Minimum Wage Increase Impact/Effect

[peppy]

Isn't luck just timing and opportunity?

And you need to be smart enough to recognize when that happens.

Is setting a minimum wage even constitutional?

Which amendment says the government has the right to tell us how much we can earn?

This is at the state level. I'm thinking 10th amendment allows for this. Federal is a different beast.

 

[morekaos]

C'mon, even Moonbeam knows this is a bad idea...but he signed it anyway,  That's taking a stand that's gonna help out Californias small business'...Thanks.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article69842317.html


Brown, traveling to the state?s largest media market to sign the landmark bill, remained hesitant about the economic effect of raising the minimum wage, saying, ?Economically, minimum wages may not make sense.?

But he said work is ?not just an economic equation,? calling labor ?part of living in a moral community.?

Read more here:http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article69842317.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Happiness]

C'mon, even Moonbeam knows this is a bad idea...but he signed it anyway,  That's taking a stand that's gonna help out Caliofornias small business'...Thanks.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article69842317.html


Brown, traveling to the state?s largest media market to sign the landmark bill, remained hesitant about the economic effect of raising the minimum wage, saying, ?Economically, minimum wages may not make sense.?

But he said work is ?not just an economic equation,? calling labor ?part of living in a moral community.?

Read more here:http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article69842317.html#storylink=cpy

Well, you have to give Brown credit for being honest about it.  Most of the minimum wage debate is BS.  It is not about economics, it is about wealth redistribution.  The unions and other socialist groups who are financing the minimum wage effort are not minimum wage workers.  Their main intent is not to help minimum wage workers; that is just a collateral benefit and a way to recruit more bodies to their cause.  They support minimum wage hikes because they believe it will make it easier for them to get across the board labor cost increases and tax hikes (wealth redistribution).

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Isn't luck just timing and opportunity?

And you need to be smart enough to recognize when that happens.

Is setting a minimum wage even constitutional?

Which amendment says the government has the right to tell us how much we can earn?

This is at the state level. I'm thinking 10th amendment allows for this. Federal is a different beast.

Well... there is a federal minimum wage.

And there is no mention of rights to wages in the Cali constitution either.

Is this like Mello Roos?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Isn't luck just timing and opportunity?

And you need to be smart enough to recognize when that happens.

Is setting a minimum wage even constitutional?

Which amendment says the government has the right to tell us how much we can earn?

This is at the state level. I'm thinking 10th amendment allows for this. Federal is a different beast.

Well... there is a federal minimum wage.

And there is no mention of rights to wages in the Cali constitution either.

Is this like Mello Roos?

Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and thus can dictate a minimum wages.

There is nothing in the California constitution that prohibits a minimum wage.

 

[eyephone]

Isn't luck just timing and opportunity?

And you need to be smart enough to recognize when that happens.

Is setting a minimum wage even constitutional?

Which amendment says the government has the right to tell us how much we can earn?

This is at the state level. I'm thinking 10th amendment allows for this. Federal is a different beast.

Well... there is a federal minimum wage.

And there is no mention of rights to wages in the Cali constitution either.

Is this like Mello Roos?

Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and thus can dictate a minimum wages.

There is nothing in the California constitution that prohibits a minimum wage.

I read an estimate 700k job loss due to minimum wage increase.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/30/expert-15-minimum-wage-could-cost-700k-california-jobs/

 

[Happiness]

Isn't luck just timing and opportunity?

And you need to be smart enough to recognize when that happens.

Is setting a minimum wage even constitutional?

Which amendment says the government has the right to tell us how much we can earn?

This is at the state level. I'm thinking 10th amendment allows for this. Federal is a different beast.

Well... there is a federal minimum wage.

And there is no mention of rights to wages in the Cali constitution either.

Is this like Mello Roos?

Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and thus can dictate a minimum wages.

There is nothing in the California constitution that prohibits a minimum wage.

I read an estimate 700k job loss due to minimum wage increase.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/30/expert-15-minimum-wage-could-cost-700k-california-jobs/

The unions who are pushing this minimum wage increase do not represent minimum wage workers.  The people who say the minimum wage increase will hurt those the minimum wage is supposed to help are missing the point.  The minimum wage increase is not intended to help minimum wage workers so the loss of minimum wage jobs is just collateral damage to the real motive which is to transfer wealth to highly paid union workers.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and thus can dictate a minimum wages.

Whoah... I know you are more familiar with the law than I am but I think applying interstate commerce regulations to wage requirements may be reaching. Citation?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and thus can dictate a minimum wages.

Whoah... I know you are more familiar with the law than I am but I think applying interstate commerce regulations to wage requirements may be reaching. Citation?

Congress has broad discretion over interstate commerce.  Any business who is engaged interstate commerce (which is basically 99.9% of businesses) can be regulated.

Commercial clause is what Congress used to enact Civil Rights legislation.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and thus can dictate a minimum wages.

Whoah... I know you are more familiar with the law than I am but I think applying interstate commerce regulations to wage requirements may be reaching. Citation?

Congress has broad discretion over interstate commerce.  Any business who is engaged interstate commerce (which is basically 99.9% of businesses) can be regulated.

Interstate commercial clause is what Congress used to enact Civil Rights legislation.

Still seems like too broad a brush.

For example, how does interstate commerce apply to a small business' minimum wage when it only operates and serves customers in California?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and thus can dictate a minimum wages.

Whoah... I know you are more familiar with the law than I am but I think applying interstate commerce regulations to wage requirements may be reaching. Citation?

Congress has broad discretion over interstate commerce.  Any business who is engaged interstate commerce (which is basically 99.9% of businesses) can be regulated.

Interstate commercial clause is what Congress used to enact Civil Rights legislation.

Still seems like too broad a brush.

For example, how does interstate commerce apply to a small business' minimum wage when it only operates and serves customers in California?

Because they buy food from an interstate source and potentially (and probably) serves customers/tourists from outside of California. 
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/federalcommercepower.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish

Again, commerce clause is what Congress used to wipe out segregation in the South.  Lunch counters and city buses. 

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I still don't see the connection between the Constitution, interstate commerce regulation and setting minimum wages.

Sounds like more like Congress overreaching to me than actually applying the tenets of our founding fathers.

But I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I still don't see the connection between the Constitution, interstate commerce regulation and setting minimum wages.

Sounds like more like Congress overreaching to me than actually applying the tenets of our founding fathers.

But I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.

You have a more literalist view of the Constitution, which is shared by justices like Scalia and Thomas. 

It's not a view I share in any way.  I don't really care what the Founding Fathers thought or believed.  They lived in the 18th century, were all white and male, mostly rich/landowners, and most owned slaves.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I still don't see the connection between the Constitution, interstate commerce regulation and setting minimum wages.

Sounds like more like Congress overreaching to me than actually applying the tenets of our founding fathers.

But I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.

You have a more literalist view of the Constitution, which is shared by justices like Scalia and Thomas. 

It's not a view I share in any way.  I don't really care what the Founding Fathers thought or believed.  They lived in the 18th century, were all white and male, mostly rich/landowners, and most owned slaves.

This is also a narrow way of viewing things. Just because they lived in different times, doesn't mean the tenets behind how they framed the Constitution don't apply today.

Many things can be adjusted by time and way of life but some things remain consistent such as the right to freedoms, protection etc.. I don't feel minimum wages falls into that category because to me, that's defined by the market, just like the government doesn't regulate the price of real estate or stocks (although one can argue they do in some ways).

Does flipping burgers differ in California than it does in Texas? But it cost so much less to buy a home in Texas. So why can the market determine certain costs of living but the government has to determine how much businesses have to pay people? Let the same "forces" determine both and you'll have a better equilibrium.

I think the basic beliefs of the founding fathers is what I'm getting at... it's all in the preamble:

... 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

.

Everything else should be handled by businesses and communities... for the people, by the people.

Big government is just so wasteful and so susceptible to corruption on every level.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

IHO: 

I have a completely different view.  Government is not perfect but it is often better than corporations (who look out for the interests of its shareholder/corporate board members) and the market. 

The "market" has shown over and over again that it is willing to destroy society, people, and even itself for the benefit of relative few in a short period of time.  When the destruction inevitably comes, who is forced to pick up the pieces?  The government.

The market isn't this benevolent thing that ends up in the right place...it often ends up in the wrong places and destroys many people/things in its wake.  The market is what created slavery, child labor, oppression of workers, destruction of environment, perpetual poverty, vast wealth distribution, etc.  Market has no morals and no thought for what damage it does. 

We literally just came out of one of the worst economic periods in the last 70+ years because of market greed, corporate irresponsibility, and lack of governmental oversight.  Before that, there was the internet bubble, which was basically uncontrolled market.  These are not isolated situations.

The market can be good but it requires government oversight and governance.  It's like a garden that can produce great results but requires a gardner to proper maintain it to have proper growth. 

As to the founding fathers, a group of white slave owning proper owners who though that minorities and women were not worthy of participation in the governance of this country have a viewpoint about economy and "the market" that I can do without.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

As to the founding fathers, a group of white slave owning proper owners who though that minorities and women were not worthy of participation in the governance of this country have a viewpoint about economy and "the market" that I can do without.

You keep going back to this but it doesn't do anything to strengthen your position. Their intent and the way of life at the time did conflict, they recognized that slavery was evil, but you keep missing the point that their goal was to avoid what Britain had in a way of an overpowered government.

You posit that government is good for society but that only applies to certain things (again as spelled out by the Constitution), everything else is just as susceptible to the things you mentioned under government oversight. The most obvious example of this is other governments.

All those examples that you say the market created, governments had a hand in supporting too. And, in many cases, it was the "market" that ended slavery, granted women's rights, pushed equality among races and sexes. Again, the market should decide what to do, the government just has to enforce it.

And businesses have more to answer to than governments. They don't get "free" revenue in the form of taxes so they actually have to keep society's best interest at heart. Because the US has this "market", it's what helps keep our government in check better so we don't end up like other countries. That's what democracy is.

To use your garden example, if that one gardener only has a certain vision or is close minded, that garden will only grow certain fruits and vegetables. But if the people who the garden feeds had more say in what was grown, it would be a much better garden.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

You keep going back to this but it doesn't do anything to strengthen your position. Their intent and the way of life at the time did conflict, they recognized that slavery was evil, but you keep missing the point that their goal was to avoid what Britain had in a way of an overpowered government.

No, they didn't "know slavery was an evil"...they didn't care.  Slavery was a critical part of the economy and they were fine with it.  Britain didn't have an overpowered government, the founding fathers just didn't like paying for taxes to cover the costs of the French/Indian War. 

You posit that government is good for society but that only applies to certain things (again as spelled out by the Constitution), everything else is just as susceptible to the things you mentioned under government oversight. The most obvious example of this is other governments.

That is very true...not every government is good and not every corporation is bad.  Except, in this country, I have some control over my government.  I don't have any control over corporations.

All those examples that you say the market created, governments had a hand in supporting too. And, in many cases, it was the "market" that ended slavery, granted women's rights, pushed equality among races and sexes. Again, the market should decide what to do, the government just has to enforce it.

It was not the "market" that ended slavery.  We literally had a Civil War to end slavery and three Constitutional amendments.  Then it took the Supreme Court, Congress, and federal troops to end segregation.

Women's rights were also the result of civil protest and the 20th amendment.

Market didn't create equality in the market...it perpetuates status quo.

And businesses have more to answer to than governments. They don't get "free" revenue in the form of taxes so they actually have to keep society's best interest at heart. Because the US has this "market", it's what helps keep our government in check better so we don't end up like other countries. That's what democracy is.

Government has to do everything that companies do not want to do.  Take the post office vs UPS/FedEx.  Post Office takes all the non-profitable routes and forced to deliver to remote areas.  They are also required to maintain post offices so that people can have access to the post office. 

Again, I am not advocating for government control but the market is something that needs to tamed and controlled.  Government is only power that can do it.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

All those examples that you say the market created, governments had a hand in supporting too. And, in many cases, it was the "market" that ended slavery, granted women's rights, pushed equality among races and sexes. Again, the market should decide what to do, the government just has to enforce it.

