…yesterday the president issued an executive order (probably preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act, Service Contract Act, Davis-Bacon Act while violating the Walsh-Healey Act) raising the minimum wage for employees of certain federal contractors to $10.10 an hour. He did so, according to the text of the Order, to increase productivity and improve the economy. If a $10.10 minimum wage for a narrow sliver of the workforce will improve the economy, why not raise it to $20.10? Come on, boost it to $50.10 and really get the economy humming. A Mercedes in every garage.
Then there’s Obamacare. The president’s granted so many waivers and extensions completely contrary to the plain text of the statute it’s hard to keep track. He’s ostensibly done so to, among other things, give individuals and businesses time to comply with the law and avoid some of the immediate costs associated with compliance. Again, why stop with Obamacare? Why not extend this year’s income-tax filing deadline to 2017? Give taxpayers more time to comply and adjust to the costs of compliance. It’s the right thing to do.
Why indeed is $10.10 the right number? This complete arbitrariness reminds me of the story of how Roosevelt determined the daily price of gold:
…the exposure to investors that Morgenthau was getting through the gold purchase project of 1933 was already teaching him something. Investors didn’t like the arbitrariness. It took away their confidence. One day Morgenthau asked FDR why the president had chosen to drive up the price of gold by 21 cents. The president cavalierly said he’d done that because 21 was seven times three, and three was a lucky number. “If anyone ever knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers etc., I think they would be frightened,” Morgenthau wrote in his diary. And they were: In the second half of 1933 a powerful stock rally flattened.
There is no more basis for the $10.10 number than there is for Roosevelt’s lucky number. But there are no limiting principles, as far as I can see. This is the totalitarian impulse.
$10.40 would at least have been a small token of recognition for those paying the bills…
The minimum wage fight should be fought be Republicans be allowing -targeted- raising.
If (when) then get control of the Senate, -actually- raise the minimum wage inside DC to $30/hour. Not ‘argue rhetorically’ about it, -do- it. Or be sneaky, and make it a $2 increase -every- year with no sunset.
It can also be done in relatively strongly Red States – “The minority has requested that we raise the minimum wage to $XYZ. So we did that for Houston. And … revoked all state laws on minimum wage for the rest of the state.”
Any blame -> D’s.
Any problems -> Blue City problems.
Any improvements (from the revocation) -> NOT the Blue City.
It would be easy to pass anywhere. It can be framed as “an experiment” and have data gathering, data analysis, and a report required.
In a more Purple State, it might be possible to manage experiments with some counties in, and some counties out.
To what end?
You’ve offered up suggestions on to whom to pass the blame, but not any solutions to fix the mess it would cause. And if history is in any indicator, bad legislation is quite easy to pass and VERY difficult to repeal. Never mind the complete lunacy of thinking that a State targeting wage increases unequally within their own state would even make it out of committee, let alone pass Constitutional muster within that same state.
Just because someone constantly touts that “Russian Roulette” is a good idea doesn’t mean that one should pass out a bullet and a revolver to every man, woman, and child just to prove how bad of an idea it really is.
Not even if you own stock in SafetyKleen or The Mop & Bucket Corp. of North America…
You’ve offered up suggestions on to whom to pass the blame, but not any solutions to fix the mess it would cause.
Actually, he did offer a solution, something you did not do. Al’s solution is closer to classical liberalism than what we have now. If DC or Houston want set minimum wages and have them high, then fine they get them. Everyone else that thinks that’s a bad idea can do away with minimum wages or just keep them where they are now. That’s the solution as I read it. Blame/Credit, who cares. The left talks about grand experiments, ok. Al presents an experiment. If the progressives are right, people who hike up the minimum wage should prosper and everyone else suffer. Or maybe they are wrong. It shouldn’t take long to figure out. After all, Detroit is one of the best example of cities and businesses with strong wage control.
So Johnny, do you have a solution?
Repealing the minimum wage requirements state-wide and allowing local control is actually a different animal than the proposal that Al made. Al’s proposal was to have the State set the minimum wage in Houston while allowing all others to have local control.
That’s a rather fundamental difference in not only the writing of the law, but also in the underlying theory behind such a law. Repealing the minimum wage state-wide and allowing Houston to set their own exoribtant rate is more classicaly liberal, as you mention, whereas setting the minimum wage in Houston at the State level and repealing it in the rest of the state is just as egregiously unequal as Obama’s proposal, if not just as punitive in nature.
People, not being -completely- stupid, will vote with their feet. Eventually.
Detroit didn’t happen overnight. But it’s -nowhere- near the only example. Troy, NY was a thriving city, until it wasn’t. Ghost towns, etc.
In the industrial age, there were compelling reasons for people to be crammed in as tightly as possible. I don’t think that’s true anymore. The -major- cities have a pretty short list of things that -cannot- be found in smaller cities. And half of -that- list would be rectified in short order if there was any sort of exodus (suburbs regularly gain bits people no longer want to drive ‘into town’ for).
The part that’s -left- in the city is the core of too-corrupt-for-words types and the gimmie-gimmie-gimmie chorus. I wish them all joy of one another.
States -routinely- pass laws having differing effects geographically. “Special taxing districts” for stadiums, special liquor laws for ‘troubled deep-urban areas’, and whatnot. Let’s see … (thinks for 15 seconds) how about: “Special Cost of Living Adjustment for the Mandatory Minimum Wage”. Cities more expensive -> major cities must need a higher minimum wage. For the children. Don’t forget that line, it’s the only really crucial one.
Can’t do that.
1) Federal Law has an inherent equal protection clause. Especially something like a minimum wage
which rolls under the “Commerce Clause” of the constitution, it’s meant to set a national floor
on wages. If you want to have a law that singles out an area, you really need to show why
it has to be done that way. A law establishing a national park,well, it’s not like the Grand Canyon
runs in 48 states. A law establishing “Air Quality Management Districts”, that’s typically set when a Defined region starts getting all hazy and nasty. The trigger rule cuts in wether it’s Houston or LA.
I don’t think you can do that on a “Retributive Basis”.
2) DC, yeah you might be able to do that, because DC is in the Congresses control, but,
you have to step all over Home Rule and $20/hour is minimum wage in DC.
You can’t get South American Day Laborers for under $15/hour.
Can’t do that.
Sure you can. Repeal the federal minimum wage law and tell states or municipalities that want a higher minimum wage to set their own rates. It’s liberal, democratic, and legal. As compared to Obama just modifying federal contracts without negotiation and without first appropriating funds from Congress.
Actually that’s not very “democratic.” Democratic would be not passing any new legislation but having the President grant all employers a waiver on the requirement to pay the minimum wage. It’s the Obama way.
Especially something like a minimum wage which rolls under the “Commerce Clause” of the constitution
So, blatantly unconstitutional, then?
Can you imagine the reaction if you went back in time and asked the Founders whether they intended to give the Federal government the power to set minimum wages across the entire nation?
No, didn’t think so.
Why does it have to be federal? SeaTac raised their minimum wage to $15/hour.
Call it a “Cost of living adjustment”. Fixed. For the Children.
The president’s granted so many waivers
This, all by itself, defines tyranny. How far away are we from the emperor just making decrees? “So let it be written. So let it be done.” We have already allowed them to weaponize our government against us “extremists”
Jonathan Goff raised another issue with the hike, which was that it eliminates the exception for physically or mentally disabled people and will probably thus cause dis-employment, as anybody with Down’s syndrome who was happily sorting thumbtacks for $5 an hour gets replaced by a fast college student.
Union contract wages are based off of a multiple of the Minimum Wage.
That’s what is at the core of this move. It’s payback.
Uhhhh, didn’t you all watch Obama’s speech? $10.10 rhymes! So easy.
Now here is something really weird.