Consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage.

[Supposn]

There's no constitutional authority for a federal minimum wage. If you think there is, guide me to it in the text of the Constitution.

Robo, regarding the 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case of United States Vs Darby, this was excerpted from the site of:
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/c...tes-v-darby-2/

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////

Brief Fact Summary. Darby was charged with violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (the Act) by failing to comply with minimum wage and hour requirements for employees. He challenged the violation, claiming the regulation on intrastate wages and hours did not fall within the commerce powers of Congress.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. If the regulated intrastate activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may regulate the activity regardless of Congress’s motive.

Facts. Darby, a lumber manufacturer challenged the constitutionality of the Act. Darby paid employees below the prescribed minimum wage and forced employees to work beyond the prescribed maximum weekly hours. The District Court found the Act was beyond the powers of Congress because it attempted to regulate hours and wages of employees in local manufacturing activities. The finding was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court).

Issue. Do the wages and hours of local employees have such a substantial impact on interstate commerce as to allow Congress to constitutionally regulate them?

[evince]

they don't do facts


You watch he will continue to just fucking lie about it

[Robo]

Robo, regarding the 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case of United States Vs Darby, this was excerpted from the site of:
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/c...tes-v-darby-2/

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////

Brief Fact Summary. Darby was charged with violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (the Act) by failing to comply with minimum wage and hour requirements for employees. He challenged the violation, claiming the regulation on intrastate wages and hours did not fall within the commerce powers of Congress.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. If the regulated intrastate activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may regulate the activity regardless of Congress’s motive.

Facts. Darby, a lumber manufacturer challenged the constitutionality of the Act. Darby paid employees below the prescribed minimum wage and forced employees to work beyond the prescribed maximum weekly hours. The District Court found the Act was beyond the powers of Congress because it attempted to regulate hours and wages of employees in local manufacturing activities. The finding was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court).

Issue. Do the wages and hours of local employees have such a substantial impact on interstate commerce as to allow Congress to constitutionally regulate them?

Two things.

First, the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States, has nothing to do with a “federal” minimum wage. The power of Congress to regulate commerce is only to regulate taxes, duties, impost and excises between the several States so that no State could take unfair economic advantage of any other State respecting the availability and production of goods and services. To stretch the Commerce Clause to incorporate a minimum wage is absurd.

Secondly, the Supreme Court is a collective body of politically partisan ideologues, appointed by a politically partisan ideologue President and confirmed by a Senate staffed by partisan political ideologues. Loyalty to the actual honest and rational text of the Constitution is at best a hit and miss proposition. As with the Congress and the Presidency, the holders thereof in nearly every case are much more loyal to their political ideology than their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court doesn’t decide “constitutionality,” it only decides which linguistic gymnastics of congressional legislation they shall “legalize,” and which actions taken by Presidents they shall allow him to get away with.

The power of the “minimum wage” is guaranteed by the Constitution as a power of the Several States respectively. (See Amendment 10)

[Robo]

If the Commerce Clause actually does give the federal government, i.e. Congress the power to create and enforce a minimum wage, then all logic and honesty would have it that the Commerce Clause also gives the Congress the power to create and enforce a “maximum” wage and price controls on every product and service supplied by American industry. That of course would be defined as “socialism.”

[Supposn]

If the Commerce Clause actually does give the federal government, i.e. Congress the power to create and enforce a minimum wage, then all logic and honesty would have it that the Commerce Clause also gives the Congress the power to create and enforce a “maximum” wage and price controls on every product and service supplied by American industry. That of course would be defined as “socialism.”

Robo, your post is absolutely correct.

I would suppose that the U.S. Congress enacted and retains our federal minimum wage laws because they are of net benefit to our economy; I further suppose they have not attempted to pass and enact a maximum wage law because it would be detrimental to our economy. Do you perceive any net advantage due to a federal maximum wage law?

Not every act that passes or every proposal that fails to be passed is due to our U.S. Congresses’ faulty logic; they quite often get some things right.

Respectfully, Supposn

[iewitness]

in the good old days apprenticeships were a part of the pedagogical system of education. it is now the governmental indoctrination system of education. ; producing a crop of helpless, hopeless, "prey creature" DDD assholes.

[Supposn]

Two things.

First, the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States, has nothing to do with a “federal” minimum wage. The power of Congress to regulate commerce is only to regulate taxes, duties, impost and excises between the several States so that no State could take unfair economic advantage of any other State respecting the availability and production of goods and services. To stretch the Commerce Clause to incorporate a minimum wage is absurd.

Secondly, the Supreme Court is a collective body of politically partisan ideologues, appointed by a politically partisan ideologue President and confirmed by a Senate staffed by partisan political ideologues. Loyalty to the actual honest and rational text of the Constitution is at best a hit and miss proposition. As with the Congress and the Presidency, the holders thereof in nearly every case are much more loyal to their political ideology than their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court doesn’t decide “constitutionality,” it only decides which linguistic gymnastics of congressional legislation they shall “legalize,” and which actions taken by Presidents they shall allow him to get away with.

