Labor Day Report from the Michigan League for Public Policy

8/11/2019 Labor Day Report from the Michigan League for Public Policy

1/16

PROMOTING ECONOMIC SECURITY THROUGH RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY

1223 TURNER STREET SUITE G1 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48906

P: 517.487.5436 F: 517.371.4546 WWW.MLPP.ORG

A UNITED WAY AGENCY

August 2014

Yannet Lathrop, Policy Analyst

Labor Day in Michigan Report:

Pay Falls for Low-Wage Men yet Women Still Far Behind

Raising the minimum wage, strengthening workplacepolicies, restoring the Earned Income Tax Credit,increasing funding for educaon and encouraging

unionizaon would help correct dramac wage losses in

Michigan since 1979. Wages in the state have dropped

over the past 35 years, parcularly for low- and middle-

wage men. Over this same period of me, womenswages, parcipaon in the labor force and educaonal

aainment have increased somewhat. Yet, gender-based

wage disparies persist. The labor and economic policies

suggested above would boost the pay of Michigan

workers of all genders, and help close the gender wage

gap.

WAGE TRENDS AND THE GENDER WAGE GAP

For a number of years in the mid-tweneth century,

wages rose in tandem with producvity. Between 1949

and 1979, producvity (a measure of the value of goods

and services that is produced, on average, per each hour

of work) increased 108.1% naonwide, while wages for

non-supervisory workers increased 93.4%.1 This suggests

that economic prosperity was widely shared by

businesses and employees, alike. Aer 1979, however,

the link between producvity and wages began to break.

Producvity connued to rise, though at a slower pace,

while wages lagged substanally behind. Between 1979

and 2013, producvity grew 64.9%, but hourly wages rosejust 8.2%.

2

In Michigan, compensaon for low- and mid-wage

workers of prime working age3fell substanally between

1979 and 2013.4 Real hourly wages dropped 13.4% for

low-wage workers and 12.7% for mid-wage workers (see

Appendix A.1). With the excepon of the years 1998 to

2010, relavely high levels of educaonal aainment did

lile to curb this trend. The median hourly wages of

prime age workers with bachelors degrees fell 4.3%,

while wages for workers with masters degrees or higher

increased only 10.7%. Workers without a postsecondary

educaon saw the steepest decreases: The wages of

workers without a high school diploma dove 46.3%, whileworkers with only a high school educaon saw their

wages decrease by 32.1% (See Figure 1 and Appendix

A.2).

Mens Wages in Michigan

The wages of many Michigan male workers

fared worse than the state average. Low-wage

mens hourly earnings plummeted 31.2%, while

mid-wage male workers wages fell 16.0%. The

decline in male wages in Michigan con

nuedeven during the naonwide labor market strength of the

late 1990s.5 The sharp wage decline abated just a bit

during this me, but did not result in wage increases for

male workers earning at or under the middle of the wage

distribuon (see Figure 2).

Michigan Womens Wages

From 1979 to the late 1990s, wages for low-

and mid-wage women declined or saw only

modest improvements. However, beginning in

the late 1990s, wages for these workers

improved the most, averaging 14.6% between

1999 and 2010 for mid-wage women, and 11.3% for low-

wage women, before dropping substanally aer 2010.

Overall, real hourly earnings for low-wage women

increased only 4.2% in 2013 relave to 1979, and 10.1%

for mid-wage women (see Figure 3).


2/16

MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 2

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 1979-2013Prepared by Michigan League for Public Policy

FIGURE 1

Change in Median Wage by Education Attainment, 1979-2013

Hourly Earnings of Low-Wage Michigan Men Plummet, 1979-2013

FIGURE 2



3/16


While the rest of the Michigan workforce saw a decline or

stagnaon in their hourly earnings, the wages of the

highest paid workers of any gender grew consistently

parcularly of those earning at the top 10% of the wage

distribuon. Their wages increased between 8.3% and

39.7% from 1979 to 2013 (see Appendix A.1). Disparity in

wage growth with increases for a relavely small sector

of the workforce and declines for the vast majority is

one of the most important factors influencing the

shrinking of the middle class and the faltering of living

standards in the country.6

Gender Wage Gap

As will be shown in the next two secons of this report,

over the past three decades, women have increased their

labor force parcipaon and have obtained educaonalcredenals at greater proporons than their male

counterparts. These improvements help explain the rise in

womens wages7 parcularly for women earning in the

top 20% of the wage distribuon (see Figure 3 and

Appendix A.1) and the narrowing of the gender wage

gap.

The gender wage gap the difference between the

earnings of women relave to mens began to improve

naonwide in the late 1970s. According to one

calculaon, the naonwide gender wage gap decreased

from 37.3% in 1979 to 17.2% in 2012. However, more

than one-quarter of this improvement can be traced to

the erosion of mens wages, rather than to gains in

womens wages.8 As we saw above, the wages of

Michigan men of prime working age, earning at or under

the middle of the wage distribuon, declined sharply by

as much as 31.2% between 1979 and 2013.

Economists cauon that a narrowing of the wage gap

based on decreases in mens wages is problemac, as it

hurts not only men, but also women. The same factors

that harm mens wages are also exerng a negave

influence on womens wages. If, for a me, protecons

against discriminaon, higher levels of educaonal

aainment and increased labor force parcipaon helped

curb the downward pressure on womens wages, policy

choices such as monetary policy focusing on inflaon

rather than full-employment, the deregulaon of

industries, the weakening of labor standards, the erosion

in the real value of the minimum wage, and decreased

unionizaon threaten to reverse these posive wage

gains in womens wages.9


FIGURE 3

Stagnating Hourly Earnings for Low-Wage Michigan Women, 1979-2013


4/16


Despite wage gains for women (and wage losses for men),

Michigan women experience the seventh-widest gender

wage gaps (26.3%) in the naon.11

On average, Michigan

women working full-me year-round earned just $0.74

for every $1 a similarly employed man earned.12

The

states gender wage gap has been stuck in the 70-centrange since 2005, despite nominal increases in the states

wage floor13

(see Table 1). The wage gap for women of

color is much wider: In 2012, an African American woman

made just two-thirds what a man made ($0.67 for every

$1), and a Hispanic woman earned a lile over one-half

($0.54).14

The persistence of a gender wage gap is influenced in part

by womens connued over-representaon in the low-

wage workforce (see Table 2 and appendices C and D).

