Skip to main content

Common Sense And The Minimum Wage


What a difference a campaign season makes. It was not so long ago – in March 2012 – that Governor Dannel Malloy was valiantly trying to tamp down efforts among General Assembly progressives to raise the minimum wage in Connecticut to $9.25 an hour from $8.25.

A story issued from Rick Green of the Hartford Courant: “Quassy Stands To Lose If Minimum Wage Rises: Even 50-Cent Hike Could Cost Over $150K, Owner Says.”

Mr. Green interviewed a minimum wage employer, George Frantzis of Quassy Amusement Park on Lake Quassapaug in Middlebury, Connecticut, who pointed out that the prospective boost in the minimum wage would force him to take measures. Mr. Frantiz told Mr. Green that a minimum wage increase would force Quassy to “cut back on recently approved plans to expand a water park. There would be fewer raises for returning employees,” not to mention business lost from the absence of a water park.


Low wage employers operate on a profit margin considerably less than, say, Cigna Insurance Company, which was festooned by Mr. Malloy with $47 million in tax benefits to improve the profit line of the multi-billion dollar company and re-anchor Cigna in Connecticut should the company be considering a move to, say, South Carolina, now home base for PTR, a Connecticut gun manufacturer that moved out of state to escape an atmosphere made frosty by Mr. Malloy’s politically self-serving comments.

In throwing a rhetorical brick at the National Rifle Association (NRA), Mr. Malloy and U.S. Senators Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy clipped the jaws of not a few gun manufacturers in Connecticut, still called “the provision state,” a moniker the state richly earned in the American Revolution, when it supplied the ragtag army of George Washington with war munitions. Referencing the slaughter at Sandy Hook, Mr. Malloy said that the much belabored NRA – and by extension gun manufacturers in his own state --  cared only about the Benjamins (see prior blogs and columns concerning smoke shops and the Donovan scandal). Connecticut gun manufacturers and their employees took the message and began looking for the exit signs.

In the Green interview, then Malloy Top Aide, Chief Cook And Bottle Washer Roy Occhiogrosso smartly summed up Mr. Malloy’s position on the minimum wage: “’There are only so many times you can say Connecticut is open for business,’ said Malloy strategist Roy Occhiogrosso, whose boss is faced with the challenge of convincing companies to move here. The governor ‘is not sure that raising the minimum wage is the right way to go. He is definitely concerned that increasing the minimum wage would send the wrong message.’”

Evidently, the WRONG message sent to both in-state and out-of-state businesses foolish enough to consider moving into Connecticut’s high tax and regulatory briar patch would be: We sure hope there’s a surfeit of tax revenue in your udders.

Mr. Malloy’s opposition to an increased minimum wage was not long-lived. That was then, as the fat lady preparing to step on stage to sing her doleful song might say – and this is now. Elections loom on the horizon; there are interests that must be satisfied, ideological bows to take.

A little common sense sprinkled on the minimum wage gambit yields this:

The real minimum wage is a salary set following a hiring arrangement satisfactory to the two principals involved in the salary negotiation – the employer, who sets a price of labor, and the employee, who does or does not accept a salary offer. The so called “minimum wage” that Mr. Malloy and the Democrat dominated Generally Assembly is pressing upon all businesses in Connecticut is a state mandated wage increase that affects only a few workers in Connecticut. In 2012, the median income for a family of two in Connecticut was $69,341.64. In order to provide this income, assuming both members of the family are working, both partners would have to be earning a “living wage” of $667 per week, which amounts to an hourly rate of $17.  Assuming progressives are successful in boosting the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2017, the person receiving the new minimum wage would fall short of a living wage by $7 per hour.  That’s the bad news. The worse news is that there will be fewer employees receiving the mandated minimum wage.  And the even worse news is that the jobs eliminated by employers paying the inflated labor costs will fall most heavily upon the working poor.

Cigna, the Connecticut company Mr. Malloy favored with tax dollars, one may be sure, pays its employees a salary above minimum wage. The Cigna salaries also are set as supply and demand arrangements between private parties. If you are a prospective employee and dislike the salary offer at Cigna, you can always try your luck at Aetna or some other insurance giant in what used to be called “the insurance capital of the world” – for the time being. In a universal health care system, large insurance companies will transform themselves into boutique operations servicing the sort of people whose income matches that of Senator Dick Blumenthal, the 6th richest U.S. Congressman, or U.S. Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Jim Himes, both millionaires who will be able to afford boutique health care, unlike minimum wage workers.

Asked by a Harford Courant reporter to account for his transformation from a tepid supporter of the minimum wage to a drum banging cheerleader, Mr. Malloy said, “The economy's getting better ... the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of it, other states are moving solidly in this direction and that's why I proposed a plan that phases it in. It doesn't do it overnight, but let me be very clear: I support a $10.10 minimum wage tomorrow and believe that the Congress of the United States should enact it ... but in the event that they're not going to do it, I think Connecticut should take reasonable steps to lead this discussion."

Mr. Malloy’s critics put the gaudy show down to election year politics. One Republican groused that when the minimum wage was raised by Congress 10.6 percent in 1990, nearly 600,000 teen jobs disappeared in the six months following the artificial boost in labor costs. But his voice will not shake the rafters, and all the politicians who favor the elimination of teen jobs in return for votes from a citizenry fooled most of the time by most of them will be in office when Johnny doesn’t land that missing summer job at Quassy Amusement Park.

Comments

peter brush said…
By my calculation the State government has already raised the minimum wage 9% ($8.25 to $9.00). Now the Governor proposes another 12% increase. I assume the Nutmeg Republicans can't/won't articulate the case for getting rid of the governmentally imposed minimum wage altogether. Indeed, Tom Foley seems to think the $10.10 wage is reasonable, if not "livable."

So, how about if the minimum wage hike is tied to an improvement in the Connecticut business climate. A 12% hike in the minimum wage could be matched with a 12% cut in business tax and/or a 12$ cut in State spending.
--------
Tom Foley, the 2010 Republican gubernatorial nominee who has been courting the Democratic base in his quest for a rematch this year, said the goal of a $10.10 minimum was reasonable.

“It certainly doesn’t seem to me that’s out of the range of what's required to support a family in Connecticut, the minimum required," Foley said.

Foley said he favors a multi-tiered minimum, allowing a lower wage for entry-level workers or during a training period under some circumstances.
http://ctmirror.org/malloy-wants-a-10-10-minimum-wage-by-2017/

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p