CHEYENNE, Wyo. - This summer marks the seven-year anniversary of the last time the federal minimum wage was raised, from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour, and the buying power of those dollars has fallen by 10 percent because of inflation, according to new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute.

David Cooper, the senior economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, and the study's author, said until the 1960s, the wage was raised at roughly the same pace as increases in worker productivity.

"Had that trend continued since 1968 and we had continued to raise the minimum wage pretty regularly every year, we would have a minimum wage today of close to $19 an hour," he said.

The Democratic Party recently added a $15-an-hour minimum wage to its platform, and Donald Trump has also come out in favor of an increase. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, raising the federal wage isn't possible for all businesses, especially in the South and parts of the Midwest.

Cooper's study also found that if the wage had kept pace with the average growth of typical U.S. workers' income, today's minimum wage would be almost $12 an hour. Groups opposing a ballot initiative in neighboring Colorado to pay workers at least that amount by 2020 claim the move could cost the state 90,000 jobs. Cooper disagreed.

"The effect of increases the minimum wage on employment is probably the most studied topic in all of labor economics," he added. "Modest increases in the minimum wage have little to no effect on employment, I mean, that debate is basically settled."

Cooper said raising the wage floor also helps middle-class workers get paid more, and has a positive impact on local economies.

"Low-wage workers tend to spend every single dollar that they receive, because they have to just in order to make ends meet," he explained. "So if you raise the minimum wage, you're transferring income to folks who are going to go out and spend it right away. That can mean more customers coming through the door for most businesses."


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota lawmakers remain in crunch time mode in getting a budget passed, with a special session needed and there is spirited debate about whether health coverage for undocumented adults should be included.

Earlier this year, the state expanded eligibility for its public health insurance program MinnesotaCare to cover those without legal status. With a projected deficit forecast for 2028 and 2029, GOP lawmakers said the expense should be cut. A compromise would keep the benefit in place for children in such situations.

Alexandra Fitzsimmons, senior policy director for the Children's Defense Fund Minnesota (CDF-MN), warned about removing it for their caregivers.

"We want people to be accessing the care for preventive visits, for chronic conditions and things like that," Fitzsimmons explained. "Because we know when people are healthier, they're better able to care for their children."

She added it can include households where grandparents are the caregivers. According to state data, roughly 17,000 Minnesotans who are noncitizens have enrolled since Jan. 1. The Department of Human Services only received about 4,300 claims for health care services in the first quarter. The state only pays claims after services are administered, with current costs at nearly $4 million.

Advocates said there is misinformation out there about how much money the state will spend on expanded eligibility. Republicans argue the current enrollment pace is higher than initially predicted.

Rep. Jeff Backer, R-Browns Valley, said earlier in the legislative session it would be great to help more people, but Democrats need to prioritize.

"We are looking at a tremendous hurt to our system," Backer contended.

Fitzsimmons countered the health care system would feel stress if caregivers are stripped of health coverage.

"We know, too, that if people don't have access to preventive care, they're going to go to the emergency room," Fitzsimmons pointed out.

Immigrant assistance groups and charitable organizations have urged Democratic leaders to reject the compromise, saying it goes against pledges made in 2023 to fully invest in vulnerable populations.

New bipartisan bills in the Ohio Legislature would provide a $2,000 tax credit to working Ohioans who care for family members at home.

The goal is to ease the financial burden for the state's estimated 1.5 million family caregivers, many of whom juggle jobs and caregiving without compensation.

Jenny Carlson, state director of AARP Ohio, said the credit would offer real relief.

"Many Ohio caregivers are balancing caregiver responsibilities with work and are paying for care expenses out of their own pockets," Carlson pointed out. "Averaging between $7,200 and about $14,000 a year depending upon the acuity and level of need of their loved one."

AARP reports Ohio caregivers provide $21 billion in unpaid care annually, often preventing the need for costly nursing home care funded by taxpayers.

Carlson noted the legislation, House Bill 279 and Senate Bill 205, has support from both business and women's advocacy groups, and she argued helping caregivers stay employed is not only a family issue, but an economic one.

"Within the employer community, 32% of the individuals take a leave of absence, 16% turn down promotions, and 16% stop working altogether," Carlson outlined. "Supporting our family caregiver tax credit is just a way to continue to help support the workforce."

The bill sponsors, Rep. Adam Matthews, R-Lebanon, and Sen. Michele Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester, hope the credit will be included in the state budget by July 1. Advocates said Ohio's pilot program could become a model for the nation.

Groups championing arts education are criticizing President Donald Trump's proposed cuts to education and the arts, particularly those targeting programs promoting diversity.

The Trump budget proposal would kill the National Endowment for the Arts, which has already canceled more than $27 million in grants, including many for arts education.

Veronica Alvarez, executive director of the Pasadena-based nonprofit Create CA, said arts education funding should be preserved.

"The 'four C's' of 21st-century job skills: critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity, all of those skills are developed and supported by the arts," Alvarez pointed out. "Unfortunately, usually when there's constraint on the budget in terms of education, the arts have often been the first ones cut."

The National Endowment for the Arts' fiscal report said last year, the agency had a budget of $207 million and gave out grants totaling $163 million. The President has called for the Department of Education to be abolished and his budget proposal specifically eliminates programs to help migrant students and English language learners, complaining they promote bilingualism and alleging they attract undocumented people to come to the U.S.

Alvarez pointed out arts education is a great way for students to improve their English comprehension.

"It keeps them engaged. Research has shown that students who have access to high-quality arts education have higher attendance and graduation rates," Alvarez noted. "In particular, when language is a barrier, the arts transcend language. The arts help English learners and migrant students by providing a sense of belonging."

According to the Pew Research Center, California school districts received $18.6 billion in grants from the Department of Education last year. The State of California would have a hard time backfilling the money, as it already faces a $12 billion deficit.