“Who Would be Affected by an Increase in Seattle’s Minimum Wage?” Report for the City of Seattle, Income Inequality Advisory Committee March 21, 2014 Prof. Marieka M. Klawitter Prof. Mark C. Long Prof. Robert D. Plotnick Acknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge the excellent research services provided by Ruth Allanbrook, Pierre Biscaye, Katie Escudero, and Dr. Jason Williams. We would like to give a special thanks and acknowledgement to the Employment Security Department of Washington State for sharing data and particularly Scott Bailey for doing the coding which helped generate the statistics included in Part B of this report. Page 1 of 60 Executive Summary This report describes the characteristics of low-wage workers living or working in Seattle, the size and employees of local businesses, and the costs of living in Seattle. Most of the analysis focuses on Seattle residents, but we also look at how many Seattle workers live outside the city. A: Worker Characteristics (pages 5 to 17): • About a third of Seattle residents earn less than $15 per hour, compared to only 19% of those who work in Seattle and live outside of the city • About 100,000 people working in Seattle earn less than $15 per hour. • 40% of those working in Seattle and earning minimum wage live outside the city. • Among the lowest wage Seattle residents, 55% work in the city-- lower than for all workers (63%). Low wages are more likely among workers with characteristics typically associated with low wages: younger workers, less education, being female or a racial/ethnic minority, poor, or receiving public assistance. • • However, the majority of those earning low wages mirror the population: non-poor, some college education, white, and not receiving public assistance. • Family incomes are lowest for Seattle residents earning minimum wage (median of $16,853 per year) and highest for those earning over $18 per hour (median of $89,780); in between they are fairly flat with medians between $30,000 and $35,000. • The most common occupations for low-wage workers are: Food Preparation and Serving, Sales, Office and Administrative Support, Personal Care and Service, and Transportation and Material Moving. • The most common industries for low-wage workers are: Accommodations and Food Services, Retail Trade, Health Care and Social Assistance, and Educational Services. B: Business Characteristics (pages 18 to 26): • Three-quarters of Seattle’s establishments have fewer than 10 employees, but less than 12% of workers in Seattle are employed by an establishment with fewer than 10 employees. • Only 3 percent of Seattle establishments have 30% or more of their FTEs earning the state minimum wage. A much larger share of Seattle establishments (27%) have 30% or more of their FTEs earning $15 or less. • Less that 20% of Seattle establishments with a large proportion of low-wage workers (30% or more of their FTEs) operate in other Washington jurisdictions in addition to Seattle. C: Poverty and Work in Seattle (Pages 27 to 29) • 13.6% of Seattle residents had income below the official poverty line in 2012. Page 2 of 60 • Half of poor persons age 16 or older worked at least one week in the past year. They worked an average of 27 weeks per year. D. Estimates of Living Costs (pages 30 to 35) • “Living wage” incomes have been calculated by 3 organizations to estimate living expenses by family size. • Estimates of living wages for Seattle residents vary widely depending on family size and the authors’ methods. They range from $7.72 per hour for a childless couple with two full time workers to $25.44 for a single parent of one child. E: Comparison of Seattle workers and costs to other cities (page 36-40) • Seattle’s low wage workers are similar to those in Denver, Portland, Sacramento and San Francisco in gender and disability status. For the other demographic characteristics, there is no overall pattern to the differences. • The cost of a modest standard of living in Seattle is significantly lower than in San Diego or San Francisco and similar to Sacramento’s. Depending on the method, it is either comparable to Denver’s and Portland’s, or 10-15% higher. F: Possible Changes in Poverty, Earnings, Basic Food, and Business Costs (pages 41 to 47): We have made simple simulations of maximum possible changes in earnings, food stamp eligibility, poverty, and business payrolls. These estimates do not account for any possible adjustments in employment or businesses. • If there were no changes in the labor market (which is unlikely), typical employees earning the minimum wage of $9.32 and working 1,040 hours a year could see their annual earnings increase by up to $2,912 (30%) if the minimum wage increased to $12.12. Fully employed workers’ earnings could increase by $5,600. • With a minimum wage increase to $15.00, employees making the current minimum wage could increase their earnings by $5,907 (61%) if they worked the median (1,040) hours or $11,360 if they worked full-time all year. • For a family of three with median family income for $9.32 workers, food stamp benefits could drop from $348 dollars to $227 with a $12.12 minimum wage, and to $75 with a $15 wage. Drops would be less for workers working fewer hours and benefit levels are lower for smaller households. • An increase in the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour is simulated to reduce poverty from 13.6% to 9.4% if employment and hours did not change. Nearly three-quarters of this decline would be achieved by raising the minimum wage to $12.12 per hour, with the poverty rate falling from 13.6% to 10.6%. • Changes in payroll costs attributable to changes in the minimum wage depend on the number of workers earning less than the new minimum wage. In three hypothetical businesses, we found Page 3 of 60 payroll costs could increase by 9 to 23% with a change to a $15 minimum wage. This would be higher if employers maintained pay ladders by increasing wages for other workers and lower if employers decreased work hours, hired more productive workers, or moved employment outside the city. Appendix A: American Community Survey Data and Sample Appendix B: Maps of Geographic Areas Used in the Analysis Appendix C: Business Scenarios for $12.12 Minimum Wage Appendix D: Complete Tables for Business Characteristics Appendix E: Treatment of Taxes and Budget Components by the Calculators Appendix F: Comparison of 2012 and 2007 Survey data Appendix G: Complete Tables of Worker Demographics Page 4 of 60 A. Worker and Job Characteristics of Low-wage workers Page 5 of 60 A. Worker and Job Characteristics of Low-wage workers living in Seattle We use data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to analyze the demographics of workers and households. Data from 2007 allows us to calculate hourly wages for workers which are adjusted to 2013 dollars using the Consumer Price index. 1 We do this by dividing total annual earnings for each worker by the number of weeks worked in the year multiplied by the “usual” number of hours worked in a week. [See Appendix A for details on question wording. See Appendix F for a comparison of 2007 workers to the most recent data from 2012.] These analyses use Seattle residents over age 16 who worked in the last year, but whose most recent job was not self-employment or as an unpaid family worker. Our key comparisons look at the number and percentage of workers in the following wage categories: • • • State minimum wage or less (up to $9.32 in 2014); 2 $9.33 to $12.12 (130% of state minimum in 2014); $12.13 to $15 per hour (161% of minimum). In the Appendix tables, we have numbers of workers for all categories including those with wages from $15 to $18 per hour (193% of minimum wage) and over $18 per hour for comparison. 3 The tables below show demographic and job characteristics for workers who live in Seattle. We report on poverty, receipt of needs tested benefits, education, age, race/ethnicity, gender, presence of children, hours and weeks of work, work sector, industry, occupation, and location of home and job. The appendices show similar results for those in the areas immediately surrounding Seattle and in the rest of King County. In the analyses, we present the proportion in each demographic group with low wages to illustrate which groups have higher risk of earning low wages. Many of these groups are a small portion of the employed workers in Seattle, so we also present the proportion of low-wage workers with each demographic characteristic. For example, those who have not completed high school are the most likely to be in the lowest two wage categories, but since Seattle has a relatively educated population, those without a high school degree make up only a small proportion of all workers with low wages. 1 The exact number of weeks worked per year, needed to calculate hourly earnings, was not asked in the ACS after 2007. Alternative data sets with wage rates (e.g., Current Population Survey) will not allow for analysis of geographic areas smaller than states or full metropolitan areas. 2 Wages may be lower than minimum because of hours or weeks in uncovered employment; volunteer or unpaid work included in reported numbers of “usual hours worked;” or misreporting of earnings, weeks, or hours. See Appendix A for question wording. 3 Workers at wages just above any new minimum wage may also receive increases to maintain pay ladders. Page 6 of 60 A1. Wage Level by Residence and Work location About a third of Seattle residents earn less than $15 per hour, compared to only 19% of those who work in Seattle and live outside of the city. • 11% of Seattle residents who work in Seattle earn the current minimum wage or less compared to 15% of residents who work outside the city and 7% of non-residents who work in Seattle. A: Percent of Employees who earn: Workers in Seattle Live and Work in Seattle Live in Seattle, Work outside Live outside Seattle, Work in Seattle <=$9.32 $9.33 12.12 $12.13 - 15 $15.01 to $18 Over $18 Total $15 or under 11% 9% 9% 8% 64% 29% 15% 9% 9% 8% 59% 33% 7% 6% 6% 8% 73% 19% • 41,936 of Seattle residents earn $9.32 or less and 101,347 earn less than $15. • 37,915 people working in Seattle earn $9.32 or less and 101,709 people working in Seattle earn less than $15 per hour. • 40% of workers in Seattle earning minimum wage live outside the city. ` Estimated Number of Workers Seattle Residence and work location Live and Work in Seattle Live in Seattle, Work outside Live outside Seattle, Work in Seattle <=$9.32 $9.33 12.12 $12.13 - 15 $15.01 to $18 Over $18 All Workers 23,112 19,067 17,871 16,077 133,387 209,514 18,824 10,717 11,756 9,404 74,243 124,944 14,803 13,753 13,103 18,196 160,899 220,754 TOTAL Seattle Residents 41,936 29,784 29,627 25,481 207,630 334,458 TOTAL Workers in Seattle 37,915 32,820 30,974 34,273 294,286 430,268 Page 7 of 60 A2: Work Region for Seattle Residents Although low wages are more common for Seattle residents who work outside of Seattle, most Seattle residents with low wages work in Seattle. • Among the lowest wage workers who live in Seattle, 55% work in the city-- lower than for all workers (63%). B: Percent of Wage Group by Work Region Work Region <=$9.32 $9.33 12.12 $12.13 - 15 All Workers Seattle King County Outside King County Totals 55% 9% 36% 100% 64% 15% 21% 100% 60% 17% 23% 100% 63% 18% 19% 100% A3. Family Income as Percent of the Federal Poverty Level Low wages are much more common for workers in poor families (100% of federal poverty level or below) and poor workers make up the largest group of those currently earning minimum wage. 4 • 40% of workers earning minimum wage live in poor families and another 27% live in families with incomes 200% of the poverty level or less (Panel B). • 56% of workers in poor families earn the current minimum and 82% earn less than $15 per hour (Panel A, below). 4 The ACS calculates poverty for families using the national poverty thresholds. See Section C for more information on poverty levels and work characteristics for poor adults. Section F provides simulations of possible effects of changing minimum wage on poverty levels. Page 8 of 60 A: Percent of Poverty Level Group who earn: Poverty Level <=$9.32 100% FPL or below 100%-200% FPL 200% FPL or above Totals FPL= Federal Poverty level 56% 31% 5% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Poverty Level C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Poverty level and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 15% 27% 5% - 11% 17% 8% - 82% 40% 75% 27% 18% 32% 100% 15% 11% 9% 32% 20% 10% 53% 69% 79% 100% 100% 100% 15,257 10,308 12,163 37,728 4,091 3,036 8,920 5,734 14,534 19,969 27,545 28,739 A4 Mean and Median Family Income Family incomes are lowest for Seattle residents earning minimum wage (median of $16,853) and highest for those earning over $18 per hour (median of $89,780); in between they are fairly flat with medians between $30,000 and $35,000. Page 9 of 60 A5. Food Stamps Most workers in families receiving food stamps earn low wages, but most low-wage workers do not receive food stamps. [Section F2 provides simple estimates of changes in eligibility with changes to minimum wages.] • • 61% of workers in families receiving food stamps earn less than $15 per hour and 22% earn the current minimum wage or less (compared to 29% and 12% of those without food stamps; Panel A). 8% to 11% of workers in each of the low wage groups were in families that received food stamps (Panel B). A: Percent of Food Stamp group who earn: Food Stamps <=$9.32 Yes No Totals 22% 12% - C: Estimated Number B: Percent of Wage Group by of Workers in each Food Stamp group Food stamp and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 21% 8% - 18% 8% - 61% 8% 29% 92% 100% 11% 9% 5% 3,398 3,239 2,764 89% 91% 95% 38,538 26,545 26,863 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 A6. Welfare Receipt Low wages are twice as common among workers who receive welfare5, but most low-wage workers do not receive welfare. • • Almost a third of those who receive welfare earn the current minimum wage (32%) and 63% of those workers earn less than $15 per hour (Panel A). Only 2 percent of low-wage workers live in families that receive public assistance (Panel B). A: Percent of Public Assistance group who earn: Welfare Recipient <=$9.32 Yes No Totals 32% 12% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Welfare group C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Welfare and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 17% 9% - 14% 9% - 63% 2% 30% 98% 100% 2% 1% 1% 921 471 390 98% 99% 99% 41,015 29,313 29,237 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 5 Welfare includes receipt of cash assistance from Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) or General Assistance, but not Supplemental Security Insurance or private charity. ACS asks about the share of welfare for individuals, and because TANF is generally given to families (assistance units) it is not clear how respondents report it. Page 10 of 60 A7. Education Earning minimum wage is most common for those with less than a high school degree, but most lowwage workers have at least some college education. • Most workers with less than a high school education earn less than $15 per hour (59%) as do about half of those with only a high school degree (Panel A). • Among workers earning $9.32 per hour or less, 40% have a high school degree or less (17%+23%) as do 36% of those earning $9.32 to $12.12 and 26% of those earning $12.12 to $15 (Panel B). A: Percent of Educational Level who earn: Education Level <=$9.32 Less Than HS High School or GED Some College Bachelor's Degree Totals 29% 23% 19% 5% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Education Level C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Education and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 - 15 12.12 15 Wage 19% 14% 13% 4% - 11% 12% 12% 6% - 59% 17% 49% 23% 43% 40% 15% 20% 100% - 7% 7,153 4,798 2,684 9% 16% 13% 9,684 5,817 4,912 20% 17% 27% 16,859 11,702 10,554 39% 36% 8,240 7,467 11,477 53% 25% 39% 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 A8. Age Earning minimum wage is most likely for workers under 19 or 19-24 years old, however more than half of those earning the current minimum wage are over 25. • Among those under 19, most earn the current minimum wage (61%) and 76% earn less than $15 per hour (Panel A). • Most of those aged 19-24 earn less than $15 per hour (66%), but only 35% earn the current minimum wage (Panel A). • Only 10% of minimum wage workers are under 19, but 48% are under 25 (10%+38%; Panel B). • More than half of workers currently earning under $15 per hour are over 25 years old. (Panel B). C: Estimated Number A: Percent of Age Group who B: Percent of Wage Group by of Workers in each Age earn: Age and Wage Group Age <=$9.32 under 19 19-24 25-44 45-54 55+ Totals 61% 35% 7% 9% 8% - Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 14% 21% 8% 6% 3% - 1% 10% 9% 9% 10% - 76% 10% 66% 38% 24% 30% 23% 13% 21% 8% 100% 3% 0% 2% 4,129 946 93 32% 16% 14% 16,112 9,575 4,587 48% 49% 51% 12,613 14,362 14,467 12% 20% 19% 5,542 3,574 5,780 5% 16% 14% 3,540 1,327 4,700 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 Page 11 of 60 A9. Race/Ethnicity Earning low wages is more common for racial/ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic whites, but nonHispanic whites make up the largest group of low-wage workers. • Over 40% of Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic workers and 70% of American Indian/Alaskan Native workers earn less than $15 per hour, but only about a quarter of nonHispanic white workers do (Panel A). • Non-Hispanic Whites make up the largest group of low-wage workers in Seattle (Panel B). A: Percent of Race/Ethnicity who earn: B: Percent of Wage Group by Race/Ethnicity C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Race/Ethnicity and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage Race/Ethnicity <=$9.32 Hispanic Am. Indian/Alaskan Native, non-Hisp. Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hisp. Black, non-Hisp. Other, non-Hisp. White, non-Hisp Totals 17% 17% 14% 49% 9% 13% 11% 7% 11% 29% 29% 70% 0.5% 2% 2% 1% 22% 17% 13% 10% - 9% 15% 12% 7% - 9% 12% 0% 8% - 41% 23% 43% 10% 26% 0.3% 25% 58% 100% 3,645 3,790 191 3,125 515 509 13% 13% 13% 9,468 3,963 3,920 13% 10% 8% 4,250 3,806 2,945 0% 0% 0% 122 112 0 59% 65% 72% 24,260 17,598 19,128 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 A10. Gender Women are more likely to earn low wages than are men and make up a larger portion of workers earning $12.12 per hour or less. A: Percent of Gender who earn: Gender <=$9.32 Female Male Totals 15% 10% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Gender C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Gender and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 10% 8% - 9% 9% - 34% 57% 27% 43% 100% 54% 49% 47% 23,989 15,962 14,410 46% 51% 53% 17,947 13,822 15,217 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 Page 12 of 60 A11. Children in Home Low wages are less common among those with children under 18 in the household and workers without children in the household make up over 80 percent of low-wage workers. • • 9% of those with children earn the current minimum, compared to 14% of those without children. (Panel A). 33% of workers with children earn less than $15 per hour but only 22% of those with children (Panel A) A: Percent of Household Type who earn: Children in Home <=$9.32 Yes No Totals 9% 14% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Household type C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Household and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 8% 9% - 6% 10% - 22% 16% 33% 84% 100% 20% 14% 23% 6,762 5,877 4,231 80% 86% 77% 35,174 23,907 25,396 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 A12. Hours and Weeks of Work Low wages are more common among part time workers, but most low-wage workers work full time. • Among full time workers (those who report they usually work at least 30 hours a week when they work), 10% earn the current minimum wage compared to 30% of part time workers (Panel A). • 65% of minimum wage workers are full time compared to 85% of all workers (Panel B). A: Percent of Work Status who earn: Work Status <=$9.32 Full time Part time Totals 10% 30% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Work Status C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Status and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 12.12 12.12 - 15 - 15 Workers 15 Wage 8% 12% - 8% 13% - 26% 65% 55% 35% 100% 80% 88% 85% 27,453 23,870 23,291 20% 12% 15% 14,483 5,914 6,336 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 Page 13 of 60 Those with the lowest wages also have fewer weeks worked per year and fewer hours worked in a usual week. • Minimum wage workers work a median 44 weeks per year and 32 hours per week compared to 50 weeks and 40 hours for those earning between $12.12 and $15 per hour. Number of hours worked by employees who earn: Hours Worked Median Weeks worked per year Median Hours worked per week Median total annual hours <=$9.32 $9.33 - $12.13 12.12 - 15 44 50 50 32 40 40 1040 1757 1866 A13. Sector of Work Low wages are more common in the private sector than in the non-profit or public sector and 80% of low-wage workers work in the private sector. Nevertheless, 25% of non-profit and 20% of public sector employees earn $15 an hour or less. • • 15% of workers in private sector jobs make the current minimum wage, but only 8% of workers in the non-profit or public sectors (Panel A). 80% of workers earning minimum wage work in the private sector compared to 69% of all workers (Panel B). A: Percent of Work Sector who earn: Work Sector <=$9.32 Non - Profit Private Public Totals 8% 15% 8% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Work Sector C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Sector and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 9% 10% 5% - 8% 9% 7% - 25% 8% 34% 80% 20% 12% 100% 13% 12% 13% 3,373 3,828 3,616 78% 74% 69% 33,582 23,157 21,934 9% 14% 18% 4,981 2,799 4,077 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 Page 14 of 60 A14. Industry of Work More than half of low-wage workers are in the industries of Accommodation and Food Services, Retail Trade, Health Care and Social Assistance, and Educational Services (Panel B). 6 Top 4 Work Industries Work Industry Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Health Care and Social Assistance Educational Services Totals A: Percent of Employees who B: Percent of Wage Group by earn: Top 4 Industries <=$9.32 C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Industry and Wage Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 15 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 Wage 32% 19% 21% 12% 10% 17% 63% 48% 25% 17% 24% 16% 11% 22% 10% 11% 10,504 7,116 7,249 4,633 13% 9% - 11% 6% - 11% 8% - 35% 23% - 13% 8% 64% 15% 8% 62% 16% 10% 58% 13% 11% 45% 5,541 4,525 4,803 3,454 2,237 2,845 26,748 18,511 29,627 3,266 6,377 A15. Occupation of Work The most common Occupations for low-wage workers are Food Preparation and Serving, Sales and Related, Office and Administrative Support, Personal Care and Service, and Transportation and Material Moving which make up over half of low-wage workers, but only 37% of all workers (Panel B). Top 5 Occupations Occupation Food Preparation and Serving Related Sales and Related Office and Administrative Support Personal Care and Service Transportation and Material Moving Totals A: Percent of Employees who B: Percent of Wage Group by earn: Top 5 Occupations <=$9.32 C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Occupation and Wage Group Total $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 All $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 12.12 15 Wage 34% 19% 21% 10% 10% 14% 66% 43% 24% 15% 20% 11% 10% 16% 9% 10% 9,925 6,003 6,143 3,390 3,003 4,606 14% 11% 14% 39% 12% 14% 18% 11% 5,181 4,195 5,426 32% 13% 18% 62% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3,589 1,399 1,976 23% - 18% - 11% - 52% - 7% 66% 7% 58% 4% 55% 4% 37% 2,799 2,223 1,279 27,637 17,210 16,290 6 The industry with the highest proportion of workers in the minimum wage category is the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting industry (not shown), which employs very few people in Seattle. Page 15 of 60 A16: Neighborhood of Seattle Residence Differences between Seattle neighborhoods in the share of their workers who are earning low wages are modest, ranging from 23% in North West Seattle to 34% in Capitol Hill/South East Seattle (Panel A). A: Percent of Residents who earn: Neighborhood <=$9.32 Capitol Hill / South East Seattle Downtown / Queen Anne North East Seattle North West Seattle West / South Seattle Totals 15% 14% 14% 8% 12% - B: Percent of Wage Group by Neighborhood of Residence C: Estimated Number of Workers in each Neighborhood and Wage Group Total All $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 $9.33 - $12.13 Low <=$9.32 <=$9.32 12.12 12.12 - 15 12.12 - 15 Workers 15 Wage 9% 7% 9% 8% 11% - 10% 9% 8% 7% 12% - 34% 20% 30% 22% 31% 25% 23% 15% 35% 18% 100% 17% 19% 17% 8,401 4,992 5,693 16% 19% 20% 9,343 4,859 5,693 21% 20% 22% 10,426 6,286 5,939 22% 17% 23% 6,375 6,564 5,084 24% 24% 19% 7,391 7,083 7,218 100% 100% 100% 41,936 29,784 29,627 Page 16 of 60 B. Business Characteristics and the Effect of Raising the Minimum Wage on Labor Costs Page 17 of 60 B. Business Characteristics and the Effect of Raising the Minimum Wage on Labor Costs For the following analysis, we use 2012 data reported by employers to Washington State’s Employment Security Department (ESD) on workers who are covered by Unemployment Insurance. Unemployment Insurance records include all employees except: the self-employed, federal employment, railroad employment, some private educational institutions, some religious organizations, 100 percent commission sales workers (mostly in insurance and real estate), many corporate officers, elected public officials, work-study students, casual labor, and farmworkers who work very short durations. 7 We have divided firms into industries based on 2-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes plus an additional category for “Government” employees (which, as noted above, excludes federal government employment). Disclosure concerns prevented ESD from sharing full information on four industries that lack sufficient numbers of establishments, including: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction; Utilities; and Management of Companies and Enterprises. We have collapsed these four industries to one category labeled “Other Industries”. In the tables below, industries are sorted by total number of employees from the largest to smallest (except “Other Industries” which is placed at the bottom of the tables). Tables below show characteristics of establishments located in Seattle. In the appendices, we show characteristics of establishments located in the rest of King County. By definition, an establishment is an economic unit, such as a factory, mine, store, or office that produces goods or services. It generally is at a single location and is engaged predominantly in one type of economic activity. In these data, however, there are some multi-establishment employers who report all of their employment at one address, and thus are treated as a single "establishment" in this report. 7 This analysis also excludes wage data from private household workers, where the wage data are unreliable. Page 18 of 60 B1: The numbers of Establishments and Workers by size of firm Although 75% of establishments (business locations) have fewer than 10 employees, only 12% of employees work in those establishments. Employment in Seattle City Limits by size of firm, 2012 # Employees <10 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-249 250-499 500+ Establishments 20,283 3,747 1,497 782 407 61 142 79 Jobs 56,337 56,585 51,933 54,261 56,114 13,367 48,429 143,999 Includes all jobs covered by unemployment insurance, except federal employment and NAICS 814 Source: Washington Employment Security Department Page 19 of 60 B2. Distribution of Establishments by Industry Three-quarters of Seattle’s establishments have fewer than 10 employees. 8 • Within every industry (except Government), more than half of establishments have fewer than 10 employees. • Only 2.6 percent of Seattle’s establishments have 100 or more employees. 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name All Establishments Share of Establishments with Employees Numbering: 1 to 9 10 to 50 to 100 49 99 and above GOVERNMENT 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Health Care and Social Assistance 8.4% 5.9% 1.8% 0.3% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 19.0% 15.5% 2.7% 0.5% Accommodation and Food Services 10.3% 6.0% 3.8% 0.4% Retail Trade 9.3% 6.8% 2.0% 0.3% Manufacturing 3.3% 1.9% 1.0% 0.2% Administrative and Support and Waste 5.5% 4.4% 0.8% 0.2% Management and Remediation Services Finance and Insurance 5.1% 3.9% 0.9% 0.1% Wholesale Trade 10.3% 8.8% 1.4% 0.1% Information 3.5% 2.4% 0.7% 0.2% Construction 5.9% 4.8% 0.8% 0.1% Other Services (except Public Administration) 7.7% 6.4% 1.1% 0.1% Transportation and Warehousing 1.6% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 4.8% 4.0% 0.6% 0.1% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.1% Educational Services 2.1% 1.5% 0.5% 0.1% OTHER INDUSTRIES 1.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% Total 100.0% 75.1% 19.4% 2.9% Note: Industries are ordered by number of employees rather than number of establishments. 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2.6% 8 We also investigated this same question using County Business Pattern data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. These data are available at the zip code level. According to these data, 74% of establishment in zip codes that are fully in Seattle have fewer than 10 employees. Further, 55% of establishment in zip codes that are fully in Seattle have fewer than 5 employees. The proportions are the same when including zip codes only partially in Seattle. Page 20 of 60 B3. Distribution of Employees by Industry Although most establishments have few employees, Less than 12% of workers in Seattle are employed by an establishment with fewer than 10 employees. More than half of workers in Seattle are employed by an establishment with 100 or more employees. 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name GOVERNMENT Health Care and Social Assistance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Information Construction Other Services (except Public Administration) Transportation and Warehousing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Educational Services OTHER INDUSTRIES Total All Workers Share of Workers in Establishments with Employees Numbering: 1 to 9 10 to 50 to 100 49 99 and above 14.6% 13.8% 11.4% 9.5% 9.2% 5.6% 4.4% 0.0% 1.1% 2.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 2.1% 3.2% 4.4% 2.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.3% 1.2% 1.8% 1.4% 1.1% 0.7% 0.6% 14.2% 9.3% 4.4% 2.4% 4.6% 3.4% 2.1% 4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 3.6% 3.6% 2.7% 2.1% 2.1% 1.9% 3.1% 100.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 11.7% 1.0% 1.6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 22.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 11.3% 2.2% 0.8% 2.0% 1.5% 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 1.0% 0.9% 2.4% 54.4% Page 21 of 60 B4. Distribution of Wages Paid by Industry While the industries with the highest share of workers generally have high shares of total wages paid, there are some notable differences. • The industry with the largest positive difference between share of total wages and share of workers is Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services – this industry paid 16.7% of total wages and has 11.4% of total workers. • The industry with the largest negative difference between share of total wages and share of workers is Accommodation and Food Services – this industry paid 3.4% of total wages and has 9.5% of total workers. 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name GOVERNMENT Health Care and Social Assistance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Information Construction Other Services (except Public Administration) Transportation and Warehousing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Educational Services OTHER INDUSTRIES Total Share of Total Wages Paid in 2012 Share of Difference Workers 14.2% 12.5% 16.7% 3.4% 7.7% 6.0% 3.1% 14.6% 13.8% 11.4% 9.5% 9.2% 5.6% 4.4% -0.4% -1.3% 5.3% -6.1% -1.5% 0.4% -1.2% 7.2% 4.9% 6.0% 3.8% 2.4% 2.6% 1.8% 1.1% 1.3% 5.1% 100.0% 4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 3.6% 3.6% 2.7% 2.1% 2.1% 1.9% 3.1% 100.0% 2.9% 1.0% 2.1% 0.2% -1.2% -0.1% -0.3% -0.9% -0.6% 2.0% 0.0% Page 22 of 60 B5. Establishments with a Large Percent of Low-Wage Workers For the next analysis, we use 2012 data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and made available to us by ESD. 9 These data include all employment covered by state Unemployment Insurance, along with federal employment. Tables below show characteristics of establishments located in Seattle. In the appendices, we show characteristics of establishments located in the rest of King County. For each establishment, we have computed whether 30% or more of the full-time equivalent (FTE) 10 employment of the establishment earn the state minimum wage or less in 2012 ($9.04), less than or equal to 130% of the state minimum wage in 2012 ($11.75), or $15 per hour or more ($14.13). 11 9 This “program publishes a quarterly count of employment and wages reported by employers covering 98 percent of U.S. jobs, available at the county, MSA, state and national levels by industry” (http://www.bls.gov/cew/). 10 FTE is the sum of all work hours divided by 40 hours per week to approximate equivalent number of full time workers. 11 Minimum wage in 2012 was $9.04, less than or equal to 130% of the state minimum wage in 2012 was $11.75, and $15 per hour or more was $14.13 (in projected 2015 dollars assuming 2 percent inflation per year, $15/(1.02)^3 = $14.13). Page 23 of 60 B6. Share of Seattle Establishments with a Large Percent of LowWage Workers Only 3 percent of Seattle establishments have 30% or more of their FTE employees earning the state minimum wage. A much larger share of Seattle establishments (27%) have 30% or more of their FTEs earning $15 or less. • In the Industry with the most minimum wage workers, Accommodation and Food Services, 17% of establishments have 30% or more of their FTEs earning the state minimum wage – this figure rises to 82% of establishments having 30% of FTE earning $15 per hour or less. • For second highest low wage industry, Retail Trade establishments, 6% have 30% or more of their FTEs earning the state minimum wage, and 59% of Seattle’s Retail Trade establishments have 30% or more of their FTEs earning $15 or less. 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name GOVERNMENT Health Care and Social Assistance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Information Construction Other Services (except Public Administration) Transportation and Warehousing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Educational Services OTHER INDUSTRIES Total FTE=Full Time Equivalence employees Share of Seattle establishments with >=30% of their FTE employees that earn: State 130% of $15 Per minimum WA min. Hour or wage or wage or less less less 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.8% 12.3% 28.8% 0.4% 3.5% 7.2% 17.2% 58.7% 82.0% 5.7% 40.8% 58.8% 2.0% 15.9% 31.4% 1.2% 11.1% 25.2% 0.4% 0.2% 1.4% 0.3% 2.0% 0.7% 0.9% 2.3% 1.8% 1.0% 3.0% 5.7% 3.9% 4.6% 2.3% 20.7% 6.4% 10.0% 26.4% 8.6% 6.8% 16.6% 10.4% 8.9% 9.0% 7.3% 33.7% 17.4% 20.6% 40.0% 16.0% 12.3% 27.4% Page 24 of 60 B7. Share of Seattle Establishments with a Large Percent of LowWage Workers Operating in Other WA Jurisdictions Less that 20% of Seattle Establishment with 30% or more of their FTEs earning “low wages” (by any of three definitions of low wages) operate in other Washington jurisdictions. 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name GOVERNMENT Health Care and Social Assistance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Information Construction Other Services (except Public Administration) Transportation and Warehousing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Educational Services OTHER INDUSTRIES Total Of Seattle establishments with 30% or more of their FTE employees that earn the following, this share are in a firm that operate in other jurisdictions in WA: State 130% of $15 Per Hour minimum WA min. or less wage or wage or less less --0.0% 0.0% 20.5% 19.3% 0.0% 9.6% 4.9% 14.2% 17.2% 15.7% 16.1% 28.6% 26.7% 0.0% 6.4% 4.7% 5.6% 5.5% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 38.5% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 56.4% 3.7% 11.6% 0.0% 14.6% 14.3% 31.3% 36.5% 0.0% 40.0% 19.7% 46.2% 6.5% 7.1% 1.7% 14.6% 11.8% 27.7% 25.1% 0.0% 38.9% 17.3% Page 25 of 60 C. Poverty and Work in Seattle Page 26 of 60 C. Poverty and Work in Seattle C1.: Poverty in Seattle, 2012 A low-wage worker may not be poor if he or she lives with others who earn enough to bring the family’s total income over the poverty line. Conversely, a high-wage worker may be poor if, for example, he or she lives with many people or does not work enough hours to earn more than the poverty line. While the tables presented earlier focused on low-wage workers, these tables focus on poor adults and teens. 13.6% of all Seattle residents had income below the official poverty line in 2012. 12 Poverty among families was 7.2%; poverty among households was 11.9%. 13 Seattle’s poverty rates are lower than the corresponding national ones of 15.9, 11.8 and 14.7 percent. Poor Persons Poor Families Poor Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 83,595 13.6% 8,933 7.2% 34,535 11.9% Employment Characteristics of Poor Persons Age 16 or more Note that many poor persons do not work, or have not worked within the past 12 months, and so do not have information on industry, occupation and other employment characteristics. These tables use data from the American Community Survey 2007 for Seattle. C2.: Employment Status • • • Half of poor persons age 16 or older worked during at least one week in the past 12 months. The average number of weeks worked among all poor persons age 16 or more was 13.7. The average for those who worked was 27.4 (not shown in table). On a weekly basis, 29 percent of poor persons were working and 9 percent reported being unemployed and looking for work. The majority were not in the labor force.14 Employment Status in Past Week Employed Unemployed Not in labor force Total Percent of Poor Persons Age 16+: 29.1 8.9 62.0 100 12 US poverty thresholds differ by family size and composition and are about $12,000 for a single adult and just over $18,000 for a family of 3. The full set are at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html 13 By census definition, “family” includes only people living with one or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Households include all persons, but the rate differs from the rate for individuals because poor households average more people than non-poor households. 14 Though 62 percent were not working in the past week, over the past 12 months many of these persons did work during other weeks. This is why the annual figure of 50% not working is smaller than 62%. Page 27 of 60 C3.: Industry and Occupation of Poor Adults Sixty percent of poor workers are in the industries of Accommodation and Food Services, Retail Trade, Health Care and Social Assistance, Educational Services, and Other Services. These are the same as the top industries for low-wage workers. Top 5 Industries Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Health Care and Social Assistance Educational Services Other Services Total, Top 5 Percent of Poor Workers Age 16+in Top 5 Industries: 16.9 15.3 12.4 8.1 7.3 60.0 The most common occupations for poor workers are Food Preparation and Serving, Sales, Office and Administrative Support, Arts and Related, and Construction and Extraction. These top 5 occupations employ 53% of poor adults who worked. Top 5 Occupations Food Preparation and Serving Related Sales and Related Office and Administrative Support Arts, Design, etc. Construction and Extraction Total, Top 5 Percent of Poor Workers Age 16+in Top 5 Occupations: 14.7 13.9 12.1 6.4 5.5 52.6 Page 28 of 60 D. Estimates of Living costs Page 29 of 60 D. Estimates of Living costs Living wage calculators offer estimates of the minimum income a family needs to attain a secure yet modest standard of living. There are three prominent minimum income/living wage calculators: • • • The “Living Wage Calculator” from Penn State’s Poverty in America Project, 15 The “Family Budget Calculator” developed by the Economic Policy Institute, 16 and The “Self-Sufficiency Standard” developed by the University of Washington’s Center for Women’s Welfare. 17 The calculators all provide minimum income estimates that differ across family structures. While similar in a number of ways, as discussed below the calculators differ in some of the assumptions and data sources that underlie their estimates. 18 To derive the associated living wage from the income standards, we compute the wage that a full-time, full-year worker needs to attain that minimum income. This part of the report explains the methods used to calculate the minimum income and associated living wage, summarizes similarities and differences among the estimates from three standards, and compares them to the minimum wage, the official poverty line, and other indicators of low income. Assumptions About Work • • • The Living Wage Calculator assumes that if there are two adults, only one is assumed to work and child care expenses are not included, however we also calculate a wage for a family with 2 earners with paid childcare. The Calculator assumes full-time work – 40 hours/week for 52 weeks, or 2,080 hours/year. The Family Budget Calculator only considers parents with children. The Family Budget Calculator assumes that two parents work full-time (2,080 hours/year). If both parents earn the wage shown in Table D1, the family’s total income will reach the standard. The Self-Sufficiency Standard also assumes that if there are two parents, both work full-time. 19 Again, if both parents work full time at the wage shown in Table D1, the family’s total income will reach the standard. Comparison of Estimates Table D1 presents estimates for four types of families based on costs in Seattle. 20 Because all calculators attempt to determine the minimum income a family needs to attain a secure yet modest standard of 15 http://livingwage.mit.edu/. This calculator is a refinement and extension of the calculator developed by the Economic Policy Institute. 16 http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/ 17 http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/pubs.html 18 The appendix briefly discusses how the calculators deal with taxes and construct the costs of the budget components (housing, child care, etc.) 19 This measure assumes that working full time means 8 hours/day and 22 days/month. This multiplies to 2,112 hours per year. For ease of comparison we use 2,080 hours to compute the wage. 20 Data for family types not in table 2 are available on the web sites of the calculators. Page 30 of 60 living, their results are well above the corresponding federal poverty line, which is intended to represent a minimal income that avoids serious economic deprivation. Depending on family type and the specific calculator, the minimum income is 171% to 349% of the poverty line. Because of the different methods and assumptions behind the three calculators, the estimates of the minimum income for families with children span a surprisingly wide range. For a single adult, one child family, the largest estimate ($52,925) exceeds the smallest ($40,282) by more than $12,000, or 31 percent. For a two adult, 1 child family, the corresponding figures are $24,000 and 62 percent. However, estimates for a childless couple differ by merely 2 percent, while for a single adult the difference is a modest 12 percent ($750). The living wages derived from the minimum incomes similarly cover a wide range – from as little as $7.72 to fully $25.44 per hour. The highest living wage estimates are for single parent families, where one adult must earn all the income and pay for child care. The Living Wage vs. the Minimum Wage The concepts behind the living wage and the minimum wage differ in important, policy relevant ways. The legal minimum wage applies to all (covered) workers, regardless of their families’ total income or expenses. The living wage is about calculating the levels of adequate income. Because it varies greatly across different family’ configurations, no reasonable uniform minimum wage can assure all families a living wage. For example, as Table D1 shows, a $15 minimum wage is well above the living wage for 5 of the 12 estimates, essentially equal to the living wage for two, and at least $3.50 below it for the other five. 21 Thus, the usefulness for policy making of the notion of a living wage is unclear. The Living Wage vs. the Federal Poverty Line The federal poverty line was determined in 1963 by setting a threshold at three times the cost of a minimum food diet. 22 The line has since been updated each year by adjusting for inflation. For 2013, the poverty line for one person is $11,892, for three people, $18,552, and for four people, $23,836. 23 Families whose pre-tax cash income from private sources and government cash benefits fall below the line are deemed poor. The official poverty measure does not account for in-kind benefits, taxes and tax credits, child care and other work-related expenses, regional cost of living differences, income pooling between unmarried cohabiting adults, and current standards of living (where food accounts for much less than a third of the typical budget). These omissions are some of the major critiques of the official measure. For example, a family may be below the poverty line based on the official measure of cash income, but above the line when its Earned Income Tax Credit is taken into account. 21 A $12 minimum wage is above the living wage for 4 of the 12 estimates, essentially equal to the living wage for 1, and at least $3.00 below it for the other 7. 22 The rationale for this multiple was that in the early 1960s, the family unit spent about one-third of its budget on food. 23 U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html Page 31 of 60 The federal poverty line is intended to signify a minimum income that allows families to live free of serious economic deprivation based on budget data from the early 1960s. The calculators attempt to identify the minimum income needed for a family to live a modest, secure life in contemporary society. 24 A second important difference is that the federal poverty measure does not adjust for geographic differences in the cost of living, while the calculators attempt to do so. A third is that living wage calculators explicitly cost out the full range of goods and services consumed by families rather than relying on a multiple of the food budget. A fourth is that the adjustments for family structure differ from those in the federal measure. 25 Some argue that the official poverty line is too low to be a reasonable indicator of a minimally decent income in contemporary America. Two alternatives are commonly suggested – 125% of the official line (the “near poor”) or 200% of the line (sometimes labeled the “low income” line). Both of these more closely approach or even exceed the minimum incomes of living wage calculators for some types of families, but major differences still remain. Percentage of Seattle Families with less than Living wage Another way to benchmark the living wage minimum income is to ask what percentage of Seattle’s families currently falls below it. With one exception, the estimates suggest that between about 30 and 46 percent of Seattle’s families have incomes below those shown in the lower part of Table D1. Between 30 and 39 percent of Seattle families have incomes below the various minimum income standards for family with one adult and one child. Between 29 and 46 of all Seattle families have lower incomes than various minimum income standards for a family with two adults and one child. Critique of Living Wage Calculators The main critique of all efforts to determine the minimum income needed for a modest, secure life is that many value judgments are necessarily required to construct the budgets, and the bases for such judgments are readily open to question. For instance, each calculator assumes the cost of housing is the 40th percentile of HUD fair market rent for MSAs, that is, the dollar amount below which 40 percent of standard quality local rental units are rented. While this is reasonable, why is it inherently more appropriate than the 35th percentile, or the 30th or 45th? The 3 calculators set child care costs either to the average or to the 75th percentile of state or local rates. Why not, if we are seeking a minimum income, the 35% or 30th percentile? Two calculators assume a family needs a car and include its cost for the transportation component of the budget. The third assumes that workers in King County use public transit because the system is regarded as adequate and ignores the reality that most low-income families rely on cars for much non24 Gould, Elise, et al. What Families Need to Get By: The 2013 Update of EPI’s Family Budget Calculator; http://www.epi.org/publication/ib368-basic-family-budgets/ Economic Policy Institute. 25 Of course, there is no conceptual difference between the federal poverty line and a living wage defined as the wage needed to support a family of 4 at the poverty line. Page 32 of 60 work travel. While one could argue which is the better approach, it is worth noting that the different assumptions about transportation costs result in about a $4,500 difference in the total minimum income for a 1 adult, 1 child family. The Living Wage vs. Relative Poverty A relative poverty line roughly represents, in Adam Smith’s words, the cost of “those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people.” A relative poverty line rises in step with a society’s real standard of living, in contrast to absolute poverty lines like the federal one, which only adjust for inflation and remain fixed in real terms. The premise of a relative poverty measure is that it better indicates the socially relevant level of economic need in an affluent society. It is a socially constructed view of the minimum needed to participate in a society’s mainstream life. In contrast, the minimum incomes and associated living wages presented in Table D1 are built from “the ground up” by small groups seeking to discern what constitutes the cost of a modest, secure life. Surveys suggest that the socially perceived relative poverty line in the U.S. has been 45 to 50 percent of median family income. In Seattle, half of the median family income in 2012 was $35,005 (in 2013 dollars), or about 47 percent larger than the official 4 person poverty line. The minimum incomes for the families with children in Table D1 exceed $35,005 by 10 to 79 percent. This suggests that some living wage calculators yield estimates that, if viewed as goals for public policy, would be unlikely to command strong political support. Page 33 of 60 Table D1: Alternative Measures of the Living Wage FAMILY TYPE LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR FAMILY BUDGET CALCULATOR** SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD** $20,344 $9.78* N/A N/A $22,876 $11.00 171% N/A 192% Single Adult Annual income Living wage Annual income as percent of official poverty line Two Adults (no children) Annual family income Living wage Annual income as percent of official poverty line Annual family income $31,346 For one worker: $15.07 For two workers: $7.54 N/A N/A $32,096 $7.72/adult 207% N/A 212% Single Adult and One Child $43,327 $52,925 Living wage $20.83 $25.44 Annual income as percent of official poverty line 286% 349% Annual family income Living wage Annual income as percent of official poverty line Place Two Adults and One Child $38,641 (1 worker) $62,769 $46,820 (2 workers) $47,756 preschooler $40,282 school-age $22.73 preschooler $19.37 school-age 315% 266% $52,948 preschooler $45,494 school-age per adult For each worker: $12.73 preschooler $10.94 school-age For one worker: $18.58 For two workers: $11.25 For each worker: $15.09 208%(1 worker) 252% (2 workers) King County and Seattle 338% 285% preschooler 245% school-age Seattle-Bellevue HUD Metro FMR King County and Seattle *All numbers calculated in 2013 dollars; All standards assume full time work for workers. **The wage assumes both adults in two adult families work full time. Page 34 of 60 E. How does Seattle compare to other cities? Page 35 of 60 E. How does Seattle compare to other cities? E1. Demographics of Low-Wage Workers: Seattle vs. Other Western Cities Seattle’s low wage workers are similar to those in Denver, Portland, Sacramento and San Francisco in gender and disability status. For the other demographic characteristics, there is no overall pattern to the differences. For these tables, “low wage” means a worker earned less than $15 per hour. • Seattle’s low wage workers are better educated – 66% have at least some college. The corresponding figure for other cities ranges from 58% (Portland) to 39% (Denver). Percent of Low Wage Workers with Education level Education Level Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco Less Than HS 14% 22% 16% 23% 22% High School or GED 20% 39% 26% 33% 27% Some College 39% 30% 39% 32% 27% Bachelor's Degree or more 27% 9% 19% 12% 23% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% • The age distribution of Seattle’s low wage workers is similar to Denver’s, Portland’s and Sacramento’s. Seattle’s low wage workers are younger than San Francisco’s. Percent of Low Wage Workers by Age Group Age Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco Under 19 5% 11% 5% 7% 5% 19-24 30% 24% 22% 26% 19% 25-44 41% 40% 47% 44% 42% 45-54 15% 13% 15% 13% 20% 55+ 9% 12% 11% 10% 15% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 36 of 60 • The race and ethnicity of Seattle’s low wage workers differs from the other cities’. Seattle has a much higher proportion of whites than Sacramento and San Francisco; a higher proportion of Asian/Pacific Islanders than Denver and Portland but a much lower proportion than San Francisco; and a smaller proportion of Hispanics than Denver, Sacramento and San Francisco Percent of Race / Ethnicity for Low Wage Workers Race / Ethnicity Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco White 60% 61% 70% 33% 30% Black Native Hawaiian / American Indian / Alaskan Native 11% 3% 8% 14% 9% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Asian / Pacific Islander 17% 3% 7% 21% 41% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Hispanic 10% 33% 13% 31% 20% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% • The gender composition of low wage workers is similar for all 5 cities. Percent of Gender for low wage workers • Sex Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco Male 46% 47% 50% 49% 47% Female 54% 53% 50% 51% 53% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Compared to the other four cities, Seattle’s low wage workers are less likely to be married (24% versus 33-38%) and more likely to have never married (66% versus 47-53%). Percent of Marital Status for low wage workers Marital Status Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco Married 24% 38% 34% 33% 35% Separated / Divorced 8% 13% 14% 11% 13% Widowed 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% Never Married 66% 47% 51% 53% 51% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 37 of 60 • In Seattle, Denver and Portland about one in seven low wage workers are not citizens. In contrast, about one in four low wage workers in Sacramento and San Francisco are not citizens. Percent of Citizenship Group for low wage workers Citizenship Status Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco Native US Citizen 75% 83% 80% 65% 48% Naturalized US Citizen 10% 3% 7% 12% 27% Not A Citizen 15% 13% 13% 23% 25% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% • In Seattle, Denver and Portland, about 90% of low wage workers are native English speakers. San Francisco stands out with only 75% of low wage workers being native English speakers. Percent of language group for low wage workers Language Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco Native English Speaker Speaks English But Not Well 89% 92% 91% 84% 74% 9% 6% 7% 12% 18% Does Not Speak English 2% 2% 2% 5% 9% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% • In all 5 cities, only 3 or 4 percent of low wage workers report a disability that creates difficulty in working. Percent of Disability Status for low wage workers Disability Status Seattle Denver Portland Sacramento San Francisco No Disability That Affects Work 97% 96% 97% 96% 97% Disability Creates Difficulty Working 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% E2. Cost of Living Comparisons: Seattle vs. Other Western Cities To compare Seattle’s cost of living with that of selected other western cities, we draw on the findings of the living wage calculators. Each calculator estimates the cost of the same basket of goods and services Page 38 of 60 for different cities using local prices to derive the total cost of the minimum income it regards as needed for a secure, modest standard of living. Whether or not one thinks the minimum income and associated living wage are appropriate targets for public policy, the cross-city differences in the minimum income provide a method of capturing differences in the cost of living. Table E2 provides comparisons of Seattle with 5 other large western cities: Denver, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco. We divided each city’s minimum income by the corresponding value for Seattle and expressed the result in percentage terms. For example, the value of 96 for Denver in row 1 indicates the cost of the minimum is 4 percent lower than Seattle’s. The Living Wage and Family Budget calculators find Denver, Portland and Sacramento to have a cost of living similar to Seattle’s. San Diego’s cost is about 12 percent higher, while San Francisco’s is about 30 percent higher. The Self-Sufficiency Standard yields different results. Denver and Portland are judged 10-15 percent cheaper than Seattle, and Sacramento slighter higher. San Diego and San Francisco are both judged about 24 percent more costly than Seattle. Table E2: Comparative Cost of Living in Six Western Cities (Seattle = 100) San Diego San Francisco Single Adult Two Adults Single Adult + One Child Two Adults + One Child 96 97 102 100 98 102 95 100 103 102 101 103 118 113 111 114 133 129 127 132 Single Adult + One Child Two Adults + One Child 100 99 105 102 103 97 112 107 134 124 Single Adult 86 85 109 Two Adults 89 86 114 Single Adult + School-Age Child** 81 70 100 Two Adults + School-Age Child 86 75 108 *These two measures use county and MSA areas, not central cities 131 127 115 120 135 120 122 119 LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR FAMILY BUDGET CALCULATOR* SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD* Denver Portland Sacramento Page 39 of 60 F. Possible Impacts of Minimum Wage Changes on Earnings, Poverty, and Businesses Page 40 of 60 F1. Possible Changes in Earnings for Low-wage Workers To estimate how changes in the minimum wage could affect annual earnings for typical workers, we multiply hourly wages by the median number of annual hours worked (for example, 1,040 hours for minimum wage workers). We also provide an estimate for a person who works full-time for a full year (2,000 hours). Our analysis does not consider secondary impacts of increases to the minimum wage on hours or employment. • • • Typical employees earning the minimum wage of $9.32 who work 1,040 hours a year could see their annual earnings increase by $2,912 (30%) if the minimum wage increased to $12.12. Fully employed workers’ earnings would increase by $5,600 (also 30%). With a minimum wage increase to $15.00, employees making the current minimum wage could increase their earnings by $5,907 (61%) if they worked the median (1,040) hours or $11,360 if they worked full-time all year. Typical employees earning just above the minimum wage at $10.80 per hour work 1,757 hours per year. They could see their annual earnings increase by $2,319 (12%) under a $12.12 minimum wage and by $7,379 (39%) under a $15.00 minimum wage. Table F1. Impacts of changes to the minimum wage on annual earnings Wage Total Hours Worked for Year Annual earnings, $9.32 minimum wage $9.32 $10.80 $12.12 $13.50 1040 1757 1757 1866 $9,693 $18,976 $21,295 $25,191 $9.32 $10.80 $12.12 $13.50 2000 2000 2000 2000 $18,640 $21,600 $24,240 $27,000 Annual earnings, $12.12 minimum wage Increase in earnings, $12.12 minimum wage % Increase, $12.12 minimum wage Annual earnings, $15 minimum wage Assuming Median Hours Worked Per Year $12,605 $2,912 30% $21,295 $2,319 12% $21,295 $0 0% $25,191 $0 0% Assuming Full Year Worker $24,240 $5,600 30% $24,240 $2,640 12% $24,240 $0 0% $27,000 $0 0% Increase in earnings, $15 minimum wage % Increase, $15 minimum wage $15,600 $26,355 $26,355 $27,990 $5,907 $7,379 $5,060 $2,799 61% 39% 24% 11% $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $11,360 $8,400 $5,760 $3,000 61% 39% 24% 11% Page 41 of 60 F2. Possible Changes to Basic Food benefits (Food Stamps) We used Washington State’s on-line benefit calculator to estimate the value of food stamp benefits for low wage workers and how that might change with changes to the minimum wage. 26 We calculated the monthly income for workers at $9.32, $12.12, and $15 per hour assuming they worked the median number of hours for those earning $9.32 (1040 hours per year) or full-time, full year (2000 hours per year). We also calculated benefits at the median family income for families earning $9.32 ($1404 per month) and increased that by 30% and 60% (the approximate percentage income increases for an increase of minimum wage to $12.12 and $15 per hour). To use the on-line calculator, we assumed that family income was all from earnings, that rent was $800 for one person households and $1000 for 2 or 3 person households, and that the family paid no childcare or extra utilities. For a family of three with median family income for $9.32 workers, food stamp benefits could drop from $348 dollars to $227 with a $12.12 minimum wage, and to $75 with a $15 wage. Drops would be less for workers working fewer hours and benefit levels are lower for smaller households. Food stamp benefit for household size: Rent (assumed) 1 person 2 person 3 person $800 $1,000 $1,000 Earnings (assumed) Monthly Income $9.32 for 1040 hours $808 $9.32 2000 hours Median family income for $9.32 workers $1,553 $183 $15 $341 $163 $491 $313 $1,404 $15 $198 $348 $12.12 for 1040 hours $1,050 $12.12 for 2000 hours $2,020 Median income + 30% $1,826 $126 $0 $15 $284 $15 $77 $434 $157 $227 $15 for 1040 hours $1,300 $15 for 2000 hours $2,500 Median income + 60% $2,247 $48 $0 $0 $224 $15 $15 $374 $0 $75 Assumes all income from earnings, no childcare, no utilities paid, no elderly or disabled. Calculated with http://foodhelp.wa.gov/bf_benefit_estimator.htm 26 Calculated with http://foodhelp.wa.gov/bf_benefit_estimator.htm Page 42 of 60 F3. Static Effect of Raising the Minimum Wage on Rates of Poverty For the next analysis, we conduct a very simple simulation of the effect of raising the minimum wage on rates of poverty. We begin with the same sample of persons as in Section A, including individuals in the 2007 ACS over age 16, who worked in the last year, but whose most recent job was not self-employment or as an unpaid family worker. We simulate the effect of an increase of the minimum wage to $12.12 per hour by raising the hourly wages of those individuals whose wage was below this threshold up to $12.12 and then multiplying by their hours worked in 2007. We then compute the change in this worker’s annual wage income and add this change to the worker’s family’s total income. Finally, we compute whether the family is in poverty with and without the minimum wage increase, and compute rates of poverty for persons. We repeat this simulation for an increase of the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. 27 We report poverty rates for four groups: all residents in Seattle (including children and nonwage workers); Seattle residents who earn wages; Seattle residents who earn wages in Seattle; and Washington residents who earn wages in Seattle. There are several important reasons that we view the results of this simulation with a high degree of skepticism. First, some workers who earn wages below the minimum wage are employed in the “informal economy” and these workers are unlikely to receive the full benefits of the minimum wage increase. 28 Second, this analysis is “static” as it does not include any number of adjustments which are likely to occur. It does not simulate the possibility that firms may increase the wages of their other employees, that the composition of the employees may change (e.g., a shift in demand towards higher skilled workers), that labor turnover may decrease and productivity increase, or that businesses may close or relocate and thus reduce the size of their workforce or the number of hours worked. It does not include an estimate of a change in labor supply, including changes in the skill and composition of persons who would seek more or fewer hours given the higher wage. 29 Nearly all of these adjustments would reduce the impact of a minimum wage on rates of poverty. Thus, we strongly caution the reader to take these caveats into account. As is, these results should be taken as upper bounds of the true effect. Effects of this magnitude are unlikely to occur. 27 In the poverty simulations, for anyone missing total family income we used wage income, which was then divided by the appropriate poverty threshold. This allowed us to include individuals living in group quarters, who don't get a poverty value in the ACS. 28 For a discussion of this topic, see "The incidence of subminimum pay among native and immigrant workers" by Richard Fry and B. Lindsay Lowell, Population Research and Policy Review, 1997, Volume 16, Issue 4 , pp 363-381. 29 These issues are discussed in the recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of the likely effects of an increase in the federal minimum wage: "The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income", February 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf. Their analysis found that an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would reduce employment by around 500,000 workers and reduce the number of people below the poverty threshold by 900,000. However, it should be noted that a federal increase in a minimum wage is likely have different effects on the labor market than a local increase in a minimum wage as it may be easier for businesses to move out of a local area than out of the country. Page 43 of 60 If there were no changes in the labor market (which is unlikely), an increase in the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour is simulated to reduce the share of Seattle’s residents whose family income was below the poverty line from 13.6% to 9.4%. • • • Nearly three-quarters of this decline in the poverty rate would be achieved by raising the minimum wage to $12.12 per hour, with the poverty rate falling from 13.6% to 10.6%. The poverty rate for Seattle residents who earn wages is lower at baseline (10.7%) and would fall by a slightly larger amount with increases in the minimum wage. The poverty rates for Seattle residents who work in Seattle and all Washington residents who earn wages in Seattle are both lower at baseline (7.6% and 5.7% respectively) and both rates fall substantially with increases in the minimum wage. Sample All Seattle residents Seattle residents who earn wages Seattle residents who earn wages in Seattle Washington residents who earn wages in Seattle Baseline Poverty Rate 13.6% 10.7% 7.6% 5.7% Poverty Rate Given an Increase of Minimum Wage to: 12.12 per 15.00 per hour hour 10.6% 7.5% 4.3% 3.4% 9.4% 6.4% 3.4% 2.9% Page 44 of 60 F4. Effect of Raising the Minimum Wage on Business Payroll We made simple calculations of the impact of minimum wage changes on total annual payroll in three hypothetical businesses. This very simple model only captures the increased wages that businesses would be legally required to pay, and does not take into account possible adjustments that may occur, including the possibility that they may also increase the wages of their other employees, that the composition of the employees may change, that labor turnover may decrease and productivity increase, or that the business may reduce the size of their workforce or the number of hours worked. Assuming no such adjustments, we simulate the effects of raising the minimum wage to $15 (and in the appendix tables show the effect of raising the minimum wage to $12.12). Hypothetical Business 1 is in the Retail Trade industry. We assume it employees 31 FTE employees, 30 with 6 FTEs earning the minimum wage of $9.32, 4 FTEs earning $10.50, 5 FTEs earning $13, 3 FTEs earning $15.50, and 13 FTEs earning $18 per hour. This assumed employee wage distribution roughly matches the wage distribution of Retail Trade workers in the 2012 ACS. We follow the same process for constructing assumed wage distributions of employees for Business 2 in the Accommodation and Food Services industry with 19 employees, 31 and Business 3 in the Health Care & Social Assistance industry with 22 employees, 32 with the assumed wage distributions of employees shown in the tables below. • Changes in payroll costs attributable to changes in the minimum wage depend the number of workers earning less than the new minimum wage. In these three hypothetical businesses, we found payroll costs could increase by 9 to 23% with a change to a $15 minimum wage. This would be higher if employers maintained pay ladders by increasing wages for other workers and lower if employers decreased work hours, hired more productive workers, or moved employment outside the city. Business 1 results: • If the minimum wage were increased to $15, total annual payroll would increase by 14% while average hourly wages would increase from $14.30 to $16.31. 30 For example, the average “Food and Beverage” retail store employed 31.4 employees in King County in the first quarter of 2013 (based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages). 31 For example, the average “Food Services and Drinking Places” employed 18.8 employees in King County in the first quarter of 2013 (based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages). 32 For example, the average “Social Assistance” establishment employed 22.0 employees in King County in the first quarter of 2013 (based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages). Page 45 of 60 Number of FTE Employees Worker Designation Employee group 1 Employee group 2 Employee group 3 Employee group 4 Employee group 5 Totals 6 4 5 3 13 31 Wage under Wage under current new minimum minimum wage wage $15.00 $9.32 $15.00 $10.50 $15.00 $13.00 $15.50 $15.50 $18.00 $18.00 - Difference in wage FTE × Current minimum wage FTE × New minimum wage $5.68 $4.50 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 - $55.92 $42.00 $65.00 $46.50 $234.00 $443.42 $90.00 $60.00 $75.00 $46.50 $234.00 $505.50 Difference in % Change in total cost per Total Cost hour $34.08 $18.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $62.08 60.94% 42.86% 15.38% 0.00% 0.00% 14.00% Business 2 results: • If the minimum wage were increased to $15, total annual payroll would increase by 23% while average hourly wages would increase from $12.89 to $15.84. Worker Designation Number of FTE Employees Employee group 1 Employee group 2 Employee group 3 Employee group 4 Employee group 5 Totals 6 4 2 2 5 19 Wage Wage under FTE × Current Difference in under new minimum minimum wage current wage wage minimum $9.32 $15.00 $5.68 $55.92 $10.50 $15.00 $4.50 $42.00 $13.00 $15.00 $2.00 $26.00 $15.50 $0.00 $31.00 $15.50 $18.00 $18.00 $0.00 $90.00 $244.92 FTE × New minimum wage $90.00 $60.00 $30.00 $31.00 $90.00 $301.00 Difference % Change in in total cost Total Cost per hour $34.08 $18.00 $4.00 $0.00 $0.00 $56.08 60.94% 42.86% 15.38% 0.00% 0.00% 22.90% Business 3 results: • If the minimum wage were increased to $15, total annual payroll would increase by 9% while average hourly wages would increase from $15.33 to $16.76. Worker Designation Number of FTE Employees Employee group Employee group Employee group Employee group Employee group Totals 3 2 2 2 12 21 Wage under current minimum $9.32 $10.50 $13.00 $15.50 $18.00 - Wage under new minimum wage Difference in wage FTE × Current minimum wage FTE × New minimum wage $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.50 $18.00 - $5.68 $4.50 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 - $27.96 $21.00 $26.00 $31.00 $216.00 $321.96 $45.00 $30.00 $30.00 $31.00 $216.00 $352.00 Difference % Change in in total cost Total Cost per hour $17.04 $9.00 $4.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30.04 60.94% 42.86% 15.38% 0.00% 0.00% 9.33% Page 46 of 60 Appendix A: American Community Survey Data and Sample The source for the worker demographics and wage and income distributions is the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a main source of information on demographics, social, and economic factors replacing the former long form of the census. With an initial sampling frame of approximately 3 million housing units and group quarters, the ACS is second in size only to the decennial Census itself among Census Bureau surveys. ACS probability sampling is highly complex, involving multiple stages and phases, clustering (within household or group quarters), and stratification. It covers all counties and county-like geographic divisions (e.g., Alaska census areas) and most Native American, Alaskan Native, and Hawaiian Native areas. The sampling frame involves stratification by multiple geographic areas, building types, race and Hispanic origin, sex, and age, among other factors. The complex sampling probabilities also account for non-response at multiple stages. Publicly available microdata (individual- or household-level responses) represent 1% of all housing units and of all individuals living in group quarters, and thus represents a further subsample of the full ACS data. In Washington, this includes 29,147 out of over 2.9 million households and 1,415 out of an estimated group quarters population of 141,411 in 2012 (Census Bureau, no date, Tables 1 & 2). The public use microdata files include information for approximately 3 million individuals total. The complex sampling of the ACS, combined with the microdata sampling, is expressed in a household weight and a person weight, which allow analysts to weight results to represent the entire US population of households and of individuals, including those residing in institutions such as military barracks, college dormitories, and correctional facilities. Because of the further subsampling used to produce the microdata, estimates from microdata will differ from published full ACS estimates except for some variables specifically included in the weights. To facilitate verifying that users are implementing the weights correctly, the Census Bureau provides a set of estimates from the full ACS sample created as if the microdata weights were used. The Census Bureau undergoes various measures to protect confidentiality. In the publicly available microdata, this includes masking the clustering and stratification. Survey sampling analysis customarily produces standard errors (which can be further expressed as margins of error or confidence intervals) to capture the uncertainty around estimates due to the sampling. In some surveys, complete information about the sampling is provided, allowing more direct estimation of standard errors accounting for the sampling. This cannot be done with ACS microdata. Instead, there are two main methods of estimating standard errors in the ACS microdata. The preferred method is to use replicate weights developed by a method called successive differences replication, a type of balanced repeated replication (see US Census Bureau 2010 and Lumley 2010 for more information). In this report we utilize the (80) replicate weights, which essentially represent a set of (80) subsamples, the variation among which is used to estimate the standard errors. Page 47 of 60 Although we are only interested in King County or Seattle residents for this report, the most precise estimation of standard errors for an estimate come from evaluating the subpopulation of interest in the context of the larger population. Also known as domain estimation (Lumley 2010), estimation in subpopulations is essentially conducted utilizing all the covariance among individuals across subpopulations in the entire ACS microdata. Most results are from 2007 data because that was the last year in which the ACS queried actual number of weeks worked in the past 12 months (subsequent years ask this in intervals, such as 14 to 26 weeks). This was needed to estimate the hourly wage, defined as: 𝑊𝐴𝐺𝐸 = where • • • 𝐼𝑁𝐶𝑊𝐴𝐺𝐸 𝑊𝐾𝑆𝑊𝑂𝑅𝐾1 × 𝑈𝐻𝑅𝑆𝑊𝑂𝑅𝐾 INCWAGE is the reported total wage income received as an employee. o Question text: (“Give your best estimate of the total amount during the past 12 months” of) “wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items.” WKSWORK1 is the reported weeks worked. o Question text: “During the past 12 months, how many weeks did this person work? Count paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military service.” UHRSWORK is the reported average hours worked per week in weeks in which the person worked. o Question text: “During the past 12 months, in the weeks worked, how many hours did this person usually work each week?” Note that all questions are, of course, subject to various errors of recall. While the wage income question asks about tips, actual reporting of tips is likely to resemble the individual’s reporting of tips on their income taxes. Finally, note that weeks and hours worked may have included some combination of employed time, self-employment time, and time spent in unpaid family labor (household, business, or farm). The wage analyses are therefore conducted only among those whose most recent work was characterized as paid employment. Paid employment is categorized based on the past week for those employed in the week before the survey, and on the work activity at which the individual spent the most hours during the week. The relevant questions were asked only of those ages 16 and older with any work experience in the past five years. The universe for the wage analyses is thus individuals with nonzero reported weeks worked whose last work activity was characterized as paid employment. References Lumley, T. (2010). Complex surveys: A guide to analysis using R. Hoboken NJ: Wiley. US Census Bureau (no date). PUMS accuracy of the data (2012). Washington DC: Author. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/pums/Accuracy/2012AccuracyPUM S.pdf Page 48 of 60 US Census Bureau. (2010). ACS design and methodology. Washington DC: Author. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/survey_methodology/Chapter_12_RevisedDec2010.pdf Page 49 of 60 Appendix B: Maps of Geographic areas used in the analysis Seattle Neighborhoods: Page 50 of 60 Page 51 of 60 Appendix C: Business Scenarios for $12.12 minimum wage Business 1 results: • If the minimum wage were increased to $12.12, total annual payroll would increase by 5% while average hourly wages would increase from $14.30 to $15.05. Worker Designation Number of FTE Employees Employee group 1 Employee group 2 Employee group 3 Employee group 4 Employee group 5 Totals 6 4 5 3 13 31 Wage under Wage under FTE × Current Difference in current new minimum minimum wage minimum wage wage wage $9.32 $12.12 $2.80 $55.92 $10.50 $12.12 $1.62 $42.00 $13.00 $13.00 $0.00 $65.00 $15.50 $15.50 $0.00 $46.50 $18.00 $18.00 $0.00 $234.00 $443.42 FTE × New minimum wage $72.72 $48.48 $65.00 $46.50 $234.00 $466.70 Difference in % Change in total cost per Total Cost hour $16.80 $6.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23.28 30.04% 15.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.25% Business 2 results: • If the minimum wage were increased to $12.12, total annual payroll would increase by 10% while average hourly wages would increase from $12.89 to $14.12. Worker Designation Number of FTE Employees Employee group 1 Employee group 2 Employee group 3 Employee group 4 Employee group 5 Totals 6 4 2 2 5 19 Wage Wage under FTE × Current Difference in under new minimum minimum wage current wage wage minimum $9.32 $12.12 $2.80 $55.92 $10.50 $12.12 $1.62 $42.00 $13.00 $13.00 $0.00 $26.00 $15.50 $15.50 $0.00 $31.00 $18.00 $18.00 $0.00 $90.00 $244.92 FTE × New minimum wage $72.72 $48.48 $26.00 $31.00 $90.00 $268.20 Difference % Change in in total cost Total Cost per hour $16.80 $6.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23.28 30.04% 15.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.51% Business 3 results: • If the minimum wage were increased to $12.12, total annual payroll would increase by 4% while average hourly wages would increase from $15.33 to $15.89. Worker Designation Number of FTE Employees Employee group Employee group Employee group Employee group Employee group Totals 3 2 2 2 12 21 Wage under current minimum $9.32 $10.50 $13.00 $15.50 $18.00 - Wage under new minimum wage Difference in wage FTE × Current minimum wage FTE × New minimum wage $12.12 $12.12 $13.00 $15.50 $18.00 - $2.80 $1.62 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - $27.96 $21.00 $26.00 $31.00 $216.00 $321.96 $36.36 $24.24 $26.00 $31.00 $216.00 $333.60 Difference % Change in in total cost Total Cost per hour $8.40 $3.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11.64 Page 52 of 60 30.04% 15.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.62% Appendix D: The following tables replicate Tables B1-B3 for establishments located in King County, but not in Seattle Distribution of Establishments by Industry 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name All Establishments Share of Establishments with Employees Numbering: 1 to 9 10 to 50 to 100 49 99 and above GOVERNMENT Health Care and Social Assistance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 0.7% 10.5% 13.0% 8.3% 10.4% 3.9% 6.3% 0.1% 7.8% 11.0% 4.7% 6.9% 2.2% 4.8% 0.3% 2.1% 1.5% 3.2% 2.6% 1.1% 1.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Information Construction Other Services (except Public Administration) Transportation and Warehousing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Educational Services OTHER INDUSTRIES Total 5.3% 10.7% 2.3% 10.2% 6.8% 2.8% 4.5% 1.3% 1.8% 1.2% 100.0% 4.2% 8.5% 1.6% 8.3% 5.9% 1.8% 3.8% 0.8% 1.3% 0.8% 74.8% 0.8% 1.8% 0.5% 1.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 19.7% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 3.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 2.4% Page 53 of 60 Distribution of Employees by Industry 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name GOVERNMENT Health Care and Social Assistance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Information Construction Other Services (except Public Administration) Transportation and Warehousing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Educational Services OTHER INDUSTRIES Total All Workers Share of Workers in Establishments with Employees Numbering: 1 to 9 10 to 50 to 100 49 99 and above 10.1% 8.2% 6.8% 7.0% 10.4% 12.3% 6.5% 0.0% 1.6% 1.3% 1.0% 1.