Democrats push Obama to “unilaterally” raise minimum wage

posted at 1:01 pm on December 5, 2013 by Kevin Glass

President Obama’s big “economic speech” yesterday might come to nothing more than a brief distraction from Obamacare, but progressives in the House want to see real action. And, in light of the fact that a large minimum wage hike is likely going nowhere as long as Republicans exist in the House, they’re pushing President Executive Power to do what he’s done many times before: bypass those pesky people in the legislative chamber.

The chairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, wrote a letter that urges the president to circumvent Congress and sign an executive order to raise the minimum wage for workers employed through federal government contracts with private companies. This letter comes months after 49 members of the CPC requested the same thing from the president, only to hear radio silence about it from the White House.

National Journal goes on to cite a progressive report that this kind of executive action would affect two million federal-contract workers, and points to a McDonald’s at the national Air and Space Museum that would be affected.

To be fair, this odd workaround would not affect all workers. But it would affect a lot of them – and even though the economy might be in better health than we think, we’re far from full employment. Despite Paul Krugman’s claims to the contrary, minimum wage hikes will leave some workers without jobs, and may discourage employers from new hiring that they’d normally be capable of doing under expansionary times. Federal contractors are not different from private sector companies in how they’d respond to a minimum wage hike.

While President Obama’s resurrection of a minimum wage hike might be merely a distraction, the House progressives’ push to bypass their own legislative chamber would fit in perfectly with POTUS’ love of executive orders. It’s another issue that the President would find himself blocked on in Congress and another issue that he’d probably be happy to circumvent with his expansionary view of his own power.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Big squirrels over there.

Goebbels orgasmed all over DC, again.

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM

TRANSLATION:

“You’re KING, make it be so”

ToddPA on December 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM

smells like Liberal flop sweat…

workingclass artist on December 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM

How is this different from the guy in Venezuela setting prices for electronic goods and household appliances? This would throw a wrench into the free market system.

Paul-Cincy on December 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM

anybody know what the game is when this guy over reaches? I’d say he’s already there.

DanMan on December 5, 2013 at 1:06 PM

It’s the X-mas season and a charlatanic thug is chief in the USA.

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Progressive-fascists advocating and encouraging even more tyranny? What a, er, surprise.

For a group that likes to proclaim themselves the ‘smartest in the room’, the one’s who ‘care’, the one’s who focus on ‘helping’, their playbook is vapid, feckless, and surprisingly limited.

Athos on December 5, 2013 at 1:08 PM

executive powers under dems…YES
executive powers under gop….OUTRAGE

cmsinaz on December 5, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I would like to see him do it.

And I would really like to see democrats cheer it on.

Who is Kevin Glass? and when did he show up?

cozmo on December 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Can you imagine the consternation right now at all of the companies that hold federal contracts?

They won their contracts based upon submitting the low bid, and now the government wants to change the rules affecting the most expensive line item on the contractor’s income statement?

It’s so very obvious that if Barack Obama had to support his family by actually working that Michelle Obama would be a very thin woman indeed.

turfmann on December 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Crap….

He could just say that the minimum wage should be $1,000,000 per year and everyone would be an instant millionaire.

Then the people at the the Bureau of Engraving and Printing could work overtime making up those new $1,000,000,000 notes that would be needed to pay for a Big Mac

txdoc on December 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

There are 3.6 million people who are minimum wage workers… If on average each one of them works 1,500 hours a year then an increase of minimum wage hour from $ 7.25 to $ 10.10 means that employers have to spend $ 15.39 billion extra a year on wages… This means many employees will be fired and very few will be hired… Businesses are not going to lose $ 15.39 billions from their profits… These businesses make their profit in large part because they pay minimum wages…

mnjg on December 5, 2013 at 1:11 PM

The child of Lenin/Mussolini looks/acts sick.

RCP has the videos from yesterday. Just take a look. The dude is ill.

The media will report this last.

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM

and every right to work state CEO should fire every Obama voter as a result explaining “elections have consequences” and replace them with someone who understands and agrees to the working conditions they signed up for..

hillsoftx on December 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM

This seems like a rather stupid ploy, to me. They need a distraction from ObamaCare. Hammering Republicans in Congress for the next 6 months seems like a better option, in terms of distraction. Is the thinking that an immediate bribe to young people will turn their fortunes around?

