Louisiana - · PDF fileLouisiana Needs a Higher Wage An increased minimum wage would help...

Louisiana Needs a Higher Wage

An increased minimum wage would help Louisiana’s families, businesses and economy

By David Gray

Unless otherwise noted, all numbers come from LBP analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data from 1979-2012 generously provided by the Economic Policy Institute. All figures are adjusted for inflation and presented in 2013 dol-lars. For more information, please contact David Gray ([email protected]) or Jan Moller ([email protected]).

Acknowledgements

About the

This report was researched and written by David Gray and edited by Jan Moller of the Loui-siana Budget Project (LBP). The graphics and page design are by Amy Fowler.

This report was made possible by support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Open Society Institute.

LBP is particularly grateful for the technical assistance and guidance provided by the Eco-nomic Policy Institute (EPI), the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), and Erika Zucker of the Workforce Justice Project at Loyola College of Law.

LBP monitors and reports on public policy and how it affects Louisiana’s low- to moder-ate-income families. We believe that the lives of Louisianans can be improved through profound change in policy, brought about by:

• creating a deeper understanding of the state budget and budget-related issues• looking at the big picture of how the budget impacts citizens• encouraging citizens to be vocal about budget issues that are important to them• providing insight and leadership to drive the policy debate

LBP is a member of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, managed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Economic Analysis and Research Network, managed by the Economic Policy Institute.

Note on

Louisiana Needs a Higher Wage Page 1

Louisiana Budget Project

Methodology and Sources

LouisianaNeeds a Higher Wage

There is no better anti-poverty program than a good job with a decent wage. But in Louisiana — one of only five states without a minimum-wage law — hundreds of thou-sands of people work hard every day yet still struggle to stay out of poverty.

Establishing a Louisiana minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour would lift hard-working families out of poverty, boost the economy of every parish and help create thousands of new jobs. Adjusting this wage on a regular basis so it grows with the economy and the cost of living would protect the most vul-nerable workers by ensuring the value of their paychecks

won’t erode over time.

A higher minimum wage would not just help the work-ers who get a raise, it would also help businesses across Louisiana that would profit from workers’ increased buying power.

At a time when nearly one in six Louisiana households struggle against hunger and the state suffers from the nation’s third-highest poverty rate, this simple policy measure can help decrease reliance on state assistance, boost local economies and make it easier for hard-working families to afford basic needs.

Keyfindings• The value of the minimum wage has eroded sharply since

the late 1960s and is now $3 per hour below what it would be had it kept up with inflation.

• Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would provide a direct pay raise for 360,000 Louisiana workers and their families, create an estimated 3,300 full-time jobs and pump nearly $689 million into the state econo-my, mostly through new consumer spending. When one accounts for workers who would indirectly benefit from a minimum wage increase — those whose wages would rise as employers adjust their pay scales — almost one in three Louisiana workers would be affected.

• Even a smaller wage increase above the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour would pay big dividends for Louisiana families. Raising the wage to $8.50 an hour would mean a direct raise for 184,000 workers, create an estimated 1,400 new jobs and produce more than $187 million in new economic growth.

• Louisianans overwhelmingly support raising the minimum wage. An LSU poll found 73 percent of the public favors a higher minimum wage. While support varies somewhat across demographic groups, a majority of Louisianans in all groups — male and female, Republican and Democrat, white and black — favor a higher wage.


FIGURE 1Most Louisianans are in favor of a higher state minimum wageWould you favor or oppose establishing a state minimum wage of $8.50 per hour that would automatically rise with the cost of living?

0 20 40 60 80 100

Male

Female

Democrat

Republican

White

Black

Total 73.3%

85.4%

68.8%

61.8%

86.2%

79.8%

66.2%

PERCENT IN FAVOR BY DEMOGRAPHIC

Source: Louisiana State University Omnibus SurveyLouisiana Budget Project


The current minimum wage

The value of the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968. Had it kept pace with wages for the typical American work-er, it would be worth $10.65 per hour today — or more than $3 above the current minimum.1 If nothing is done to raise the current wage, its value will drop as prices rise and will be worth $5.99 per hour in 2022.2

The minimum wage’s falling value has made it hard for many full-time workers to provide basic household necessities. A full-time minimum wage worker in 1968 earned enough money to keep a three-person household above the federal

poverty line. Today, that same family would be more than $4,700 below the federal poverty line.3

Louisiana’s workers are more productive than ever, but their hard work is not pay-ing off in higher wages.

Productivity, in terms of the amount of goods and services produced each work-ing hour, is significantly greater today than in the past.4 If the 1968 minimum wage had kept pace with the rise in worker pro-ductivity, it would be worth more than $18 per hour today.5

Source: Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor

Minimum wage workers in 1968 earned enough income to keep a family of three above the poverty line. That's no longer the case today, with many full-time workers now raising children in poverty.

1968 1977 1986 1995 2013$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

MINIMUM WAGE VS. POVERTY LINEIn 2013 dollars, adjusted for inflation

Poverty line for a family of 3

Minimum wage

The value of the minimum wage has plummeted since 1968

FIGURE 3


1968 1988 1998

Minimum wage

Wages, if they kept up with productivity

Average wages

$0

$10

$20

2013

$15

20081978

The real value of the minimum wage


The value of the minimum wage has fallen as workers have become more productive.

FIGURE 2

Source: EPI analysis

is inadequate

FAST FACTIf the minimum

wage is not raised, it will only be worth $5.99 per hour in

2022Source: Economic Policy Institute



Minimum wage workers are diverse

Many people assume that most minimum wage workers are teens or part-time workers trying to earn extra spend-ing money. In reality, this population makes up only a small slice of the minimum wage workforce. Fewer than 10 percent of those who would benefit from a minimum wage boost are under 20, while more than 30 percent are 40 or older.6 The vast majority have at least a high school degree, and nearly two-thirds work full-time.

Thirty percent are parents, and as many as 300,000 Loui-siana children have at least one parent who would benefit from a higher minimum wage. Nearly two-thirds of those affected are women.

Raising the minimum wage would benefit workers in a broad range of industries, from construction and retail to health care and hospitality.

To learn how a minimum wage would affect Louisiana, LBP asked the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute to model three different scenarios: a $10.10 per hour minimum wage increase by 2015; and two smaller increases — $8.50 an hour and $9.25 an hour.

A state minimum wage at $10.10 per hour would mean pay raises for more than 550,000 employees — or almost one-third of Louisiana’s workers. This includes workers who currently earn less than $10.10 per hour, and those who earn just above that level and would likely get a small raise as companies adjust their pay scales.

A smaller wage increase, to $9.25 an hour, would help few-er workers but still make a dramatic difference. An esti-mated 363,000 workers — 21 percent of the workforce —

would be affected, either directly or indirectly. An increase to $8.50 per hour would benefit 346,000 workers — 20 percent of the workforce —either directly or indirectly.

Because low-income workers are likely to spend most or all of their addi-

tional earnings on necessities, raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect throughout the economy. A $10.10 hourly minimum wage would pump $689 million into Lou-isiana’s economy. This, in turn, would support 3,300 new full-time jobs across the state. An increase to $9.25 per hour adds $351 million to the state economy and creates 1,700 full-time jobs, while an increase to $8.50 per hour adds $187 million to the state economy and creates 1,400 full-time jobs.

Boosting the earnings of low-income workers also would help reduce Louisiana’s poverty rate and shrink the widen-ing gap between the state’s richest and poorest workers. Since 1979, the top 10 percent of income earners — those making more than $64,500 annually — have seen their hourly pay increase by 6 percent, while the bottom 10 per-cent — those earning up to $16,000 — saw an 8 percent decrease.7 Economists largely agree that growing income inequality is bad because consumer spending, which makes up 70 percent of the economy, drops when pay for low- and moderate-income families fails to rise.8

Most minimum wage workers are not teenagers

Source: EPI analysis of Current Population SurveyLouisiana Budget Project

Fewer than 10 percent of workers who would be affected by raising the minimum wage to $10.10 are teens.

Teens: 8.3%

FIGURE 4

WORKERS AFFECTED

As many as 300,000 children have at least one parent who would bene�it from a higher

minimum wage

FAST FACT



Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Louisiana Budget Project

FIGURE 5

Who benefits from a higher minimum wage?Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour could have a positive effect on as many as 550,000 people in Louisiana. That number increases dramatically when the number of children whose parents would be helped are taken into account.

CATEGORYESTIMATED WORKFORCE1

Sex

Female 850,232 228,158 115,031 343,188 61.9%

Male 887,184 131,724 79,229 210,952 38.1%

Age

LT 20 51,474 29,755 7,573 37,328 6.7%

20 to 29 414,285 149,343 61,089 210,432 38.0%

30 to 39 380,132 64,210 34,828 99,038 17.9%

40 to 54 573,257 72,117 53,930 126,047 22.7%

55+ 318,268 44,456 36,840 81,296 14.7%

Race

White 1,131,836 168,700 97,302 266,002 48.0%

Black 488,245 163,001 80,979 243,980 44.0%

Marital Status

Married parent 429,311 41,908 27,251 69,158 12.5%

Single parent 203,107 69,768 26,740 96,507 17.4%

Married, no kids 480,727 55,367 48,108 103,475 18.7%

Unmarried, no kids 624,271 192,839 92,161 285,000 51.4%

Family Income Level

Less than $20,000 255,059 123,366 36,810 160,176 28.9%

$20,000 - $39,999 429,681 115,729 82,036 197,765 35.7%

More than $40,000 1,052,676 120,787 75,414 196,201 35.4%

Work Hours

Part time (< 19h) 69,015 28,112 12,027 40,140 7.2%

Mid time (20-34) 231,802 101,305 36,360 137,665 24.8%

Full time (35+) 1,436,599 230,464 145,872 376,336 67.9%

Education

Less than high school 138,520 57,212 23,533 80,746 14.6%

High school 588,020 143,854 80,279 224,132 40.4%

Some college 531,282 128,924 63,710 192,634 34.8%

Bachelor's or higher 479,595 29,891 26,738 56,629 10.2%

Sector

For profit 1,358,711 313,167 157,933 471,100 85.0%

Government 281,533 29,699 25,600 55,299 10.0%

Non-profit 97,172 17,016 10,726 27,742 5.0%

Total 1,737,416 359,882 194,259 554,141 100.0%

Children with at least 1,165,368 205,403 100,622 306,024

DIRECTLY AFFECTED2

INDIRECTLY AFFECTED3

TOTAL AFFECTED

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL AFFECTED

one affected parent

1Total estimated workers is estimated from the CPS respon-dents who were 16 years old or older, employed, but not self-employed and for whom either a valid hourly wage is reported or one can be imputed from weekly earnings and average weekly hours. Conse-quently, this estimate represents the identifiable wage-earning workforce and tends to under-state the size of the full workforce.

2Directly affected workers will see their wages rise as the new minimum wage rate will exceed their current hourly pay. 3Indirectly affected workers have a wage rate just above the new minimum wage (between the new minimum wage and the new minimum wage plus the dollar amount of the increase in the previous year's minimum wage). They will receive a raise as employer pay scales are adjusted upward to reflect the new minimum wage.

See Appendix for full results.

Source: Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor Louisiana Budget Project

States vary on protections for tipped workersFederal law allows employers to take a tip credit toward their minimum wage obligation for tipped employees. The credit is equal to the difference between the required cash wage and the federal minimum wage.

STATE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW TIP CREDIT*

Alaska - $7.75California - $8.00MinnesotaMontanaNevadaOregon - $9.10Washington - $9.32

STRONG PROTECTIONS FOR TIPPED WORKERS (MORE THAN 66% OF FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE)

Arizona - $4.90 (68 percent)Colorado - $4.98 (69 percent)Connecticut - $5.69 (78 percent)Florida - $4.91 (68 percent)Hawaii - $7.00 (97 percent)Illinois - $4.95 (68 percent)New York - $4.90 (68 percent) North Dakota - $4.86 (67 percent) West Virginia - $5.80 (80 percent)

WEAK PROTECTIONS FOR TIPPED WORKERS (UP TO 40% OF FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE)

Arkansas - $2.63 (33 percent)Delaware - $2.23 (31 percent)Washington, D.C. - $2.77 (38 percent)Indiana - $2.13 (29 percent)Kansas - $2.13 (29 percent) Kentucky - $2.13 (29 percent) Massachusetts - $2.63 (36 percent) Michigan - $2.65 (37 percent) Nebraska - $2.13 (29 percent) New Jersey - $2.13 (29 percent) New Mexico - $2.13 (29 percent) North Carolina - $2.13 (29 percent) Oklahoma - $2.13 (29 percent) Pennsylvania - $2.83 (39 percent) Rhode Island - $2.89 (40 percent) South Dakota - $2.13 (29 percent)Texas - $2.13 (29 percent) Utah - $2.13 (29 percent) Virginia - $2.13 (29 percent)Wisconsin- $2.33 (32 percent)Wyoming - $2.13 (29 percent)

NO PROTECTIONS FOR TIPPED WORKERS

AlabamaGeorgiaLouisianaMississippiSouth CarolinaTennessee

These states effectively guarantee $2.13 per hour (29 percent of federal minimum wage)

FIGURE 6

*Montana guarantees employees $7.90 per hour if the employer’s gross annual sales exceed $110,000. Otherwise, employees are guaranteed $4.00 per hour. In Nevada, employees are guaranteed $8.25 per hour if the employer does not provide health benefits. Otherwise, employees are guaranteed $7.25 per hour.

MODEST PROTECTIONS FOR TIPPED WORKERS (41% - 66% OF FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE)

Idaho - $3.35 (46 percent)Maine - $3.75 (52 percent)Maryland - $3.63 (50 percent) Missouri - $3.75 (52 percent)New Hampshire - $3.27 (45 percent) Ohio - $3.98 (55 percent) Vermont - $4.23 (58 percent) Iowa - $4.35 (60 percent)

The minimum wage for workers who calculate tips as part of their income — such as waiters, barbers, hotel bellhops and cosmetologists — has remained frozen at $2.13 per hour since 1991. As a result, the value of tipped work has dropped significantly over time. Tipped workers are now three times more likely to live in poverty than other workers, even after tips are included in their income.9 That’s because the amount of tips those workers receive is very erratic, often varying drastically between seasons and shifts.

