Labor Day Report from the Michigan League for Public Policy

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
R
aising the minimum wage, strengthening workplace
policies, 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, women’s
wages, 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 rose
just 8.2%.
2

In Michigan, compensaon for low- and mid-wage
workers of prime working age
3
fell 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 bachelor’s degrees fell 4.3%,
while wages for workers with master’s 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%, while
workers with only a high school educaon saw their
wages decrease by 32.1% (See Figure 1 and Appendix
A.2).
Men’s Wages in Michigan
The wages of many Michigan male workers
fared worse than the state average. Low-wage
men’s hourly earnings plummeted 31.2%, while
mid-wage male workers’ wages fell 16.0%. The
decline in male wages in Michigan connued
even 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 Women’s 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).

MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 2
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 1979-2013
Prepared 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
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 1979-2013
Prepared by Michigan League for Public Policy
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 3
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 educaonal
credenals at greater proporons than their male
counterparts. These improvements help explain the rise in
women’s wages
7
– 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 men’s – 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 men’s wages, rather than to gains in
women’s 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 men’s wages is problemac, as it
hurts not only men, but also women. The same factors
that harm men’s wages are also exerng a negave
influence on women’s wages. If, for a me, protecons
against discriminaon, higher levels of educaonal
aainment and increased labor force parcipaon helped
curb the downward pressure on women’s 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 women’s wages.
9

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 1979-2013
Prepared by Michigan League for Public Policy
FIGURE 3
Stagnating Hourly Earnings for Low-Wage Michigan Women, 1979-2013
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 4
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
state’s gender wage gap has been stuck in the 70-cent
range since 2005, despite nominal increases in the state’s
wage floor
13
(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 women’s 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 Michigan’s overall workforce between 2008
and 2012, they represented well over two-thirds (69%) of
the low-wage workforce.
15
The 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

Occupanon
Pornon 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 Servers
65% 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 $1
10
$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 Women’s Law Center’s 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 Women’s Law Center analysis and the May 2013 State Occupational Employment and
Wage Estimates of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 5
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 women’s 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 a
“motherhood 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.
WOMEN’S 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 naon’s 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 2012
22
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
Women’s 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, women’s 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, women’s 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 naon’s 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 Michigan’s economy. In
2012, women made up over half (51.7%) of the state’s
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%
Bachelor’s 100% 41.90% 58.10%
Master’s 100% 42.90% 57.10%
Professional 100% 66.60% 33.40%
Doctorate 100% 68.20% 31.80%
Women’s and Men’s Shares of
Postsecondary Degrees (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.

MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 6
When looking at the state’s 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 bachelor’s, 13.5% with an
associate, and 9.4% with master’s degrees. Another 20.7%
aended college but did not earn a degree (see Figure 4
and 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
bachelor’s, 10.2% with an associate and 7.5% with a
master’s 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, women’s parcipaon in the
labor force increased significantly, while men’s and the
state’s average for all genders decreased. From 1979 to
2013, the labor force parcipaon rate
29
for women 16
years and older increased 4 percentage points from 50.7%
Gender
Business Cycle Peaks
Latest
Year
(2013)
Change
1979 1989 2000 2007
1979-
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 Women’s and Men’s Labor Force Participation at Business Cycle Peaks
(Ages 16 and Over)
TABLE 4
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey data.
Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.
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%
Bachelor’s
Degree
20.6%
Bachelor’s
Degree
15.9%
Master’s
Degree
9.4%
Master’s
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
Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.

MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 7
to 54.9%, while men’s 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 state’s economy vital. (Men’s 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 state’s populaon of prime working age who are living
in poverty, over half (54.7%) are women.
30
In fact, the
state’s 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 Michigan’s female-headed households
in the prime working age group is higher than for women
of 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 state’s 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). Men’s wages declined more than
women’s.
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.
Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 8
bucked the trend. The state
saw real median wage growth
of 11%, much of it occurring
aer 1997, around the me
when the naon’s workers
enjoyed the employment and
wage benefits of a ght labor
market. The difference in
wage growth between
Minnesota’s and Michigan’s
wage trends between 1979
and 2013 is a whopping 23.7
percentage points (see Table
5 and Figure 5).
Men’s median wages
throughout the Midwest also
declined significantly – nearly
all of it in the double-digit
range. 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 men’s 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 former’s
wages had surpassed the laer’s. 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, women’s 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,
1979-2013
Prepared 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,
1979-2013
Prepared by Michigan League for Public Policy

MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 9
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 had
expanded 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 today’s 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 Michigan’s rate of 30%.
Minnesota’s employment earnings in this sector expanded
even more: 74%, more than twice Michigan’s 32%
growth.
39

While deindustrializaon and the near collapse of the
domesc auto industry were, to some extent, unavoidable
and greatly impacted Michigan’s 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, Minnesota’s tax structure allowed it to
collect $5,016 in taxes, per capita, in 2011. In contrast,
Michigan’s combined state and local taxes, per capita in
2011, was just $3,655. Minnesota’s 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

Minnesota’s spending priories include early childhood
educaon, K-12 educaon, higher educaon, the state’s
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.
Minnesota’s wage gains are in great part the result of the
state’s resolve to invest in the public good, while
Michigan’s 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 state’s economy, and create thousands of jobs.
43

Increasing the minimum wage, and in parcular
eliminang 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
state’s minimum wage to $9.25 by 2018 and index it to
inflaon. This law also pegged the pped wage to 38% of
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 10
the regular minimum wage. While a step in the right
direcon, the increases would sll leave many families in
poverty, including thousands of Michigan children whose
parents struggle to make ends meet on these wages.
45

Increasing the wage floor to $10.10 or above and bringing
the pped wage to parity with the regular minimum wage
would boost many families above poverty and narrow the
gender wage gap.
Encourage Collecnve Bargaining. As discussed above,
since the 1970s, wages have been eroding or stagnang
for men and women earning at or under the middle of the
wage distribuon. Wages for higher-paid workers, on the
other hand, have increased, resulng in an increase in
wage inequality. These trends coincide with a decline in
unionizaon rates – which fell to 13.1% in 2011 - and has
resulted in the loss of worker’s bargaining power. Studies
suggest that deunionizaon explains about a third of the
growth of wage inequality among men and a fih of the
growth among women. Higher rates of union membership
could curb wage erosion. Unionizaon enhances worker’s
ability to bargain for beer wages and usually results in
higher wages for those who are covered by a collecve
bargaining contract. This “union wage premium” (as the
phenomenon is known) is 17.3% higher wages for men,
9.1% for women, and 13.6% overall.
46

Strengthen Workplace Policies. As discussed above,
women’s contribuons to the naonal economy have
steadily increased since 1979. More women and mothers
have entered the labor force and increased their work
hours. Through their work, they have substanally
expanded the naon’s economy. Women’s higher
parcipaon rate in the labor force means that workplace
policies need to change to accommodate the needs of
dual-income and single-parent families, especially for
those who are in low-wage jobs. Michigan should enact
legislaon requiring paid family and medical leave and
standards for scheduling, to help workers plan for and
meet their family needs. Michigan should also increase its
child care subsidy to be more in line with market rates,
improving both the quality and affordability of child care
opons for low-paid workers. Evidence suggests that
access to stable, high-quality child care increases labor
force parcipaon, reduces employee absenteeism and
turnover, and helps workers maintain their employment.
Restore the State Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
The EITC is a refundable tax credit that promotes work
and offsets the tax burden of many low- and middle-
income working families. In tax year 2012, the Legislature
reduced the Michigan EITC from 20% to 6% of the federal
credit. This change increased the taxes paid by many
working families by 70%, with low-income households
most affected. The EITC is a tool that has been proven to
reduce poverty and boost the work efforts of many
families, parcularly for single-parent households with
low educaonal aainment.
47
Restoring the credit to 20%
would encourage more of these households to join the
workforce and increase their work hours. This, in turn,
would increase the state’s labor force parcipaon rate
and over me increase those workers’ hourly earnings.
Increase Educanon Funding, Including Higher
Educanon. As discussed in the secon, “Median Wages
in the Midwest: A Comparison,” wage trends in Michigan
and Minnesota could not be more different. While wages
dropped dramacally in Michigan (parcularly for men),
in Minnesota wages increased for the overall populaon
and for women, and decreased only slightly for men.
Although there are a number of factors that led to the
different outcomes for these two states, Minnesota
spends substanally more on the educaon of its
residents, from pre-kindergarten to university.
Minnesota’s higher rates of investment on educaon –
and in parcular, in higher educaon – not only produces
a highly educated workforce and an aracve business
climate for high-paying knowledge-based jobs, but it also
curbs tuion increases at state colleges and universies.
Lower tuion increases results in lower amounts of
student loan debt, a type of debt that can reduce the
discreonary income of student debtors and reduces their
ability to fully parcipate in the consumer economy. From
2013 to 2014, tuion at public colleges and universies in
Minnesota decreased 0.4%, which in Michigan it
increased 2.1%.
48

AcxNowtrbcmrNts:
I would like to extend a very special thank you to David Cooper (Economic Policy Institute) and Katherine
Gallagher Robbins (National Women’s Law Center) for their assistance gathering and processing data. I am
also grateful to Luke Reidenbach (California Budget Project), for his perceptive insights on wage trends.
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 11
ENDNOTES
1. Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, Lawrence Mishel and Heidi Shierholz, Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s 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 midway
between 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 – Men’s 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-
en’s 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 to
be employed in low-wage occupaons. See discussion of the over-representaon of women in low-wage jobs, below.
14. Naonal Women’s Law Center, The Wage Gap by State for Women Overall, November 2013.
15. Naonal Women’s 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 Women’s 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 Women’s Rising Hour of Work: Time to
Update 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 2014 had 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.
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 12
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 Women’s Law Center, April 2014. The term “mothers of very young children” is defined as women
raising 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 analysis of 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 Michigan’s 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, States Are Sll Funding Higher Educaon Below Pre-Recession
Levels, Center on Budget and Policy Priories, May 1, 2014.

ENDNOTES
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 13
Year
Att MrN WomrN
Low-
Wage
Mid-
Wage
High-
Wage
Top 10%
Low-
Wage
Mid-
Wage
High-
Wage
Top 10%
Low-
Wage
Mid-
Wage
High-
Wage
Top 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%
Yrnn
Lrss tnnN Hìcn
Scnoot
Hìcn Scnoot on
EouìvntrNt
Somr Cottrcr/
Assocìntr
Bncnrton’s AbvnNcrb
1979 $18.65 $21.58 $22.58 $26.12 $29.18
2013 $10.02 $14.65 $15.95 $24.99 $32.30
Change (1979-2013) -46.30% -32.10% -29.40% -4.30% 10.70%
Wncr DìstnìsutìoN MrN WomrN DìrrrnrNcr ($) DìrrrnrNcr (%) Wncr Gnr
Low-Wage: 20th percennle $11.85 $10.32 $1.53 13.80% $0.13
Mid-Wage: 50th percennle $19.97 $16.22 $3.75 20.70% $0.19
High-Wage: 80th percennle $34.86 $27.57 $7.29 23.40% $0.21
Top 10%: 90th percennle $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 Percennle
A.2: Real Median Wages by Educanonal Auainment, All Genders Combined
A.3: Gender Differences in Real Hourly Wage in 2013
Source: Economic Policy Institute’s analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata, 1979-2013.
Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.
MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY | AUGUST 2014 PAGE 14
Hìcnrst EbucntìoN
MìcnìcnN U.S.
Att MrN WomrN Att MrN WomrN
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%
Bachelor’s 18.30% 15.90% 20.60% 21.60% 20.70% 22.50%
Master’s 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.



EMPLOYED MEDIAN WAGE % OF POVERTY WAGE
1

% BASIC NEEDS
INCOME
2

Rank Occupation Title Number Hourly Annual
Family
of Three
Family of
Four
One Parent,
Two Children
1 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%
4
Combined Food Preparation & Serving Workers,
Including Fast Food
93,170 $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%
9
Janitors & Cleaners, Except Maids & Housekeeping
Cleaners
68,540 $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%
13
Sales Representatives, Wholesale & Manufacturing,
Except Technical & Scientific Products
54,710 $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%
16
Secretaries & Administrative Assistants, Except Legal,
Medical, & Executive
44,790 $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%
25
First-Line Supervisors of Office & Administrative
Support Workers
31,740 $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%
40
Secondary School Teachers, Except Special &
Career/Technical Education
21,800 * $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.
Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.



1
Based 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.
2
Based on calculations from the Michigan League for Public Policy’s Making Ends Meet in Michigan: A Basic Needs Income Level for Family Well-Being, March 2014.
Appendix C
Michigan Occupations with Highest Employment, 2013
1



EMPLOYED MEDIAN WAGE % OF POVERTY WAGE
1

% BASIC NEEDS
INCOME
2

Rank Occupation Title Number Hourly Annual
Family
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 Animals
3

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, &
Greenhouse
3
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.
Produced by Michigan League for Public Policy.


1
Based 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.
2
Based on calculations from the Michigan League for Public Policy’s Making Ends Meet in Michigan: A Basic Needs Income Level for Family Well-Being, March 2014.
3
Although 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 2013
1