Conn. lawmakers approve bill raising ...

Conn. lawmakers approve bill raising minimum wage to $10.10

There are 30 comments on the Fox News story from Mar 27, 2014, titled Conn. lawmakers approve bill raising minimum wage to $10.10. In it, Fox News reports that:

Connecticut lawmakers Wednesday approved raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2017, the highest for any state in the country and the same rate that President Obama wants for the federal minimum wage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Cat74

New Lenox, IL

#1 Mar 27, 2014
Oh no!! A state that passed a law without Federal input? How can that be? This is how laws should be passed, state by state.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#2 Mar 27, 2014
Cat74 wrote:
Oh no!! A state that passed a law without Federal input? How can that be? This is how laws should be passed, state by state.
Right moron. Allow the southern red states to keep wages depressed. That makes sense only to morons like you.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#3 Mar 27, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right moron. Allow the southern red states to keep wages depressed. That makes sense only to morons like you.
Don't know it for a fact, but I'd guess that $7.50 in a "southern red state" goes further than $10.10 in a "progressive northern state."

The first commenter is correct: let states decide on a minimum wage if they want, or to not set one if they don't. I dare say that entry-level wages might go higher than $10.10 if there were true market principles in play for job seekers as opposed to artificial mandatory pay based on nothing more than feel-good legislation.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#4 Mar 27, 2014
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know it for a fact, but I'd guess that $7.50 in a "southern red state" goes further than $10.10 in a "progressive northern state."
The first commenter is correct: let states decide on a minimum wage if they want, or to not set one if they don't. I dare say that entry-level wages might go higher than $10.10 if there were true market principles in play for job seekers as opposed to artificial mandatory pay based on nothing more than feel-good legislation.
I own a condo in South Carolina, and travel extensively. Wages have been depressed for a very long time down south, which is why they depend the most on federal funds to keep them afloat, and the highest per capita concentration of food stamp recipients are also located in the south.

Add to this the highest concentration of citizens with no health insurance are located in the south, this all leads to a continuation of depressed wages and lower living conditions.

When states make this determination, nothing changes, especially down south.
radiofreeamerica

Tampa, FL

#5 Mar 27, 2014
Connecticut is into Defense Department contracts with large corporations like Pratt and Whitney(jet engines),Electric Boat(builds nuke subs),Sikorsky Aircraft and Kaman Aerospace (both helicopters) and these jobs are skilled labor for the most part and pay well above the $10.10 new minimum.However there is likely to be a reduction in the low skilled businesses 7-11,Circle K,etc. or there will be an inflationary spiral caused by the new minimum in the businesses that rely on low skilled labor.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#6 Mar 27, 2014
radiofreeamerica wrote:
Connecticut is into Defense Department contracts with large corporations like Pratt and Whitney(jet engines),Electric Boat(builds nuke subs),Sikorsky Aircraft and Kaman Aerospace (both helicopters) and these jobs are skilled labor for the most part and pay well above the $10.10 new minimum.However there is likely to be a reduction in the low skilled businesses 7-11,Circle K,etc. or there will be an inflationary spiral caused by the new minimum in the businesses that rely on low skilled labor.
Very doubtful - I do business extensively in Conn. Average wages in Conn. are currently over $58,000.00 annually. I also conduct business with UTC (Sikorsky is a division), P & W, and many other defense contractors there as well. Most of these 7-11's and other similar companies already pay around $10.00 hourly - it will have no effect on their low wage labor pool whatsoever.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#7 Mar 27, 2014
Off topic, I know, but isn't it strange that there's been zero coverage on Topix regarding the 100%, complete and total exoneration of Chris Christie in now more than five hours since the report release? It was wall-to-wall coverage, 24/7 for weeks about his potential culpability, participation even, and not a peep when he's cleared.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#8 Mar 27, 2014
Far Away wrote:
Off topic, I know, but isn't it strange that there's been zero coverage on Topix regarding the 100%, complete and total exoneration of Chris Christie in now more than five hours since the report release? It was wall-to-wall coverage, 24/7 for weeks about his potential culpability, participation even, and not a peep when he's cleared.
It's been covered in the news, but it's not really news. He hired friends utilizing over 1 million tax payer dollars to give this report. They have not divulged who they spoke with, and there are currently 3 active investigations into this.

Hell, if you gave someone a million bucks, they would say any and everything positive about you regardless of the facts - because they were specifically paid to do so.

And Christie will need to answer to his constituents why he used taxpayer money to exonerate him when the state judiciary as well as the feds are still investigating this.

