Also, to campaign on the issue
(Washington Post) The New York Times reported this morning (echoing the reporting of Greg Sargent and others earlier this year) that Democrats plan to campaign on raising the minimum wage during the election season.
Wait, I thought they were going to campaign on Obamacare?
Aside from being good economic policy, raising the minimum wage is quite popular, even among moderates and conservatives. Democrats also hope it shows the party is focused on improving the economic fortunes of Americans and not getting bogged down in Beltway bickering.
Essentially, they want to manufacture a diversionary populist wedge issue using Other People’s Money.
Anyhow, writer George Zornick thinks it would be super swell if Barack would issue an executive order forcing federal contractors to increase their pay to some vague number, starting at $10.10 an hour or something
Every good argument for raising the federal minimum wage exists here: The existing minimum wage is inadequate and exploitative, and the fact these workers are doing work for, and being paid by, U.S. taxpayers makes it all the more troublesome. The economic lots of federal contract workers would be improved, and more money would end up going into the economy.
Two points: first, this seems to be highlighting trickle down, where people with money spend it. Second, and more important, jisy because they are paid by Los Federales doesn’t mean their pay should be jacked up artificially, especially not at the whim of a dictator. On the contrary, Los Federales should be frugal with The People’s money.
Oh, and 3rd: liberals should be careful in pushing for legislation by executive fiat. They won’t always hold the office of the presidency.
Let’s go for it; but none of this $10-$15 an hour crap. Make it at least $100 an hour because anything less would be exploitative and downright humiliating. Better do it by executive order too because the Constitution was written over 100 years ago and nobody knows what it means anyway.
I listened to Charles Krauthammer yesterday propose a tier structured minimum wage. He proposed a higher minimum wage for those who are responsible for a family and a lower minimum wage for teens and people with no job skills who are entering the market.
I was surprised at that proposal because 1) people will simply higher teens as opposed to people with families 2) people will lie on the application to get the higher pay and 3) it is long standing federal employment law that you cannot ask whether a person is married or not on a job application.
The reason behind the third one is that if you have two equally qualified candidates for a position (or a promotion) you want the promotion to be based upon skill levels and not “needs of the individual.” The law was created after single men and women were getting passed over for positions for married men with families.
I was surprised that Krauthammer would propose something that was, on its face, against the law.
I think Obama should dictate as much as possible. He should increase the minimum wage and anything else that he can think of. His administration should create law with regulations. He should continue all efforts on the destruction of the US. Then we can split into the separate countries that we should have been to begin with and regain our freedom.
$100? Let’s go for $200, because it isn’t fair that some people make more 😉
That’s weird for Charles to say, GC, and really makes no sense. Not sure what he was going for, but it would make the private market even worse.
Well, really, at that point, David, the country would implode, and we can start over again, perhaps doing away with the 17 amendment, and having a constitution somewhere between the current one and the Articles of Confederation, truly limiting the power of Los Federales.
If one has minimum skills and minimum education, what right does the government have to force you to pay them more?
Teach, here is the transcript from the Daily Caller:
It’s a very strange proposal and one where laws other than the minimum wage would have to be changed. It’s a very strange and bizarre proposal.
jl,
The other question is “what right does the government have to say a person can’t agree to work for less?”
For example, say a person retires and cannot do a job physically, but brings knowledge to the job. They just want something to keep busy, but the company can’t afford to pay someone who can only do half the job.
So why can’t the employee say “I’ll work for less?”
Weds. morning links…
Sued for a medical study? Unhelpful science? Ski Helmet Use Is Up, but Brain Injuries Aren’t Down Genetic testing – not useful Not from The Onion: "Towards a Feminist Postcolonial Milk Studies" Also Kimball: Inadvertent C…