It was not the "market" that ended slavery.  We literally had a Civil War to end slavery and three Constitutional amendments.  Then it took the Supreme Court, Congress, and federal troops to end segregation.

Women's rights were also the result of civil protest and the 20th amendment.

Market didn't create equality in the market...it perpetuates status quo.

Uh... I think you just proved my point.

How did the Civil War start? Was it the government who decided it? How did those Amendments get created?

You answered it yourself... civil protest. The people... or rather... the "market" is what determined these things.

I think your definition of "market" and mine is different. I'm talking about what society wants, what the people want... the demand (as in supply and demand).

The concept is simple, if the market is going to determine that the cost of living in California (or Irvine) is higher, then let the market determine what the fair minimum wage is going to be. People will move to where they can afford to live based on wages and the market will correct itself accordingly. Why does the government have to get involved? If it's unfair, the "market" (IE "people") will effectuate change (as history has shown us).

 

[Irvinecommuter]

All those examples that you say the market created, governments had a hand in supporting too. And, in many cases, it was the "market" that ended slavery, granted women's rights, pushed equality among races and sexes. Again, the market should decide what to do, the government just has to enforce it.

It was not the "market" that ended slavery.  We literally had a Civil War to end slavery and three Constitutional amendments.  Then it took the Supreme Court, Congress, and federal troops to end segregation.

Women's rights were also the result of civil protest and the 20th amendment.

Market didn't create equality in the market...it perpetuates status quo.

Uh... I think you just proved my point.

How did the Civil War start? Was it the government who decided it? How did those Amendments get created?

You answered it yourself... civil protest. The people... or rather... the "market" is what determined these things.

I think your definition of "market" and mine is different. I'm talking about what society wants, what the people want... the demand (as in supply and demand).

The concept is simple, if the market is going to determine that the cost of living in California (or Irvine) is higher, then let the market determine what the fair minimum wage is going to be. People will move to where they can afford to live based on wages and the market will correct itself accordingly. Why does the government have to get involved? If it's unfair, the "market" (IE "people") will effectuate change (as history has shown us).

You do have a very different view of the market.  Civil War was basically the Revolutionary War 2.0.  South believed that the federal government was overreaching and imposing its rule on Southern states, one of the key issue was slavery.  It took the federal government to put down the rebellion.  It wasn't resolved with some sort of supply/demand curve or public sentiment. 

The three amendments were passed after the defeat of the Confederacy and a term for the southern states to return to the Union.  There was no supply/demand curve at play. 

The Revolutionary War was also not some public outcry for change...a significant portion of the colonial population were Tories and many others just didn't care.

War is literally the breakdown of civil discourse.  It's not some sort of justification or argument for free market. 

The key point is that the mechanism for all those changes was the government, not private businesses.  Brown v. Board of Education was not driven by market forces.  Neither was the recent ruling for LGBT rights. 

Additionally, the path you get to a result is important.  Just because you stopped slavery does not mean that slavery was okay to begin with.  One should not just look back at history and say...oh well at least we got it right at some point.

Finally, government has the right and obligation to guide market forces and direction.  Mortgage tax deductions, charitable deductions, tax credits for green energy, agricultural subsidies, student loans...are all examples of government trying to direct and guide market forces. 

RE prices are what they are in Irvine because government allow for tax deduction on mortgages and RE taxes, Prop 13 limits the level of property taxes that can be charged, Prop 13 also allow for the creation of Mello Roos districts, the existence of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac allow banks to make loans to the public with significantly reduced risks.  Yet somehow when government institute legislation to help the lower classes, it's evil.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Wow... so all of those changes in the US were decided just by the government, not by the people?

Finally, government has the right and obligation to guide market forces and direction.  Mortgage tax deductions, charitable deductions, tax credits for green energy, agricultural subsidies, student loans...are all examples of government trying to direct and guide market forces.

And I still don't see where the government has the *right* to guide market forces. I know they do but there is no obligation. Read the preamble again... the government has to protect the people, ensure our freedoms and rights and govern based on what the people want. That's it... all those things you mention, ideally the government shouldn't be part of anyways.

Just like government and religion should be separate, so should government and economy. Do you think the government should determine what is the minimum religion we should follow?