* This is not correct…
* And neither is this…
Pritzker also told us that within six months, he plans to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour.
* The full quote…
Reporter: How about a higher minimum wage? When do you see that happening? First five months?
Pritzker: That’s very important to me. I think it’s probably something, since it passed in the last legislature, it’s probably something we’ll be able to get done in the first six months in office.
Reporter: And to $15 an hour?
Pritzker: Yeah. We’re going to work with all of the - again, we’ve got the various constituents and stakeholders that are at the table, the Illinois Retail Merchants, the entrepreneurs, and the labor unions, all at the table - and we’re trying to make sure we implement a raise in the minimum wage while also making sure there are small businesses who are not ill-effected by it and that large businesses are implementing it in as rapid fashion as we can make happen
As I told subscribers earlier today, I confirmed with the Pritzker transition team that the governor-elect still supports a $15 an hour minimum wage. I was also told to expect that the increase up to $15 will not be all at once.
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 9:52 am:
Just maybe the focus should be to raise the skill level of minimum wage workers so they are worth that amount. An artificial rate results in fewer minimum wage jobs. The fight for 15 was and is a union campaign and we all know the unions own Pritzker
- Earnest - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 9:52 am:
>we’ve got the various constituents and stakeholders that are at the table, the Illinois Retail Merchants, the entrepreneurs, and the labor unions, all at the table
Hopefully that includes community service providers to adults with developmental disabilities. There is a serious crisis in recruitment and retention of direct care staff. There have been a couple of increases in funding to help with this thanks to the Ligas consent decree, but you can’t get people to keep doing work like these if you can’t pay more than minimum wage.
- LoyalVirus - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 9:57 am:
Shocked. Shocked, I say, to find the Sun-Times using misleading tweets as click bait.
- Red Raider - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 9:58 am:
“ And we all know that the wealthy friends of Bruce Rauner have funded the fight against a fair wage and that they owned Bruce Rauner” There you go Sue, fixed it for you
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:00 am:
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 9:52 am:
Sue, maybe the “artificial rate” is a ceiling employers will never go above no matter the worth of the labor of their employees? That’s why the government has to say, “pay people what they’re worth.”
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:02 am:
“Precinct Captain” - bingo. If people want to find conspiracy theories, they can find it in the deflated wages that hammer working people day in and day out.
- Original Rambler - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:03 am:
“we all know the unions own Pritzker”
If by “we” you mean you and LP (and a few others), that would be correct. Theirs is a marriage of convenience: JB needed union votes while unions needed BVR out of the Gov office. Neither owns the other. I’m sure their interest will diverge at times, and that will be on display in the coming months.
- brickle - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:06 am:
All workers are “worth” a living wage
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:08 am:
Hopefully JB takes it up to 10 immediately and a ramp can be worked out to ensure it keeps up other progressive states.
There are a lot of difficult caveats - housing prices being one, but this will be a good move to help Illinois keep up with the rest of the country, make employment more attractive, and reduce the burden on public services. This is a GOOD change for everyone.
And Sue’s comment is just shameful. There are a heck of a lot of hardworking people subjected to the daily travesties foisted on the working poor by powerful and greedy corporate interests. You ought to be ashamed of that comment.
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:16 am:
Bricker- Nope- all Americans are entitled to the opportunity to attain the education to learn skills which allow them to earn a living wage. If the individual fails to attain those skills employers should not be the safety net forced to pay people more then their skills merit
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:18 am:
It’s good that Pritzker wants to phase in the hike. That should be acceptable.
Raising the minimum wage is a good way to help foster self sufficiency, instead of austerity and government cuts.
“Just maybe the focus should be to raise the skill level of minimum wage workers so they are worth that amount.”
It’s not just about skill. It’s also about doing hard, thankless work. Rauner’s income skyrocketed from what it was before to $279 million in 2015 and 2016. What did he do that warrants it, if we’re going to question the worth of low-wage workers?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:21 am:
–Just maybe the focus should be to raise the skill level of minimum wage workers so they are worth that amount.–
Somebody’s got the holiday spirit.
