According to Alaska Senator hopeful Joe Miller, minimum wage levels set by the U.S. Government are unconstitutional. The GOP nominee makes a good case to back his point, and may soon be able to make his argument on a national level if he wins the Alaska seat. Get the full story, with pictures and video below!
Pictured above, these migrant workers may be the first affected if there is a change to the nationional law. The Alaskan Tea Party upstart made a splash when he upset the Republican primary for the nomination, and scored another victory for ultra-conservative candidates.
“The state of Alaska has a minimum wage which is higher than the federal level because our state leaders have made that determination,” he said. “The minimum level again should be the state’s decision.”
According to Joe Miller, minimum wage should be set individually by states according to the Constitution. The issue has been largely overlooked by politicians of the past. Set by the U.S. Government in 1938, the law was regarded as somewhat socialist, but necessary in order to phase out sweat-shop factories. Now, the Alaskan hopeful is hoping to repeal the law, and give the power back to states.
“What I’d recommend that you do is go to the Constitution and look at the enumerated powers because what we have is something that we call the 10th Amendment that says, look if it’s not there if it’s not enumerated, then it’s delegated to the states,” he said. “Everything that’s not there is reserved to the states and the people.”
While it’s unlikely a first term Senator will be able to garner support for such a vast change to the law, the implications of repealing the law are still worth looking at. First, it’s worth noting that the majority of states already have their own laws on the matter. Only Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee do not. Repealing the law in these states could have some troubling side-effects. But most importantly, it would take a tool for controlling the national unemployment rate out of the hands of the U.S. government.
No doubt we’re a long way from having to face a de-nationalized law on this topic, but it’s certainly something to think about! What do you think of Joe Miller’s minimum wage argument? Should the law be left in the hands of the U.S. Government? Is it unconstitutional? Let me know your opinion in the comment section! For more on the story, check out the pictures and video below!
October 5th, 2010 at 4:44 am
Hi, Stacy…I do think we should have a basic minimum wage at the federal level, whether or not it’s specifically outlined in the Constitution, just like I believe child labor should remain outlawed – even though that too is not specifically in the Constitution.
I’m sure some other posters will be along to give you more academic, Constitutional-based arguments for or against minimum wage. But for me personally, it comes down to common decency and some basic standards about how we treat workers and children in this country. I’m glad to live in a country that has these standards. But for the grace of God, I could have been born in a country where children still work in mines or workers are practically locked up behind barbed wire fences, working twelve or fourteen hours a day for pennies. It is amazing to me that this still takes place in the twenty-first century.
October 5th, 2010 at 4:51 am
By the way…it’s just come out that Joe Miller’s wife took unemployment benefits after leaving her employment with HIM. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/dispatches/politics/7050-joe-millers-wife-took-unemployment-benefits-after-working-for-him
This is a man who has benefited from government programs and money one way or another for most of his adult life. He’s in no position to be lecturing about the Un-Constitutionality of it!
October 5th, 2010 at 6:00 am
I’m so sick of the elite white people and their children in this country, specifically white men. It’s not unconstitutional to have minimum wage laws. I think inheritance is unconstitutional. Minimum wage needs to be raised. If you can’t pay your workers youshouldn’t be able to own a business; white or not. So mommy and daddy bought you a company. You’re a disgusting white pig and that’s the only reasonn your face is in politics to begin with.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:03 am
actually I just to deport all white people from America, so we can have a constitution again.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:11 am
I believe Mr. Miller is right. There are many laws besides this one that could be challenged. As stated above if a certain power is not granted to the Federal government then it is reserved for the states. You cannot ignore the Constitution just because you believe that we, as a country, need a minimum wage that is uniform for the whole country. If the majority believe this then we need a Constitutional amendment to address this issue.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:14 am
KIUKU
If all the white people were deported the country would collapse with a year.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:24 am
But for me personally, it comes down to common decency and some basic standards about how we treat workers and children in this country.
Even if you think of it this way, minimum wage laws are a failure. They increase unemployment, mainly at the cost of the working poor. It seems nice on a superficial level to “pay them more”, but what you’re really doing is costing people jobs.
Where child labor is concerned, it’s much easier to make the case that a child can be made a victim of an employer, while a consenting adult has freedom of choice. We make this sort of legal distinction all the time.
As for Mr. Miller, I suspect that his fealty to the 10th amendment doesn’t extend to things like, say, the Controlled Substances Act. Meaning he’s full of hot air, not a principled state’s rights advocate.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Go away with your rac*st crap, kiuku. Yeah, deport all white people. Great idea, nutjob.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Rhayader: “Even if you think of it this way, minimum wage laws are a failure. They increase unemployment, mainly at the cost of the working poor. It seems nice on a superficial level to “pay them more”, but what you’re really doing is costing people jobs.”
I’ve seen papers/articles from outfits like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation that try to prove your assertions above, but they just don’t jibe with one undeniable factor about the minimum wage. And that is the fact that ever since it was enacted, it’s never been a wage that anyone could actually live on. If it was some astronomical wage, I could see where this would drive up unemployment rates, as employers simply would not be able to afford the wages. But it’s not, it’s a pittance.
So I really don’t see what the uproar is all about. Honestly, if $7 or $8 bucks an hour is really a problem for too many employers to pay in this country, then we’re sliding even more into third world conditions than I thought.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:47 am
You’re making a qualitative assessment of a quantitative topic. Whether the minimum wage “sounds” like a lot or a little in a vacuum, it has an undeniable collective influence on our economy. In a global economy, you can’t just artificially prop up prices because they “seem” reasonable. It’s a simple question of supply and demand, and how the price points of different options (like outsourcing or hiring illegal immigrants) stack up against paying mandated minimum wage.
And by the way, from the perspective of a business owner, even small increases in wages can have a major effect on the bottom line. Minimum wage increases sink small businesses. In nearly every single business, margins are razor-thin. Meaning even marginal increases in payroll necessitates moves like firing workers or outsourcing. Sure, it’s nice to make 7 bucks an hour instead of 5. But a lot of people would prefer making $5/hour to being unemployed.
The minimum wage isn’t one of my hot-button issues, and I think there are much more pressing problems to address than this. But you can’t defend it just by using your gut to decide whether it seems reasonable or not. It’s about the collective toll on the economy, and the resulting detrimental effects for those who are less well-off. That’s the analysis that’s needed here.
October 5th, 2010 at 7:09 am
I’m not using my gut, I’m using my everyday powers of observation – which, believe me, I know isn’t enough for certain economic topics. But with the minimum wage having been enacted more than seventy years ago, we’ve had the time to see if it resulted in consistently high unemployment rates in this country. It hasn’t. This recession not withstanding, of course, but I am sure you will agree that minimum wage did not lead us to this recession anyway.
To address your statement that even a small wage increase could seriously affect the bottom line for a business, I would ask you to outline a scenario in which that would take place. It seems to me a business owner should expect wages to go up incrementally with time anyway, and to plan accordingly.
And the minimum wage actually increases at a snail’s pace. I believe the last time it was adjusted was something like the first time in ten years.
October 5th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Rhayader: “In nearly every single business, margins are razor-thin.”
On what basis are you making this very, very broad statement? And what do you quantify as a “razor thin” margin?
October 5th, 2010 at 7:28 am
On what basis are you making this very, very broad statement?
It’s called market competition. Some industries with high barriers of entry (telecom) or outlandish government subsidy (health care) or entirely subjective value (fine art) can operate without meaningful competitive pressure. But for any company that has to actually provide value to customers, because if it doesn’t the customers will patronize a competitor, absolutely needs to maintain the slimmest margin possible. The idea is to compensate for small margins with high sales volume. It’s been this way at every company I’ve ever worked at, which includes a regional supermarket, a tiny R&D outfit, the largest corporation in America, and a sales-driven small business.
It seems to me a business owner should expect wages to go up incrementally with time anyway, and to plan accordingly.
It “seems” to you that they “should” run their businesses this way? Maybe you should open a business and run it the obviously correct way then. But for the record, your ideas on how private business people “should” act are no more valuable than mine or Micky’s or Barack Obama’s. What matters is the perception of the actual businessman, who’s working with actual market pressures.
October 5th, 2010 at 7:32 am
Rhayader: “Sure, it’s nice to make 7 bucks an hour instead of 5. But a lot of people would prefer making $5/hour to being unemployed.”
You know what else is “nice”? If you’re a business owner in an area where more people make $7 an hour than $5. Please try and remember that workers are consumers too, and this country’s economy depends on consumer ability to buy things. You focus quite a bit on the business’s expenses, but never on the revenue they need to bring in to cover those expenses. It would not serve too many businesses well if fewer people could afford to spend their money at these businesses, ideally on a repeat basis.
October 5th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Great, now I can be guaranteed 9 bucks an hour to lick envelopes.
Which made me just think of something.
I paid 2.50 for a pack of ZigZags yesterday.
I also bought a four pack of toilet paper for 1.85
Since we have to (not all of us)wipe our a$$es, that being a necessity you’d assume the demand for said product is higher consequently allowing a volume that could support government mandated pay scale.
Since its really expensive to wipe your a$$ with rolling papers, and would be very labor intensive, in addition to the demand for rolling papers being one thousandth that of TP I can see why ZigZag must charge so much to accomodate federally mandated pay.
Or maybe the guy behind the counter knew I couldnt get a pack anywhere else without spending 5.00 in gas
October 5th, 2010 at 7:42 am
“You know what else is “nice”? If you’re a business owner in an area where more people make $7 an hour than $5″
Everyting gets jacked up 2 bucks
October 5th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Rhayader, your sales lecture notwithstanding, you still haven’t provided proof that most businesses operate under razor thin margins, nor have you given an example of what you consider razor thin. You are scolding me about “going with my gut” while making broad generalizations without any supporting detail.
And your snide comment that I should open my own business is just flat out condescending, and thus, unneccessary. As it happens, I’ve been self-employed for years. I’m not saying that makes me an economic authority, but you are talking to me like I’m a five year old who’s never worked at all. Considering I’ve managed to hold my own for this number of years, I’m pretty sure I’m running my business correctly, thank you very much.
And I’ve also been in management when I was employed by other companies. I can tell you that you get what you pay for when you try to lowball and pay on the cheap. You also inevitably encounter high turnover, which slows down or interrupts work altogether, and thus, revenue.
October 5th, 2010 at 7:52 am
micky: “Everyting gets jacked up 2 bucks”
Maybe, maybe not. I think businesses would be very grateful for an influx of new customers right now, and thus would hesitate to run them off by immediately pricing their goods out of the realm of affordability again.
As for your toilet-paper analogy, I know you get off on writing what is basically crude graffiti, but I don’t enjoy reading it. I’m asking you politely to ratchet it back a notch.
October 5th, 2010 at 7:57 am
You know what else is “nice”? If you’re a business owner in an area where more people make $7 an hour than $5. Please try and remember that workers are consumers too, and this country’s economy depends on consumer ability to buy things. You focus quite a bit on the business’s expenses, but never on the revenue they need to bring in to cover those expenses. It would not serve too many businesses well if fewer people could afford to spend their money at these businesses, ideally on a repeat basis.
All very good points. And all reasons that incentivize higher wages on the part of employers, regardless of legal regulatory structure. A minimum wage law does nothing to emphasize those advantages and incentives. If it truly is an advantage for a business to pay more than minimum wage, that is exactly what will happen.
But again, you don’t legally mandate business incentives in a free market.
October 5th, 2010 at 7:58 am
And I’ve also been in management when I was employed by other companies. I can tell you that you get what you pay for when you try to lowball and pay on the cheap. You also inevitably encounter high turnover, which slows down or interrupts work altogether, and thus, revenue.
Also true. Also doesn’t require any legal mandate.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:16 am
‘I’m asking you politely to ratchet it back a notch.’
Sorry if I offended what humor you’ve got left but I find it rather ammusing that our free market determines which paper holds more value and is more likely to sustain gubermint mandated wages.
I started my business not taking home a dime for a year. Never wrote myself a check for one year while the guys I hired got paid the bare minimum as subcontracted labor with the promise that if we took off so would their pay. In one year I was finally writing myself a paycheck and my guys were making 4 times what they started at.
Uncle Sam had nothing to do with their success or mine
October 5th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Rhay: “If it truly is an advantage for a business to pay more than minimum wage, that is exactly what will happen.”
But that doesn’t mean that wages are driven up to livable levels for most of society, unless most businesses find it to their advantage to pay their workers more.
I also doubt that the average owner of a business that uses largely low-wage workers is giving much thought to what’s good for the economy as a whole when determining what wages to pay. He or she is probably using the minimum wage as the benchmark.
If there was no minimum wage to consider, the only way I see the business owner paying really well is if there was a shortage of workers to choose from.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:29 am
micky: “Sorry if I offended what humor you’ve got left but I find it rather ammusing that our free market determines which paper holds more value and is more likely to sustain gubermint mandated wages.”
I have a sense of humor and actually find much of what you say funny when it’s not so grossly worded.
micky: “I started my business not taking home a dime for a year. Never wrote myself a check for one year while the guys I hired got paid the bare minimum as subcontracted labor with the promise that if we took off so would their pay. In one year I was finally writing myself a paycheck and my guys were making 4 times what they started at.
Uncle Sam had nothing to do with their success or mine”
And that seems an entirely fair arrangement to me. Unfortunately, I think you are more the exception than the rule when it comes to making a point of increasing pay when times get good. If the wage stagnation over the past couple of decades is any indication.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Plain and simple economics….If the minimum wage is raised, then inflation will occur accross the board..Regardless of what business owners wish to do, it will be impossible for them to stay in business without increasing prices on everything. Essentially, if the minimum wage is $25/hr., then prices on all items would skyrocket drastically. Once again, this is basic economics. You can not fight the laws of economics when dealing with inflation and minimum wages.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:49 am
But that doesn’t mean that wages are driven up to livable levels for most of society, unless most businesses find it to their advantage to pay their workers more.
I thought that minimum wage wasn’t livable anyway, per comment #7 above? And what exactly are the stats on the percentage of legal jobs that pay only minimum wage? I’d bet that most businesses already do pay more than minimum wage, because they feel that it’s worth their money to have an effective and steady work force.
Anybody have any good numbers on the percentage of the employed who are paid the federal minimum?