Povertyguidelines released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lastFebruary show that the value of the minimum wage for low-income families hasdropped again. A family of three, with a full-time minimum-wage worker, hasexperienced a $500 drop in real wages over the last year-- or the equivalent tothe loss of about 24 cents an hour.
Now$5.15 an hour represents only 64 percent of the poverty level for a family ofthree. That is the lowest minimum wage in terms of buying power in my lifetime.A minimum wage worker today would have to work 62 hours a week, 52 weeks a yearat two jobs, just to meet the family of three poverty guideline of $16,600.
Rememberthroughout the 1960’s and 70’s? A minimum wage worker was able tokeep a family of three out of poverty on a 40 hour a week job. Today, eventwo full-time minimum wage earners can barely keep up with what one minimumwage worker could provide in 1968. Today, even the smallest family of two,usually a mother and her child, earns barely 80 percent of the povertyguideline for a family of two.
Twenty-onestates and the District of Columbia, representing over half of the U.S. population, have passed minimum wages significantly higher than the Federalgovernment. Both chambers in North Carolina have already passed legislation andothers will soon be added to that list. Five new states, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, are expected to have minimum wage increases onthe ballot in November.
Thinkof the tens of thousands, low income, working families trying to make ends meetand losing the battle. Don’t they deserve a raise? Teenagers and youngadults working to help support themselves and their families, or to pay fortheir education? What about seniors trying to supplement meager pensionsand pay for prescription coverage? Don’t they deserve a raise?
Whenwe introduced H.B. 257 and H.B. 2021 early last year, we made a consciousdecision to “piggy back” our efforts on the successful efforts in neighboring New York and New Jersey. But with the release of these new poverty guidelines, it isapparent that the delay has had terrible costs to the low wage worker we aretrying to help. The wage target in the House bills we sponsored nowrepresents less than 90 percent of the poverty line for a family of three. When it was first introduced in the New York legislature in June of 2004,$7.15 an hour was very close to the poverty line target—but, it is no longer.Today, it would take a full-time wage of $8.00 to keep a small family at thepoverty line.
Ibelieve we should provide for a minimum wage of $8.00 in 2008, with fullrecognition of the U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services poverty guidelineas the standard in 2009 and thereafter. Never again should people sufferbecause of political indifference and the gross obstinacy that we haveexperienced in this minimum wage battle. For me, S.B.1090 providing for$7.15 an hour by July of next year does not end the fight for decent wages in Pennsylvania. This is just the bare minimum, the least we should do, the first step.
Fivestates have already passed legislation over the $7.15 that we have been seeking– Washington state $7.63; Oregon $7.50; Connecticut $7.40; Rhode Island $7.40; Vermont $7.25; with other states soon to follow. The Massachusetts legislature is passinglegislation to raise their state’s minimum to $8.25 as we speak. I do notthink Pennsylvania workers and their families are worth less than residents of Massachusetts.
Ido not understand why we must make minimum wage workers wail until next Januaryfor any increase; they have already waited for nine years. For me, $7.15 is theminimum; it should be more and it should be NOW.
Iwill support this bill today and begin work on a new minimum wage increasetomorrow!
Pennsylvaniansdesperately need a minimum wage that provides dignity instead of poverty. Andthey deserve nothing less.
Below is achart comparing the minimum wage to the new federal poverty guideline.
Peoplein 2006 HHSGuideline $5.15 annualizedminimum wage
1 $ 9,800 +$912 109.3%
2 $13,200 ($ 6.35) -$2488 81.2%
3 $16,600 ($7.98 hr) -$5888 64.5%
4 $20,000 -$9288 53.6%
5 $23,400 -$12,688 45.8%
For each additional person, add 3,400
(HHS Guideline source: Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15,January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849. or see
$5.15 hr. x 40hrs per week x 52 wks per year = $10,712
Min Wage Proposals vs. 2006 HHS Poverty Guidelines forFamily of 3, and Family of 2
$16600 $13200
$6.25 hr = 13000 Annualized 78% 98%
$6.50 hr = 13520 A 81% 102%
$7.15 hr = 14872 A 90% 113%
$8.00 hr = 16640 A 100% 126%
| Office of Rep. Mark B. Cohen, Minimum Wage State Statutes Fact Sheet | |||
| STATE MINIMUM WAGE | POPULATION | ||
|
| current | adopted |
|
| Alaska | 7.15 |
| 663,661 |
| Arkansas |
| 6.25 (10/06) | 2,779,154 |
| California | 6.75 |
| 36,132,147 |
| Connecticut | 7.40 | 7.65 (01/07) | 3,510,297 |
| Delaware | 6.15 |
| 843,524 |
| D.C. | 7.00 |
| 550,521 |
| Florida | 6.40 | COLA | 17,789,864 |
| Hawaii | 6.75 | 7.25 (01/07) | 1,275,194 |
| Illinois | 6.50 |
| 12,763,371 |
| Maine | 6.50 | 6.75 (10/06); 7.00 (10/07) | 1,321,505 |
| Maryland | 6.15 |
| 5,600,388 |
| Massachusetts | 6.75 |
| 6,398,743 |
| Michigan |
| 6.95(10/06);7.15(07/07);7.40(08) | 10,120,860 |
| Minnesota | 6.15/5.25 |
| 5,132,799 |
| New Jersey | 6.15 | 7.15 (10/06) | 8,717,925 |
| New York | 6.75 | 7.15 (10/06) | 19,254,630 |
| Oregon | 7.50 | COLA | 3,641,056 |
| Rhode Island | 7.10 | 7.40 (10/06) | 1,076,189 |
| Vermont | 7.25 | COLA | 623,050 |
| Washington | 7.63 | COLA | 6,287,759 |
| Wisconsin | 5.70 | 6.50 (06/06) | 5,536,201 |
| Higher Min Wage States POPULATION TOTAL | 150,018,838 | ||
|
The 20 states and D.C. (above) represent 50.6% of the U.S. population of 296,410,404. Adding Pennsylvania’s population of 12,429,616, the total would be 162,448,454 which is 54.8% of the national population.
| |||
|
In Addition: Several states listed above are currently debating further increases or adoption of a COLA.
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Iowa and North Carolina are all likely, but not certain, to adopt minimum wage legislation this year. It is expected to be high on the New Mexico legislative agenda again next year.
Five new states, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, are expected to have minimum wage increases on the ballot in November. California may also see ballot initiative to provide an additional increase and a COLA.
The four states already with a COLA will automatically raise their minimum wage next year to match inflation.
Four U.S. cities have adopted city-wide minimum wage ordinances: Albuquerque, NM ($6.75-01/07, to 7.50-01/09), Santa Fe, NM ($9.50 to 10.50-2008), San Francisco, CA ($8.82 plus COLA) and Washington, D.C. ($7.00). One hundred and thirty cities have living wage ordinances that apply to city contractors.
| |||