President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 14, 2009 01:35 AM UTC
12 Comments
The consumer price index measures the cost to consumers of a representative sample of their expenses. If it goes down, that means it costs less to live. The point of tying minimum wage to cost of living was never to give low-income employees automatic raises in constant-value dollars; it was to protect them from getting pay cuts. This has to be a two-edged sword, if we’re actually making a credible claim that this is what we claim. The idea that there should be another ratchet effect here is just wrong.
It is, of course, true that people haven’t seen “a huge drop in their own personal cost of living”. It’s also true that they won’t see a huge drop in their minimum wage income. The two are tied together; they are both decreasing only marginally. It’s still perfectly fair.
that no company would be crass enough to do a 3 cent pay cut and this will only affect new workers. And hopefully not that many, because it’ll go back up next year.
If you thought this was bad just wait until the healthinsurance tax works it way through American paychecks.
I’ve been told to count on a $500 increase in insurance for the whole damn fam plan for 2010. What’s worse is this national healthcare cluster fuck has kept insurance companies in place, let them earn more, provided more handouts, left doctors swinging, etc…
The one’s who will pay for all of this are us with higher insurance costs, less healthcare options, lower pay increases (remember union contracts expire) and the costs of new government programs just to mention a few.
Its really quite sad that single payer was dropped so quickly; CBO and other NGOs analysis of its merits and costs would have been much more interesting and real to the American public.
I would hope that the state legislature would step in early next year and boost the state minimum wage back up to $7.28 to minimize the damage here?
The minimum wage is still near historic lows. That’s why I went door to door in 2006 to pass an increase that adjusts for inflation. We need jobs that pay a livable wage, pure and simple.
Since it was approved by the voters originally, would the legislature have the power to raise it back?
And I agree that $7.28 is not enough. It’s barely a livable wage.
I remember how hard people pushed for this in 2006. I also remember how hard the business community resisted that measure.
Having it tied to inflation is fine as long as there’s something in place to make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen. This is something that only affects those with the fewest resources, and it’s important that they can hold on to even that small amount of money.
The CPI will rebound and until then the legislature should focus on more pressing issues.
If this surfaces, legislators should raise it to $10/hr and not quibble about the $.03 drop.
But would it really be that hard politically to make it the right amount? If that’s the case, things are a lot more F’ed up in that place than I thought.
sticky wages are a primary deterrent to market self-correction. Which is not to say that markets always gets it right (far from it), but by allowing wages to fall attempts by the government to goose up aggregate demand (read, stimulus) will be more effective at establishing a new output equilibrium.
that the minimum wage will be lowered.
Regardless, it seems that since Amendment 42 is in the state Constitution, there will be nothing to be done about the $0.03/hr until inflation goes up again next year.
From the NYT:
first time lowered in 71 years just exemplifies how sticky wages are. I’m guessing Amendment 42 wasn’t around last we faced serious deflationary pressures (i.e. the Great Depression). Whether it’s mandated or not, lowering wages will allow firms to self-correct more quickly and speed the recovery. Japan’s “lost decade” was caused and prolonged by a number of variables, but among those was the inability of firms to shake off excess costs through layoffs and wage cuts. A more mobile and responsive labor market allows for market forces to help government responses to downturns and keep us from stagnating.
Of course it’s not the first time in 71 years that minimum wage has fallen. It fell for over a decade as Congress refused to change it despite ongoing inflation. Now, finally, we’ve got it (in Colorado anyway) tied to the real value of money, so that it neither rises nor falls. That might mean a lower number this year, but low-income families are a heck of a lot better off this year than they were under previous years when we pretended that minimum wage wasn’t decreasing.
I’d be all for the legislature adopting a livable wage… say, $10 / hour. But I am NOT for raising the minimum wage 3 cents just because people don’t want to understand the reality of a changing value of money.