NotCoach on December 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM

So basically they are just saying we need to get rid of Article I of the Constitution and let Dear Liar rule by fiat.

rbj on December 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM

It is probably within his power to issue such an order for contracts within the executive branch. However, federal contractors don’t have a lot of minimum wages jobs and those that do like the MaCDacs at the Air and Space museum would probably close up shop when their contractual obligation runs out.

jerryofva on December 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM

What they said:

Democrats push Obama to “unilaterally” raise minimum wage

What it really means:

Democrats push Obama to “unilaterally” fire 15% of minimum wage workers

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM

People blame Bush and his eeeeeeeevil tax cuts (cuts for everyone, btw, not just the rich as the left would like people to believe) for the crash of the economy in 2008. What they forget is that after those eeeeeevil tax cuts the economy quickly (less then a year) improved and unemployment went down rather quickly (less then year as well). Unemployment stayed down until two things. One, the housing crisiss. Two, the dems taking over congress. And when did it really skyrocket? After the raise in the miminum wage took effect.

Oh, but they loooooove to blame Bush.

Remember, Bush is an idiot that manage to reocver the economy after a massive terror strike in the center of our economy and the .com bubble burst with his eeeeeeeeevil tax cuts in less then a year. Meanwhile, super genius Obaba had over 3 years of prep (unlike Bush) and his Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) has so far bombed.

DethMetalCookieMonst on December 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM

And, of course, none of the *other* workers would demand a raise when this happens. Because the minimum wage is totally divorced from everything else in business. Totally. Sheesh.

GWB on December 5, 2013 at 1:16 PM

It’s so very obvious that if Barack Obama had to support his family by actually working that Michelle Obama would be a very thin woman indeed.

turfmann on December 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

If that were the case, Obama wouldn’t be Michelle’s last name.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:16 PM

What they said:

Democrats push Obama to “unilaterally” raise minimum wage

What it really means:

Democrats push Obama to “unilaterally” fire 15% of minimum wage workers

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM

I would say more like 30% at least…..

Those left working at “$15″ per hour will hate it…..

They won’t get a minutes rest because 1/3 of their workers were fired.

The ones left will do everything they can to get fired to get expanded unemployment benefits.

redguy on December 5, 2013 at 1:19 PM

If you need to explain to a “compassionate” person how minimum- and prevailing-wage laws generate unemployment, you can go to my handy tutorial.

The Monster on December 5, 2013 at 1:19 PM

It’s GOOD to be THE KING!

GarandFan on December 5, 2013 at 1:22 PM

even though the economy might be in better health than we think, we’re far from full employment.

It’s ridiculous to suggest this part-time recovery may be better than we think.

Ukiah on December 5, 2013 at 1:23 PM

let Dear Liar rule by fiat.

rbj on December 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM

I’m thinking more like Trabant. Oh… wait. You’re not talking cars…..

GWB on December 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM

For a president with low approval ratings and little hope of making progress with congressional Republicans, the prospects for new achievement are bleak. But that doesn’t mean he can’t get something done. The one law that can do the president the most good has already passed. Now he just needs to sell, sell, sell.

America is in trouble due to writers like this turkey.

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Is the thinking that an immediate bribe to young people will turn their fortunes around?

NotCoach on December 5, 2013 at 1:13 PM

I think it’s just the opposite. They see their fortunes as dismal after the mid-terms. They plan on looting the nation like it is a Louisiana Wal-mart when the EBT system goes down. Raising the minimum wage for contractors who work for the federal government are all unionized so this is more about Dems finding ways to give more money to the SEIU.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Wait until after X-mas” — obama

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2013 at 1:27 PM

However, federal contractors don’t have a lot of minimum wages jobs and those that do like the MaCDacs at the Air and Space museum would probably close up shop when their contractual obligation runs out.

jerryofva on December 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM

I would think that he’d be hard pressed to enforce raising the minimum wage for workers on an existing contract. Not that he wouldn’t try. But you’re right, we are not talking about a lot of people in practical terms. Mostly janitorial and service-related jobs.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Why not raise the minimum wage to $50 hr. and end poverty?

myiq2xu on December 5, 2013 at 1:31 PM

mnjg on December 5, 2013 at 1:11 PM

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM

redguy on December 5, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Ukiah on December 5, 2013 at 1:23 PM

.
All of which translates into a political perspective of:

“Go ahead and make an imperial decree that makes the economy MUCH worse in time for the 2014 elections, you economic ignoramus.”

It would tie the SCOAMF albatross tightly around the neck of EVERY Democrat up for reelection and make 2010 look like a Democratic victory by comparison.

PolAgnostic on December 5, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Funny thing, those EOs.

They only have administrative power over the Executive branch. That does not extend to private employers.

He can issue an EO that says everyone has to wear orange ties on Tuesdays. Perfectly legal, but it only applies to the Executive Branch. No one in the Judicial or Legislative branches would be affected, nor would anyone else who is not a government employee in the Executive branch.

Head french fry guy included.

The power that would be assumed is that POTUS has the power to set wages nationwide. And he does not.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I thought I recalled hearing that many union contracts are based on an index related to the minimum wage. So… wouldn’t that raise union wages in those situations as well?

WitchDoctor on December 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I would think that he’d be hard pressed to enforce raising the minimum wage for workers on an existing contract. Not that he wouldn’t try. But you’re right, we are not talking about a lot of people in practical terms. Mostly janitorial and service-related jobs.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:29 PM

HN – I just don’t recall if I’ve seen before that you have a background in government contracting – so don’t take this the wrong way – but NOT all government contractors are union, in fact not all government civil service people are union. I work with a bunch of GS 13/14/15 types, NONE of whom are union.
As far as contractors go, there are more union people in the big manufacturing companies like Boeing and Lockheed where the unions have gotten embedded – just like the auto industry. And there are government contracts where wage determination laws (related to union collective bargaining) come into play – usually maintenance type contracts.
But most, if not all government contractors (i.e. work for a private company but on a government contract) on the “professional” type contracts (engineering and technical support) are non-union.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM

And yet these same Democrats would scream if a Republican president did something similar on an issue important to Republicans.

Seems their view is “Emperor for me, not for thee”.

Bitter Clinger on December 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I thought I recalled hearing that many union contracts are based on an index related to the minimum wage. So… wouldn’t that raise union wages in those situations as well?

WitchDoctor on December 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM

You are correct. And the effect is massive. In those contracts, they are indexed to the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increases, say $1.75 per hour, at the current wage that computes to a 24% raise.

Instead of the union members getting a $1.75/hr raise, they would get a 24% raise.

Not bad, eh? And now does anyone wonder why unions just hoot like hell when the words “increase the minimum wage” get spoken in the Capitol?

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM

He can issue an EO that says everyone has to wear orange ties on Tuesdays. Perfectly legal, but it only applies to the Executive Branch. No one in the Judicial or Legislative branches would be affected, nor would anyone else who is not a government employee in the Executive branch.
BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:36 PM

True – BUT – the vast majority of federal workers are under the executive branch – all of the various departments (DoD, DOE, DHS, DOJ, etc) are all technically exec branch.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM

My very first Econ book in college was written by Paul Krugman. He covers the issue of “Dead Weight Loss” (where firms can’t hire as many workers at a higher wage). Wonder why he forgets that when he writes at the New York Times.

bigrichard.small on December 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM

My very first Econ book in college was written by Paul Krugman. He covers the issue of “Dead Weight Loss” (where firms can’t hire as many workers at a higher wage). Wonder why he forgets that when he writes at the New York Times.

bigrichard.small on December 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Because his priority is now left-wing politics – not actual economics.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:52 PM

When he so blatantly lies about everything else, is it any wonder he was lying when he took the oath to uphold the Constitution?

jdpaz on December 5, 2013 at 1:52 PM

To be fair, this odd workaround would not affect all workers. But it would affect a lot of them – and even though the economy might be in better health than we think, we’re far from full employment.

The economy is not exactly in good health. The ex-inventory GDP growth was under 2%.

I can see the Air and Space Museum McDonald’s going to a robot-driven model.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 1:52 PM

But most, if not all government contractors (i.e. work for a private company but on a government contract) on the “professional” type contracts (engineering and technical support) are non-union.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM

We’re saying much the same thing. The contractor jobs that would be affected by minimum wage are going to be things like janitorial contracts. They are more likely to be unionized than somebody working for Booz Allen.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:53 PM

This punkass dictator could just issue an EO and disband Cingress, and those weasels wouldn’t say or do a thing about the usurpation of their Constitutional powers and duties, (as long as they kept getting their paychecks and benefits.)

L.I.B.

LegendHasIt on December 5, 2013 at 1:53 PM

When he so blatantly lies about everything else, is it any wonder he was lying when he took the oath to uphold the Constitution?

jdpaz on December 5, 2013 at 1:52 PM

we need a videotape of those oaths.
Did he say “uphold the Constitution”, or did he actually say “hold up the Constitution”?

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I don’t get why the dems are pushing to make themselves irrelevant. Do they think that when BO dissolves Congress that he will only dissolve the non-dem parts?

Dr. Frank Enstine on December 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM

There are 3.6 million people who are minimum wage workers… If on average each one of them works 1,500 hours a year then an increase of minimum wage hour from $ 7.25 to $ 10.10 means that employers have to spend $ 15.39 billion extra a year on wages… This means many employees will be fired and very few will be hired… Businesses are not going to lose $ 15.39 billions from their profits… These businesses make their profit in large part because they pay minimum wages…

mnjg on December 5, 2013 at 1:11 PM

You forgot about the FICA taxes for Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%) – that drives up the cost to employers to $16.58 billion.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I can see the Air and Space Museum McDonald’s going to a robot-driven model.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Okay, that would just be about the coolest thing ever!

I did see a story that Applebee’s is going to have tablets on all their tables. You get to your seat and you can place your order without having to get the attention of a waiter. Most importantly, you can pay your bill on the tablet too.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

When the government becomes lawless it becomes illegitimate. When the people see that their government is no longer bound by the laws, we will come to the conclusion that neither are we.

jawkneemusic on December 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Okay, that would just be about the coolest thing ever!

I did see a story that Applebee’s is going to have tablets on all their tables. You get to your seat and you can place your order without having to get the attention of a waiter. Most importantly, you can pay your bill on the tablet too.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

That better be hard-wired.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 1:57 PM

We’re saying much the same thing. The contractor jobs that would be affected by minimum wage are going to be things like janitorial contracts. They are more likely to be unionized than somebody working for Booz Allen.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:53 PM

OK – gotcha.
I just want to be clear on some of this stuff for those HA members who really don’t know the government contracting world.
(my entire post-USAF career since 1987 – several small companies and a few larges including ITT, Harris, CSC, and L-3 Com).

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Wonder why he forgets that when he writes at the New York Times.

bigrichard.small on December 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Because his priority is now left-wing politics – not actual economics.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Because he married a left-activist sort in 1996 (second marriage):

When he has a draft, he gives it to Wells to edit. Early on, she edited a lot—she had, they felt, a better sense than he did of how to communicate economics to the layperson. (She is also an economist—they met when she was a postdoc at M.I.T. and he was teaching there.) But he’s much better at that now, and these days she focusses on making him less dry, less abstract, angrier….On the rare occasion when they disagree about something, she will be the one urging him to be more outraged or recalcitrant.

kcewa on December 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

When the government becomes lawless it becomes illegitimate. When the people see that their government is no longer bound by the laws, we will come to the conclusion that neither are we.

jawkneemusic on December 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM

When the government becomes lawless, we become Greece or Spain.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I did see a story that Applebee’s is going to have tablets on all their tables. You get to your seat and you can place your order without having to get the attention of a waiter. Most importantly, you can pay your bill on the tablet too.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I saw that too. Are they going to sterilize the tablets between guests?

kcewa on December 5, 2013 at 2:03 PM

When the government becomes lawless, we become Greece or Spain.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Which, I would guess, is why NY is going hardcore gun-grabber right now.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

That better be hard-wired.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 1:57 PM

And encased in plastic so they can be wiped down easily. Can you imagine using the touch screen on one of those things immediately after eating the kind of food you get at Applebees?

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

You forgot about the FICA taxes for Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%) – that drives up the cost to employers to $16.58 billion.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Great point… And many of those minimum age workers are employed by small business such as non chain restaurants, gas station, small grocery stores, small construction companies, small cleaning companies, etc… There is no way these small businesses can afford an increase in minimum wage without firing some of their employees… Even the big businesses that hire a lot of minimum wage employees such as fast food chains are going to fire employees if minimum wages are increased…

mnjg on December 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

minimum age= minimum wage…

mnjg on December 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

The power that would be assumed is that POTUS has the power to set wages nationwide. And he does not.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 1:36 PM

You really think that would stop him or employers from not raising it? As soon as he issues the EO the MSM will be all over it and praising what a great man he is. Employees will go crazy if their employer didn’t follow the orders of the president. Some employers would go out of business as employees just walked out thinking they could get a job where the employer isn’t breaking the phony law.

Dr. Frank Enstine on December 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Which, I would guess, is why NY is going hardcore gun-grabber right now.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Civil unrest is much easier to quell when only one side is armed.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Federal contractors are not different from private sector companies in how they’d respond to a minimum wage hike.

Actually they are a lot different in that respect. Private companies can piss off a lot of their customers by jacking up prices and lose business. Government contractors couldn’t care less as the government pays whatever they ask anyway. Would you go to the hardware store and pay $600 for a hammer? Of course not. But the government pays that and more every day without batting an eye. Private business and Federal Contractors are apples and oranges when it comes to minimum wage hikes.

HotAirian on December 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM

And encased in plastic so they can be wiped down easily. Can you imagine using the touch screen on one of those things immediately after eating the kind of food you get at Applebees?

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Well, we don’t go to Applebee’s at all. My BIL used to work at one as a waiter. He quit when they implemented their new policy where staff HAD to make a certain percentage of sales for liquor and dessert, even at lunch, or you get fired.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

True – BUT – the vast majority of federal workers are under the executive branch – all of the various departments (DoD, DOE, DHS, DOJ, etc) are all technically exec branch.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM

And how many government employees are paid the minimum wage? Keep in mind that increasing the salary of a government employee is considered an expenditure of public money. Only the House of Representatives can initiate spending bills. Just cuz Jugears says “everybody gets a raise” doesn’t make the money appear….anywhere.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Civil unrest is much easier to quell when only one side is armed.

Happy Nomad on December 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Exactly.
Kristallnacht – coming soon!

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM

And how many government employees are paid the minimum wage? Keep in mind that increasing the salary of a government employee is considered an expenditure of public money. Only the House of Representatives can initiate spending bills. Just cuz Jugears says “everybody gets a raise” doesn’t make the money appear….anywhere.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Has that stopped them so far?
All that extra money just comes from that magical money machine called “the national debt”.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Why, why, why have we not impeached this clown yet?

Nineball on December 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM

And how many government employees are paid the minimum wage? BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Very few. Government employees, for the most part, are pretty well paid, regardless of what they do.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM

National Journal goes on to cite a progressive report that this kind of executive action would affect two million federal-contract workers, and points to a McDonald’s at the national Air and Space Museum that would be affected.

Actually could be a good idea, as it would sharply highlight the difference. We already know how much more expensive food can be in places like the airport or in the example cited at the museum.

Now jack those workers up to $15 dollars and watch the price of food double – not 25 cents as supposed by Fauxcahontas and how in less than a year, 6 months, the restaurant folds. Even well-performing captive markets like on-post burger joints, which are pretty competitive due to volumne will take a big, big hit on volumne and react by cutting hours of operation and staffing before folding. Why pay double, when you can just drive off-post get your jumbo fries and make it back to the office. Or better yet, do lunch the old-fashioned way of brown-bagging it.

Go right ahead, please, please do it by EO, so we can be called racist tea-baggers once again for being right.

Thank you Mr President!
/crr6

AH_C on December 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Why, why, why have we not impeached this clown yet?

Nineball on December 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Dirty harry controls the Senate.
HOWEVER – the Rs in the House should have at least drawn up articles of impeachment by now, even if the Senate refuses to do anything with them.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

You forgot about the FICA taxes for Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%) – that drives up the cost to employers to $16.58 billion.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

He further forgot that there are a significant number of workers between minimum wage and the proposed $10.10 who would also have their wages increased to at least $10.10.

makattak on December 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM

He further forgot that there are a significant number of workers between minimum wage and the proposed $10.10 who would also have their wages increased to at least $10.10.

makattak on December 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Very good point.
And what happens to those who have spent years on the job getting raises to work their way up from minimum, and now suddenly they’re back at minimum – or least not far above it.

