Connecticut’s minimum wage didn’t rise overnight. It was the result of a sweeping 2019 law that fundamentally changed how wages are set in the state.
Under Public Act 19-4, lawmakers approved a multi-year schedule to raise the minimum wage from $10.10 in 2019 to $15.00 by June 2023. The increases were phased in — to $11 in 2019, $12 in 2020, $13 in 2021, and $14 in 2022 — before reaching $15. Beginning in 2024, the law went further, tying future increases to inflation through automatic annual adjustments based on the employment cost index.
In effect, the state didn’t just raise the minimum wage — it locked in ongoing increases.
The policy was designed to address what lawmakers described as stagnant wages, rising inequality, and a growing gap between earnings and the cost of living. Nearly a decade later, Connecticut now has enough data to begin assessing how that policy has played out.
A recent report from the Office of Legislative Research shows that while the minimum wage rose sharply, key measures of economic hardship barely moved.
Between 2015 and 2024, Connecticut’s poverty rate remained largely unchanged, declining only slightly from 10.5% to 10.2%.
At the same time, reliance on public assistance increased. Medicaid enrollment rose from roughly 935,000 residents in 2015 to more than 1.15 million at its peak in 2023, before declining slightly to just over 1.07 million in 2024.
In other words, after a substantial increase in the minimum wage, poverty rates remained essentially flat, and participation in a major assistance program grew.
When the law was debated in 2019, supporters framed it as a direct response to economic insecurity.
Members of Connecticut’s federal delegation, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy, argued that “millions across America currently live in poverty” and that raising the minimum wage would help restore “hope for people to achieve the American Dream.”
Then–State Comptroller Kevin Lembo wrote that he “supports raising the minimum wage in order to provide more families in CT with economic stability.”
Advocates also tied the policy directly to public assistance. Danielle Morfi testified that raising the minimum wage “will alleviate the burden on low wage workers and public assistance programs.”
Labor leaders emphasized broader economic effects. AFL-CIO executive vice president John Brady told lawmakers that “an increase in wages means that workers will more than likely spend that income locally, thus growing our state’s economy.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney (D-New Haven) argued that “the current $10.10 is insufficient to allow CT’s low wage workers to live with dignity or any financial security,” and maintained that “the gradual increase of minimum wage will help CT’s economy, not hurt it.”
These arguments reflected a widely held belief: that increasing wages at the bottom of the income scale would translate into measurable improvements in economic outcomes.
Research suggests the relationship between minimum wage increases and poverty reduction is not straightforward.
The Economic Policy Institute highlights that higher minimum wages raise incomes and can reduce poverty at the margins, estimating that a $15 wage could lift millions out of poverty nationwide.
As income rises, workers may face higher taxes or reduced eligibility for certain benefits, a dynamic often referred to as the “benefit cliff.” At the same time, increases in the cost of housing, energy, and other essentials can erode gains in purchasing power.
Federal analyses from the Congressional Budget Office have noted that these factors can limit how much additional income translates into meaningful financial improvement for low- and moderate-income households.
Even research supportive of minimum wage acknowledges that wage increases alone may not be sufficient to meet basic living costs, particularly in high-cost states.
Connecticut’s experience reflects that complexity.
The state significantly increased its wage floor, yet key indicators tied to economic hardship, including poverty rates and reliance on assistance programs, show limited improvement.
That does not mean the policy had no effect. It does suggest that wage increases alone may not address the broader structural challenges affecting affordability.
The debate over minimum wage policy often centers on intent. In this case, the intent was clear: improve economic security for workers.
The results raise a different question: whether that policy, on its own, is sufficient to achieve those goals.
Connecticut’s affordability challenges are shaped by multiple factors, including housing costs, energy prices, taxation, and access to opportunity. Addressing those challenges may require a broader set of solutions beyond wage policy alone.
After years of increases, the state is left with a practical question: if raising the wage floor was expected to reduce poverty and reliance on assistance, why have those measures remained largely unchanged?
