Last spring, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani proposed a “$30 by 2030” minimum wage for New York City workers.1 Ambitious strategies to raise wages and lower costs are needed given that New York City’s current $16.50 minimum wage is inadequate compared with any reasonable measure of a living wage in the city.

Without a policy change, we project there will be 1.68 million NYC workers earning less than $30 an hour in 2030, or 36.7% of the city’s wage-earning workforce. It is likely that the vast majority of these workers would experience significant wage gains if a $30 minimum wage were implemented.

An enormous body of research on the effects of higher minimum wages has shown that past minimum wage increases have meaningfully raised pay for low-wage workers without causing significant increases in unemployment. However, the “$30 by 2030” proposal would go beyond the levels of minimum wages studied in past research, making it more difficult to precisely estimate the number of workers who would benefit and any additional impacts of the measure, such as reductions in hours or employment.

New York City’s current minimum wage does not come close to a living wage

NYC workers face some of the highest living costs in the nation. EPI’s Family Budget Calculator (FBC) measures the income a family needs to attain a modest yet adequate standard of living in every U.S. county. The FBC thresholds are conservative amounts: they account for necessities like housing, food, transportation, health care, and child care but do not provide any allowance for savings for retirement, emergencies, or college. As Figure A shows, a family of two adults and two children in the Bronx faces annual costs of nearly $135,000.2 In Manhattan, these costs are greater than $167,000 a year. For a single adult with no children, annual costs range from $62,913 in the Bronx to $87,038 in Manhattan.

Figure A

With the FBC cost data we can estimate a living wage that would allow workers to support their families.3 Table 1 shows that the living wage in 2025 is already above $30 an hour in Manhattan ($33.89), Queens ($31.31), and Staten Island ($30.68). While Brooklyn and The Bronx do not exceed this threshold, the costs facing these families will almost certainly continue to rise between today and 2030. These figures make it clear that discussions of a $30 minimum wage in New York City are not superfluous—they reflect the very real needs of working people throughout the city.

Relative to the actual living wage, New York City’s minimum wage is significantly lower than many other high-cost-of-living cities in the country. NYC’s $16.50 minimum wage is around half of the living wage in most of the city’s boroughs. By comparison, the minimum wage is around three-quarters the estimated living wage in Seattle, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. Chicago’s and Denver’s minimum wages are each more than 80% of a living wage, while the minimum wage is 69.3% of the living wage in San Francisco. All these cities have room to push for higher wages for their workers, but it is clear that New York City’s minimum wage leaves workers further behind than many other major cities in the country.

It is notable that among the cities in Table 1, those with local control over minimum wage policy have been significantly more successful at approaching living wage targets. While New York City’s minimum wage is higher than the upstate region, the policy is currently set by state lawmakers in Albany, not at the local level. Boston (Suffolk County, MA) uses the Massachusetts state minimum wage of $15.00, which is around half of the living wage in the city. Portland, OR, also has its minimum wage set by state lawmakers and has a slightly stronger minimum wage floor (69.8% of the living wage), but every city with a wage floor of at least 70% of the living wage has local control over the policy.4 This pattern suggests that when given the power to do so, local government officials are more responsive to the wage floor needs of workers in their city.

Without a policy change, 1.68 million New York City workers will be paid less than $30 an hour by 2030

Under the status quo minimum wage policy in New York City, we project there will be 1.68 million workers earning less than $30 in 2030, a little more than a third (36.7%) of the total wage-earning workforce in the city. These workers would likely be directly affected by the minimum wage increases in Mamdani’s policy proposal. In addition, economic research shows that workers already earning above the new minimum wage also typically benefit through spillover wage effects as employers seek to maintain organizational wage ladders.

Most minimum wage research finds that increasing the wage floor significantly increases earnings for affected workers, while causing little to no loss in employment. That’s because businesses are able to adjust to increased labor costs through modestly increasing prices, reductions in turnover, and the movement of workers from less-productive firms to more-productive firms.

Moreover, even if a minimum wage increase did result in reduced employment, it’s important to understand what that actually means for low-wage workers. The low-wage job market is characterized by high levels of turnover and churn, as workers are typically always looking for any new position that will offer them more livable pay. Many low-wage workers also spend some portion of the year not employed—due to care responsibilities, participating in education or training programs, or seeking other work. In this context, what researchers would describe as reduced employment does not mean that some set of workers will now be permanently unemployed. Rather, it likely would mean that some low-wage workers would work fewer hours over the course of the year or spend more time between jobs. Of course, these workers would now be earning more per hour when they do work because of the higher minimum wage—what really matters is the net outcome on their annual earnings.

We are cautious about extending the general conclusions of minimum wage research on employment to a $30 minimum wage in New York City. The proposal is more ambitious than the levels that economists have studied extensively. One tool economists use to assess the “bite” of a minimum wage is the minimum-to-median-wage ratio (sometimes called the “Kaitz index”). When underlying wages in the labor market are higher, as proxied by the median wage, the minimum-to-median-wage ratio is lower, and a given minimum wage affects a smaller share of employment. For example, a $17 minimum wage will have a much smaller effect on workers and employers in a higher wage place like New York City than it would have in places where wages are generally much lower.

Table 2 estimates the minimum-to-median-wage ratio for a $30 NYC minimum wage in 2030, as well as other wage thresholds. The ratio of a $30 minimum wage in 2030 would be around 0.76, higher than most other policies in the U.S.5 In a 2021 paper, economists Arindrajit Dube and Attila Lindner compared minimum-to-median-wage ratios across the 10 most populous U.S cities with minimum wages above the state level and found a population-weighted average minimum-to-median-wage ratio of 0.64.6 At the time, Los Angeles’s minimum wage had a Kaitz index of 0.75, but this policy has not been studied enough to understand its employment effects. According to Dube and Lindner, most state minimum wage policies greater than the federal minimum sit at a minimum-to-median-wage ratio of around 0.50. Among international peers, it is notable that the United Kingdom officially targets a minimum wage policy that is two-thirds the median wage (ratio of 0.67). Other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries also have high minimum-to-median-wage ratios, including France (0.62), New Zealand (0.69), Mexico (0.74), Chile (0.75), Costa Rica (0.87), and Colombia (0.92).

The cost-of-living crisis in New York City requires bold steps forward as part of a cohesive strategy to create a more equitable economy. Increasing the minimum wage should be one key part of this strategy, which must also include tackling the cost of housing, child care, and health care. The experience of other high-cost cities also indicates that local lawmakers are better positioned than state officials to set appropriate and livable minimum wages for their jurisdiction’s workers. New York state lawmakers can be much more ambitious in setting high standards for New York City, but it likely would be better to let the city set its own wage standards above the state floor, much in the same way that states can set their own minimums above the federal minimum.

Table 1 Table 2

Notes

1. The proposal also calls for indexing the minimum wage to inflation or productivity increases, whichever is greater, thereafter. The tipped minimum wage in New York is set at two-thirds the regular minimum wage.

2. The FBC data is organized by county, but for the purposes of this analysis we refer to the corresponding New York City boroughs.

3. Gould, Mokhiber, and deCourcy (2024) suggest living wages can be approximated by 81% of the associated FBC thresholds because middle-income families receive about 81% of their income through wages and 19% from other non-wage sources, including government transfers (such as refundable tax credits) and non-wage market income (such as interest on savings).

4. Of course, any state action is more beneficial than using the stagnant federal minimum wage, which is still the effective wage floor in Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, and other cities in states where local minimum wage increases are preempted. These localities all have effective minimum wages that are less than half of the living wage.

