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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's an infrigement of cities' rights!

Cities don't have inherent rights; they are (at least in Oklahoma and Michigan) creatures of the state.

Oh lord, what a joke. I wonder how long it will take before somebody reverses the damage that this has done.

Has it done any damage?  Was any city proposing to pass a higher wage or sick leave law?  If not, no damage was actually done.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's an infrigement of cities' rights!

Cities don't have inherent rights; they are (at least in Oklahoma and Michigan) creatures of the state.

As Oklahoma Territory was a creature of the US government.

I don't understand your point.

Oh lord, what a joke. I wonder how long it will take before somebody reverses the damage that this has done.

Has it done any damage?  Was any city proposing to pass a higher wage or sick leave law?  If not, no damage was actually done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ThinkProgress: Governor Bans Minimum Wage Increases And Paid Sick Leave Laws

A petition to do something and actually getting close to accomplishing it are two different things.  I'm not up-to-date on the Oklahoma labor situation, but did this petition actually have a decent chance of bringing about any change?

[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.

[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.