While tipped workers tend to be younger and less educat-ed than the rest of the workforce, nationally more than one in four is over age 40 (26 percent) and more than half

have at least some college education (52.9 percent).10 These workers are also disproportionately female (73 per-cent) and more than two-thirds are white (67 percent).

Federal law requires employers to ensure their workers re-ceive at least $7.25 per hour after tips are calculated. But enforcement of this policy is poor, and very few employees know that their tips plus base pay must equal at least the minimum wage. Several states address this problem by guaranteeing that tipped workers are directly paid the full minimum wage, with any tips received being in addition to that salary. While businesses say this policy harms the economic climate, these states have not experienced job losses or business declines as a result of the higher wages. Another solution is mandating that tipped workers’ base pay is at least 70 percent of the minimum wage. Louisi-ana’s current base wage for tipped workers is less than 30 percent of the minimum wage.

Tipped Workers


Myth vs. Factin the minimum wage debate

The debate over the minimum wage is not new; it goes back to its initial adoption in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Stan-dards Act. Opponents of raising Louisiana’s minimum wage often say that it would be bad for businesses and hurt the employment prospects of low-wage workers. In fact, raising workers’ wages above the poverty level is good for the econ-omy as a whole. Below are some common myths about the minimum wage, along with the facts that prove them wrong.

Myth #1: The minimum wage is a partisan issue.

Fact: Increasing Louisiana’s minimum wage has broad bipartisan support.

A statewide survey by the LSU Public Policy Research Lab in November 2013 found a majority of Democrats (86 percent), Republicans (62 percent) and Independents (70 percent) fa-vored establishing a state minimum wage of at least $8.50 per hour and adjusting it to grow with the economy.

Myth #2: Raising the minimum wage would hurt Louisiana’s economy.

Fact: Minimum-wage workers are likely to spend their new earnings on goods and services, which in turn stimulates the economy.

Raising the state minimum wage is estimated to increase Louisiana’s gross domestic product — a broad measure of economic activity — by between $187 million and $689 mil-lion, depending on the size of the new minimum wage. Since the increased spending both raises businesses’ profits and customers’ demands for goods, the higher minimum wage also creates new job opportunities.

Myth #3: Raising the minimum wage means businesses hire fewer workers.

Fact: Many studies have found that raising the mini-mum wage does not hurt the employment prospects of low-wage workers.11

While paying higher wages may reduce a company’s profit margin, most firms that employ minimum wage workers are

large enough to absorb the loss.

Many companies also end up saving money through reduc-ing employee turnover (which cuts down on training costs), improved morale and higher productivity. For example, the turnover rate for airport screeners in San Francisco plunged from 95 percent to 19 percent when their hourly wage rose from $6.50 to $10.05.12 This helped the airport to cut down on training costs and increase productivity.

Myth #4: Raising the minimum wage would disproportion-ately hurt small businesses.

Fact: A recent national study found that two-thirds of low-wage workers are employed by large corporations with over 100 employees that can readily afford to pay a living wage.13

Many small businesses already pay their workers above the minimum.

Myth #5: Raising the minimum wage would force businesses to leave Louisiana.

Fact: Most minimum wage employers are tied to the geographic areas where their customers are located.

And higher wages can lure workers across state lines for jobs. This happens in Oregon, where workers come from neighbor-ing Idaho for jobs that pay $1.85 per hour more.14 The exodus of workers from Idaho is so great that it forced employers in that state to raise their wages.

Myth #6: Businesses oppose raising the minimum wage.

Fact: More than two-thirds of small business owners in one poll support increasing the minimum wage above $7.25 per hour and adjusting it yearly to reflect the in-creasing cost of living.15

In addition, hundreds of businesses and trade groups around the country — including Costco, Main Street Alliance and Ben & Jerry’s — have signed a petition to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.16



Conclusion:Louisiana is behind the curve

Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C. have minimum wages above the current federal level, and 11 states ad-just their minimum wage to keep up with the rising cost of living.17 In January 2014, an estimated 2.5 million low-paid workers in 13 states received a pay raise because of mini-mum wage increases. The income boost is expected to gen-erate an additional $619 million in new economic activity in those states.

Louisiana suffers from the nation’s third-highest poverty rate and fourth highest child poverty rate, in large part be-cause so many jobs in our state pay such low wages. Despite encouraging economic signs — with investment booming in South Louisiana’s petrochemical corridor — six of the ten fastest-growing occupations nationwide in the coming years are expected to be in low-wage industries such as food preparation and home-care aides. For Louisiana’s economy to work for all its participants, it is critical that the state Leg-islature make raising the minimum wage a priority.

Source: Arkansas Advocates for Children and FamiliesLouisiana Budget Project

STATE

Washington $9.32

Oregon $9.10

Vermont $8.73

Connecticut $8.70

Washington, D.C. $8.25

Illinois $8.25

New Jersey $8.25

Nevada $8.25

California $8.00

Colorado $8.00

Massachusetts $8.00

New York $8.00

Rhode Island $8.00

Ohio $7.95

Florida $7.93

Arizona $7.90

Montana $7.90

Alaska $7.75

Maine $7.50

Missouri $7.50

New Mexico $7.50

Michigan $7.40

WAGE

States with a minimum wage higher than the federal level

FIGURE 8

Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C. set minimum wages higher than the federal level of $7.25 an hour. Several of these states also automatically increase the wage with in�lation to prevent a loss of value for the lowest-paid workers.

