Connecticut Enacts $10.10 Minimum Wage

Chris Rock

Via Think Progress:

This week, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a bill to raise the state’s minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2017, and Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed it into law yesterday.

If implemented nationally, a $10.10 minimum wage would put it in line with where it would be if it had kept up with inflation since the 1960s, although far behind the increases in workers’ productivity since then. It would also lift nearly 5 million people out of poverty, close the gender wage gap by 5 percent, and reduce spending on public programs by tens of billions of dollars. There is also real world and academic evidence to suggest that it won’t hurt job growth and could benefit the economy.

Given that the November midterm elections (like 2010) are expected to be dominated by Faux-News-watching senior citizens, it really looks like President Obama will be the only president since FDR whose administration did not enact any increase in the federal minimum wage.

America needs a raise!

UPDATE:
After-tax profits for American corporations hit another record high last year, rising to $1.68 trillion. American workers have experienced a “lost decade” of wage growth, as their pay stayed flat or declined between 2000 and 2012, despite a 25 percent bump in productivity.

UPDATE:
Half A Million People With College Degrees Are Working For Minimum Wage

  1. #1 by brewski on March 28, 2014 - 9:10 pm

    You have something against senior citizens?

  2. #2 by brewski on March 28, 2014 - 9:16 pm

    It is pretty hilarious that the do-not-thinkprogress leads their story with a picture of a coffee barista.

    Coffee baristas are not the least skilled jobs out there. In fact, a good friend of mine who has a college degree was working as a barista recently and he quit on his own accord because he couldn’t handle it. It was too hard for him. Also, I saw a sign in a coffee place recently that was advertising for jobs starting at $12.00 per hour plus benefits. So the coffee place offered higher wages than they were required to because that is the wage they need to pay to attract the kind of employees they need. It is not minimum skilled and it is not minimum paid. But they idiots at do-not-thinkprogress and those who read it and link it don’t know the difference. Their own writings only go to demonstrate their lack of understanding of labor, skills, jobs, wages and pretty much everything else.

  3. #4 by Larry Bergan on March 28, 2014 - 10:44 pm

    Lifting people out of poverty?

    We’re headed down the slippery slope for sure.

  4. #5 by brewski on March 29, 2014 - 4:52 pm

  5. #7 by Larry Bergan on March 29, 2014 - 5:08 pm

    Whether jobs are cut, is totally up to the employers.

    Whether employees are making enough isn’t even up for debate.

    If you have to raise prices at your business, just do it! All of the others will have to raise their prices also, but the solution might be for the billionaires to make less money and pay more taxes.

    OH, NO!

    Lions and tigers and bears!

  6. #8 by brewski on March 29, 2014 - 5:51 pm

    Your post has the words “academic evidence” as a hyperlink. Click on that. Your post, your quote and your hyperlink.

    • #9 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 8:05 pm

      So they used a random stock photo in an article I didn’t even read, that is just a supporting link in a story about Connecticut’s minimum wage.

      Do you have anything better than that? For example, do you think the Connecticut economy is doomed to destruction now?

      • #10 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 10:11 am

        No, it is not a random stock photo. It was a chosen stock photo of what incapable-of-thinkingprogress thinks that a minimum wage job is, when it is not. They chose the photo and they are wrong. They want you to think that is what minimum wage jobs look like when it is not. They lie because that is the only thing that they know how to do.

      • #11 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 11:28 am

        Got it. Some intern chose an inappropriate stock photo. Now can you address the substance of this post?

        • #12 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 9:26 pm

          They don’t have senior editors who approve the final content?

          You mean they publishers have no responsibility for the content of their website?

          Really? So your defense is merely that they are run by incompetent kids?

          • #13 by cav on March 31, 2014 - 2:31 pm

            “…run by incompetent kids” is the very canard you tried to haul out just the other day. Come on ‘b’, where’s your sense of honor?

          • #14 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 2:50 pm

            That was Richard’s defense. Not mine.

          • #15 by cav on March 31, 2014 - 8:47 pm

            “You do understand that this “report” was written by an “administrative assistant” who is 18 months out of school.

            Don’t you just hate it when I use your own words to defeat you?”

            brewski and more brewski.

            I’m out.

        • #16 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 10:19 pm

          You have a gift for missing the point.

          • #17 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 12:15 am

            You and they have a gift for misinformation, inaccuracy and lies.

          • #18 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 1:39 am

            It’s incredibly absurd to ignore the content of what I linked to and obsess over a stock photo.

          • #19 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 7:40 am

            Entertaining that you call that absurd since that is your only tactic.

          • #20 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 11:09 am

            You skipped past logic and went straight to nonsense very quickly on this thread.

          • #21 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 11:11 am

            Absurdity begets absurdity.

        • #22 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 9:46 pm

          Which was factually true by the way.

          Nevertheless, it was Richard who used that as an excuse in this case. Not me.

          • #23 by Richard Warnick on April 1, 2014 - 8:33 am

            What’s true is that the selection of a stock photo on a website does not discredit anything.

          • #24 by brewski on April 1, 2014 - 12:54 pm

            If I was writing an article about Fords, and I included a stock photo of a Chevy, wouldn’t you question my knowledge of cars?

          • #25 by Richard Warnick on April 1, 2014 - 5:32 pm

            The author of the article very often has no control over the photo that goes with it. Unless I thought you were trying to mislead people intentionally, I wouldn’t make a big deal about the picture or caption as opposed to the article itself.

            When a Republican politician gets caught in corruption, Faux News Channel usually puts up a picture of the guy with a “D” after his name. But I don’t make a big deal about it.

          • #26 by brewski on April 1, 2014 - 8:24 pm

            The editor and publisher does.

          • #27 by Richard Warnick on April 1, 2014 - 9:27 pm

            I conclude you’re not interested in the subject of minimum wage anymore, which makes sense because everyone knows a raise is long overdue – even the fat cats who are against it.

          • #28 by brewski on April 1, 2014 - 9:44 pm

            I gave you evidence. You gave me emotional partisan responses. What else do you want? You are incapable of learning.

  7. #29 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 9:04 pm

    UPDATE: After-tax profits for American corporations hit another record high last year, rising to $1.68 trillion. American workers have experienced a “lost decade” of wage growth, as their pay stayed flat or declined between 2000 and 2012, despite a 25 percent bump in productivity.

    • #30 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 10:11 am

      Why is that?

    • #31 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 4:14 pm

      I think the phrase “after-tax profits” says it all. We could tax the corporations, but for that you need a government that represents the people.

      • #32 by brewski on April 1, 2014 - 9:48 pm

        Can you guess what the after-tax profit margin in percent is for Wal Mart? How little is little enough?

        • #33 by brewski on April 2, 2014 - 9:04 am

          Wow.
          You deliberately refused to answer simple question.
          What do you have to hide?

          • #34 by brewski on April 2, 2014 - 9:06 am

            By the way, it is $16B in the most recent year.

            That is 3.3% of revenue.

            How slim do you think their profit should be? Give me a number.

          • #35 by Richard Warnick on April 2, 2014 - 10:29 am

            I don’t know where the 2014 numbers come from. We’re only one quarter into 2014. If Walmart channeled half of its pre-tax profit back into compensation, it would give the average associate a raise from $20,000 to $25,000. Considering that 1 percent of the U.S. labor force works for Walmart, that would be significant.

          • #36 by brewski on April 2, 2014 - 11:11 am

            Their fiscal year end is January. They do not use a calendar year. If you knew anything you would know that. So their fiscal year just ended january 31, 2014 they made $16B.

            So you think they should lower their margin to 1.65%. Is that correct?

          • #37 by brewski on April 2, 2014 - 11:14 am

            “I don’t know where the 2014 numbers come from.”? Really?

            “I don’t know” tells me all I need to know.

          • #38 by Richard Warnick on April 2, 2014 - 3:52 pm

            Maybe you can enlighten me. We’re only three months into calendar year 2014, and halfway through FY 2014. Is it a prediction?

          • #39 by brewski on April 2, 2014 - 3:54 pm

            Wal Mart’s fiscal year is Feb 1 – Jan 31 of each year. They just ended the year Jan 31 2014. It is not a prediction. Their profit is 3.3% of revenues. You think they should only be permitted 1.65%.

          • #40 by Richard Warnick on April 3, 2014 - 7:20 am

            Thanks for the info. But it’s weird to talk about 2014 profits based on a fiscal year that only includes one month of 2014. I’m glad their profits went down – I never set foot in Walmart and I encourage others to stay away. But they could easily afford to give their minimum-wage employees a raise.

          • #41 by brewski on April 3, 2014 - 8:03 am

            So you think a 3.3% margin is too high?

            Go tell that to their shareholders, like all of those teachers’ unions. I am sure they feel too rich.

          • #42 by brewski on April 3, 2014 - 9:01 am

            California State Teachers Retirement System owns 5,300,000 shares of Walmart. Are you going to be the one to tell the teachers to take a pension cut?

          • #43 by Richard Warnick on April 3, 2014 - 12:35 pm

            Give me 0.0001% of $16 billion and I’ll retire a happy man.

            I’m not responsible for anybody’s business decisions. That goes for Walmart and their shareholders. I do want to end the system of federal subsidies for low-wage employers. The best way to do that is raise the minimum wage.

          • #44 by brewski on April 3, 2014 - 3:51 pm

            False.

          • #45 by Richard Warnick on April 3, 2014 - 3:54 pm

            “False” meaning that $1.6 million won’t be enough for me to retire on, or “false” that a minimum wage increase will mean taxpayers won’t have to subsidize low-wage employers as much as we do now? Or perhaps “false” just means you’re out of logical arguments.

          • #46 by brewski on April 3, 2014 - 4:01 pm

            False, as in the “best way” to raise wages for unskilled people is by government mandate.

          • #47 by Richard Warnick on April 3, 2014 - 4:16 pm

            I’ll happen faster by government action than if we wait on the good intentions of the Walton heirs. :-(

          • #48 by brewski on April 3, 2014 - 4:27 pm

            You mean Hillary didn’t solve that when she was on their Board?

      • #49 by Richard Warnick on April 2, 2014 - 7:58 am

        2013 Walmart profits = $17 billion. They could easily afford to pay their minimum-wage employees $10.10 an hour. Remember labor costs are paid out of pre-tax revenue.

  8. #52 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 7:11 am

    The story of a black man on minimum wage:

    While we talk about democracy and equal rights, we seem increasingly to let both private and government decisions be determined by mob rule. There is nothing democratic about mob rule. It means that some people’s votes are to be overruled by other people’s disruptions, harassments and threats.
    The latest examples are the mobs in the streets in cities across the country, demanding that employers pay a minimum wage of $15 an hour, or else that the government makes them do so by law. Some of the more gullible observers think the issue is whether what some people are making now is “a living wage.” This misconstrues the whole point of hiring someone to do work. Those who are being hired are paid for the value of the work they do.

    If their work is really worth more than what their employer is paying them, all they have to do is quit and go work for some other employer, who will pay them what their work is really worth. If they can’t find any other employer who will pay them more, then what makes them think their work is worth more?

    As for a “living wage,” the employer is not hiring people in order to acquire dependents and become their meal ticket. He is hiring them for what they produce.

    Are some people not able to produce much? Absolutely! I know because I was once one of those people.

    After leaving home as a teenager, I discovered that what I could earn would only enable me to rent a furnished room about 6 by 9 feet. Instead of a closet, it had a nail on the back of the door — which was completely adequate for my wardrobe at the time.

    It became painfully clear that there was no great demand for a high school dropout with no skills and no experience.

    My choices were to get angry at my employer or to acquire some skills and experience — and try to pick up some more education, while I was at it. Even to a teenage dropout, that choice was a no-brainer.

    There was no one around to confuse the issue by telling me that I was somehow “entitled” to what other people had produced, whether at the expense of the taxpayers or the employer.

    There was a minimum wage law, even back in those days. But it had been passed ten years earlier, and inflation had raised both prices and wages to the point where it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law.

    Thank heaven! The unemployment rate among black teenagers back then was a fraction of what it would become in later years, after “compassionate” politicians repeatedly raised the minimum wage rate to keep up with inflation.

    In 1948, the year I left home, the unemployment rate among black 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was 9.4 percent, slightly lower than that for white kids the same ages, which was 10.2 percent.

    Over the decades since then, we have gotten used to unemployment rates among black teenagers being over 30 percent, 40 percent or in some years even 50 percent. Such is the price of political “compassion.”

    Whatever the good intentions behind minimum wage laws, what matters are the actual consequences. Many people have ideological, financial or political incentives to obfuscate the consequences.

    Labor unions are the biggest force behind attempts to raise the minimum wage, not only in the United States but in other countries around the world. That may seem strange, since most union members already earn more than the minimum wage. But the unions know what they are doing, even if too many gullible observers do not.

    Low-skill workers with correspondingly low wages compete in the labor market with higher skilled union members with correspondingly higher wages. Many kinds of work can be done by various mixtures of low-skilled workers and high-skilled workers.

    Minimum wage rates that are higher than what most low-skilled and inexperienced workers are worth simply price those workers out of the job markets, leaving more work for union members. All the unions have to do is camouflage what is happening by using rhetoric about “a living wage,” or “social justice” or whatever else will impress the gullible.

    Life was tough when all I could get were low-paying jobs. But it would have been a lot tougher if I couldn’t get any job at all. And a tough life made me go get some skills and knowledge.

    • #53 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 7:42 am

      The reason why it ought to be against the law for employers to refuse to pay a living wage to a full-time employee is simple. Taxpayers have to make up the difference, via EITC, SNAP etc. This is in effect a subsidy for billionaires (and not surprisingly billionaires are manipulating the political system to keep those subsidies).

      If federal law required employers to pay a living wage, jobs would not disappear. In Australia, McDonald’s employees start at $15/hour.

      Unions barely exist at all in America. If they made a comeback, maybe it would save the middle class– but I’m not optimistic.

  9. #54 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 7:43 am

    Well deserved, but I retrieved it anyway. :-)

    Brewski, unless you are a black man working a minimum wage job you are quoting someone else. Use quotation marks or block quotes please, and cite your source!

    Who is this guy? What real actual person would want a job that doesn’t pay enough to live on, or be grateful for low wages because (according to right-wing mythology) it’s an incentive to improve yourself?

    Meanwhile in the real world: Half A Million People With College Degrees Are Working For Minimum Wage

    • #55 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 9:05 am

      Yes, I should have included quotes. Yes he is black and yes he is a man.

      I am sure if I told you who it was that you would do your usual ad hominem attacks.

      • #56 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 11:11 am

        If you don’t cite a source we’ll simply assume this guy is fictional. Seriously, who says thank you for low wages, they’ll help motivate me to better myself?

        • #57 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 11:39 am

          Let me ask you a question, if someone pays you more for having no skills and dong less, then why would you invest in additional skills?

        • #58 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 11:41 am

          I personally know people who have almost no job skills (except sucking up to the boss) who are paid much more than me. I suppose they have no incentive to improve their skills, but do I? You may have heard the expression, “It’s not WHAT you know, but WHO you know.”

          I invested a lot of money and put in a lot of effort to be good at what I do. But I respect the work of others, whether they are in an office or behind a cash register at McDonald’s. The harder and more disagreeable the job in America, the less they pay you as a rule.

        • #59 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 12:09 pm

          So you deny the existence of the upward sloping supply curve for labor and you deny the existence of the downward sloping demand curve for labor. You are the most willfully ignorant person outside of Havana there is. You make Sarah Palin look intellectually curious.

          • #60 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 3:39 pm

            I think you are denying the existence of government subsidies for low-wage employers, coupled with a federal minimum wage that’s less than half what it ought to be. This explains why the so-called recovery has created far more low-wage jobs than living-wage jobs.

          • #61 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 3:45 pm

            Ought? Ought?

            What you say is either opinion or false.

        • #62 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 2:08 pm

          Actually, your point is pointless. Behavioral response by one person is not relevant to what others are doing.

          So if person A thinks they can increase their earning potential by learning a skill, it does not matter if person A knows person B with few skills who make more money unless person A thinks he can replicate person B. Otherwise, person A’s decisions on what to do are based solely on what person A’s beliefs are regarding his acquiring skills and earning potential.

          • #63 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 3:43 pm

            What about a person who has an advanced degree and lots of experience on their resume, good recommendations, and interviews well. Maybe they even have a degree in economics. According to you, they ought to find a job. But in reality, they can’t.

            “They are looking for entry-level, or one to two years of experience,” said Hadley, who has a MBA. “When seasoned jobseekers apply, their experience and education become a barrier.”

          • #64 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 3:46 pm

            False.

          • #65 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 3:50 pm

            It’s reality versus economic theory. I think we’ve discussed this. In reality, you run into stuff like age discrimination and cheap employers who don’t want to pay what you’re worth.

  10. #66 by Ronald D. Hunt on September 16, 2014 - 12:42 pm

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/uk-oecd-tax-idUKKBN0HB19F20140916

    Wasn’t sure where to post this but, Richard this seems right down your alley.

    • #67 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 3:47 pm

      Good article, however, they seem to ignore the fact that corporations don’t pay taxes, they merely collect taxes on behalf of their shareholders. So a solution to the problem would be to eliminate the corporate tax altogether, and simply tax the shareholders. This would solve this entire gaming problem.

    • #68 by Richard Warnick on September 16, 2014 - 4:01 pm

      Most OECD countries have what is called a territorial tax system. The USA has a worldwide tax system that curbs such shenanigans as declaring your profits in Bermuda.

      The right-wing solution is to lower the nominal corporate income tax rate, as if that would magically stop multinational corporations from doing tax avoidance.

      • #69 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 4:33 pm

        False and False.

      • #70 by Ronald D. Hunt on September 16, 2014 - 9:40 pm

        Seems to be the sensible solution is end to foreign profit tax payment deferments.

        • #71 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 10:31 pm

          So you think an American tax-domiciled international company doing business in Brazil should pay a higher tax rate than a German tax-domiciled international company doing business in Brazil?

    • #72 by brewski on September 16, 2014 - 8:15 pm

      Let’s look at the all-in tax rates of your social liberal democracies of Europe. Their all in tax rate in corporate earnings plus dividend taxes is about 45%.

      So if the US had zero corporate income tax and a 45% dividend tax rate then we would be exactly the same all in. No gaming, no jurisdiction shopping. No avoidance. Simple enforcement.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: