Debate is now open for this bill for 72 hours. - Begins (UTC): 2026-08-01T13:00:00Z - Ends (UTC): 2026-08-04T13:00:00Z Please keep discussion on-topic and substantive. After debate closes, voting will automatically begin.

Colleagues, a full-time worker should not remain trapped in poverty, and Illinois families deserve a meaningful increase in wages. I support the goal of raising the minimum wage to $20, but I also take seriously the employers who warn that a rapid increase may mean higher prices, fewer hours, or difficult choices for small businesses. That is not an argument for doing nothing; it is an argument for responsible implementation and close attention to the consequences. This bill offers working people real relief, and I believe its benefits outweigh its risks.

Colleagues, I share the goal expressed by the previous speaker: no full-time worker should be trapped in poverty. But good intentions do not erase the practical consequences of a rapid jump to $20 an hour in Illinois. Small businesses may respond with fewer hours, higher prices, or fewer entry-level opportunities, leaving the workers this bill aims to help carrying the cost. A wage increase should be meaningful and sustainable, not a mandate that ignores local conditions. I cannot support this bill as written, and I urge a more responsible path that raises incomes without sacrificing jobs.

Colleagues, I agree with Mr. Langley and Mr. McGrath that a full-time worker should not be trapped in poverty—and I take seriously the concern that a rapid jump could mean higher prices, reduced hours, or fewer opportunities. But $20 is not an abstract number for an Illinois family; it can determine whether rent is paid, groceries are purchased, or a parent stays in the workforce. I support this bill because employers need a stable, predictable labor market, while workers need wages that keep pace with real costs. Let us pair higher pay with careful attention to small businesses and local economies.

Colleagues, no one in this chamber doubts that working families deserve better pay. But as Mr. Langley and Mr. McGrath have rightly warned, a rapid jump to $20 can bring fewer hours, higher prices, and fewer opportunities for the very workers this bill intends to help. Illinois is not strengthened by setting a wage mandate that small employers cannot absorb. Let us pursue an increase that is phased, predictable, and tied to economic conditions—not a headline number imposed overnight. I urge a no vote on this bill and a responsible alternative that protects both workers and jobs.

Colleagues, Mr. Langley, Mr. McGrath, and Mr. Stephens are right to warn that a rapid increase can produce fewer hours, higher prices, and fewer entry-level opportunities. But Ms. Rosario is equally right that $20 is not an abstraction for families choosing between rent, groceries, and transportation. Illinois should not ask workers to wait indefinitely, nor should it pretend every employer can absorb this increase without consequence. I support the goal of a stronger wage, but this bill moves too far, too fast. A responsible policy must raise pay while protecting the jobs that make that raise possible.