Merely a campaign ploy to potentially keep him in contention for 2016 - and that will NEVER happen.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#9 Mar 27, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been covered in the news, but it's not really news. He hired friends utilizing over 1 million tax payer dollars to give this report. They have not divulged who they spoke with, and there are currently 3 active investigations into this.
Hell, if you gave someone a million bucks, they would say any and everything positive about you regardless of the facts - because they were specifically paid to do so.
And Christie will need to answer to his constituents why he used taxpayer money to exonerate him when the state judiciary as well as the feds are still investigating this.
Merely a campaign ploy to potentially keep him in contention for 2016 - and that will NEVER happen.
So because you believe the investigation was just another cover-up conspiracy, that should mean this report isn't newsworthy? I should think it would be quite the opposite--that the story according to your theory shouldat least be what a sham investigation it was.

You're completely laughable, but you keep right on telling yourself whatever it takes to help you make it through the day.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#10 Mar 27, 2014
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
So because you believe the investigation was just another cover-up conspiracy, that should mean this report isn't newsworthy? I should think it would be quite the opposite--that the story according to your theory shouldat least be what a sham investigation it was.
You're completely laughable, but you keep right on telling yourself whatever it takes to help you make it through the day.
Did I even say this, or do you just merely wish to start a battle?

I stated emphatically it was in fact covered in the news - it's been on most news channels today / WTF is wrong with you?

And it is a fact this investigation was done by friends of Christie, using taxpayer money;

"An internal investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane closures conducted by lawyers hired by the Christie administration is expected to absolve additional members of Gov. Chris Christie's senior staff from being involved in the matter.
The review narrows responsibility for planning the disruptive lane closures to those who have already been named: Bridget Kelly, Mr. Christie's former deputy chief of staff, and former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official David Wildstein, according to a person familiar with the findings.

No other Christie administration members were involved in planning the closures or seeking to cover them up after, the person said. The report is also expected to find that Mr. Christie didn't have any involvement in the lane closures.
This report carries all the credibility of a Kremlin report saying that Vladimir Putin was merely responding to Crimea's fervent desire to be "rescued" by Russia. When it is formally released this afternoon, the only question worth asking is why Christie decided to spend more than $1 million of New Jersey taxpayer money on a whitewash report from a law firm that has already received millions from Christie and his administration.

"GOP strategists said Monday that the report—if it largely absolves Mr. Christie—could provide a way for the Republican governor to pivot back to normalcy and burnish his credentials for an expected 2016 presidential run."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/27/1287... +(Daily+Kos)#

You keep drinking that Christie kool aid to make it through the day. I tried to explain nicely to you - but your ideology seems to blind you. If Corzine had used the same tactics, I would still say the exact same thing.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#11 Mar 27, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I even say this, or do you just merely wish to start a battle?
I stated emphatically it was in fact covered in the news - it's been on most news channels today / WTF is wrong with you?
And it is a fact this investigation was done by friends of Christie, using taxpayer money;
"An internal investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane closures conducted by lawyers hired by the Christie administration is expected to absolve additional members of Gov. Chris Christie's senior staff from being involved in the matter.
The review narrows responsibility for planning the disruptive lane closures to those who have already been named: Bridget Kelly, Mr. Christie's former deputy chief of staff, and former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official David Wildstein, according to a person familiar with the findings.
No other Christie administration members were involved in planning the closures or seeking to cover them up after, the person said. The report is also expected to find that Mr. Christie didn't have any involvement in the lane closures.
This report carries all the credibility of a Kremlin report saying that Vladimir Putin was merely responding to Crimea's fervent desire to be "rescued" by Russia. When it is formally released this afternoon, the only question worth asking is why Christie decided to spend more than $1 million of New Jersey taxpayer money on a whitewash report from a law firm that has already received millions from Christie and his administration.
"GOP strategists said Monday that the report—if it largely absolves Mr. Christie—could provide a way for the Republican governor to pivot back to normalcy and burnish his credentials for an expected 2016 presidential run."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/27/1287... +(Daily+Kos)#
You keep drinking that Christie kool aid to make it through the day. I tried to explain nicely to you - but your ideology seems to blind you. If Corzine had used the same tactics, I would still say the exact same thing.
I said *covered here on Topix*, if you'd care to go back and read my original comment. There's no battle betwixt you and me; I never fight with the disabled.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#12 Mar 27, 2014
Oh, and as to your implication that the investigation was done by "lawyers hired by the administration", Randy Mastro, the lawyer who led the internal investigation, stated in a press conference this morning that the first time he'd ever met Christie was when he was brought in to do the investigation, and Christie informed him then that he wanted the results and recommendations released without coming through him (Christie) beforehand.

And one more thing; I'm no Christie "kool aid" drinker--couldn't care less if he's a 2016 candidate, but I'd say his chances of sustaining a campaign just improved by an order of magnitude.
radiofreeamerica

Tampa, FL

#13 Mar 27, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very doubtful - I do business extensively in Conn. Average wages in Conn. are currently over $58,000.00 annually. I also conduct business with UTC (Sikorsky is a division), P & W, and many other defense contractors there as well. Most of these 7-11's and other similar companies already pay around $10.00 hourly - it will have no effect on their low wage labor pool whatsoever.
So what was the point of this new min wage?
foster

Ashburn, VA

#14 Mar 27, 2014
Cat74 wrote:
Oh no!! A state that passed a law without Federal input? How can that be? This is how laws should be passed, state by state.
Thats how it works now so long as the federal standard is met which protects all citizens
foster

Ashburn, VA

#15 Mar 27, 2014
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know it for a fact, but I'd guess that $7.50 in a "southern red state" goes further than $10.10 in a "progressive northern state."
The first commenter is correct: let states decide on a minimum wage if they want, or to not set one if they don't. I dare say that entry-level wages might go higher than $10.10 if there were true market principles in play for job seekers as opposed to artificial mandatory pay based on nothing more than feel-good legislation.
its been proven states can not be trusted to ensure equal access and protection to all Americans
foster

Ashburn, VA

#16 Mar 27, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
I own a condo in South Carolina, and travel extensively. Wages have been depressed for a very long time down south, which is why they depend the most on federal funds to keep them afloat, and the highest per capita concentration of food stamp recipients are also located in the south.
Add to this the highest concentration of citizens with no health insurance are located in the south, this all leads to a continuation of depressed wages and lower living conditions.
When states make this determination, nothing changes, especially down south.
The South inspired the Kennedy War on Poverty and remains a basin of poverty and wage depressed
Cat74

New Lenox, IL

#17 Mar 27, 2014
OMG. In all your travels I don't suppose you looked around any of our major cities. That is where the poverty is located, where the money is wasted, where the people live like animals, and seem just fine with their lot in life. They don't want an education, and they sure as hell won't work. The South is beautiful compared to the South, and Southwest sides of Chicago. Better yet take a ride over to Beautiful Downtown Detroit. There is some poverty to observe there. BTW, both Chicago, and Detroit have had long term Democrat Mayors.
Subdivisions

Houston, TX

#18 Mar 27, 2014
radiofreeamerica wrote:
<quoted text>So what was the point of this new min wage?
The government can collect more tax money. They're in it to win it.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#19 Mar 28, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very doubtful - I do business extensively in Conn. Average wages in Conn. are currently over $58,000.00 annually. I also conduct business with UTC (Sikorsky is a division), P & W, and many other defense contractors there as well. Most of these 7-11's and other similar companies already pay around $10.00 hourly - it will have no effect on their low wage labor pool whatsoever.
About 7% of all jobs here in Ct. pay minimum wage, which is currently $8.50 hr. Minors and restaurant workers earn less. Most convenience stores, gas stations, fast food restaurants/beverage chains, entry level retail jobs are minimum wage and even union grocery chains only start at 25 cents above minimum wage.

The national average of jobs recovered since 2008 is 63%, but here in Ct. it's only at 43%, since Ct. is a very unfriendly state to do business in between states regs and high corporate taxes. This is most definitely going to affect low wage jobs numbers.

Doing some business with a few Ct. companies doesn't qualify you to know what our situation here in Ct. is. This state is a mess, with the poorest credit rating of all states, stagnant job creation, some of the highest taxes nationwide, high gas prices, high insurance rates, medical costs and the highest rate of retirees who have to leave the state to survive nationwide. And we democrats can't wait to get our current governor the hell out of the governors mansion this November, even if we have to vote republican to do it. This guy's been an absolute disaster.
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#20 Mar 28, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
I own a condo in South Carolina, and travel extensively. Wages have been depressed for a very long time down south, which is why they depend the most on federal funds to keep them afloat, and the highest per capita concentration of food stamp recipients are also located in the south.
Add to this the highest concentration of citizens with no health insurance are located in the south, this all leads to a continuation of depressed wages and lower living conditions.
When states make this determination, nothing changes, especially down south.
Average rental price, SC:$611 (2 bdrm)
Average rental price, CT.$1006.00 (I bdrm)

Median home price, SC $126,000
Median home price, CT $234, 900

Fuel prices SC $3.221
Fuel prices, CT $3.765

Property taxes, SC $0.5% home value
Property taxes, CT 1.63% home value

Southern states are considerably cheaper places to live than northern states, particularly New England. The wages reflect the cost of living.

Some southern states have the highest rates of high school drop outs and out of wedlock births. This has more to do with the high rates of families requiring government assistance and the lack of insurance than the wages do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min My New Alias RULES 1,402,802
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 35 min Brian_G 311,477
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr Cheffie 70,813
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 16 hr JackArmStrong 20,383
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 23 hr USS LIBERTY 72,033
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Fri litesong 60,655
PZC meeting on firearms store Thu Dogmother 2

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages