Introduction and executive summary
Last year was yet another year of poor wage growth for American workers. With few exceptions, real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wages fell or stagnated for workers across the wage spectrum between 2013 and 2014—even for those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree.
Of course, as EPI has documented for nearly three decades, this is not a new story. Comparing 2014 with 2007 (the last period of reasonable labor market health before the Great Recession), hourly wages for the vast majority of American workers have been flat or falling. And ever since 1979, the vast majority of American workers have seen their hourly wages stagnate or decline. This is despite real GDP growth of 149 percent and net productivity growth of 64 percent over this period. In short, the potential has existed for ample, broad-based wage growth over the last three-and-a-half decades, but these economic gains have largely bypassed the vast majority.
The poor performance of American workers’ wages in recent decades—particularly their failure to grow at anywhere near the pace of overall productivity—is the country’s central economic challenge. Raising wages is the key to addressing middle-class income stagnation, rising income inequality, and lagging economic mobility, and is essential to moving families out of poverty. EPI’s Raising America’s Pay initiative and the initiative’s overview paper (Bivens et al. 2014) explain in detail why raising wages is essential to improving Americans’ living standards.
Unfortunately, the gradually recovering economy has not translated into widespread wage gains over the last year. Though the labor market has continued to strengthen, it has not tightened nearly enough to absorb the millions of potential workers sidelined by the lack of job opportunities—and not nearly enough to generate real wage growth. Furthermore, growth in nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation) has failed to hit any reasonable target for the Federal Reserve to fear inflationary pressures and slow the economy by raising interest rates.
This paper details the most up-to-date wage trends through 2014, with special attention to what has happened since the last pre-recession labor market peak in 2007. Key findings include:
From 2013 to 2014, real hourly wages fell at all wage levels, except for a miniscule 3 cent increase at the 40th percentile and a more significant increase at the 10th percentile.
Wages grew at the 10th percentile because of minimum-wage increases in 2014 in states where 47.2 percent of U.S. workers reside. This illustrates that public policies can be an important tool for raising wages.
Only those at the top of the wage distribution have real wages higher today than before the recession began.
Across the distribution, men’s wages remain higher than women’s, but women have fared slightly better than men since 2007.
Workers of color continue to have hourly wages far below those of their white counterparts. In 2014, the median black and median Hispanic wages were only about 75 percent and 70 percent, respectively, of the median white wage. All three groups have median wages in 2014 lower than in 2007.
Looking at wages by educational attainment, the greatest real wage losses between 2013 and 2014 were among those with a college or advanced degree. This demonstrates that poor wage performance cannot be blamed on workers lacking adequate education or skills.
Those with the least education actually saw a reversal in trend, likely related to the state-level minimum-wage increases.
Despite wage declines in both 2013 and 2014, those with an advanced degree are the only ones who have returned to 2007 real wage levels.
Nominal wage growth, by any measure, is far below wage growth consistent with the Federal Reserve Board’s 2 percent inflation target.
There is no evidence of upward pressure on wages—let alone acceleration of wages—that would signal that the Federal Reserve Board should worry about incipient inflation and raise interest rates in an effort to slow the economy.
Real hourly wages stagnant or falling for most of the wage distribution
The rise in wage inequality (and income inequality for that matter) over the last three-and-a-half decades has been driven by a pronounced reduction in the collective and individual bargaining power of ordinary workers, for whom wages are the primary source of income (Bivens et al. 2014). It has been well-documented that hourly pay for the vast majority of American workers has diverged from economy-wide productivity, and this divergence is at the root of numerous American economic challenges (Mishel et al. 2012). Productivity has increased, providing the potential for wage gains. At the same time, workers’ ability to bargain for higher wages has eroded, leaving stagnant wages for the vast majority.
The latest data from 2014 reveal evidence of the same abysmal trends experienced through the Great Recession and much of the last three-and-a-half decades. Table 1 includes data from the 2007 peak and the two most recent years of data for comparison. Wages for the bottom 80 percent are no higher than in 2007, with modest gains at the top.
Table 1
Table 1 (continued)
Hourly wages of all workers, by wage percentile, 2007–2014 (2014 dollars)
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
95th
2007
$8.89
$10.79
$12.59
$14.78
$17.26
$20.48
$24.31
$30.00
$40.23
$51.98
2013
$8.51
$10.15
$12.14
$14.43
$16.97
$20.07
$24.27
$30.30
$41.11
$53.67
2014
$8.62
$10.08
$12.09
$14.46
$16.90
$19.92
$24.07
$29.99
$40.84
$53.14
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.4%
-1.0%
-0.6%
-0.3%
-0.3%
-0.4%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.3%
2013–2014
1.3%
-0.7%
-0.4%
0.3%
-0.4%
-0.7%
-0.8%
-1.0%
-0.7%
-1.0%
Note: The xth-percentile wage is the wage at which x% of wage earners earn less and (100-x)% earn more.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Get image
Share on Facebook
Interactive
Figure A
Interactive
Cumulative percent change in real hourly wages, by wage percentile, 2007–2014
Year
10th
30th
50th
70th
95th
2007
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2008
-0.9%
0.7%
0.4%
0.1%
1.1%
2009
-0.1%
1.9%
2.1%
2.9%
2.1%
2010
-0.9%
0.2%
0.7%
1.9%
1.9%
2011
-3.4%
-1.9%
-2.0%
-0.5%
0.7%
2012
-5.0%
-3.1%
-2.6%
-0.3%
2.1%
2013
-4.3%
-3.6%
-1.6%
-0.2%
3.3%
2014
-3.1%
-4.0%
-2.1%
-1.0%
2.2%
Note: Sample based on all workers age 18–64. The xth-percentile wage is the wage at which x% of wage earners earn less and (100-x)% earn more.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Show table Get data
The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.
Embed
Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.
Get image
Share on Facebook
The data underlying the figure.
Figure A depicts some of the data presented in Table 1 by showing the cumulative change in real hourly wages for the 10th, 30th, 50th, 70th, and 95th percentiles between 2007 and 2014. After a sharp increase in real wages between 2008 and 2009, due primarily to negative inflation, wages for most groups fell through 2012. While there was an increase between 2012 and 2013, the increase was short-lived, and wages for most groups have fallen again over the last year. Wages for nearly all groups are lower in 2014 than they were at the end of the recession in 2009.
It is important to note that this fall in real wages over the last year was not accompanied by (or associated with) a significant jump in inflation. In fact, falling inflation over the last few months has led to an average inflation rate of only 1.6 percent between 2013 and 2014. Thus, the fall in real wages over the last year is clearly not driven by high inflation.
The impact of state minimum-wage increases
What is particularly striking about both Figure A and Table 1 is that almost every decile and the 95th percentile experienced real wage declines from 2013 to 2014, with two exceptions. First, there was a very small increase at the 40th percentile wage, up 3 cents, or 0.3 percent. A more economically significant increase occurred at the 10th percentile, up 11 cents, or 1.3 percent. This can be attributed to a series of state-level minimum-wage increases, which have been proven to lift wages, particularly at the bottom of the wage distribution.
Figure B displays in green the states with minimum-wage increases in 2014. Of these states, the largest increases were in those with legislated increases (California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island). The remaining states in green had smaller increases resulting from indexing the minimum wage to inflation. Workers in states that increased their minimum wage in 2014 account for nearly half (47.2 percent) of the overall U.S. workforce.
Figure B
States with minimum-wage increases in 2014
This interactive feature is not supported in this browser.
Please use a modern browser such as Chrome or Firefox to view the map.
Click here to download Google Chrome.
Click here to download Firefox.
Click here to view a limited version of the map.
