Commentary—

Not Getting By In Connecticut

By William A. Collins

Now I guess,

I’ll have to rob;

Ends don’t meet,

With this cheap job.

Once again this year the General Assembly has put Congress to shame, though this is not a big trick. Our lawmakers are raising the minimum wage for next year from $7.10 an hour to $7.40 an hour, and adding 25 cents more in ’07. You’ll recall that the federal minimum has been stuck at $5.15 an hour since some time in the McKinley administration. It’s not that the Republicans don’t want to help out impoverished Americans. They just want some parallel aid for downtrodden corporate giants in the same bill. No dice yet.

Here at home the Republicans are either more humane or just less numerous. Even the governor is ready to sign after the bill sailed through the Senate on consent. But in the House, some true GOP feelings leaked out. Our struggling economy could be injured, they said. Layoffs would expand, and co-workers making, say, $9 an hour could get uppity (horrors) if their lower-paid colleagues got a raise. They might thoughtlessly be tempted to seek more money for themselves.

Now that would be an ungrateful blow. Just imagine all those currently contented $9 an hour workers being shaken from their quiet satisfaction to avariciously demand a raise. Small business would be devastated and big business would swiftly move to Louisiana. But blessedly, these same anxieties had already been heard in earlier minimum wage battles, yet both small and large business somehow still seem to be here.

So let’s take a look at what at what $7.40 an hour actually means in Connecticut. Well, here in sainted Norwalk it means you are still pretty far shy of the $22.10 an hour needed to afford your own one-bedroom apartment. It also means an annual income of $15,000, somewhat below the national poverty level, and way below the poverty line for this state.

Thus, many low-wage workers are forced to share living space and to take a second job. Some also feel pressure to put up with a disrespectful but contributing boyfriend. Health insurance is probably out of the question, so that living with pain or worrisome symptoms becomes commonplace until a crisis triggers a trip to the emergency room. Then one can expect to be billed at a much higher rate than those who can afford insurance. (This is because insurance companies negotiate discounts for their members. Not insured? No discount.)

Next is the delicate issue of children. They’re an incomparable blessing, but expensive. If you’re at work they may end up at Camp Grandma or with a neighbor, or if you’ve got any cash at all, at daycare. If they develop a rash, you pour on snake oil, and if their eyes look funny, you search for a charity clinic.

One big disaster if you are poor is if your car breaks down. Then you can’t get to work. Another calamity is education. Since you have to live in the cheapest neighborhood, your kids end up at the most troubled schools.

You will be pleased, though, to hear that some cities have transcended the minimum wage debate altogether, and have moved on up to the “living wage.” This means they require all companies doing business with them to pay their own employees at a still higher level, say $10 an hour. That costs the city a few bucks in contract bills, but not too much. Most suppliers already pay at that level. Nonetheless, such a law broadens the reach of a meaningful wage floor.

And lest you think that all this debate is purely academic, be aware that around ten percent of Nutmeg workers labor full time but nonetheless still make under $20,000 a year. Some receive helpful social services; others don’t. Access to most assistance has been on a downward trend. Resources have instead been redirected to targets like wars, corporations, and the upper reaches of society. Thus, we may have more in common with the McKinley era than we first thought.

(Columnist William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk.)