The controversy over whether the severely disabled can be paid less than Arizona's new minimum wage contains several public policy lessons.First, government cannot suspend the laws of supply and demand, even in labor markets. At the margins, others will be losing jobs or losing hours of work, principally teenagers and part-time workers, although with considerably less notice and fanfare.Second, the Voter Protection Act is an excessively restrictive straitjacket. While some on the left don't want an exclusion for the severely disabled under Arizona's minimum wage law, as exists in federal law, most would probably think it reasonable. In 1998, however, voters approved an initiative saying that the Legislature cannot change what the voters approve, except by a three-fourths vote and only to further the purpose of what the voters approved. The latter is impossible to divine, so the Legislature is effectively precluded from doing what most would find reasonable in this case.Third, enforcing laws should be left to the government. The Industrial Commission has urged providers to continue to employ the severely disabled, saying that it won't take enforcement action against them at this time.That, however, hardly gets providers off the hook. The initiative allows private civil suits to enforce the law, with treble damages. So, the assurances of the Industrial Commission are basically meaningless.
It is interesting to me in a lot of ways how the Right is suddenly concerned with the less fortunate (but only the portion that helps their pet cause, see developmentally disabled, but not working poor). The question I have is do we really want to see the legislature with the power to make these sorts of changes to initiatives? I don't think so... The initiative process is a mixed bag for sure, but it serves both sides well. In my book if anything at various times annoys the Right and the Left it might not be so bad.
Also, where is the comprehensive study that shows that "governments cannot suspend the laws of supply and demand, even in labor markets"? I am not saying that supply and demand can be suspended, but the government tries to ameliorate the affects of the market all of the time(see mortgage deduction or almost any tax deduction or student loans) Where is the study that supports the assertion of large job losses among (gasp) teenagers? Show me the study where having a poverty wage as the minimum causes major societal problems. I guess I just don't get it and have not seen any data to back up their cause...
It is interesting that coupled with the complaints above about the leg. not being able to change voter passed initiatives, there is bill circulating to effectively take the initiative power out of the hands of the people. It is interesting to me how the Right can be so short-sighted (maybe the left too occasionally). If the Rs succeed in their efforts they will eventually have to live with a Democratically controlled legislature with the same power (with the six new seats in the house, we are only 3 seats away?). It seems like the same issue in the Bush administration with executive power. How will Republicans feel if Hillary Clinton has the executive authority that Bush exercises? I don't think it is healthy for either of them to have it...
No comments:
Post a Comment