Although women 16 years and over composed around

half (49%) of Michigans overall workforce between 2008

and 2012, they represented well over two-thirds (69%) ofthe low-wage workforce.

15The share of women of prime

working age who are employed in low-wage occupaons

was 20.8% in 2012, while for men this share was just

8.9%. This makes women in the state more than twice as

likely as men to be low-wage workers.16

Occupaon

Poron of

Workforce

that is Female

(U.S.)17

Total

Number

Employed

(Michigan)18

Median

Hourly

Wage

(Michigan)18

Median

Annual

Wage

(Michigan)18

Childcare Workers 95% 17,850 $8.73 $19,870

Home Health Aides 89% 35,740 $9.88 $20,560

Maids and Housekeepers 88% 19,020 $10.09 $21,000

Personal Care Aides 84% 20,230 $9.87 $20,520

Cashiers 72% 93,450 $9.13 $18,980

Waiters and Waitresses 70% 72,780 $8.75 $18,200

Combined Food Preparers

and Servers65% 93,170 $8.73 $18,150

Bartenders 58% 15,990 $8.83 $18,360

Food Preparers 56% 22,320 $9.49 $19,750

Hand Packers and Packagers 49% 16,590 $9.65 $20,070

Low-Wage Occupations with Largest Female Representation

TABLE 2

Trends in Gender Wage Gap and Minimum Wage in Michigan, 2005-2012

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Female to Male Earnings, Per $110

$0.70 $0.71 $0.72 $0.72 $0.72 $0.74 $0.74 $0.74

Michigan Minimum Wage (Nominal Value) $5.15 $6.95 $7.15 $7.40 $7.40 $7.40 $7.40 $7.40

Michigan Minimum Wage (Real Value,

2013 dollars)

$6.14 $8.03 $8.03 $8.01 $8.04 $7.91 $7.66 $7.40

TABLE 1

Sources: Wage gap: National Womens Law Centers analysis of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (Current Population

Survey) and the American Community Survey. Nominal minimum wage: Tax Policy Center.

Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.

Sources: National Womens Law Center analysis and the May 2013 State Occupational Employment and

Wage Estimates of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



5/16


However, the over-representaon of women in low-wage

occupaons does not, alone, explain the gender wage

gap. High-earning women have not been spared the

pernicious effects of wage disparity. In fact, they

experience the highest wage gap among all groups in the

wage distribuon (see Appendix A.3). While low-wage

women earn $1.53 less than men in the same wage group

(a 12.91% difference) and have a wage gap of $0.13,women in the highest-wage group earn $9.67 less than

their male counterparts (a 23.6% difference) and have a

wage gap of $0.21.

Various research has found that a significant proporon

of the wage gap (between 7% and 12%) cannot be

explained away by womens choices in occupaon.19

This

unexplained wage gap hurts even college-educated

women many of whom, 10 years aer graduaon, earn

just 69% of what men earn. One possible explanaon is

that when women become mothers, they experience amotherhood penalty that extends well beyond the me

they are out of the workforce. Research suggests that

employers are less likely to hire mothers compared with

childless women, and that when they do hire mothers,

they tend to offer these women lower salaries than their

childless counterparts. Fathers, on the other hand, do not

suffer a similar parental penalty.20

Differences in the

treatment of men and women and mothers and fathers

likely account for a significant poron of the

unexplained wage gap, and the overall wage gap.

WOMENS CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECONOMY

While the gender wage gap persists and the wages for the

majority of women have stagnated, the contribuon of

female workers to the naons economy has increased

over the past 35 years. If women had abstained from

working outside the home from 1979 to 2012, the

economy would be significantly smaller than it is now.21

Naonwide, the share of women working full-me year-

round increased significantly, from 28.6% in 1979, to a

peak of 44.2% in 2000, before decreasing slightly to 40.7%

in 201222

in the wake of the Great Recession and the

jobless recovery that followed.23

The increase in the share

of mothers working full-me year-round was even more

dramac, rising from 27.3% in 1979 to 46.0% in 2007 and

44.1% in 2012.24

Womens work hours nearly doubled

between 1979 and 2007 from 925 annual hours to 1,820

and increased 80% from 1979-2012 (a figure that

accounts for the effects of the recession).25

Employment

trends for Michigan women are likely similar.

During this period, womens contribuon to their total

household incomes also increased substanally,

parcularly for low-income families. While in 1979, low-

income women contributed just over one-third (33.5%) of

their total household earnings, by 2012 their contribuon

rose to nearly half (45.8%). For middle-income

households, womens contribuon rose from 25.0% to

38.6%, and for wealthier households, from 23.8% to

33.5%.26

Through their increased parcipaon in the labor market

and the greater number of hours worked, women helped

expand the naons economy by $1.7 billion (11%) from

1979 to 2012. This increase in the economy is equivalent

to almost twice the combined contribuon of the

informaon, communicaons and technology industries

in 2012.27

DEMOGRAPHIC PORTRAIT OF MICHIGAN

WOMEN

Women are the backbone of Michigans economy. In

2012, women made up over half (51.7%) of the states

populaon of prime working age and a slightly smaller but

highly significant share (48.9%) of the total employed

populaon in this age group.28

Michigan women have relavely high levels of educaon.With the excepon of professional and doctorate-level

degrees, they hold higher shares of various postsecondary

degrees compared to men, including 58.1% of bachelors

and 57.1% of masters degrees (see Table 3).

TABLE 3

Degrees All Men Women

Associate 100% 41.40% 58.60%

Bachelors 100% 41.90% 58.10%

Masters 100% 42.90% 57.10%

Professional 100% 66.60% 33.40%

Doctorate 100% 68.20% 31.80%

Womens and Mens Shares of

Postsecondary Degrees (Ages 25-64)

Source: 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Current

Population Survey (CPS), U.S. Census Bureau.



6/16


When looking at the states female populaon, alone, we

can observe that nearly half (45.3%) of Michigan women

of prime working age hold postsecondary degrees of any

type, including 20.6% with bachelors, 13.5% with an

associate, and 9.4% with masters degrees. Another 20.7%

aended college but did not earn a degree (see Figure 4and Appendix B).

