President George H. W. Bush was known both for “read my lips, no new taxes” and his call for a “kinder, gentler nation” in his 1988 acceptance speech. The former lead to his defeat to Clinton, and the latter was when he prevailed. We need to remember this lesson and let it guide us going forward.
An element in the party is fiscally conservative over all else, and anyone who deviates is a RINO. While fiscally conservative positions are important for the overall health of the party we also need to remember that the social wing of the big tent, myself included, are willing to embrace some fiscally moderate ideas to promote social values. Not only are we willing to embrace some moderate fiscal policies, but believe it is a necessary endeavor to maintain consistency with our social conservative values.
I’ve lost track of the number of times this has landed me a RINO, “not a true conservative”, or the like. The hard line stance causes fractures in the party. It also makes it easy for the media to portray us as uncaring and willing to sacrifice the individual for the sake of big business.
Minimum wage is one argument that we make especially easy to paint the GOP as uncaring. The traditional argument is let the free market prevail, minimum wage laws are unnecessary, etc. This is fundamentally inhumane, despite any argumentation to the contrary. An unchecked economic structure leads us back to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle type of working environment.
When we argue traditional business theory we lose because we are correct. The free market will adapt, and in doing so it will show that the business driven arguments against $15.00 an hour don’t stand up to the resilient free market reality. However, this doesn’t mean we should support the democrats push for a $15.00 minimum wage.
It’s tempting to argue that minimum wage increases don’t help the working class as a whole. The data backs up this argument. If you look at the minimum wage increases after the 1980s we don’t see any evidence that the working class has seen any significant improvement from the increase. The poverty line growth becomes negative year over year in the immediate aftermath of minimum wage increases. The poverty line itself increases, but the rate of growth is down.
The median hourly wage growth shows the same results. The growth year over year has become negative year over year every year after minimum wage hikes are completed. Just like with the poverty line there is growth, but it is at a slower rate. These two metrics are indications that the minimum wage growth doesn’t help the overall worker.
However making this softer business-centric argument isn’t likely to cut through the overwhelming media support, and it won’t win over the moderates we need to expand the party. We need to make arguments that reframe the debate rather than repeat the uncaring, inhumane business centered arguments. Arguing from a human first position, and making a counteroffer to $15.00 not only reframes the debate making $15.00 less likely to be accepted, but also exposes the sheer magnitude of how radical and uncompromising the democrats have become.
Arguing work should not lead to poverty and making a counter proposal to $15.00 an hour is an understandable human-centric argument. The poverty line in 2021 for a family of 2 is $17,240 and for a family of three is $21,720. Dividing these values by the 2,080 hours in a full time work year gives an hourly wage value of $8.29 and $10.56 respectively.
A smart counteroffer is to say either of those values is a reasonable minimum wage to prevent poverty. Then to make sure that the issue does not arise again tie minimum wage to the poverty line at the same formula. That way each year the minimum wage increases enough to prevent poverty, and the issue is off the table in the future.
Reframing the minimum wage argument into a poverty prevention measure rather than a “living wage” argument is likely to be well received by the moderate portion of the political spectrum. This not only drives a wedge into the democrat voting block, but it also is an offer they cannot accept as it takes the issue off the table for the future.
The progressive left will not accept the deal, and the moderate democrats cannot accept the deal as it removes the arrow from their quiver. If the Republicans in the Senate were smart they would push this as an amendment to whatever Biden proposes in his stimulus package. This forces the few moderate democrats to go on the record where they stand on a more modest increase to minimum wage and tying the future to the poverty line.
What happens if it passes? We see a minimum wage increase in line with the 2007-2009 increase on a percentage basis (for the $10.56 amount.) The minimum wage, at least after the 1980s has increased at least once a decade so the increase would be in line with recent history since the wage last increased in 2009.
Arguing from a human-centric poverty elimination position that is in line with historical wage increases is a prudent move on the part of Republicans. It appeals to moderate swing voters we need to pull into our big tent. It also makes us look reasonable and the democrats look radical while creating a wedge issue in the democrat party. The kinder, gentler approach is one we need to take.
Bert says
nailed it.
BERT
Howie Katz says
As always, Greg, you are right on track, but the GOP will never get off the anti-minimum wage train. That and right-to-life are bedrock positions that have cost the party dearly in elections.
Fat Albert says
Gosh Howie I’m really sorry that those pesky right-to-lifers are costing the party. On the other hand, you might want to ask how many people are loyal to a party that has abandoned much of its commitment to conservatism simply because it continues to stand for the Right to Life.
How much has the commitment to fighting anti-semitism and supporting Israel cost the party? Would you have the GOP abandon that position?
Howie Katz says
Fat, you can’t escape the fact that the right-to-life stance has driven countless women to the Democrats who might otherwise have voted for the Republicans.
As for the commitment to fighting anti-Semitism and supporting Israel, I regret to say that it has not persuaded America’s liberal Jews to abandon the now anti-Semitic Democratic party.
Greg Degeyter says
Howie, you have to offset that by how many voters would no longer vote Republican if they didn’t support life policies.
We thrive when we are a big tent party. Attacking one block of the party leads to our demise.
Fat Albert says
What good is a Republican party that stands for nothing? We gave up a balanced budget a long time ago. There’s no real interest in controlling immigration.
I may just be one person, but if the Republicans give up the Sanctity of Life, then there really isn’t much else for them to attract me.
Seriously, is there anything that you are actually willing to take a stand for? Do you have any core values that you place above attracting voters?
I support the fight against anti-Semitism because it’s the right thing to do. The same thing for Right-to-life. There are core values that we fight for because they are worth fighting for, not because they are popular or attract voters.
Bill Daniels says
Arbitrary minimum wage laws are worse than useless, they are detrimental, for a whole host of reasons. Do you want to raise wages for the unskilled on the bottom rung of the employment ladder? Here’s a thought…..stop importing poor, unskilled legal immigrants and illegal aliens, who flood the market with cheap labor! Of course, our new president is choosing…..to flood America with unskilled labor at a time when many Americans, particularly low skilled Americans, are jobless. Close all the bars and restaurants down, close down other businesses that hire and train the unskilled, and then flood the country with MORE unskilled labor, much of it non English speaking, and, well, I’m sure that’s going to work out well, somehow.
The problem is one of trying to teach people who do not understand basic economics, basic economics. The fast food workers who march to “fight for $ 15,” also march to fight for unfettered illegal immigration, and for those illegals already here to be legalized. They are literally marching to increase the competition for their jobs, leading to downward pressure on wages. Why should the guy who owns a Jack in the Box franchise pay more than minimum wage for a new hire he has to take the time to train, when there are people stacked 100 deep waiting to apply for the same job?
And, if an artificial minimum wage jump is enacted, why shouldn’t that same guy replace the counter workers with self serve ordering kiosks, vs. paying more money to employees?
None of this matters, though, if people aren’t taught basic economics, or worse, don’t understand it even when shown.
Fat Albert says
I find the idea of a national minimum wage somewhat perplexing. First, what makes you think that a minimum wage in Jackson Mississippi should be the same as a minimum wage in San Francisco California? Fifteen dollars is the median wage for the whole State of Mississippi. Do you think that a better idea might be for States and local governments to decide what’s best for their citizens?
Second (and more important), Greg, I realize that Constitutional Law is not your forte, but as someone with a legal background, please point out to me the section of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal Government to mandate a minimum wage.
Greg Degeyter says
Howdy Albert, it’s not really in question can a minimum wage law be enacted. The issue of even purely intrastate commerce was settled in Wickard v Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942). There, SCOTUS stated:
[E]ven if appellee’s activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as “direct” or “indirect.”
and
It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices.
The footnote giving the case line for the decisions reads:
Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495; Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1; Coronado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 268 U. S. 295; United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U. S. 392; Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, 280 U. S. 420; Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. United States, 283 U. S. 163; Currin v. Wallace, 306 U. S. 1; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38; United States v. Rock Royal Cooperative, supra; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381; United States v. Darby, supra; United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., supra; Federal Power Commission v. Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575.
Minimum wage laws at a minimum are “practices affecting such prices” and subject to regulation. To answer your question, this has been held to be under the necessary and proper clause moreso than the commerce clause. But either works. Even with a 6-3 SCOTUS I doubt you get more than 3 votes to uphold a challenge on minimum wage laws.
This Wickard Aggregation Principle, as it is known, is a troubling concept in that it leaves Congressional authority unchecked. This was what the Obama administration initially tried to argue supported Congressional authority to pass the individual mandate in Oabamacare. Chief Justice Roberts joined the other conservatives on the Court and said that Wickard was not unlimited in scope and does not support compelling *consumer* activity. That’s why Obamacare was upheld on taxation grounds rather than commerce grounds.
However, minimum wage is not a consumer activity. As far as I know no case decision has ever limited Wickard outside of the Obamacare attempt to compel consumer activity.
Ed Hubbard says
Greg,
I like your approach. I think it could work with a few tweaks, that could still be argued from a “human” perspective.
First, I think it would be better to link the minimum wage rate to the poverty rate in each state. Given the higher cost of living in NY and CA, and other states, a higher wage rate might be needed, while a lower rate could work in more rural states and still keep workers out of poverty.
Second, I think we have punished young people, primarily in urban neighborhoods, by placing the minimum wage so high that it discourages employers from hiring and training them. I think a lower minimum wage would be appropriate for 16-21 year olds, especially if they are still in school–it would encourage their employment, and could help families out of poverty by allowing these kids to contribute to the family income.
Third, both of these measures would be better for the long-term health of small businesses and the people who take the risk of owning and operating them.
Keep thinking, Greg. We need to be open to new ways of thinking about policies.