Minimum Wage To Change in 15 States, Cities on July 1: Here's Where
Hundreds of thousands of workers across the U.S. are set to get a pay bump starting July 1, as minimum wage increases take effect in more than a dozen states, cities, and counties.
According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), more than 800,000 workers in Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C. alone will see their baseline pay go up next month. Another dozen local jurisdictions-mostly in California-will also implement increases.
The pay hikes come as the federal minimum wage remains stuck at $7.25 per hour, unchanged since 2009. With the cost of living continuing to rise, many states and cities have raised their own minimums through legislation, ballot measures or inflation adjustments.
In Alaska, the minimum wage will rise by $1.09 to $13.00 an hour, an increase approved by voters through a ballot measure. EPI calculates the boost will affect 19,400 workers-about 6.3 percent of Alaska's workforce-and add an average of $925 per year to their paychecks.
Washington, D.C. will raise its minimum by 45 cents to $17.95 an hour due to an automatic inflation adjustment, impacting an estimated 62,200 workers, or 7.5 percent of the city's workforce. The average worker there will earn about $727 more per year.
In Oregon, about 801,700 workers-roughly 9.4 percent of the state's workforce-will see their minimum wage climb 35 cents to $15.05 an hour, also tied to inflation. That's an average annual increase of $420 per worker.
Beyond those statewide and D.C. changes, minimum wages will increase in 12 cities and counties next month.
That includes 10 cities and counties in California, with increases ranging from 45 to 59 cents an hour. New hourly rates will range from about $17.46 in Alameda to nearly $20 in Emeryville-one of the highest local minimum wages in the country. Cities including Berkeley and San Francisco will see their wages climb to $19.18 an hour, while workers in Los Angeles and surrounding areas will earn just under $18.
Outside California, Chicago, Illinois, will boost its minimum wage by 40 cents, bringing it to $16.60 an hour.
And in Maryland, Montgomery County will increase its minimum wage by 50 cents to $17.65 an hour.
The EPI estimates that about 58 percent of workers benefiting from the July 1 hikes are women, while Black and Hispanic workers will also disproportionately gain.
"These minimum wage increases will put more money in workers' pockets, helping many of them and their families make ends meet," EPI state economic analyst Sebastian Martinez Hickey said. "The average increase in annual wages for a full-time, year-round worker resulting from these minimum wage hikes ranges from $420 in Oregon to $925 in Alaska."
Calls to raise the federal wage persist. This month, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Democratic Senator Peter Welch of Vermont introduced a bipartisan bill to lift the federal minimum to $15 per hour-more than double the current rate.
Starting July 1, employers will have to ensure they review the changes made in different cities to minimum wage rates and pay their employees accordingly.
Related Articles
Joe Rogan Trashes US Minimum Wage: 'Disgusting'California Cities To See Minimum Wage Change on July 1Donald Trump Weighs In on Plan To Increase Minimum WageLos Angeles Votes for $30 Minimum Wage
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Schumer to force reading of 1,000-page GOP mega bill, delaying it by half a day
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) told Democratic senators Saturday that he will force the clerks to read the 1,000-page Republican megabill on the Senate floor once Republicans vote to proceed to the legislation, a procedural act of defiance that will take an estimated 12 hours and delay final passage of President Trump's agenda by half a day — at least. Schumer told his caucus to prepare to force a full reading of the bill, according to a Democratic source familiar with the internal discussion over floor strategy. The question is whether Senate GOP leaders will force the clerks to read the bill late into Saturday night and early Sunday morning to complete the time-and energy-consuming task or whether staff will get some time to sleep before the Senate is expected to launch into a multi-hour series of votes known as a vote-a-rama. Senate Republicans were anticipating that Schumer might force a reading of the bill as an act of protest. This is a developing story.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Biden, Harris and Walz attend funeral for former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman
MINNEAPOLIS — Democratic former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman was honored for her legislative accomplishments and her humanity during a funeral Saturday where former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris joined the over 1,000 mourners. Hortman was shot to death in a pair of attacks two weeks earlier by a man posing as a police officer that Minnesota's chief federal prosecutor has called an assassination. The shootings also left her husband, Mark, dead and a state senator and his wife seriously wounded. 'Melissa Hortman will be remembered as the most consequential speaker in Minnesota history. I get to remember her as a close friend, a mentor, and the most talented legislator I have ever known,' Gov. Tim Walz said in his eulogy. 'For seven years, I have had the privilege of signing her agenda into law. I know millions of Minnesotans get to live their lives better because she and Mark chose public service and politics.' Neither Biden nor Harris spoke, but they said in the front row with the governor, who was Harris' running mate in 2024. Biden was also one of more than 7,500 people who paid their respects Friday as Hortman, her husband, Mark, and their golden retriever, Gilbert, lay in state in the Minnesota Capitol rotunda in St. Paul. Gilbert was seriously wounded in the attack and had to be euthanized. Biden also visited the wounded senator in a hospital. Dozens of current and former state legislators from both parties and other elected officials who worked with Hortman also attended. Hortman, who was first elected in 2004, helped pass an expansive agenda of liberal initiatives like free lunches for public school students during the momentous 2023 session as the chamber's speaker, along with expanded protections for abortion and trans rights. With the House split 67-67 between Democrats and Republicans this year, she yielded the gavel to a Republican under a power-sharing deal, took the title speaker emerita, and helped break a budget impasse that threatened to shut down state government. Walz said Hortman saw her mission as 'to get as much good done for as many people as possible.' And he said her focus on people was what made her so effective. 'She certainly knew how to get her way. No doubt about that,' Walz said. 'But she never made anyone feel that they'd gotten rolled at a negotiating table. That wasn't part of it for her, or a part of who she was. She didn't need somebody else to lose to win for her.' The governor said the best way to honor the Hortmans would be by following their example. 'Maybe it is this moment where each of us can examine the way we work together, the way we talk about each other, the way we fight for things we care about,' Walz said. 'A moment when each of us can recommit to engaging in politics and life the way Mark and Melissa did — fiercely, enthusiastically, heartily, but without ever losing sight of our common humanity.' The Rev. Daniel Griffith, pastor and rector of the Basilica, who led the service, said the country is in need of deep healing. He said it seems as if the U.S. is living in the 'dystopian reality' described at the beginning of William Butler Yeats' poem, 'The Second Coming.' 'Here in Minnesota, we have been the ground zero place, sadly, for racial injustice,' Griffith said. 'The killing of George Floyd just miles from our church today. And now we are the ground zero place for political violence and extremism. Both of these must be decried in the strongest possible terms, as they are, respectively, a threat to human dignity and indeed, our democracy.' But the priest also said Minnesota could also be 'a ground zero place for restoration and justice and healing.' He added that the presence of so many people was a sign that that work can succeed. Archbishop Bernard Hebda of the Saint Paul and Minneapolis Archdiocese offered his condolences to the Hortman family. A private burial will be held at a later date. The Hortmans were proud of their adult children, Sophie and Colin Hortman, and the lawmaker often spoke of them. In a voice choked with emotion, Colin said his parents embodied the Golden Rule, and he read the Prayer of St. Francis, which his mother always kept in her wallet. He said it captures her essence. It starts, 'Lord make me an instrument of your peace.' After the service, Walz presented the children with U.S. and Minnesota flags that flew over the Capitol on the day their parents were killed. The man accused of killing the Hortmans at their home in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park on June 14, and wounding Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, at their home in nearby Champlin, made a brief court appearance Friday. He's due back in court Thursday. Vance Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, surrendered near his home the night of June 15 after what authorities called the largest search in Minnesota history. Boelter remains jailed and has not entered a plea. Prosecutors need to secure a grand jury indictment first. His lawyers have declined to comment on the charges, which could carry the federal death penalty. Friends have described Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views. But prosecutors have declined so far to speculate on a motive.
