Oklahoma Strips Cities of the Right to Pass Higher Wages, Sick Leave

[Indy Texas]

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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Indy Texas]

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.

[Indy Texas]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure. But why can't you believe that it's best to have local control or not based on the politics of the relevant locality?

Because then you are treating local/central control as a tactic to obtain a desired policy rather than an issue to be decided based on whether local or central control of an issue leads to a more coherent policy.  It means you think it's irrelevant whether an issue is decided locally or not and I strongly disagree.

I feel that decisions should be made as locally as possible unless having a decision made locally would unduly impact other locales and that this should trump all consideration of whether central or local control would result in an overall policy choice that is more pleasing to me.  Local control generally gives people empowerment and it leads to increased ownership of issue decisions, which is why ideally all issues would be decided locally.  Yet, we don't live in an ideal world.  Decisions made in one town can affect other towns.  Decisions made in one state can affect other states.  Decisions made in one nation can affect other nations.  If local control leads to the least common denominator effect, then control of an issue needs to be more centrally decided.

On this particular issue, local control is not optimum policy.  While for retail businesses, the effects of location will largely trump the decisions made on these issues, we can't have a economy based solely on retail.  Having full local control means manufacturing jobs will be subject to the least common denominator effect, especially for the unskilled or semi-skilled jobs most impacted by them.  This is even true for as is the case currently in the US where local decisions can only increase the local minimum wage or local sick leave requirements.  It would be nice to think we could all live in Lake Wobegon, where we are superlative, but we can't.  While some of us can live in Lake Wobegon if we encourage the below average riff-raff to go elsewhere, I don't think that's desirable.  A high minimum wage tells employers who can easily locate their business anywhere to go elsewhere if they would otherwise pay less than that minimum.  So basically, a high local minimum wage is a tool of gentrification and/or continual unemployment/underemployment of low skilled workers.

If I had my druthers, I'd have one universal minimum wage for the continental U.S., and allow Alaska, Hawaii, and the island territories whose local economies are less integrated into the main U.S. economy (and because of geography, never can be fully integrated the way the lower 48 + D.C. are) to set their own minimum wages.  An additional beneficial side effect of such a policy on the minimum wage and similar labor policies is that it would encourage the labor movement to get off its duff and start giving more than lip service to labor issues in the South and non-coastal West.  The weakness of the labor movement in the South is to a large extent because in the past the Northern labor movement gave up on the South, as is perhaps best exemplified by the Textile Strike of 1934.  Northern workers abandoned Southern workers then in what seemed at the time to be a good decision, but it certainly has come to bite the national labor movement in the ass in its long term effects.

[IceSpear]

As I said, Republicans happily support big government as long as it is used to hurt the poor.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

OK, but then companies just pay the federal minimum wage.  I'm still not understanding your point here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Inks, he was trying to contest my point that I doubted that those supporting higher local minimum wages would still support that if local governments could also set one that was lower than the state or national minimum wage by engaging in a irrelevant semantic argument over what is meant by a "minimum wage" that asserted that a national or state minimum wage could only be trumped by a higher local minimum wage and never ever by a lower local minimum.  I freely admitted that is the way such laws do work in the U.S., but pointed out that meant that local governments did not have full local control over minimum wages.  Under full local control then if a local government set the minimum wage within its boundaries to $5, then that would be the minimum wage there regardless of what any state or Federal law said.  Indy Texas then doubled down on his irrelevant argument that had nothing to do with my point by resorting to Illogic 101 and bringing out the mathematical symbols.

[Indy Texas]

Inks, he was trying to contest my point that I doubted that those supporting higher local minimum wages would still support that if local governments could also set one that was lower than the state or national minimum wage by engaging in a irrelevant semantic argument over what is meant by a "minimum wage" that asserted that a national or state minimum wage could only be trumped by a higher local minimum wage and never ever by a lower local minimum.  I freely admitted that is the way such laws do work in the U.S., but pointed out that meant that local governments did not have full local control over minimum wages.  Under full local control then if a local government set the minimum wage within its boundaries to $5, then that would be the minimum wage there regardless of what any state or Federal law said.  Indy Texas then doubled down on his irrelevant argument that had nothing to do with my point by resorting to Illogic 101 and bringing out the mathematical symbols.

Yes, because that is what a minimum is. It means nothing less than a given amount. Are we seriously having to belabor this point?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Inks, he was trying to contest my point that I doubted that those supporting higher local minimum wages would still support that if local governments could also set one that was lower than the state or national minimum wage by engaging in a irrelevant semantic argument over what is meant by a "minimum wage" that asserted that a national or state minimum wage could only be trumped by a higher local minimum wage and never ever by a lower local minimum.  I freely admitted that is the way such laws do work in the U.S., but pointed out that meant that local governments did not have full local control over minimum wages.  Under full local control then if a local government set the minimum wage within its boundaries to $5, then that would be the minimum wage there regardless of what any state or Federal law said.  Indy Texas then doubled down on his irrelevant argument that had nothing to do with my point by resorting to Illogic 101 and bringing out the mathematical symbols.

Yes, because that is what a minimum is. It means nothing less than a given amount. Are we seriously having to belabor this point?

Yes, because you have consistently failed to understand the idea of full local control. It means that a local government can set the minimum wage within its boundaries to whatever it pleases.  Granted, that is not how things currently work with minimum wage law in the U.S., but that's because currently the law doesn't allow lower local minimums, but there is no logical reason it could not allow that.  Indeed, there are quite a few laws in which the Federal government gives States and/or State governments give local governments full authority to supersede laws of general applicability within their particular jurisdiction.

I fail to see why you have been thinking that the way things are currently done with minimum wage is the only possible way it could ever be done.