Most Louisianans in favor of a higher state minimum wage

Source: Louisiana State University Omnibus SurveyLouisiana Budget Project

Would you favor or oppose establish-ing a state minimum wage of $8.50 per hour that would automatically rise with the cost of living?

Opposed: 24% Don’t know: 3%

In Favor: 73%

FIGURE 7


Endnotes1. David Cooper. “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage

to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide Modest Economic Boost.” Economic Policy Institute. Dec. 2013. http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-fed-eral-minimum-wage-to-1010/

2. Raise the Minimum Wage. “A Decade in Reverse: Un-der Current Law, the Federal Minimum Wage Will Be Worth Only $5.99 by 2022.”2014. http://www.raisethe-minimumwage.com/pages/a-decade-in-reverse-under-current-law-federal-minimum-wage-will-be-worth-on

3. These figures are generated by an LBP analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. According to the federal poverty guidelines for 2014, the federal poverty level for a family of three in the continental United States is $19,790. A full-time minimum wage worker (40 hours per week; 52 weeks per year) earns $15,080 annually.

4. David Gray and Steve Spires. “State of Working Louisi-ana 2013.” Louisiana Budget Project. Aug. 2013. http://www.labudget.org/lbp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SOWL.pdf

5. David Cooper. “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide Modest Economic Boost.” Economic Policy Institute. Dec. 2013. http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-fed-eral-minimum-wage-to-1010/

6. Figures in this section are based off of the Economic Policy Institute’s analysis of Current Population Survey data.

7. David Gray and Steve Spires. “The State of Working Louisiana 2013.” Louisiana Budget Project, August 2013. http://www.labudget.org/lbp/wp-content/up-loads/2013/08/SOWL.pdf

8. Christopher Rugaber. “Income Inequality is Hurt-ing the Economy, 3 Dozen Economists Say.” The Associated Press. Dec. 2013. http://www.huffing-tonpost.com/2013/12/17/income-inequality-econo-my_n_4460725.html

9. Raise the Minimum Wage. “Minimum Wage Question and Answer.” National Employment Law Project. 2013. http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/qanda

10. Sylvia A. Allegretto and Kai Filion. “Waiting for Change: the $2.13 Federal Subminimum Wage.” Economic Policy Institute and Center on Wage and Employ-ment Dynamics. Feb. 2011. http://epi.3cdn.net/9f-96b520034e8a6621_dom6i2alu.pdf

11. John Schmitt. “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” Center for Economic and Policy Research. Feb. 2013. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

12. Michael Reich, Peter Hall and Ken Jacobs. “Living Wages and Economic Performance: The San Francis-co Airport Model.” Institute of Industrial Relations and University of California, Berkeley. March 2003. http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/research/livingwage/sfo_mar03.pdf

13. National Employment Law Project. “Big Business, Corporate Profits, and the Minimum Wage.” July 2012. http://www.jobsnowcoalition.org/reports/2012/big-business-minimum-wage_nelp2012.pdf

14. Kirk Johnson. “Crossing Borders and Changing Lives, Lured by Higher State Minimum Wages.” The New York Times. Feb. 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/crossing-borders-and-changing-lives-lured-by-higher-state-minimum-wages.html

15. Small Business Majority. “Opinion Poll: Small Business-es Support Increasing Minimum Wage.” April 2013. http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-busi-ness-research/minimum-wage/

16. Business for a Fair Minimum Wage. “Business for a Fair Minimum Wage Federal Sign On Statement.” 2014. http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/Feder-al-Sign-On-Statement

17. National Conference of State Legislatures. “State Mini-mum Wages.” 2014. http://www.ncsl.org/research/la-bor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

18. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment Projec-tions.” U.S. Department of Labor. Dec. 2013. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm

APPENDIX 1

CATEGORY REFUSED

Gender

Male 0.2 2.5 66.2 31 100 560

Female 0 3.7 79.8 16.4 100 719

What party do you generally consider yourself?

Refused 0 0 69.8 30.2 100 13

Don't know 0 6.8 93.1 0.1 100 12

Democrat 0 1.2 86.2 12.7 100 461

Republican 0 5.8 61.8 32.5 100 361

Independent 0 3 69.5 27.5 100 323

Other 0.8 3.5 67 28.6 100 109

Age

18 to 24 0 2.1 72 25.9 100 85

25 to 34 0 2.7 74.7 22.5 100 164

35 to 44 0.5 3.5 70.2 25.8 100 161

45 to 54 0 3.4 72.7 23.9 100 261

55 to 64 0 1.8 77.7 20.4 100 276

65 and over 0 5.2 72.1 22.7 100 332

Have any children under 18?

Refused 0 0 4.4 95.6 100 5

Don't know 0 0 100 0 100 1

No 0.2 3.3 73.8 22.8 100 846

Yes 0 3.1 72.5 24.4 100 427

Education

Refused 0 0 66.7 33.3 100 3

Don't know 0 0 66.7 33.3 100 3

LT high school 0 1.4 80.2 18.4 100 104

High school 0 2.5 76 21.5 100 297

Some college 0 3.7 72 24.3 100 434

Advanced degree 0.4 4.9 65.3 29.5 100 438

What race best describes you?

Refused 0 0 50 50 100 8

Don't know 0 50 50 0 100 2

Caucasian 0.1 3.6 68.8 27.4 100 839

African American 0 2 85.4 12.5 100 364

Asian 0 11.5 81.5 7.1 100 8

Native American 0 6.2 79.5 14.3 100 11

Other 0 3.2 56.4 40.4 100 47

DON'T KNOW FAVOR OPPOSE TOTAL

RESPONSES TO STATEWIDE SURVEY

Source: LSU Omnibus SurveyLouisiana Budget Project

NUMBER

Total 0.1 3.2 73.3 23.5 100 1,279

% % % % %

Income

Refused 0 2.2 68.1 29.6 100 189

Don't know 0 7.2 75.2 17.6 100 116

LT $10,000 0 0.4 87.2 12.4 100 84

$10,000-$29,999 0 1.5 75.1 23.4 100 189

$30,000-$49,999 0 2.3 82.2 15.5 100 196

$50,000-$69,999 0 4.4 70.9 24.8 100 149

$70,000-$89,999 1.3 6 68.1 24.6 100 104

$90,000-$100,999 0 5.7 62.5 31.8 100 69

$100,000-$149,999 0 4 57.8 38.2 100 92

$150,000-$199,999 0 1.4 64.6 33.9 100 40

$200,000 or more 0 1.8 61.6 36.6 100 51

Where do you get most of your news?

Don't know 0 9.1 75.4 15.4 100 21

TV 0 2.6 77.3 20.1 100 686

Newspapers 0 3.3 72.8 23.9 100 185

Radio 0 1 59.5 39.5 100 77

Internet 0.4 5 65.3 29.3 100 274

Word of Mouth 0 0 89.7 10.3 100 36

Own your home rent or what?

Refused 0 0 97.1 2.9 100 4

Don't know 0 0 98.9 1.1 100 3

Own home 0.1 3.5 70.5 25.8 100 911

Pay rent 0 1.5 78.7 19.8 100 253

Something else 0 5.2 74.3 20.5 100 108

Employed full time/part time?

Refused 0 0 100 0 100 3

Don't know 0 0 100 0 100 3

Full time 0.2 3.1 69.3 27.4 100 619

Part time 0 1.7 77.7 20.6 100 97

Retired 0 4.7 75.8 19.6 100 336

Looking for work 0 2.2 73.1 24.7 100 69

Not looking 0 2.3 75.4 22.2 100 91

Disabled 0 4.7 88.1 7.2 100 61

Are you registered to vote in LA?