Michigan men of this age group, in comparison, have

significantly lower levels of postsecondary educaonal

aainment. Only 37.6% of men in the state hold a

postsecondary degree of any type, including 15.9% with a

bachelors, 10.2% with an associate and 7.5% with a

masters degree. However, a higher percentage of men

have doctorates or professional degrees (4.0%), than do

women (1.8%).Total postsecondary educaonal aain-

ment at the naonal level is 46.4% for women and 41.3%

for men.

Over the past three decades, womens parcipaon in the

labor force increased significantly, while mens and the

states average for all genders decreased. From 1979 to

2013, the labor force parcipaon rate29

for women 16

years and older increased 4 percentage points from 50.7%

Gender

Business Cycle Peaks Latest

Year

(2013)

Change

1979 1989 2000 20071979-

1989

1979-

2007

1979-

2013

Women 50.70% 56.50% 61.20% 59.20% 54.90% 5.80% 8.50% 4.20%

Men 79.00% 75.70% 76.70% 69.40% 66.50% -3.30% -9.60% -12.50%All 64.30% 65.80% 68.70% 64.20% 60.50% 1.50% -0.10% -3.80%

Michigan Womens and Mens Labor Force Participation at Business Cycle Peaks

(Ages 16 and Over)

TABLE 4

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey data.


Women

Educational Attainment in Michigan, by Gender (Ages 25-64)

FIGURE 4

Men

High School

Diploma or Less

34.1%

High School

Diploma or Less

41.6%

Some College

20.7%

Some College

20.7%

Associate

Degree

10.2%

Associate

Degree

13.5%

Bachelors

Degree

20.6%

Bachelors

Degree

15.9%

Masters

Degree

9.4%

Masters

Degree

7.5%

Doctorate or

Professional Degree

1.8%

Doctorate or

Professional Degree

4.0%

Source: 2013 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement



7/16


to 54.9%, while mens parcipaon fell 13 percentage

points from 79.0% to 66.5% (see Table 4). In 2012, women

of prime working age had a much higher labor force

parcipaon rate (70.3%), making their contribuon to

the states economy vital. (Mens labor force parcipaon

rate for this age group was 80.7%).

Michigan women are more likely than their male

counterparts to live in poverty, despite increases in

educaonal aainment and labor force parcipaon. Of

the states populaon of prime working age who are living

in poverty, over half (54.7%) are women.30

In fact, the

states poverty rate for women of this age group is 24.8%

nearly 6 percentage points higher than the rate for

men.31

Female-Headed Households

The poverty rate of Michigans female-headed households

in the prime working age group is higher than for womenof this age group as a whole. Although these households

had an employment rate of 70.8% in 2012, over one-

quarter (27.7%) lived in poverty. Their median household

income was just $35,030.32

Of the almost 315,300 low-income working families in

Michigan, more than two in five (41.9%) are headed by

women.33

Although mothers of very young children make

up just 4.6% of the states workforce, they represent a

higher share (6.9%) of the low-wage workforce.34

One in

five (22.0%) of these mothers were employed in a low-

wage occupaon.

In 2012, significant shares of Michigan working

households (whether headed by women or men, or both

equally) received food assistance (formerly known as food

stamps and now called the Supplemental Nutrion

Assistance Program, or SNAP). Almost half (48.8%) of

working families with household incomes below 200% of

the federal poverty threshold received food assistance.

The SNAP parcipaon rate for families below 100% of

poverty was even higher close to three-quarters

(70.3%).35

MEDIAN WAGES IN THE MIDWEST: A

COMPARISON

As we saw in the first secon of this report, median wages

dropped 12.7% in Michigan between 1979 and 2013. The

drop was larger for low-wage workers (13.4%), while high-

wage workers saw their wages increase by 8.3% or more

(see Appendix A.1). Mens wages declined more than

womens.

Much of the Midwest also experienced wage declines or

stagnaon. Illinois and Indiana both had negave real

median wage growth, while wages stagnated in

Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri, which experienced growth

between 0% and 2.3%. Minnesota, on the other hand,

State

All Men Women

Change

1979-

2013

1979 2013

Change

1979-

2013

1979 2013

Change

1979-

2013

1979 2013

Michigan -12.70% $20.66 $18.03 -16.00% $23.78 $19.97 10.10% $14.73 $16.22

Illinois -4.10% $19.75 $18.94 -13.30% $24.21 $21.00 16.80% $14.81 $17.29

Indiana -0.90% $17.37 $17.21 -13.90% $21.70 $18.69 22.60% $12.56 $15.40

Wisconsin 0.00% $18.50 $18.50 -11.80% $22.65 $19.97 25.60% $13.46 $16.90

Iowa 1.90% $17.20 $17.53 -9.50% $21.35 $19.33 22.60% $12.86 $15.77

Missouri 2.30% $17.29 $17.68 -10.90% $22.04 $19.63 23.50% $12.85 $15.87

Minnesota 11.00% $18.17 $20.17 -4.90% $23.15 $22.03 40.10% $13.54 $18.97

Difference (MN-MI) 23.7 percentage points 11.1 percentage points 30.0 percentage points

Real Median Wages in the Midwest (Ages 25-64)

TABLE 5

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 1979-2013. Inflation

adjusted to 2013 dollars.



8/16


bucked the trend. The state

saw real median wage growth

of 11%, much of it occurring

aer 1997, around the me

when the naons workers

enjoyed the employment and

wage benefits of a ght labor

market. The difference inwage growth between

Minnesotas and Michigans

wage trends between 1979

and 2013 is a whopping 23.7

percentage points (see Table

5 and Figure 5).

Mens median wages

throughout the Midwest also

declined significantly nearly

all of it in the double-digitrange. Michigan led the pack,

with the steepest decline of

16.0%, while Minnesota,

though unable to avoid

negave growth, saw the

smallest decline in the region:

4.9% (see Table 5 and Figure

6). Once again, the turning

point seems to be the late

1990s, when mens wage

decline in Minnesota began to

lose steam (and in fact,

turned posive between 1999

and 2005) while in Michigan it

connued on a downward

trend that accelerated aer

2009.

