Connecticut Is Latest State to Raise Minimum Wage, but Is It Enough to Help?

It’s still really hard — if not impossible — to live on $8 an hour.

A close-up photo showing of the front of various US bank notes is seen December 7, 2010 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Nancy Cook
March 28, 2014, 5:20 a.m.

This story was up­dated on April 4, 2014.

Thir­teen states op­ted to raise their min­im­um wage above the fed­er­al level, start­ing this past Jan. 1. And so far, noth­ing dire (or amaz­ing, for that mat­ter) has happened to em­ploy­ers’ or work­ers in those com­munit­ies.

An­ec­dot­ally, busi­nesses have not slashed jobs or laid-off low-wage work­ers en masse. In­stead, pay­ing up to $1 more an hour is simply the latest head­ache for busi­ness own­ers like 45-year-old Peter De­Fe­lice. “The eco­nomy crashed. My taxes have gone up. The price of gas went up, and the [min­im­um-wage] in­crease will cost me more than $2,500 this year,” says De­Fe­lice, the own­er of two flower shops and a com­ic-book store in Sparta and Frank­lin, N.J. “We just keep chan­ging the way we do busi­ness to be­come more ef­fi­cient.”

And the min­im­um-wage work­ers them­selves? Well, they’re grate­ful for the in­crease, but the boost is not enough to lift any­one out of con­stant fin­an­cial dis­tress. “It helps me pay more of my bills,” says 22-year-old Naquasia Le­Grand, who works as a Ken­tucky Fried Chick­en cash­ier in New York for $8 an hour, up from $7.25 in 2013. “But, I still can’t do a lot.” Le­Grand has be­come an or­gan­izer and face of the multi-state cam­paign to raise min­im­um wages, ap­pear­ing on “The Col­bert Re­port” in Janu­ary to talk about those ef­forts.

Roughly three months after the in­creases went in­to ef­fect in more than a dozen states, in­clud­ing Cali­for­nia, Con­necti­c­ut, New Jer­sey, New York, and Rhode Is­land, this is the state-of-play for the min­im­um-wage de­bate. Eco­nom­ic data are not con­clus­ive enough yet to give ad­voc­ates hard evid­ence as to wheth­er the in­creases were a wise or fool­hardy de­cision. That has not stopped the polit­ic­al ac­tion from shift­ing largely to the state level, with Con­gress grid­locked and the pres­id­ent’s power wan­ing.

New Jer­sey work­ers saw some of the greatest in­creases head­ing in­to 2014; there, the min­im­um wage jumped from $7.25 to $8.25 an hour and also pegged fu­ture in­creases to the rate of in­fla­tion, meas­ured by the Con­sumer Price In­dex. Pres­id­ent Obama and con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats con­tin­ue to ad­voc­ate for a high­er na­tion­al min­im­um wage of $10.10 an hour as a key theme for the 2014 midterm elec­tions: a way to ex­press the em­pathy for hard­pressed Amer­ic­an work­ers on an is­sue that also hap­pens to poll well. And Con­necti­c­ut law­makers just voted Wed­nes­day to in­crease its min­im­um wage to $10.10 by 2017, in line with the pres­id­ent’s eco­nom­ic agenda.

Now, states are en­ga­ging in their own mini-eco­nom­ic ex­per­i­ments in real time to try to settle the age-old eco­nom­ic de­bate: Does in­creas­ing the min­im­um wage lead to less job cre­ation, or does it spur eco­nom­ic growth by giv­ing low-wage work­ers more money to spend? Eco­nom­ists have been fight­ing over this for at least the past 20 years, in­creas­ingly pro­du­cing more re­search on the top­ic and ar­guing amongst them­selves.

A re­cent sur­vey of min­im­um-wage re­search by the non­par­tis­an budget score­keep­ers, the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice, showed how in­con­clus­ive the aca­dem­ic de­bate re­mains. CBO es­tim­ated that 16.5 mil­lion work­ers would see a boost in their earn­ings if the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in­creased the min­im­um wage to $10.10 an hour (high­er than any of the state in­creases that re­cently took hold). Such a move would also lift 900,000 fam­il­ies out of poverty, CBO says. At the same time, however, it could re­duce the num­ber of jobs that the eco­nomy cre­ates by roughly 500,000 po­s­i­tions. “The prob­lem is: There is no way to raise wages without win­ners and losers,” says Mark Killings­worth, a labor eco­nom­ist at Rut­gers Uni­versity. “It’s hard to do something that just in­volves win­ners.”

The aca­dem­ic re­search on the min­im­um wage re­mains as grid­locked as the de­bate with­in the halls of Con­gress, while the eco­nom­ic real­it­ies for Amer­ic­an work­ers have cer­tainly shif­ted. More and more adults now work low-wage, hourly jobs in re­tail stores, fast-food chains, air­ports, and as home health care aides to sup­port their fam­il­ies than they did in years past. “Pri­or to the 1980s, it was typ­ic­ally teens who were the min­im­um-wage work­ers,” says Wil­li­am Ro­gers III, a pro­fess­or of pub­lic policy at Rut­gers Uni­versity and a former chief eco­nom­ist at the Labor De­part­ment. “A typ­ic­al min­im­um-wage work­er now is not a teen­ager. This is how it fits in­to the in­come in­equal­ity con­ver­sa­tion.”

The oth­er, more subtle shift comes from the hol­low­ing out of the middle class. Amer­ic­an work­ers, par­tic­u­larly those without col­lege de­grees, are no longer as able to eas­ily move from low-wage jobs to bet­ter-pay­ing ones, thanks to the dearth of good man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs and oth­er blue-col­lar po­s­i­tions. This leaves work­ers stuck in a rut of min­im­um-wage work for longer than they per­haps ima­gined and without a clear es­cape lad­der.

Just ask Le­Grand, the KFC work­er. After taxes, Le­Grand takes home roughly $120 a week from work­ing 15 hours at the fast-food chain on the out­er edges of the Brook­lyn, N.Y., neigh­bor­hood, Park Slope. She used to make more money by work­ing a second job at a KFC branch in Queens un­til that store shut down in Oc­to­ber 2013. Now, she needs to find an­oth­er second job to bet­ter sup­port her­self, or pick up more hours in her cur­rent po­s­i­tion: a route that she’s tried with little suc­cess. She says she’s one of the lucky ones be­cause she at least lives with her grand­moth­er and pays little to no rent.

“Nobody has any money to sur­vive or buy any­thing,” she says about her fel­low min­im­um-wage work­ers. “Obama is do­ing the right thing as a lead­er, even if he doesn’t have as much au­thor­ity as I thought he would. That’s why some states are start­ing to change the min­im­um wage,” she adds.

One sem­in­al min­im­um-wage study from the 1990s showed how rais­ing the min­im­um wage does not ne­ces­sar­ily cause huge fluc­tu­ations in loc­al eco­nom­ies. The study, from eco­nom­ists Dav­id Card and Alan Krueger, com­pared fast-food res­taur­ants in New Jer­sey in the 1990s (where the min­im­um wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05 an hour) with fast-food chains in east­ern Pennsylvania (where the min­im­um wage did not go up that year). The eco­nom­ists found that the min­im­um-wage in­crease in New Jer­sey did not re­duce em­ploy­ment, as con­ser­vat­ives and free-mar­ket thinkers of­ten ar­gue. (Krueger later went on to be­come a top eco­nom­ic ad­viser to Obama.)

More re­cently, a 2010 pa­per out of the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (Berke­ley) ex­pan­ded on the ori­gin­al New Jer­sey fast-food study by show­ing that slight in­creases in the min­im­um wage across 337 counties and a broad­er sec­tor of in­dus­tries also did not lead to sig­ni­fic­ant job losses. For sup­port­ers of the min­im­um wage, eco­nom­ists, and low-wage work­ers, the ques­tion be­comes: How much can the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in­crease that threshold without hurt­ing the eco­nomy and busi­nesses? Mean­while, con­ser­vat­ive eco­nom­ists like Mi­chael Strain of the Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute and a hand­ful of Re­pub­lic­an law­makers are fo­cused in­stead on push­ing the al­tern­at­ive of an ex­pan­ded Earned In­come Tax Cred­it, a break for work­ing in­di­vidu­als.

The min­im­um-wage sweet spot, ac­cord­ing to the CBO over­view, may fall closer to $9 an hour than the pres­id­ent’s latest pro­pos­al. “The thing that is miss­ing from the CBO study is what hap­pens between the $9 and the $10.10 an hour be­fore we start to en­counter ser­i­ous un­em­ploy­ment prob­lems,” says Steven Press­man, a min­im­um-wage ex­pert and a pro­fess­or of eco­nom­ics and fin­ance at Mon­mouth Uni­versity in New Jer­sey.

Still, rais­ing the min­im­um wage by small in­cre­ments and state by state may not be a pan­acea for low-wage, less-edu­cated work­ers. Twenty-year-old Tayzia Tread­well knows this as well as any­one, hav­ing gradu­ated from earn­ing $7.25 an hour at a Pizza Hut in Eliza­beth, N.J., to mak­ing $10 an hour as a private se­cur­ity guard. (Like Le­Grand, Tread­well has got­ten in­volved in ef­forts to raise state min­im­um wages, lob­by­ing politi­cians in her state when they de­bated the wage hike.) “It was such a big deal to get that $10-an-hour job,” she says. Tread­well sup­ports her 2-year-old daugh­ter and pays her for school fees, di­apers, and food. She still must take care of her­self and her bills, and she can’t even af­ford to live on her own. In­stead, she saves money by liv­ing with her moth­er. Tread­well is grate­ful for the high­er wage of $10 an hour but also very aware, as someone on the lower end of the eco­nom­ic lad­der, that “$10 is still not enough.” That’s a tough mes­sage to hear for those hop­ing that any min­im­um-wage in­crease can solve a much great­er share of our coun­try’s cur­rent eco­nom­ic ills.

UP­DATE: An earli­er ver­sion of this story did not note that both Naquasia Le­Grand and Tayzia Tread­well are in­volved as speak­ers and act­iv­ists in the ef­fort to raise min­im­um wages at the state and fed­er­al levels.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.