Minimum wage hike and not a peep?

[norwegen]

This artificial increase is coming in handy, isn't it?

No matter. Minimum wage is like welfare: unconstitutional.

I'm glad it's impacting so few. Maybe someday, finally, it won't matter at all.

[Teallaura]

Okay, I'll bite - how is minimum wage unconstitutional? I grant you might could make such an argument for welfare but I don't see it for min. wage. The express powers should cover it.

[Amazing Rando]

It'll be going up an additional 70 cents per hour each of the next two summers as well. It's about time. :smile:

[Darth Executor]

It'll be going up an additional 70 cents per hour each of the next two summers as well. It's about time. :smile:

All it's gonna do is let teens that work those jobs buy more useless crap. If someone wants enough money to have a decent living they'll need more than a min wage job to do it.

[$cirisme]

If someone wants enough money to have a decent living they'll need more than a min wage job to do it.

Um, I believe that is the problem they're trying to solve. I don't necessarily agree that it will work (for reasons I have articulated in other threads) but this particular argument is a dumb reason to oppose a minimum wage increase (unless you're arguing it's not enough of an increase)

[Darth Executor]

Um, I believe that is the problem they're trying to solve. I don't necessarily agree that it will work (for reasons I have articulated in other threads) but this particular argument is a dumb reason to oppose a minimum wage increase (unless you're arguing it's not enough of an increase)

We are discussing this particular minimum wage hike.

[Teallaura]

DE, I'm not following your point here either. I agree in general but I don't see how it relates to the thread.

[Shadow Phoenix]

All it's gonna do is let teens that work those jobs buy more useless crap. If someone wants enough money to have a decent living they'll need more than a min wage job to do it.

Actually, teenage buying power will decrease. When employers have to pay more to hire someone, they're going to not have as much to hire those getting an entry into the work field or just wanting a basic job like senior citizens or college students. Increasing the minimum wage just doesn't work. What needs to be done is to increase capital and that would be done best by instilling a better work ethic.

[norwegen]

Okay, I'll bite - how is minimum wage unconstitutional? I grant you might could make such an argument for welfare but I don't see it for min. wage. The express powers should cover it.This particular minimum-wage hike isn't generating much debate. The legality of such government interference may be more stimulating.

The Preamble:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Programs that take from some in order to give to others do not promote general welfare. They promote specific welfare.

From Amendment V:nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;Where is the compensation for those from whom the government takes in order to fund these welfare programs?

Welfare is not a "might could." It's a definite.

I'm thinking that government-mandated inflated wages might be akin to welfare because proponents of these artificial increases say that they increase purchasing power for those who earn the lowest incomes. Well, to increase the purchasing power of one group is to diminish the purchasing power of another. In effect, it takes property away from some and gives it to others.

[Darth Executor]

DE, I'm not following your point here either. I agree in general but I don't see how it relates to the thread.

My point is that the current min wage hikes won't actually help much because you need more money than it offers to live a decent life. A min wage job is only good if you're buying stuff like expensive clothing, or music. It won't do much good if you're trying to live off it.

[Teallaura]

This particular minimum-wage hike isn't generating much debate. The legality of such government interference may be more stimulating.



The Preamble:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Programs that take from some in order to give to others do not promote general welfare. They promote specific welfare.



From Amendment V:nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;Where is the compensation for those from whom the government takes in order to fund these welfare programs?

Welfare is not a "might could." It's a definite.

I'm thinking that government-mandated inflated wages might be akin to welfare because proponents of these artificial increases say that they increase purchasing power for those who earn the lowest incomes. Well, to increase the purchasing power of one group is to diminish the purchasing power of another. In effect, it takes property away from some and gives it to others.


Wrong section:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8)

That's where the power originates from - and the Court has affirmed that repeatedly. It's not unconstitutional. Might or might not be stupid, but it's not unconstitutional.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, teenage buying power will decrease.What, as opposed to a teen 8 years ago making the same minimum wage, and the US dollar being worth more and prices in general being lower?
When employers have to pay more to hire someone, they're going to not have as much to hire those getting an entry into the work field or just wanting a basic job like senior citizens or college students. FYI, minimum wage is being increase by like 20%, not 200%.
Increasing the minimum wage just doesn't work. What needs to be done is to increase capital and that would be done best by instilling a better work ethic.That is a funny thing to read. Isn't the US one of the top in the world for productivity?

