CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Malloy To Seek Another Minimum Wage Hike To $10.10 By 2017

by | Feb 4, 2014 1:41pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share

Christine Stuart photo (Updated 4:03 p.m.) Connecticut’s minimum wage increased in January and it’s scheduled to rise again next year, but Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced Tuesday that he will seek yet another minimum wage increase to bring Connecticut up to $10.10 per hour by 2017.

At a Bridgeport press conference two days before his budget address, Malloy announced he would look to pass an increase in the minimum wage this legislative session. The proposal mirrors a similar one embraced by President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress.

“I do not think Connecticut should wait,” Malloy said Tuesday. “When it comes to lifting people out of poverty, Connecticut must be a leader as it has always been.”

The urgency expressed is new. Two years ago, Malloy tried not to get involved in the debate over the minimum wage and one year ago he was content to let the federal government take the lead.

“I’m not slamming any doors. I’m not saying ‘No,’ but I’ll watch the debate and perhaps reach a conclusion subsequently,” Malloy said in 2012 when former House Speaker Chris Donovan made a big push for a minimum wage hike.

In February 2013, Malloy said he favored a national increase in the minimum wage.

“The best way to do this would be to do it on a national basis. It would be the fairest way. It would lift up all of our citizenry,” Malloy said.

On Tuesday in Bridgeport, Malloy said the state is seeing an improvement in the economy and corporations are earning “record profits,” including those corporations that run retail and food service businesses most impacted by the minimum wage.

He said the goal of his administration when it comes to implementing policies like a minimum wage hike is an attempt to move as many people as possible to the middle class.

Coupled with a $55 tax refund to 2.7 million taxpayers, how is an increase in the minimum wage a political move in an election year?

“What I’m trying to do is the right thing,” Malloy said, denying that Tuesday’s proposal was motivated by politics.

Malloy has not said whether he will seek re-election. However, an increase in the minimum wage has been a crucial issue for the Working Families Party, which cross-endorsed Malloy in the 2010 election. He won that election by 6,404 votes.

“People vote because of the policies a governor espouses and when the governor espouses support for Bridgeport’s second train station, and helping us to find decent housing in inferior public housing settings and the minimum wage,” Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch said. “You can’t help but be enthusiastic about that.”

Finch, a Democrat, said he would like to see Malloy in office for four more years.

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said Malloy simply ripped a page out of the Democratic playbook.

“Increasing the minimum wage again — Connecticut just raised it 33 days ago — may test well with people answering poll questions at home but it does not sit right with people who create jobs, namely small business owners,” Cafero said Tuesday. “Hiking the minimum wage when businesses continue to struggle to meet payrolls has proven to be a mistake.”

Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, agreed. He said hiking the minimum wage is part of the national Democratic Party’s agenda.

“This will hurt small business owners and cost jobs,” McKinney said Tuesday.

The National Federation of Independent Business wants to know why Malloy’s reasoning on the minimum wage seems to have dramatically changed since last year when he worried openly that a big jump could damage the state’s economy.

“We’d like to know what’s changed,” NFIB State Director Andrew Markowski said. “Last year, the governor warned that a higher minimum wage could damage small business. Now he’s calling for a 22 percent increase over the previous level. It’s very confusing.”

Malloy said he believes Congress should immediately enact a $10.10 minimum wage, but in the event they’re not going to do that then Connecticut needs to take action.

It is estimated that there are currently 70,000 to 90,000 Connecticut workers who earn the minimum wage. The governor’s proposal means that an employee working 40 hours per week would earn $21,008 per year.

“In this day and age, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty,” Malloy said. “When workers earn more money, businesses will have more customers. The modest boost we are helping to bring about in our state will help people make ends meet.”

Malloy said he does not support indexing the minimum wage at this point. He said that discussion can happen after the state gets to $10.10.

Malloy’s proposal would increase the minimum wage to $9.15 an hour in January 2015. By January 2016, it would increase to $9.60 an hour and by January 2017 it would be $10.10.

Malloy said he called House Speaker Brendan Sharkey and Senate President Donald Williams on Monday to let them know about the proposal.

“This will help tens of thousands struggling working families, and add hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy,” Sharkey said in a statement.

“From President Obama to Governor Malloy, momentum is building to address income inequality in this country,” Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney said in a statement. “A low minimum wage forces the government to subsidize the cost of employment while privatizing the profits. As a result, the costs are shifted to government in the form of aid to low-wage workers.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(28) Archived Comments

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 4, 2014  3:32pm

Again more liberal progressive stupidity.

How many people that are for this do you think can discuss the economics of having an employee in a fast food restaurant vs. the present cost of robotics and automation? That’s right probably none.

The closer you get to that breakeven the more the jobs will go away.

These politicians need to focus on the cost of living and how they have done a number on low and middle income people with every little tax, regulation and fee. Why not reduce those first so people that don’t make much have their dollar go further? No can’t do that. Have to spend spend spend, and make other people pay for their stupidity!!

The CBO today said that now that they see what Obamcare really is that it will cost 2.3 million jobs. How about you ignorant progressives work on scrapping that law, so 2.3 million people can survive and not have to go on unemployment. After all it was the progressives at all levels of government that supported this bill and had to ram it through without knowing what was in it. The CBO even said they were misled when they originally said the bill wouldnt have much impact on jobs, but now they see what’s in it and how businesses are reacting, but these progressives have so little character that they can’t admit they messed up royally.

Raising the min wage that much is another screwup.

posted by: jim black | February 4, 2014  4:56pm

If you want to lift people out of poverty, getting all Democrats out of elected office would be a good place to start.

posted by: Janster57 | February 4, 2014  6:29pm

Unreal. It’s very difficult to live in a state where the budget process is based solely on re-election.

posted by: SocialButterfly | February 4, 2014  7:03pm

ObamaCare is losing 2.3 million jobs. Now Obama and Democrats are losing more jobs through a minimum hourly increase push that Gov. Malloy embraces as a model of Obama exploitation of losing jobs for votes.  Malloy is desperate for his self-preservation to be reelected as governor “by putting another dagger into our declining business sector.”
This type of false Democratic prosperity can only be justified by desperate politicians running for office with the conviction of “the end justifies the means.”

posted by: NoNonsense2014 | February 4, 2014  7:17pm

“The National Federation of Independent Business wants to know why Malloy’s reasoning on the minimum wage seems to have dramatically changed since last year when he worried openly that a big jump could damage the state’s economy.
“We’d like to know what’s changed,” NFIB State Director Andrew Markowski said. “Last year, the governor warned that a higher minimum wage could damage small business. Now he’s calling for a 22 percent increase over the previous level. It’s very confusing.”” Is he kidding? What’s changed? It’s an election year.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | February 4, 2014  10:07pm

I just don’t get this debate. Isn’t it $10.10 in the next 3 years? That really doesn’t seem like much, does it?


posted by: Lawrence | February 4, 2014  10:16pm

“The CBO today said that now that they see what Obamcare really is that it will cost 2.3 million jobs.”


Here’s what the report says; see if you can comprehend the difference without the influence of Fox News:

“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 5, 2014  8:59am

Lawrence you posted:

so it will appear almost entirely as a
reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what
have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is,
more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as
part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”

You progressives continue to prove my point. In the old days unemployment numbers considered people who werent working. Now, the scam is to not include people who have stopped looking or would like to have one full time job but cant find one so they have a few part time ones to survive.

When 2.3 million people will not be working full time or at all, RELATIVE TO WHAT HAVE OCCURRED OTHERWISE, in the real world its 2.3 million less people working or 2.3 million less jobs created, and in the end its because of Obamacare.

Where does some of this come from as well? When many people around the country are happy with their insurance and now have to get another plan which costs them thousands of dollars more for premiums and heaven forbid if they are really sick more thousands in higher out of pocket, that means they dont spend money they once spent as consumers and last I checked we are a consumer driven economy.

Screwing millions of people and their families over for a fix for other people is just wrong, especially when the people screwed over in many cases voted for this guy because of his direct and blatant lies.

posted by: Lawrence | February 5, 2014  9:44am

Wrong , Joebigjoe, though I appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness of your reply.

The people who will be leaving the workforce are elderly retirees and new mothers who HAD TO go back to work in order to afford health insurance.

But now they have another option—the ACA—and they can have health insurance AND the quality of life they desire.

AND those 2.3 million job positions are still open, waiting to be filled.

So what the ACA has done is to PROVIDE millions of Americans with health insurance, REDUCE their out-of-pocket expenses for health care (one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy in America), and IMPROVE the quality of life for Americans.

Oh, and I brings $8 billion into the treasury. I know the GOP wants to end the ACA; are House Republicans really willing to have a sit-down with the American people over another $ billion in budget cuts?


posted by: Joebigjoe | February 5, 2014  10:24am

Keep spinning leftie, I mean Lawrence.

From the media:

In 2010, the CBO projected ObamaCare would lead to about 650,000 fewer jobs. Tuesday’s new 2.3 million estimate is significantly higher.

The report states ObamaCare will also lead to a reduction of the net number of total hours worked by as much as 2 percent in the period from 2017 to 2024. It states that “lower-wage workers” will see the biggest reduction in the number of hours worked.

The agency also reduced its estimate of the number of uninsured people who will get coverage through the health care law.

My words: What a wonderful plan!! This article is about doing something that will hurt the working poor more and now lets really do a number on the economy with Obamacare.

Would you like to discuss the appeals part of Obamacare or healthcare.gov where tens of thousands of people got bad information back and wrong bills or coverage from their signup, filed an online appeal, yet there is no one looking at these appeals because the engine for it behind the web site hasnt been built. They cant get the info out of the system to even handle the issues manually.

I shouldnt be mad but should cheer because this could put progressivism into the bowels of our history for at least the rest of my life. How dumb can people be to blindly cheerlead and support this garbage rather than standing behind the general concept and demanding that the law be modified. I dont hear you left wingers demand that people get fired in the administration for this debacle, not to mention running many existing Dems out of government for supporting this and replacing them with Dems that werent around and would like to fix things.

Do you not realize what a mess this is and how bad your side looks not so much for supporting a bad law now, but for supporting and protecting incompetence?

posted by: justsayin | February 5, 2014  10:58am

Look at the Puppet at the podium. Obama talks and the words come out of Danny-boys mouth. Unoriginal, misleading and bad for the economy.

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 5, 2014  12:20pm

Hey Lawrence, stop watching MSNBC. Hot off the presses buddy.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a “disincentive for people to work,” adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy.

The testimony from CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf comes after his office released a highly controversial report that detailed how millions of workers could cut back their hours or opt out of the job market entirely because of benefits under the health law.

The White House and its Democratic allies accused Republicans, and the media, of mischaracterizing the findings. But Elmendorf backed Republicans’ central argument—fewer people will work because of the law’s subsidies.

“The act creates a disincentive for people to work,” Elmendorf said, under questioning from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Ryan clarified that the CBO report found not that employers would lay people off, but that more individuals would choose not to work.

“As a result ... that [lower] labor supply lowers economic growth,” Ryan said.

Elmendorf answered: “Yes, that’s right.”

posted by: SocialButterfly | February 5, 2014  12:42pm

@HST: The increase to $10.10 does not seem like much to Gov. Malloy either—as he does not have to meet a business payroll—and is clearly embracing this premise—for his own vote-seeking political gain. Our governor is realistically campaigning for reelection—without announcing that he is officially running for office,

posted by: SocialButterfly | February 5, 2014  2:02pm

@Joebigjoe: I give you credit for countering the large number of poor decision making moves and blatant lies coming out of Gov. Malloy’s office—with facts to combat our governor’s press media fiction.

posted by: justsayin | February 5, 2014  2:29pm

HST, you seem to be a bigger picture guy than your “it does not seem like much” comment. Also the government should step out and let the free market decide the rates. It is OK to have a bottom rate but that is it.

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 5, 2014  2:48pm

Here you go. Enjoy. Any of you economists out there want to challenge this economist. Make sure when you do you tell me what books you and papers you have written as I would be eager to read them.

posted by: Lawrence | February 5, 2014  8:00pm

Joebigjoe, I don’t have cable, so I don’t watch MSNBC, but I can read a United Press International news story from today:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 (UPI)—Healthcare reform will reduce the U.S. unemployment rate, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas W. Elmendorf testified Wednesday.

In an appearance before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf said the Affordable Care Act will enable some full-time workers to cut back their hours or even quit working, opening up jobs for the unemployed.

The non-partisan CBO issued an economic outlook Tuesday, saying the ACA will result in the reduction of the equivalent of as many as 2.5 million workers, a large percentage of them older workers who no longer need to worry about getting affordable healthcare coverage between now and when they become eligible for Medicare.

Under questioning from Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Elmendorf agreed the result will be people who are looking for work will be able to find it.

Elmendorf also noted the ACA provides some disincentives for people at the low end of the economic scale to work more since earning more could reduce Medicaid eligibility and the level of subsidies for insurance purchased through the HealthCare.gov.

Read more here

posted by: SocialButterfly | February 5, 2014  8:10pm

@Joebigjoe: Has Gov. Malloy written any books or papers?

