is minimum wage unconstitutional?

Question

where in the constitution does it say that the government has the power to tell people how they spend their money? should an employer not be able to pay his workers whatever he feels fit? it is, after all, his money, his property... shouldn't it be spent however he wants? if an employer wants to pay all his workers a dollar an hour, shouldn't that be his choice? sure, it would be a bad idea, because noone would work for that amount, but shouldn't it still be his choice? why should the goverment decide someone's wages, instead of letting the employer and employee agree on it?

Answer 1

Yes, it is just as unconstitutional as the protected class hiring preferences set by the government. More liberal adjustments against hard working middle class White Americans.

Answer 2

I think one of our esteemed political parties caters to the financially challenged. Throwing them a bone in the form of wages would generate some loyalty (?) to the party. This could result in a possible re-election when the time comes for these politicians to remain in office or actually find work of their own.

It seems like a bad idea to have a wage set at a level where one can barely make ends meet. If the people were to raise their own expectations of a career, they would most likely apply themselves in school, encourage their children or seek advanced training and leave these jobs to the students or elderly, rather than remain in a limited mobility, benefit deprived line of work.

I would certainly be motivated to improve if I were paid three dollars per hour. If an employer wished to keep his workers, he would do well to ensure that they received a competitive wage.

Answer 3

You would have too look at undeveloped countries where there is no minimum wage to understand the effects it can have. There are people desperate enough to work for a dollar an hour. (especially immigrants who may not know any better)
Minimum wage helped to get us out of the great depression. It is there to ensure a living wage for all people who contribute to the economy. Its based on the bare minimum that someone would need to earn to just SURVIVE working full time. Look at the quality of living and working from the immigration boom until FDR's presidency (aside from the boom caused by the war in the 1920s) most of the wealth was held by a few elite business owners, who paid workers whatever they wanted.

If you are having a hard time starting a business, it might be a good idea to contract together on your venture and offer a percentage sharing of final profits, as they would be independent contractors and working for themselves, and not for you and you wouldnt be paying them. (not a business major but just an idea)

Answer 4

Agreeing with rhsaunder, the Interstate Commerce Clause allows for the government to tell people how to spend their money, thus making minimum wage Constitutional, be it good or bad. For example, in the Wickard v. Filburn case of 1942, Wickard was only allowed to grow a certain amount of wheat to sell, and not any extra for his own consumption due to the fact that the wheat he is eating could have been bought or sold via interstate commerce. So by taking wheat (that he grew himself) for himself instead of spending his money on wheat, it affected interstate commerce by possibly depriving other states of receiving more wheat, to lower prices, and by possibly depriving other states of selling wheat, since he is not buying and is only consuming. By increasing the amount of money for each employee, it pretty much modifies the amount of money each person gets (more money, which means more spending, and nowadays the economy is heavily interstate, and even intercountry) and modifies the amount of people in the work force (decrease in employees per workplace since, for instance, the cost of 4 employees at 5 dollars an hour is nearly equal to 3 employees at 6.50 dollars an hour) which also affects interstate commerce due to commerce for jobs (not all people who work in Chicago, live in Illinois) and money in the hands of consumers.

Answer 5

Like most questionable legislation, it is justified under the Interstate Commerce clause. But this has been so broadly interpreted as to give the Federal government power over almost anything. Watch for the Supreme Court's ruling on the Federal partial birth abortion law -- if the court upholds the Federal invasion of this most personal issue, then the Interstate Commerce limitation is dead meat.

Answer 6

Theoretically you're correct, but, the "interpretation" of the Constitution, and the decisions of the "Supreme" Court have made it legal. It smacks so much of that Franklin Delano Roosevelt socialist stuff that it stinks. It's gonna bankrupt numerous small businesses, and keep the "clock watchers" on the payroll, which is just welfare by another name. With your kind of thinking, haven't you considered running for public office. We need people like you in our government. Think about it, even on just the local level for starters. You'd do our country justice with your kind of thinking. God Bless you.

Answer 7

I must admit you have a good point. Here in Utah there is a law passed that reads car dealerships are not to be open on Sunday. If it's your dealership and you want to be open on Sunday more power to you. I hate senseless Government intrusions.

Answer 8

The Constitution of the United States of America (Preamble)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Comes under "promote the general welfare" and "establish justice"

Answer 9

The Constitution states that any powers not clearly defined by the Constitution are relegated to the states. So i t's not a constitutional issue. It's a state's issue.

Answer 10

Corporations are here for people not the other way around.