Republican state legislator Eli McGrath urged colleagues to reject a proposed increase to $20 an hour in Illinois, arguing during legislative debate that the measure could produce job losses, reduced hours and higher prices.

McGrath acknowledged the underlying objective raised by a previous speaker: that no full-time worker should remain trapped in poverty. But he argued that lawmakers should not treat that shared goal as a reason to move forward with what he described as a rapid increase.

His remarks placed the Republican case against the bill squarely on concerns about the response from small businesses. McGrath said businesses might cut workers’ hours, raise prices or reduce entry-level opportunities in response to the proposed wage level.

Those concerns are central to McGrath’s argument, but his remarks did not identify an alternative wage proposal or lay out a specific path for ensuring that full-time workers can earn enough to avoid poverty. Instead, he called broadly for what he termed a more responsible approach that raises incomes without sacrificing jobs.

The debate underscores a familiar divide over whether policymakers should act more aggressively to improve pay for workers or defer to concerns that employers may scale back hiring and hours. McGrath framed the proposal as a mandate insufficiently responsive to local conditions, even as he accepted the premise that work should provide a path out of poverty.

For supporters of a higher wage floor, that tension is likely to remain at the center of the legislative discussion. The measure’s stated focus is on pay, while McGrath’s opposition focused on the possibility that employers could shift costs or reduce opportunities rather than absorb the increase.

McGrath said a wage increase must be both meaningful and sustainable. Yet his speech left unresolved how a more gradual or different approach would meet the immediate concern he said he shared: the prospect of full-time workers remaining in poverty despite holding jobs.

The Republican legislator ultimately said he could not support the bill as written. His intervention amounted to a call for lawmakers to reconsider the $20 proposal, with his case resting on projected risks to small businesses and entry-level employment rather than a competing plan for increasing workers’ incomes.

As the debate continues, the central question remains whether lawmakers will view those projected risks as sufficient reason to reject a proposal aimed at improving pay for workers, or whether they will press for a wage policy that more directly addresses the gap between full-time work and economic security.