[Teallaura]

What, as opposed to a teen 8 years ago making the same minimum wage, and the US dollar being worth more and prices in general being lower?
FYI, minimum wage is being increase by like 20%, not 200%.
That is a funny thing to read. Isn't the US one of the top in the world for productivity?:brood: Stop that! We're not s'posed to agree on stuff!

[norwegen]

Wrong section:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8)

That's where the power originates from - and the Court has affirmed that repeatedly. It's not unconstitutional. Might or might not be stupid, but it's not unconstitutional.The Congress' power to regulate commerce comes from the commerce clause.

Er. . .

:huh:

Thank you?

[Teallaura]

:hrm: That is the commerce clause. Or were you asking whether or not the power originates from it? The answer is that it does. It would be unconstitutional for Congress to regulate only a specific state's wages but equalizing them across the board to some extent as with min wage is perfectly within the prevue of Congress.

Still may or may not be stupid, though...

[norwegen]

:hrm: That is the commerce clause. Or were you asking whether or not the power originates from it?Not exactly.

I know the Congress can regulate commerce. That is, as long as it does so within limits.

My question concerns the nature of these limits. Does the Congress have the authority to devalue someone's property?

[Teallaura]

Congress has power over issues that transcends the states. The SC has repeatedly ruled that this power can intervene in state affairs so long as it does so in an equitable manner (all states receiving the same treatment). There's nothing inherent to limit Congress' ability to have an adverse effect on property values so long as it is acting in an otherwise constitutional manner - interstates would be a good example there. While some property increases in value when located near an interstate quite a bit is devalued (farmland cut in half and residential areas nearby being examples of same) however Congress' power to establish the interstate system was never questioned on that basis (to my knowledge).

If you mean an act deliberately aimed purely at devaluing property I'd have to say no but mostly because I can't see an example that would fit under the commerce clause. Min wage is not aimed at devaluing anything so that argument would not fly. Devaluation as an adverse side effect to an otherwise constitutional use would not impinge on Congress' power.

Edit: Wait, based on your earlier post I think I see where you're going. Eminent domain would constitute due process (yes, people were compensated for losses from the Interstate system - how well is still being debated). A loss of value from the passage of law is not protected by that clause. Congress could outlaw interstate tobacco sales and Virginia tobacco farmers would have no recourse (prohibition requires a constitutional amendment - Federal drug laws are a bit more complicated although they, too, originate from the commerce clause) - they would not be compensated for the loss of revenue or from the subsequent devaluation of their property.

[norwegen]

If you mean an act deliberately aimed purely at devaluing property I'd have to say no but mostly because I can't see an example that would fit under the commerce clause. Min wage is not aimed at devaluing anything so that argument would not fly. Devaluation as an adverse side effect to an otherwise constitutional use would not impinge on Congress' power.Not "an act deliberately aimed purely at devaluing property." Just an act deliberately aimed at devaluing property. If artificial wage hikes increase the purchasing power of some, then it must diminish the purchasing power of others. It devalues the property of these others.

It is not an adverse side effect. This government interference is designed to diminish the purchasing power of some in order to benefit high school students and underachievers.

[Teallaura]

I doubt the SC would agree with your interpretation - I'm afraid I don't. I don't see any basis for a claim of unconstitutionality on that basis - and you'd have one heck of a time proving it.

May or may not be stupid, but I see nothing unconstitutional about it.

[nomad]

Wages don't have a direct impact on purchasing power - it just determines the base rate at which labor can be exchanged for money. There are plenty of ways this could go down without affecting anyone's purchasing power (for instance, some people could work at a higher wage, but for fewer hours).

And, even if you can prove impacts on purchasing power, unless you can prove that the impact on purchasing power was discriminatory, I think you'd have an impossible argument. Every time the fed raises and lowers rates, it increases purchasing power for some segment of the population, which eventually will decrease the purchasing power for other segments (as house prices rise to meet the demand). Economics isn't a zero-sum game anyways.

[joel]

Wrong section:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8)

That's where the power originates from - and the Court has affirmed that repeatedly. It's not unconstitutional. Might or might not be stupid, but it's not unconstitutional.
That says nothing about power to regulate commerce within a state, only commerce among the states.

[Teallaura]

Um, dude, when an issue affects all states it is 'among' the states. 'Among' in this context means interstate. Wages directly impact interstate commerce. That horse won't run - and don't yell at me, the SC said so.

[Teallaura]

Wages don't have a direct impact on purchasing power - it just determines the base rate at which labor can be exchanged for money. There are plenty of ways this could go down without affecting anyone's purchasing power (for instance, some people could work at a higher wage, but for fewer hours).

