 $ $10.10 $13.88 $3.78 $9.35 $13.88 $

25 Idaho $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $3.35 $3.35 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $3.35 $3.35 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $3.35 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $3.35 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $3.35 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $3.35 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $3.35 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $3.35 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $3.35 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $3.35 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $3.35 $13.88 $10.53 Illinois $12 and 2016 $8.25 $8.25 $0.00 $4.95 $4.95 $ $8.25 $9.00 $0.75 $4.95 $4.95 $ $8.25 $10.50 $2.25 $4.95 $4.95 $ $8.25 $12.00 $3.75 $4.95 $6.15 $ $8.25 $12.25 $4.00 $4.95 $7.65 $ $8.25 $12.51 $4.26 $4.95 $9.15 $ $8.25 $12.77 $4.52 $4.95 $10.65 $ $8.25 $13.04 $4.79 $4.95 $12.15 $ $8.25 $13.31 $5.06 $4.95 $13.31 $ $8.25 $13.59 $5.34 $4.95 $13.59 $ $8.25 $13.88 $5.63 $4.95 $13.88 $

26 Indiana $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 Iowa $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $4.35 $4.35 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $4.35 $4.35 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $4.35 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $4.35 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $4.35 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $4.35 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $4.35 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $4.35 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $4.35 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $4.35 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $4.35 $13.88 $

27 Kansas $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 Kentucky $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $2.13 $13.88 $

28 Louisiana (no state law) $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 Maine $12 and 2016 $7.50 $7.50 $0.00 $3.75 $3.75 $ $7.50 $9.00 $1.50 $3.75 $4.50 $ $7.50 $10.50 $3.00 $3.75 $5.25 $ $7.50 $12.00 $4.50 $3.75 $6.75 $ $7.50 $12.25 $4.75 $3.75 $8.25 $ $7.50 $12.51 $5.01 $3.75 $9.75 $ $7.50 $12.77 $5.27 $3.75 $11.25 $ $7.50 $13.04 $5.54 $3.75 $12.75 $ $7.50 $13.31 $5.81 $3.75 $13.31 $ $7.50 $13.59 $6.09 $3.75 $13.59 $ $7.50 $13.88 $6.38 $3.75 $13.88 $

29 Maryland $12 and 2016 $8.75 $8.75 $0.00 $3.63 $3.63 $ $9.25 $9.00 $0.00 $3.63 $3.63 $ $10.10 $10.50 $0.40 $3.63 $4.65 $ $10.10 $12.00 $1.90 $3.63 $6.15 $ $10.10 $12.25 $2.15 $3.63 $7.65 $ $10.10 $12.51 $2.41 $3.63 $9.15 $ $10.10 $12.77 $2.67 $3.63 $10.65 $ $10.10 $13.04 $2.94 $3.63 $12.15 $ $10.10 $13.31 $3.21 $3.63 $13.31 $ $10.10 $13.59 $3.49 $3.63 $13.59 $ $10.10 $13.88 $3.78 $3.63 $13.88 $10.25 Massachusetts 16 $12 and 2016 $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 $3.35 $3.35 $ $11.00 $11.00 $0.00 $3.75 $3.75 $ $11.00 $11.00 $0.00 $3.75 $4.65 $ $11.00 $12.50 $1.50 $3.75 $6.15 $ $11.00 $12.75 $1.75 $3.75 $7.65 $ $11.00 $13.01 $2.01 $3.75 $9.15 $ $11.00 $13.27 $2.27 $3.75 $10.65 $ $11.00 $13.54 $2.54 $3.75 $12.15 $ $11.00 $13.81 $2.81 $3.75 $13.31 $ $11.00 $14.09 $3.09 $3.75 $13.59 $ $11.00 $14.38 $3.38 $3.75 $13.88 $ Massachusetts state law requires the state minimum wage to be at least fifty cents higher than the federal minimum wage. 29

30 Michigan COLA: 2.0% $12 and 2016 $8.50 $8.50 $0.00 $3.23 $3.23 $ $8.90 $9.00 $0.10 $3.38 $3.38 $ $9.25 $10.50 $1.25 $3.52 $4.65 $ $9.44 $12.00 $2.56 $3.59 $6.15 $ $9.63 $12.25 $2.63 $3.66 $7.65 $ $9.82 $12.51 $2.69 $3.73 $9.15 $ $10.02 $12.77 $2.76 $3.81 $10.65 $ $10.22 $13.04 $2.82 $3.88 $12.15 $ $10.42 $13.31 $2.89 $3.96 $13.31 $ $10.63 $13.59 $2.96 $4.04 $13.59 $ $10.84 $13.88 $3.04 $4.12 $13.88 $9.76 Minnesota 17 COLA: 1.6% $12 and 2016 $9.50 $9.50 $0.00 $9.50 $9.50 $ $9.50 $9.50 $0.00 $9.50 $9.50 $ $9.65 $10.50 $0.85 $9.65 $9.65 $ $9.80 $12.00 $2.20 $9.80 $9.80 $ $9.96 $12.25 $2.29 $9.96 $9.96 $ $10.12 $12.51 $2.39 $10.12 $10.12 $ $10.28 $12.77 $2.50 $10.28 $10.65 $ $10.44 $13.04 $2.60 $10.44 $12.15 $ $10.61 $13.31 $2.71 $10.61 $13.31 $ $10.77 $13.59 $2.82 $10.77 $13.59 $ $10.94 $13.88 $2.94 $10.94 $13.88 $ The minimum wage for Minnesota businesses with annual gross revenue of less than $500,000 is $7.75 per hour. The higher wage was used in this model in the interest of conservatism. 30

31 Mississippi (no state law) $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 Missouri COLA: 1.7% $12 and 2016 $7.65 $7.65 $0.00 $3.83 $3.83 $ $7.78 $9.00 $1.22 $3.89 $3.89 $ $7.92 $10.50 $2.58 $3.96 $4.65 $ $8.05 $12.00 $3.95 $4.03 $6.15 $ $8.19 $12.25 $4.06 $4.10 $7.65 $ $8.34 $12.51 $4.17 $4.17 $9.15 $ $8.48 $12.77 $4.29 $4.24 $10.65 $ $8.63 $13.04 $4.41 $4.31 $12.15 $ $8.78 $13.31 $4.54 $4.39 $13.31 $ $8.93 $13.59 $4.67 $4.46 $13.59 $ $9.08 $13.88 $4.80 $4.54 $13.88 $

32 Montana COLA: 1.7% $12 and 2016 $8.05 $8.05 $0.00 $8.05 $8.05 $ $8.18 $9.00 $0.82 $8.18 $8.18 $ $8.32 $10.50 $2.18 $8.32 $8.32 $ $8.46 $12.00 $3.54 $8.46 $8.46 $ $8.60 $12.25 $3.65 $8.60 $8.60 $ $8.74 $12.51 $3.77 $8.74 $9.15 $ $8.88 $12.77 $3.89 $8.88 $10.65 $ $9.03 $13.04 $4.01 $9.03 $12.15 $ $9.18 $13.31 $4.13 $9.18 $13.31 $ $9.33 $13.59 $4.26 $9.33 $13.59 $ $9.49 $13.88 $4.39 $9.49 $13.88 $4.39 Nebraska $12 and 2016 $9.00 $9.00 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $9.00 $9.00 $0.00 $2.13 $3.15 $ $9.00 $10.50 $1.50 $2.13 $4.65 $ $9.00 $12.00 $3.00 $2.13 $6.15 $ $9.00 $12.25 $3.25 $2.13 $7.65 $ $9.00 $12.51 $3.51 $2.13 $9.15 $ $9.00 $12.77 $3.77 $2.13 $10.65 $ $9.00 $13.04 $4.04 $2.13 $12.15 $ $9.00 $13.31 $4.31 $2.13 $13.31 $ $9.00 $13.59 $4.59 $2.13 $13.59 $ $9.00 $13.88 $4.88 $2.13 $13.88 $

33 Nevada 18 COLA: 1.5% $12 and 2016 $8.25 $8.25 $0.00 $8.25 $8.25 $ $8.38 $9.00 $0.62 $8.38 $8.38 $ $8.50 $10.50 $2.00 $8.50 $8.50 $ $8.63 $12.00 $3.37 $8.63 $8.63 $ $8.77 $12.25 $3.49 $8.77 $8.77 $ $8.90 $12.51 $3.61 $8.90 $9.15 $ $9.04 $12.77 $3.74 $9.04 $10.65 $ $9.18 $13.04 $3.87 $9.18 $12.15 $ $9.32 $13.31 $4.00 $9.32 $13.31 $ $9.46 $13.59 $4.14 $9.46 $13.59 $ $9.60 $13.88 $4.28 $9.60 $13.88 $4.28 New Hampshire Minimu m $12 and 2016 $7.25 $7.25 $0.00 $3.26 $3.26 $ $7.25 $9.00 $1.75 $3.26 $3.26 $ $7.25 $10.50 $3.25 $3.26 $4.65 $ $7.25 $12.00 $4.75 $3.26 $6.15 $ $7.25 $12.25 $5.00 $3.26 $7.65 $ $7.25 $12.51 $5.26 $3.26 $9.15 $ $7.25 $12.77 $5.52 $3.26 $10.65 $ $7.25 $13.04 $5.79 $3.26 $12.15 $ $7.25 $13.31 $6.06 $3.26 $13.31 $ $7.25 $13.59 $6.34 $3.26 $13.59 $ $7.25 $13.88 $6.63 $3.26 $13.88 $ The Nevada minimum wage for employers who offer health insurance is $7.25 per hour. The higher wage was used in this model in the interest of conservatism. 33

34 New Jersey COLA: 1.6% $12 and 2016 $8.38 $8.38 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $8.51 $9.00 $0.49 $2.13 $3.15 $ $8.65 $10.50 $1.85 $2.13 $4.65 $ $8.79 $12.00 $3.21 $2.13 $6.15 $ $8.93 $12.25 $3.33 $2.13 $7.65 $ $9.07 $12.51 $3.44 $2.13 $9.15 $ $9.21 $12.77 $3.56 $2.13 $10.65 $ $9.36 $13.04 $3.68 $2.13 $12.15 $ $9.51 $13.31 $3.81 $2.13 $13.31 $ $9.66 $13.59 $3.94 $2.13 $13.59 $ $9.81 $13.88 $4.07 $2.13 $13.88 $11.75 New Mexico $12 and 2016 $7.50 $7.50 $0.00 $2.13 $2.13 $ $7.50 $9.00 $1.50 $2.13 $3.15 $ $7.50 $10.50 $3.00 $2.13 $4.65 $ $7.50 $12.00 $4.50 $2.13 $6.15 $ $7.50 $12.25 $4.75 $2.13 $7.65 $ $7.50 $12.51 $5.01 $2.13 $9.15 $ $7.50 $12.77 $5.27 $2.13 $10.65 $ $7.50 $13.04 $5.54 $2.13 $12.15 $ $7.50 $13.31 $5.81 $2.13 $13.31 $ $7.50 $13.59 $6.09 $2.13 $13.59 $ $7.50 $13.88 $6.38 $2.13 $13.88 $