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.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: