A floor that stopped moving

The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour since July 24, 2009. That is the longest stretch the national wage floor has gone without an increase since Congress created it in 1938 (NPR; Economic Policy Institute).

The number has not changed, but its value has. Because the federal minimum is a fixed dollar amount with no automatic adjustment, inflation erodes it every year Congress does not act. By 2024 the purchasing power of $7.25 had fallen well below what it bought in 2009.

In late April 2026, a group of House progressives introduced the Living Wage for All Act, which would raise the federal minimum to $25 an hour. The proposal is notable less for the headline number than for how it reframes the question.

How the federal minimum wage works

The minimum wage is set by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 1938 statute that also created the 40-hour week and overtime pay. Three features of its design matter here:

• It is a fixed dollar figure. The FLSA names a specific number. Raising it requires an act of Congress. There is no built-in cost-of-living adjustment, so the real value of the floor declines automatically between increases.
• States can go higher, not lower. Where a state or city sets a higher minimum, the higher figure applies. Thirty states plus the District of Columbia now have minimums above $7.25, which is why the federal floor binds mostly in lower-wage states.
• It permits subminimum wages. The FLSA allows employers to pay below the standard minimum in three carve-outs: a tipped wage (a $2.13 federal cash wage for workers who receive tips), a youth wage for workers under 20 during their first 90 days, and, under Section 14(c), a subminimum wage for some workers with disabilities.

Why $7.25 is the status quo

The last increase, signed in 2007, phased in over three steps and reached $7.25 in 2009. Every attempt since has failed in Congress. The most prominent recent vehicle is the Raise the Wage Act, reintroduced in April 2025 by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Bobby Scott, which would raise the federal minimum to $17 by 2030, phase out the tipped and youth subminimum wages, and index future increases to median wage growth (Senate HELP Committee). The Economic Policy Institute estimated that the $17 figure would raise pay for roughly 22 million workers (EPI).

The $17 benchmark has functioned for several years as the ceiling of mainstream debate. The Living Wage for All Act is an attempt to move that ceiling.

What the new bill proposes

The Living Wage for All Act was introduced in the House in late April 2026, days before the May Day mobilizations, by Representatives Delia Ramirez, Jesús “Chuy” García, Lateefah Simon, and Analilia Mejía, with more than 20 cosponsors including Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (Rep. Ramirez; Common Dreams). It has three core elements.

• A $25 hourly target. Sponsors derived the figure from MIT’s Living Wage Calculator, which estimates the income a single adult needs to cover basic costs (CNBC). Large employers would reach $25 by 2031; smaller employers would phase in more gradually, reaching $25 by 2038.
• A peg to the median wage. After the phase-in, the minimum would be indexed to two-thirds of the national median hourly wage and would rise automatically with it. This is the structural change: it converts the minimum from a fixed number that erodes into a ratio that tracks the broader wage distribution.
• An end to all subminimum wages. The bill eliminates the tipped, youth, and Section 14(c) disability subminimum wages, so that every worker is owed the full minimum from their employer.

How it reframes the debate

The Raise the Wage Act asks how much to raise a fixed number. The Living Wage for All Act asks a different question: what the minimum wage should be relative to.

Pegging the floor to two-thirds of the median wage is a common benchmark in international comparisons of wage policy, and it changes the politics. If the minimum is a ratio rather than a dollar figure, it no longer erodes between congressional votes, and the recurring fight over whether to raise it is replaced by a one-time fight over the formula.

The bill is unlikely to pass the current Congress. Its function is agenda-setting: it establishes a more ambitious pole in the debate and a structural argument — indexing — that survives independent of the specific number. Whether the eventual compromise lands closer to $17 or $25, the proposals that index the wage to median earnings would end the pattern of a floor that quietly sinks every year Congress does not act.

What to ask your representatives

• Do they support raising the federal minimum wage, and to what figure?
• Do they support indexing the minimum wage to median wage growth so it does not erode between increases?
• Do they support eliminating the tipped, youth, and Section 14(c) disability subminimum wages?
• If they oppose $25, what figure and what phase-in schedule would they support, and on what timeline?