Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Should there be a Federal Minimum wage?

Employees in the U.S. should not be provided a federal guarantee of minimum wage, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller said recently. The states, instead, should be left to determine the minimum rate that an employer can provide their workers, he argued.

"That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government," the Tea Party-backed GOP insurgent argued in a recentABC News interview. "That is clearly up to the states."

Miller went on to clarify that "the state of Alaska has a minimum wage which is higher than the federal level because our state leaders have made that determination. The minimum level again should be the state's decision."

In an interview with Fox News in September, Miller explained federal provisions of safety nets to the nation's unemployed as an "entitlement mentality" that breaches the Constitution.

Answer Question
 
sweet-a-kins

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 1:53 PM on Oct. 4, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
Answers (21)
  • And shortly after his primary victory, Miller said that Social Security should be phased out in order "to transfer the power back to the states so that states can take up the mantle of those programs if they so desire."


    He recently characterized his opposition to the federal minimum wage and his continued disapproval of federal unemployment benefits in much the same way:


    "What I'd recommend that you do is go to the Constitution and look at the enumerated powers because what we have is something that we call the 10th amendment that says, look if it's not there if it's not enumerated, then it's delegated to the states," Miller said. "Everything that's not there is reserved to the states and the people."

    sweet-a-kins

    Comment by sweet-a-kins (original poster) at 1:54 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • He's right. The federal government oversteps it's bounds on many issues. We have states so that individual areas can make the decisions that are best for the people in that area. Anything mandated by the federal government is dangerous... how can they expect to meet so many different people and different areas needs?
    LeanneC

    Answer by LeanneC at 1:57 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • Cali. minimum wage is higher anyway and is the prevailing.
    tasches

    Answer by tasches at 2:01 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • nope
    mekarevell

    Answer by mekarevell at 2:18 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • States should control their minimum wage.
    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 2:23 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • If they want to manage OSHA, they almost have to take on min wage (the Federal).
    urkiddingright

    Answer by urkiddingright at 2:29 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • Folks, you realize he's arguing for a wage *cut* for many working Americans? The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. That's $15,080 a year for one person. About $5,000 a year below the poverty level for a one person family. $510/yr below for 2 people. Add a baby and you're almost $3K behind the 8-ball.

    State DO control their minimum wage. They just cannot set it LOWER than $7.25/hr.

    If a state was allowed to cut below the federal wage. I think you'd be seeing a LOT more families on assistance.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 2:42 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • It should be up to the states to set a min. wage. And i seriously doubt any would be going backwards and making theirs lower than $7.25 just because the federal min. wage was done away with.
    MissAlisabeth

    Answer by MissAlisabeth at 2:48 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • It should be up to the states to set a min. wage. And i seriously doubt any would be going backwards and making theirs lower than $7.25 just because the federal min. wage was done away with.


    really?

    sweet-a-kins

    Comment by sweet-a-kins (original poster) at 2:50 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

  • Min wage decreases revenue, increases costs, and in general costs jobs. The case can be made for having one, but those who do so need to admit up front that in doing so they are endorsing people losing their jobs and being unable to afford the basic necessities of life. In other words - it creates the same problems it claims to prevent, it just shuffles around the money a little bit. Instead of 2 people making a low wage, 1 is unemployed and 1 makes a slightly higher but still unlivable wage, or the 2 are employed at a slightly higher wage, but their hours are cut so they take home less than they did before. Meanwhile, prices go up for everyone. For every tax and government mandate, a proportion from 1/3 to 2/3 of the cost is ALWAYS passed on to the consumer based on scarcity of the product or service. That includes min wage, and it's in the basic econ book we should require all politicians to read.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 3:47 PM on Oct. 4, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN