Content

Data was pulled from a table in the following Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population I used Microsoft Excel's PowerQuery function to pull the table from Wikipedia. Lists each city, its rank (based on 2020 population), some data on its area, and population in both 2020 and 2010.

Living wages are based in US Dollars per hour, assuming 2080 hours worked per year.

In addition, living wage data from http://livingwage.mit.edu I left out the minimum wage from this dataset because it appears the data is somewhat inconsistent, and often falls back on the state minimum where localities can have a higher min wage. I also omitted the poverty wage data because for the most part it seemed to be the same for most areas. One last thing to keep in mind is some cities are grouped up into metropolitan statistical areas, and as a result you will see cities that are near each other have identical data.

Banner image source: https://unsplash.com/photos/wh-7GeXxItI

Analysis of ‘Living Wage - Top 100 Cities’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/brandonconrady/living-wage-top-100-cities on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Content

Data was pulled from a table in the following Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population I used Microsoft Excel's PowerQuery function to pull the table from Wikipedia. Lists each city, its rank (based on 2020 population), some data on its area, and population in both 2020 and 2010.

Living wages are based in US Dollars per hour, assuming 2080 hours worked per year.

In addition, living wage data from http://livingwage.mit.edu I left out the minimum wage from this dataset because it appears the data is somewhat inconsistent, and often falls back on the state minimum where localities can have a higher min wage. I also omitted the poverty wage data because for the most part it seemed to be the same for most areas. One last thing to keep in mind is some cities are grouped up into metropolitan statistical areas, and as a result you will see cities that are near each other have identical data.

Banner image source: https://unsplash.com/photos/wh-7GeXxItI

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Graph and download economic data for Federal Minimum Hourly Wage for Nonfarm Workers for the United States (FEDMINNFRWG) from Oct 1938 to Jun 2025 about per hour, minimum wage, nonfarm, workers, hours, federal, wages, and USA.

This feature layer consists of the contiguous United States and District of Columbia, with Alaska and Hawaii. It comprises state minimum wage data for 2018, as well as historical data since 1968, and future data where available. The data was compiled from the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center, with living wage data from MIT's Living Wage Calculator. This layer uses the composite geographies layout to position Alaska and Hawaii adjacent to the contiguous United States.Attributes:

Field Name Unit Description

PeakMW Nominal dollar value Highest minimum wage value planned to be reached in future years (2019-2022)

PeakYR Year The year that the highest minimum wage value is planned to be reached (2019-2022)

DiffPeak2018 Nominal dollar value (difference) The difference between the peak minimum wage and the 2018 minimum wage (PeakMW - DiffPeak2018)

MW2018 Nominal dollar value 2018 state minimum wage

Increase2017 Nominal dollar value (difference) The difference between the 2018 minimum wage and the 2017 minimum wage (MW2018 - MW2017)

Increase2000 2017 dollar value (difference) The difference between the 2018 minimum wage and the 2000 minimum wage (MW2018-MW2000)

Effective2018 Nominal dollar value The minimum wage effective in 2018. For states with minimum wages below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, or for states that have no minimum wage requirement, the federal minimum wage applies.

LV2016 Nominal dollar value 2016 living wage for a single adult at the state level

DiffMWLV Nominal dollar value (difference) The difference between the 2018 minimum wage and the 2016 living wage

CurrentMW Category The type of minimum wage policy in place at the state level

PoliciesMW Text When a state has an indexed minimum wage, the type of policy is described here

Update2018 Category Yes = the state implemented an update to its minimum wage in 2018; No = no policy update in 2018

MW2017 Nominal dollar value 2017 minimum wage

MW2016 2017 dollar value 2016 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2015 2017 dollar value 2015 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2014 2017 dollar value 2014 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2013 2017 dollar value 2013 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2012 2017 dollar value 2012 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2011 2017 dollar value 2011 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2010 2017 dollar value 2010 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2009 2017 dollar value 2009 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2008 2017 dollar value 2008 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2007 2017 dollar value 2007 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2006 2017 dollar value 2006 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2005 2017 dollar value 2005 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2004 2017 dollar value 2004 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2003 2017 dollar value 2003 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2002 2017 dollar value 2002 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2001 2017 dollar value 2001 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW2000 2017 dollar value 2000 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1998 2017 dollar value 1998 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1997 2017 dollar value 1997 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1996 2017 dollar value 1996 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1994 2017 dollar value 1994 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1992 2017 dollar value 1992 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1991 2017 dollar value 1991 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1988 2017 dollar value 1988 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1981 2017 dollar value 1981 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1980 2017 dollar value 1980 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1979 2017 dollar value 1979 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1976 2017 dollar value 1976 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1972 2017 dollar value 1972 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1970 2017 dollar value 1970 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

MW1968 2017 dollar value 1968 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars

Estimates of the number and proportion of UK employee jobs with hourly pay below the living wage, by region, work geography, local authority and Parliamentary constituency, as defined by the Living Wage Foundation.

Under a revised scheme announced on 11 February 2020, the naming of employers will resume. This process will call out businesses failing to pay their workers the National Minimum Wage and failing to comply with NW legislation rules. The scheme was paused in 2018 and came into force 6 April 2020.

Number of UK jobs paid below minimum wage by sex, age, occupation and industry, and region, annual estimates, 1998 to 2023. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.

Graph and download economic data for Employed: Paid below prevailing federal minimum wage: Wage and salary workers: Life, physical, and social science occupations: 16 years and over (LEU0204841800A) from 2000 to 2024 about science, life, paid, occupation, minimum wage, salaries, workers, 16 years +, federal, wages, employment, and USA.

Analysis of ‘US Minimum Wage by State from 1968 to 2020’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/lislejoem/us-minimum-wage-by-state-from-1968-to-2017 on 12 November 2021.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

US Minimum Wage by State from 1968 to 2020

The Basics

• What is this? In the United States, states and the federal government set minimum hourly pay ("minimum wage") that workers can receive to ensure that citizens experience a minimum quality of life. This dataset provides the minimum wage data set by each state and the federal government from 1968 to 2020.

• Why did you put this together? While looking online for a clean dataset for minimum wage data by state, I was having trouble finding one. I decided to create one myself and provide it to the community.

• Who do we thank for this data? The United States Department of Labor compiles a table of this data on their website. I took the time to clean it up and provide it here for you. :) The GitHub repository (with R Code for the cleaning process) can be found here!

Content

This is a cleaned dataset of US state and federal minimum wages from 1968 to 2020 (including 2020 equivalency values). The data was scraped from the United States Department of Labor's table of minimum wage by state.

Description of Data

The values in the dataset are as follows: - Year: The year of the data. All minimum wage values are as of January 1 except 1968 and 1969, which are as of February 1. - State: The state or territory of the data. - State.Minimum.Wage: The actual State's minimum wage on January 1 of Year. - State.Minimum.Wage.2020.Dollars: The State.Minimum.Wage in 2020 dollars. - Federal.Minimum.Wage: The federal minimum wage on January 1 of Year. - Federal.Minimum.Wage.2020.Dollars: The Federal.Minimum.Wage in 2020 dollars. - Effective.Minimum.Wage: The minimum wage that is enforced in State on January 1 of Year. Because the federal minimum wage takes effect if the State's minimum wage is lower than the federal minimum wage, this is the higher of the two. - Effective.Minimum.Wage.2020.Dollars: The Effective.Minimum.Wage in 2020 dollars. - CPI.Average: The average value of the Consumer Price Index in Year. When I pulled the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I selected the dataset with "all items in U.S. city average, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted". - Department.Of.Labor.Uncleaned.Data: The unclean, scraped value from the Department of Labor's website. - Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.Low.Value: The State's lowest enforced minimum wage on January 1 of Year. If there is only one minimum wage, this and the value for Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.High.Value are identical. (Some states enforce different minimum wage laws depending on the size of the business. In states where this is the case, generally, smaller businesses have slightly lower minimum wage requirements.) - Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.Low.Value.2020.Dollars: The Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.Low.Value in 2020 dollars. - Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.High.Value: The State's higher enforced minimum wage on January 1 of Year. If there is only one minimum wage, this and the value for Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.Low.Value are identical. - Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.High.Value.2020.Dollars: The Department.Of.Labor.Cleaned.High.Value in 2020 dollars. - Footnote: The footnote provided on the Department of Labor's website. See more below.

Data Footnotes

As laws differ significantly from territory to territory, especially relating to whom is protected by minimum wage laws, the following footnotes are located throughout the data in Footnote to add more context to the minimum wage. The original footnotes can be found here.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

United States - Employed: Paid at prevailing federal minimum wage: Wage and salary workers: Life, physical, and social science occupations: 16 years and over was 0.00000 Thous. of Persons in January of 2024, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Employed: Paid at prevailing federal minimum wage: Wage and salary workers: Life, physical, and social science occupations: 16 years and over reached a record high of 4.00000 in January of 2016 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2003. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Employed: Paid at prevailing federal minimum wage: Wage and salary workers: Life, physical, and social science occupations: 16 years and over - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on July of 2025.

The voluntarily paid living wage in the United Kingdom for 2024/25 is 12.6 pounds per hour, with this rising to 13.85 pounds per hour for workers in London. For the same year the legal minimum wage for those over the age of 21 was 11.44 pounds per hour.

Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage: Guangdong data was reported at 2,500.000 RMB in 2025. This records an increase from the previous number of 2,300.000 RMB for 2024. Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage: Guangdong data is updated yearly, averaging 1,895.000 RMB from Dec 2005 (Median) to 2025, with 21 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2,500.000 RMB in 2025 and a record low of 352.000 RMB in 2005. Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage: Guangdong data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Labour Market – Table CN.GC: Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage.

Graph and download economic data for Employed: Percent of hourly paid workers: Paid total at or below prevailing federal minimum wage: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over (LEU0203127200A) from 1979 to 2024 about paid, minimum wage, salaries, workers, hours, 16 years +, federal, wages, percent, employment, and USA.

Minimum Wages in Brazil remained unchanged at 1518 BRL/Month in June. This dataset provides - Brazil Minimum Wages - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

This feature layer comprises six U.S. counties that have implemented local minimum wages. Attributes include the 2018 minimum wage, any future increases to the minimum wage, the living wage (2016 update, state level, single adult), and the date of minimum wage policy implementation, among other attributes. This layer uses the composite geographies layout in order to position Alaska and Hawaii adjacent to the contiguous U.S. Data was digitized from the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center; living wage data was provided by MIT's Living Wage Calculator.

Field Unit Description

AFFGEOID Text County GEOID

STATEFP Integer State FIPS Code (number)

STABBR Text State Abbreviation

State Text State Name

Locality Text County Name

PrevMW US Dollars Previous minimum wage at the time of implementing a locality minimum wage

PolicyStart Year Start year for implementing locality minimum wage

MW2018 US Dollars 2018 Locality Minimum Wage

DateMW2018 M/D/Y Date of implementation for 2018 locality minimum wage

HighestMW US Dollars Highest planned locality minimum wage

DateHighest Year Year of achieving highest locality minimum wage

AboveStateMW US Dollars (difference) Dollar value that locality minimum wage is above the state minimum wage (MW2018-StateMW2018)

StateMW2018 US Dollars 2018 State Minimum Wage

BelowLV2016 US Dollars (difference) Difference between locality minimum wage and 2016 state living wage (LV2016-MW2018); positive values are below the living wage, negative values are above the living wage

LV2016 US Dollars Living Wage (2016 Update)

We propose a job search model with minimum wage regulations and imperfect compliance to explain the doubling of the mean and variance of hourly earnings of white males during the first 18 years of labor market experience. The model encompasses job mobility and on-the-job wage growth as sources of wage dynamics, and is estimated by simulated generalized method of moments using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youths 1979. Our estimates provide a good fit for the observed levels and trends of the main job and wage mobility data, and for the increase in the mean and variance of wages over the life cycle, as well as for the fall in the fraction of workers paid below the minimum wage. Job mobility explains 40-50% of the observed wage growth. Increases in the minimum wage and/or compliance deliver small effects on the wage distribution and the nonemployment rate.

In April 2025, the UK minimum wage for adults over the age of 21 in will be 12.21 pounds per hour. For the 2025/26 financial year, there will be four minimum wage categories, three of which are based on age and one for apprentice workers. Apprentices, and workers under the age of 18 will have a minimum wage of 7.55 pounds an hour, increasing to ten pounds for those aged 18 to 20. When the minimum wage was first introduced in 1999, there were just two age categories; 18 to 21, and 22 and over. This increased to three categories in 2004, four in 2010, and five between 2016 and 2023, before being reduced down to four in the most recent year. The living wage The living wage is an alternative minimum wage amount that employers in the UK can voluntarily pay their employees. It is calculated independently of the legal minimum wage and results in a higher value figure. In 2023/24, for example, the living wage was twelve pounds an hour for the UK as a whole and 13.15 for workers in London, where the cost of living is typically higher. This living wage is different from what the UK government has named the national living wage, which was 10.42 in the same financial year. Between 2011/12 and 2023/24, the living wage has increased by 4.80 pounds, while the London living wage has grown by 4.85 pounds. Wage growth cancelled-out by high inflation 2021-2023 For a long period between the middle of 2021 and late 2023, average wage growth in the UK was unable to keep up with record inflation levels, resulting in the biggest fall in disposable income since 1956. Although the UK government attempted to mitigate the impact of falling living standards through a series of cost of living payments, the situation has still been very difficult for households. After peaking at 11.1 percent in October 2022, the UK's inflation rate remained in double figures until March 2023, and did not fall to the preferred rate of two percent until May 2024. As of November 2024, regular weekly pay in the UK was growing by 5.6 percent in nominal terms, and 2.5 percent when adjusted for inflation.

This report looks at the government’s evidence and analysis on the enforcement of National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage. This evidence helps monitor, evaluate and review minimum wage compliance and enforcement. It also has our response to the 2020 Low Pay Commission recommendations. This evidence covers: estimated non-compliance with the minimum wage routes to HMRC enforcement enforcement operations enforcement statistics

Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage: Yunnan data was reported at 2,070.000 RMB in 2024. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,990.000 RMB for 2023. Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage: Yunnan data is updated yearly, averaging 1,495.000 RMB from Dec 2005 (Median) to 2024, with 20 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2,070.000 RMB in 2024 and a record low of 350.000 RMB in 2005. Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage: Yunnan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Labour Market – Table CN.GC: Standard of Monthly Minimum Wage.

Management summary

Decent Wage Bangladesh phase 1

The aims of the project Decent Wage Bangladesh phase 1 aimed to gain insight in actual wages, the cost of living and the collective labour agreements in four low-paid sectors in three regions of Bangladesh, in order to strengthen the power of trade unions. The project received funding from Mondiaal FNV in the Netherlands and seeks to contribute to the to the knowledge and research pathway of Mondiaal’s theory of change related to social dialogue. Between August and November 2020 five studies have been undertaken. In a face-to-face survey on wages and work 1,894 workers have been interviewed. In a survey on the cost-of-living 19,252 prices have been observed. The content of 27 collective agreements have been analysed. Fifth, desk research regarding the four sectors was undertaken. The project was coordinated by WageIndicator Foundation, an NGO operating websites with information about work and wages in 140 countries, a wide network of correspondents and a track record in collecting and analysing data regarding wage patters, cost of living, minimum wages and collective agreements. For this project WageIndicator collaborated with its partner Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) in Dhaka, with a track record in conducting surveys in the country and with whom a long-lasting relationship exists. Relevant information was posted on the WageIndicator Bangladesh website and visual graphics and photos on the project webpage. The results of the Cost-of-Living survey can be seen here.

Ready Made Garment (RMG), Leather and footwear, Construction and Tea gardens and estates are the key sectors in the report. In the Wages and Work Survey interviews have been held with 724 RMG workers in 65 factories, 337 leather and footwear workers in 34 factories, 432 construction workers in several construction sites and 401 workers in 5 tea gardens and 15 tea estates. The Wages and Work Survey 2020 was conducted in the Chattagram, Dhaka and Sylhet Divisions.

Earnings have been measured in great detail. Monthly median wages for a standard working week are BDT 3,092 in tea gardens and estates, BDT 9,857 in Ready made garment, Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) 10,800 in leather and footwear and BDT 11,547 in construction. The females’ median wage is 77% lower than that of the males, reflecting the gender pay gap noticed around the world. The main reason is not that women and men are paid differently for the same work, but that men and women work in gender-segregated parts of the labour market. Women are dominating the low-paid work in the tea gardens and estates. Workers aged 40 and over are substantially lower paid than younger workers, and this can partly be ascribed to the presence of older women in the tea gardens and estates. Workers hired via an intermediary have higher median wages than workers with a permanent contract or without a contract. Seven in ten workers report that they receive an annual bonus. Almost three in ten workers report that they participate in a pension fund and this is remarkably high in the tea estates, thereby partly compensating the low wages in the sector. Participation in an unemployment fund, a disability fund or medical insurance is hardly observed, but entitlement to paid sick leave and access to medical facilites is frequently mentioned. Female workers participate more than males in all funds and facilities. Compared to workers in the other three sectors, workers in tea gardens and estates participate more in all funds apart from paid sick leave. Social security is almost absent in the construction sector. Does the employer provide non-monetary provisions such as food, housing, clothing, or transport? Food is reported by almost two in ten workers, housing is also reported by more than three in ten workers, clothing by hardly any worker and transport by just over one in ten workers. Food and housing are substantially more often reported in the tea gardens and estates than in the other sectors. A third of the workers reports that overtime hours are paid as normal hours plus a premium, a third reports that overtime hours are paid as normal hours and another third reports that these extra hours are not paid. The latter is particularly the case in construction, although construction workers work long contractual hours they hardly have “overtime hours”, making not paying overtime hours not a major problem.

Living Wage calculations aim to indicate a wage level that allows families to lead decent lives. It represents an estimate of the monthly expenses necessary to cover the cost of food, housing, transportation, health, education, water, phone and clothing. The prices of 61 food items, housing and transportation have been collected by means of a Cost-of-Living Survey, resulting in 19,252 prices. In Chattagram the living wage for a typical family is BDT 13,000 for a full-time working adult. In Dhaka the living wage for a typical family is BDT 14,400 for a full-time working adult. In both regions the wages of the lowest paid quarter of the semi-skilled workers are only sufficient for the living wage level of a single adult, the wages of the middle paid quarter are sufficient for a single adult and a standard 2+2 family, and the wages in the highest paid quarter are sufficient for a single adult, a standard 2+2 family, and a typical family. In Sylhet the living wage for a typical family is BDT 16,800 for a full-time working adult. In Sylhet the wages of the semi-skilled workers are not sufficient for the living wage level of a single adult, let alone for a standard 2+2 family or a typical family. However, the reader should take into account that these earnings are primarily based on the wages in the tea gardens and estates, where employers provide non-monetary provisions such as housing and food. Nevertheless, the wages in Sylhet are not sufficient for a living wage.

Employment contracts. Whereas almost all workers in construction have no contract, in the leather industry workers have predominantly a permanent contract, specifically in Chattagram. In RMG the workers in Chattagram mostly have a permanent contract, whereas in Dhaka this is only the case for four in ten workers. RMG workers in Dhaka are in majority hired through a labour intermediary. Workers in the tea gardens and estates in Chattagram in majority have no contract, whereas in Sylhet they have in majority a permanent contract. On average the workers have eleven years of work experience. Almost half of the employees say they have been promoted in their current workplace.

COVID-19 Absenteeism from work was very high in the first months of the pandemic, when the government ordered a general lock down (closure) for all industries. Almost all workers in construction, RMG and leather reported that they were absent from work from late March to late May 2020. Female workers were far less absent than male workers, and this is primarily due to the fact that the tea gardens and estates with their highly female workforce did not close. From 77% in March-May absenteeism tremendously dropped till 5% in June-September. By September the number of absent days had dropped to almost zero in all sectors. Absenteeism was predominantly due to workplace closures, but in some cases due to the unavailability of transport. More than eight all absent workers faced a wage reduction. Wage reduction has been applied equally across the various groups of workers. The workers who faced reduced earnings reported borrowing from family or friends (66% of those who faced wage reduction), receiving food distribution of the government (23%), borrowing from a micro lenders (MFI) (20%), borrowing from other small lenders (14%), receiving rations from the employer (9%) or receiving cash assistance from the government or from non-governmental institutions (both 4%). Male workers have borrowed from family or friends more often than female workers, and so did workers aged 40-49 and couples with more than two children.

COVID-19 Hygiene at the workplace After return to work workers have assessed hygiene at the workplace and the supply of hygiene facilities. Workers are most positive about the safe distance or space in dining seating areas (56% assesses this as a low risk), followed by the independent use of all work equipment, as opposed to shared (46%). They were least positive about a safe distance between work stations and number of washrooms/toilets, and more than two in ten workers assess the number of washrooms/toilets even as a high risk. Handwashing facilities are by a large majority of the workers assessed as adequate with a low risk. In contrast, gloves were certainly not adequately supplied, as more than seven in ten workers state that these are not adequately supplied. This may be due to the fact that use of gloves could affect workers’ productivity, depending on the occupations.