State
Abbreviation
Category
Alabama
AL
No change
Alaska
AK
No change
Arizona
AZ
Indexed
Arkansas
AR
No change
California
CA
Legislative
Colorado
CO
July
Connecticut
CT
Legislative
Delaware
DE
Legislative
District of columbia
DC
July
Florida
FL
Indexed
Georgia
GA
No change
Hawaii
HI
No change
Idaho
ID
No change
Illinois
IL
No change
Indiana
IN
No change
Iowa
IA
No change
Kansas
KS
No change
Kentucky
KY
No change
Louisiana
LA
No change
Maine
ME
No change
Maryland
MD
No change
Massachusetts
MA
No change
Michigan
MI
Legislative
Minnesota
MN
August
Mississippi
MS
No change
Missouri
MO
Indexed
Montana
MT
Indexed
Nebraska
NE
No change
Nevada
NV
July
New Hampshire
NH
No change
New Jersey
NJ
Legislative
New Mexico
NM
No change
New York
NY
Legislative
North Carolina
NC
No change
North Dakota
ND
No change
Ohio
OH
Indexed
Oklahoma
OK
No change
Oregon
OR
Indexed
Pennsylvania
PA
No change
Rhode Island
RI
Legislative
South Carolina
SC
No change
South Dakota
SD
No change
Tennessee
TN
No change
Texas
TX
No change
Utah
UT
No change
Vermont
VT
Indexed
Virginia
VA
No change
Washington
WA
Indexed
West Virginia
WV
No change
Wisconsin
WI
No change
Wyoming
WY
No change
Note: California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island legislated minimum-wage increases. In the remaining states in green, the minimum wage increased due to indexing to inflation.
Source: EPI analysis of Cooper (2014) and NCSL (2014)
Embed
Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.
Get image
Share on Facebook
A state-by-state comparison of trends in the 10th percentile suggests that these minimum-wage increases account for the nationwide 10th percentile increase. Between 2013 and 2014, the 10th percentile wage in states with minimum-wage increases grew by an average of 1.6 percent, while it barely rose (a 0.3 percent increase) in states without a minimum-wage increase. That wages for most other deciles fell across both sets of states provides further evidence that the minimum-wage increases—not other factors—are driving the nationwide 10th percentile increase. This indicates that strong labor standards can improve outcomes even when the unemployment rate remains elevated and workers have severely reduced bargaining power.
Trends by gender and race/ethnicity
Even analyzing wages at different points in the wage distribution over time masks different outcomes between men and women and among various racial and ethnic subgroups. Table 2 replicates the analysis of wage deciles for men and women separately, with a comparison of gender wage disparities over 2007–2014. Figures C and D accompany this table, illustrating the cumulative percent change over 2007–2014 in real hourly wages of men and women at key wage levels. Long-term trends suggest that low- and middle-wage men have fared comparably poorly, and that wage gaps between the top and the middle, and between the top and the bottom, among both men and women have expanded continuously over the last three-and-a-half decades (Gould 2014).
Table 2
Table 2 (continued)
Hourly wages of men and women, by wage percentile, 2007–2014 (2014 dollars)
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
95th
Men
2007
$9.34
$11.49
$13.82
$16.44
$19.24
$22.60
$26.97
$33.18
$44.13
$57.15
2013
$8.96
$10.56
$13.02
$15.44
$18.41
$21.82
$26.24
$33.02
$45.76
$60.92
2014
$9.02
$10.82
$13.13
$15.45
$18.35
$21.72
$26.06
$32.69
$44.96
$59.92
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.5%
-0.9%
-0.7%
-0.9%
-0.7%
-0.6%
-0.5%
-0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
2013–2014
0.7%
2.4%
0.9%
0.1%
-0.3%
-0.5%
-0.7%
-1.0%
-1.7%
-1.6%
Women
2007
$8.40
$10.01
$11.53
$13.55
$15.69
$18.23
$21.69
$26.88
$35.38
$44.12
2013
$8.22
$9.73
$11.24
$13.21
$15.35
$18.24
$21.74
$27.04
$36.27
$46.37
2014
$8.20
$9.76
$11.17
$13.11
$15.21
$18.12
$21.72
$27.05
$36.23
$47.11
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.4%
-0.4%
-0.5%
-0.5%
-0.4%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.9%
2013–2014
-0.3%
0.3%
-0.7%
-0.8%
-0.9%
-0.6%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.1%
1.6%
Wage disparities (women/men)
2007
89.9%
87.2%
83.5%
82.4%
81.5%
80.7%
80.4%
81.0%
80.2%
77.2%
2013
91.8%
92.1%
86.4%
85.6%
83.4%
83.6%
82.8%
81.9%
79.3%
76.1%
2014
90.9%
90.2%
85.0%
84.9%
82.9%
83.4%
83.3%
82.7%
80.6%
78.6%
Note: The xth-percentile wage is the wage at which x% of wage earners earn less and (100-x)% earn more.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Get image
Share on Facebook
Interactive
Figure C
Interactive
Cumulative percent change in real hourly wages of men, by wage percentile, 2007–2014
Year
10th
30th
50th
70th
95th
2007
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2008
0.3%
-0.7%
-0.6%
-0.3%
1.5%
2009
-0.1%
0.7%
2.2%
2.2%
6.7%
2010
-1.3%
-1.6%
-0.5%
0.3%
5.6%
2011
-4.1%
-5.2%
-3.1%
-2.4%
2.4%
2012
-4.2%
-5.1%
-3.4%
-2.9%
8.0%
2013
-4.1%
-5.8%
-4.4%
-2.7%
6.6%
2014
-3.5%
-5.0%
-4.6%
-3.4%
4.9%
Note: Sample based on all workers age 18–64. The xth-percentile wage is the wage at which x% of wage earners earn less and (100-x)% earn more.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Show table Get data
The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.
Embed
Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.
Get image
Share on Facebook
The data underlying the figure.
Interactive
Figure D
Interactive
Cumulative percent change in real hourly wages of women, by wage percentile, 2007–2014
Year
10th
30th
50th
70th
95th
2007
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2008
0.6%
-0.2%
0.7%
0.3%
1.3%
2009
2.6%
1.4%
2.4%
1.8%
3.2%
2010
2.0%
0.3%
1.7%
1.1%
5.1%
2011
-0.4%
-1.3%
-0.2%
0.2%
3.4%
2012
-2.4%
-3.5%
-1.9%
-0.4%
4.2%
2013
-2.1%
-2.5%
-2.2%
0.2%
5.1%
2014
-2.4%
-3.2%
-3.1%
0.1%
6.8%
Note: Sample based on all workers age 18–64. The xth-percentile wage is the wage at which x% of wage earners earn less and (100-x)% earn more.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Show table Get data
The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.
Embed
Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.
Get image
Share on Facebook
The data underlying the figure.
The wage trends since 2007 reflect this longer-term trend. Men’s wages fell over 2007–2014 for all but the top 10 percent of the wage distribution. Women fared slightly better; wages for the bottom 60 percent were lower in 2014 than in 2007. Hourly wages of women in 2014 still remain significantly below those of men. It is interesting to note that the women’s wage is a larger share of the men’s wage (i.e., the gender wage gap is smaller) at the 10th percentile than at the 95th (91 cents on the dollar versus only 79 cents).
Table 3 examines wage deciles for three race/ethnic subgroups: white non-Hispanics, black non-Hispanics, and Hispanics. As with the gender comparisons, the wage gaps between white workers and workers of color are much smaller at the bottom than at the middle or top of the wage distribution. At the middle, black workers are paid 75 cents for every dollar paid to whites, while Hispanic workers are paid even less (70 cents on the dollar). Furthermore, the black–white wage gap across most of the distribution appears to have increased modestly during the Great Recession and its aftermath.
Table 3
Table 3 (continued)
Hourly wages by race/ethnicity and wage percentile, 2007–2014 (2014 dollars)
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
95th
White
2007
$9.20
$11.43
$13.73
$16.25
$19.01
$21.97
$26.29
$32.26
$42.92
$54.76
2013
$8.97
$10.97
$13.35
$15.77
$18.69
$21.96
$26.25
$32.47
$44.05
$58.25
2014
$8.98
$10.99
$13.46
$15.79
$18.70
$21.94
$26.17
$32.22
$43.49
$57.40
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.3%
-0.6%
-0.3%
-0.4%
-0.2%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.7%
2013–2014
0.1%
0.2%
0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.3%
-0.8%
-1.3%
-1.5%
Black
2007
$8.48
$10.02
$11.37
$12.95
$14.53
$16.88
$19.74
$23.71
$31.91
$40.01
2013
$8.14
$9.39
$10.54
$12.26
$14.32
$16.33
$19.17
$23.88
$31.74
$40.78
2014
$8.08
$9.31
$10.34
$12.06
$14.00
$16.05
$19.13
$23.87
$31.22
$41.51
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.7%
-1.0%
-1.3%
-1.0%
-0.5%
-0.7%
-0.4%
0.1%
-0.3%
0.5%
2013–2014
-0.7%
-0.8%
-1.8%
-1.6%
-2.2%
-1.7%
-0.2%
0.0%
-1.6%
1.8%
Hispanic
2007
$8.21
$9.22
$10.42
$11.56
$13.44
$15.18
$17.60
$21.72
$28.81
$38.01
2013
$8.07
$9.04
$10.09
$11.20
$12.80
$15.04
$17.54
$21.55
$29.61
$38.71
2014
$8.10
$9.14
$10.06
$11.46
$13.01
$15.04
$17.73
$21.60
$29.85
$38.46
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.2%
-0.1%
-0.5%
-0.1%
-0.5%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
2013–2014
0.5%
1.1%
-0.3%
2.3%
1.7%
0.0%
1.1%
0.3%
0.8%
-0.6%
Wage disparities
Black as a share of white
2007
92.1%
87.7%
82.8%
79.7%
76.4%
76.8%
75.1%
73.5%
74.3%
73.1%
2013
90.8%
85.6%
78.9%
77.7%
76.6%
74.4%
73.0%
73.5%
72.0%
70.0%
2014
90.0%
84.8%
76.8%
76.4%
74.8%
73.1%
73.1%
74.1%
71.8%
72.3%
Hispanic as a share of white
2007
89.2%
80.7%
75.9%
71.1%
70.7%
69.1%
67.0%
67.3%
67.1%
69.4%
2013
89.9%
82.4%
75.5%
71.0%
68.5%
68.5%
66.8%
66.3%
67.2%
66.5%
2014
90.2%
83.1%
74.7%
72.6%
69.6%
68.5%
67.7%
67.0%
68.6%
67.0%
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Get image
Share on Facebook
Among white workers, hourly wages rose since 2007 for only the top 10 percent. But, in the last year, wages rose slightly for the bottom 40 percent of white workers, while falling more substantially at the top. Between 2013 and 2014, black hourly wages fell most significantly at the median—a loss of 2.2 percent (32 cents). Among blacks, only the 95th percentile saw an increase over the last year. Although Hispanic wages are generally lower, they fared slightly better, with significant wage increases between 2013 and 2014 at the 20th, 40th, and 50th percentiles.
In short, regardless of gender or race/ethnicity, this analysis of deciles shows that wages have been stagnant at best over 2007–2014 and 2013–2014, with just a few exceptions. Indeed, all races and ethnicities and both genders have median wages in 2014 lower than in 2007.
Trends by education level
Next, we examine the most up-to-date hourly wage data by education attainment. A particularly prevalent story explains wage inequality as a simple consequence of growing employer demand for skills and education—often thought to be driven by advances in technology. According to this explanation, because there is a shortage of skilled or college-educated workers, the wage gap between workers with and without a college degree is widening. This is sometimes referred to as a “skill-biased technological change” explanation of wage inequality (since it is based on technology leading to the need for more skills). However, despite its great popularity and intuitive appeal, this story about recent wage trends being driven more and more by a race between education and technology does not fit the facts well, especially since the mid-1990s.
Table 4 presents the most recent data on average hourly wages by education for all workers and by gender. As with the aforementioned data on wage deciles, American workers fared poorly between 2013 and 2014. Here we find reinforcing evidence that a technologically related demand for more-credentialed workers has not persisted. The workers with the key credential—four-year college graduates—have not done that well, especially in the last year. In fact, among all education categories, the greatest real wage losses between 2013 and 2014 were among those with a college or advanced degree. Workers with a four-year college degree saw their hourly wages fall 1.3 percent from 2013 to 2014, while those with an advanced degree saw an hourly wage decline of 2.2 percent. In contrast, wages for those who did not complete high school actually rose slightly, by 0.6 percent—likely due to the state minimum-wage increases. Male workers experienced an even more pronounced version of the overall story, with greater gains at the bottom and larger losses at the top. At the same time, the wages of female workers with either an advanced degree or less than a high school diploma fell at about the same rate, with declines of 1.4 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively.
Table 4
Table 4 (continued)
Average hourly wages by gender and education, 2007–2014 (2014 dollars)
Less than high school
High school
Some college
College
Advanced degree
All
2007
$12.98
$17.09
$19.27
$30.15
$38.21
2013
$12.24
$16.46
$18.16
$29.94
$39.06
2014
$12.31
$16.46
$18.14
$29.55
$38.20
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.8%
-0.5%
-0.9%
-0.3%
0.0%
2013–2014
0.6%
0.0%
-0.1%
-1.3%
-2.2%
Men
2007
$14.07
$18.97
$21.52
$34.50
$43.32
2013
$13.17
$18.08
$20.25
$34.26
$45.31
2014
$13.37
$18.12
$20.19
$33.35
$44.10
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.7%
-0.7%
-0.9%
-0.5%
0.3%
2013–2014
1.5%
0.2%
-0.3%
-2.7%
-2.7%
Women
2007
$11.07
$14.82
$17.19
$25.88
$32.99
2013
$10.60
$14.39
$16.21
$25.77
$33.27
2014
$10.44
$14.29
$16.20
$25.94
$32.82
Annualized percent change
2007–2014
-0.8%
-0.5%
-0.8%
0.0%
-0.1%
2013–2014
-1.5%
-0.7%
-0.1%
0.6%
-1.4%
Wage disparities (women/men)
2007
78.7%
78.1%
79.9%
75.0%
76.1%
2013
80.5%
79.6%
80.0%
75.2%
73.4%
2014
78.1%
78.9%
80.2%
77.8%
74.4%
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Get image
Share on Facebook
Figure E displays the cumulative percent change in real average hourly wages from 2007 to 2014 by education. It is clear that those in every education category experienced falling or stagnant wages since 2007. In fact, real hourly wages have declined for 90 percent of the workforce with four-year college degrees since 2007 (not shown). From 2000 to 2014, real wages of the 90th percentile of this group only increased 4.0 percent cumulatively.
Interactive
Figure E
Interactive
Cumulative percent change in real average hourly wages, by education, 2007–2014
Year
Less than high school
High school
Some college
College
Advanced degree
2007
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2008
-1.1%
-0.6%
-1.3%
-0.4%
0.5%
2009
0.5%
1.7%
0.0%
0.4%
4.2%
2010
-2.9%
-0.1%
-1.3%
0.5%
3.3%
2011
-4.1%
-2.1%
-4.0%
-2.3%
0.3%
2012
-4.7%
-2.9%
-5.6%
-1.3%
2.8%
2013
-5.7%
-3.7%
-5.8%
-0.7%
2.2%
2014
-5.2%
-3.7%
-5.9%
-2.0%
0.0%
Note: Sample based on all workers age 18–64.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata
Show table Get data
The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.
Embed
Copy the code below to embed this chart on your web