The idea that a minor bump for 2.6% of the labor force will shake the economy is absurd pseudo-economics snake oil.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/
- njt - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:21 am:
===employers should not be the safety net===
Employers are not being asked to be the safety net. A rise in the cost of labor inputs will lead to a rise in prices for consumers, who are clearly willing to pay people a living wage.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-minimum-wage-met-20140819-story.html
- Perrid - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:27 am:
Sue, you make so very many assumptions about worth. Wages have nothing to do with actual worth, it’s about priority. CEOs and executives want to fill their own pockets first and foremost, and shareholder’s pockets second because that too helps them, and they want to squeeze as much as they possibly can from workers to do so. Buy low and sell high. You are arguing to enshrine greed even further into our culture, by virtually enslaving lower wage workers. Worse, you are denigrating them by saying they are somehow worth less, that they and they alone are the architects of everything bad that life has thrown their way. You probably do this so you can make yourself believe that you “deserve” all the goods things that came your way. You really need to examine yourself here.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:28 am:
===all Americans are entitled to the opportunity to attain the education to learn skills which allow them to earn a living wage.===
Are you against prevailing wages for the trades too?
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:29 am:
NJT- you couldn’t be more wrong. American consumers for the most part look for the cheapest prices otherwise retailers wouldn’t have been driven out of business by the likes of a Walmart and Amazon. Most companies are hard pressed to pass on price increases. Nationwide 15/ hour is going to result in fewer minimum wage jobs. It happeden already in Seattle
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:30 am:
–If the individual fails to attain those skills employers should not be the safety net forced to pay people more then their skills merit–
To be clear, Sue, you’re arguing that there should be no minimum wage at all, correct?
What other “artificial safety nets” do you wish to dispose of? Social Security? Unemployment compensation? Workers comp? Child labor laws? By your logic, the list is virtually endless.
Nostalgic for the good ol’ days of a Hobbesian state of nature, when life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short?”
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:32 am:
==all Americans are entitled to the opportunity to attain the education to learn skills which allow them to earn a living wage.==
And I’m sure you’ll support government programs to help them attain those skills right?
==is a union campaign and we all know the unions own Pritzker==
And we all know Sue is a union hater. So I guess it’s even.
You’re a heckuva a gal Sue. Always there to tear someone down.
- Irish1 - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:33 am:
Sue, when corporations are required to pay a wage that lifts people above poverty, they don’t have to use government benefits as often. Government benefits are paid for by us, the taxpayers. Let corporations, which just received a huge tax reduction, share some of the burden to assist the working poor.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:33 am:
==Nostalgic for the good ol’ days ==
I’m sure she is based on her history of comments. She’s all about sticking to people.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:39 am:
“sticking it to people”
- Streamwood Retiree - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:43 am:
==all Americans are entitled to the opportunity to attain the education to learn skills which allow them to earn a living wage.==
So, Sue, from this I assume you support free public education including cloolege, grad school and med school? Like in Europe? If you pass the tests, prestige U of I Champaign should be tuition free? Glad we agree on something.
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:44 am:
Hey- private companies shouldn’t be stuck with doing the govt’s job- you want a living wage- get the federal govt to increase the tax credits. You are all addressing a societal issue which usually requires a govt role to fix. All most of you are saying here is let companies step into the govt’s role. Still would rather focus on the problem thru education but then again most of you oppose charter schools in minority’s areas which are proven to do better jobs then does the public school system. Not universal but in NYC and DC by way of example that is the case
- ChrisB - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:45 am:
I wonder if he would be better off providing an Earned Income Tax Credit instead. It achieves the same goal, it can be done immediately rather than phased in, and doesn’t saddle employers with additional costs.
Politically, it’s a tax cut for the poor, and an easy, bipartisan step towards his progressive income tax. It’s not as sexy as a $15 minimum wage, but certainly more impactful.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:47 am:
Sure Sue. Charter schools are the answer. Please.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:47 am:
I doubt very much anyone owns JB Pritzker.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:49 am:
==they don’t have to use government benefits as often==
In theory. Seems like a very compelling argument for raising the minimum wage, yet I never heard it.
If the new baseline becomes $15, we’re back to square one of govt benefits.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:55 am:
==If the individual fails to attain those skills employers should not be the safety net forced to pay people more then their skills merit==
They’re not. They’re not under any obligation to higher them. But if they do, they gotta pay ‘em like a person.
==private companies shouldn’t be stuck with doing the govt’s job==
And then Sue, in her anti-union ferver, got herself so turned around she started supporting a Universal Basic Income.
==All most of you are saying here is let companies step into the govt’s role. ==
Nah, we’re saying stop making the government do the companies’ job. Because those people basic needs aren’t going away whether you pay them a living wage or not- it’s just that if you don’t, those people go on the government dole to make up the difference.
- Flapdoodle - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:55 am:
Bitterness and miserliness make very poor starting points for policy making. Better to start with a spirit of compassion and generosity, leavened with expectations of personal responsibility. A decent society will not let people sink into want and hopelessness. Hard choices are involved, difficult for all to understand and make — but especially so for those who prefer to bury their heads in simple-minded ideologies (if not elsewhere). Yes, Sue, I’m talking to you.
- njt - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:56 am:
===American consumers for the most part look for the cheapest prices otherwise retailers wouldn’t have been driven out of business by the likes of a Walmart and Amazon.===
And yet American consumers overwhelmingly poll in support of minimum wage increases?
===Most companies are hard pressed to pass on price increases. Nationwide 15/ hour is going to result in fewer minimum wage jobs. It happeden already in Seattle===
Really? Wow I’d love to see the data sources on this negative impact in Seattle. Unfortunately all I could find was that net-net jobs moved to be higher paying and replaced lower paying jobs:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/05/raising-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cost-jobs-multiple-studies-suggest/?utm_term=.b19f713d2e47
- OneMan - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:56 am:
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 10:57 am:
==It’s not as sexy as a $15 minimum wage, but certainly more impactful.==
I think you’d find that most of the people pushing #Fightfor15 would be pretty happy with an EITC expanded so much that it’s functionally a UBI (it already is, but you know what I’m saying). A higher minimum wage is the less-radical option.
- Anon - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:03 am:
$15/hour? Why is that the magic number? Does JB think that is a living wage? I mean, if $15 is good, wouldn’t $20 or 25 be better at increasing quality of life and solving society’s ills?
- Ebenezer - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:04 am:
@ Wordslinger - This is not a small change for a small number of people. This is a big change and is going to affect a large chunk of the labor market.
The Pew study is in reference to federal minimum wage, which is superseded by IL $8.25/hr. law.
According to BLS, 25% of IL workers earn less than $11.86/hr. The median is $18.86, suggesting that $15/hr will affect about 37-40+% of the market.
It’s fine to argue that this is a favorable set of trade offs, but there will be trade offs.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes_il.htm
- Huh? - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:06 am:
It seems that Sue is opposed to someone making a bit more than $31,300 per year. For a family of 4, this is 125% of the 2018 poverty rate. Depending on their monthly bills and other financial/family issues, they could still qualify for food stamps.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:10 am:
If $15 an hour is very important to Pritzker, how come employees in many of the companies that he owns (such as Entertainment Cruises, Peco Pallets, etc) currently earn less than $15?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:15 am:
===(such as Entertainment Cruises, Peco Pallets, etc) currently earn less than $15===
Well, they all will eventually if he gets his way. lol
- wondering - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:16 am:
Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses? Seems to me, in the dog eat dog world Sue recommends we tax payers should not be providing wealth protectiion, be it police or legal.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:18 am:
Many here are for the $15/hour, because you are sitting on the sidelines, rooting on the cause.
If you had an actual business and had to pay that wage, along with big increases for those making $15-$16/hour, it would be a much different narrative.
Do the math on 25-50 employees, along with matching FICA and Medicare, and you would see how precarious owning a business would be. You can’t increase your prices 20-30-40% to offset expenses to make a decent problem.
Ever think about that?
- Generic Drone - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:19 am:
So Sue everybody just needs more education to deserve higher wages. Would that education come from the same education system that you consistantly bash with previous posts?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:26 am:
===If you had an actual business and had to pay that wage, along with big increases for those making $15-$16/hour, it would be a much different narrative.===
Do you begrudge the $15 because it hurts… you?
Here’s the real “bottom line”… the minimum wage versus the profits off those working to generate higher profits for themselves is the crux.
If people are then laid off, ‘cause they can’t all be paid $15 an hour, why are you complaing? The money is static.
Oh. It’s the volume generated, by more workers, making less?
You’re gonna have to help me out here… “Anonymous”
===You can’t increase your prices 20-30-40% to offset expenses to make a decent problem===
I think you meant profit.
Is the question volume + more labor = bigger profits… lower volume + less labor = smaller profits.
You need the labor, just not the money to pay them?
- njt - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:30 am:
===You can’t increase your prices 20-30-40% to offset expenses to make a decent problem.===
Assuming you mean profit, sure you can. Stores can brand or explicitly states receipts why consumers are paying more.
And naturally it depends on what industry this straw man business you are running is in. Manufacturing? Sure, that might cause issues. Entertainment/Services? Doubtful.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:36 am:
=Nostalgic for the good ol’ days=
Yep, that segregation was really something.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:39 am:
To be even more clear;
I have no idea if $15 an hour is the answer. As a Republican prior to Raunerism and Trumpkins, I’d get hammered on the minimum wage from both sides, as I support prevailing wages for trades who, some, build homes for example and we’re asking them to build them for wages that they struggle to buy any type of home… and you want trained, skilled, experienced people to do your plumbing, electric, the four walls for Cripe’s sake… so I get it from anti-organized labor folks.
To $15 an hour, there may be instances, and I’m not going to litigate these jobs, that $15 an hour might not be equal to the task, so I could be a burden, but there needs to be that level that makes sense to task and society and still be respectful to both employer and the person doing the work.
“What’s that amount, if it’s not $15?”
I dunno. I’d want a case by the employers saying it’s too high AND the case the task needs a $15 an hour
What if it’s $12? I’m asking. I dunno.
I know where it’s at now isn’t working.
So… i come at it first from the trades… then I off-shoot from there to confusion.
What won’t sway me is employers griping about margins of profit when the worker may not be able to purchase an item they work upon only due to monies earned, not societal norms… (example $2 million yacht)
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:47 am:
After JB meets with the above mentioned groups, i predict he will settle on a 4 yr implementation up to $12.25/hr.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:48 am:
Yes, I meant profit, not problem.
If a biz has 25 employees and you have to increase wages $3 per hour for everyone, that is $75 per hour times 40 times 52.
$156,000 increase in labor, not counting any other expenses.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:50 am:
===If a biz has 25 employees===
You have 25 minimum wage employees?
That’s a great deal in low cost labor, how many are already above minimum wage?
See where I’m going here.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:53 am:
==If you had an actual business and had to pay that wage, along with big increases for those making $15-$16/hour, it would be a much different narrative.==
And if you were an actual employee making $8.25/hour, it’d be a much different narrative, too.
I know exactly why you’re trying to write them out of *your* narrative.
- brickle - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:03 pm:
for the whole “just get better skills!” argument, that won’t make the sorts of currently-sub-$15 jobs just disappear. That won’t make new, higher paying jobs suddenly appear. In fact, if you flood the labor market with too many newly-skilled people (say 100k Illinoisians are now trained nurses), it’s more likely to depress wages in that sector!
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:04 pm:
OW. Down here, in the real southern Illinois, i know of dozens of small companies that have payrolls of less than 100, who pay much less than $15/hr.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:13 pm:
IMO, the min wage should be raised. Maybe not to $15, but higher than it is now. And please JB, don’t exclude home healthcare or nursing home workers.
- Anon324 - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:13 pm:
A couple of comments about EITCs, and I get why people are for an EITC instead of an increase in the minimum wage…but that seems to ignore the current fiscal situation in Illinois. Tax Credits reduce revenues, and that’s not really something Illinois should be looking at currently. Whether increasing the minimum wage is a plus or minus for the state economy is obviously debatable, and depends on the level at which it is ultimately set.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:20 pm:
No Oswego, here is the math. If you have some employees making $12 per hour and they go to $15, you have to increase people making $14, $16, $20 per hour.
I used $3 as an average wage increase. You do know the minimum wage in IL is $8.25, don’t you?
Is my math correct or incorrect in the example I posted at 11:48?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:22 pm:
“we all know the unions own Pritzker”
If by “we” you mean you and LP (and a few others), that would be correct.
JB Pritzker received almost 2.4 million votes (54%), his competitors received a little over 2 million votes (46%).
JB’s 171 million dollar campaign was not able to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in the state of Illinois.
Unions and trial lawyers will continue to dominate the State of Illinois.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:23 pm:
That was me
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:24 pm:
===If you have some employees making $12 per hour and they go to $15, you have to increase people making $14===
Yeah, I’m gonna stop you there.
Legally, those making $12 or $14 you are required to move up
Your own business decision to move *anyone* above $15 an hour is on you, not the law.
You could keep the other wages, just pay the others the minimum, which is now $15
The other sliding scale hourly wages are up to you.
It’s your business, lol
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:28 pm:
===JB Pritzker received almost 2.4 million votes (54%), his competitors received a little over 2 million votes (46%).===
The sitting governor could t break 40%, lost by 15 points, humiliated at a rate not seen in 100 years.
If Rauner thought he had a mandate after his win, how does a 15 point victory over the incumbent taste?
Oh.. 54% is a majority… with… and this is critical… overwhelming Democratic General Assembly majorities.
Keep up.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:31 pm:
===campaign was not able to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes===
Your continued references to Pritzker not winning every vote are ridic. Your guy received 38.8 percent of the vote, but the actual winner is somehow illegitimate because not everybody voted for him?
Seriously, dude, what planet do you live on?
If you don’t want to be permanently banned, you need to stop this utter nonsense. The election is over. Your guy was whupped but good. The winner received 54.5 percent of the vote against a sitting governor.
It’s totally fair game to talk about what sort of mandate he may or may not have. I’ve written about this as well. But to actually argue that since he “only” received well over half the vote he’s not a legit governor is simply unAmerican. The election is over. Reboot your Kremlin talking points or leave.
- ChrisB - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:36 pm:
@Anon324
By itself, yes, the EITC would reduce revenues, but it makes his campaign promise of the progressive tax a bit more palatable to more people. He’s already promised that taxes would only be raised on the top 10%. Give everyone else a tax cut, and that’s a very powerful early delivery of his campaign promises. Pritzker doesn’t have to wait until 2020 to even begin implementation of the graduated tax and can start to piecemeal it from there.
Two birds, one stone.
- brickle - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:43 pm:
@Rich,
Look what’s happening in WI and MI, and in NC in 2016. An increasing number of those on the right don’t seem to view any Dem win as legitimate, ever.
- BrendanJ - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:53 pm:
I have come to the conclusion that a certain sect of the republican party, which are quickly becoming the majority in the party, want to destroy our democracy.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:54 pm:
=No Oswego, here’s the math=
Funny, you never let math bother you before.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 12:57 pm:
OW, not ever a business owner.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:00 pm:
===Funny, you never let math bother you before===
You are *requiring* everyone to get raises, as I pointed out.
The state is not making such a requirement.
Is that too hard for you?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:02 pm:
===not ever a business owner.===
Business owner or not… I understand that people earning above $15 would not required to get any raises.
I can understand that. Can you?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:02 pm:
Also, please choose a name.
Thank you.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:08 pm:
–I mean, if $15 is good, wouldn’t $20 or 25 be better at increasing quality of life and solving society’s ills?–
Yes.
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:10 pm:
There are many points and counter-points to be made in the decision to raise the ‘State’ minimum wage. Lest we go down the path of unintended consequences much work (more than 6 months) needs to be done.
IMHO, this really should be looked at Federally to maintain/create a level playing field, which would also force the hand of disbursing the ‘Trump’ tax cuts to the people in the form of higher wages.
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:39 pm:
Willy,
===Business owner or not… I understand that people earning above $15 would not be required to get any raises.===
While it would not be required, would you not think that people who dedicated years of service gaining expertise in their fields and earning wage increases over a period of time to the $15/hr mark might not be a little upset if the person with less/no time and experience had their wage set to equal.
There indeed would be a domino effect and that too must be taken into consideration.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:43 pm:
===would you not think that people who dedicated years of service gaining expertise in their fields and earning wage increases over a period of time to the $15/hr mark might not be a little upset if the person with less/no time and experience had their wage set to equal.===
Probably no different than when the wage was raised before.
You can’t stop progress due to hurt feelings.
===There indeed would be a domino effect and that too must be taken into consideration.===
Doesn’t the free market decide what a job is worth to both employer and candidate.
Also, we’re only talking a floor, a minimum.
Again, the requiring of $15 a hour is the basement.
I guess we’re all for the free market in labor as long as it’s used to keep wages down?
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 1:58 pm:
I should also add that I am not a naysayer, the minimum wage does need to be increased.
Changes such as this would be best done gradually over a lengthy period of time.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 2:07 pm:
==Unions and trial lawyers will continue to dominate the State of Illinois.==
So you’re saying the 54% of people who voted for JB are all in bed with unions and trial lawyers? Give me a break. You need to take a long, long nap and quit it with your ridiculous nonsense.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 2:08 pm:
===I should also add that I am not a naysayer, the minimum wage does need to be increased.
Changes such as this would be best done gradually over a lengthy period of time.===
I am also not opposed to the raising of the wage, I am also unclear where that raise should go, $15, $14, any teen…
The artificial barriers to consider this, or points in complete contrast to what is being argued, there isn’t an easy solution.
The premise, however, that labor as a whole will put management in such binding troubles, as a Republican, all I hear lately is about all these millions of jobs, the tax breaks fueling new jobs, better paying jobs… well, with all these new better paying jobs, the increase of the minimum wage hurting wages or new jobs (that are allegedly better paying) can’t the market find that equilibrium value to jobs too?
- OneMan - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 2:20 pm:
== Doesn’t the free market decide what a job is worth to both employer and candidate. ==
Not when you set a minimum wage it doesn’t a wage or perhaps even more so the ‘cost of doing a task’ in set in part by the state
But your earlier comments about
== Here’s the real “bottom line”… the minimum wage versus the profits off those working to generate higher profits for themselves is the crux. ==
Going to use two examples here where I think the idea of that these wages are just going to eat into ‘profits’ is a bit problematic and I am going to use two local examples to the Oswego area.
First, a large local grocery store chain that is part of a larger national chain. My kid worked for them and after he paid his union dues he made about minimum wage. If they had to start paying him a bit over $15 an hour, how much more motivated is this grocery store chain going to be to automating or find other ways to go about reducing the required headcount vs just charging more and hoping for the best? The margins in the grocery store business are not huge (1% to 3%) on a margin that tight odds are they are not going to just eat the cost. Either the cost of things is going to go up or they are going to figure out how to make do with fewer baggers and stockpersons. But the idea that they will just let it eat into profits (since they are so copious /s) seems illogical. It’s going to create an incentive (perhaps not a bad thing) to increase automation as well (more self-checkout).
Secondly a small independent food establishment. Increasing at least a segment of this guys labor costs by 50% isn’t going to do him a ton of favors either, he isn’t getting rich in his business. He either eats (no pun intended) the costs or starts charging more. On the other hand, the bigger players, the king, the clown, etc have the ability to absorb the costs of automation and reduce their labor costs (kiosks, multiple location order handling (even someplace with lower labor costs), food prep automation, etc).
Let’s not pretend that increasing the minimum wage to $15 isn’t going to have some negative impacts and the attitude of ‘well the evil bosses can deal with it’ may be a bit shortsighted.
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 2:22 pm:
===Probably no different than when the wage was raised before.===
Historically, it appears Illinois has gone from $5.15/hr in 2003 to its current $8.25/hr in 2011, mostly in .25 increments.
If we still talking of going from $8.25/hr to $15/hr I’m not so sure we can make the same comparison.
Now, if we would have followed the pattern of .25 increases over the last 7 years to the bottom we would be at $10/hr at present.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 2:30 pm:
===Historically, it appears Illinois has gone from $5.15/hr in 2003 to its current $8.25/hr in 2011, mostly in .25 increments.
If we still talking of going from $8.25/hr to $15/hr I’m not so sure we can make the same comparison.===
The point in that is change happens. It still changed.
The point of incrimental change versus now is the variable of political expediency.
This a governor and a General Assembly can make a change, where the incremental change seems, to those who can nose count and count on a signature, a waste.
The only constant is change.
===Now, if we would have followed the pattern of .25 increases over the last 7 years to the bottom we would be at $10/hr at present.===
We didn’t, and if the vote in the GA falls below $15 an hour to get passage… that’s part of this process too
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 2:34 pm:
- Oneman -
We can’t keep the wage lower to the fear of automation. That thinking hasn’t stopped automation or the loss of factory jobs, let alone any job that could be automated.
Your son is also not raising a family on his job, I’m guessing. That is also the premise supporters of the increase remind those that are opposed.
Also, a lower minimum wage or raising the minimum wage hasn’t stopped big box stores closing mom and pop shops. It’s been going on and will continue to go on, even as Amazon pays better than minimum wage too.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 3:12 pm:
===there isn’t an easy solution.===
We can agree on that and though I do not know what the raise should be either,I predict it be to somewhere around $10/hr, likely in increments probably with .50/hr at inception and in .25/hr increases up to the next election.
The problem with this formula is the Federal Poverty Limit(FPL) which functions as a baseline for much of social services including the ACA which is still law as we speak.
I don’t think I need to get into the details and the argument of government subsidies to corporate profits is another beast.
