Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Wages of Essential Workers Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands the federal restriction on the garnishment of wages to protect from any garnishment the first $1,000 of an individual's weekly disposable earnings.
Sponsors: Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally subject to wage garnishment
Estimated Size: 60000000
- This bill targets individuals who are categorized as 'essential workers,' which includes a broad spectrum of job roles crucial during emergencies, such as healthcare workers, first responders, and food supply workers.
- The limitation on garnishment affects anyone with a salary low enough to currently experience wage garnishments, as long as they are earning above the threshold established by the law.
- The law applies to all working individuals, regardless of sector, whose wages might be garnished under existing laws.
- Garnishment laws vary worldwide, so this legislation specifically impacts workers within the jurisdiction of the United States due to its federal nature.
Reasoning
- The target population consists mainly of essential workers whose earnings might currently be subject to wage garnishment due to financial difficulties. This includes healthcare workers, food service workers, and other similar roles.
- Given the policy limits protection to the first $1,000 of weekly earnings, individuals earning near or below this threshold are most impacted as their financial stability and disposable income could substantially improve.
- The budget of $500 million in the first year and $5.9 billion over ten years implies we need to focus on scenarios where this protection results in meaningful relief to workers experiencing wage garnishments.
- The policy impact will vary across different scenarios: for some, it might offer significant relief, preventing harsh financial consequences; for others not subject to garnishment or earning higher amounts, the policy might have negligible or no impact.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a huge relief. It means I can work without fearing that my whole paycheck will vanish due to garnishments.
- It gives me a bit more control over my finances and stability for my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Grocery store clerk (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This provides some breathing room for me as I try to pay down my debts and raise my kid.
- I can focus on savings and maybe reduce my working hours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Police Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It won't completely change my situation, but protecting a part of my income is certainly valuable.
- Allows more financial security heading into retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Delivery driver (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to predict my paycheck helps me plan better for tuition and living expenses.
- It's like having a financial safety net.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Paramedic (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would ensure I can always pay my mortgage first without worry.
- It reduces stress immediately.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Restaurant cook (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could stabilize my weekly income so I can start thinking long term rather than living just month to month.
- It feels like a chance to get back on my feet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Warehouse worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The $1,000 protection helps my family remain stable without fearing complete loss of income.
- It allows me to take control sooner rather than later.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Construction worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is reassuring. Knowing a chunk of my pay is safeguarded changes how I approach bills.
- I can be more confident in financial commitments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Home health aide (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate that this bill guarantees some income to manage late-stage work years.
- It lets me save a little more for retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Public transit operator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It means I can plan with the certainty of retaining a substantial part of my income despite debts.
- Elevates both my personal and financial wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $800000000)
Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $310000000, High: $830000000)
Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $860000000)
Year 5: $580000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $900000000)
Year 10: $680000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $1050000000)
Year 100: $2300000000 (Low: $1380000000, High: $3450000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy primarily benefits low- to mid-income earners by enhancing income security against garnishment.
- Long-term implications may involve behavioral shifts in spending and improved financial stability for essential workers.
- Variable individual impact based on current earnings thresholds and existing garnishments.