Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 08:32:10 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  Oklahoma Strips Cities of the Right to Pass Higher Wages, Sick Leave
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Oklahoma Strips Cities of the Right to Pass Higher Wages, Sick Leave  (Read 733 times)
Indy Texas ©
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3719
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2014, 09:01:42 pm »
Ignore

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25
Logged

Texas Run-Off Election Endorsements:

GOP: Lt. Gov - David Dewhurst | Atty. Gen. - Dan Branch | AgComm - Tommy Merritt | RRC - Ryan Sitton

Dem: US Senate - David Alameel | AgComm - Jim Hogan
Assemblyman & Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35188
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.61, S: 1.48

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2014, 09:45:34 pm »
Ignore

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25

X ≥ 5 ∩ X ≥ 7.25 renders a result of X ≥ 7.25.  I'm not sure what your point is.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26630
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2014, 09:56:55 pm »

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25
It is necessary only because Federal minimum wage law does not allow states to set a lower local standard but does allow them to set a higher standard.  But that is because of the text of the law.  The law just as easily could allow states to set any level they choose, with the Federal standard applying only if a State chooses to not legislate, or it could set the national minimum wage to only 7.25 and not allow State or local law to set a higher standard.

Indeed, while I doubt it would ever happen, the Federal law could set a minimum wage of 7.25 and then only allow states to set lower minimums.  I say "doubt" rather than "am certain" only because Taft-Hartley does precisely that concerning union representation, allowing states to bar union shops, but not allowing them to permit closed shops, so there certainly is precedent for Federal labor law setting a standard that States are then permitted to weaken.

If full home rule were allowed in either field of labor law, then States would be free to set any minimum wage they chose, be it higher or lower than the Federal minimum wage and States would be free to either bar the union shop or permit the closed shop.  In neither case does that happen.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 10:16:33 pm by True Federalist »Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Indy Texas ©
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3719
United States


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2014, 10:08:59 pm »
Ignore

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25

X ≥ 5 ∩ X ≥ 7.25 renders a result of X ≥ 7.25.  I'm not sure what your point is.

If X≥7.25, then X≥5

The inverse is not necessarily true.
Logged

Texas Run-Off Election Endorsements:

GOP: Lt. Gov - David Dewhurst | Atty. Gen. - Dan Branch | AgComm - Tommy Merritt | RRC - Ryan Sitton

Dem: US Senate - David Alameel | AgComm - Jim Hogan
Indy Texas ©
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3719
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2014, 10:16:39 pm »
Ignore

Let's go through Logic 101.

Federal Minimum Wage sets the floor for wages. If wages are X, then X ≥ 7.25

All minimum wages subject to federal standards (i.e. state or local minimum wages) must meet that standard - it is necessary.

If New York sets its minimum wage to 10, you have

X ≥ 10

If X ≥ 10, then X must be greater than or equal to 7.25 as well. There is no contradiction.

If Oklahoma tries to set its minimum wage to 5, you have

X ≥ 5

This doesn't work because if X were, say, 6, then it would not meet the necessary condition of X being greater than or equal to 7.25
It is necessary only because Federal minimum wage law does not allow states to set a lower local standard but does allow them to set a higher standard.  But that is because of the text of the law.  The law just as easily could allow states to set any level they choose, with the Federal standard applying only if a State chooses to not legislate, or it could set the national minimum wage to only 7.25 and not allow State or local law to set a higher standard.

Indeed, while I doubt it would ever happen, the Federal law could set a minimum wage of 7.25 and then only allow states to set lower minimums.  I say "doubt" rather than "am certain" only because Taft-Hartley does precisely that concerning union representation, allowing states to bar union shops, but not allowing them to permit closed shops, so there certainly is precedent for Federal labor law setting a standard that States are then permitted to weaken.

If full home rule were allowed in either field of labor law, then States would be free to set any minimum wage they chose, be it higher or lower than minimum wage and States would be free to either bar the union shop or permit the closed shop.  In neither case does that happen.

That wouldn't be a minimum wage law. Minimum wage laws set floors on what firms can pay workers. What you're referring to would set ceilings on the floors that could be set on what firms can pay workers.
Logged

Texas Run-Off Election Endorsements:

GOP: Lt. Gov - David Dewhurst | Atty. Gen. - Dan Branch | AgComm - Tommy Merritt | RRC - Ryan Sitton

Dem: US Senate - David Alameel | AgComm - Jim Hogan
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9053
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2014, 11:50:46 pm »
Ignore

It is sad, but not at all surprising, that people are basing their opinion here not on whether they think it is a good idea for such policies to be set at the local level, but whether they can get the policies they prefer more easily if they are set on the state level or the local level.

Why is that sad? It's perfectly reasonable for someone to prefer local control because the politics are favorable while remaining ambivalent about whether it's generally better to set policy at that level of government.
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26630
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: Today at 06:41:14 am »

It is sad, but not at all surprising, that people are basing their opinion here not on whether they think it is a good idea for such policies to be set at the local level, but whether they can get the policies they prefer more easily if they are set on the state level or the local level.

Why is that sad? It's perfectly reasonable for someone to prefer local control because the politics are favorable while remaining ambivalent about whether it's generally better to set policy at that level of government.
You may have noticed my screen name, no?  I feel that it would be better to decide which level to set policy at because it is best to have local control or not have local control.
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines