A decent living
The federal minimum wage in the United States establishes the lowest hourly pay rate employers can legally offer to employees. This "wage floor" acts as a safeguard to protect workers, particularly those in low-skilled or entry-level positions, from receiving wages too low to meet basic living expenses. Instituted as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, the minimum wage was intended to help alleviate poverty, establish a fairer economy, and promote greater wage equity across the workforce. Although the minimum wage remains an essential component of U.S. labor policy, it has also become a focal point of complex economic debates about its impacts on employment, business costs, and living standards.
The federal minimum wage provides workers with a basic level of income protection, helping ensure that people in low-wage jobs receive fair compensation. Many of these workers have limited bargaining power when negotiating wages, especially in positions where turnover is high and skill requirements are relatively low. The minimum wage thus plays a critical role in shaping the earnings of millions of Americans, especially those at the lowest rungs of the income ladder. Beyond its role as a safeguard, the minimum wage is also intended to support workers in meeting the cost of living, which includes essential expenses like food, housing, and healthcare. Over time, this cost of living has increased, often more rapidly than the minimum wage itself. Today, the minimum wage stands at $7.25 per hour, a rate that has not changed since 2009, despite rising costs in many areas of the country. Adjusted for inflation, a minimum wage of $7.25 in 2009 would be $11.30. On the contrary, $7.25 in 2024 is equivalent to $4.65 in 2009.
Given that the minimum wage applies nationwide, states and municipalities are allowed to set higher minimum wages to better address local economic conditions. For instance, states and cities with higher costs of living—such as California, New York, and Seattle—have adopted minimum wages significantly above the federal standard to ensure workers in those areas can maintain a basic standard of living. These regional adjustments are crucial for areas with substantial variations in housing costs and other living expenses, allowing for wage structures that better match the financial realities of different regions.
The minimum wage significantly affects the U.S. economy, particularly for low-wage workers who rely on it as a financial guarantee. By ensuring a minimum standard of income, the wage floor prevents workers from falling below a certain level of economic security, which is particularly important for individuals with few other financial protections. A minimum wage also stabilizes purchasing power among low-income workers. When individuals earn more, they typically spend more on essentials, increasing demand for goods and services and ultimately helping stimulate economic growth. Increased spending by low-wage workers can lead to more robust consumer demand, prompting businesses to hire more employees to meet this demand, which can positively impact job creation and even lead to wage increases for other workers.
However, the impact of the minimum wage on employment is complex and remains an area of active economic research. While some studies suggest that modest minimum wage increases have minimal effects on employment, others argue that a significantly higher minimum wage could force businesses to reduce their workforce or cut hours to manage labor costs. This debate often centers on small businesses, which may have more limited financial flexibility than large corporations, and thus may be disproportionately affected by minimum wage increases.
The minimum wage is the subject of ongoing debate, with both economic and political considerations influencing perspectives. Advocates for increasing the minimum wage argue that it could alleviate poverty, reduce income inequality, and lessen reliance on government assistance programs. A higher minimum wage, they contend, would enable low-income workers to afford basic living expenses without requiring supplemental income from programs like food stamps or Medicaid. Additionally, raising the minimum wage could help promote a more equitable economy, as those in low-wage jobs would see their earnings rise, reducing the gap between high- and low-income earners.
Opponents, however, caution that raising the minimum wage could lead to unintended consequences, particularly for small businesses. Higher labor costs might prompt employers to reduce their workforce, cut hours, or even increase automation to offset increased expenses. Critics also warn that rapid increases in the minimum wage could contribute to inflation, as businesses may pass higher labor costs onto consumers in the form of price hikes, which could ultimately undermine the benefits of wage increases by raising the cost of living.
Another dimension of this debate involves the need for regular adjustments to keep pace with inflation. The current minimum wage of $7.25 has not changed since 2009, meaning its purchasing power has significantly diminished over time. Many economists argue that tying minimum wage adjustments to inflation would preserve workers’ purchasing power without requiring frequent legislative intervention. Several states have already adopted this model, allowing minimum wages to automatically increase based on inflation rates, thus ensuring that wages retain their real value over time.
The minimum wage has far-reaching implications not only for low-wage workers but for society as a whole. For many, particularly those in transitional life stages such as students, single parents, or individuals gaining work experience, the minimum wage serves as a critical financial safety net. This is especially true for workers in entry-level or part-time positions who rely on minimum wage jobs as their primary source of income. By offering a wage floor, the minimum wage helps reduce the likelihood that workers will fall into extreme poverty, enabling them to cover essential expenses and achieve a modest level of economic security.
It also plays a role in addressing income inequality, which refers to the economic gap between the highest and lowest earners. When set at an appropriate level, the minimum wage can help reduce extreme income disparities, as it lifts the earnings of those at the bottom of the wage scale. This effect can contribute to a more equitable distribution of income and lessen reliance on government welfare programs. Additionally, some research suggests that a higher minimum wage could improve mental and physical health outcomes for low-wage workers, who often experience stress related to financial insecurity. With higher wages, individuals are better able to afford healthcare, access nutritious food, and secure stable housing, all of which contribute to improved well-being.
The concept of a minimum wage as a tool for reducing income inequality and improving workers’ well-being has deep roots, stretching back to the social and economic upheavals of the early 20th century. During this period, the rapid industrialization of the United States transformed the workforce. Factories, mills, and manufacturing plants became dominant employers, often hiring large numbers of unskilled and immigrant workers. Many of these workers endured grueling workdays, unsafe environments, and wages that barely covered the basic costs of living. As labor conditions deteriorated, social reformers and labor unions began advocating for protections to ensure workers’ fair treatment and financial security. These efforts became part of the larger Progressive Movement, which aimed to address social injustices and promote reforms across society, including labor protections like minimum wage laws.
The first state-level minimum wage law in the United States was implemented in Massachusetts in 1912, though it applied only to women and minors. Massachusetts’ minimum wage law marked the beginning of state-led efforts to set wage floors, and other states, particularly in the Northeast, soon followed. By the early 1920s, around a dozen states had passed minimum wage laws. However, these early laws were limited in scope and weak in enforcement; they applied selectively and lacked regulatory mechanisms to hold employers accountable. As a result, many of these early minimum wage laws served as more symbolic gestures than practical solutions to wage inequality.
Legal challenges also slowed the progress of minimum wage protections. In Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that minimum wage laws infringed on the freedom of contract protected by the Fifth Amendment, effectively curtailing states’ efforts to set wage standards. For nearly a decade, this ruling discouraged lawmakers from pursuing minimum wage laws, as minimum wage continued to be viewed as an infringement on business autonomy and economic freedom.
A pivotal shift occurred during the Great Depression, a time when wages plummeted, and millions of Americans faced economic hardship. Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected in 1932, sought to revive the economy by increasing purchasing power and providing relief to the unemployed and underpaid. Under Roosevelt’s New Deal, labor reform was a cornerstone, driven by the belief that economic recovery required both job security and fair wages. Roosevelt’s administration initially attempted to introduce wage standards through the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which encouraged industries to establish “codes of fair competition.” These codes included minimum wages, maximum hours, and other labor protections. However, the NIRA faced legal challenges, and in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, putting minimum wage protections on shaky ground once again.
The turning point came in 1938 with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This landmark federal law established the first-ever federal minimum wage at $0.25 per hour (which is equivalent to about $5 today, and more than the current adjusted minimum wage of $4.65), aimed at providing a base wage for workers in industries where exploitation was most prevalent, including manufacturing and retail. The FLSA initially covered about 20% of the workforce and introduced a comprehensive approach to wage protection, also mandating maximum working hours and overtime pay. Although the FLSA faced opposition from business groups who feared increased labor costs, Roosevelt’s administration justified the law as essential for boosting consumer purchasing power and stabilizing the economy. When a Supreme Court challenge to the FLSA ultimately upheld its constitutionality, it solidified the foundation for future wage and labor protections.
After World War II, the U.S. economy experienced significant growth, and wages increased across various sectors. This economic expansion allowed for broader application and enforcement of the FLSA. Congress gradually amended the FLSA, extending minimum wage protections to more workers and raising the minimum wage periodically to reflect rising living costs and inflation. By the 1960s, coverage under the FLSA had expanded to include public sector employees, hotel and restaurant workers, and other previously excluded categories. This extension marked a critical expansion of federal labor protections and highlighted the minimum wage’s role in supporting a fairer economic structure.
During the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, minimum wage protections became more explicitly connected to the fight against racial and economic inequality. Many low-wage positions were held by African Americans and other minority groups, who often lacked access to stable, well-paying jobs. Amendments to the FLSA in 1966 expanded minimum wage protections to service industries such as healthcare, education, and retail, driven partly by the desire to combat poverty among minority populations. The 1966 amendments underscored the minimum wage as a tool for promoting economic equity, particularly in disadvantaged communities where higher wages could provide a pathway out of poverty.
In the early 1970s, the U.S. economy entered a period of "stagflation," characterized by high inflation and stagnant wages. To counter the diminishing purchasing power of workers, Congress implemented several federal minimum wage increases throughout the decade, raising the rate from $1.60 per hour in 1970 to $2.90 by 1979. These adjustments, largely occurring under President Jimmy Carter’s administration, aimed to keep wages in line with inflation. However, inflation continued to rise, and the real value of these wages was eroded, despite the regular increases.
Between 1960 and 1980, the federal minimum wage was raised on average every 1.8 years.
The 1980s marked another turning point in minimum wage policy, with a shift toward reducing government intervention in the economy. President Ronald Reagan, a strong advocate for free-market principles, argued that a higher minimum wage could lead to job losses, particularly among young and low-skilled workers. As a result, there were no increases in the minimum wage throughout Reagan's two terms from 1981 to 1989. Instead, Reagan's administration emphasized reducing regulatory constraints on businesses, which they believed would foster economic growth and job creation. However, the lack of adjustment meant that, as inflation continued, the real value of the minimum wage fell, widening the gap between low-wage workers and the cost of living.
In the 1990s, as the economic climate shifted, there was renewed focus on raising the federal minimum wage. President George H.W. Bush signed legislation in 1990 that raised the minimum wage to $4.25 an hour, the first increase in almost a decade. His successor, President Bill Clinton, expanded on this progress. Clinton argued that minimum wage increases were necessary to support working families and reduce poverty. Under Clinton’s administration, the minimum wage increased twice, reaching $5.15 per hour by 1997. Clinton framed these adjustments as necessary for maintaining economic fairness, citing the need for wages to keep up with productivity gains and living costs.
During the early 2000s, the minimum wage remained stagnant, holding at $5.15 per hour despite rising costs of living. President George W. Bush’s administration initially resisted calls for an increase, prioritizing tax cuts and free-market approaches to boost employment. However, by 2007, bipartisan support for a minimum wage increase emerged in Congress, leading to the Fair Minimum Wage Act. This legislation raised the minimum wage incrementally to $7.25 per hour over three years, reaching this rate in 2009. This increase marked the last time the minimum wage was adjusted and was intended to help workers catch up to rising costs of living.
From 1938, when minimum wage started, to 2009, the last time it was increased, the minimum wage increased every 3.18 years on average. It has been 15 years since the last minimum wage increase.
The 2010s saw a surge in advocacy for a higher federal minimum wage, driven by widening income inequality, rising living costs, and stagnating wage growth. While the minimum wage remained at $7.25, calls to raise it to $10, $12, or even $15 per hour gained momentum. The "Fight for $15" movement, initiated by fast-food and retail workers in 2012, highlighted the struggles of low-wage workers who faced difficulty affording basic expenses. This movement put pressure on policymakers to address the growing wage gap.
President Barack Obama advocated for an increase to $10.10 per hour, a proposal that he supported by signing an executive order in 2014 to set this rate as the minimum for federal contract workers. Despite public support for a higher minimum wage, efforts to pass legislation raising the federal rate stalled in Congress. As a result, many states and cities took matters into their own hands, enacting minimum wage laws that often exceeded the federal rate. By the end of Obama’s term, several states and cities had adopted minimum wages of $10 or higher, with cities like Seattle leading the way by setting rates that eventually reached $15.
The debate over the minimum wage has grown increasingly urgent in the 2020s, as stagnant wages continue to impact millions of American workers. President Joe Biden, recognizing the hardship caused by wage stagnation, made raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour a core commitment of his platform, framing it as a critical tool for reducing poverty and ensuring that full-time workers can afford basic living expenses. Biden’s initial attempt to include the $15 minimum wage in the 2021 COVID-19 relief package was met with resistance and eventually dropped due to parliamentary technicalities in the Senate. Despite this setback, Biden moved forward with an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15, a meaningful but limited step.
Currently, broader efforts to increase the minimum wage remain stalled in Congress, with Republican opposition playing a significant role. This opposition raises questions about the commitment to address economic inequality and the challenges faced by low-income workers. Republicans argue that raising the minimum wage would burden small businesses and potentially lead to job losses. However, this perspective overlooks significant evidence showing that modest minimum wage increases tend to have minimal effects on employment. Critics argue that by blocking minimum wage hikes, Republicans are effectively ignoring the reality of rising living costs, which has made $7.25—set in 2009—woefully insufficient to cover basic needs in today’s economy.
The federal minimum wage's stagnation is particularly troubling given the growing support among voters for an increase. Over half of U.S. states have already enacted minimum wage levels above the federal rate, indicating widespread acknowledgment of the inadequacy of $7.25 per hour. This state-led progress underscores the failure of federal policymakers to address a fundamental issue affecting working Americans. By refusing to consider even modest increases or adjustments tied to inflation, Republican leaders are arguably contributing to widening economic inequality, as millions of low-wage workers continue to earn wages that don’t keep pace with the cost of living.
The persistent opposition to raising the minimum wage has also highlighted the broader ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans on economic fairness. While Democrats advocate for wage adjustments to help bridge income gaps and reduce dependency on government assistance, Republicans’ continued resistance suggests a prioritization of business interests over worker welfare. This inaction effectively perpetuates poverty wages for millions of workers, a contradiction to the notion of a fair, thriving economy where hard work translates into economic security. As public support grows and states continue to set higher wage floors, the question remains why federal lawmakers—particularly Republicans—continue to resist an issue that resonates so deeply with the American public.
One of the central arguments in the Republican case against raising the minimum wage is the claim that it would inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers, harming the very people it intends to help. However, empirical evidence to support this claim is scarce. Studies have shown that modest increases in the minimum wage do not correlate with significant price hikes; instead, they often result in marginally higher costs that are manageable within a broader economic context. For instance, research from the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research suggests that while certain industries—such as fast food—may experience small price increases, these adjustments do not significantly impact consumer spending or demand.
Furthermore, proponents of higher wages argue that the economic benefits of a well-compensated workforce far outweigh the potential costs. Increased wages provide low-income workers with greater spending power, stimulating demand for goods and services and driving economic growth. This multiplier effect ultimately benefits businesses and consumers alike, making the argument that higher minimum wages harm the economy or raise prices seem fundamentally flawed. In fact, regions that have raised their minimum wages, such as California and New York, have seen economic stability and even growth, with no evidence of negative consequences for consumers.
In contrast to the purported risks of minimum wage increases, there is mounting evidence that corporate greed, not wage hikes, drives price increases. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, many large corporations capitalized on inflation fears to justify price surges, despite experiencing record-breaking profits. While supply chain disruptions and labor shortages did contribute to rising costs, companies in sectors such as retail, food production, and transportation used these challenges as a pretext for excessive price increases. This corporate strategy not only allowed businesses to inflate prices but also exploited public anxiety around inflation, creating the false impression that external economic pressures, rather than profit motives, were responsible.
Additionally, many corporations continued to keep wages low despite widespread acknowledgment of inflation’s impact on workers' cost of living. Essential workers, who were hailed as heroes during the pandemic, received little in terms of wage increases, even as corporations saw unprecedented financial gains. This stark disparity highlights a fundamental issue within the Republican defense of corporate interests: while they claim that raising the minimum wage would harm businesses and consumers, they overlook how corporations willingly raise prices to benefit shareholders, often at the expense of the working class.
The Republican approach to minimum wage legislation must be understood within the broader context of the party’s alignment with corporate interests. For decades, Republican policy has emphasized tax cuts, deregulation, and other measures that favor large corporations and wealthy individuals, reinforcing economic structures that keep wages low and inequality high. By opposing minimum wage increases, Republicans effectively bolster the profitability of big businesses that rely on low-wage labor, creating a labor market that undervalues workers’ contributions and places corporate wealth above working-class welfare.
In the current political climate, Republicans have continued to advocate for economic policies that favor corporate interests, such as opposing unionization efforts and supporting tax breaks for the wealthy. This approach aligns with their resistance to minimum wage increases, which would challenge corporate profit margins. By championing these policies, Republicans contribute to an economic environment where corporate interests are prioritized, and workers are denied a living wage. This structural inequity becomes even more glaring when contrasted with the inflated executive compensation packages and record-breaking profits that corporations report each year.
Historically, much of America’s economic power was built on exploitative labor systems that created prosperity for a privileged few while marginalizing millions. The Republican appeal to restore traditional American “greatness” echoes a troubling return to a period where workers had few rights, unions were weak or nonexistent, and wages were kept artificially low to benefit the upper echelons of society. Their resistance to minimum wage increases and their broader alignment with corporate interests are indicative of this desire to sustain a system of economic inequality. The objective is to create a workforce that has limited options, reliant on low-wage jobs to survive, which keeps labor cheap and maintains profit margins for those at the top.
This structure effectively transforms the working class into a “slave class” of sorts—not in the literal sense of forced servitude, but in the context of economic bondage where individuals must work multiple jobs to make ends meet, unable to escape poverty despite working full-time. By fighting against wage increases, Republicans reinforce an economy where the poor remain poor, dependent on minimum-wage jobs that barely cover basic living costs. This economic entrapment serves corporate interests by ensuring a steady supply of cheap labor that maximizes profit for shareholders, a setup that remains fundamentally unchallenged under the recent Republican agenda.
The Republican movement’s resistance to policies that would alleviate poverty—such as increasing the minimum wage, expanding healthcare access, or supporting labor rights—reveals a vision of America that sustains wealth disparity as a cornerstone of national “greatness.” Republicans’ resistance to wage increases is thus not just an economic stance; it is part of a larger ideological commitment to a hierarchical society where the wealthy retain power over a disenfranchised labor force.
To maintain this hierarchy, the Republican Party often promotes narratives that stigmatize the poor, suggesting that hard work alone is the solution to poverty, while conveniently ignoring structural barriers that make upward mobility impossible for many. This rhetoric justifies an economic structure that keeps working-class Americans in a state of perpetual struggle, which is particularly evident in the refusal to raise the minimum wage. In effect, the “greatness” relies on preserving a system that not only tolerates poverty but uses it as a tool for corporate growth and the consolidation of wealth.
By opposing minimum wage increases and enacting policies that favor corporate interests, the Republican Party contributes to the formation of a modern “slave class.” This class comprises individuals who work tirelessly yet struggle to escape poverty due to artificially low wages, lack of worker protections, and limited social support. “MAGA”, then, becomes a call not for inclusive prosperity but for a return to an economy where labor serves capital, and where the wealthy elite benefit from the economic desperation of the masses.
This dynamic was especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, as corporations posted record profits while frontline and essential workers—many earning minimum wage—remained financially vulnerable. Instead of raising wages to reflect the essential nature of their work, corporations and their political allies resisted, arguing that wage increases would burden businesses. While employees in higher-level positions could transition to working from home, essential workers, whom businesses heavily depended on, were required to work on-site, increasing their risk of contracting COVID-19. Meanwhile, shareholders and executives reaped substantial financial gains, underscoring how the system championed by Republicans relies on a low-wage labor force that lacks the power to demand fair compensation, thus perpetuating a cycle of exploitation.
While Republicans are often criticized for prioritizing corporate interests over the welfare of working-class Americans, it is essential to recognize that Democrats are not without similar criticisms. The Democratic Party, despite its claims of being the champion of labor rights and economic equity, also has deep-rooted ties to corporate interests, which occasionally compromise its commitment to progressive economic policies. However, unlike the Republican Party, Democrats have historically demonstrated a stronger track record of attempting to raise the minimum wage, reflecting a more consistent, if imperfect, stance in support of low-wage workers. Notably, recent Democratic presidents, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have made efforts to increase the minimum wage to combat rising income inequality, with Obama pushing for a $10 federal minimum wage and Biden advocating for a $15 standard.
Democrats, much like their Republican counterparts, are influenced by corporate donations and lobbying efforts. These ties occasionally lead to policy compromises that favor business interests over progressive reforms. For example, the party has often faced internal divisions over issues like healthcare reform, financial regulation, and tax policy, partly due to corporate influences within its ranks. Some centrist and conservative-leaning Democrats, often backed by large corporate donors, have shown reluctance to support substantial wage increases or labor reforms, weakening the party's unified stance on minimum wage policies. This inconsistency has, at times, diluted the Democrats' reputation as the defenders of the working class, raising questions about their commitment to addressing the root causes of income inequality.
Despite these corporate ties, Democratic administrations have historically been more proactive than Republicans in pursuing minimum wage increases. Since the 1938 introduction of the federal minimum wage under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, wage increases have generally aligned with Democratic presidencies. This pattern has reinforced the perception that Democrats are more aligned with working-class issues, even if corporate influence still complicates their policy decisions. This is also supported by data that shows the support for a $15 minimum wage is extremely strong among Democratic voters — 86 percent in favor — and less strong among Republican voters, at 43 percent.
During his presidency, Obama made a concerted effort to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, aiming to improve the quality of life for low-wage workers. Although this initiative faced considerable opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress, Obama’s advocacy highlighted a genuine push from the Democratic administration to address wage stagnation. His efforts did lead to minimum wage increases for federal contract workers and helped spark a broader conversation about wage reform at both the state and federal levels.
Biden, upon taking office in 2021, endorsed a $15 minimum wage, marking one of the most ambitious minimum wage proposals from a sitting president. Although this initiative ultimately stalled in Congress, Biden’s support for a $15 minimum wage represented a significant shift toward a higher standard of living for millions of American workers. Additionally, Biden’s administration has sought to raise wages for federal contractors and has advocated for policies that support workers’ rights to unionize, signaling a commitment to economic reform even amid corporate pressure.
While Democrats have not always succeeded in passing substantial wage increases, their repeated efforts underscore a broader ideological alignment with labor rights and income equality. In contrast, Republican administrations have consistently opposed federal wage hikes, suggesting a more definitive prioritization of corporate interests over working-class needs.
Despite the Democrats’ stronger track record on wage increases, critics argue that their approach has often been too incremental to effectively address the depth of income inequality in America. The push for a $15 minimum wage, while substantial, came years after activists and labor organizers began advocating for this amount, highlighting a lag in policy adoption. Additionally, many Democratic politicians have proposed wage increases without aggressively pursuing the structural reforms—such as stronger union protections, affordable healthcare, and robust social safety nets—that would amplify the impact of these policies for low-income Americans.
Furthermore, corporate influence has occasionally tempered the Democrats’ minimum wage advocacy. For example, several prominent Democratic lawmakers with ties to big business expressed concerns about the $15 minimum wage proposal, worried about its impact on small businesses and industries with low profit margins. This internal resistance within the Democratic Party has sometimes undermined its efforts to build a cohesive, powerful agenda to support the working class.
The minimum wage was established as a safeguard for American workers, ensuring they could cover essential expenses and maintain a basic quality of life. When set at a livable level, it not only benefits individual workers but also strengthens local economies by enhancing spending power and reducing reliance on public assistance. However, efforts to raise the minimum wage have consistently met resistance, especially from Republican politicians, who argue that it would harm businesses and economic growth. This persistent opposition contributes to what many see as a “neo-slave” class—low-wage workers trapped in a cycle of economic struggle, often working multiple jobs with little opportunity for financial advancement. Instead of financial independence, these workers are bound to a system that prioritizes corporate profits over fair wages, perpetuating modern economic exploitation.
This cycle of hardship is compounded by additional financial burdens like student loans, healthcare debt, mortgage obligations, and other expenses that have only grown over time. Democrats have pushed to address these financial strains through initiatives aimed at debt relief, affordable healthcare, and economic support, but Republicans have frequently opposed these measures, arguing that they create dependency and harm the economy. This resistance to financial support reforms exacerbates the difficulties faced by low-wage workers, leaving them economically constrained and often dependent on low-paying jobs to simply survive, creating a broader system that continues to favor corporate wealth over the welfare of working Americans.