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 2.3% 1.8% 3.7% 2.9% 1.3% 1.3% 0.2% 1.3% 0.9% 1.0% 2.0% 1.2% 0.9% 9.5% 3.0% 2.7% 1.3% 4.1% 9.3% 3.7% 3.0% 6.2% 10.0% 4.6% 2.7% 4.6% 1.9% 1.8% 1.3% 2.4% 100.0% 0.7% 1.2% 0.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 12.1% 0.9% 2.2% 0.6% 1.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 22.9% 0.4% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 12.0% 1.0% 1.8% 8.8% 0.7% 0.5% 3.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 1.8% 52.9% Page 54 of 60 Distribution of Wages Paid by Industry 2-Digit NAICS Industry Name GOVERNMENT Health Care and Social Assistance Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Information Construction Other Services (except Public Administration) Transportation and Warehousing Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Educational Services OTHER INDUSTRIES Total Share of Total Wages Paid in 2012 Share of Difference Workers 7.5% 5.2% 8.2% 2.2% 5.0% 15.0% 5.0% 10.1% 8.2% 6.8% 7.0% 10.4% 12.3% 6.5% -2.6% -2.9% 1.5% -4.9% -5.5% 2.7% -1.5% 3.7% 6.9% 25.4% 3.8% 1.4% 3.8% 1.4% 0.9% 0.6% 4.0% 100.0% 3.0% 6.2% 10.0% 4.6% 2.7% 4.6% 1.9% 1.8% 1.3% 2.4% 100.0% 0.7% 0.7% 15.4% -0.7% -1.2% -0.8% -0.6% -0.9% -0.8% 1.6% 0.0% Page 55 of 60 Appendix E: Treatment of Taxes and Budget Components by the Living Wage Calculators Taxes: The calculations reflect post-tax income needed to live self-sufficiently. The Living Wage Calculator includes the payroll tax and federal income tax. The Family Budget Calculator uses the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Internet TAXSIM to calculate federal tax liability, state tax liability, and FICA tax liability. The Self-Sufficiency Standard is more comprehensive than the other two because it includes both taxes (federal income tax, payroll tax, and state and local sales tax) and tax credits (EITC, CCTC, and CTC). Budget Components: The calculators all include the same budget components but use varying sources of data to calculate the costs of some components. • Food: The calculators consistently base a person or family’s food budget on the USDA low cost plan. The Self-Sufficiency Standard goes one step further by calculating geographic differences using the ACCRA Cost of Living Index. • Child Care: The Family Budget Calculator and Self-Sufficiency Standard both use the same data source (the Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network Survey) but only the Self-Sufficiency Standard adjusts for the child’s age. The Family Budget Calculator only includes average costs for school-age children. The Living Wage Calculator also only includes average costs for school-age children but the data come from a Children Defense Fund report. The SelfSufficiency Calculator’s adjustment of age allows it to provide a more accurate number of what a family spends on child care. • Medical Expenses: All three calculators use data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to obtain employer-sponsored premium costs and out-of-pocket costs by geographic area along with the Consumer Expenditure Survey. The Self-Sufficiency Standard also disaggregates the statewide figures using the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner report, Individual Health Plans by County. The calculators do not address the changes created by the Affordable Care Act so this is something that needs to be investigated further when calculating living wages in 2014 and beyond. • Housing: The housing budget is standard across the three tools. They all use HUD’s fair market rent standards for MSAs and set the housing standard at the 40th percentile of the rental market. In other words, the amount below which 40% of the standard rental housing units are rented. This is also the housing expenditure cutoff for Housing Choice Vouchers if families are recipients of that particular benefit. The calculators do differ in their assumptions of family size and corresponding bedroom count. The Family Budget Calculator and Self-Sufficiency Standard assume that families with one or two children live in a two bedroom unit and those with three children live in a three bedroom unit. The Living Wage Calculator assumes that a family with any number of children lives in a two bedroom unit. Housing costs for larger families are underestimated by this tool. • Transportation: The Living Wage Calculator and Family Budget Calculator consider car travel when creating transportation budgets and do not consider whether public transit is a viable Page 56 of 60 option. This approach may overstate transportation costs in Seattle and King County, given the accessibility of public transit. In contrast, the Self-Sufficiency Standard assumes that workers use public transit if the system is adequate (used by more than 7% of the working population). Since King County meets this standard the Self-Sufficiency Standard reflects the costs of public transit. On the other hand, the Standard ignores the reality that most low-income families rely on cars for much non-work travel. • Other Necessities: The Living Wage Calculator and Family Budget Calculator both obtain the cost of other necessities such as clothing and school supplies from the regionally adjusted Consumer Expenditure Survey. The Self-Sufficiency calculates the cost of these necessities by taking 10% of all other costs, which they argue is a conservative estimate compared to the other calculators. The three living wage calculators are identical or very similar in some areas (housing, food, work hours assumptions) but differ when it comes to other components (, child care, medical expenses, transportation, other necessities). To make sense of how these differences affect the estimates, the appendix table offers a point of reference with the low, medium, or high grades under each budget component. Low means a component is on the lower side of cost, medium means the measure is somewhere in the middle or does not differ from the other estimates, and so on. Page 57 of 60 Appendix F: Comparison of 2012 and 2007 Work Outcomes This report uses data from the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS from 2007 because it allows us to calculate hourly wages for workers. 33 We do this by dividing total annual earnings for each worker by the number of weeks worked in the year multiplied by the “usual” number of hours worked in a week. [See Appendix A for details on question wording.] Because the “Great Recession” was officially December 2007 through June 2009, data from 2007 is pre-recession and may serve as a good representation of the current labor market. Here we compare data from the most recent survey (2012) to the data from 2007. • • Average family income and individual income from wages and salary were slightly lower in 2012 than in 2007, but the differences are not statistically significant. Usual hours worked per week were very similar in 2007 and 2012. • These patterns held for all people over 16 and when looking only at workers. All People Over Age 16 Usual Hours Worked per Week Total Family Income Individual Wage and Salary Income All Paid Employees Usual Hours Worked per Week Total Family Income Individual Wage and Salary Income • Mean Value, 2012 Standard Error, 2012 Mean Value, 2007 Standard Error, 2007 Difference z-value 29 $87,244 0.33 2456 30 $89,593 0.40 2312 -1 -$2,348 -1.55 -0.70 $39,967 1025 $40,522 1056 -$554 -0.38 Mean Value, 2012 Standard Error, 2012 Mean Value, 2007 Standard Error, 2007 Difference z-value 39 $90,231 0.30 2678.80 39 $92,309 0.24 2240.22 -1 -$2,078 -1.29 -0.60 $54,736 1318.25 $55,705 1356.46 -$969 -0.51 Slightly more people over age 16 worked between 50 and 52 weeks in 2012 than in 2007, while fewer people worked between 40 and 49 weeks. 33 The exact number of weeks worked per year, needed to calculate hourly earnings, was not asked in the ACS after 2007. Alternative data sets with wage rates (e.g., Current Population Survey) will not allow for analysis of geographic areas smaller than states or full metropolitan areas. Page 58 of 60 All People Over Age 16 0 weeks 1-13 weeks 14-26 weeks 27-39 weeks 40-47 weeks 48-49 weeks 50-52 weeks % of People Working This Number of Weeks, 2012: 23% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 57% Standard Error, 2012 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.009 % of People Working This Number of Weeks, 2007: 22% 5% 4% 5% 8% 6% 49% Standard Error, 2007 Difference z-value 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.010 1% -1% -1% -1% -3% -4% 8% 0.65 -1.60 -0.96 -1.04 -4.28 -7.02 6.28 Page 59 of 60 Appendix G: Complete Worker characteristics Page 60 of 60 Percentage,in,Wage,Category,for,each,Age,Group Age %,of,all,Earners under,19 19624 25644 45654 55+ $9.32,or,Less Percent SE 13% 61% 0.057 35% 0.032 7% 0.009 9% 0.016 8% 0.014 Age %,of,all,Earners under,19 19624 25644 45654 55+ $9.32,or,Less Percent SE 12% 55% 0.045 31% 0.029 8% 0.010 7% 0.010 7% 0.011 Age %,of,all,Earners under,19 19624 25644 45654 55+ $9.32,or,Less Percent SE 14% 63% 0.049 33% 0.041 11% 0.014 6% 0.011 8% 0.017 Seattle,(Super,PUMA,=,53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33,6$12.12 $12.13,6,$15.00 $15.01,6,$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 14% 0.042 1% 0.014 1% 0.014 21% 0.025 10% 0.019 10% 0.016 8% 0.008 8% 0.008 9% 0.010 6% 0.012 9% 0.016 6% 0.012 3% 0.008 10% 0.019 5% 0.013 Area,Surrounding,Seattle,(Super,PUMA,=,53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33,6$12.12 $12.13,6,$15.00 $15.01,6,$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 9% 15% 0.029 12% 0.034 7% 0.021 17% 0.021 16% 0.022 10% 0.018 8% 0.010 7% 0.009 10% 0.010 6% 0.011 5% 0.008 7% 0.010 4% 0.008 7% 0.012 8% 0.013 Rest,of,King,County,(Super,PUMA,=,53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33,6$12.12 $12.13,6,$15.00 $15.01,6,$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 8% 11% 0.028 10% 0.041 5% 0.025 21% 0.029 16% 0.030 13% 0.027 10% 0.013 10% 0.013 10% 0.011 6% 0.014 9% 0.015 7% 0.011 6% 0.012 7% 0.013 5% 0.011 Over,$18.00 Percent SE 62% 22% 0.052 24% 0.030 67% 0.015 71% 0.023 74% 0.025 Over,$18.00 Percent SE 64% 10% 0.023 26% 0.026 67% 0.017 74% 0.019 74% 0.017 Over,$18.00 Percent SE 58% 10% 0.028 18% 0.028 59% 0.022 72% 0.023 74% 0.022 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees. Percentage*in*Wage*Category*for*each*Education*Level*Group Education*Level %*of*all*Earners Less*Than*HS High*School*or*GED Some*College Bachelor's*Degree $9.32*or*Less Percent SE 13% 29% 0.042 23% 0.029 19% 0.018 5% 0.007 Education*Level %*of*all*Earners Less*Than*HS High*School*or*GED Some*College Bachelor's*Degree $9.32*or*Less Percent SE 12% 38% 0.042 19% 0.022 11% 0.011 5% 0.007 Education*Level %*of*all*Earners Less*Than*HS High*School*or*GED Some*College Bachelor's*Degree $9.32*or*Less Percent SE 14% 37% 0.051 18% 0.024 12% 0.010 4% 0.010 Seattle*(Super*PUMA*=*53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33*R$12.12 $12.13*R*$15.00 $15.01*R*$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 19% 0.036 11% 0.028 10% 0.038 14% 0.027 12% 0.021 7% 0.016 13% 0.015 12% 0.012 9% 0.012 4% 0.006 6% 0.008 7% 0.007 Area*Surrounding*Seattle*(Super*PUMA*=*53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33*R$12.12 $12.13*R*$15.00 $15.01*R*$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 9% 14% 0.027 14% 0.023 8% 0.018 13% 0.016 12% 0.019 15% 0.018 10% 0.012 11% 0.012 12% 0.015 4% 0.006 3% 0.004 5% 0.005 Rest*of*King*County*(Super*PUMA*=*53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33*R$12.12 $12.13*R*$15.00 $15.01*R*$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 8% 17% 0.035 17% 0.056 7% 0.019 12% 0.017 12% 0.018 11% 0.014 10% 0.010 9% 0.011 10% 0.011 4% 0.008 6% 0.011 4% 0.011 Over*$18.00 Percent SE 62% 31% 0.034 44% 0.036 48% 0.021 78% 0.011 Over*$18.00 Percent SE 64% 26% 0.036 41% 0.022 56% 0.020 84% 0.011 Over*$18.00 Percent SE 58% 22% 0.037 47% 0.027 59% 0.017 83% 0.017 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees...Education.level.is.based.on.the.highest.year.of.school.completed.by.the.respondent. Percentage$in$Wage$Category$for$Each$Food$Stamp$Category Food$Stamp$ Recipient %$of$all$Earners Yes No Food$Stamp$ Recipient %$of$all$Earners Yes No Food$Stamp$ Recipient %$of$all$Earners Yes No $9.32$or$Less Percent 13% 22% 12% SE 0.054 0.008 $9.32$or$Less Percent 12% 31% 11% SE 0.072 0.007 $9.32$or$Less Percent 14% 33% 13% SE 0.056 0.009 Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33$L$12.12 $12.13$L$$15.00 $15.01$L$$18.00 Over$$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 21% 0.046 18% 0.037 7% 0.029 8% 0.007 8% 0.007 8% 0.006 Area$Surrounding$Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33$L$12.12 $12.13$L$$15.00 $15.01$L$$18.00 Percent 62% 32% 64% Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 18% 0.053 13% 0.048 8% 0.006 7% 0.006 Rest$of$King$County$(Super$PUMA$=$53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33$L$12.12 $12.13$L$$15.00 Percent 9% 3% 9% Percent 64% 35% 65% Percent 10% 23% 9% Percent 8% 6% 8% SE 0.058 0.007 Percent 10% 19% 9% SE 0.042 0.009 SE 0.013 0.006 $15.01$L$$18.00 SE 0.019 0.007 SE 0.055 0.009 Over$$18.00 SE 0.082 0.011 Over$$18.00 Percent 58% 19% 60% SE 0.038 0.014 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees...The.Food.Stamp.variable.indicates.whether.anyone.in.the.household.received.food.stamps.any.time.in.the.previous.12. months. Percentage'in'Wage'Category'for'Each'Welfare'Category Welfare' Recipient %'of'all'Earners Yes No Welfare' Recipient %'of'all'Earners Yes No Welfare' Recipient %'of'all'Earners Yes No $9.32'or'Less Percent 13% 32% 12% SE 0.104 0.008 $9.32'or'Less Percent 12% 13.8% 11.8% SE 0.090 0.007 $9.32'or'Less Percent 14% 51% 14% SE 0.104 0.009 Seattle'(Super'PUMA'='53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33'J$12.12 $12.13'J'$15.00 $15.01'J'$18.00 Over'$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 17% 0.102 14% 0.086 0% 0.000 9% 0.007 9% 0.007 8% 0.006 Area'Surrounding'Seattle'(Super'PUMA'='53081) N2=2402,750 $9.33'J$12.12 $12.13'J'$15.00 $15.01'J'$18.00 Percent 62% 37% 62% Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 41% 0.121 13% 0.073 8% 0.006 8% 0.006 Rest'of'King'County'(Super'PUMA'='53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33'J$12.12 $12.13'J'$15.00 Percent 9% 0% 9% Percent 64% 33% 64% Percent 10% 21% 9% Percent 8% 6% 8% SE 0.106 0.007 Percent 10% 5% 10% SE 0.047 0.009 SE 0.000 0.006 $15.01'J'$18.00 SE 0.041 0.007 SE 0.088 0.010 Over'$18.00 SE 0.109 0.011 Over'$18.00 Percent 58% 17% 58% SE 0.073 0.013 Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2 classified2as2paid2employees.22The2welfare2variable2reports2whether2the2respondent2received2support2from2various2public2assistance2programs,2 including2SSI,2AFDC,2and2GA2in2the2previous2122months. Percentage)in)Wage)Category)for)Each)Children)in)Home)Category $9.32)or)Less Children)In)Home %)of)all)Earners Yes No Percent 13% 9% 14% SE 0.014 0.010 $9.32)or)Less Children)In)Home %)of)all)Earners Yes No Percent 12% 7.5% 14.4% SE 0.008 0.010 $9.32)or)Less Children)In)Home %)of)all)Earners Yes No Percent 14% 10% 17% SE 0.014 0.014 Seattle)(Super)PUMA)=)53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33)N$12.12 $12.13)N)$15.00 $15.01)N)$18.00 Over)$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 8% 0.012 6% 0.010 5% 0.011 9% 0.008 10% 0.009 8% 0.008 Area)Surrounding)Seattle)(Super)PUMA)=)53081) N2=2402,750 $9.33)N$12.12 $12.13)N)$15.00 $15.01)N)$18.00 Percent 62% 73% 59% Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 7% 0.010 6% 0.009 8% 0.008 9% 0.007 Rest)of)King)County)(Super)PUMA)=)53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33)N$12.12 $12.13)N)$15.00 Percent 9% 7% 10% Percent 64% 72% 59% Percent 10% 9% 10% Percent 8% 8% 9% SE 0.013 0.009 Percent 10% 9% 11% SE 0.011 0.012 SE 0.008 0.008 $15.01)N)$18.00 SE 0.009 0.009 SE 0.021 0.013 Over)$18.00 SE 0.017 0.014 Over)$18.00 Percent 58% 64% 54% SE 0.017 0.017 Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2 classified2as2paid2employees Percentage%in%Wage%Category%for%Part%Time%and%Full%Time%Workers %%of%all%Earners Full%Time Part%Time $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 13% 10% 0.008 30% 0.027 Type%of%Work %%of%all%Earners Full%Time Part%Time $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 12% 8% 0.007 32% 0.025 Type%of%Work %%of%all%Earners Full%Time Part%Time $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 14% 10% 0.009 41% 0.035 Type%of%Work Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33%K$12.12 $12.13%K%$15.00 $15.01%K%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 8% 0.007 8% 0.007 8% 0.007 12% 0.015 13% 0.019 6% 0.012 Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33%K$12.12 $12.13%K%$15.00 $15.01%K%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 9% 7% 0.007 7% 0.007 9% 0.006 13% 0.015 10% 0.016 9% 0.012 Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33%K$12.12 $12.13%K%$15.00 $15.01%K%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 8% 9% 0.008 10% 0.009 9% 0.008 15% 0.022 11% 0.022 6% 0.015 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 62% 66% 0.011 39% 0.025 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 64% 68% 0.012 37% 0.022 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 58% 63% 0.014 26% 0.027 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees...30.hours.per.week.or.more.is.considered.full.time. Hours&and&Weeks&Worked Mean SE Median Mean SE Median Mean SE Median Min 1st Mean SE Median 99th Max Seattle&(53070) N3=3334,458 Total&Estimated&Hours&per&Year $9.32&or& $9.33&,& $12.13&,& $15.01&,& Less $12.12 $15.00 $18.00 1,251 1,579 1,634 1,805 54 60 63 60 1,040 1,757 1,866 2,000 Usual&Hours&Worked&per&Week $9.32&or& $9.33&,& $12.13&,& $15.01&,& Less $12.12 $15.00 $18.00 33 37 37 39 0.85 0.96 1.09 0.88 32 40 40 40 Weeks&Worked&per&Year $9.32&or& $9.33&,& $12.13&,& $15.01&,& Less $12.12 $15.00 $18.00 36 41 42 46 1.05 1.02 1.01 0.89 44 50 50 51 Wages&per&Hour $9.32&or& $9.33&,& $12.13&,& $15.01&,& Less $12.12 $15.00 $18.00 $1.12 $9.36 $12.13 $15.00 $1.44 $9.36 $12.15 $15.03 $6.58 $10.77 $13.61 $16.55 $0.13 $0.07 $0.06 $0.06 $7.02 $10.80 $13.50 $16.52 $9.23 $12.04 $14.98 $17.98 $9.31 $12.10 $14.98 $17.98 Over&$18.00 1,930 19 2,080 Over&$18.00 41 0.28 40 Over&$18.00 46 0.35 52 Over&$18.00 $18.01 $18.25 $45.22 $3.07 $30.90 $206.52 $1,836.56 Based3on320073ACS3data,3sample3includes3respondents3163years3or3older3who3 reported3working3at3some3time3in3the3past3123months,3and3who3were3classified3 as3paid3employees. Percentage(in(Wage(Category(for(Hispanic(and(Non;Hispanic(Earners %(of(all(Earners No Yes $9.32(or(Less Percent SE 13% 12% 0.009 17% 0.035 Hispanic(Origin %(of(all(Earners No Yes $9.32(or(Less Percent SE 12% 11% 0.007 21% 0.036 Hispanic(Origin Hispanic(Origin %(of(all(Earners No Yes $9.32(or(Less Percent SE 14% 13% 0.009 27% 0.066 Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33(;$12.12 $12.13(;($15.00 $15.01(;($18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 8% 0.007 8% 0.007 7% 0.006 17% 0.037 14% 0.035 12% 0.042 Area(Surrounding(Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33(;$12.12 $12.13(;($15.00 $15.01(;($18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 9% 8% 0.006 7% 0.006 8% 0.006 12% 0.030 14% 0.034 13% 0.024 Rest(of(King(County((Super(PUMA(=(53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33(;$12.12 $12.13(;($15.00 $15.01(;($18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 8% 9% 0.008 9% 0.008 8% 0.008 13% 0.034 18% 0.064 10% 0.024 Over($18.00 Percent SE 62% 64% 0.010 39% 0.041 Over($18.00 Percent SE 64% 66% 0.010 40% 0.038 Over($18.00 Percent SE 58% 60% 0.013 32% 0.050 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees. Percentage%in%Wage%Category%for%Each%Work%Industry Work%Industry %%of%all%Earners Accommodation%and% Food%Services Administrative...Reme diation%Services Agriculture,%Forestry,% etc. Arts,%Entertainment,% and%Recreation Construction Educational%Services Finance%and%Insurance Health%Care%and%Social% Assistance Information Management%of% Companies%and% Enterprises Manufacturing Other%Services… Professional,%Scientific,% etc. Public%Administration Real%Estate%etc. Retail%Trade Transportation%and% Warehousing Utilities Wholesale%Trade Mining%/%Extraction $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 13% Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N/=/334,458 $9.33%V$12.12 $12.13%V%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% $15.01%V%$18.00 Percent SE 8% Over%$18.00 Percent SE 62% 32% 0.036 21% 0.030 10% 0.021 8% 0.019 29% 0.036 9% 0.032 18% 0.055 10% 0.034 16% 0.047 47% 0.069 40% 0.194 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 60% 0.194 14% 11% 9% 2% 0.043 0.036 0.018 0.012 10% 8% 6% 3% 0.037 0.028 0.015 0.016 1% 5% 8% 4% 0.010 0.037 0.016 0.020 13% 10% 8% 5% 0.048 0.050 0.015 0.022 61% 66% 69% 85% 0.058 0.068 0.030 0.034 13% 5% 0.020 0.019 11% 5% 0.021 0.022 11% 4% 0.019 0.016 8% 3% 0.020 0.017 57% 82% 0.029 0.035 0% 9% 20% 0.000 0.034 0.043 41% 4% 14% 0.335 0.014 0.033 0% 5% 11% 0.000 0.019 0.033 0% 10% 3% 0.000 0.030 0.014 59% 73% 52% 0.335 0.042 0.049 3% 3% 16% 19% 0.009 0.014 0.067 0.028 2% 3% 8% 12% 0.010 0.011 0.042 0.022 7% 3% 16% 17% 0.017 0.014 0.062 0.026 5% 3% 7% 9% 0.015 0.014 0.053 0.019 83% 88% 52% 42% 0.025 0.026 0.092 0.036 11% 0% 12% NA 0.033 0.000 0.067 NA 11% 0% 4% NA 0.064 0.000 0.031 NA 11% 0% 14% NA 0.035 0.000 0.060 NA 4% 6% 10% NA 0.021 0.056 0.051 NA 64% 94% 59% NA 0.061 0.056 0.084 NA Work%Industry %%of%all%Earners Accommodation%and% Food%Services Administrative...Reme diation%Services Agriculture,%Forestry,% etc. Arts,%Entertainment,% and%Recreation Construction Educational%Services Finance%and%Insurance Health%Care%and%Social% Assistance Information Management%of% Companies%and% Enterprises Manufacturing Other%Services… Professional,%Scientific,% etc. Public%Administration Real%Estate%etc. Retail%Trade Transportation%and% Warehousing Utilities Wholesale%Trade Mining%/%Extraction $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 12% Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N/=/402,750 $9.33%V$12.12 $12.13%V%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% $15.01%V%$18.00 Percent SE 9% Over%$18.00 Percent SE 64% 37% 0.039 18% 0.033 13% 0.024 8% 0.021 24% 0.032 13% 0.030 11% 0.041 8% 0.031 12% 0.033 56% 0.053 27% 0.193 35% 0.271 27% 0.198 0% 0.000 11% 0.113 25% 10% 12% 3% 0.047 0.027 0.022 0.015 8% 5% 6% 7% 0.031 0.016 0.015 0.021 12% 5% 11% 7% 0.058 0.023 0.022 0.020 9% 18% 11% 4% 0.032 0.038 0.021 0.014 45% 62% 60% 79% 0.062 0.044 0.029 0.034 10% 7% 0.018 0.021 9% 4% 0.019 0.019 9% 5% 0.016 0.019 8% 5% 0.015 0.021 63% 78% 0.030 0.030 0% 7% 26% 0.000 0.018 0.053 0% 3% 12% 0.000 0.014 0.033 24% 6% 15% 0.229 0.018 0.037 0% 8% 7% 0.000 0.016 0.024 76% 76% 41% 0.229 0.027 0.059 3% 4% 14% 19% 0.009 0.025 0.053 0.023 2% 4% 15% 16% 0.007 0.019 0.063 0.018 3% 5% 2% 10% 0.010 0.027 0.017 0.021 3% 5% 12% 12% 0.010 0.019 0.053 0.020 89% 82% 56% 44% 0.019 0.040 0.065 0.029 8% 0% 3% 0% 0.027 0.000 0.014 0.000 5% 3% 10% 0% 0.025 0.027 0.036 0.000 6% 0% 6% 0% 0.022 0.000 0.024 0.000 12% 15% 12% 0% 0.032 0.071 0.032 0.000 69% 82% 70% 100% 0.043 0.076 0.044 0.000 Work%Industry %%of%all%Earners Accommodation%and% Food%Services Administrative...Reme diation%Services Agriculture,%Forestry,% etc. Arts,%Entertainment,% and%Recreation Construction Educational%Services Finance%and%Insurance Health%Care%and%Social% Assistance Information Management%of% Companies%and% Enterprises Manufacturing Other%Services… Professional,%Scientific,% etc. Public%Administration Real%Estate%etc. Retail%Trade Transportation%and% Warehousing Utilities Wholesale%Trade Mining%/%Extraction $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 14% Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N/=/263,278 $9.33%V$12.12 $12.13%V%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% $15.01%V%$18.00 Percent SE 8% Over%$18.00 Percent SE 58% 40% 0.049 22% 0.044 11% 0.031 6% 0.021 22% 0.043 15% 0.038 9% 0.041 27% 0.081 7% 0.029 42% 0.065 35% 0.197 21% 0.172 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 44% 0.204 26% 5% 12% 2% 0.079 0.019 0.027 0.012 12% 4% 8% 1% 0.051 0.018 0.022 0.011 14% 9% 10% 12% 0.058 0.032 0.023 0.044 5% 11% 13% 6% 0.031 0.027 0.032 0.022 43% 71% 58% 79% 0.076 0.046 0.035 0.050 10% 3% 0.024 0.024 11% 13% 0.031 0.053 13% 5% 0.024 0.028 11% 8% 0.027 0.043 55% 71% 0.040 0.064 0% 8% 18% 0.000 0.017 0.048 0% 6% 18% 0.000 0.015 0.055 64% 7% 10% 0.328 0.016 0.043 0% 7% 6% 0.000 0.017 0.023 36% 73% 48% 0.328 0.032 0.057 7% 3% 26% 28% 0.024 0.019 0.089 0.036 2% 3% 8% 15% 0.015 0.016 0.033 0.024 4% 4% 17% 9% 0.018 0.029 0.067 0.024 9% 5% 8% 8% 0.026 0.023 0.038 0.018 77% 85% 42% 40% 0.041 0.045 0.070 0.031 10% 0% 7% NA 0.030 0.000 0.030 NA 7% 0% 6% NA 0.028 0.000 0.037 NA 8% 0% 7% NA 0.026 0.000 0.029 NA 10% 0% 10% NA 0.034 0.000 0.039 NA 65% 100% 69% NA 0.045 0.000 0.057 NA Based/on/2007/ACS/data,/sample/includes/respondents/16/years/or/older/who/reported/working/at/some/time/in/the/past/12/months,/and/who/were/classified/ as/paid/employees.//Industry/is/coded/based/on/the/North/American/Industrial/Classification/System Percentage0in0Wage0Category0for0Each0Occupation Occupation %0of0all0Earners Architecture0and0Engineering Arts,0Design,0etc. Building0and0Grounds Business0and0Financial0 Operations Community0and0Social0 Services Computer0and0Mathematical Construction0and0Extraction Education,0Training,0and0 Library Farming,0Fishing,0and0 Forestry Food0Preparation0and0Serving0 Related Healthcare0Practitioners0and0 Technical Healthcare0Support Installation,0Maintenance,0 and0Repair Legal Life,0Physical,0and0Social0 Science Management Military0Specific Office0and0Administrative0 Support Personal0Care0and0Service Production Protective0Service Sales0and0Related Transportation0and0Material0 Moving $9.320or0Less Percent SE 13% 3% 0.016 7% 0.028 11% 0.047 Seattle0(Super0PUMA0=053070) N.=.334,458 $9.330V$12.12 $12.130V0$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 6% 0.026 0% 0.000 4% 0.030 5% 0.017 28% 0.081 10% 0.059 $15.010V0$18.00 Percent SE 8% 6% 0.024 9% 0.028 17% 0.072 Over0$18.00 Percent SE 62% 85% 0.036 75% 0.046 33% 0.076 6% 0.022 4% 0.017 3% 0.014 4% 0.015 83% 0.031 10% 2% 11% 0.037 0.010 0.044 5% 3% 11% 0.034 0.020 0.038 12% 6% 9% 0.056 0.025 0.048 6% 4% 11% 0.028 0.020 0.062 68% 86% 58% 0.061 0.035 0.072 8% 0.017 7% 0.018 9% 0.023 7% 0.019 69% 0.031 83% 0.185 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 17% 0.185 34% 0.041 21% 0.034 10% 0.024 7% 0.022 27% 0.038 4% 19% 0.016 0.074 5% 20% 0.022 0.079 7% 9% 0.025 0.057 7% 12% 0.025 0.069 78% 41% 0.041 0.088 7% 0% 0.035 0.000 4% 4% 0.026 0.039 20% 4% 0.088 0.021 6% 5% 0.042 0.025 65% 87% 0.094 0.049 7% 4% 0% 0.047 0.012 0.000 2% 2% 43% 0.011 0.009 0.342 11% 3% 0% 0.033 0.010 0.000 4% 3% 28% 0.025 0.009 0.271 76% 89% 29% 0.058 0.019 0.287 14% 32% 19% 6% 19% 0.018 0.055 0.062 0.042 0.027 11% 13% 13% 6% 10% 0.017 0.044 0.039 0.029 0.022 14% 18% 9% 6% 14% 0.020 0.057 0.036 0.042 0.025 12% 9% 11% 17% 8% 0.023 0.041 0.050 0.110 0.019 49% 29% 48% 65% 49% 0.030 0.052 0.068 0.115 0.033 23% 0.065 18% 0.071 11% 0.040 8% 0.034 40% 0.078 Occupation %0of0all0Earners Architecture0and0Engineering Arts,0Design,0etc. Building0and0Grounds Business0and0Financial0 Operations Community0and0Social0 Services Computer0and0Mathematical Construction0and0Extraction Education,0Training,0and0 Library Farming,0Fishing,0and0 Forestry Food0Preparation0and0Serving0 Related Healthcare0Practitioners0and0 Technical Healthcare0Support Installation,0Maintenance,0 and0Repair Legal Life,0Physical,0and0Social0 Science Management Military0Specific Office0and0Administrative0 Support Personal0Care0and0Service Production Protective0Service Sales0and0Related Transportation0and0Material0 Moving $9.320or0Less Percent SE 12% 2% 0.013 9% 0.027 30% 0.054 Area0Surrounding0Seattle0(Super0PUMA0=053081) N.=.402,750 $9.330V$12.12 $12.130V0$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 0% 0.000 1% 0.009 8% 0.038 8% 0.038 11% 0.044 19% 0.058 $15.010V0$18.00 Percent SE 9% 2% 0.011 6% 0.036 14% 0.039 Over0$18.00 Percent SE 64% 95% 0.019 70% 0.060 26% 0.056 2% 0.009 2% 0.010 3% 0.013 7% 0.022 86% 0.030 7% 5% 11% 0.044 0.021 0.034 8% 1% 6% 0.060 0.006 0.019 9% 1% 6% 0.050 0.009 0.027 19% 2% 20% 0.066 0.008 0.039 58% 90% 58% 0.096 0.023 0.050 14% 0.028 6% 0.015 9% 0.021 10% 0.019 60% 0.037 16% 0.161 39% 0.288 30% 0.225 0% 0.000 15% 0.158 36% 0.047 16% 0.032 13% 0.027 10% 0.026 24% 0.039 4% 8% 0.016 0.036 3% 23% 0.015 0.082 4% 14% 0.013 0.058 2% 14% 0.012 0.072 87% 41% 0.027 0.094 3% 0% 0.018 0.000 11% 3% 0.043 0.030 4% 12% 0.022 0.095 13% 2% 0.050 0.017 69% 84% 0.058 0.080 5% 4% 14% 0.035 0.012 0.150 0% 2% 15% 0.000 0.009 0.162 3% 2% 0% 0.026 0.009 0.000 2% 3% 0% 0.016 0.009 0.000 91% 89% 71% 0.048 0.017 0.219 9% 34% 16% 6% 17% 0.014 0.062 0.043 0.040 0.018 12% 19% 15% 16% 13% 0.017 0.047 0.045 0.075 0.020 14% 12% 12% 13% 8% 0.018 0.040 0.040 0.067 0.014 15% 12% 11% 2% 8% 0.018 0.041 0.041 0.023 0.015 49% 22% 46% 63% 54% 0.029 0.052 0.049 0.093 0.029 27% 0.046 8% 0.021 8% 0.026 13% 0.031 43% 0.047 Occupation %0of0all0Earners Architecture0and0Engineering Arts,0Design,0etc. Building0and0Grounds Business0and0Financial0 Operations Community0and0Social0 Services Computer0and0Mathematical Construction0and0Extraction Education,0Training,0and0 Library Farming,0Fishing,0and0 Forestry Food0Preparation0and0Serving0 Related Healthcare0Practitioners0and0 Technical Healthcare0Support Installation,0Maintenance,0 and0Repair Legal Life,0Physical,0and0Social0 Science Management Military0Specific Office0and0Administrative0 Personal0Care0and0Service Production Protective0Service Sales0and0Related Transportation0and0Material0 Moving $9.320or0Less Percent SE 14% 1.5% 0.014 10.3% 0.051 31.3% 0.083 Rest0of0King0County0(Super0PUMA0=053082) N2=2263,278 $9.330V$12.12 $12.130V0$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 2.3% 0.023 1.4% 0.014 6.8% 0.040 8.5% 0.061 9.5% 0.041 33.3% 0.119 $15.010V0$18.00 Percent SE 8% 0.0% 0.000 1.3% 0.014 5.3% 0.029 Over0$18.00 Percent SE 58% 94.8% 0.029 73.1% 0.076 20.5% 0.068 1.9% 0.011 2.1% 0.011 3.6% 0.020 5.1% 0.020 87.2% 0.029 0.0% 1.4% 6.6% 0.000 0.014 0.024 10.0% 0.2% 2.6% 0.059 0.002 0.013 6.3% 0.9% 5.4% 0.045 0.009 0.030 7.7% 2.0% 13.6% 0.049 0.013 0.033 76.1% 95.5% 71.7% 0.079 0.024 0.049 13.0% 0.038 11.6% 0.033 11.6% 0.033 7.8% 0.031 56.0% 0.048 27.7% 0.194 17.1% 0.196 14.7% 0.144 0.0% 0.000 40.4% 0.265 50.1% 0.070 14.9% 0.046 12.6% 0.040 8.1% 0.026 14.3% 0.046 3.4% 6.1% 0.019 0.029 1.0% 33.5% 0.010 0.105 3.7% 24.8% 0.023 0.070 11.4% 20.1% 0.039 0.079 80.5% 15.4% 0.046 0.056 6.3% 0.0% 0.034 0.000 9.1% 0.0% 0.034 0.000 1.2% 4.9% 0.011 0.048 5.4% 14.4% 0.034 0.109 78.0% 80.7% 0.052 0.115 8.7% 5.1% 0.0% 10.1% 22.4% 16.1% 25.1% 21.7% 0.067 0.016 0.000 0.017 0.058 0.033 0.088 0.031 0.0% 3.0% 31.5% 8.7% 34.6% 11.7% 8.7% 12.8% 0.000 0.014 0.305 0.018 0.091 0.027 0.041 0.022 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 16.3% 11.0% 12.5% 7.5% 8.8% 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.021 0.044 0.029 0.047 0.019 6.1% 2.9% 31.1% 12.0% 10.3% 7.8% 4.9% 8.3% 0.061 0.010 0.327 0.020 0.036 0.026 0.030 0.022 85.3% 85.8% 37.3% 53.0% 21.7% 51.9% 53.8% 48.5% 0.089 0.030 0.314 0.030 0.053 0.044 0.078 0.036 22.9% 0.035 16.2% 0.030 12.2% 0.029 13.2% 0.030 35.4% 0.038 Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2classified2as2paid2 employees.22Occupation2is2coded2based2on2Standard2Occupational2Classifications. Percentage(in(Wage(Category(for(Each(Poverty(Level(Group Poverty(Level %(of(all(Earners 100%(Federal(Poverty(Level( or(Below 100%9200%(Federal(Poverty( Level 200%(or(More(of(Federal( Poverty(Level Poverty(Level %(of(all(Earners 100%(Federal(Poverty(Level( or(Below 100%9200%(Federal(Poverty( Level 200%(or(More(of(Federal( Poverty(Level Poverty(Level %(of(all(Earners 100%(Federal(Poverty(Level( or(Below 100%9200%(Federal(Poverty( Level 200%(or(More(of(Federal( Poverty(Level $9.32(or(Less Percent SE 13% Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33(9$12.12 $12.13(9($15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% $15.01(9($18.00 Percent SE 8% Over($18.00 Percent SE 62% 56% 0.042 15% 0.032 11% 0.029 5% 0.016 14% 0.029 31% 0.040 27% 0.032 17% 0.028 6% 0.017 19% 0.031 5% 0.005 5% 0.006 8% 0.006 Area(Surrounding(Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53081) N2=2402,750 $9.33(9$12.12 $12.13(9($15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 8% 0.007 74% 0.010 $9.32(or(Less Percent SE 12% $15.01(9($18.00 Percent SE 9% Over($18.00 Percent SE 64% 53% 0.052 16% 0.034 11% 0.034 4% 0.019 16% 0.050 34% 0.044 28% 0.039 12% 0.026 13% 0.023 13% 0.027 8% 0.006 6% 0.006 7% 0.006 Rest(of(King(County((Super(PUMA(=(53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33(9$12.12 $12.13(9($15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 9% 0.006 70% 0.011 $9.32(or(Less Percent SE 14% $15.01(9($18.00 Percent SE 8% Over($18.00 Percent SE 58% 58% 0.061 22% 0.054 10% 0.032 1% 0.011 9% 0.041 30% 0.051 28% 0.049 15% 0.031 12% 0.031 15% 0.037 10% 0.007 7% 0.006 10% 0.009 8% 0.008 66% 0.013 Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2classified2as2 paid2employees. Percentage,in,Wage,Category,for,Each,Racial,Group Race %,of,all,Earners American,Indian,/,Alaska,Native Asian,and/or,Pacific,Islander Black Non,;,Hispanic,,other White Race %,of,all,Earners American,Indian,/,Alaska,Native Asian,and/or,Pacific,Islander Black Non,;,Hispanic,,other White Race %,of,all,Earners American,Indian,/,Alaska,Native Asian,and/or,Pacific,Islander Black Non,;,Hispanic,,other White Seattle,(Super,PUMA,=,53070) N/=/334,458 $9.32,or,Less $9.33,;$12.12 $12.13,;,$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 13% 9% 9% 19% 0.089 24% 0.080 20% 0.084 23% 0.033 9% 0.021 9% 0.024 18% 0.037 15% 0.035 11% 0.023 13% 0.108 12% 0.097 0% 0.000 10% 0.007 8% 0.007 8% 0.007 Area,Surrounding,Seattle,(Super,PUMA,=,53081) N/=/402,750 $9.32,or,Less $9.33,;$12.12 $12.13,;,$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 12% 8% 8% 32% 0.148 4% 0.051 15% 0.084 12% 0.021 7% 0.013 9% 0.016 16% 0.040 15% 0.031 12% 0.037 48% 0.162 11% 0.103 0% 0.000 11% 0.007 8% 0.007 7% 0.006 Rest,of,King,County,(Super,PUMA,=,53082) N/=/263,278 $9.32,or,Less $9.33,;$12.12 $12.13,;,$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 14% 10% 10% 14% 0.076 8% 0.076 4% 0.045 12% 0.024 17% 0.034 12% 0.028 25% 0.049 11% 0.038 10% 0.034 NA NA NA NA NA NA 13% 0.011 9% 0.007 10% 0.009 $15.01,;,$18.00 Percent SE 8% 13% 0.072 9% 0.017 7% 0.022 32% 0.212 7% 0.006 Over,$18.00 Percent SE 62% 24% 0.076 50% 0.035 50% 0.035 43% 0.185 66% 0.011 $15.01,;,$18.00 Percent SE 9% 7% 0.052 8% 0.013 13% 0.050 9% 0.101 9% 0.006 Over,$18.00 Percent SE 64% 41% 0.126 64% 0.024 44% 0.060 33% 0.165 65% 0.012 $15.01,;,$18.00 Percent SE 8% 1% 0.014 7% 0.019 10% 0.030 NA NA 8% 0.007 Over,$18.00 Percent SE 58% 72% 0.115 52% 0.045 44% 0.061 NA NA 60% 0.013 Based/on/2007/ACS/data,/sample/includes/respondents/16/years/or/older/who/reported/working/at/some/time/in/the/past/12/months,/and/who/were/classified/as/paid/ employees.//If/more/than/one/race/was/reported,/only/the/first/choice/reported/is/represented/here. Percentage%in%Wage%Category%for%Each%Racial%/%Ethnic%Group Race%/%Ethnicity %%of%all%Earners Hispanic Non%8%Hispanic,%American%Indian%and% /%or%Alaskan%Native Non%8%Hispanic,%Asian%and/or%Pacific% Islander Non%8%Hispanic,%Black Non%8%Hispanic,%Other Non%8%Hispanic,%White Race%/%Ethnicity %%of%all%Earners Hispanic Non%8%Hispanic,%American%Indian%and% /%or%Alaskan%Native Non%8%Hispanic,%Asian%and/or%Pacific% Islander Non%8%Hispanic,%Black Non%8%Hispanic,%Other Non%8%Hispanic,%White Race%/%Ethnicity %%of%all%Earners Hispanic Non%8%Hispanic,%American%Indian%and% /%or%Alaskan%Native Non%8%Hispanic,%Asian%and/or%Pacific% Islander Non%8%Hispanic,%Black Non%8%Hispanic,%Other Non%8%Hispanic,%White $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 13% 17% 0.035 11% 0.077 Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N/=/334,458 $9.33%8$12.12 $12.13%8%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 17% 0.037 14% 0.035 29% 0.096 29% $15.01%8%$18.00 Percent SE 8% 12% 0.042 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 62% 39% 0.041 0.116 8% 0.065 23% 0.101 0.034 9% 0.021 9% 0.024 0.039 15% 0.037 12% 0.024 0.108 12% 0.097 0% 0.000 0.007 7% 0.007 8% 0.007 Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N/=/402,750 $9.32%or%Less $9.33%8$12.12 $12.13%8%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 12% 8% 8% 21% 0.036 12% 0.030 14% 0.034 9% 6% 32% 7% 0.017 0.022 0.212 0.006 50% 50% 43% 68% 0.036 0.038 0.185 0.011 22% 17% 13% 10% 36% 0.166 12% 16% 48% 10% 0.022 0.042 0.162 0.007 5% 0.058 17% $15.01%8%$18.00 Percent SE 9% 13% 0.024 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 64% 40% 0.038 0.092 8% 0.058 33% 0.128 7% 0.013 9% 0.016 14% 0.031 12% 0.038 11% 0.103 0% 0.000 7% 0.007 6% 0.006 Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N/=/263,278 $9.32%or%Less $9.33%8$12.12 $12.13%8%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 14% 10% 10% 27% 0.066 13% 0.034 18% 0.064 7% 12% 9% 8% 0.013 0.051 0.101 0.007 65% 45% 33% 68% 0.024 0.062 0.165 0.011 $15.01%8%$18.00 Percent SE 8% 10% 0.024 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 58% 32% 0.050 12% 0.085 0% 0.000 5% 0.050 1% 0.016 81% 0.097 13% 26% NA 12% 0.024 0.049 NA 0.009 17% 11% NA 8% 0.035 0.038 NA 0.007 13% 10% NA 9% 0.028 0.034 NA 0.008 7% 10% NA 8% 0.020 0.030 NA 0.007 51% 43% NA 63% 0.045 0.062 NA 0.013 Based/on/2007/ACS/data,/sample/includes/respondents/16/years/or/older/who/reported/working/at/some/time/in/the/past/12/months,/and/who/were/classified/as/paid/ employees.//This/variable/combines/the/race/and/ethnicity/variables/into/6/distinct/categories/based/on/respondents/race/and/ethinicity. Percentage)in)Wage)Category)for)Each)Seattle)Neighborhood Children)In)Home %)of)all)Earners Capitol)Hill)/)South)East)Seattle Downtown)/)Queen)Anne North)East)Seattle North)West)Seattle West)/)South)Seattle $9.32)or)Less Percent SE 13% 15% 0.022 14% 0.016 14% 0.018 8% 0.012 12% 0.019 Seattle)(Super)PUMA)=)53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33)Q$12.12 $12.13)Q)$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 9% 0.015 10% 0.019 7% 0.013 9% 0.014 9% 0.011 8% 0.011 8% 0.016 7% 0.012 11% 0.019 12% 0.019 $15.01)Q)$18.00 Percent SE 8% 9% 0.018 8% 0.013 6% 0.012 8% 0.012 7% 0.014 Over)$18.00 Percent SE 62% 57% 0.027 62% 0.021 63% 0.016 69% 0.024 58% 0.027 Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2classified2as2paid2 employees Percentage%in%Wage%Category%for%Each%Work%Sector Work%Sector %%of%all%Earners Non%3%Profit Private Public $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 13% 8% 0.016 15% 0.010 8% 0.014 Work%Sector %%of%all%Earners Non%3%Profit Private Public $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 12% 12% 0.027 12% 0.008 7% 0.016 Work%Sector %%of%all%Earners Non%3%Profit Private Public $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 14% 16% 0.036 15% 0.011 9% 0.019 Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33%3$12.12 $12.13%3%$15.00 $15.01%3%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 9% 0.015 8% 0.018 7% 0.012 10% 0.008 9% 0.008 8% 0.008 5% 0.009 7% 0.012 6% 0.012 Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33%3$12.12 $12.13%3%$15.00 $15.01%3%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 9% 8% 0.019 7% 0.017 13% 0.022 9% 0.007 8% 0.007 9% 0.006 5% 0.011 7% 0.015 7% 0.012 Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33%3$12.12 $12.13%3%$15.00 $15.01%3%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 8% 10% 0.024 12% 0.031 6% 0.026 10% 0.009 10% 0.011 8% 0.007 6% 0.013 6% 0.012 9% 0.019 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 62% 67% 0.028 58% 0.013 74% 0.021 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 64% 60% 0.039 63% 0.011 74% 0.021 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 58% 56% 0.036 56% 0.016 70% 0.026 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees. Percentage%in%Wage%Category%for%Each%Sex %%of%all%Earners Female Male $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 13% 15% 0.013 10% 0.011 Sex %%of%all%Earners Female Male $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 12% 13% 0.009 11% 0.009 Sex Sex %%of%all%Earners Female Male $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 14% 17% 0.013 12% 0.012 Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33%3$12.12 $12.13%3%$15.00 $15.01%3%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 8% 10% 0.010 9% 0.008 9% 0.007 6% 0.008 6% 0.008 8% 0.008 Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33%3$12.12 $12.13%3%$15.00 $15.01%3%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 9% 10% 0.010 9% 0.008 9% 0.007 6% 0.008 6% 0.008 8% 0.008 Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33%3$12.12 $12.13%3%$15.00 $15.01%3%$18.00 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 8% 12% 0.013 13% 0.011 9% 0.010 7% 0.008 8% 0.012 8% 0.009 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 62% 58% 0.015 69% 0.013 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 64% 58% 0.015 69% 0.013 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 58% 49% 0.017 65% 0.016 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees. Percentage$in$Wage$Category$for$Each$Sex$/$Ethnicity$Group Sex$/$Ethnicity %$of$all$Earners Hispanic$Female Hispanice$Male Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Female Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Asian$and$/$or$ Pacific$Islander$Female Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Black$Female Non$;$Hispanic$Black$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Other$Female Non$;$Hispanic$Other$Male Non$;$Hispanic$White$Female Non$;$Hispanic$White$Male $9.32$or$Less Percent SE 13% 22% 0.054 13% 0.042 Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33$;$12.12 $12.13$;$$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 12% 0.043 20% 0.069 21% 0.062 10% 0.041 $15.01$;$$18.00 Percent SE 8% 12% 0.046 12% 0.050 Over$$18.00 Percent SE 62% 34% 0.058 43% 0.058 11% 0.097 28% 0.123 36% 0.174 0% 0.000 24% 0.196 11% 0.118 31% 0.146 22% 0.134 15% 0.116 21% 0.135 28% 0.055 10% 0.027 8% 0.023 7% 0.021 47% 0.051 17% 16% 17% 34% 0% 12% 8% 0.039 0.045 0.053 0.280 0.000 0.012 0.010 9% 18% 12% 0% 20% 9% 6% 0.025 0.049 0.053 0.000 0.185 0.010 0.009 11% 9% 14% 0% 0% 8% 7% 0.037 0.027 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.010 10% 4% 9% 22% 38% 9% 6% 0.026 0.020 0.040 0.228 0.307 0.010 0.007 53% 53% 48% 44% 42% 62% 73% 0.044 0.057 0.059 0.268 0.254 0.017 0.016 Sex$/$Ethnicity %$of$all$Earners Hispanic$Female Hispanice$Male Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Female Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Asian$and$/$or$ Pacific$Islander$Female Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Black$Female Non$;$Hispanic$Black$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Other$Female Non$;$Hispanic$Other$Male Non$;$Hispanic$White$Female Non$;$Hispanic$White$Male $9.32$or$Less Percent SE 12% 21% 0.042 21% 0.051 Area$Surrounding$Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33$;$12.12 $12.13$;$$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 15% 0.043 11% 0.037 10% 0.038 16% 0.051 $15.01$;$$18.00 Percent SE 9% 14% 0.038 13% 0.034 Over$$18.00 Percent SE 64% 40% 0.053 40% 0.051 44% 0.287 9% 0.119 19% 0.134 7% 0.087 20% 0.120 27% 0.172 0% 0.000 15% 0.104 9% 0.088 49% 0.200 13% 0.026 8% 0.019 12% 0.023 8% 0.016 59% 0.035 12% 22% 11% 47% 54% 11% 9% 0.026 0.068 0.044 0.224 0.397 0.011 0.009 7% 18% 11% 13% 0% 10% 5% 0.018 0.056 0.037 0.114 0.000 0.011 0.007 6% 17% 8% 0% 0% 8% 5% 0.015 0.075 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.008 7% 7% 17% 10% 0% 9% 8% 0.017 0.040 0.072 0.119 0.000 0.008 0.009 69% 35% 53% 31% 46% 62% 73% 0.030 0.073 0.079 0.217 0.397 0.016 0.014 Sex$/$Ethnicity %$of$all$Earners Hispanic$Female Hispanice$Male Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Female Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Asian$and$/$or$ Pacific$Islander$Female Non$;$Hispanic$American$ Indian$and$/$or$Alaskan$ Native$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Black$Female Non$;$Hispanic$Black$Male Non$;$Hispanic$Other$Female Non$;$Hispanic$Other$Male Non$;$Hispanic$White$Female Non$;$Hispanic$White$Male $9.32$or$Less Percent SE 14% 36% 0.082 22% 0.072 Rest$of$King$County$(Super$PUMA$=$53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33$;$12.12 $12.13$;$$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 18% 0.057 16% 0.037 11% 0.035 19% 0.097 $15.01$;$$18.00 Percent SE 8% 6% 0.034 11% 0.033 Over$$18.00 Percent SE 58% 24% 0.058 37% 0.074 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 8% 0.085 3% 0.027 89% 0.086 29% 0.219 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 0% 0.000 71% 0.219 13% 0.037 24% 0.062 17% 0.038 6% 0.023 40% 0.059 12% 23% 28% NA NA 15% 9% 0.030 0.055 0.063 NA NA 0.013 0.011 9% 13% 9% NA NA 10% 6% 0.029 0.053 0.043 NA NA 0.011 0.008 8% 10% 11% NA NA 12% 6% 0.032 0.047 0.040 NA NA 0.012 0.008 8% 12% 8% NA NA 9% 8% 0.034 0.051 0.036 NA NA 0.010 0.009 63% 42% 45% NA NA 53% 71% 0.053 0.073 0.080 NA NA 0.018 0.017 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were.classified.as.paid. employees...This.variable.creates.12.distinct.categories.based.on.respondents.sex.and.ethnicity. Percentage%in%Wage%Category%for%Each%Work%Region Work%Region %%of%all%Earners Seattle King%County Outside%King%County $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 13% 11% 0.011 6% 0.012 23% 0.024 Work%Region %%of%all%Earners Seattle King%County Outside%King%County $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 12% 7% 0.011 12% 0.010 19% 0.017 Work%Region %%of%all%Earners Seattle King%County Outside%King%County $9.32%or%Less Percent SE 14% 6% 0.015 15% 0.015 20% 0.022 Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33%L$12.12 $12.13%L%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 9% 9% 9% 0.009 9% 0.008 7% 0.014 8% 0.020 10% 0.012 10% 0.016 Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33%L$12.12 $12.13%L%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 8% 8% 7% 0.010 5% 0.010 8% 0.009 8% 0.007 9% 0.013 10% 0.014 Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33%L$12.12 $12.13%L%$15.00 Percent SE Percent SE 10% 10% 8% 0.019 5% 0.014 10% 0.009 11% 0.011 11% 0.016 12% 0.018 $15.01%L%$18.00 Percent SE 8% 8% 0.007 9% 0.018 6% 0.012 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 62% 64% 0.014 69% 0.028 51% 0.025 $15.01%L%$18.00 Percent SE 9% 7% 0.012 9% 0.008 10% 0.014 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 64% 73% 0.021 63% 0.014 53% 0.021 $15.01%L%$18.00 Percent SE 8% 12% 0.024 8% 0.007 7% 0.014 Over%$18.00 Percent SE 58% 68% 0.032 58% 0.017 50% 0.028 Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees Percentage,in,Each,Age,Group,for,Each,Wage,Level Age under,19 19/24 25/44 45/54 55+ Totals $9.32,or,Less Percent N 4,129 10% 16,112 38% 12,613 30% 5,542 13% 3,540 8% 41,936 100% Age under,19 19/24 25/44 45/54 55+ Totals $9.32,or,Less Percent N 9,052 19% 12,192 26% 14,552 31% 7,121 15% 4,520 10% 47,437 100% Age under,19 19/24 25/44 45/54 55+ Totals $9.32,or,Less Percent N 8,514 23% 9,064 24% 12,798 34% 3,932 10% 3,351 9% 37,659 100% Seattle,(SuperPUMA,=,53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33,/$12.12 $12.13,/,$15.00 $15.01,/,$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 946 3% 93 0% 94 0% 9,575 32% 4,587 15% 4,441 17% 14,362 48% 14,467 49% 14,763 58% 3,574 12% 5,780 20% 3,821 15% 1,327 4% 4,700 16% 2,362 9% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area,Surrounding,Seattle,(Super,PUMA,=,53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33,/$12.12 $12.13,/,$15.00 $15.01,/,$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 2,455 8% 2,012 7% 1,114 3% 6,558 20% 6,346 21% 4,108 12% 14,804 46% 12,912 42% 17,825 51% 6,308 19% 5,126 17% 6,652 19% 2,350 7% 4,362 14% 5,501 16% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% 35,200 100% Rest,of,King,County,(Super,PUMA,=,53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33,/$12.12 $12.13,/,$15.00 $15.01,/,$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 1,543 6% 1,331 5% 732 3% 5,884 23% 4,395 17% 3,522 16% 10,979 44% 11,585 44% 10,634 48% 4,305 17% 5,876 22% 5,005 23% 2,424 10% 3,035 12% 2,049 9% 25,135 100% 26,222 100% 21,942 100% Over,$18.00 Percent N 1,503 1% 11,210 5% 114,152 55% 46,051 22% 34,714 17% 207,630 100% Over,$18.00 Percent N 1,704 1% 10,078 4% 123,857 48% 73,056 28% 48,185 19% 256,880 100% Over,$18.00 Percent N 1,321 1% 4,871 3% 65,782 43% 48,987 32% 31,359 21% 152,320 100% Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who. were.classified.as.paid.employees. Percentage*in*Each*Education*Level*for*Each*Wage*Level Education*Level Less*Than*HS High*School*or*GED Some*College Bachelor's*Degree Totals $9.32*or*Less Percent N 7,153 17% 9,684 23% 16,859 40% 8,240 20% 41,936 100% Education*Level Less*Than*HS High*School*or*GED Some*College Bachelor's*Degree Totals $9.32*or*Less Percent N 11,976 25% 12,803 27% 13,848 29% 8,810 19% 47,437 100% Education*Level Less*Than*HS High*School*or*GED Some*College Bachelor's*Degree Totals $9.32*or*Less Percent N 10,387 28% 12,678 34% 11,852 31% 2,742 7% 37,659 100% Seattle*(SuperPUMA*=*53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33*O$12.12 $12.13*O*$15.00 Percent Percent N N 4,798 16% 2,684 9% 5,817 20% 4,912 17% 11,702 39% 10,554 36% 7,467 25% 11,477 39% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% Area*Surrounding*Seattle*(Super*PUMA*=*53081) N2=2402,750 $9.33*O$12.12 $12.13*O*$15.00 Percent Percent N N 4,543 14% 4,472 15% 8,799 27% 7,714 25% 12,193 38% 13,142 43% 6,940 21% 5,430 18% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% Rest*of*King*County*(Super*PUMA*=*53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33*O$12.12 $12.13*O*$15.00 Percent Percent N N 4,908 20% 4,866 19% 8,365 33% 8,729 33% 9,447 38% 8,864 34% 2,415 10% 3,763 14% 25,135 100% 26,222 100% $15.01*O*$18.00 Percent N 2,536 10% 2,943 12% 7,913 31% 12,089 47% 25,481 100% Over*$18.00 Percent N 7,579 4% 18,605 9% 43,543 21% 137,903 66% 207,630 100% $15.01*O*$18.00 Percent N 2,593 7% 9,769 28% 14,527 41% 8,311 24% 35,200 100% Over*$18.00 Percent N 8,184 3% 27,684 11% 69,068 27% 151,944 59% 256,880 100% $15.01*O*$18.00 Percent N 1,930 9% 7,706 35% 9,477 43% 2,829 13% 21,942 100% Over*$18.00 Percent N 6,129 4% 32,697 21% 57,202 38% 56,292 37% 152,320 100% Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2 classified2as2paid2employees.22Education2level2is2based2on2the2highest2year2of2school2completed2by2the2respondent. Percentage%in%Full%v.%Part%Time%Work%for%Each%Wage%Level Type%of%Work Full%Time Part%Time Totals Type%of%Work Full%Time Part%Time Totals Type%of%Work Full%Time Part%Time Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 27,453 65% 14,483 35% 41,936 100% $9.32%or%Less Percent N 28,661 18,776 47,437 60% 40% 100% $9.32%or%Less Percent N 23,100 61% 14,559 39% 37,659 100% Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33%K$12.12 $12.13%K%$15.00 $15.01%K%$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 23,870 80% 23,291 79% 22,331 88% 5,914 20% 6,336 21% 3,150 12% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N2=2402,750 $9.33%K$12.12 $12.13%K%$15.00 $15.01%K%$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 24,896 77% 25,139 82% 7,579 23% 5,619 18% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33%K$12.12 $12.13%K%$15.00 Percent Percent N N 19,714 78% 22,393 85% 5,421 22% 3,829 15% 25,135 100% 26,222 100% 29,986 5,214 35,200 85% 15% 100% $15.01%K%$18.00 Percent N 19,705 90% 2,237 10% 21,942 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 188,698 91% 18,932 9% 207,630 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 235,177 21,703 256,880 92% 8% 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 143,009 94% 9,311 6% 152,320 100% Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2 classified2as2paid2employees.22302hours2per2week2or2more2is2considered2full2time. Percentage(by(Hispanic(Origin(for(Each(Wage(Level Hispanic( Origin No Yes Totals Hispanic( Origin No Yes Totals Hispanic( Origin No Yes Totals $9.32(or(Less N 38,291 3,645 41,936 Percent 91% 9% 100% $9.32(or(Less N 41,263 6,174 47,437 Percent 87% 13% 100% $9.32(or(Less N 31,893 5,766 37,659 Percent 85% 15% 100% Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33(L$12.12 $12.13(L($15.00 $15.01(L($18.00 Over($18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 25,994 87% 26,502 89% 22,848 90% 3,790 13% 3,125 11% 2,633 10% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area(Surrounding(Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53081) N2=2402,750 $9.33(L$12.12 $12.13(L($15.00 $15.01(L($18.00 N 199,076 8,554 207,630 Percent Percent Percent N N 89% 26,632 87% 31,164 89% 11% 4,126 13% 4,036 11% 100% 30,758 100% 35,200 100% Rest(of(King(County((Super(PUMA(=(53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33(L$12.12 $12.13(L($15.00 $15.01(L($18.00 N 244,983 11,897 256,880 N 28,799 3,676 32,475 N 22,322 2,813 25,135 Percent 89% 11% 100% N 22,369 3,853 26,222 Percent 85% 15% 100% N 19,899 2,043 21,942 Percent 91% 9% 100% Percent 96% 4% 100% Over($18.00 Percent 95% 5% 100% Over($18.00 N 145,463 6,857 152,320 Percent 95% 5% 100% Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2 classified2as2paid2employees. Percentage%in%Each%Work%Industry%for%Each%Wage%Level Work%Industry Accommodation%and% Food%Services Administrative...Reme diation%Services Agriculture,%Forestry,% etc. Arts,%Entertainment,% and%Recreation Construction Educational%Services Finance%and%Insurance Health%Care%and%Social% Assistance Information Management%of% Companies%and% Enterprises Manufacturing Other%Services… Professional,%Scientific,% etc. Public%Administration Real%Estate%etc. Retail%Trade Transportation%and% Warehousing Utilities Wholesale%Trade Mining%/%Extraction Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N/=/334,458 $9.33%V$12.12 $12.13%V%$15.00 Percent Percent N N $15.01%V%$18.00 Percent N Over%$18.00 Percent N 10,504 25% 7,116 24% 3,266 11% 2,642 10% 9,794 5% 960 2% 1,805 6% 1,033 3% 1,595 6% 4,713 2% 520 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 775 0% 1,351 1,576 3,454 305 3% 4% 8% 1% 999 1,156 2,237 430 3% 4% 8% 1% 91 771 2,845 531 0% 3% 10% 2% 1,275 1,521 2,958 733 5% 6% 12% 3% 5,802 9,693 25,354 11,647 3% 5% 12% 6% 5,541 753 13% 2% 4,525 796 15% 3% 4,803 618 16% 2% 3,597 516 14% 2% 24,467 12,636 12% 6% 0 1,993 2,623 0% 5% 6% 257 881 1,778 1% 3% 6% 0 1,115 1,477 0% 4% 5% 0 2,366 328 0% 9% 1% 373 17,027 6,811 0% 8% 3% 1,147 487 1,129 7,249 3% 1% 3% 17% 571 417 594 4,633 2% 1% 2% 16% 2,566 506 1,158 6,377 9% 2% 4% 22% 1,978 546 535 3,523 8% 2% 2% 14% 30,249 14,267 3,733 15,996 15% 7% 2% 8% 1,317 0 1,027 NA 41,936 3% 0% 2% NA 100% 1,239 0 350 NA 29,784 4% 0% 1% NA 100% 1,257 0 1,213 NA 29,627 4% 0% 4% NA 100% 422 108 838 NA 25,481 2% 0% 3% NA 100% 7,562 1,792 4,939 NA 207,630 4% 1% 2% NA 100% Work%Industry Accommodation%and% Food%Services Administrative...Reme diation%Services Agriculture,%Forestry,% etc. Arts,%Entertainment,% and%Recreation Construction Educational%Services Finance%and%Insurance Health%Care%and%Social% Assistance Information Management%of% Companies%and% Enterprises Manufacturing Other%Services… Professional,%Scientific,% etc. Public%Administration Real%Estate%etc. Retail%Trade Transportation%and% Warehousing Utilities Wholesale%Trade Mining%/%Extraction Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N/=/402,750 $9.33%V$12.12 $12.13%V%$15.00 Percent Percent N N $15.01%V%$18.00 Percent N Over%$18.00 Percent N 9,794 21% 4,727 15% 3,334 11% 2,202 6% 6,228 2% 2,134 4% 1,870 6% 1,418 5% 1,967 6% 9,493 4% 168 0% 213 1% 167 1% 0 0% 67 0% 1,898 2,107 3,417 631 4% 4% 7% 1% 637 954 1,770 1,298 2% 3% 5% 4% 910 1,110 3,186 1,223 3% 4% 10% 4% 711 3,693 3,235 809 2% 10% 9% 2% 3,360 12,910 17,288 14,768 1% 5% 7% 6% 4,751 1,800 10% 4% 4,365 1,040 13% 3% 4,128 1,374 13% 4% 3,834 1,381 11% 4% 29,542 19,526 12% 8% 0 3,298 4,073 0% 7% 9% 0 1,658 1,899 0% 5% 6% 80 3,101 2,350 0% 10% 8% 0 4,004 1,138 0% 11% 3% 258 38,131 6,446 0% 15% 3% 1,439 655 1,260 8,324 3% 1% 3% 18% 990 615 1,358 6,907 3% 2% 4% 21% 1,297 658 204 4,429 4% 2% 1% 14% 1,328 661 1,090 5,112 4% 2% 3% 15% 39,104 11,976 4,942 19,454 15% 5% 2% 8% 1,186 0 502 0 47,437 3% 0% 1% NA 100% 696 83 1,395 0 32,475 2% 0% 4% NA 100% 977 0 812 0 30,758 3% 0% 3% NA 100% 1,860 493 1,682 0 35,200 5% 1% 5% NA 100% 10,525 2,613 10,067 182 256,880 4% 1% 4% NA 100% Work%Industry Accommodation%and% Food%Services Administrative...Reme diation%Services Agriculture,%Forestry,% etc. Arts,%Entertainment,% and%Recreation Construction Educational%Services Finance%and%Insurance Health%Care%and%Social% Assistance Information Management%of% Companies%and% Enterprises Manufacturing Other%Services… Professional,%Scientific,% etc. Public%Administration Real%Estate%etc. Retail%Trade Transportation%and% Warehousing Utilities Wholesale%Trade Mining%/%Extraction Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N/=/263,278 $9.33%V$12.12 $12.13%V%$15.00 Percent Percent N N $15.01%V%$18.00 Percent N Over%$18.00 Percent N 7,792 21% 4,241 17% 2,079 8% 1,157 5% 4,229 3% 2,333 6% 1,442 6% 4,184 16% 1,051 5% 6,645 4% 322 1% 191 1% 0 0% 0 0% 398 0% 1,607 904 2,220 161 4% 2% 6% 0% 728 858 1,536 140 3% 3% 6% 1% 881 1,758 1,888 1,198 3% 7% 7% 5% 311 2,201 2,404 583 1% 10% 11% 3% 2,662 13,725 10,895 7,955 2% 9% 7% 5% 2,155 258 6% 1% 2,395 1,180 10% 5% 2,828 443 11% 2% 2,441 767 11% 3% 12,229 6,497 8% 4% 0 3,073 1,557 0% 8% 4% 0 2,372 1,579 0% 9% 6% 133 2,751 912 1% 10% 3% 0 2,790 501 0% 13% 2% 75 29,098 4,145 0% 19% 3% 1,020 326 1,407 10,257 3% 1% 4% 27% 331 290 422 5,601 1% 1% 2% 22% 574 348 923 3,243 2% 1% 4% 12% 1,224 476 438 2,951 6% 2% 2% 13% 10,521 8,070 2,322 14,438 7% 5% 2% 9% 1,555 0 712 NA 37,659 4% 0% 2% NA 100% 1,205 0 624 NA 25,135 5% 0% 2% NA 100% 1,338 0 741 NA 26,222 5% 0% 3% NA 100% 1,586 0 1,061 NA 21,942 7% 0% 5% NA 100% 10,552 866 6,998 NA 152,320 7% 1% 5% NA 100% Based/on/2007/ACS/data,/sample/includes/respondents/16/years/or/older/who/reported/working/at/some/time/in/the/past/12/months,/and/who/were/classified/ as/paid/employees.//Industry/is/coded/based/on/the/North/American/Industrial/Classification/System Percentage0in0Each0Occupation0for0Each0Wage0Level Occupation Architecture0and0Engineering Arts,0Design,0etc. Building0and0Grounds Business0and0Financial0 Operations Community0and0Social0Services Computer0and0Mathematical Construction0and0Extraction Education,0Training,0and0 Library Farming,0Fishing,0and0Forestry Food0Preparation0and0Serving0 Related Healthcare0Practitioners0and0 Technical Healthcare0Support Installation,0Maintenance,0and0 Repair Legal Life,0Physical,0and0Social0 Science Management Military0Specific Office0and0Administrative0 Support Personal0Care0and0Service Production Protective0Service Sales0and0Related Transportation0and0Material0 Moving Totals $9.320or0Less Percent N 315 1% 904 2% 803 2% Seattle0(Super0PUMA0=053070) N.=.334,458 $9.330V$12.12 $12.130V0$15.00 Percent Percent N N 616 2% 0 0% 599 2% 754 3% 1,963 7% 741 3% $15.010V0$18.00 Percent N 573 2% 1,233 5% 1,239 5% Over0$18.00 Percent N 8,327 4% 10,284 5% 2,372 1% 1,130 3% 747 3% 593 2% 868 3% 16,712 8% 554 371 1,318 1% 1% 3% 278 474 1,317 1% 2% 4% 686 1,008 1,097 2% 3% 4% 350 757 1,362 1% 3% 5% 3,921 15,504 6,961 2% 7% 3% 1,753 399 4% 1% 1,641 0 6% 0% 2,122 0 7% 0% 1,583 0 6% 0% 16,017 79 8% 0% 9,925 24% 6,003 20% 3,003 10% 2,068 8% 7,845 4% 763 920 2% 2% 910 965 3% 3% 1,334 431 5% 1% 1,331 590 5% 2% 15,531 1,989 7% 1% 326 0 1% 0% 184 301 1% 1% 964 272 3% 1% 274 357 1% 1% 3,194 6,444 2% 3% 716 1,637 0 2% 4% 0% 158 660 119 1% 2% 0% 1,125 996 0 4% 3% 0% 458 1,023 76 2% 4% 0% 7,920 34,035 81 4% 16% 0% 5,181 3,589 2,210 180 6,143 12% 9% 5% 0% 15% 4,195 1,399 1,457 185 3,390 14% 5% 5% 1% 11% 5,426 1,976 1,025 189 4,606 18% 7% 3% 1% 16% 4,767 1,021 1,247 556 2,800 19% 4% 5% 2% 11% 18,730 3,195 5,414 2,077 16,071 9% 2% 3% 1% 8% 2,799 41,936 7% 100% 2,223 29,784 7% 100% 1,279 29,627 4% 100% 948 25,481 4% 100% 4,927 207,630 2% 100% Occupation Architecture0and0Engineering Arts,0Design,0etc. Building0and0Grounds Business0and0Financial0 Operations Community0and0Social0Services Computer0and0Mathematical Construction0and0Extraction Education,0Training,0and0 Library Farming,0Fishing,0and0Forestry Food0Preparation0and0Serving0 Related Healthcare0Practitioners0and0 Technical Healthcare0Support Installation,0Maintenance,0and0 Repair Legal Life,0Physical,0and0Social0 Science Management Military0Specific Office0and0Administrative0 Support Personal0Care0and0Service Production Protective0Service Sales0and0Related Transportation0and0Material0 Moving Totals Area0Surrounding0Seattle0(Super0PUMA0=053081) N.=.402,750 $9.320or0Less $9.330V$12.12 $12.130V0$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 417 1% 0 0% 274 1% 726 2% 720 2% 646 2% 3,232 7% 1,171 4% 2,063 7% $15.010V0$18.00 Percent N 365 1% 476 1% 1,439 4% Over0$18.00 Percent N 18,447 7% 5,923 2% 2,733 1% 504 1% 607 2% 771 3% 1,678 5% 21,491 8% 411 1,559 1,778 1% 3% 4% 441 469 1,000 1% 1% 3% 509 392 941 2% 1% 3% 1,083 708 3,335 3% 2% 9% 3,356 28,500 9,595 1% 11% 4% 3,097 87 7% 0% 1,321 213 4% 1% 1,938 167 6% 1% 2,110 0 6% 0% 12,966 84 5% 0% 7,635 16% 3,453 11% 2,815 9% 2,216 6% 5,054 2% 819 450 2% 1% 525 1,333 2% 4% 707 796 2% 3% 461 772 1% 2% 16,508 2,336 6% 1% 256 0 1% 0% 937 91 3% 0% 304 409 1% 1% 1,035 58 3% 0% 5,742 2,917 2% 1% 229 2,006 79 0% 4% 0% 0 945 88 0% 3% 0% 123 1,068 0 0% 3% 0% 78 1,689 0 0% 5% 0% 4,474 44,699 401 2% 17% 0% 5,262 3,796 2,334 272 7,623 11% 8% 5% 1% 16% 6,475 2,133 2,164 797 6,070 20% 7% 7% 2% 19% 7,960 1,382 1,791 656 3,571 26% 4% 6% 2% 12% 8,515 1,363 1,657 110 3,613 24% 4% 5% 0% 10% 27,527 2,456 6,678 3,070 24,130 11% 1% 3% 1% 9% 4,865 47,437 10% 100% 1,522 32,475 5% 100% 1,475 30,758 5% 100% 2,439 35,200 7% 100% 7,793 256,880 3% 100% Occupation Architecture0and0Engineering Arts,0Design,0etc. Building0and0Grounds Business0and0Financial0 Operations Community0and0Social0Services Computer0and0Mathematical Construction0and0Extraction Education,0Training,0and0 Library Farming,0Fishing,0and0Forestry Food0Preparation0and0Serving0 Related Healthcare0Practitioners0and0 Technical Healthcare0Support Installation,0Maintenance,0and0 Repair Legal Life,0Physical,0and0Social0 Science Management Military0Specific Office0and0Administrative0 Support Personal0Care0and0Service Production Protective0Service Sales0and0Related Transportation0and0Material0 Moving Totals $9.320or0Less Percent N 96 0% 387 1% 2,725 7% Rest0of0King0County0(Super0PUMA0=053082) N.=.263,278 $9.330V$12.12 $12.130V0$15.00 Percent Percent N N 153 1% 89 0% 256 1% 319 1% 827 3% 2,902 11% $15.010V0$18.00 Percent N 0 0% 50 0% 462 2% Over0$18.00 Percent N 6,191 4% 2,747 2% 1,786 1% 258 1% 279 1% 482 2% 680 3% 11,623 8% 0 119 999 0% 0% 3% 285 17 398 1% 0% 2% 180 78 826 1% 0% 3% 220 171 2,069 1% 1% 9% 2,176 8,138 10,900 1% 5% 7% 1,492 197 4% 1% 1,329 122 5% 0% 1,325 105 5% 0% 895 0 4% 0% 6,421 288 4% 0% 6,785 18% 2,011 8% 1,705 7% 1,099 5% 1,934 1% 252 255 1% 1% 73 1,392 0% 6% 277 1,033 1% 4% 855 838 4% 4% 6,011 642 4% 0% 507 0 1% 0% 728 0 3% 0% 92 68 0% 0% 428 201 2% 1% 6,235 1,126 4% 1% 139 1,499 0 0% 4% 0% 0 888 76 0% 4% 0% 0 948 0 0% 4% 0% 97 842 75 0% 4% 0% 1,366 25,236 90 1% 17% 0% 4,344 1,669 2,773 1,495 6,901 12% 4% 7% 4% 18% 3,747 2,583 2,008 520 4,075 15% 10% 8% 2% 16% 7,028 823 2,157 450 2,790 27% 3% 8% 2% 11% 5,157 769 1,347 290 2,644 24% 4% 6% 1% 12% 22,840 1,622 8,924 3,206 15,452 15% 1% 6% 2% 10% 4,767 37,659 13% 100% 3,368 25,135 13% 100% 2,545 26,222 10% 100% 2,753 21,942 13% 100% 7,366 152,320 5% 100% Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were.classified.as.paid. employees...Occupation.is.coded.based.on.Standard.Occupational.Classifications. Percentage(in(Each(Poverty(Level(Category(for(Each(Wage(Level Poverty(Level 100%(Federal(Poverty(Level(or( Below 100%6200%(Federal(Poverty( Level 200%(or(More(of(Federal( Poverty(Level Totals Poverty(Level 100%(Federal(Poverty(Level(or( Below 100%6200%(Federal(Poverty( Level 200%(or(More(of(Federal( Poverty(Level Totals Poverty(Level 100%(Federal(Poverty(Level(or( Below 100%6200%(Federal(Poverty( Level 200%(or(More(of(Federal( Poverty(Level Totals $9.32(or(Less Percent N Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33(6$12.12 $12.13(6($15.00 Percent Percent N N $15.01(6($18.00 Percent N Over($18.00 Percent N 15,257 40% 4,091 15% 3,036 11% 1,315 5% 3,711 2% 10,308 27% 8,920 32% 5,734 20% 1,939 8% 6,351 3% 12,163 37,728 32% 100% 21,948 25,202 87% 100% 196,625 206,687 95% 100% 14,534 53% 19,969 69% 27,545 100% 28,739 100% Area(Surrounding(Seattle((Super(PUMA(=(53081) N2=2402,750 $9.32(or(Less $9.33(6$12.12 $12.13(6($15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N $15.01(6($18.00 Percent N Over($18.00 Percent N 9,573 20% 2,998 9% 1,997 6% 655 2% 2,949 1% 9,669 20% 7,900 24% 3,544 12% 3,748 11% 3,759 1% 28,195 47,437 59% 100% 30,707 35,110 87% 100% 250,080 256,788 97% 100% $9.32(or(Less Percent N 21,577 66% 25,217 82% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% Rest(of(King(County((Super(PUMA(=(53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33(6$12.12 $12.13(6($15.00 Percent Percent N N $15.01(6($18.00 Percent N Over($18.00 Percent N 9,210 25% 3,417 14% 1,552 6% 235 1% 1,406 1% 6,528 17% 6,185 25% 3,271 12% 2,691 12% 3,284 2% 21,828 37,566 58% 100% 15,347 24,949 62% 100% 21,399 26,222 82% 100% 19,016 21,942 87% 100% 147,538 152,228 97% 100% Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2classified2as2paid2 employees. Percentage-by-Race-for-Each-Wage-Level Race American-Indian-/-Alaska-Native Asian-and/or-Pacific-Islander Black Non-8-Hispanic,-other White Totals Race American-Indian-/-Alaska-Native Asian-and/or-Pacific-Islander Black Non-8-Hispanic,-other White Totals Race American-Indian-/-Alaska-Native Asian-and/or-Pacific-Islander Black Non-8-Hispanic,-other White Totals Seattle-(Super-PUMA-=-53070) N4=4334,458 $9.32-or-Less $9.33-8$12.12 $12.13-8-$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 584 1% 740 2% 623 2% 9,713 23% 4,025 14% 3,920 13% 4,753 11% 3,914 13% 2,945 10% 122 0% 112 0% 0 0% 26,764 64% 20,993 70% 22,139 75% 41,936 100% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% Area-Surrounding-Seattle-(Super-PUMA-=-53081) N4=4402,750 $9.32-or-Less $9.33-8$12.12 $12.13-8-$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 728 2% 101 0% 342 1% 8,688 18% 4,850 15% 6,140 20% 3,036 6% 2,958 9% 2,258 7% 512 1% 116 0% 0 0% 34,473 73% 24,450 75% 22,018 72% 47,437 100% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% Rest-of-King-County-(Super-PUMA-=-53082) N4=4263,278 $9.32-or-Less $9.33-8$12.12 $12.13-8-$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 252 1% 144 1% 77 0% 3,133 8% 4,209 17% 3,134 12% 5,255 14% 2,237 9% 2,137 8% NA NA NA NA NA NA 29,019 77% 18,545 74% 20,874 80% 37,659 100% 25,135 100% 26,222 100% $15.01-8-$18.00 Percent N 408 2% 3,667 14% 1,826 7% 289 1% 19,291 76% 25,481 100% Over-$18.00 Percent N 756 0% 21,090 10% 13,223 6% 391 0% 172,170 83% 207,630 100% $15.01-8-$18.00 Percent N 164 0% 5,267 15% 2,535 7% 92 0% 27,142 77% 35,200 100% Over-$18.00 Percent N 927 0% 45,123 18% 8,543 3% 349 0% 201,938 79% 256,880 100% $15.01-8-$18.00 Percent N 23 0% 1,703 8% 2,033 9% NA NA 18,183 83% 21,942 100% Over-$18.00 Percent N 1,272 1% 13,268 9% 9,046 6% NA NA 128,734 85% 152,320 100% Based4on420074ACS4data,4sample4includes4respondents4164years4or4older4who4reported4working4at4some4time4in4the4past4124months,4and4who4were4classified4as4paid4 employees.44If4more4than4one4race4was4reported,4only4the4first4choice4reported4is4represented4here. Percentage%by%Race%/%Ethnicity%in%Each%Wage%Level Race%/%Ethnicity Hispanic Non%4%Hispanic,%American%Indian%and% /%or%Alaskan%Native Non%4%Hispanic,%Asian%and/or%Pacific% Islander Non%4%Hispanic,%Black Non%4%Hispanic,%Other Non%4%Hispanic,%White Totals Race%/%Ethnicity Hispanic Non%4%Hispanic,%American%Indian%and% /%or%Alaskan%Native Non%4%Hispanic,%Asian%and/or%Pacific% Islander Non%4%Hispanic,%Black Non%4%Hispanic,%Other Non%4%Hispanic,%White Totals Race%/%Ethnicity Hispanic Non%4%Hispanic,%American%Indian%and% /%or%Alaskan%Native Non%4%Hispanic,%Asian%and/or%Pacific% Islander Non%4%Hispanic,%Black Non%4%Hispanic,%Other Non%4%Hispanic,%White Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 3,645 9% 191 0% Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N/=/334,458 $9.33%4$12.12 $12.13%4%$15.00 Percent Percent N N 3,790 13% 3,125 11% 515 2% 509 2% 9,468 4,250 122 24,260 41,936 23% 3,963 13% 3,920 13% 10% 3,806 13% 2,945 10% 0% 112 0% 0 0% 58% 17,598 59% 19,128 65% 100% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N/=/402,750 $9.32%or%Less $9.33%4$12.12 $12.13%4%$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N $15.01%4%$18.00 Percent N 2,633 10% Over%$18.00 Percent N 8,554 4% 132 1% 399 0% 3,667 1,625 289 17,135 25,481 14% 6% 1% 67% 100% 21,090 12,861 391 164,335 207,630 10% 6% 0% 79% 100% $15.01%4%$18.00 Percent N Over%$18.00 Percent N 11,897 5% 6,174 13% 3,676 11% 4,126 13% 4,036 11% 728 2% 101 0% 342 1% 164 0% 661 0% 8,688 3,036 512 28,299 47,437 18% 6% 1% 60% 100% 5,053 2,337 92 23,518 35,200 14% 7% 0% 67% 100% 45,025 8,460 349 190,488 256,880 18% 3% 0% 74% 100% 4,850 15% 6,066 20% 2,688 8% 2,221 7% 116 0% 0 0% 21,044 65% 18,003 59% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N/=/263,278 $9.32%or%Less $9.33%4$12.12 $12.13%4%$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 5,766 15% 2,813 11% 3,853 15% $15.01%4%$18.00 Percent N 2,043 9% Over%$18.00 Percent N 6,857 5% 193 1% 0 0% 77 0% 23 0% 1,272 1% 3,133 5,255 NA 23,312 37,659 8% 14% NA 62% 100% 4,209 2,237 NA 15,876 25,135 17% 9% NA 63% 100% 3,134 2,137 NA 17,021 26,222 12% 8% NA 65% 100% 1,703 2,033 NA 16,140 21,942 8% 9% NA 74% 100% 12,818 8,926 NA 122,447 152,320 8% 6% NA 80% 100% Based/on/2007/ACS/data,/sample/includes/respondents/16/years/or/older/who/reported/working/at/some/time/in/the/past/12/months,/and/who/were/classified/as/paid/ employees.//This/variable/combines/the/race/and/ethnicity/variables/into/6/distinct/categories/based/on/respondents/race/and/ethinicity. Percentage%in%Each%Work%Sector%in%Each%Wage%Level Work%Sector Non%-%Profit Private Public Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 3,373 8% 33,582 80% 4,981 12% 41,936 100% Work%Sector Non%-%Profit Private Public Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 3,786 8% 39,843 84% 3,808 8% 47,437 100% Work%Sector Non%-%Profit Private Public Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 3,106 8% 31,330 83% 3,223 9% 37,659 100% Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N2=2334,458 $9.33%-$12.12 $12.13%-%$15.00 $15.01%-%$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 3,828 13% 3,616 12% 3,162 12% 23,157 78% 21,934 74% 18,542 73% 2,799 9% 4,077 14% 3,777 15% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N2=2402,750 $9.33%-$12.12 $12.13%-%$15.00 $15.01%-%$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 2,511 8% 2,200 7% 4,242 12% 27,351 84% 24,891 81% 27,407 78% 2,613 8% 3,667 12% 3,551 10% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% 35,200 100% Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N2=2263,278 $9.33%-$12.12 $12.13%-%$15.00 $15.01%-%$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 2,016 8% 2,345 9% 1,098 5% 21,132 84% 21,816 83% 17,473 80% 1,987 8% 2,061 8% 3,371 15% 25,135 100% 26,222 100% 21,942 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 28,880 14% 133,744 64% 45,006 22% 207,630 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 18,774 7% 199,760 78% 38,346 15% 256,880 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 10,883 7% 116,063 76% 25,374 17% Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2 classified2as2paid2employees. Percentage3by3Sex3in3Each3Wage3Level Sex $9.323or3Less Percent N Female Male Totals 23,989 17,947 41,936 57% 43% 100% Sex Female Male Totals $9.323or3Less Percent N 24,238 51% 23,199 49% 47,437 100% Sex Female Male Totals $9.323or3Less Percent N 20,678 55% 16,981 45% 37,659 100% Seattle3(Super3PUMA3=353070) N2=2334,458 $9.333K$12.12 $12.133K3$15.00 Percent Percent N N $15.013K3$18.00 Percent N 15,962 54% 14,410 49% 13,136 52% 13,822 46% 15,217 51% 12,345 48% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area3Surrounding3Seattle3(Super3PUMA3=353081) N2=2402,750 $9.333K$12.12 $12.133K3$15.00 $15.013K3$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 18,920 58% 17,509 57% 17,199 49% 13,555 42% 13,249 43% 18,001 51% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% 35,200 100% Rest3of3King3County3(Super3PUMA3=353082) N2=2263,278 $9.333K$12.12 $12.133K3$15.00 $15.013K3$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 15,137 60% 15,593 59% 10,676 49% 9,998 40% 10,629 41% 11,266 51% 25,135 100% 26,222 100% 21,942 100% Over3$18.00 Percent N 90,348 117,282 207,630 44% 56% 100% Over3$18.00 Percent N 108,684 42% 148,196 58% 256,880 100% Over3$18.00 Percent N 60,135 39% 92,185 61% 152,320 100% Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2 classified2as2paid2employees. Percentage$by$Sex$/$Ethnicity$in$Each$Wage$Level Sex$/$Ethnicity Hispanic$Female Hispanice$Male Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Female Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Asian$and$/$or$Pacific$ Islander$Female Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Black$Female Non$9$Hispanic$Black$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Other$Female Non$9$Hispanic$Other$Male Non$9$Hispanic$White$Female Non$9$Hispanic$White$Male Totals $9.32$or$Less Percent N 1,987 5% 1,658 4% Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33$9$12.12 $12.13$9$$15.00 Percent Percent N N 1,072 4% 1,831 6% 2,718 9% 1,294 4% $15.01$9$$18.00 Percent N 1,111 4% 1,522 6% Over$$18.00 Percent N 3,044 1% 5,510 3% 93 0% 243 1% 313 1% 0 0% 209 0% 98 0% 272 1% 196 1% 132 1% 190 0% 5,988 14% 2,049 7% 1,593 5% 1,516 6% 9,985 5% 3,480 2,046 2,204 122 0 13,753 10,507 41,936 8% 5% 5% 0% 0% 33% 25% 100% 1,914 2,260 1,546 0 112 10,338 7,260 29,784 6% 8% 5% 0% 0% 35% 24% 100% 2,327 1,176 1,769 0 0 9,497 9,631 29,627 8% 4% 6% 0% 0% 32% 33% 100% 2,151 488 1,137 81 208 9,940 7,195 25,481 8% 2% 4% 0% 1% 39% 28% 100% 11,105 6,706 6,155 158 233 70,246 94,089 207,630 5% 3% 3% 0% 0% 34% 45% 100% Sex$/$Ethnicity Hispanic$Female Hispanice$Male Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Female Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Asian$and$/$or$Pacific$ Islander$Female Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Black$Female Non$9$Hispanic$Black$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Other$Female Non$9$Hispanic$Other$Male Non$9$Hispanic$White$Female Non$9$Hispanic$White$Male Totals Area$Surrounding$Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53081) N.=.402,750 $9.32$or$Less $9.33$9$12.12 $12.13$9$$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 2,796 6% 1,992 6% 1,507 5% 3,378 7% 1,684 5% 2,619 9% $15.01$9$$18.00 Percent N 1,877 5% 2,159 6% Over$$18.00 Percent N 5,351 2% 6,546 3% 488 1% 101 0% 210 1% 82 0% 225 0% 240 1% 0 0% 132 0% 82 0% 436 0% 3,858 8% 2,267 7% 3,678 12% 2,471 7% 17,687 7% 4,830 1,894 1,142 431 81 14,771 13,528 47,437 10% 4% 2% 1% 0% 31% 29% 100% 2,583 1,562 1,126 116 0 12,882 8,162 32,475 8% 5% 3% 0% 0% 40% 25% 100% 2,388 1,430 791 0 0 10,684 7,319 30,758 8% 5% 3% 0% 0% 35% 24% 100% 2,582 595 1,742 92 0 12,082 11,436 35,200 7% 2% 5% 0% 0% 34% 32% 100% 27,338 2,976 5,484 281 68 82,164 108,324 256,880 11% 1% 2% 0% 0% 32% 42% 100% Sex$/$Ethnicity Hispanic$Female Hispanice$Male Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Female Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Asian$and$/$or$Pacific$ Islander$Female Non$9$Hispanic$American$Indian$and$ /$or$Alaskan$Native$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Black$Female Non$9$Hispanic$Black$Male Non$9$Hispanic$Other$Female Non$9$Hispanic$Other$Male Non$9$Hispanic$White$Female Non$9$Hispanic$White$Male Totals Rest$of$King$County$(Super$PUMA$=$53082) N.=.263,278 $9.32$or$Less $9.33$9$12.12 $12.13$9$$15.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 2,857 8% 1,398 6% 1,277 5% 2,909 8% 1,415 6% 2,576 10% $15.01$9$$18.00 Percent N 512 2% 1,531 7% Over$$18.00 Percent N 1,892 1% 4,965 3% 0 0% 0 0% 77 0% 23 0% 807 1% 193 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 465 0% 1,704 5% 3,133 12% 2,222 8% 745 3% 5,280 3% 1,429 2,240 3,015 NA NA 13,877 9,435 37,659 4% 6% 8% NA NA 37% 25% 100% 1,076 1,271 966 NA NA 9,335 6,541 25,135 4% 5% 4% NA NA 37% 26% 100% 912 976 1,161 NA NA 11,041 5,980 26,222 3% 4% 4% NA NA 42% 23% 100% 958 1,196 837 NA NA 8,200 7,940 21,942 4% 5% 4% NA NA 37% 36% 100% 7,538 4,046 4,880 NA NA 48,110 74,337 152,320 5% 3% 3% NA NA 32% 49% 100% Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were.classified.as.paid. employees...This.variable.creates.12.distinct.categories.based.on.respondents.sex.and.ethnicity. Percentage$for$Each$Food$Stamp$Category$in$Each$Wage$Level Food$Stamp$ Recipient Yes No Totals Food$Stamp$ Recipient Yes No Totals Food$Stamp$ Recipient Yes No Totals $9.32$or$Less N 3,398 38,538 41,936 Percent 8% 92% 100% $9.32$or$Less N 4,955 42,482 47,437 Percent 10% 90% 100% $9.32$or$Less N 5,518 32,141 37,659 Percent 15% 85% 100% Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33$K$12.12 $12.13$K$$15.00 $15.01$K$$18.00 Over$$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 3,239 11% 2,764 9% 1,007 4% 26,545 89% 26,863 91% 24,474 96% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area$Surrounding$Seattle$(Super$PUMA$=$53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33$K$12.12 $12.13$K$$15.00 $15.01$K$$18.00 N 4,892 202,738 207,630 Percent Percent N N 2,795 9% 2,106 7% 29,680 91% 28,652 93% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% Rest$of$King$County$(Super$PUMA$=$53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33$K$12.12 $12.13$K$$15.00 N 5,451 251,429 256,880 N 3,858 21,277 25,135 Percent 15% 85% 100% N 3,164 23,058 26,222 Percent 12% 88% 100% N 479 34,721 35,200 Percent 1% 99% 100% $15.01$K$$18.00 N 997 20,945 21,942 Percent 5% 95% 100% Percent 2% 98% 100% Over$$18.00 Percent 2% 98% 100% Over$$18.00 N 3,120 149,200 152,320 Percent 2% 98% 100% Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees...The.Food.Stamp.variable.indicates.whether.anyone.in.the.household.received.food.stamps.any.time.in.the.previous.12. months. Percentage'for'Each'Welfare'Category'in'Each'Wage'Level Welfare' Recipient Yes No Totals Welfare' Recipient Yes No Totals Welfare' Recipient Yes No Totals $9.32'or'Less N 921 41,015 41,936 Percent 2% 98% 100% $9.32'or'Less N 486 46,951 47,437 Percent 1% 99% 100% $9.32'or'Less N 1,640 36,019 37,659 Percent 4% 96% 100% Seattle'(Super'PUMA'='53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33'I$12.12 $12.13'I'$15.00 $15.01'I'$18.00 Over'$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 471 2% 390 1% 0 0% 29,313 98% 29,237 99% 25,481 100% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area'Surrounding'Seattle'(Super'PUMA'='53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33'I$12.12 $12.13'I'$15.00 $15.01'I'$18.00 N 1,056 206,574 207,630 Percent Percent Percent N N 4% 445 1% 0 0% 96% 30,313 99% 35,200 100% 100% 30,758 100% 35,200 100% Rest'of'King'County'(Super'PUMA'='53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33'I$12.12 $12.13'I'$15.00 $15.01'I'$18.00 N 1,161 255,719 256,880 N 1,442 31,033 32,475 N 691 24,444 25,135 Percent 3% 97% 100% N 154 26,068 26,222 Percent 1% 99% 100% N 182 21,760 21,942 Percent 1% 99% 100% Percent 1% 99% 100% Over'$18.00 Percent 0% 100% 100% Over'$18.00 N 564 151,756 152,320 Percent 0% 100% 100% Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who. were.classified.as.paid.employees...The.welfare.variable.reports.whether.the.respondent.received.support.from.various.public.assistance. programs,.including.SSI,.AFDC,.and.GA.in.the.previous.12.months. Percentage)for)Each)Children)in)Home)Category)in)Each)Wage)Level Children)in) Home Yes No Totals Children)in) Home Yes No Totals Children)in) Home Yes No Totals $9.32)or)Less N 6,762 35,174 41,936 Percent 16% 84% 100% $9.32)or)Less N 11,444 35,993 47,437 Percent 24% 76% 100% $9.32)or)Less N 11,131 26,528 37,659 Percent 30% 70% 100% Seattle)(Super)PUMA)=)53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33)L$12.12 $12.13)L)$15.00 $15.01)L)$18.00 Over)$18.00 Percent Percent Percent N N N 5,877 20% 4,231 14% 3,967 16% 23,907 80% 25,396 86% 21,514 84% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% 25,481 100% Area)Surrounding)Seattle)(Super)PUMA)=)53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33)L$12.12 $12.13)L)$15.00 $15.01)L)$18.00 N 55,947 151,683 207,630 Percent Percent Percent N N 35% 9,227 30% 10,753 31% 65% 21,531 70% 24,447 69% 100% 30,758 100% 35,200 100% Rest)of)King)County)(Super)PUMA)=)53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33)L$12.12 $12.13)L)$15.00 $15.01)L)$18.00 N 109,662 147,218 256,880 N 11,354 21,121 32,475 N 9,855 15,280 25,135 Percent 39% 61% 100% N 9,416 16,806 26,222 Percent 36% 64% 100% N 8,236 13,706 21,942 Percent 38% 62% 100% Percent 27% 73% 100% Over)$18.00 Percent 43% 57% 100% Over)$18.00 N 68,615 83,705 152,320 Percent 45% 55% 100% Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who. were.classified.as.paid.employees Percentage2by2Seattle2Neighborhood2in2Each2Wage2Level Neighborhood Capitol2Hill2/2South2East2Seattle Downtown2/2Queen2Anne North2East2Seattle North2West2Seattle West2/2South2Seattle Totals $9.322or2Less Percent N 8,401 20% 9,343 22% 10,426 25% 6,375 15% 7,391 18% 41,936 100% Seattle2(Super2PUMA2=253070) N2=2334,458 $9.332O$12.12 $12.132O2$15.00 Percent Percent N N 4,992 17% 5,693 19% 4,859 16% 5,693 19% 6,286 21% 5,939 20% 6,564 22% 5,084 17% 7,083 24% 7,218 24% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% $15.012O2$18.00 Percent N 4,807 19% 5,662 22% 4,263 17% 6,103 24% 4,646 18% 25,481 100% Over2$18.00 Percent N 31,679 15% 41,144 20% 45,472 22% 53,172 26% 36,163 17% 207,630 100% Based2on220072ACS2data,2sample2includes2respondents2162years2or2older2who2reported2working2at2some2time2in2the2past2122months,2and2who2were2classified2as2paid2 employees Percentage%by%Work%Region%in%Each%Wage%Level Work%Region King%County Outside%King%County Seattle Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 3,913 9% 14,911 36% 23,112 55% 41,936 100% Work%Region King%County Outside%King%County Seattle Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 26,355 56% 14,207 30% 6,875 14% 47,437 100% Work%Region King%County Outside%King%County Seattle Totals $9.32%or%Less Percent N 25,062 67% 9,989 27% 2,608 7% 37,659 100% Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53070) N.=.334,458 $9.33%N$12.12 $12.13%N%$15.00 Percent Percent N N 4,385 15% 5,071 17% 6,332 21% 6,685 23% 19,067 64% 17,871 60% 29,784 100% 29,627 100% Area%Surrounding%Seattle%(Super%PUMA%=%53081) N.=.402,750 $9.33%N$12.12 $12.13%N%$15.00 Percent Percent N N 19,040 59% 18,116 59% 6,521 20% 7,227 23% 6,914 21% 5,415 18% 32,475 100% 30,758 100% Rest%of%King%County%(Super%PUMA%=%53082) N.=.263,278 $9.33%N$12.12 $12.13%N%$15.00 Percent Percent N N 16,429 65% 18,179 69% 5,442 22% 5,771 22% 3,264 13% 2,272 9% 25,135 100% 26,222 100% $15.01%N%$18.00 Percent N 5,607 22% 3,797 15% 16,077 63% 25,481 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 41,300 20% 32,943 16% 133,387 64% 207,630 100% $15.01%N%$18.00 Percent N 20,800 59% 7,349 21% 7,051 20% 35,200 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 143,735 56% 40,563 16% 72,582 28% 256,880 100% $15.01%N%$18.00 Percent N 13,240 60% 3,576 16% 5,126 23% 21,942 100% Over%$18.00 Percent N 98,677 65% 25,098 16% 28,545 19% 152,320 100% Based.on.2007.ACS.data,.sample.includes.respondents.16.years.or.older.who.reported.working.at.some.time.in.the.past.12.months,.and.who.were. classified.as.paid.employees