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 5, 2014  8:37pm

Is my link not showing up or do I not see it because I posted it? It’s some history of the min wage and why it was started and what it does to poor people.

posted by: Christine Stuart | February 5, 2014  10:57pm

Christine Stuart

Sorry Joe,
I tried to use html so the link didn’t break the margins on the site. I must of missed a space. Will go back and see if I can fix it.

posted by: Christine Stuart | February 5, 2014  11:00pm

Christine Stuart

I fixed it. Link should work now.

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 6, 2014  9:27am

Thanks Christina.

Lawrence, you are missing the point, or maybe you are getting it and that’s scary.

America is a place you work. You work hard, you play by the rules and you get ahead. You may not get ahead as much as you want and life sometimes isnt fair.

America is not Obamacare. America is not where the govt provides a program that is a disincentive to work, or they should not be doing it. You shouldnt be able to work part time because you feel like it so you can sit around watching TV, writing poetry and smoking weed.

There is now a financial disincentive to work full time and who pays for people to do that. People that work full time or people that work two jobs to get ahead.

I’m tired of my sweat equity paying for other people to sit around and collect money or have behaviors most would not agree with get subsidized. I would venture to say that most people will not be happy paying for other people to choose to only work part time so they can fall into an income category where that decision has us pay for their health insurance.

I have little issue with paying towards the person working two part time jobs totalling 50 hours or more a week. That’s America where we all row the boat together. America cannot survive with another welfare entitlement state which disincentivizes getting off your butt and working hard.

posted by: gutbomb86 | February 6, 2014  11:38am


Yeah Joe we get it. We clearly see you have a warped sense of entitlement that makes you think you can pick and choose what you want to pay for if it fits your worldview. That’s not America, never was, never will be. You have this ridiculous fixation on the idea that people are getting over on you, yet you clearly have plenty of time and money to comment here in an effort to label and paint the world in black and white terms that you can understand, so frankly there doesn’t appear to be any urgency to your problems. Note the small but steady group of loud complainers on these threads are not the so-called “liberal progressives.” They’re busy working and carrying their own weight. What are you doing?

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 6, 2014  3:20pm

Hey Gutbomb maybe Christine will allow us to send her our W-2’s to answer your question about what I’m doing. The one who is higher can stay on this board and the other needs to go away for say 6 months without posting.

Sorry Gutbomb, but I don’t see any reason to take my hard earned money and that of others and provide it as a subsidy so others than can work can make an economic decision to not work. As an American I want my money to those that truly can’t help themselves.

I really wish people with your belief system would go live south of Mexico or something and bring your siesta mentality to some other continent.

posted by: gutbomb86 | February 6, 2014  6:45pm


You continue to show a fundamental lack of understand about just about every facet of life and you continue to pepper your comments with racism. Regardless of your W-2, you clearly have way too much time on your hands and you tend to make a lot of hateful statements here.

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 6, 2014  6:58pm

Gutbomb look in the mirror. When you have one finger pointing at me for being a racist there are four pointed back at you. .

I posted a link from a black economist who I have tremendous respect for who discussed the historical aspects of how the min wage hurts black people and why it was put in place to hurt black people. I guess that makes me a racist?

I post how raising the min wage will hurt the poor because of the economics of automation and running a business yet I’m the racist?

I believe that the brains of young black children are no different than that of whites or Asians but many don’t reach their potential because of the social garbage they are surrounded with and the disincentive to work provided by the liberals who don’t feel like I do that you judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. Yet, I’m the racist?

Seriously dude, liberalism or progressiveism or whatever voodoo you practice to the extreme you take it is akin to mental illness. 

As for hate…Yeah I hate what people like you are doing to this great state and this great country as you keep trying to rehash the Soviet Union view of the things but with your little “we know better” spin.

posted by: gutbomb86 | February 6, 2014  7:18pm


Dude you’re not a racist because of your ridiculous fixation on bad public policy. You’re a racist because you use racist terms all the time. You made racist remarks in this thread about Mexico and “siesta” - the word for nap. You’re a walking poster child for racism. Get a grip.

posted by: Joebigjoe | February 6, 2014  7:32pm

I said South of Mexico. Why? Because I respect Mexicans and their work effort, but if you know what is going on in the world, people South of Mexico in Central America are not known for their work ethic or productivity.

If one can’t compare people who will game the system so they don’t have to work hard to people who have been defined by the UN and other groups as not being hard workers or productive as a whole compared to other economies, then again you are the one with the issue. You don’t want facts to get in the way of someone’s argument against your utopian view that everyone wants to work hard and get ahead on their own in the world. I don’t buy that view.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages