Yup, in our effort to better get the message out on how various locality’s Democrat NH State Reps are voting, here’s one about Nashua’s concerning the the Minimum Wage. It’s a topic that’s near and dear to my heart (and limited government philosophy) so when I saw it on Facebook in that “by invitation only” group, well of COURSE I waded in. In fact, it’s turned out to be a rather long thread so there’ll be a few posts off this one going forward. However, here’s one tit for tat after a couple of Progressives pretty much said “what, govt sets a minimum wage…and this is a deal….why?”:
So, other than having won their races, at a minimum, of by 1 more vote than the other guy, how does that make them economic geniuses to know EVERYTHING necessary to manipulate someone else’s payroll? And to boot – it isn’t their money in the first place? Who do they think they are – our parents?
Really – why is it the Proper Role of Government to interfer with a private contract between an employer and a potential employee? Well, let the debate begin (reformatted, emphasis mine):
Nathan Tdleftdiw The same reason we don’t set it to $0: Because that would be really really really dumb.
Skip Murphy Actually, the real minimum wage really is $0 – if you are a low wage and unskilled worker and the govt has now arbitrarily made your job economically unworthy by “raising” it beyond its normal price at which the employer can make a profit from it, that’s the wage you will get – bupkis.
Brian Utterback to Skip Murphy – But the employer also gets no work done either. Which is why we don’t just set it to $100, everyone loses if the minimum is too high or raised too quickly.
Skip Murphy to Brian Utterback Not all work is equal which I think is the bane of Socialists who may believe otherwise. Not every worker is equal either.
Skip Murphy to Brian Utterback Then let the employer, not the Govt, determine what the priority of work that HAS to be done is – and the compensation rate for that spot. Your premise is wrong in that a minimum wage is necessary and a public good. There, I said it – change my mind.
Brian Utterback to Skip Murphy – No one claims all work is equal. All the minimum wage says is that there is a lower bound.
Skip Murphy That didn’t change my mind. No one here has cogently stated why it is the Proper Role of Government to interfere with a private contract between an employer and an employee. As Kimberly Morin has already stated, hardly any employer, in this economic time period, is paying minimum wage. In this, the Marketplace is already setting the correct value(s), based on time, experience, location, skill, danger, training, et al, for what the value of labor should be. There is no way that Concord OR D.C. has the expertise that is better than more local ones.
Brian Utterback to Skip Murphy – “In this, the Marketplace is already setting the correct value(s), based on time, experience, location, skill, danger, training, et al, for what the value of labor should be.” – By nature of the way we set the minimum wage (manually rather than indexed) the minimum wage will more often than not lag the overall market. But where the market lands depends on availability of jobs. And if you contention is that the minimum wage is not needed because the market is higher, that also means that there should be no objection to it.
Brian Utterback to Skip Murphy – Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution
Skip Murphy “Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution” While that DOES list a certain number of Enumerated Powers for the Congress, setting a minimum wage is not one of them. Now, if one takes an originalist view, the States are allowed to under the 10th. But not the Federal Government.
Brian Utterback to Skip Murphy – Okay, how about the Supreme Court in “United States v. Darby”
Skip Murphy Brian Utterback And take into affect Wickard as well. It shows the madness of the Supreme Court deciding that only IT can decide what is Constitutional or not – and shows what is or isn’t Constitutional is the makeup of the Robed Ones (and in Wikard and Darby, the threats to pack the Court to get the results FDR wanted (he who wanted to abandon the negative Rights of our Founders to the Positive Rights of a socialist State in his Second Bill of Rights)
Skip Murphy “And if you contention is that the minimum wage is not needed because the market is higher, that also means that there should be no objection to it.” On the contrary, I do object to it. The goal of the Founders was to have a limited form of Govt and let an expansive Civil Society and Individuals hammer most things out for themselves (after all, you’ve already listed Art I Section 8 that lists many of the given Enumerated Powers given to the Federal Govt). Simply because the Supply of Labor is insufficient right now to meet all of the Demand by Companies is not a good argument for “well, we don’t need it so let’s do it anyways”. Like I said above, IF the State of NH, through its elected Representatives, passed a min wage, it is allowed to do so by the US Constitution. While I would vehemently disagree with that decision, it is allowed for. But “no objection to it” is a rather lazy rhetorical argument. Why do unnecessary things?
Brian Utterback to Skip Murphy – “The goal of the Founders was to have a limited form of Govt” – I agree but that ship has sailed.
I didn’t say that the justification was that there is is no objection to it. I am saying if you want to claim that it is not needed then you should have no objection to it. I think it is needed and I gave my justification for why it is needed and I pointed out that the SCOTUS has already ruled on the authority.
Skip Murphy to Brian Utterback But I do and continue to do so. Just because something IS doesn’t mean it should CONTINUE. Once again, regardless of the expertise and experience, men in robes either redefining (or outright ignoring) the plain English in the US Constitution. Why do we allow such to happen? SHOULD we allow that to continue? The Supremes should be ruling on the plainly written words there for all to see instead of relying on all kinds of decisions by others. In software terms, they’ve gone from elegant to bloatware. Your mention of Darby is perfect as well as Wickard – just because something that would be intra-state (like wheat held back from a farmer’s crop for his own family) MIGHT or COULD be in some way or fashion, be associated with inter-State commerce, it should be liable to the Commerce Clause (even when it WAS for that family’s consumption)? Why bother to have words at all when they are flagrantly ignored or superceded?
A lot packed into that – and a lot more that could have been. I still believe that other than “that ship has sailed” and “no objection to it” are hardly the stuff of rhetorical excellence – and I still have no valid reason returned to me that would convince me that letting Govt direct the most intimate of economic features between an employer and an employee is good (heck, Govt shouldn’t be directing the economy at all (other than the existential threat of military attack and takeover). And a Government directed and controlled by statute and regulation is, by definition Jan Schmidt, the beginnings of socialism and communism by its kissing cousin, fascism which accomplished the same things as socialism / communism without The State actually seizing ownership of the means of production.
And with that, another snippet will happen in the future. This was at least a normal and instructive debate. There are plenty of others there were just off the wall.