My wife started around minimum at the library 15 years ago, and has gotten small but regular raises every year. Whenever the minimum wage went up, she got a small raise as well – but a smaller amount than the minimum wage increase, so the min wage always got closer to her wage at the time – so she in effect lost some of the wage advantage of her annual raises.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM

He further forgot that there are a significant number of workers between minimum wage and the proposed $10.10 who would also have their wages increased to at least $10.10.

makattak on December 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM

And the unions who use a minimum wage multiplier as their pay demands.

Come to think of it, that’s the main reason why the unions want a minimum wage hike.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2013 at 2:34 PM

If Obama were to raise the minimum wage for contractors for the Federal Government by Executive Order, the costs for those contractors would increase, and the contractors’ profits would decrease.

If a contractor refused to raise the wages of the lowest-paid workers to the Presidential minimum, how could the President enforce this? The contractors are obligated by law to pay at least the minimum wage established by Congress (or by state legislatures if they have enacted higher minimum wages), but if the contractors were sued by either the workers or the Government, courts would only pay attention to minimum wages established by statute–duly voted by either Congress or a state legislature.

A minimum-wage increase by Executive Order might look good for the President, but it could not be enforced, and contractors could defy it with impunity.

Steve Z on December 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

L-3 Com

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM

You, too? Not too surprising, I guess.

GWB on December 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

You, too? Not too surprising, I guess.

GWB on December 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I was actually with Titan when they were bought by L-3.
Left 2 months later.
I’ve been through several company buyouts over the years.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Steve Z on December 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Not exactly.
If the government raises the minimum wage, and therefore forces contractors to increases their wages, the companies have legal grounds to renegotiate the costs of their contracts, and therefore the price paid by the government.
My point being – the companies would not necessarily lose money on the deal – they would pass on the price increase to the government.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Steve Z on December 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Thats what a contract is for. Although, if the CO says I have to pay certain of my employees more money, I’ll say “Okay…and I’ll send you the invoice that includes the higher labor costs….all this will occur the instant you send me a valid contract mod”.

As the contractor, I don’t give damn where the money comes from. If the CO tells me to charge it, I’m charging it. And then billing it. If I don’t get paid, I hand the contract mod the corporate lawyers and let’em go at it. And I’ll win. Basic contract law.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Even better! I was too! Though I took a little longer to leave. Working for the Marines at the time, and doing a weekly commute.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM
BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Exactly.

GWB on December 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

If Obama signed such an EO, the only way to enforce it would be to mandate it via existing Federal contract mechanisms. Using this approach, the contractors would be entitled to full cost recovery, so it would cost them nothing. That said, increased costs on existing contracts would require cutting costs elsewhere to pay for these increased costs. Obama can make the Federal contractors pay more for labor costs, but he cannot increase the overall budget, without the approval of Congress. Since this could, in fact, force decreases to programs that Democrats like, it it highly unlikely that Obama will risk such a ploy, since the potential for political gains would be small. I thinks that Democrats who are asking for this are only doing it to play to the sentiments of their liberal base. Even they know that it is not a politically sound idea.

NuclearPhysicist on December 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM

What a wonderful way to force more people out of the workforce and onto entitlements (most all of which should be eliminated).

sadatoni on December 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

When he so blatantly lies about everything else, is it any wonder he was lying when he took the oath to uphold the Constitution?

jdpaz on December 5, 2013 at 1:52 PM

1. His fingers were crossed
2. He meant something else
3. Taqiyya

freedomfirst on December 5, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Obama can make the Federal contractors pay more for labor costs,

No, he cannot. The FAR can be modified to mandate minimum rates of pay for government contracts, which would then have to filter down to every contract.

but he cannot increase the overall budget, without the approval of Congress.

Thats true.

Since this could, in fact, force decreases to programs that Democrats like

Again, no can do. Example….O&M (Operation and Maintenance) funds given to the Navy cannot be spent on SCN programs (Ship Construction). You can literally go to jail for converting different “colored” money like that. Nor can anyone except Congress re-direct funds from one agency to another, meaning that only Congress can take money already budgeted to the Navy and re-direct it to an Air Force program.

it it highly unlikely that Obama will risk such a ploy, since the potential for political gains would be small. I thinks that Democrats who are asking for this are only doing it to play to the sentiments of their liberal base. Even they know that it is not a politically sound idea.

NuclearPhysicist on December 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM

He doesn’t give a damn about political gains. When you’re an arsonist, you don’t care if the building across the street from theo one you set on fire burns down too.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Go for it, Bark!

And I still have the power to unilaterally fire said employee.

It’s called “Employment at Will”.

And I won’t.

Bruno Strozek on December 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Rush Limbaugh:

These people who have had their hours cut and have lost health coverage because of Obamacare, there is not a minimum wage increase that can restore what they have lost via their hours being cut.

INC on December 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Captain EO… saving the world one EO at a time!

Marcola on December 5, 2013 at 4:04 PM

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

1. Modifying the FAR is an existing contract mechanism that can be used to force Federal contractors to pay higher labor rates and Obama can direct that such changes be made to the FAR. So, what I said was not wrong. 2. I’m not talking about moving funding between different pots of money. But, not all Federal contracting is that cut and dry. The point still remains that increases in one place have to be offset by decreases somewhere else, sometimes by reductions in work scope done by the same contractor. My point was simply that increasing labor costs has consequences and many of these consequences will not necessarily be acceptable to the majority of Democrats. 3. Even Obama isn’t interested in a zero sum game. If there is nothing in it for him politically, he won’t spend political capital to do it. That is especially true, if it could actually do harm to the re-election chances of more moderate members of his own party. Democrats are already screaming about the impacts of the sequester. They will not be keen on the idea of further cuts that will be needed to offset increases in labor costs.

NuclearPhysicist on December 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Despite Paul Krugman’s claims to the contrary, minimum wage hikes will leave some workers without jobs, and may discourage employers from new hiring that they’d normally be capable of doing under expansionary times.

That’s Krugton the Invincible’s ‘New Hotness.’ His Old & Busted went something like this:

“Stanford University economist Paul Krugman, however, said raising the minimum wage and lowering barriers to union organization would carry a trade-off — increased unemployment.”

- Training touted to close widening wage gap – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 8A – 6 February 1996

“The actions of labor unions can have effects similar to those of minimum wages, leading to structural unemployment.”

Macroeconomics, 2nd ed., by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, Worth Publishers, 2009 (page 210)

Resist We Much on December 5, 2013 at 4:39 PM

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

The only disagreement I have with what you said is that it assumes 0barky and the rest of his regime actually follow and enforce the law as written – and that there are consequences for doing things illegally (for more than the low level peon scapegoats).
And so far I’ve seen no indication of that being true.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 5:10 PM

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Sometimes I lapse into these temporary bouts with optimism and reality. Its hard to be stupid all the time and, like all humans, I am weak mentally at certain times of the day.

I need a Snickers Bar or something.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Unilaterally harming the people he claims to champion is day to day mundane task for Obama.

Murphy9 on December 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM

$50/hour and not a penny less!!

KMC1 on December 5, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I agree, Obama SHOULD unilaterally raise the minimum wage.

Anyone who makes less than $15/hour should have the difference made up by OFA and the DNC. Let Democrats show that they actually do care about people for once.

malclave on December 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Sometimes I lapse into these temporary bouts with optimism and reality. Its hard to be stupid all the time and, like all humans, I am weak mentally at certain times of the day.

I need a Snickers Bar or something.

BobMbx on December 5, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I know how you feel. More and more I find myself yelling at the TV or PC monitor “THAT’S F@#@#ING ILLEGAL!!!!! YOU CAN’T DO THAT!!!!”
Then I calm down and remember – oh ya – this is the half-white messiah of the communist utopia – he can do whatever he wants and the Constitution doesn’t matter. My bad.

Like I saw on the Townhall thread about the NY gun confiscations under way “I now pray for the zombie apocalypse…”
And I’ve already got the perfect t-shirt – “The hardest part of the zombie apocalypse will be pretending I’m NOT excited.”

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 8:02 PM

$50/hour and not a penny less!!

KMC1 on December 5, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Absolutely!! That way EVERYONE makes at least a 6 figure salary – so poverty will be completely eliminated. Right??

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2013 at 8:03 PM

This is just a scheme to pump up the wages of the unions, at taxpayer expense. Their wages go up whenever the minimum wage increases. But once again, the cushy job will be the government job, even if it’s working at McDonalds.

Buy Danish on December 5, 2013 at 8:43 PM

http://youtu.be/Ct1Moeaa-W8

The minimum wage prices people out of the labor force.

Murphy9 on December 6, 2013 at 12:19 AM