Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

PPP poll shows wide support for minimum wage hike, not much for cutting biz taxes

Posted in:

Illinois
Polls

* Public Policy Polling has released a new Illinois survey taken October 10-12 of 812 likely voters. Let’s take a look…

* Do you support or oppose raising Illinois’ minimum wage from $8.25 per hour to $10.00 per hour?

Support 61%
Oppose 33%
Not sure 6%

* Bruce Rauner once favored eliminating Illinois’ minimum wage entirely. Does this make you more likely to support him, less likely, or does it not make a difference?

More likely 17%
Less likely 47%
Doesn’t make a difference 35%
Not sure 2%

* Do you think you could support your family on a minimum-wage salary, which comes out to about $1,430 per month, or $17,160 per year, or not?

Think you could 15%
Think you could not 74%
Not sure 10%

* Which of the following comes closest to your view? ‘I think the best way to create an economy that works for everyone is by cutting taxes and regulations on big businesses and the wealthy,’ or ‘I think the best way to create an economy that works for everyone is by paying fair wages and investing in American workers’?

Cutting taxes and regulations on big businesses and the wealthy 29%
Paying fair wages and investing in American workers 61%
Not sure 11%

* The intensity among women is pretty strong…

* Independents appear to like the idea…

* Lately, I’ve been seeing some polls that show Latinos are a bit more conservative and GOP than we might expect. Check out these results…

Go read the whole thing and discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:05 am

Comments

What does it mean to “invest in American workers”?

Comment by Steve Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:17 am
If the urge to raise the minimum wage was so strong, then why didn’t Quinn & the Democratic IL legislature do it this year or last year?

Comment by Mowatcher Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:18 am
That last question seems very biased and framed in such a way as to illicit a certain response…

Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:19 am
*elicit

Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:20 am
It’s great to see Illinoisans support labor-friendly policies. If this support could be converted into laws, we’ll be better off, in my opinion.

As far as Latinos being more conservative than people might think, that was shown with their support for GW Bush. Latinos strongly supported Obama and were probably turned off by the dog whistles and immigration rhetoric and positions of the GOP. Voter ID laws are also stupid and could further alienate Latino voters.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:23 am
Why not a $20 minimum wage? Think of all that extra purchasing power in the economy,according to the economic luddites? A $20 minimum wage would help workers raise a family. Let’s make business pay at least $41, 600 per worker that what $20 an hour is. Let’s make illegal for anyone to work for less: even if they have no marketable skills. Any takers? We hear raising the minimum wage doesn’t effect the labor market.

Comment by Steve Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:25 am
Steve, is that a brain-teaser for you? Common message in business.

It means more money.

Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:26 am
That’s right Steve, build that straw man.

You’d probably be better off in the Daily Herald comments section.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:28 am
===What does it mean to “invest in American workers”?===

Good question Steve. Let’s see, off the top of my head, we could properly fund education, especially early childhood and higher education. Maybe invest in highways and infrastructure so workers can get to businesses and businesses can get goods to market. We could provide life-long training so displaced workers can learn new skills. We might try to promote sensible family leave and health care policies so families don’t have to choose between working and caring for loved ones. Of course, then we’d also want to pass immigration reform to bring millions of hard-working residents out of the shadows and into the formal economy.

And that’s just for starters. I can think of plenty more way to invest in American workers.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:29 am
90% of those polled are “certain to vote?” When I go door to door in my region that has a higher voter turnout as a rule than statewide or the rest of my county, everyone always tells me they are going to vote. Then somehow, a significant number don’t.

And who wouldn’t be in favor of an undefined “investing in American workers” instead of cutting taxes on “big business” (ick!) and “the wealthy?” (ick! ick!)

Just a few thoughts.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:29 am
Straw Man Steve, nobody is suggesting a $20 minimum wage. Anywhere. Even the most aggressive proposals feature a $15 MW phased in over a period of years.

So knock it off.

Comment by The Doc Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:29 am
Steve, I look forward to your daily rantings. That’s one “rant” check mark for the day.

==What does it mean to “invest in American workers”==

That would be paying them higher wages I’m assuming given the context that the question was asked.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:30 am
Mowatcher -

I agree and I say that all the time when someone who has been in office for a while says they want to do something AFTER he or she is reelected (again in this case with Governor Quinn).

Speaker Madigan and President Cullerton have had veto-proof majorities for two spring sessions and a veto session. That would be approximately 125-130 session days during which a $10.10 minimum wage could have been introduced, debated in committee and debated and passed in each Chamber. That is a lifetime of session days to get something so simple done. I know that Leader Lightford pushed SB 68 through the Executive Committee, but it kept getting pushed back in the Senate and now it is back in Assignments.

The whole situation is just baffling.

Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:31 am
@Steve: well, other countries do have a minimum wage close to $20, and they do OK. Look, everyone knows raising the minimum wage is a tradeoff — yes, you lose some jobs but workers and the economy gains from the increase in wages. (Profits may suffer, but we live in a world where profits are the highest percentage of GDP since we started measuring that statistic in 1947.)

At the current minimum wage, the benefits of the increase far outweigh the cost. At $20/hr, the costs are much higher — so no one is advocating that. Which makes Anonymous@10:28AM exactly right: you are creating a strawman.

For everyone else: so 74% think they could not survive on minimum wage, but only 61% support raising it? I’d really love to hear what those 13% who think the minimum wage is too low but don’t want an increase think adults who earn the minimum wage should do. How much you want to bet that most of that 13% also want to cut food stamp, housing, and welfare assistance?

Comment by VM Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:33 am
==- Steve - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:17 am:==

1) Pay them a wage that allows them to live outside poverty.
2) Provide them with healthcare.
3) Provide them with the ongoing ability to improve their skills or learn and acquire new ones.

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:37 am
Just a methodological note on this poll: 80% (~650 Interviews) were conducted via phone and 20% (~162 Interviews) were conducted via Internet. No further disclosure of how why this data was collected in this manner, etc. I personally support utilization of mixed mode, including the Internet, but polls that are released publicly should have more disclosure on how they were conducted.

Comment by Dave Fako Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:38 am
Here’s the point, these questions are leading but mirror the messaging of the campaigns. The fact that they are “likely voters” is SUPER bad news for Rauner. I’m not a big believer in undecideds in general, but particularly in mid-terms. It’s about activation and the Rauner camping isn’t doing much to activate around these messages because they’re not great activators. Whereas, a pay rise for myself and my family is a pretty good motivator to get to the polls. Hang on tight this is going to get seriously hairy.

Comment by Dizzy Cow Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:39 am
“That last question seems very biased and framed in such a way as to illicit a certain response…”

It certainly does and does not reflect positively on this poll.

Businesses already pay a much higher income tax as well as many other taxes. Are businesses skirting the law in payment of taxes? If so, go after such businesses rather than lumping everybody together.

Comment by Federalist Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:45 am
“Why not a $20 minimum wage?”

Oh please. This is a sophomoric argument (h/t to Rich) and a standard talking point that gets trotted out. Why don’t we raise the minimum wage to a trillion kajillion dollars?

First of all, income gains are going mainly to the top these days. It would help a bit to put a little more money in the pockets of minimum wage workers. No one in his or her right mind thinks a minimum wage increase is an economic cure-all; it just helps, is all.

States that raised their minimum wages this year have seen faster job growth.

As far as labor protections, Rauner wants to weaken unions and their ability to have enough money to support politicians–while he and his billionaire buddy Ken Griffin pour millions into his campaign.

Rauner and others want to permanently suppress labor power by telling us that we can’t be competitive without right to work, which is baloney, since the best states in which to live all have full union rights, per my observations, and economies always recovered in the past when union participation was higher.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:45 am
“For everyone else: so 74% think they could not survive on minimum wage, but only 61% support raising it?”

Maybe those are the ones who recognize that not every job is a “living wage” job, and thus realize the obvious follow-up that “minimum wage” shouldn’t be “living wage” for an entire family.

It’s a nice populist notion that your very first job in life should pay well enough for you to support an entire family…I’m sure when I started working at age 12 I would gladly have taken that kind of massive pay raise. But would it have made sense to pay me that for delivering papers and washing dishes?

During election years, the answer is “yes” no matter how little actual sense that makes or where a local economy is at. And now the governing party in Illinois is massively invested politically in selling that story no matter what the nuanced truth may be. That about sums up why they can’t properly lead our state…they tie themselves down to bad policy to get elected.

Comment by liandro Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:45 am
Here comes rauners going to raise the minimum wage commercials

Comment by foster brooks Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:46 am
Steve: I think you raise an interesting point. Like the answer to a lot of economic questions, the solution is “it depends.”

Neither side’s economic claim is perfectly true in the real world. Any significant negative impact on investment, hiring, prices, and on willingness to move jobs overseas, depends on how much the minimum wage is raised, and from what level it is raised. Any positive impact on demand is established from the start, provided jobs are not exiting the market. Where is the balance?

At these historically low levels of minimum wage, a moderate increase will probably have a net positive impact in the economy, as I read the multiple views in economics. If we were to triple or quadruple it, the negatives would certainly start flowing into equation. Where the negatives would outpace the positives is the question.

At our current level this kind of modest increase just brings it back to previous historic levels. And there is little evidence the negatives would outweigh the positives at the margin.

Comment by walker Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:49 am
Wow.

This is clearly a push poll.

“Bruce Rauner once favored eliminating the minimum wage entirely…”

Can any serious results be taken from a question that starts with a false premise?

“Do you think you could support your family on minimum wage…”

Is that relevant? The answer is objectively going to be no. But that’s not the point. You’re not supposed to be trying to support a family with a minimum wage job.

“Cutting taxes and regulations on big businesses and the wealthy…”

Who advocates that? As far as I can tell the only people who ever use such phrases are Dems trying to straw-man the other side.

Comment by Phil King Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:49 am
==I’m sure when I started working at age 12 I would gladly have taken that kind of massive pay raise. But would it have made sense to pay me that for delivering papers and washing dishes?==

That’s utterly ridiculous and you know it. We aren’t talking about 12 year old paper boys. At least make a rational argument.

==they tie themselves down to bad policy to get elected.==

That’s what politicians do. They try to get elected. Heck, look at the bull Rauner is trying to sell. We all know his math doesn’t work but that doesn’t matter. His goal is getting elected, which is the goal of all politicians.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:50 am
==Maybe those are the ones who recognize that not every job is a “living wage” job==

But shouldn’t they be? I really don’t see why somebody with a full time job should not be able to adequately support their family, no matter the job.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:51 am
@liandro: the problem is that the profile of a minimum wage worker is not a teenager working part time. In fact, only 24% are teenagers (this is from Pew Research Center, not an advocacy group).

I suppose I could understand it if that 13% honestly believes that adults do not earn the minimum wage, or move so quickly up the earning ladder that they do earn a living wage. But the truth is that many adults are stuck in minimum or near-minimum wage jobs. And the truth is that it is more than a populist notion that if you work full time you should earn enough to survive.

Comment by VM Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:53 am
I support increasing the minimum wage and feel that it should somehow be indexed to the rate of inflation. That puts me in the minority within my party, but that is my position. That was my position prior to the start of the primary, and remains my position today.

While politics is played over the minimum wage issue and while those pushing loudest for it have control the levers of government that could have easily enacted an increase but didn’t bother doing so (i.e. Democrats in Springfield) I believe my approach would remove such cynical politics from this issue in the future.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:59 am
===a question that starts with a false premise? ===

That’s not a false premise. It’s true.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:02 am
Wow… talk about leading questions. Tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthy or paying fair wages and investing in American workers. I’m shocked that they didn’t include “protecting puppies, baseball, and apple pie.”

If they want to use that type of leading question, then they could have asked “do you support or oppose raising the minimum wage from $8.25 to $10 per hour if you knew that it would raise the price of groceries, gasoline, and other consumer products.”

Comment by 1776 Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:03 am
This is Illinois.
That is what this poll reflects.
This confirms the reality of Illinois over other states. Politicians will be unable to divorce themselves from this. This is not a state which can slough off traditional labor views as other states.

This also confirms any fears that a governor Rauner can run roughshod over unions and other liberal sacred cows. Rauner as governor will be checked in attempts to shaft labor. He won’t have a GA willing to go along with any plans like that, and Rauner would learn just as Edgar and Thompson before him, to accommodate these Illinois political views.

Fears that Rauner will strip unions and traditional workers are based on the fallacy of an omnipotent governor. This type of governor is a liberal concoction and actually a beloved way of seeing an executive office. So naturally they will believe that as governor, Rauner would be able to have this kind of power.

But he won’t.
Political reality will clip any wings Rauner could have otherwise. Just as the fiscal realities will force Rauner to accept higher taxes somewhere, political reality will also curb any concerns Semocrays may have that a Governor Rauner would upend any other liberal sacred cows.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:04 am
Liandro, you’re raising strawmen, too.

The minimum wage covers adults, not 12-year-old paper boys. And there are exceptions. Google “who makes minimum wage” for the Pew report and you’ll see half are over 25, 77 percent are white, with fully half white women.

Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:05 am
==You’re not supposed to be trying to support a family with a minimum wage job.==

Tell that to the people who are trying to do just that. It’s easy to look down your nose at those people isn’t it? How dare they get a job and try to support their families.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:05 am
@Demoralized- I think many people equate minimum wage jobs with those part-time jobs that we held when we were young, in high school, or college. Not a scientific thought nor do I have data to support that, just a gut feeling. Those positions were not/are not intended for those trying to feed a family (living wage). What those folks forget is that we have millions more “minimum wage” but full-time jobs than we did 10-20-30 years ago. Those jobs need to pay a living wage. Since, I do not believe you can differentiate between the two as it applies to a minimum wage, I agree with your position and that of others- they need to pay a living wage. It can only be good for our economy. There has been a distinct shift from good paying manufacturing jobs to lower paid service-sector jobs and, as a nation, we have failed to understand the economic impact of that while enjoying the preponderance of cheap goods. Great for the corporate bottom line but bad for Joe lunch-pail.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:05 am
“But the truth is that many adults are stuck in minimum or near-minimum wage jobs.”

Here is where the debate gets interesting. Let’s ignore, for a moment, what constitutes “many”. Is the solution to the above problem you stated to raise the minimum wage? Does that get people OFF of minimum wage? Does it increase opportunities for advancement, or the ability to switch to a better job?

The answer to those questions is “no”. They are still on minimum wage, and the immediate affect of increasing labor costs/lowering profit margins actually put a slight depressing affect on promotion/growth/ opportunities. In affect, we’re talking about using a band-aid to cover up a much bigger problem.

That’s before we even begin discussing how this policy treats Chicago’s economy exactly the same as it treats my little town of Dixon, IL–despite the fact that they are MASSIVELY different economies. Or discussing that the average 15 year-old dishwasher who knows next to nothing (that was me once) has no “need” to support an entire family.

There are benefits to raising the minimum wage, sure, but the main one at this moment in time is political, not economic.

Comment by liandro Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:09 am
Steve is one of those learned “econimists” who knows that in an era of record corporate profits, the whole magilla will come tumbling down if the lowest 2.5 percent of American workers get a bump.

And it’s Luddites. — Ludd was a real dude. And you don’t have a clue as to what the word means.

Back to class, Steve.

Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:10 am
I hate to break it to the Rauner folks, but those undecideds, their either going to undervote, or come back home to the democrat, Pat Quinn. This could end up being another 17 point drop for the Rauner camp.

Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:16 am
They’re

Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:17 am
That’s before we even begin discussing how this policy treats Chicago’s economy exactly the same as it treats my little town of Dixon, IL–despite the fact that they are MASSIVELY different economies.

Sometimes the market takes care of this (not always). If you are a Loop restaurant owner, try hiring someone reliable for less than $10/hr.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:18 am
“in an era of record corporate profits”

@Word: Is Main street, too, making “record profits”? And if not, is the policy Quinn is proposing nuanced, in any way, to address those economic differences?

Talking about “record corporate profits” is a fun talking point, but Wall Street is in New York not Illinois. I’m not saying that to be snarky, I’m just frustrated with any dodges that replace local and regional shops (that get affected hard) with some big, rich, faceless corporation.

Comment by liandro Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:26 am
Rich…Your comment “Latinos are a bit more conservative and GOP than we might expect” is on target and will be more so as time goes by. Latinos are a diverse population with different cultural and family heritage. I think Democrats are making a mistake when they assume Latinos will be a anything near a monolithic voting block as African Americans have been for Democrats since 1936

Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:28 am
I’m tired of paying welfare. The biggest drain on the economy are those welfare cheats who seek to abuse the system in ways that it was never meant for.

Companies like McDonalds and Walmart are so heavily subsidized by the federal government helping to support their workers while they rake in huge profits.

American fast food workers take in $7 billion every year in government benefits because of their low salaries. Meanwhile, a company like Burger King moves it’s HQ to Canada to avoid paying some small part of its fair share. The average Walmart employee receives over $1,000 in public assistance every year. Believe me, that adds up. It’s time these companies got off the government gravy train and started supporting their own employees.

Comment by Carhart Representative Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:33 am
We just had a long term production packaging contract move to China. The Shanghai firm could put retail shelf ready product in the company’s warehouse $.50 cheaper than we could make it. The product is sold in large retail box stores nationwide. Surely a $10 minimum wage would have made us more competitive and that job would have stayed with us.

Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:37 am
Louis, the black vote has not been “monolithic” Dem since 1936.

Ike got 39 percent in 1956, Nixon got 32 percent in 1960.The watershed was 1964.

And, of course, in the old Dixie Dem states, blacks couldn’t vote at all until after LBJ and Dirksen rammed through the Civil Rights Act.

Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:40 am
@1776…Even at McDonalds, work crew costs are only about 20% of revenue. Franchise fees and rent are over 15%. Most businesses try to find other ways to cuts costs before passing on costs through high prices.

Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:44 am
===Jimbo - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:16 am:

I hate to break it to the Rauner folks, but those undecideds, their either going to undervote, or come back home to the democrat, Pat Quinn. This could end up being another 17 point drop for the Rauner camp.====

C’mon Jimbo, you’re better than that! A huge portion that made up the 17% were cross-over Dems. They’re already in Pat’s column. The fight here is over 5% of the voters at most.

To the survey. It’s legit considering the questions posed. Who wants ice cream? Everyone. Who wants to pay for it? Very few. I don’t quibble with these results. I just don’t know if their conversion rate to a candidate is a solid argument. This minimum wage albatross has been tied to Rauner effectively. Everyone making it will probably vote for Quinn. Most if not all of them were already there. I just don’t believe that’s the battlefield this one will be won on. If anything, it may be too much of a “feel good” issue for Quinn that is blinding him to other fertile voting fields.

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:56 am
@liandro

== Here is where the debate gets interesting. Let’s ignore, for a moment, what constitutes “many”. Is the solution to the above problem you stated to raise the minimum wage? Does that get people OFF of minimum wage? Does it increase opportunities for advancement, or the ability to switch to a better job? ==

Well, the incentive to get off the minimum wage exists regardless of where we set the minimum wage. That’s not the issue.

The issue is a living wage for full time work. 74% in the poll agree that minimum wage is not enough to survive. Morally, that’s wrong. What’s more, macroeconomically, that’s a real problem. It is, however, not a problem in micro-economics, where the incentive is always to cut costs and increase profitability.

So yes, I think the best way to make jobs pay a wage that takes a full time worker out of poverty is the minimum wage. First, in a weak job market there is no upward pressure on wages. Second, in the current business environment you cannot rely on employers to treat their employees fairly without government interference. (See here for several examples: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/business/more-workers-are-claiming-wage-theft.html)

Third, a free market in anything, including wages, requires that both sides have equal bargaining power. With oligopolies dominating the labor market — think McDonald’s and Burger King and their subsidiaries — the only way employees get close to equal bargaining power is through unions. And unions are in decline.

If you wanted to strengthen the ability of minimum wage workers to form and join unions, I might be willing to concede that we don’t need a minimum wage. But in the current environment, both economically and legally, the only way I can see to reach the desirable goal of making sure a person who works 40 hours a week is above the poverty line is by increasing the minimum wage.

Comment by VM Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:01 pm
According to the poll, 44% of the respondents were Dems. Does that have any effect on the outcome?

Comment by Western Ave. Doug Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:35 pm
Pretty much any state who has done something, has better growth than Illinois .

If one of the better performing states has gone for right to work, should that be emulated? The readers here seem to miss the fact that the big profitable corporations are not hiring at minimum wage, so an increase will not matter much to them. Those who will be hit are the small business who hire 70 of the workforce. Those who have a poor skill set will find it harder to get a job and learn a skill. Teens already find it very difficult to find summer work. What do you say to them?

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:09 pm
Steve: Would extending the sales tax to services have any significant negative impact on investment, hiring, prices, and on willingness to move jobs overseas? Or is it only a boost in the minimum wage?

Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:09 pm
I understand that this an opinion poll and not an economics paper, but if one is going to debate policy, then it seems like some better data is needed.

For example, after the President announced his support for an increase in the federal minimum wage during the State of the Union address, the Congressional Budget Office provided some detailed analysis. They looked at the impact to both low wage households and to households over the poverty level. They also looked at both a $10.10 minimum as proposed, as well as an increase to only $9.00. That provides a real basis for debates about the pros and cons as well as an ideal level.

I haven’t seen anything equivalent for the state. The federal estimate was that $10.10 would decrease employment by 0.3%, and by 0.1% for $9.00. Do those numbers apply equally to Illinois? Similarly the CBO report estimates that 19% of the increased earnings at $10.10 would go to families earning below the poverty level. Would the number be significantly different in this state?

Comment by muon Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:18 pm
liandro the broken record. Just admit you don’t think your sandwich makers are worth an extra $1.75/hr.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:35 pm
@- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:35 pm:

“liandro the broken record. Just admit you don’t think your sandwich makers are worth an extra $1.75/hr.”

Ah, I see we’ve reached the personal attacks portion of the debate. Good times, lol.

Comment by liandro Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:55 pm
While I agree with many republican commenters that the wording of several questions is biased, Q1 was how likely are you to vote, and Q2 was do you support or oppose raising the minimum wage?

So the biased questions were asked later, and being forced to think about whether one could live on a minimum wage therefore didn’t affect the popularity of raising the minimum wage.

And that’s the core campaign issue here that Quinn has over Rauner.

Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:00 pm
This post has gone exactly where I expected.

Vanilla Man’s comments ring the most true. Bruce Rauner may want to do a lot of things - but he likely will not be able to even try half of them. Even if Rauner wins and Jim Durkin can bring the House GOP back into respectability, the realities of a Democratic super majority in the Senate and enough leery House GOP caucus members will halt a lot of what Rauner wants to before any of his priority legislation is ever even assigned to a committee (if it is even allowed out of Rules or Assignments). He cannot unilaterally lower the minimum wage or decree Illinois to be a “right to work” state. He just cannot snap his fingers and make it happen.

At this point, Rauner’s best bet is to scream “BALANCE” for all to hear. Remind people that Illinois has been under one party rule since January 2003. The public understands that.

Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:19 pm
== And that’s the core campaign issue here that Quinn has over Rauner. ==

Indeed. And, respectfully, Mr. Quinn’s actions are just as outrageous as Mr. Rauner’s initial comments about rolling back the minimum wage.

It is a campaign issue today, rather than a pending raise for minimum wage workers, likely due to the calculated decision of our state’s leaders to postpone action for the sake of their own reelection. It is very difficult to support either candidate or find them sincere on this issue.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:19 pm
- personal attacks -

Cry me a river.

I want your workers to get an extra $1.75/hr, you don’t. Nothing personal as far as I’m concerned.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:27 pm
Ok Wordslinger…Monolithic is a bit too much…but the dramatic turning point wasn’t 1964, but 1936. In 1932, like every GOP candidate since the Civil War, Hoover received the vast majority of the AF votes with 77%. Four years later FDR received 71% and AFs haven’t voted for a Republican President since. Not even close, unless, as you believe, Eisenhower’s AF 39% when he won the 1956 election with 55% was close.

Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:32 pm
“I want your workers to get an extra $1.75/hr, you don’t. Nothing personal as far as I’m concerned.”

Lol, you claim to know personal information about me, what I do, what I pay, and what I want for my employees, but also claim to be saying nothing personal? Shoo, troll.

Comment by Liandro Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:47 pm
Did PPP go into the field for just minimum wage or did they poll the Governor’s race too?

Comment by Lord Stanley's Cup Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:53 pm
One more thing Wordslinger. I know you are a frequent blogger and I generally enjoy reading your commentary. So you should know that the amount of political muscle it takes to move a candidate’s vote total within an demographic group from 23% to 71% in one election cycle, as FDR did with AF vote from 1932 to 1936, is immense.

Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:05 pm
@Louis… so according to you, employee cost are only 20 percent of a fast food restaurant and restaurants will make other choices before raising prices such as rent and franchise fees. You’ve obviously never run a business. The parent companies won’t just reduce franchise fees and you can’t say to a landlord - “hey the state just upped the minimum wage so can you cut my rent” or ask the power company to lower rates. Come on.

But raising the wage by 20 percent is still a significant cost. They can cut back hours that doesn’t help the staff, raise food prices that doesn’t help the customers.

Comment by 1776 Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:19 pm
Actually, 1776, I ran a successful small business for nearly 20 years. Wage increases are not automatically added to prices. First of all, it’s not employees’ nominal wages but employee productivity that determines profitability. It’s a very simplistic naive viewpoint that increased wages translates into increased prices. Especially in business models that employee wages consist of such a minor amount of cost of sales, as with McDonald’s retail food example.

Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 6:46 pm
Thanks for the confirmation Team Sleep.

Democrats have portrayed Rauner’s powers as governor unrealistically in order to scare voters, but mostly themselves. Democrats love them a benevolent uber powerful messiah leader and see every government executive this way.

But if anyhting, Blagojevich and Quinn demonstrate the shortcomings of that office. Rauner can’t be the monster they fear because governors are not capable of being powerful enough. Certainly not with a Democratically controlled legislature.

I have no fear of a Rauner governorship. His extreme ideas will be DOA. This is Illinois.

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 9:32 am