Refused 0 0 100 0 100 1

Don't know 0 0 97.9 2.1 100 2

Yes 0.1 3.2 71.7 25.1 100 1,190

No 0 3.2 86.2 10.6 100 86

Total 0.1 3.2 73.3 23.5 100 1,279

Source: LSU Omnibus SurveyLouisiana Budget Project

APPENDIX 1 CONTINUED

CATEGORY REFUSED DON'T KNOW FAVOR OPPOSE TOTAL

RESPONSES TO STATEWIDE SURVEYNUMBER

% % % % %

Region

Southwest LA 0 4.2 75.6 20.2 100 220

New Orleans area 0 0.7 75.5 23.7 100 225

Baton Rouge area 0.5 3.2 73.6 22.7 100 239

North Shore and around 0 1 76.8 22.2 100 210

North Louisiana 0 5.2 68.4 26.4 100 385

Source: LSU Omnibus Survey Louisiana Budget Project

APPENDIX 1 CONTINUED

CATEGORY REFUSED DON'T KNOW FAVOR OPPOSE TOTAL

RESPONSES TO STATEWIDE SURVEYNUMBER

% % % % %



APPENDIX 2


Sex

Female 850,232 228,158 115,031 343,188 61.9%

Male 887,184 131,724 79,229 210,952 38.1%

Age

LT 20 51,474 29,755 7,573 37,328 6.7%

20 to 29 414,285 149,343 61,089 210,432 38.0%

30 to 39 380,132 64,210 34,828 99,038 17.9%

40 to 54 573,257 72,117 53,930 126,047 22.7%

55+ 318,268 44,456 36,840 81,296 14.7%

Race

White 1,131,836 168,700 97,302 266,002 48.0%

Black 488,245 163,001 80,979 243,980 44.0%

Hispanic 71,106 16,618 9,635 26,253 4.7%

Asian 46,229 11,562 6,344 17,906 3.2%

Marital Status

Married parent 429,311 41,908 27,251 69,158 12.5%

Single parent 203,107 69,768 26,740 96,507 17.4%

Married, no kids 480,727 55,367 48,108 103,475 18.7%


Family Income Level

less than $20,000 255,059 123,366 36,810 160,176 28.9%

$20,000 - $39,999 429,681 115,729 82,036 197,765 35.7%

$40,000 - $59,999 289,128 35,271 20,639 55,910 10.1%

$60,000 - $74,999 175,368 20,926 21,401 42,327 7.6%

$75,000 - $99,999 223,331 25,687 12,012 37,699 6.8%

$100,000 - $149,9 245,501 27,055 18,355 45,410 8.2%

$150,000 or more 119,348 11,848 3,007 14,855 2.7%

Industry

Construction 124,199 14,610 16,226 30,836 5.6%

Manufacturing 141,154 18,776 9,007 27,783 5.0%

Retail 231,790 99,500 34,599 134,099 24.2%

Education and Healthcare 423,227 77,071 47,993 125,064 22.6%

Leisure and Hospitality 151,939 68,625 14,743 83,368 15.0%

Other industry 665,106 81,299 71,692 152,991 27.6%

Occupation

Professional, biz, science 366,013 25,189 19,649 44,838 8.1%

Service 315,717 122,954 55,407 178,361 32.2%

Sales 212,410 92,497 25,219 117,715 21.2%

Administrative support 269,048 50,654 46,693 97,347 17.6%

Transportation 100,556 21,875 8,956 30,830 5.6%

Other occupation 473,671 46,713 38,336 85,048 15.3%

Total 1,737,416 359,882 194,259 554,141 100.0%

DIRECTLY AFFECTED2


TOTAL AFFECTED


NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY AN INCREASE TO $10.10 PER HOUR

Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey







Work hours

Part time (< 19h) 69,015 28,112 12,027 40,140 7.2%

Mid time (20-34) 231,802 101,305 36,360 137,665 24.8%

Full time (35+) 1,436,599 230,464 145,872 376,336 67.9%

Education


High school 588,020 143,854 80,279 224,132 40.4%

Some college 531,282 128,924 63,710 192,634 34.8%


Sector

For profit 1,358,711 313,167 157,933 471,100 85.0%

Government 281,533 29,699 25,600 55,299 10.0%

Non-profit 97,172 17,016 10,726 27,742 5.0%


DIRECTLY AFFECTED2


TOTAL AFFECTED


one affected parent

APPENDIX 2 CONTINUEDNUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY AN INCREASE TO $10.10 PER HOUR



APPENDIX 3


Sex

Female 848,142 158,425 70,932 229,356 63.1%

Male 885,004 82,824 51,017 133,841 36.9%

Age

LT 20 51,348 26,564 3,118 29,682 8.2%

20 to 29 413,266 103,094 48,323 151,417 41.7%

30 to 39 379,197 42,248 21,804 64,052 17.6%

40 to 54 571,848 44,247 28,511 72,758 20.0%

55+ 317,485 25,096 20,192 45,288 12.5%

Race

White 1,129,054 115,010 56,534 171,544 47.2%

Black 487,045 102,691 60,851 163,542 45.0%

Hispanic 70,931 12,013 4,564 16,578 4.6%

Asian 46,115 11,533 - 11,533 3.2%

Marital Status

Married parent 428,256 29,112 12,693 41,805 11.5%

Single parent 202,608 47,235 22,361 69,596 19.2%

Married, no kids 479,545 28,707 28,284 56,991 15.7%


Family Income Level

Less than $20,000 254,432 82,671 41,304 123,975 34.1%

$20,000 - $39,999 428,625 76,399 41,514 117,914 32.5%

$40,000 - $59,999 288,418 21,985 13,199 35,184 9.7%

$60,000 - $74,999 174,937 14,922 5,953 20,874 5.7%

$75,000 - $99,999 222,782 19,364 6,260 25,624 7.1%

$100,000 - $149,9 244,897 17,730 10,077 27,807 7.7%

$150,000 or more 119,054 8,177 3,642 11,819 3.3%

Industry

Construction 123,894 9,345 6,757 16,102 4.4%

Manufacturing 140,807 6,296 12,435 18,730 5.2%

Retail 231,220 67,951 32,218 100,168 27.6%



Other industry 663,471 46,047 35,052 81,100 22.3%

Occupation


Service 314,941 91,551 31,101 122,652 33.8%

Sales 211,888 67,368 24,901 92,269 25.4%


Transportation 100,309 9,533 12,288 21,821 6.0%


Total 1,733,146 241,248 121,949 363,197 100.0%

DIRECTLY AFFECTED2


TOTAL AFFECTED










Work hours

Part time (< 19h) 68,846 21,410 6,633 28,043 7.7%

Mid time (20-34) 231,232 81,931 20,038 101,969 28.1%

Full time (35+) 1,433,068 137,907 95,279 233,185 64.2%

Education


High school 586,575 96,927 49,013 145,941 40.2%

Some college 529,976 86,218 44,149 130,367 35.9%


Sector

For profit 1,355,372 208,567 104,743 313,310 86.3%

Government 280,841 18,876 13,219 32,095 8.8%

Non-profit 96,933 13,805 3,987 17,792 4.9%


DIRECTLY AFFECTED2


TOTAL AFFECTED


one affected parent




APPENDIX 4


Sex

Female 848,129 129,753 90,736 220,489 63.9%

Male 884,990 53,896 70,766 124,662 36.1%

Age

LT 20 51,347 21,894 7,788 29,682 8.6%

20 to 29 413,260 77,762 67,040 144,802 42.0%

30 to 39 379,192 33,421 27,533 60,954 17.7%

40 to 54 571,840 33,158 34,185 67,344 19.5%

55+ 317,481 17,413 24,957 42,370 12.3%

Race

White 1,129,037 87,407 71,469 158,876 46.0%

Black 487,038 76,564 82,646 159,210 46.1%

Hispanic 70,930 10,967 4,564 15,531 4.5%

Asian 46,115 8,710 2,823 11,533 3.3%

Marital Status

Married parent 428,250 22,837 15,188 38,025 11.0%

Single parent 202,605 39,097 29,501 68,598 19.9%

Married, no kids 479,538 22,400 27,187 49,587 14.4%


Family Income Level

Less than $20,000 254,428 65,567 55,263 120,830 35.0%

$20,000 - $39,999 428,618 55,287 55,848 111,135 32.2%

$40,000 - $59,999 288,413 16,018 18,009 34,027 9.9%

$60,000 - $74,999 174,934 11,923 8,008 19,931 5.8%

$75,000 - $99,999 222,779 15,003 8,831 23,834 6.9%

$100,000 - $149,9 244,894 15,086 11,902 26,988 7.8%

$150,000 or more 119,053 4,764 3,642 8,406 2.4%

Industry

Construction 123,892 8,040 6,533 14,574 4.2%

Manufacturing 140,805 4,276 13,398 17,673 5.1%

Retail 231,217 50,632 46,289 96,921 28.1%



Other industry 663,461 30,820 45,923 76,743 22.2%

Occupation


Service 314,937 72,543 47,144 119,687 34.7%

Sales 211,885 54,386 34,606 88,992 25.8%


Transportation 100,308 4,388 16,376 20,764 6.0%


Total 1,733,119 183,649 161,502 345,151 100.0%

DIRECTLY AFFECTED2


TOTAL AFFECTED










Work hours

Part time (< 19h) 68,845 17,378 8,688 26,066 7.6%

Mid time (20-34) 231,229 62,695 35,234 97,929 28.4%

Full time (35+) 1,433,046 103,575 117,580 221,155 64.1%

Education


High school 586,566 75,363 60,853 136,216 39.5%

Some college 529,968 68,172 58,462 126,633 36.7%


Sector

For profit 1,355,351 160,495 138,056 298,552 86.5%

Government 280,837 13,987 15,639 29,626 8.6%

Non-profit 96,932 9,166 7,807 16,974 4.9%


DIRECTLY AFFECTED2


TOTAL AFFECTED


one affected parent


1Total annual amount of increased wages for directly and indirectly affected workers. 2GDP and job stimulus figures utilize a national model to estimate the GDP impact of workers' increased earnings. Thus the total state stimulus may be lower than this amount because workers in each state will not necessarily spend all of their increased earnings in-state. However, we can assume that most of the increased earnings will be spent in-state, and thus most of the jobs created will be in-state. Jobs numbers assume full-time employment requires $133,000 in additional GDP. 3The increased economic activity from these additional wages adds not just jobs but also hours for people who already have jobs (work hours for people with jobs also dropped in the downturn). Full-time employment takes that into account, by essentially taking the number of total hours added (including both hours from new jobs and more hours for people who already have jobs) and dividing by 40, to get full-time-equivalent jobs added.

APPENDIX 5

GDP IMPACT2

Increase to $8.50 $296,193,000 $187,490,000 1,400

Increase to $9.25 $554,384,000 $350,925,000 1,700

Increase to $10.10 $1,088,567,000 $689,063,000 3,300

JOBS IMPACT3

ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED LOUISIANA STATE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE

Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Louisiana Budget Project

INCREASED WAGES FOR DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY

AFFECTED WORKERS1

Louisiana - · PDF fileLouisiana Needs a Higher Wage An increased minimum wage would help...

Documents

Transcript of Louisiana - · PDF fileLouisiana Needs a Higher Wage An increased minimum wage would help...