Although all Midwestern

states experienced posive

wage growth for women,

Minnesota and Michigan

stand out once again. Women

in Minnesota saw the most

cumulave wage growth in

the region (40.1%), while Michigan women saw the least

(10.1%). In 1979, women in Minnesota were paid 8.8%

less than women in Michigan. But by 2013, the formers

wages had surpassed the laers. Minnesota women now

earn 17.0% more than their Michigan counterparts. Unlike

male wages, the diverging trends in female wages in

Minnesota and Michigan began much earlier than the late

1990s. By 1982, womens wages in Michigan had turned

negave (2.5%), while in Minnesota they had turned

posive (2.0%). This trend picked up steam in the late

Change in Real Median Wages in Michigan and Minnesota,

All Genders (1979-2013)

FIGURE 5

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata,1979-2013Prepared by Michigan League for Public Policy

Change in Real Median Wages in Michigan and Minnesota,

by Gender (1979-2013)

FIGURE 6

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata,1979-2013Prepared by Michigan League for Public Policy


9/16


1990s, resulng in the 30 percentage point gap that exists

today.

What explains the dramac differences seen in Minnesota

and Michigan? One part of the answer points to

deindustrializaon. Over the past two decades, Michigan

has struggled with a declining manufacturing sector, much

of it concentrated around the auto industry. This industry,

which throughout much of the tweneth century hadexpanded the middle class in Michigan and especially in

Detroit began to falter with the global decline in

manufacturing, foreign compeon in the auto industry,

and the increased automaon of many assembly-line

jobs.36

From 1990 to 2011, manufacturing employment in

Michigan declined by 37% and employment earnings in

this sector declined by a similar figure (35%).

Deindustrializaon and the near collapse of the auto

industry led to a decade-long recession in the state, from

which Michigan is sll recovering. Minnesota was not as

reliant on the manufacturing sector, and certainly not on

the auto industry. During this same period of me,

manufacturing employment in the state fell by a relavely

smaller rate (11%), while related employment earnings fell

6%.37

While manufacturing was declining, the knowledge-based

sector of the economy was expanding, and Minnesota was

able to take advantage of it. The knowledge-based

economy, in which todays high-wage jobs are

concentrated, can be defined as producon and services

based on knowledge-intensive acvies such as

informaon technology, finance, insurance and private

health care and social services.38

Between 1990 and 2011,

Minnesota grew its employment in the knowledge-based

economy by 60%, twice Michigans rate of 30%.

Minnesotas employment earnings in this sector expanded

even more: 74%, more than twice Michigans 32%

growth.39

While deindustrializaon and the near collapse of the

domesc auto industry were, to some extent, unavoidable

and greatly impacted Michigans economy something

that Minnesota was mostly spared that alone did not set

these two states is such diverging economic paths. Policy

choices have played an important role in their differing

outcomes.

Minnesota is a high-tax state, which enables it to invest

more in its residents. Since the early 1970s, Minnesota

lawmakers have made the conscious choice to implement

and protect various tax and fiscal reforms collecvely

known as the Minnesota Miracle that succeeded in

curbing disparies in the quality of public educaon, and

shied more of the burden of financing local governments

from property taxes to state income and sales taxes.40

Minnesota has a progressive state income tax rate that

varies between 5.35% and 9.85%, with the higher tax rate

reserved for wealthier Minnesotans. In contrast, Michigan

has a flat income tax rate of 4.25%, which applies to

everyone rich or poor. In combinaon with other state

and local taxes, Minnesotas tax structure allowed it to

collect $5,016 in taxes, per capita, in 2011. In contrast,

Michigans combined state and local taxes, per capita in

2011, was just $3,655. Minnesotas enhanced ability to

collect revenue also allows it to spend more on services

for its residents compared to Michigan: $4,443 per capita

in Minnesota vs. $2,813 in Michigan.41

Minnesotas spending priories include early childhood

educaon, K-12 educaon, higher educaon, the states

social safety net, infrastructure and public transit all of

which are funded much more generously than in

Michigan,42

and all of which help prepare its workforce for

the demands of the modern global economy and give

Minnesotans a chance to succeed even in bad mes.

The stark differences in wages seen in Minnesota and

Michigan, therefore, should not come as a surprise.

Minnesotas wage gains are in great part the result of the

states resolve to invest in the public good, while

Michigans wage declines are the result of both a shi in

the global economy and, most importantly, of policy

choices that have hurt its working men and women.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Raise the Minimum Wage and Eliminate the Tipped

Wage. Raising the wage floor to $10.10 per hour would

reduce poverty in the state (including child poverty), boost

the states economy, and create thousands of jobs.43

Increasing the minimum wage, and in parculareliminang the pped wage would also help reduce the

gender wage gap. As discussed above, women are more

likely than men to work in low-wage occupaons,

including jobs as servers in the restaurant industry where

they make up 70% of the workforce.44

The Michigan

Legislature recently passed a law that would increase the

states minimum wage to $9.25 by 2018 and index it to

inflaon. This law also pegged the pped wage to 38% of


10/16


11/16


ENDNOTES

1. Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, Lawrence Mishel and Heidi Shierholz, Raising Americas Pay: Why Its Our Central Economic Policy

Challenge, Economic Policy Instute, June 2014.

2. Ibid.

3. Although more commonly referring to individuals between the ages of 25 and 54, in this report populaon of prime working

age refers to persons 25 to 64 years of age. This expanded definion allows us to capture data for workers who are midwaybetween the minimum age (62) for the receipt of paral Social Security benefits, and the age (66) for the receipt of full bene-

fits and therefore near full-rerement. Unless otherwise noted, data in secons Wage Trends and the Gender Wage Gap and

Demographic Portrait of Michigan Women will refer to this age group only.

4. Low-wage workers are those with hourly earnings in the 20th percenle of the wage distribuon. Mid-wage workers are those

with earnings exactly in the middle. High-wage workers are those with earnings in the 80th percenle, and top 10% are work-

ers with earnings in the 90th percenle.

5. During the late 1990s, the naon as a whole experienced low levels of inflaon and unemployment, a producvity surge that

was mostly led by computer-based informaon technology, and an increase in the federal minimum wage. These events led to

a short-lived but posive increase in hourly wages for workers of all gender at the naonal level. Michigan bucked this wage

trend, however. For more informaon of the dynamics of the U.S. labor market during this period, see Lawrence F. Katz and

Alan B. Krueger, The High Pressure U.S. Labor Market of the 1990s, Brookings Papers on Economic Acvity, 1999; and Gavin

Wright, Producvity Growth and the American Labor Market: The 1990s in Historical Perspecve, Understanding the 1990s,in Paul Rhode and Gianni Toniolo (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 2006.

6. Josh Bivens et al. Op. Cit.

7. Heidi Shierholz, Commentary: The Wrong Route to Equality Mens Declining Wages, Economic Policy Instute, June 12, 2013.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Data refers to workers 16 years and older, working full me year-round.

11. Julie Vogtman and Katherine Gallagher Robbins, Higher State Minimum Wages Promote Fair Pay for Women, Naonal Wom-

ens Law Center, Mach 2014. Gender wage gap data refers to populaon 16 years and older.

12. Ibid. The wage gap comparison is to earnings of non-Hispanic white males, who generally have the highest earnings among all

men and whose earnings are, therefore, the benchmark on which the gender wage gap measurements (including those for

minority women) are based.

13. Increases in the minimum wage could potenally affect women more than men, because women are more likely than men tobe employed in low-wage occupaons. See discussion of the over-representaon of women in low-wage jobs, below.

14. Naonal Womens Law Center, The Wage Gap by State for Women Overall, November 2013.

15. Naonal Womens Law Center, Underpaid and Overloaded: Women in Low-Wage Jobs, July 2014. Here, the low-wage work-

force is defined as those in occupaons with median hourly wages of $10.10 or less.

16. Ibid.

17. Joan Entmacher, Katherine Gallagher Robbins and Lauren Frohlich, Women are 76 Percent of Workers in the 10 Largest Low-

Wage Jobs and Suffer a 10 Percent Wage Gap, Naonal Womens Law Center, April 2014.

18. Esmates on total number employed, and median hourly and annual wages refer to workers (both genders combined)

between the ages of 25 to 64 years.

19. American Associaon of University Women, The Simple Truth About the Gender Wage Gap, Fall 2013.

20. Ibid.

21. Eileen Appelbaum, Heather Boushey and John Schmi. The Economic Importance of Womens Rising Hour of Work: Time toUpdate Employment Standards, Center for American Progress and Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 2014.

22. Ibid. Data in this secon refers to women ages 16 to 64 years old.

23. The Great Recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. However, high levels of unemployment remain a

problem in several states, including Michigan, which in June 2014had an unemployment rate of 7.5%, the fourth highest in the

naon and significantly above the naonal rate of 6.1%.

24. Op. Cit. Data refers to mothers in households with children under the age of 18.

25. Ibid.
http://s1.epi.org/files/2014/raising-americas-pay-report-final.pdfhttp://s1.epi.org/files/2014/raising-americas-pay-report-final.pdfhttp://s1.epi.org/files/2014/raising-americas-pay-report-final.pdfhttp://s1.epi.org/files/2014/raising-americas-pay-report-final.pdfhttp://s1.epi.org/files/2014/raising-americas-pay-report-final.pdfhttp://s1.epi.org/files/2014/raising-americas-pay-report-final.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Spring%201999/1999a_bpea_katz.PDFhttp://web.stanford.edu/~write/papers/2664_001.pdfhttp://web.stanford.edu/~write/papers/2664_001.pdfhttp://web.stanford.edu/~write/papers/2664_001.pdfhttp://web.stanford.edu/~write/papers/2664_001.pdfhttp://web.stanford.edu/~write/papers/2664_001.pdfhttp://www.epi.org/publication/wrong-route-equality-mens-declining-wages/http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/higher_state_minimum_wages_promote_fair_pay_for_women_march_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/nov2013_state_by_state_women_overallaahispanic.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/final_nwlc_lowwagereport2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.aauw.org/files/2013/03/The-Simple-Truth-Fall-2013.pdfhttp://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdfhttp://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdfhttp://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdfhttp://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdfhttp://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdfhttp://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdfhttp://www.nber.org/cycles.htmlhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htmhttp://www.nber.org/cycles.htmlhttp://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdfhttp://www.aauw.org/files/2013/03/The-Simple-Truth-Fall-2013.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_are_76_percent_of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_wage_gap_april_2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/final_nwlc_lowwagereport2014.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/nov2013_state_by_state_women_overallaahispanic.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/higher_state_minimum_wages_promote_fair_pay_for_women_march_2014.pdfhttp://www.epi.org/publication/wrong-route-equality-mens-declining-wages/http://web.stanford.edu/~write/papers/2664_001.pdfhttp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Spring%201999/1999a_bpea_katz.PDFhttp://s1.epi.org/files/2014/raising-americas-pay-report-final.pdf


12/16


26. Ibid. These figures are based on a middle three quinles definion of middle-class. See Appelbaum et al. for other definions

of middle class and their respecve data. See also Craig K. Elwell, The Distribuon of Household Income and the Middle Class

(Congressional Research Service, March 2014) for expanded definions of middle class.

27. Ibid.

28. Current Populaon Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 2013. U.S. Census Bureau, CPS Table Creator.29. The labor force parcipaon rate is the share of the civilian populaon who are either working or looking for work relave to

the total civilian non-instuonal populaon, and should not be confused with the unemployment or the employment-to-

populaon rates, which are difference measures. The labor force parcipaon rate can be influenced by individuals decisions

to pursue educaon or to drop out of the labor market altogether, parcularly during economic downturns.

30. Current Populaon Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 2013, op. cit.

31. 2012 American Community Survey, 1-Year Esmates.

32. Op. Cit.

33. Deborah Povich, Brandon Roberts and Mark Mather, Low-Income Working Families and State Policy: Invesng for a Beer

Economic Future, Working Poor Families Project, Winter 2013-2014. This data refers to households of any age group headed by

women without a spouse present, with children under the age of 18.

34. Helen Blank, Karen Schulman and Lauren Frohlich, Nearly One in Five Working Mothers to Very Young Children Work in

Low-Wage Jobs, Naonal Womens Law Center, April 2014. The term mothers of very young children is defined as womenraising at least one child under the age of 3; the data refers to employed workers only. Low-wage occupaons is defined as

occupaons with median hourly wages of $10.10 or less.

35. Working Poor Families Project analysisof the 2012 American Community Survey microdata. Data does not specify age groups.

36. Lou Glazer and Don Grimes, The New Path to Prosperity: Lessons for Michigan from Two Decades of Economic Change,

Michigan Future, October 2013; and Thomas J Sugrue, Motor City: The Story of Detroit, The Gilder Lehrman Instute of

American History, accessed August 13, 2014.

37. Glazer and Grimes, ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.43. Yannet Lathrop,Raising the Minimum Wage: Good for Working Families, Good for Michigans Economy, Michigan League for

Public Policy, February 2014.

44. Yannet Lathrop,Raising the Minimum Wage Helps Women, Promotes Pay Equity, Michigan League for Public Policy, April 2014.

45. Gilda Z. Jacobs, Michigan League for Public Policy, Tesmony on Senate Bill 934, House Government Operaons Commiee,

May 21, 2014.

46. Lawrence Mishel,Unions, Inequality, and Faltering Middle-Class Wages, Economic Policy Instute, August 29, 2012.

47. Yannet Lathrop,The Michigan EITC: A Small Investment that Makes a Big Difference, Michigan League for Public Policy, June

2013.

48. Michael Mitchell, Vincent Palacios and Michael Leachman, StatesAre Sll Funding Higher Educaon Below Pre-Recession

Levels, Center on Budget and Policy Priories, May 1, 2014.

ENDNOTES
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20811.pdfhttp://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20811.pdfhttp://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20811.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/indicators/http://www.michiganfuture.org/cms/assets/uploads/2011/08/7-11-14-FINAL-web-single.pdfhttp://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/politics-reform/essays/motor-city-story-detroithttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Raising-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Raising-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Raising-Minimum-Wage-Helps-Women.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Raising-Minimum-Wage-Helps-Women.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://s2.epi.org/files/2012/ib342-unions-inequality-middle-class-wages.pdfhttp://s2.epi.org/files/2012/ib342-unions-inequality-middle-class-wages.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/MI-EITC-Brief.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/MI-EITC-Brief.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/MI-EITC-Brief.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/MI-EITC-Brief.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.cbpp.org/files/5-1-14sfp.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/MI-EITC-Brief.pdfhttp://s2.epi.org/files/2012/ib342-unions-inequality-middle-class-wages.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Test-SB-934-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Raising-Minimum-Wage-Helps-Women.pdfhttp://www.mlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Raising-Minimum-Wage.pdfhttp://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/politics-reform/essays/motor-city-story-detroithttp://www.michiganfuture.org/cms/assets/uploads/2011/08/7-11-14-FINAL-web-single.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/indicators/http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers_of_young_children_in_low_wage_jobs.pdfhttp://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-Mothers-Report_021214.pdfhttp://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20811.pdf


13/16


Year

A M W

Low-

Wage

Mid-

Wage

High-

WageTop 10%

Low-

Wage

Mid-

Wage

High-

WageTop 10%

Low-

Wage

Mid-

Wage

High-

WageTop 10%

1979 $12.65 $20.66 $28.67 $34.33 $17.23 $23.78 $31.60 $37.69 $9.90 $14.73 $22.11 $25.86

2013 $10.95 $18.03 $31.06 $41.81 $11.85 $19.97 $34.86 $45.79 $10.32 $16.22 $27.57 $36.12

Change

(1979-

2013)

-13.4% -12.7% +8.3% +21.8% -31.20% -16.0% +10.3% +21.5% +4.2% +10.1% +24.7% +39.7%

YLH

S

HS

E

SC/

A B A

1979 $18.65 $21.58 $22.58 $26.12 $29.18

2013 $10.02 $14.65 $15.95 $24.99 $32.30

Change (1979-2013) -46.30% -32.10% -29.40% -4.30% 10.70%

WD M W D($) D(%) WG

Low-Wage: 20th percenle $11.85 $10.32 $1.53 13.80% $0.13

Mid-Wage: 50th percenle $19.97 $16.22 $3.75 20.70% $0.19

High-Wage: 80th percenle $34.86 $27.57 $7.29 23.40% $0.21

Top 10%: 90th percenle $45.79 $36.12 $9.67 23.60% $0.21

Appendix A

Cumulative Changes in Real Wages for Workers of Prime Working Age (25-64) in Michigan,

1979-2013 (Inflation adjusted to 2013 dollars)

A.1: Change in Real Wages by Gender and Percenle

A.2: Real Median Wages by Educaonal Aainment, All Genders Combined

A.3: Gender Differences in Real Hourly Wage in 2013

Source: Economic Policy Institutes analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 1979-2013.Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.


14/16


HEM U.S.

A M W A M W

No High School Diploma 6.80% 7.80% 5.80% 10.30% 11.40% 9.40%

High School Diploma or Equivalent 30.90% 33.80% 28.30% 28.50% 30.20% 26.80%

Some College, No Degree 20.70% 20.70% 20.70% 17.20% 17.00% 17.40%

Associate 11.90% 10.20% 13.50% 10.60% 9.30% 11.70%

Bachelors 18.30% 15.90% 20.60% 21.60% 20.70% 22.50%

Masters 8.50% 7.50% 9.40% 8.60% 7.60% 9.60%

Professional 1.30% 1.80% 0.80% 1.50% 1.80% 1.30%

Doctorate 1.60% 2.20% 1.00% 1.60% 1.90% 1.30%

Total with Postsecondary Degree 41.60% 37.60% 45.30% 43.90% 41.30% 46.40%

Appendix B

Educational Attainment by Gender, Michigan and the U.S. (Ages 25-64)

Source: 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Current Population Survey (CPS), U.S. Census Bureau.Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy using the CPS Table Creator.


15/16

EMPLOYED MEDIAN WAGE %OF POVERTY WAGE1

%BASIC NEEDS

INCOME2

Rank Occupation Title Number Hourly AnnualFamily

of Three

Family of

Four

One Parent,

Two Children1 Retail Salespersons 138,640 $9.98 $20,770 110.7% 87.9% 47.0%

2 Office Clerks, General 113,010 $13.63 $28,340 151.0% 120.0% 64.2%

3 Cashiers 93,450 $9.13 $18,980 101.1% 80.3% 43.0%

4Combined Food Preparation & Serving Workers,

Including Fast Food93,170 $8.73 $18,150 96.7% 76.8% 41.1%

5 Registered Nurses 91,840 $31.27 $65,050 346.6% 275.4% 147.3%

6 Team Assemblers 87,700 $15.96 $33,190 176.8% 140.5% 75.2%

7 Customer Service Representatives 77,850 $14.59 $30,340 161.6% 128.4% 68.7%

8 Waiters & Waitresses 72,780 $8.75 $18,200 97.0% 77.0% 41.2%

9Janitors & Cleaners, Except Maids & Housekeeping

Cleaners68,540 $10.80 $22,450 119.6% 95.0% 50.8%

10 General & Operations Managers 56,420 $43.76 $91,030 485.0% 385.3% 206.1%

11 Laborers & Freight, Stock, & Material Movers, Hand 56,040 $12.38 $25,750 137.2% 109.0% 58.3%

12 Stock Clerks & Order Fillers 55,900 $10.45 $21,740 115.8% 92.0% 49.2%

13Sales Representatives, Wholesale & Manufacturing,

Except Technical & Scientific Products54,710 $24.87 $51,740 275.7% 219.0% 117.2%

14 Nursing Assistants 52,090 $12.68 $26,380 140.6% 111.7% 59.7%

15 Heavy & Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 50,220 $18.02 $37,490 199.7% 158.7% 84.9%

16Secretaries & Administrative Assistants, Except Legal,

Medical, & Executive44,790 $16.04 $33,360 177.7% 141.2% 75.5%

17 Teacher Assistants 42,060 * $25,560 136.2% 108.2% 57.9%

18 Bookkeeping, Accounting, & Auditing Clerks 41,770 $17.05 $35,470 189.0% 150.1% 80.3%

19 Maintenance & Repair Workers, General 36,480 $16.26 $33,820 180.2% 143.2% 76.6%

20 Home Health Aides 35,740 $9.88 $20,560 109.5% 87.0% 46.6%

21 Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Ed. 35,720 * $62,630 333.7% 265.1% 141.8%

22 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers 35,260 $17.26 $35,900 191.3% 152.0% 81.3%

23 Mechanical Engineers 32,640 $41.93 $87,210 464.6% 369.3% 197.5%24 Cooks, Restaurant 32,640 $10.20 $21,210 113.0% 89.8% 48.0%

25First-Line Supervisors of Office & Administrative

Support Workers31,740 $22.67 $47,160 251.3% 199.6% 106.8%

26 Business Operations Specialists, All Other 30,270 $29.97 $62,340 332.1% 263.9% 141.2%

27 Receptionists & Information Clerks 29,400 $12.51 $26,020 138.6% 110.1% 58.9%

28 Machinists 27,570 $18.62 $38,730 206.4% 163.9% 87.8%

29 Accountants & Auditors 26,960 $29.99 $62,380 332.4% 264.1% 141.2%

30 Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers 26,730 $13.32 $27,700 147.6% 117.3% 62.7%

31 First-Line Supvrs. of Food Prep. & Serving Wkrs. 26,720 $13.70 $28,490 151.8% 120.6% 64.5%

32 Industrial Engineers 24,430 $37.17 $77,310 411.9% 327.3% 175.1%

33 Substitute Teachers 24,410 $11.09 $23,070 122.9% 97.7% 52.2%

34 First-Line Supvrs. of Production & Operating Wkrs. 24,410 $27.21 $56,590 301.5% 239.5% 128.1%

35 Landscaping & Groundskeeping Workers 24,300 $11.17 $23,230 123.8% 98.3% 52.6%

36 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, & Weighers 23,420 $16.14 $33,560 178.8% 142.1% 76.0%

37 Security Guards 23,250 $11.32 $23,550 125.5% 99.7% 53.3%

38 Medical Assistants 23,120 $13.48 $28,030 149.3% 118.7% 63.5%

39 Food Preparation Workers 22,320 $9.49 $19,750 105.2% 83.6% 44.7%

40Secondary School Teachers, Except Special &

Career/Technical Education21,800 * $61,810 329.3% 261.6% 140.0%

41 Construction Laborers 21,000 $16.92 $35,200 187.5% 149.0% 79.7%

42 Personal Care Aides 20,230 $9.87 $20,520 109.3% 86.9% 46.5%

43 Computer User Support Specialists 19,630 $20.17 $41,960 223.6% 177.6% 95.0%

44 Automotive Service Technicians & Mechanics 19,630 $17.55 $36,500 194.5% 154.5% 82.6%

45 Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners 19,020 $10.09 $21,000 111.9% 88.9% 47.6%

46 Sales Representatives, Services, All Other 18,710 $20.98 $43,650 232.6% 184.8% 98.8%

47 Helpers--Production Workers 18,590 $12.09 $25,150 134.0% 106.5% 56.9%

48 Childcare Workers 17,850 $9.55 $19,870 105.9% 84.1% 45.0%49 Electricians 17,550 $27.28 $56,750 302.4% 240.2% 128.5%

50 Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks 17,090 $14.81 $30,810 164.2% 130.4% 69.8%

* Not available.

Source: May 2013 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.


1Based on 2013 U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds ($18,769 for a one-parent/two-child family of three, and $23,624 for a two-parent/two-child family of four),

and assuming year-round employment at 40 hours per week (2,080 hours per year), the poverty wage is $9.02 per hour and $11.36 per hour, respectively.2Based on calculations from the Michigan League for Public Policys Making Ends Meet in Michigan: A Basic Needs Income Level for Family Well-Being, March 2014.

Appendix C

Michigan Occupations with Highest Employment, 20131


16/16

EMPLOYED MEDIAN WAGE %OF POVERTY WAGE1

%BASIC NEEDS

INCOME2

Rank Occupation Title Number Hourly AnnualFamily

of Three

Family of

Four

One Parent,

Two Children

1 Combined Food Preparation & Serving Workers,

Including Fast Food 93,170 $8.73 $18,150 96.7% 76.8% 41.1%2 Waiters & Waitresses 72,780 $8.75 $18,200 97.0% 77.0% 41.2%

3 Dishwashers 14,260 $8.75 $18,200 97.0% 77.0% 41.2%

4 Cooks, Fast Food 15,440 $8.77 $18,230 97.1% 77.2% 41.3%

5 Bartenders 15,990 $8.83 $18,360 97.8% 77.7% 41.6%

6 Hosts & Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, & Coffee Shop 10,400 $8.84 $18,380 97.9% 77.8% 41.6%

7 Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, &

Coffee Shop 13,060 $8.88 $18,480 98.5% 78.2% 41.8%

8 Amusement & Recreation Attendants 7,490 $8.90 $18,520 98.7% 78.4% 41.9%

9 Baggage Porters & Bellhops 810 $8.91 $18,530 98.7% 78.4% 42.0%

10 Barbers * $8.91 $18,540 98.8% 78.5% 42.0%

11 Dining Room & Cafeteria Attendants & Bartender

Helpers 10,520 $8.93 $18,580 99.0% 78.6% 42.1%

12 Cooks, Short Order 5,880 $8.96 $18,630 99.3% 78.9% 42.2%

13 Parking Lot Attendants 2,990 $8.96 $18,640 99.3% 78.9% 42.2%14 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, & Ticket Takers 3,230 $8.98 $18,670 99.5% 79.0% 42.3%

15 Legislators 2,310 * $18,890 100.6% 80.0% 42.8%

16 Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, & Aquacultural Animals3 580 $9.09 $18,900 100.7% 80.0% 42.8%

17 Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, & Other Recreational Protective

Service Workers 3,240 $9.11 $18,950 101.0% 80.2% 42.9%

18 Cashiers 93,450 $9.13 $18,980 101.1% 80.3% 43.0%

19 Shampooers 200 $9.12 $18,980 101.1% 80.3% 43.0%

20 Door-to-Door Sales Workers, News & Street Vendors,

& Related Workers * $9.13 $18,990 101.2% 80.4% 43.0%

21 Food Preparation & Serving Related Wkrs, All Other 1,450 $9.15 $19,030 101.4% 80.6% 43.1%

22 Grounds Maintenance Workers, All Other 360 $9.20 $19,140 102.0% 81.0% 43.3%

23 Pressers, Textile, Garment, & Related Materials 780 $9.21 $19,150 102.0% 81.1% 43.4%

24 Cleaners of Vehicles & Equipment 8,730 $9.30 $19,350 103.1% 81.9% 43.8%25 Skincare Specialists 740 $9.35 $19,460 103.7% 82.4% 44.1%

26 Pharmacy Aides 690 $9.36 $19,470 103.7% 82.4% 44.1%

27 Nonfarm Animal Caretakers 3,960 $9.42 $19,590 104.4% 82.9% 44.4%

28 Hotel, Motel, & Resort Desk Clerks 6,170 $9.45 $19,660 104.7% 83.2% 44.5%

29 Food Preparation Workers 22,320 $9.49 $19,750 105.2% 83.6% 44.7%

30 Automotive & Watercraft Service Attendants 2,930 $9.50 $19,760 105.3% 83.6% 44.7%

31 Gaming Dealers 3,920 $9.54 $19,850 105.8% 84.0% 44.9%

32 Childcare Workers 17,850 $9.55 $19,870 105.9% 84.1% 45.0%

33 Tour Guides & Escorts 940 $9.56 $19,880 105.9% 84.2% 45.0%

34 Packers and Packagers, Hand 16,590 $9.65 $20,070 106.9% 85.0% 45.4%

35 Coaches & Scouts 8,520 * $20,110 107.1% 85.1% 45.5%

36 Library Assistants, Clerical 4,430 $9.69 $20,150 107.4% 85.3% 45.6%

37 Taxi Drivers & Chauffeurs 3,440 $9.78 $20,340 108.4% 86.1% 46.1%

38 Personal Care Aides 20,230 $9.87 $20,520 109.3% 86.9% 46.5%

39 Home Health Aides 35,740 $9.88 $20,560 109.5% 87.0% 46.6%

40 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, & Cosmetologists 12,410 $9.93 $20,650 110.0% 87.4% 46.8%

41 Laundry & Dry-Cleaning Workers 6,000 $9.94 $20,680 110.2% 87.5% 46.8%

42 Personal Care & Service Workers, All Other 1,150 $9.94 $20,680 110.2% 87.5% 46.8%

43 Retail Salespersons 138,640 $9.98 $20,770 110.7% 87.9% 47.0%

44 Crossing Guards 1,180 $10.05 $20,910 111.4% 88.5% 47.3%

45 Recreation Workers 10,020 $10.08 $20,960 111.7% 88.7% 47.5%

46 Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners 19,020 $10.09 $21,000 111.9% 88.9% 47.6%

47 Demonstrators & Product Promoters 2,830 $10.18 $21,170 112.8% 89.6% 47.9%

48 Cooks, Restaurant 32,640 $10.20 $21,210 113.0% 89.8% 48.0%

49 Farmworkers & Laborers, Crop, Nursery, &

Greenhouse3 1,360 $10.20 $21,210 113.0% 89.8% 48.0%

50 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant 6,650 $10.20 $21,220 113.1% 89.8% 48.0%

* Not available.

Source: May 2013 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Occupational Employment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.


1Based on 2013 U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds ($18,769 for a one-parent/two-child family of three, and $23,624 for a two-parent/two-child family of four),

and assuming year-round employment at 40 hours per week (2,080 hours per year), the poverty wage is $9.02 per hour and $11.36 per hour, respectively.2Based on calculations from the Michigan League for Public Policys Making Ends Meet in Michigan: A Basic Needs Income Level for Family Well-Being, March 2014.

3Although data from farm industries are excluded from the State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, the estimate does include data of certain farming

occupations performed in nonfarm industries. For example, workers in the Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, & Aquacultural Animals category are likely to be employed

in nonfarm industries that support activities for animal production, by wholesalers of farm products or raw materials, or by slaughterhouses

(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452093.htm). Workers in the Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse are likely to be working in

nonfarm industries that support activities for crop production, by wholesalers, or by lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores

(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452092.htm).

Appendix D

Lowest Wage Nonfarm Occupations in Michigan, May 20131

Labor Day Report from the Michigan League for Public Policy

Documents

Transcript of Labor Day Report from the Michigan League for Public Policy