5. Our projections assume a nominal annual wage growth of 3.3% based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections of the Employment Cost Index. If we vary this assumption ±0.5%, the outcomes of a $30 minimum wage in 2030 vary as follows: Kaitz ratio: 0.73–0.79. Share of workers under $30 an hour: 36.0%–40.0%.

6. At the time New York City had a 0.66 Kaitz index, higher than it does today (approximately 0.5).

The start of this summer brought dangerous heat waves to the U.S. that killed at least two people, including a letter carrier in Dallas (the second letter carrier death due to extreme heat in three years). Labor unions and public health advocates have long been pushing the federal government to enact a standard to protect workers against extreme heat exposure. These efforts led to progress in 2024 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) formally proposed a new heat standard based on years of intensive research. This summer, OSHA held informal hearings on the proposal, but whether and in what form the Trump administration might move forward with adopting a final version of the heat standard rule remains uncertain. In the meantime, states have every reason to move forward with enacting their own strong standards to protect workers from preventable heat illness and death on the job.

The human and economic costs of extreme heat

Heat is the leading cause of death among all weather-related fatalities, killing 177 people last year alone and at least 211 workers between 2017 and 2022. We know that existing data on heat-related workplace fatalities significantly understate their true incidence and that, as climate change leads to more frequent and intense heat waves, these numbers will only rise. Despite this, 43 states and D.C. have yet to take action to prevent heat deaths. With federal rulemaking now in limbo, it is more imperative than ever for states to act quickly to protect workers from the growing danger of heat exposure.

Like workplace deaths and injuries in general—and due to occupational segregation and geographical factors—the ­­impacts of extreme heat are distributed unevenly based on income, race/ethnicity, and immigration status. The lowest-paid 20% of workers suffer five times as many heat-related injuries as the highest-paid 20%. And Black, Hispanic, and immigrant workers face higher exposure to extreme heat because they are more likely to work in high-risk industries like construction and agriculture.

While workplace deaths are the most urgent consequence of extreme heat, heat is also responsible for thousands of illnesses and injuries every year that result in unexpected health care costs, missed workdays, lost wages, and productivity declines that cost both workers and their employers. Overall economic costs are staggering: Short-term heat-induced lost labor productivity costs the U.S. approximately $100 billion annually and these costs will only increase as climate change worsens. Without emissions reductions or sufficient heat adaptations, labor productivity losses may double to nearly $200 billion by 2030 and reach $500 billion by 2050.

If no action is taken to mitigate the growing risks of extreme heat exposure, the hottest states will suffer the gravest economic consequences. Researchers at the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated annual earnings at risk for workers in each state across seven of the most heat exposed occupations.1 Southern states make up nine of the 10 states where workers stand to lose the highest average annual earnings (see Figure A). Texas will be one of the hardest hit; it’s projected to lose a cumulative $110 billion in labor productivity by 2050.

Despite these economic risks, some Southern states are standing in the way of protecting their own workers and businesses. Texas and Florida—which accounted for almost half of all heat-related severe injuries in the construction industry between 2015 and 2023—have failed to adopt statewide heat standards and banned cities and counties from passing local heat standards.

Figure A

Even though the economic harms of heat-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths are well documented, new heat standard proposals regularly face significant opposition from industry interests who claim, with little evidence, that protections will be too costly to implement. While exaggerated claims and fearmongering are consistent with a long history of industry resistance each time OSHA has proposed new standards, suggestions that a heat standard would disrupt business aren’t backed by available evidence. In its own regulatory impact analysis of the proposed heat standard, federal OSHA estimated that savings to employers are projected to outweigh any implementation costs by $1.4 billion each year.

Existing models provide roadmap for states to adopt or strengthen their own heat standards

Years of research and experience have produced clear guidelines for evidence-based, effective standards that states can now adopt quickly and with confidence. The strength and effectiveness of existing heat standards varies across states with respect to which workers are covered and what steps employers must take to prevent extreme heat exposure. All state heat standards (except for Nevada’s) set a temperature threshold above which employers are required to provide workers with water and shade. Most states also set a high-heat threshold above which additional precautions must be taken to protect workers. Many states also mandate an acclimatization period for workers to adjust to working in high temperatures, but the length of that period varies across states. All states with heat standards mandate that employers train workers on heat illness prevention, monitor workers for signs of heat illness, and have a plan to respond to heat illness emergencies.

A strong state standard should, at a minimum:

• Cover all indoor and outdoor workers;
• Include temperature thresholds to mandate precautions like water, rest, and shade;
• Guarantee an acclimatization period;
• Designate a high-heat temperature threshold at which additional precautions apply; and
• Impose no new costs on workers, meaning that workers should be paid for rest breaks and time spent acclimatizing.

Seven states have already implemented heat standards: California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. While California, Washington, and Minnesota were early adopters of heat standards, advocates have built tremendous momentum toward the adoption of new standards in additional states in the past two years. In 2024, Colorado, Maryland, and Nevada all passed new heat standard laws and California expanded its existing heat standard (originally covering only outdoor work) to cover indoor workers. This year, 18 state legislatures proposed new heat standards, including bills in states like Illinois and New Jersey, that outline elements of comprehensive, evidence-based standards that other states can use as models. 

States with existing standards should review checklists for a strong heat standard as well as model legislation in states like Illinois and New Jersey to audit their regulations and strengthen them if needed. States without standards should build comprehensive, effective standards that follow these evidence-based recommendations, cover as many workers as possible, and include clear, enforceable measures.

States should act now to limit harms to workers, businesses, and state economies while federal rulemaking is in limbo

The fate of the proposed federal heat standard now under consideration could eventually reshape the heat standard policymaking landscape, but in the meantime, there is no downside to states taking action. The current proposed federal standard is fairly strong, a testament to years of research, advocacy, and community mobilization. However, given the Trump administration’s hostility toward workers and industry lobbying groups’ strong opposition to the proposed standard, possible outcomes include the adoption of a weakened standard or long delays in formalizing the proposed rule to effectively block its implementation. 

Some industry representatives opposed to the current proposed federal standard have indicated that, instead of continuing to block the federal rule, they may support the passage of a weak standard in order to stave off future rulemaking. Some have speculated that industry interests may support modeling a weak federal standard on Nevada’s months-old, untested state standard, which has no temperature threshold and has been characterized as “almost as bad as no heat standard” by worker advocates.

There are three possible outcomes of the federal heat standard rulemaking process: 

1. The Trump administration finalizes the proposed, strong federal heat standard. If a strong rule is formalized, states should (and must) adopt it. A strong federal rule protecting all workers from the effects of extreme heat is the best-case scenario. Under this scenario, states where employers and workers have already gained experience with strong state heat standards will be better prepared to implement the federal rule.
2. The Trump administration abandons/indefinitely delays action on the current proposed federal heat standard. If no federal rule is implemented, states will retain latitude to continue enacting their own heat standards. Under this scenario, states with strong, effective standards will help workers and employers immediately reap important safety and economic gains as climate change continues to increase risks of human and economic damage from extreme heat.
3. The Trump administration finalizes a weakened version of the federal proposal. In this scenario, states under federal OSHA jurisdiction would be required to follow the new federal standard and states with OSHA “state plans” could continue to enact/enforce stronger heat standards. It is also likely that any new federal standard could face legal challenge (delaying its implementation), so having a strong track record of effective state standards in place would remain critical for building additional legal and political pressure to eventually enact a stronger federal standard. Likewise, given likely legal delays, even under this scenario, states under federal OSHA’s jurisdiction would be able to continue to enforce their own standards until any new federal rule were upheld in court and any stronger state law had been blocked by a federal court order.

In short, states have every reason to enact strong, effective heat standards and no reason to wait on uncertain federal action. There is zero risk for states who act now and great dangers associated with waiting while workers and businesses alike continue to suffer.

Amid federal backsliding, state lawmakers can act to protect workers from deadly heat

Over 144 lives have already been lost to heat-related hazards since federal rulemaking began four years ago to establish a long-overdue federal OSHA heat standard. Given the possibility that the Trump administration could block or delay the proposed federal standard—or worse, weaken it to try to preempt more effective state and local standards—state lawmakers should move quickly to implement strong heat standards of their own, prevent more deaths and illnesses, and bolster their state’s economy against the damaging effects of extreme heat.

1. The research was conducted in 2021. Given the limited number of occupations considered in these wage loss estimates, recent federal reversals of major policies intended to address climate change or accelerate the clean energy transition, and documented increases in global warming since 2021, these estimates are likely extremely conservative.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion. Since the Dobbs decision in 2022, 12 states have banned abortion and a dozen more have added significant restrictions on reproductive health care and abortion access. In contrast, several states—including Colorado, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont—have voted to amend their state constitutions to enshrine abortion protections. As shown in Figure A, the Dobbs decision has made abortion access vary widely by state.

Figure A

When looking at these state policies, it’s worth noting that many of the states with abortion protections are also states with higher levels of unionization. Our recent report documents the strong correlation between high union density and a range of economic, personal, and democratic well-being metrics. In the same way unions give workers a voice at their workplace, unions also give workers a voice in shaping their communities. In the report, we show that residents in states with higher union density are more likely to have health insurance, access to paid sick and family leave, and live in a state with Medicaid expansion. This correlation holds true when evaluating state abortion policies. Figure B shows that states with abortion protections have an average union density twice as high as that of states with varying degrees of abortion restrictions and bans.

Figure B

Many abortion-restricted states have also enacted anti-union and so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) laws. These laws are designed to suppress worker power by prohibiting unions and employers from negotiating union security clauses into collective bargaining agreements, making it difficult for workers to join, form, and sustain unions. As a result, states with RTW laws—many in the South and Midwest—have low levels of union density. Research shows that RTW laws are associated with higher income inequality, lower wages and benefits, and increased workplace fatalities.

Unfortunately, federal attacks on reproductive freedom have continued since the Dobbs decision. This summer, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which makes draconian spending cuts—mostly to health care and food assistance for children and families—in order to give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest households. The OBBBA also poses significant obstacles to reproductive freedom by prohibiting health care clinics that provide abortion services from receiving federal Medicaid payments for one year for any other services they provide. This provision specifically targets Planned Parenthood, putting 1 in 3 centers at risk of closure and taking away vital reproductive services—such as cancer screenings, prenatal care, and contraception—from more than 1 million people. Planned Parenthood is currently pursuing a legal challenge to this OBBBA provision—but Trump’s undermining of reproductive freedom and health care does not stop there. 

Since returning to office, Trump has withheld millions in Title X funds for family planning services, scrubbed government websites of vital information about reproductive health care, and nominated individuals with anti-abortion views to key positions at the Department of Health and Human Services. Earlier this month, the Trump administration issued a proposed rule that would exclude abortion services for veterans as part of reproductive health care covered under the Department of Veterans Affairs. The proposed rule seeks to rescind a 2022 Biden-era rule that expanded reproductive health care and abortion access in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.

As attacks on reproductive freedom and health care continue at the federal level, unions can play a critical role in safeguarding reproductive freedom in the states. However, union density levels are not as high as they could or should be. While nearly half of all nonunion workers say they want a union in their workplace, only 11.1% of all workers were covered by a union contract in 2024. This is because current labor law does not provide workers with a meaningful right to a union and collective bargaining.

Federal policymakers should pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act to strengthen private- and public-sector workers’ right to organize and access a union. Further, states with RTW laws should restore private-sector workers’ full bargaining rights by repealing these anti-union state laws. Building union density is not just a worker or workplace issue, but also a fundamental component to strengthening reproductive freedom in our communities.