Moore Supports Wage Equality For Families

Democratic State Senate candidate Marilyn Moore issued a policy statement on Wednesday “to reverse the staggering wage inequality on behalf of our families who lack the basic necessities to survive exploited by bloated executive compensation.” Moore is challenging Democratic incumbent Anthony Musto in an August 12 primary. The district covers Trumbull and portions of Bridgeport and Monroe. From Moore:

Governor Dan Malloy and the Connecticut General Assembly should be applauded for jumping Connecticut’s minimum wage to $10.10 in 2017. This will put money into the pockets of Connecticut workers who can spend it to stimulate our struggling economy. There’s a larger picture, however, and a meaningful solution, to reverse the staggering wage inequality on behalf of our families who lack the basic necessities to survive exploited by bloated executive compensation.

A recent report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition points out that a full time worker must make $23.02 an hour to afford a two bedroom Fair Market apartment in Connecticut. Another report from November 2013 by the Connecticut Association for Human Services (CAHS) found that a family of four with one full time and another half time wage earner each making $10 an hour would be eligible for nearly $30,000 of public assistance due to our high cost of living.

The public debate has centered on these programs rather than unfair rewards to profitable corporations for their low wages.
The debate focus must shift to increase the pay of their workers or help to pay for the programs that they and their employees depend on. Large profitable corporations have the highest number of employees on public programs and many of these companies have been manipulating policies to shift the costs of their workers needs onto public programs.

A recent report by the Democratic staff of the US House Committee on Education and Workforce illustrates that the low wages paid by Walmart resulted in a public subsidy of between $900,000 and over $1.7 million per each superstore in Wisconsin. This translates into tens of millions of dollars in Connecticut that we are subsidizing.

I support state legislation to give these large, profitable employers a choice to either increase the pay of their workers or to pay a fee to the state to offset their costs. It is a smart and fair policy that I will support in the State Senate. The state budget will improve by either having fewer people availing themselves of programs or we have a fairer revenue stream to help pay for necessary programs. In addition, it levels the playing field for small businesses who cannot socialize their costs as these large profitable businesses do.

Connecticut has taken a good step to address inequality, now it is time to take the next–passage of House Bill 5069: AAC Low Wage Employers.



  1. Noble goals? What do you think? Seems to me we need more “large and profitable employers” to expand, employ more workers, pay more compensation and benefits, and continue to be profitable. If they see another fee placed on them, does it make them more or less likely to stay in the State?

    State budgets are not likely to improve while legislators can vote for “programs” whether they are necessary or not, with no real accountability for whether the problem is real and remains real through the years or whether the solutions do anything that was originally expected of them. In all the talk about the Bridgeport delegation to Hartford, can anyone tell me how they voted in terms of the financial problems we currently suffer?

    Is it really the role of the legislature to “level the playing field for those smaller businesses who cannot socialize their costs as the large profitable businesses do?” Are these folks who have business experience and know what it takes to increase and sustain revenues while controlling expenses and increasing productivity to reach a profitable result (and to pay taxes)? Time will tell.

    1. John, you are missing the point. It is not “large and profitable employers” who pay decent compensation and provide good benefits.
      It is aimed a major companies like Walmart and others whose business model is to hire part-time employees thereby suppressing wages and denying benefits.
      Do you realize Walmart hands out in their new employee packages the forms for employees to sign up for the Husky health plan and other types of government-sponsored insurance because they know based on no benefits from the company and low wages they will certainly qualify for this?
      You are boosting Walmart and similar companies’ profit margins by them avoiding decent pay and benefits and you paying for them instead through your taxes.

  2. Why not, Tom? I am very sure the residents of Trumbull and Monroe are civic-minded enough not to wish poverty on the less fortunate. I doubt they think they live in Shangri-La insulated from the big bad poverty Sasquatch.


Leave a Reply