Do You Think Mass. Should Raise the Minimum Wage?

State legislators met in Mansfield to discuss a possible increase in the minimum wage, but a more modest one then voted on by the State Senate.

Patch file photo
Patch file photo

State Senator James Timilty, D-Walpole and State Reps. Jay Barrows, R-Mansfield, Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, and Steven Howitt, R-Seekonk spoke at a Tri-Town Chamber of Commerce (Mansfield, Foxboro, and Norton) event in Mansfield to discuss their opposition to the proposed increase in the Massachusetts minimum wage, according to the Sun Chronicle.  

While the legislators support a modest increase from $8 to $9 per hour next year, instead of and increase to $11 over the next three years that was voted on by the State Senate. They argued that the proposed increase would be too costly and would hurt companies.

Timilty sponsored an amendment, which was overwhelmingly rejected, that would have removed a provision indexing the minimum wage to inflation. The bill will be debated in the house, which lawmakers said would probably support a more modest increase, somewhere between their proposal and the amendment passed by the Senate. 

BH January 08, 2014 at 09:34 PM
If all our union town and state employees get rubber stamp annual raises, why not minimum wage recipients? They are probably more deserving and definetly in more need than most.
Kevin January 09, 2014 at 06:12 AM
If $9 an hour is what the minimum for a fast wood worker, then it's good enough for a toll collector. But in reality, the minimum wage should be $0 an hour. I'll be happy to debate that elsewhere.
Dick Armour January 09, 2014 at 09:00 AM
We (the nation and the Commonwealth) won't be able to sustain this disproportion of wealth too much longer. The 1% is our new aristocracy. And the lowest economic populations are our peasants. We've lost any sense of "the common good". Americans don't seem to like each other, either. The "Haves" resent the "Have Nots" because it keeps them from getting more. And the "Have Nots resent the "Haves" because they can never get enough. A minimum wage strikes me as "Let 'em eat cake." hypocrisy. Then again, a democracy needs motivated and informed citizens. We seem to have a short supply of them, too! We all seem to be in a little bubble of like-minded information. We choose the ideas and ideals that we like and demonize those we don't. Hence the polarization I see even in this little forum. what a shame! The once-noble experiment in equality didn't quite survive the human propensity of serving self!
Tina Mqs January 09, 2014 at 09:51 AM
Armour, I'd disagree that the "Haves" resent the "Have Nots" because it keeps them from getting more. More often than not, I'd say that the "Haves" resent the "Have Nots" who don't do a thing to help themselves and their lot aside from filling out forms for assistance. We all know that whole there's a lot of people genuinely in need, there's plenty who work the system-and are even proud of it and give tips to others on how to do it. This is what I resent, as a taxpayer. And yet my "assistance" is forced out of my paychecks. Nevermind I donate regularly to various entities on my own and without any IRS/govmt mandate to do so, subject to severe penalty if I don't. Oh wait...I can't "don't"....If I work, I get robbed.
BH January 09, 2014 at 12:13 PM
Define "in need" Tina. People who decided to slack off in high school, not attend college or military or trade/specialty school aren't necessarily "in need" due to their economic situation. More so they are lazy and not motivated. Individuals who continue to have kids with no means of supporting them are idiotic (although the kids deserve a fair chance). I wish we could extrapolate the numbers of aid recipients whom were actually "in need" based on disability/mental issues, or any other valid reason. I think we'd find a majority of able-bodied individuals draining and scamming the system.
Tina Mqs January 09, 2014 at 02:56 PM
"In need". Hmm. that's a term subjectively defined. I do not consider those who didn't finish HS or college or have a military career a prerequisite for "need". they do have an opportunity to earn more than a lot of people do. People "in need" can include responsible people as well as irresponsible people. People who take their welfare and other assistance and obtain booze or Ho-Hos and DingDongs or cigs can still be "in need", as far as shelter and health and nutrition goes. The issue is forcing people to use their assistance to obtain the necessities. Frankly it may mean NO more cash benes. Deal with utility and rent assistance directly.
BH January 09, 2014 at 06:47 PM
What I mean is that, people are just lazy and pass it off as "in need". You make more money on welfare than you do at a minimum wage job in this country, where is the motivation to work given that fact?
HJ January 09, 2014 at 07:06 PM
Yes, plus when they get free housing, they'll blast the taxpayer funded heat during the winter, and then open a window/door to let their cigarette smoke out.
BH January 09, 2014 at 07:45 PM
Nobody cares to engage in a ridiculous debate with you TalkMansfield. HJ, you couldn't be more right, I see this all the time.
HJ January 09, 2014 at 08:02 PM
I read the article. Even the guy from Howard U said it wasn't offensive. It's just an act of white guilt....or should I say caucasian guilt.
BH January 09, 2014 at 08:56 PM
You just don't leave mansfield, that's all.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something