And, even if you can prove impacts on purchasing power, unless you can prove that the impact on purchasing power was discriminatory, I think you'd have an impossible argument. Every time the fed raises and lowers rates, it increases purchasing power for some segment of the population, which eventually will decrease the purchasing power for other segments (as house prices rise to meet the demand). Economics isn't a zero-sum game anyways.

Sorry, I missed this. It doesn't matter if it's a zero sum game or not - all Congress is required to do is be equitable to the states. It can be as discriminatory as heck to various economic sectors but as long as it applies equally to all states the SC will uphold it.

It's not unconstitutional. If you wanna change it the remedy is legislative, not judicial.

[Timothy Leary]

It'll be going up an additional 70 cents per hour each of the next two summers as well. It's about time. :smile:

Rando, I can understand why you might think it is a good thing, but I disagree. Every single time we've raised the minimum wage, it's been followed by an increase in poverty - coincidence, or correlation? Think about it this way, if companies are so lousy that they're only paying their employees the current minimum wage, do you really think they're just going to absorb the cost of increased wages?

It's not gonna happen. Most likely, if you're working at a job where a minimum wage increase would directly affect you, you're not working for the type of buisness that would do that. A buisness may increase its prices to cover increased costs - which creates a ripple effect in the economy which leads to increased inflation, effectively nuetralizing any gain by the numbers. Buisnesses that don't do that will trim their workforces which means higher unemployment, and those that do retain their jobs are going to be worked harder and under more stress at a job that probably wasn't the greatest in the first place. Usually, both happen.

It's a lose/lose situation. Don't raise the minimum wage, don't lower it - just leave it alone. This type of market interference just doesn't do any good.

[Hitch]

I ve never been able to find the Congress Shall Set Prices clause.

[joel]

Um, dude, when an issue affects all states it is 'among' the states. 'Among' in this context means interstate. Wages directly impact interstate commerce. That horse won't run - and don't yell at me, the SC said so.
Sounds like the SC is wrong. By that reasoning, all of the economy within the states directly impacts interstate commerce and could be completely seized by the federal government. Do you know what case(s) that is from?

[Teallaura]

I'm not arguing pro or con on that - and I have my own disagreements with some of the Court's decisions so I'm not faulting you there. I remember the first case being decided around the turn of the century but I think the bulk of those cases would be post Depression. I just don't remember case names right now but use 'commerce clause' in your search and it should help.

[Teallaura]

I ve never been able to find the Congress Shall Set Prices clause.

It's right under the 'SC gets to decide who is and is not a person' clause.

[joel]

I'm not arguing pro or con on that - and I have my own disagreements with some of the Court's decisions so I'm not faulting you there. I remember the first case being decided around the turn of the century but I think the bulk of those cases would be post Depression. I just don't remember case names right now but use 'commerce clause' in your search and it should help.

After a bit of searching...
US vs Darby (1941) upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which said that it was in Congress' power to forbid interstate trade of products that were manufactured by employees payed less than a federal minimum. FLSA was passed in 1938.

Also passed in 1938 was the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which "limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production...controlling the amount of wheat produced."

:shudder:

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Filburn was charged with producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn argued that he wasn't even selling the wheat, so his actions had nothing to do with commerce let alone inter-state commerce, and therefore was outside of Congress' power. The SC disagreed, thus granting Congress virtually unlimited power to control everyone's life. Essentially, anything you do at all effects inter-state commerce in some way and Congress can control or punish you for anything as it sees fit.Wickard has often been seen as marking the end to any limits on Congress's commerce clause powers. One commentator has written: “In the wake of Jones & Laughlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board_v._Jones_%26_Laughlin_Steel_Corporation) and Wickard [v. Filburn], it has become clear that... Congress has authority to regulate virtually all private economic activity.”[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#_note-0)
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Scary.

The New Deal was bad bad bad. We need to eradicate its after-effects.

[Dave G]

Rando, I can understand why you might think it is a good thing, but I disagree. Every single time we've raised the minimum wage, it's been followed by an increase in poverty - coincidence, or correlation? Think about it this way, if companies are so lousy that they're only paying their employees the current minimum wage, do you really think they're just going to absorb the cost of increased wages?

It's not gonna happen. Most likely, if you're working at a job where a minimum wage increase would directly affect you, you're not working for the type of buisness that would do that. A buisness may increase its prices to cover increased costs - which creates a ripple effect in the economy which leads to increased inflation, effectively nuetralizing any gain by the numbers. Buisnesses that don't do that will trim their workforces which means higher unemployment, and those that do retain their jobs are going to be worked harder and under more stress at a job that probably wasn't the greatest in the first place. Usually, both happen.

