Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law Thursday a bill that will raise Connecticut's minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2017, the highest for any state in the country.

"It's time to get people out of poverty," Malloy said just after he signed the bill at Cafe Beauregard in New Britain, which he visited earlier this month President Barack Obama earlier this month when the president was touting a $10.10 national minimum wage.

He said it was one of his "proudest days as governor."

Both houses of the State General Assembly approved the bill Wednesday. The Democratic governor signed it Thursday at a New Britain restaurant where he, President Barack Obama and three other New England governors ate earlier this month, before Obama urged Congress to increase the federal minimum wage during a speech at Central Connecticut State University.

"What we want to make sure is that men and women in our state that work 40 hours a week do not live in poverty and have the opportunity to raise their families as we, ourselves would want to raise our own," Malloy said.

The bill will increase the minimum hourly wage to $9.15 in January, $9.60 in January 2016 and $10.10 in January 2017. State officials say 70,000 to 90,000 people now earn the minimum wage in Connecticut.

Republicans criticized the increase as another action that makes Connecticut uncompetitive.

ASUG8 wrote:Sounds like CT is about to experience some very localized inflation relative to its neighbor states.

BlueHen86 wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Sounds like CT is about to experience some very localized inflation relative to its neighbor states.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Regardless, no matter what happens both parties will claim that they are right.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Regardless, no matter what happens both parties will claim that they are right.

The people who keep their jobs will be ecstatic, those who will be let go will be disappointed but at least they can draw unlimited unemployment. Win-win for Donks.

Companies can choose to leave for neighboring states, those that stay will be forced to make cutbacks. Win-win for Conks.

Meanwhile for the average American, the cycle continues.

Ivytalk wrote:Bridgeport, CT: still the "Armpit of New England."

kalm wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
The people who keep their jobs will be ecstatic, those who will be let go will be disappointed but at least they can draw unlimited unemployment. Win-win for Donks.

Companies can choose to leave for neighboring states, those that stay will be forced to make cutbacks. Win-win for Conks.

Meanwhile for the average American, the cycle continues.

Employment rates tend to not go down when the minimum wage increases.

GannonFan wrote: And consumer purchasing power tends not to go up either. Ergo, status quo.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Employment rates tend to not go down when the minimum wage increases.

And consumer purchasing power tends not to go up either. Ergo, status quo.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Employment rates tend to not go down when the minimum wage increases.

And consumer purchasing power tends not to go up either. Ergo, status quo.

ASUG8 wrote:

GannonFan wrote: And consumer purchasing power tends not to go up either. Ergo, status quo.

Maybe worse.
Wages for xx% rise - WIN
Prices for everyone rise - LOSE
Marginal businesses shut down - LOSE
Some businesses relocate - LOSE
Unemployment increases - LOSE
Housing oversupply - LOSE
Housing/rent prices fall - LOSE

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Maybe worse.
Wages for xx% rise - WIN
Prices for everyone rise - LOSE
Marginal businesses shut down - LOSE
Some businesses relocate - LOSE
Unemployment increases - LOSE
Housing oversupply - LOSE
Housing/rent prices fall - LOSE

Again, unemployment doesn't tend to increase, and prices are driven more by demand. I haven't looked to see how demand increases.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
And consumer purchasing power tends not to go up either. Ergo, status quo.

Relax Ganny. You know I'm neutral on this issue.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Relax Ganny. You know I'm neutral on this issue.

It's all good - just countering your post that something good comes of tinkering every now and then with the minimum wage. Anything positive or negative from minimum wage changes (and there are both) are very short term and are corrected for after the short term. Therefore, things don't change and nothing is improved nor harmed. It's a perfect political talking point that accomplishes nothing but political talking points.

Chizzang wrote:I just talked to a kid at a McDonalds (employee) who is making $12.75 in King county (Seattle area)
and this McDonlads has 2 Big Macs for $5 and a $.99 cent menu / Plus any size coffee for $1.00

It is far more difficult to assess the effects of high minimum wage than most people think it is...
For one thing / if you can't afford to pay somebody $11 you sure as hell can't afford to pay them $8 either

That's a difference of exactly SQUAT as far as weekly costs

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I just talked to a kid at a McDonalds (employee) who is making $12.75 in King county (Seattle area)
and this McDonlads has 2 Big Macs for $5 and a $.99 cent menu / Plus any size coffee for $1.00

It is far more difficult to assess the effects of high minimum wage than most people think it is...
For one thing / if you can't afford to pay somebody $11 you sure as hell can't afford to pay them $8 either

That's a difference of exactly SQUAT as far as weekly costs

Huh?

20 employees at 40 hours per week X $3/hour difference = $2,400 per week. That's $124,800 per year...and that doesn't include the additional taxes to the employer tacked on to the wage increase...or other benefits.

For a small business, that can make a big difference.

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I just talked to a kid at a McDonalds (employee) who is making $12.75 in King county (Seattle area)
and this McDonlads has 2 Big Macs for $5 and a $.99 cent menu / Plus any size coffee for $1.00

It is far more difficult to assess the effects of high minimum wage than most people think it is...
For one thing / if you can't afford to pay somebody $11 you sure as hell can't afford to pay them $8 either

That's a difference of exactly SQUAT as far as weekly costs

Huh?

20 employees at 40 hours per week X $3/hour difference = $2,400 per week. That's $124,800 per year...and that doesn't include the additional taxes to the employer tacked on to the wage increase...or other benefits.

For a small business, that can make a big difference.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Huh?

20 employees at 40 hours per week X $3/hour difference = $2,400 per week. That's $124,800 per year...and that doesn't include the additional taxes to the employer tacked on to the wage increase...or other benefits.

For a small business, that can make a big difference.

It's probably more than that. McDonald's is open for about 16 hours a day, 7 days a week (112 hours per week). If you have 10 employees working at a time you end up with 10 employees at 112 hours per week X $3/hour difference = $3,360 per week.

My number may be a little high (some current employees might be making more than minimum, so for them the increase is less than $3). I also guessed at number of employees working at a time, 10 seemed reasonable.

Either way, it is a big hit.