The end result for many people in Illinois would be a net loss as their increases in income would make them ineligible for for many social service programs while the actual increase in income would still not allow for affordability and many in receivership of the increase would actually suffer a net loss.
- 17% Solution - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 3:17 pm:
@ OneMan, Automation is coming anyway.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 3:57 pm:
===There indeed would be a domino effect and that too must be taken into consideration.===
I think the “domino effect” argument should have been retired after it was used as a rationale to justify dropping bombs from the sky and killing hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asian subsistence farmers for no strategic or national security issue whatsoever.
Your domino effect, and the horse you rode in on. Get some game, or go home.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 4:05 pm:
~ Well, they all will eventually if he gets his way. lol
Only those located in Illinois, not all other states.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 4:31 pm:
==JB’s 171 million dollar campaign was not able to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in the state of Illinois.==
In that, he was clearly inferior to Rauner, who who *did* successfully lie to the state in 2014.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 4:39 pm:
all Americans are entitled to the opportunity to attain the education to learn skills which allow them to earn a living wage. If the individual fails to attain those skills employers should not be the safety net forced to pay people more then their skills merit
Spoken out of true privilege.
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 4:45 pm:
In arguing for a $15 minimum wage you have to accept that there will be more outsourcing. Like it or not absent sufficient profit margins- jobs go overseas to countries with large populations willing to work for significantly less. All your call centers go to the Philipines or Central America. Manufacturing to Vietnam Nam or China etc. it’s simple economics Certain low skill jobs can’t relocate but even McD finds ways to automate. Rather then force more work overseas why not find ways to get unskilled workers the skills they need to justify higher hourly rates. It might seem rediculous but many employers run their own education facilities to get new recruits up to basic levels of literacy and arithmetic required to perform available work. Argue as much as you want but the sad reality is our education system is failing in large inner city localities and imposing a fictional wage on employers is transferring a govt responsibility onto the private sector
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 4:55 pm:
BTW- not that most of those arguing really care- an employer has costs for every employee for benefits including health insurance costing in most cases several dollars an hour. Does the hue and cry for $15 include benefit costs- NO. So what you are really asking for is closer to $18 to $20 an hour for minimum wage positions. Good luck attracting jobs to Illinois with those requirements and/or keeping those we have
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:06 pm:
-well the evil bosses can deal with it’ may be a bit shortsighted.-
Who called bosses evil?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:11 pm:
–All your call centers go to the Philipines or Central America–
Yeah, that Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua call center biz is just booming. I hear the toddlers in diapers getting gassed by the United States on the Mexican border are yuge into that.
How do you come up with this stuff? Do you remember it the next day?
https://info.siteselectiongroup.com/blog/top-20-countries-for-foreign-direct-investment-by-call-center-and-back-office-operations
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:12 pm:
Alright word disregard ‘Domino Effect’. What about math. I happen to work part-time at a small business to supplement my income.
This business nets an avg. of $5000 a month profit. The business employees 12 people at an avg. hourly pay rate of $9/hr and the business requires an avg. of 1000 hrs of labor a month.
If the business was required to pay $15/hr it would take a loss. The business already runs at utmost efficiency and at current sales volume would require 10-12% increase in pricing to offset the increase in labor. Sure, maybe if every business was required to do so it would all be relative, but Illinois is not an island last time I checked.
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:28 pm:
Why- Why not- no worries- honey bear -Oswego and Demoralized will give you a job at their thriving enterprise when your employer closes its doors
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:37 pm:
Oh - Sue -, lol
I’m told there are millions of new jobs, good, high paying jobs… like with GM…
I know two very important things;
The minimum wage needs to rise.
I have no idea how high or how quickly to it’s risen end.
I know those things. I also know the GA has Democratic veto-proof majorities and a Democratic Governor, as a group, it appears, willing to look st and move the minimum wage.
If you want this “it eliminates jobs”, or the “domino effect” thinking, you’re also telling the Republican in me that prevailing wage is next because…
If the sole goal as Republicans is to hold down wages to create jobs… dunno how that’s gonna play, given the federal tax cuts that were suppose to create all these jobs, good paying jobs as layoffs and plants close that were all deemed “saved”
This isn’t helping.
“Believe me”
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:53 pm:
My overall point, which I think is in Economics 101 is that we can increase the minimum wage, even to $15/hr. However, it must be done in phases and over a course of time.
Though my part-time employer could not afford to pay $15/hr nor increase prices to the level it would require. I would reason that $10/hr minimum and an increase of 1-2% in pricing would be doable with future increases in minimum wage in reasonable increments as to allow small businesses time to adjust.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:54 pm:
===I think is in Economics 101===
The most damaging college course in American history.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 5:57 pm:
===must===
Nope. Not “must”
That’s an ask. You can ask or believe or consider, but a “must”, nope.
If anything, the in-fighting amongst Dems might make it the give for passage, but it can move, no must needed.
- Homer Simpson's Brain - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 6:18 pm:
I will say that Econ 101 is the most useless class anyone can take if they don’t intend to major in Economics.
In advanced classes you learn that the markets are not really free (shocker I know). You learn about all the ways that “markets” fail and what economists think about these failures.
I support a $15 minimum wage. It is not really a lot of money when you see that our GDP per capita is closing in on $60,000 per year. Do you really see an average family of 4 with household income of $240,000? No? Hmm, I wonder why?
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 6:33 pm:
Agreed, not a “must”. It would be fun to watch such a scenario where the minimum wage is nearly doubled on a given day in the immediate future. Who knows maybe it would trigger the economic stimulus this state needs and the margin could be recouped in volume.
- Homer Simpson's Brain - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 7:13 pm:
Increasing the minimum wage all in one go would most likely set off a mild recession in Illinois. It’s better to do it in steps. 4 years sounds reasonable, but that’s for the state’s economists to figure out.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 7:27 pm:
Trust me on this one. When JB meets with these folks he will get a dose of reality.
- Mama - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 7:39 pm:
JB, please include waitresses and barristers in your bill to raise them up to the new minimum wage. Tips should be for their service, not their main pay. It is unreal that they only make $4. an hour from their employer.
- Why, why not... - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 7:54 pm:
I jest Homer, on raising it all in one go and Econ 101 was my sarcasm in that doing so would be catastrophic. Willy called me out on my “must” in which he is very correct nothing is absolute.
- Homer Simpson's Brain - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 8:35 pm:
Mama, I concur. How about telling your state reps and senator this?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 4, 18 @ 11:40 pm:
–Increasing the minimum wage all in one go would most likely set off a mild recession in Illinois.–
Show your work, Dr. Friedman, on how a minor bump to a minuscule part of the labor force would prompt a “mild recession” within one state’s borders.
Don’t bother. The whole idea of a state “economy” is loony to begin with.
– It’s better to do it in steps. 4 years sounds reasonable, but that’s for the state’s economists to figure out.–
Yeah, they’re still busy calculating the revised ROI on the Turnaround Agenda that they promised Miller three years ago. Lot of billions to find still.
Except Mischa. He’s swamped trying to educate that chowderhead Miller on how a bill gets passed in the GA.
BTIA(TM), baby. Can’t miss them until they’re gone.
https://capitolfax.com/2018/12/03/the-rest-of-the-story-13/
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 5, 18 @ 6:29 am:
People seem to forget that the additional money minimum wage workers would make doesn’t just disappear in a black hole. It goes back in the economy. More people with discretionary income would buy goods and services from Why,why not’s employer.
- brickle - Wednesday, Dec 5, 18 @ 8:39 am:
==[Econ 101] The most damaging college course in American history.==
Brutal, and absolutely true.
- Flat Bed Ford - Wednesday, Dec 5, 18 @ 9:16 am:
=The most damaging college course in American history.=
Far from it.
Reality is if you don’t understand it you tend to think in the abstract when it comes to economic and business issues. Reference the comments above relating to businesses can simply absorb a wage increase mandated by government or the raising the base wage will have no effect on the employee wages above the govt mandated minimum.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 5, 18 @ 9:21 am:
===…businesses can simply absorb a wage increase mandated by government or the raising the base wage will have no effect on the employee wages above the govt mandated minimum.===
Those are business decisions.
The only requirement is the floor.
If your business model includes trying to keep wages down as best you can, why is it those so eager to support President Trump also tell me wages have never been so high, millions of jobs are being created?
Can’t be both, can it?
That’s a pretty abstract thought.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 5, 18 @ 9:25 am:
Econ and Finance are lost on a few posters here.
Amazing that people who either run small businesses or are working in small businesses and know them intimately, have their opinions based on actual experience kicked to the curb.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 5, 18 @ 9:44 am:
Amazing but not one commenter has identified him/herself as a small business owner, so who was kicked to the curb?