InVision plans and pricing. Choose the plan that gives you and your team the support it needs to create the world’s best user experiences. Free smoking cigarettes papers, essays, and research papers. 15 almost half of what the National. Ads related to: Native Cigarettes 12 Dollars A Cartoon Results. Convert Yen to US Dollars Foreign Exchange Currency Converter and Calculator. Convert more than 150 world currencies. Live real time FOREX spot prices.

Looking at the nation’s most intriguing experiments in local policy.

The policy: $15 minimum wage

Where: Seattle, Washington

In place since: 2015

The problem:

A Taco Bell in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle shut down a couple hours early in the spring of 2013. All three employees and one off-shift worker walked off the job to protest low wages and work conditions. One of them was Caroline Durocher, a 21-year-old Taco Bell employee, who said the decision was “easy.”

“What we’re getting right now isn’t fair and not right,” she told the Stranger, in reference to her wage of $9.19 an hour, then the city-wide minimum wage. “It’s easy to not think about the person serving you your food.” The very next day, a Burger King, two Subways, and a Chipotle all shut down after employees continued to walk out.

Durocher was part of a nationwide wave of labor activism among the traditionally scattered and disorganized fast-food workforce, made up of largely low-wage workers at the mercy of fast-food franchise owners who set their schedules and pay. The walkouts would eventually help lead to Seattle passing a historic policy that continues to serve as an example to politicians and researchers to this day.

Seattle’s minimum wage hike, which would jack up wages to $15 an hour by 2017 for companies with more than 500 employees, was passed five years ago by the City Council. By 2021, at which time the $15 wage would be phased in for all employers, it would be the highest minimum wage in the country, well north of Washington’s already relatively high wage of just over $9. “Worker voices and folks taking to the street shifted the conversation about it and made the policy feasible,” Rachel Lauter, the executive director of Working Washington, an activist group that helped organize the protests, said.

Today, Seattle’s wage is at $16 for large employers, and $15 for all other employers (unless they provide a certain level of medical benefits or employee tips, which allows them to knock it down to $12 an hour). It remains one of the highest in the country, and a useful case study as we head into a presidential election where a higher minimum wage has become the standard policy position for Democratic candidates.

At the time the Seattle bill was passed, the federal minimum wage had stagnated at $7.25 since 2009, where it still is today. While minimum wage increases are generally popular with voters, they also tend to kick up extreme opposition from business owners, who warn of massive job losses and killing off new businesses. It’s one reason why the minimum wage has stayed so low nationally.

Seattle was a natural place for this progressive policy to pass. It is both a very wealthy city with fairly liberal politics — ranging from socially liberal businesspeople to a democratic socialist on the city council — and a high level of union penetration and a history of disruptive labor activism that goes back to its 1919 general strike. But the bill faced a fair share of opposition. Employers, like restaurant owners, raised the alarm that the new wage would force them to close businesses, raise prices, fire workers, or move their businesses outside of the city limits.

When the policy went into effect in 2015, Seattle’s minimum wage became not only the highest in the nation, but likely the most studied. A group of researchers at the University of Washington, with support from philanthropic groups, have been examining the effects of the wage increase on workers’ hours and take-home pay as well as business closures and the price of some goods like groceries.

What the researchers have found over the last few years is quite a mixed story.

How it worked:

Policymakers are still looking at Seattle as a case study in how a high minimum wage could actually work in practice. The results are complex. But here’s what happened.

Generally, those business owners who threatened to leave Seattle to evade the new wage haven’t been following through. “The restaurant industry moans and groans about minimum wage increase, but the Seattle newspaper every month has a story about 40 new restaurants opening,” said Jennifer Romich, a University of Washington social policy researcher. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of jobs in restaurants and bars in the Seattle area has grown from 134,000 to 158,000 since 2015.) Surveying employers, Romich and other researchers found the most common response to the wage increase was to raise prices or fiddle with workers’ hours, and a “very small percentage were thinking about withdrawing or leaving the city.”

Free 15 Dollars

The story for employees is much more varied. The minimum wage for some large employers jumped from $11 to $13 from 2015 to 2016. The economists observed the impact of the hike in 2017 and found it had dramatic effects on the low-wage workforce and employment.

Not all of them were good. They found that the policy “reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by 6-7 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by 3 percent ... consequently, total payroll for such jobs decreased.” That means the total amount that employers paid to workers was less with the new minimum wage in place than projected payroll if the policy hadn’t gone into effect.

The data, researcher Mark C. Long explained, suggested a “tipping point” between $11 and $13 “when it becomes less tenable to keep work in the city.” (Critics were quick to point out that this likely wasn’t solely due to the minimum wage policy — Seattle’s labor market continued to heat up during that period, reducing the number of low-wage jobs compared to high-wage jobs overall.)

But a year later, the team published another paper that complicated their findings. They looked at the same time period and same wage increase, but this time broke down the actual take-home pay of workers. They found that workers who were already employed at the low end of the wage scale in Seattle “enjoyed significantly more rapid hourly wage growth,” following wage increases in 2015 and 2016.

Those who were already working more hours before the wage increase saw “essentially all of the earnings increases,” while the workers who had fewer hours saw their hours go down, but wages go up enough so that their overall earnings didn’t really change. They theorized that a slowdown in new hiring for low-wage jobs could explain their earlier findings that overall payroll had gone down.

Ultimately, workers already employed either saw their take-home pay go up or stay roughly the same while working fewer hours.

Critics of the UW researchers have seized on Seattle’s uniqueness to discount the UW findings. Ben Zipperer of the liberal Economic Policy Institute wrote that the UW research is based on a “flawed comparison” between Seattle and the rest of the state. He argued that the decline in low wage jobs was due to a hot economy boosting low-wage jobs into high-wage jobs, not the new minimum wage. The data did show, Zipperer argued, that all of the workers they studied were “better off after the minimum wage increase” — higher-hour workers earned more with a higher wage while the low-hour workers got the same pay for less work.

There are still questions about the policy’s impact that are harder to observe, such as new employees who may or may not have been hired had the minimum wage been lower. And of course, the question of whether this would work in any other city remains. “I take this research as a cautionary tale for other cities like Seattle,” Long said, noting that Seattle’s booming labor market, especially at the high end and in technology, “is a very particular thing.”

What all sides would agree on is that the people advocating for a higher minimum wage — those among the already employed like Caroline Durocher who went on strike six years ago — were right to do so.

Matthew Zeitlin is a journalist in New York City.

Millions turn to Vox to understand what’s happening in the news. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Help us keep our work free for all by making a financial contribution from as little as $3.

Free 15 Dollars Amazon

In This Stream

Laboratories of Democracy

View all 15 stories

Expenditures

Question:
How much money does the United States spend on public elementary and secondary schools?

Response:

Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2016–17 amounted to $739 billion, or $14,439 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2018–19 dollars).¹ Total expenditures included $12,794 per pupil in current expenditures, which include salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, tuition, and supplies. Total expenditures per pupil also included $1,266 in capital outlay (expenditures for property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors) and $379 for interest on school debt.

Current expenditures per pupil enrolled in the fall in public elementary and secondary schools were 20 percent higher in 2016–17 than in 2000–01 ($12,794 vs. $10,675, both in constant 2018–19 dollars). Current expenditures per pupil increased from $10,675 in 2000–01 to $12,435 in 2008–09, decreased between 2008–09 and 2012–13 to $11,791, and then increased to $12,794 in 2016–17.

Free 15 Dollar Card

Capital outlay expenditures per pupil in 2016–17 ($1,266) were 10 percent lower than in 2000–01 ($1,412). Interest payments on public elementary and secondary school debt per pupil were 22 percent higher in 2016–17 than in 2000–01. During this period, interest payments per pupil increased from $312 in 2000–01 to $415 in 2010–11, before declining to $379 in 2016–17 (all in constant 2018–19 dollars).

Current expenditures, capital outlay, and interest on school debt per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 2000–01 through 2016–17

NOTE: 'Current expenditures,' 'Capital outlay,' and 'Interest on school debt' are subcategories of total expenditures. Current expenditures include instruction, support services, food services, and enterprise operations (expenditures for operations funded by sales of products and services). Capital outlay includes expenditures for property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors. Expenditures are reported in constant 2018–19 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Some data have been revised from previous figures. Excludes expenditures for state education agencies.

Current expenditures for education can be expressed in terms of the percentage of funds going toward salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, tuition, supplies, or other expenditures. On a national basis in 2016–17, approximately 80 percent of current expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools were for salaries and benefits for staff, compared with 81 percent in 2000–01. As the proportion of current expenditures for staff salaries decreased from 64 percent in 2000–01 to 57 percent in 2016–17, the proportion of current expenditures for employee benefits increased from 17 to 23 percent. Eleven percent of current expenditures in 2016–17 were for purchased services, which include a variety of items, such as contracts for food, transportation, janitorial services, and professional development for teachers. The percentage of the current expenditure distribution going toward purchased services increased from 9 percent in 2000–01 to 11 percent in 2016–17. Seven percent of current expenditures in 2016–17 were for supplies, ranging from books to heating oil. The percentage of current expenditures for supplies decreased about 1 percentage point from 2000–01 to 2016–17. Tuition and other expenditures accounted for 2 percent of current expenditures in both 2000–01 and 2016–17.

¹ Expenditures in this Fast Fact are adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. For this Fast Fact, the CPI is adjusted to a school-year basis. The CPI is prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The Condition of Education 2020 (NCES 2020-144), Public School Expenditures.

Related Tables and Figures:(Listed by Release Date)

Free 15 Dollars

• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.10. Summary of expenditures for public elementary and secondary education and other related programs, by purpose: Selected years, 1919–20 through 2016–17
  
• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.20. Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary education and other related programs, by function and subfunction: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2016-17
  
• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.25. Current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education, by state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1969–70 through 2016–17
  
• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.30. Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary education and other related programs, by function and state or jurisdiction: 2016-17
  
• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.55. Total and current expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1919–20 through 2016–17
  
• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.60. Total and current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by function and subfunction: Selected years, 1990–91 through 2016–17
  
• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.65. Current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1969-70 through 2016-17
  
• 2020, Digest of Education Statistics 2019, Table 236.75. Total and current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by function and state or jurisdiction: 2016-17
  
• 2020, The Condition of Education 2020: Education Expenditures by Country
  
• 2019, Digest of Education Statistics 2018, Table 236.15. Current expenditures and current expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: 1989-90 through 2028-29
  
• 2019, Digest of Education Statistics 2018, Table 236.90. Students transported at public expense and current expenditures for transportation: Selected years, 1929–30 through 2015–16
  

Other Resources:(Listed by Release Date)

• 2020, Common Core of Data (CCD) District Fiscal Reports: These reports contain data on revenues and expenditures per pupil made by school districts.
  
• 2020, Common Core of Data (CCD) State Fiscal Reports: These reports contain state totals of revenues and expenditures. This includes revenues by source and expenditures by function and object, and current expenditures per pupil and instructional expenditures.
  
• 2020, Education Finance Statistics Center (EDFIN): This site provides access to finance information on public elementary/secondary education.
  
• 2020, International Activities Program: This site reports on the state of education in the United States and other nations.
  
• 2020, Projections of Education Statistics to 2028
  
• 2020, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: FY 17
  
• 2020, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: FY 17
  
• 2019, NCES Blog: Collecting School-Level Finance Data: An Evaluation From the Pilot School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS)
  
• 2019, NCES Blog: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Schools Rebound for Third Consecutive Year in School Year 2015–16