The power of the “minimum wage” is guaranteed by the Constitution as a power of the Several States respectively. (See Amendment 10)

Robo, first, (regardless of your opinion), the U.S. Congresses’ that passed federal minimum wage laws, the presidents that signed off on them and the Supreme Courts that upheld them were all of the opinion that the federal minimum wage rates were and are compatible with the U.S. Constitution.
Within the U.S. Supreme court’s 1941 decision applied to the case of U.S. V. Darby, I particularly refer to this clause within the written U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Excerpted from http://www.lawnix.com/cases/us-darby.html :
“In prohibiting interstate shipment of goods produced under the forbidden substandard labor conditions, the Act is within the authority of Congress, if no Constitutional provision forbids. Congress may exercise power over intrastate activities as a means to exercising its legitimate power to regulate interstate commerce. The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the national government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end”

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Second: Are you proposing the basic system of governing the United States of America should be completely reformed? You should initiate a thread dedicated to the completely reformed method of national governing that you advocate. Many of us would wish to read it.

Respectfully, Supposn

[evince]

in the good old days apprenticeships were a part of the pedagogical system of education. it is now the governmental indoctrination system of education. ; producing a crop of helpless, hopeless, "prey creature" DDD assholes.

what a rats dick gobbler you are.



You hate so many Americans huh asshole.


move the fuck out of this country you fucking traitor to the nation

[Robo]

Robo, your post is absolutely correct.

I would suppose that the U.S. Congress enacted and retains our federal minimum wage laws because they are of net benefit to our economy;

Since the minimum wage causes teenage unemployment, i.e. fewer “entry level” jobs, and promotes automated means to take the place of human employees and in my opinion the minimum wage enforced at the federal level is unconstitutional, I totally fail to find anything “beneficial” about a minimum wage.

I further suppose they have not attempted to pass and enact a maximum wage law because it would be detrimental to our economy. Do you perceive any net advantage due to a federal maximum wage law?

I perceive no advantage to a maximum or minimum wage and I see them both unconstitutional and detrimental to economic conditions.

Ask yourself this question, Do you honestly believe that our founders thought it necessary and proper that our federal government even have a power to dictate a “maximum” wage? You’ve already agreed that by your interpretation of the Commerce clause they have such power. I say the notion is preposterous!

Not every act that passes or every proposal that fails to be passed is due to our U.S. Congresses’ faulty logic; they quite often get some things right.

Respectfully, Supposn

If a minimum wage enforced at the federal level is “right” then it should have no problem passing the test of a constitutional amendment as is mandatory under the constitutional rule of law whenever a Congress seeks to make law that has no authority under the Constitution.

[Supposn]

Since the minimum wage causes teenage unemployment, i.e. fewer “entry level” jobs, and promotes automated means to take the place of human employees and in my opinion the minimum wage enforced at the federal level is unconstitutional, I totally fail to find anything “beneficial” about a minimum wage.

I perceive no advantage to a maximum or minimum wage and I see them both unconstitutional and detrimental to economic conditions.

Ask yourself this question, Do you honestly believe that our founders thought it necessary and proper that our federal government even have a power to dictate a “maximum” wage? You’ve already agreed that by your interpretation of the Commerce clause they have such power. I say the notion is preposterous!

If a minimum wage enforced at the federal level is “right” then it should have no problem passing the test of a constitutional amendment as is mandatory under the constitutional rule of law whenever a Congress seeks to make law that has no authority under the Constitution.

Robo, with regard to the canard accusing the federal minimum wage rate causing any significant reduction of USA job numbers, and to further explain the rate’s net contribution to our economy, I’ve initiated the thread
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...ot-reduce-jobs .

I agree that the concept of a legally enforced limit upon wages, (i.e. enacting a “maximum wage”) would be preposterous; but you’re the only participant of this thread that that entertains such a notion.

I understand why you believe our FMW laws are unconstitutional; now you can try to convince the U.S. Supreme court that they should reject all of the court’s previous opinions regarding this topic or convince a super majority of our U.S. states or are U.S. Congress to amend our constitution.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Robo]

Robo, with regard to the canard accusing the federal minimum wage rate causing any significant reduction of USA job numbers, and to further explain the rate’s net contribution to our economy, I’ve initiated the thread
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...ot-reduce-jobs .

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting job losses as a result of a proposed federal minimum wage increase. The raise to the hourly wage has been a cornerstone of President Obama's recent policy speeches. According to predictions by the non-partisan CBO, approximately 500,000 jobs would be lost by late 2016 due to such a law's implementation.
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/18/279216...imum-wage-hike

Job Destruction: The left loves to talk about "following the science," except of course when the science refutes its policies and preconceptions. Such is the case with the minimum-wage debate.
1. We have yet another study — this one published by the renowned National Bureau of Economic Research — that demonstrates that mandating a minimum wage destroys jobs for the young and least skilled.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz3s9yGarh9
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...-lose-jobs.htm

Minimum wage effect? January to June job losses for Seattle area restaurants (-1,300) largest since Great Recession
http://www.aei.org/publication/minim...eat-recession/

I agree that the concept of a legally enforced limit upon wages, (i.e. enacting a “maximum wage”) would be preposterous; but you’re the only participant of this thread that that entertains such a notion.

Except it’s been entertained before. To believe that government cannot and will not ever establish a maximum wage, is the epitome of naivete. Communist nations set both the minimum and maximum wage. Citizens of the old Soviet Union had a saying, “They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work.” Socialist ideology promotes a “standard wage” for everybody, i.e. a “maximum” wage.



Remembering Nixon’s Wage and Price Controls


On Aug. 15, 1971, in a nationally televised address, Nixon announced, “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.”

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...price-controls

I understand why you believe our FMW laws are unconstitutional; now you can try to convince the U.S. Supreme court that they should reject all of the court’s previous opinions regarding this topic or convince a super majority of our U.S. states or are U.S. Congress to amend our constitution.

Respectfully, Supposn

As I have submitted earlier, the Courts are staffed with partisan ideologue judges. They don’t write decisions necessarily on constitutional justice, but rather on partisan ideological biases

I simply report constitutional correctness and advocate for a Constitutional Convention.

I unilaterally cannot bring about a Constitutional Convention to correct the corrupted unconstitutional activities of government for over 200 years. But unless the masses get smart and join the promotion for a Constitutional Convention and reestablish proper constitutional decorum, the other option will be realized at the point of national bankruptcy and the next revolution. Then all Americans left alive will find out if the next government experiment recognizes a government mandated minimum and or maximum wage.

I suspect that Greece is a pretty good prototype of the consequences of the world’s socialist systems.

[Supposn]

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting job losses as a result of a proposed federal minimum wage increase. The raise to the hourly wage has been a cornerstone of President Obama's recent policy speeches. According to predictions by the non-partisan CBO, approximately 500,000 jobs would be lost by late 2016 due to such a law's implementation.
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/18/279216...imum-wage-hike

Job Destruction: The left loves to talk about "following the science," except of course when the science refutes its policies and preconceptions. Such is the case with the minimum-wage debate.
1. We have yet another study — this one published by the renowned National Bureau of Economic Research — that demonstrates that mandating a minimum wage destroys jobs for the young and least skilled.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz3s9yGarh9
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...-lose-jobs.htm

Minimum wage effect? January to June job losses for Seattle area restaurants (-1,300) largest since Great Recession
http://www.aei.org/publication/minim...eat-recession/ ...

Robo, every increase of our FMW rate has been of net economic affect upon our economy.

Robo, this is a transcription of the 12:09 PM post within thread
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...ot-reduce-jobs .

Originally Posted by cawacko :
The CBO study said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost 500,000 jobs. Are they lying or wrong?

Cawacko:

Excerpted from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995:

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Cawacko, I interpret this Congressional Budget Office’s study to generally agreeing that increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power would be to our net economic advantage.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Robo]

Robo, every increase of our FMW rate has been of net economic affect upon our economy.

Robo, this is a transcription of the 12:09 PM post within thread
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...ot-reduce-jobs .

Originally Posted by cawacko :
The CBO study said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost 500,000 jobs. Are they lying or wrong?

Cawacko:

Excerpted from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995:

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Cawacko, I interpret this Congressional Budget Office’s study to generally agreeing that increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power would be to our net economic advantage.

Respectfully, Supposn

Wendy's To Switch To Self Ordering And Automation To Avoid $15 ...
http://govtslaves.info/wendys-to-swi...5hr-wage-hike/
(Jonathan Maze) Wages are rising in the restaurant industry. There are two reasons for this. Minimum wages are increasing in many states. And it's tougher for ...

Wendy's Explains What Really Happens With A Minimum Wage ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...se-job-losses/
Aug 11, 2015 ... Wendy's Explains What Really Happens With A Minimum Wage Rise: Job ... So, their first change is going to be looking at greater automation.

Wendy's Explains What Happens When Fry Cooks Make $15/Hour ...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...ks-make-15hour
Aug 11, 2015 ... Wendy's Explains What Happens When Fry Cooks Make $15/Hour ... whether that's customer self-order kiosks, whether that's automating more ...

An increase in the federal minimum wage killed jobs during the Great Recession, according to a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ne...rticle/2557106

[The Dude]

I have yet to meet a rich person freaked out about min wage
Plenty of middle class losers hate it

[evince]

because fox tells them to


You know that foreign owned news stations the traitors here dry hump all day long