It's a lose/lose situation. Don't raise the minimum wage, don't lower it - just leave it alone. This type of market interference just doesn't do any good.

I work for min. wage. I'm disabled and on SSDI. I'm no economist, but when the minimum wage hike went into effect, my paycheck went down.
I have no idea why this is so, because it happened too quickly for management to start tinkering with our hours. I asked a shift manager what the deal was, and she said most people's checks were for less.
:nsm:

[Teallaura]

Look at your withholding especially state - did it go up?

[Yankee_Doodle]

This artificial increase is coming in handy, isn't it?

No matter. Minimum wage is like welfare: unconstitutional.

I'm glad it's impacting so few. Maybe someday, finally, it won't matter at all.

you must own a McDonald's. Unconstitutional? Surely you're not referring to the US Constitution; because as someone who has studied con law in depth I recall no such clause, maybe you could enlighten me?

[themuzicman]

Why don't we make minimum wage $50/hr?

[dizzle]

don't be so stingy Muz

[themuzicman]

Well, if raising the minimum wage is so good for everyone, why not raise it to $50/hr?

[joel]

you must own a McDonald's. Unconstitutional? Surely you're not referring to the US Constitution; because as someone who has studied con law in depth I recall no such clause, maybe you could enlighten me?
Exactly the point--There is no clause that would grant Congress the power to institute a minimum wage. Only the misinterpretation of the commerce clause, as we have already discussed.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Exactly the point--There is no clause that would grant Congress the power to institute a minimum wage. Only the misinterpretation of the commerce clause, as we have already discussed.

such a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause has been rejected long ago; along with the assertion that the Feds can't regulate pharmaceuticals, chemicals, foods, telecommunications, the environment, utilities, etc. However, I'm familiar with the argument; but FYI even a conservative Supreme Court would reject your view. Moreover, studies have largely debunked the notion that the minimum wage costs jobs.

AW

[Timothy Leary]

such a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause has been rejected long ago; along with the assertion that the Feds can't regulate pharmaceuticals, chemicals, foods, telecommunications, the environment, utilities, etc. However, I'm familiar with the argument; but FYI even a conservative Supreme Court would reject your view. Moreover, studies have largely debunked the notion that the minimum wage costs jobs.

AW

Here's my challenge to you: Convince me that minimum wage increases actually do their intended job - and not just an increase in numbers on paper. Show me that minimum wage increases actually provide these people with *real* wage increases.

[brother vinny]

Not exactly.

I know the Congress can regulate commerce. That is, as long as it does so within limits.

My question concerns the nature of these limits. Does the Congress have the authority to devalue someone's property?

Doesn't the government of this country devalue its citizens' property every time it orders the Federal Reserve to print money by fiat? It may not be constitutional, but it's been standard practice for quite some time, now.

[joel]

such a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause has been rejected long ago; along with the assertion that the Feds can't regulate pharmaceuticals, chemicals, foods, telecommunications, the environment, utilities, etc.
Regected by whom? If the SC misinterprets, then it is still a misinterpretation.
From what I was reading yesterday, it seems that the current SC interpretation of the commerce clause grants congress an unlimited power to do anything they wish. From your knowledge, what are the limits, if any, of the power granted by the comerce clause? For example, does the Congress have the power to force me to do hard labor at the point of a gun with no pay for the benefit of "interstate commerce"? Why or why not?


Moreover, studies have largely debunked the notion that the minimum wage costs jobs.From what I have read, studies have not settled the issue. It is obvious though, from a supply and demand perspective that it would. And it stands to reason that if an employer must pay more than the work is worth to them, then they will not hire the employee. Wherever there are diminishing returns on the number of employees hired, the number hired will decrease. Others argue that minimum wage reduces the cost of discrimination, thus increasing the likelihood of employers using discriminating hiring practices. Also that it hurts small business, increases the prices of goods and services, increases outsourcing, etc.

But all of those reasons are secondary reasons. The real reason to not establish minimum wage is justice. It is unjust to use the point of a gun to tell individuals what exchanges they must or may not voluntarily enter with each other. It is unjust to forcibly prevent individuals from accepting a voluntarily offered price for a service. And (as should be blatantly obvious) injustice is never justified.
For that matter, the commerce clause is entirely unjust, except insofar as it means protecting the rights of individuals from violation by the people of another state.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Not exactly.

I know the Congress can regulate commerce. That is, as long as it does so within limits.

My question concerns the nature of these limits. Does the Congress have the authority to devalue someone's property?

That's an interesting angle -- but you can't spin the minimum wage into a taking (of property) that is governed by the eminent domain clause. To constitute at taking under the ED clause it must be a total and complete taking (e.g. the government seizes the entire business or property). Even costly regulation is governed by the commerce clause & the applicable rule is it must be reasonably related to interstate commerce. Thus, the Supreme Court reviews it under the "rational basis" standard -- e.g. the regulation merely requires a rational basis.

Under the rational basis standard almost any law (except the most ridiculous) will always prevail.

[joel]

Under the rational basis standard almost any law (except the most ridiculous) will always prevail.
Sounds like we need a better constitution.

[Timothy Leary]

Sounds like we need a better constitution.
No constitution can really do what I think you'd want it to

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8)

That's where the power originates from - and the Court has affirmed that repeatedly. It's not unconstitutional. Might or might not be stupid, but it's not unconstitutional.
Do you think the power is legitimately derived from that section? I mean, whether the courts have established that precedent is moot now - they have. But today is the first day I have ever read that part of the constitution, and when the words were first processed by my brain, I thought it referred to commerce (i.e. trade as opposed to employment), and between states.

Did anyone else here read it that way?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

such a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause has been rejected long ago;
Is it your belief that "has been rejected" (by somebody) means the same thing as "ought to be rejected" (by everybody)?

[Timothy Leary]

Is it your belief that "has been rejected" (by somebody) means the same thing as "ought to be rejected" (by everybody)?
I think his point is that its pretty much pointless to argue about something as trivial as this in comparison to the other issues out there today

besides, I actually don't think this increase will make much of an impact on our economy, there are so few people working at those level of wages - even the local taco bells pay teens 8$/hr to start

[Dave G]

I work for min. wage. I'm disabled and on SSDI. I'm no economist, but when the minimum wage hike went into effect, my paycheck went down.
I have no idea why this is so, because it happened too quickly for management to start tinkering with our hours. I asked a shift manager what the deal was, and she said most people's checks were for less.
:nsm:
Ok, I was wrong. We work for about 60 cents above min. wage. But I still don't know why withholding would go up...

[Yankee_Doodle]

Is it your belief that "has been rejected" (by somebody) means the same thing as "ought to be rejected" (by everybody)?

I meant it's well settled law (precedent or as legal scholars might call stare decisis).

[themuzicman]

Hello? Pro-minimum wage folks? Why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $50/hr? Wouldn't that pull people out of poverity?

[Teallaura]

Do you think the power is legitimately derived from that section? I mean, whether the courts have established that precedent is moot now - they have. But today is the first day I have ever read that part of the constitution, and when the words were first processed by my brain, I thought it referred to commerce (i.e. trade as opposed to employment), and between states.

Did anyone else here read it that way?

Legitimate, yes; good decision, not sure. It's been a very long time since I read any of that case law. Your reading (I believe) was the prevailing view early on but that changed at the turn of the century and with the infamous Court Packing Scheme.

As employment directly affects trade I really don't think the distinction would fly as an exception to the current understanding of the Commerce Clause and possibly not even to the former understanding.

[Teallaura]

Hello? Pro-minimum wage folks? Why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $50/hr? Wouldn't that pull people out of poverity?

Why don't we drop it to nothing? Sweat shops were such a good idea the last time - and we can use them to enslave illegals! It's a win-win!

:no:

Seriously, that's a stupid objection. I believe that would be the fallacy of Excluding the MIddle.

[themuzicman]

Why don't we drop it to nothing? Sweat shops were such a good idea the last time - and we can use them to enslave illegals! It's a win-win!

:no:

Since when did minimum wage affect illegals?

For that matter, what evidence do you have that zero minimum would result in sweat shops?

Seriously, that's a stupid objection. I believe that would be the fallacy of Excluding the MIddle.

What objection? It's a QUESTION. If minimum wage raises people's economic state, then why wouldn't $50/hr be better?

Michael

[joel]

No constitution can really do what I think you'd want it to
To protect individual rights is what I'd want it to do. How about an amendment that says:
"Congress shall make no law regulating commerce except against the initiation of force or fraud against any individual."


I think his point is that its pretty much pointless to argue about something as trivial as this in comparison to the other issues out there todayAgreed. There are other, greater injustices that have higher priority. This, however, is still an injustice, and must be dealt with eventually.

[joel]

I meant it's well settled law (precedent or as legal scholars might call stare decisis).
Just for information's sake:

In the United States Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases: Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions.... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause. Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=285&invol=393)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis#_note-4) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. Smith v. Allwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright), 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/321/649.html).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

[Timothy Leary]

To protect individual rights is what I'd want it to do. How about an amendment that says:
"Congress shall make no law regulating commerce except against the initiation of force or fraud against any individual."

If the religious violence of the past thousand years has shown anything, it's that you can read permission to do virtually anything into something. No matter what, someone will find a way to twist the meaning of whatever you want your constitution to mean.

[historic salve]

From Amendment V:nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;Where is the compensation for those from whom the government takes in order to fund these welfare programs?
Um... "without due process" refers to taxation without representation. We have representation. And guess what? Our representatives raise taxes to satisfy constituents or because they genuinely believe it will help poor people.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I meant it's well settled law (precedent or as legal scholars might call stare decisis).This answer disturbed me. However, I didn't want to clog this thread with those concerns, so I have started a new thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=105265)about it.

[joel]

If the religious violence of the past thousand years has shown anything, it's that you can read permission to do virtually anything into something. No matter what, someone will find a way to twist the meaning of whatever you want your constitution to mean.
So...what, are you saying that the constitution (and any constitution) is worthless? that attempting to limiting the government's powers is futile?

If so, that's all the more reason to vote libertarian.
And all the more reason to fight for the right to bear arms.

[Timothy Leary]

No, what I'm saying is that it's much better to argue with people on terms they can understand and show them why doing things one way over another is better for the economy, because unlike sticking to arguments that the powers that be ignore these days, that can actually result in getting progress done.

Why stick to arguments that no one is going to listen to, that will not get a licks worth of change done, when you can simply show them the logic behind freedom? I'd say a good 90% you can eventually get a person to concede that freedom is usually the best way to go, even if it takes a long time.

Or, you can stick to those dead arguments and do nothing to advance your ideals.

[Jimmy Higgins]

For that matter, what evidence do you have that zero minimum would result in sweat shops?Only the late 1800s to the early half of the 1900s, prior to when minimum wage laws existed. Triangle Factory Fire (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/) anyone? Corporations had a chance to do it right the first time... and that first chance last many many decades. They failed. The government was forced to get involved.

[joel]

No, what I'm saying is that it's much better to argue with people on terms they can understand and show them why doing things one way over another is better for the economy, because unlike sticking to arguments that the powers that be ignore these days, that can actually result in getting progress done.

Why stick to arguments that no one is going to listen to, that will not get a licks worth of change done, when you can simply show them the logic behind freedom? I'd say a good 90% you can eventually get a person to concede that freedom is usually the best way to go, even if it takes a long time.

Or, you can stick to those dead arguments and do nothing to advance your ideals.
Which do you think is the dead argument(s)?

[joel]

Only the late 1800s to the early half of the 1900s, prior to when minimum wage laws existed. Triangle Factory Fire (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/) anyone? Corporations had a chance to do it right the first time... and that first chance last many many decades. They failed. The government was forced to get involved.
What does minimum wage have to do with the fire?
The fire may have been accidental.
If it was caused by intentional risky conditions then either:
1) The workers knew the risks and voluntarilly accepted them (no injustice done), or
2) The workers were misled about the unsafe conditions, which would be a grave injustice (fraud) or
3) The workers were physically forced against their will to work there, which would be the grave injustice of slavery.
But minimum wage? Irrelevant.

[historic salve]

What does minimum wage have to do with the fire?
The fire may have been accidental.
If it was caused by intentional risky conditions then either:
1) The workers knew the risks and voluntarilly accepted them (no injustice done), or
2) The workers were misled about the unsafe conditions, which would be a grave injustice (fraud) or
3) The workers were physically forced against their will to work there, which would be the grave injustice of slavery.
But minimum wage? Irrelevant.
Did you read Jimmy Higgins' link? No one thinks the fire was intentional. The problem was that the working conditions inside the factory were unsafe. There was no way for the workers to escape. One part of your post bothers me in particular:

1) The workers knew the risks and voluntarilly accepted them (no injustice done),
They didn't "voluntarily" accept them. It was either (1) work there or (2) work somewhere else with the same conditions. Not much choice that I can see.

[joel]

Did you read Jimmy Higgins' link? No one thinks the fire was intentional. The problem was that the working conditions inside the factory were unsafe. There was no way for the workers to escape. One part of your post bothers me in particular:

They didn't "voluntarily" accept them. It was either (1) work there or (2) work somewhere else with the same conditions. Not much choice that I can see.
3) Don't work at all (e.g., go on strike with the other workers who also do not wish to accept the terms)
4) freelance
5) start your own business
6) convince someone of your superior ability in order to get hired in a more preferable position.
7) invent something that would be a benefit to your fellow man
8) start trading your possesions for better possessions
etc.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but this is getting off topic. Unsafe working conditions is not fixed by minimum wage, and so it's irrelevant.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm sure I could come up with more, but this is getting off topic. Unsafe working conditions is not fixed by minimum wage, and so it's irrelevant.themuzicman asked about when times were rough without minimum wage. Back in the good ole days, minimum wage wasn't the biggest concern... it was staying alive... not losing body limbs and whatnot. Big business showed how little they cared for workers, which is kinda why we have all these pesky regulations and safety requirements.

[themuzicman]

And those problems don't exist today. Furthermore, our populace is generally better educated and more productive than the populace of the 1900s, so we're able to garner a higher wage because of our skillz.

Michael

[joel]

themuzicman asked about when times were rough without minimum wage.
No, he asked what connection there is between the two. You haven't answered that question.

And even if you were to show a connection, still unaddressed is the even more important fact that minimum wage laws are unjust.

[historic salve]

And those problems don't exist today.
You don't suppose that has anything to do with government regulation, do you? :sigh:

[themuzicman]

You don't suppose that has anything to do with government regulation, do you? :sigh:

I never said that government regulations regarding safety or fire codes should be repealed. Jimmy never made the connection between these codes and the minimum wage.


And my question stands: If minimum wages raise the standard of living for poor families, why not raise the minimum to $50/hr?

Michael

[historic salve]

I never said that government regulations regarding safety or fire codes should be repealed. Jimmy never made the connection between these codes and the minimum wage.
I think most people associate financial security with safe working conditions...

And my question stands: If minimum wages raise the standard of living for poor families, why not raise the minimum to $50/hr?
Who would pay for it? Their bosses? Not likely.

[themuzicman]

I think most people associate financial security with safe working conditions...

LOL... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

Most people associate PERSONAL security with safe working conditions. (It's amazing what some people will say to try to make a point they've lost... :lol:)


Who would pay for it? Their bosses? Not likely.

Who is being asked to shell out the extra dough for this hike?

Michael

[historic salve]

LOL... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

Most people associate PERSONAL security with safe working conditions. (It's amazing what some people will say to try to make a point they've lost... :lol:)
Please explain why safe working conditions are important but fair pay isn't. :ahem:

Who is being asked to shell out the extra dough for this hike?
Now? Taxpayers.

[themuzicman]

Please explain why safe working conditions are important but fair pay isn't. :ahem:

Minimum wage has nothing to to do with "fair" wages. It has to do with artificially increasing the wage that an individual whose productivity doesn't warrant receiving the minimum wage. This artificially increases labor costs and ultimately costs to the customers.

Now? Taxpayers.

You're a nut job. The employer pays for the higher wage (and ultimately the consumer). :argh:

Michael

[joel]

Please explain why safe working conditions are important but fair pay isn't. :ahem:
Define "fair." If by "fair" we mean "free from injustice." Then wages forced up by minimum wage are the ones that are unfair.

If you wish to hire me (as, say, your gardener) and we each voluntarily agree on a price P for my work. Then, in what possible sense is it unfair? If I thought it was not to my advantage, I would refuse. If I believe it is to my advantage, then in what possible sense is it unfair? Why would it be fair for anyone else to step in and forcibly prevent us from making our agreed-upon exchange? Why would anyone else have the right to do so?

Which is less fair:
1) For you to offer a job at $1/hr.
2) For you to offer no job at all

Number (2) is equivalent to offering $0/hr. If we are going to punish people for offering low wages, then logically we ought to punish everyone for all the wages they are not offering at all. If I offer to sit on my couch and do nothing for you, for minimum wage, and you refuse, and offer me only $0/hr, then is that unfair? If I offer to do your gardening for minimum wage, and you refuse and offer me only $0/hr, then is that unfair?

[Jimmy Higgins]

And my question stands: If minimum wages raise the standard of living for poor families, why not raise the minimum to $50/hr?

MichaelBecause this isn't about making people rich. It's about allowing to set a standard on which they can live decently, ie... food and shelter everyday.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Define "fair." If by "fair" we mean "free from injustice." Then wages forced up by minimum wage are the ones that are unfair.

If you wish to hire me (as, say, your gardener) and we each voluntarily agree on a price P for my work. Then, in what possible sense is it unfair? If I thought it was not to my advantage, I would refuse.People don't choose to work a job for minimum wage... it's something that typically gets assigned to them.

[themuzicman]

But people do make the choices that put them into a minimum wage job.

And people in the US have choices that can help them get out of minimum wage jobs.

So, adults with minimum wages jobs are generally there as a result of their own choices.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

But people do make the choices that put them into a minimum wage job.

And people in the US have choices that can help them get out of minimum wage jobs.

So, adults with minimum wages jobs are generally there as a result of their own choices.

MichaelPlease provide evidence. A few reports would be nice.

[themuzicman]

Even liberal arts grads as a group – those notoriously low-paid first-timers in the workforce – are enjoying a bump in pay of 4.2 percent, albeit to what is still one of the lowest starting salaries out there -- $30,337.

2000 hours (full time) x 7.5/hr is $15,000.

The LOWEST average starting salary for a college grad is $30K.

If you make the right choices in HS, you can graduate from college. (Or did you want evidence of that, too?)

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even liberal arts grads as a group – those notoriously low-paid first-timers in the workforce – are enjoying a bump in pay of 4.2 percent, albeit to what is still one of the lowest starting salaries out there -- $30,337.

2000 hours (full time) x 7.5/hr is $15,000.

The LOWEST average starting salary for a college grad is $30K.

If you make the right choices in HS, you can graduate from college. (Or did you want evidence of that, too?)Actually I was more looking for information regarding cyclical poverty. Yeah, someone graduates college, they should do alright.

[themuzicman]

And anyone who works hard in K-12 will have the opportunity to go to college.

For that matter, anyone with a HS degree (or GED) can get some kind of technical training to get them out of that circumstance, as well.

So, any adult making minimum is there by their own choice, and still has options to do better.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

And anyone who works hard in K-12 will have the opportunity to go to college.

For that matter, anyone with a HS degree (or GED) can get some kind of technical training to get them out of that circumstance, as well.

So, any adult making minimum is there by their own choice, and still has options to do better.

Michael
That's nice that you keep repeating what you are claiming. But you didn't address cyclical poverty issues. And college is not affordable to some people. And when people have to drop out of high school to get a job to help support their mother and family, that kinda interferes with the typical middle class schedule that other people get to enjoy.

[themuzicman]

That's nice that you keep repeating what you are claiming. But you didn't address cyclical poverty issues. And college is not affordable to some people.

Cyclical poverty issues are addressed by those in the cycle with the assistance of others. There are a host of training programs offered at the state and federal level to deal with these. The "cycle of poverty" is a cultural issue, not an economic or even educational one.

And when people have to drop out of high school to get a job to help support their mother and family, that kinda interferes with the typical middle class schedule that other people get to enjoy.

LOL... leave it to Jimmy to come up with the remotest exception to offer as the general rule...

Michael

[joel]

People don't choose to work a job for minimum wage... it's something that typically gets assigned to them.
Starting in a low-wage job is the usual way to get on the "ladder" and climb up. So working at a low-wage job is not even necessarily a bad thing. It is one way for low-skilled individuals to gain skills, which increases the demand for their labor.

Again, which is less fair/just:
1) For you to offer a job at 10 cents/hr.
2) For you to offer $0/hr.

No one is forcing the employer to offer any job in the first place. He/she is doing so of his own free will. If you consider the "poor unfortunate souls" working for, say, minimum wage, they would be even worse off if the job was not offered at all. Logically, if minimum wage is just, then so is forcing everyone to offer wages for jobs in which they are currently offering $0. But this is illogical because everyone has an infinite set of jobs for which they are offering $0. Therefore, minimum wage cannot possibly be just.

[Timothy Leary]

That's nice that you keep repeating what you are claiming. But you didn't address cyclical poverty issues. And college is not affordable to some people. And when people have to drop out of high school to get a job to help support their mother and family, that kinda interferes with the typical middle class schedule that other people get to enjoy.
I agree with you there, but virtually anyone can get a job that pays above minimum wage if they put forth a basic amount of effort to be on time, etc.

You can get a warehouse job or an electronics assembly job with no experience and just a HS diploma for 12$/hr.
and out here our state minimum wage is lower than the new federal minimum wage

I can understand a person being stuck in a minimum wage job for a short time, but not for a long time. Just going to your state's job services dept. would insure that you could find a better job.