Two Competing Minimum Wage Bills
Rep. Patricia Todd (D - Birmingham) has sponsored HB331, a bill to raise the minimum wage in Alabama from $5.15 to $7.25 over two years. (The Decatur Daily appears to have misread the bill and mistakenly said that this bill would require a constitutional amendment.)
Rep. Jack Williams (R - Birmingham) is sponsoring HB322, a bill that would prohibit the legislature and any local government from raising the minimum wage above the federal minimum of $5.15, which hasn’t changed since 1997.
I have a friend who would say of Rep. Williams’ bill, “that’s one of those real good ideas that just don’t make no sense.”
First, he wants to make it “illegal” for the legislature to raise the minimum wage above that set by Congress? I do not understand the sense of that. If a majority of the state legislature wants to raise the minimum wage, they will repeal Williams’ law. All that is needed for the legislature to raise the minimum wage, with or without Rep. Williams’ law, is a majority in each house.
Second, I’m surprised that he would want to give authority to Washington over Alabama matters. This, because of something that “almost” happened in Illinois. (Williams heard “reports about a minimum-wage hike that almost stopped a Wal-Mart project near Chicago.”)
Third, in …say… six years, if a local government wants to consider raising its minimum wage because it may be in its community’s best interests, who would be in the best position to know if the idea is in the local community’s best interests? The legislature from six years prior? Or the local community at the time?
Related Articles:
Hmmm… I actually oppose both. Todd’s because I don’t think it is the government’s place to intervene in a contract between a willing worker and a willing employer. Williams’ because I support government being conducted as close to home as possible and if a municipality wanted to set their own minimum wage, even though I oppose that act, they should have the freedom to do so.
Comment by Brian — March 27, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
I’m with Brian on this one. Individual freedom and de-centralized government is the way to go.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Where are you libertarians on stuff like child labor and food safety laws?
Comment by Anonymous — March 27, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
The official party line is that market forces miracuously will keep children from working in poor conditions or that a parent should have the ability to raise their children as they see fit. Food safety? Probably market forces would ensure that unsafe products didn’t sell well so the food company would have a profit reason to sell a good product.
Me personally? I accept some child endangerment legislation because you can’t exercise freedom for your benefit if you’re too young to make decisions for yourself. It’s an iffy line soemtimes of where the parents have control and where the state can say the parent is unfit, but I think we’re probably at the right spot in all but public education institutions and their ridiculous “no tolerance” policies. Jefferson County is even starting to throw people in jail for taking too many family vacations. I also don’t like too much government control over what I eat. I despise New York’s recent ban on trans fat. I think the best thing government can do in that regard is ensure the consumer has information in regards to proper food labels and stuff like that.
But if I had to choose between the system we have now with child labor and food safety and the extreme libertarian model of no regulation, I would go with the extreme libertarian model of no regulation. I trust my own judgement about my child’s well-being and my family’s diet a lot more than I trust government’s judgement.
Maybe that’s more than you wanted…
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
I actually support minimum wage legislation for the same reasons that I understand child labor, work safety, and product safety legislation is needed. There are too many desperate people and too many greedy corporate types waiting to take advantage of them for “market forces” alone to be effective. If that were not the case, then we’d have seen a wage increase without federal legislation, since corporate profits have soared. Instead, we see workers left with a choice of work for what we’ll pay or don’t work and don’t get paid. It’s not a real choice.
Dan, you touched on the trans-fat legislation, and I’m honestly not sure where I stand on that. It’s an ingredient that serves no purpose except to extend shelf life and save a little money (maybe). It does nothing for taste, but it’s effectively poisoning your body. So I can see the legitimacy in saying that it would fall under legislating food quality.
I’m not as extreme conservative as most. I understand that some government regulation is needed some of the time. Otherwise, you have anarchy.
Comment by ALmod — March 28, 2007 @ 9:20 am