This is an Associated Press article about the proposal [SB1275] to increase the Illinois state minimum wage by $1 as of July 2007, and eventually to $8.25 in 2010. The bill also allows the state's minimum wages to keep pace with inflation. It was approved by the Senate but not the House when this was written.
The article starts off sounding incredibly biased, but is really just trying to paint a picture of this battle from both sides. Those in support believe it affects people who are trying to support families, and the increase would make for healthier children and better family environment. Those in opposition argue that it affects those in households making more than 55,000 a year, mainly teenagers.
Estimates from the governor's office claim that 308,000 Ilinoisans make the minimum wage and an additional 339,000 people making just above the minimum wage that would also likely see increases. The state population is 12,763,371.
The bill might get stuck in the House until next year because the Speaker Michael Madigan hasn't shown any interest in expediting it during the fall session. People have taken issue with the bill's provisions that allow for the wage to increase with inflation, and restaurant owners also feel it shouldn't affect waiters, who make most of their money in tips anyways. This must be why the main opposition to a federal increase was quoted as coming from the National Restaurant Association in past articles.
People express a lot of opposition based on the negative effects on business and the economy, but there has actually been a substantial amount of economic growth--more people are working and unemployment rates dropped. The following diagram shows the percentages of people who get paid the minimum wage in each individual state. Under10% of Illinois workers would be affected by this legislation.
I think that by far the most interesting and meaningful debate on this topic is who gets affected--teenagers or low-income families. Some policies get passed so quickly while others get stuck, and minimum wage policies seem to have a sticking tendency. How else to explain the decade without a federal increase? I think this is largely because of who is affected--it is difficult to get legislation moving if it only affects a small portion of the population. It gets even harder if part of the group being affected doesn't care or doesn't vote [teenagers].
