Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Court should strike down new minimum wage law

Court should strike down new minimum wage law

opinion-WEB

Arizona business owners have gone to court to challenge Proposition 206, Arizona’s newly enacted $12 per hour minimum wage. They argue that the law increases the costs of government services—often outsourced to cash-strapped nonprofits that now must pay employees more—but doesn’t offset those costs with new revenue as the state Constitution requires. They’re right. As the Arizona Republic’s Abe Kwok has noted, some 700 non-profits in the state are now “nearing panic mode” trying to figure out how to make ends meet with the new mandates.

timothy-sandefur

Timothy Sandefur

They’re not the only ones.  Prop. 206 is a mix of foolish policy and political favoritism that harms the people it’s supposed to help.

The reason minimum wages are a bad idea is simple: When something costs more, people will buy less. Force businesses to raise wages, and companies must stop hiring, start firing, or close entirely.

It’s no answer to say they can charge more or take less profit. Obviously that won’t work for non-profits. But even for-profit companies operate on razor-thin margins, and every price increase means fewer customers. As journalist Kevin Thomas recently put it, “If you have 10 hourly employees working eight-hour shifts, five days a week and you raise the wages a dollar an hour, that comes out to a nearly $20K increase on the year. In [high-end restaurant] AQ’s best year—a phenomenal year by restaurant standards—that would have been nearly 10% of profits.” Lower profits make it less likely investors will help a business expand or survive setbacks.

Minimum wage laws are laws against jobs. Last year, someone with little experience, who couldn’t compete against other job applicants, could have told a business owner, “hire me for $9 per hour, and let me work my way up to $12.” Prop. 206 makes that illegal.

These laws also hurt low-income consumers, who are more likely to shop at places that pay their employees the lowest rate. Walmart shoppers will have to pay more for groceries; Whole Foods customers will hardly notice a difference.

Supporters of minimum wages sometimes claim that economists have disproven the idea that these laws cause unemployment. But recent economic scholarship has only said that they can sometimes be counteracted by temporary market fluctuations. The basic principle—that higher labor costs mean less employment—is still the overwhelming consensus among economists.

True, some workers will benefit from Prop. 206. But those benefits come at the cost of people seeking jobs, who find opportunities reduced, and consumers who must pay more for goods and services they need. They are what Kwok calls “victims of unintended consequences of living wages.”

Actually, supporters of Prop. 206 are counting on that. Hidden among its back pages is a special loophole that exempts union shops from meeting Prop. 206’s expensive time-off mandates. The reason is obvious: left to their own choices, fewer than 5% of Arizonans join unions. Union labor is often expensive and inefficient, and businesses offer plentiful benefits to non-union workers. By making life harder for non-union companies, and then exempting companies that sign a union contract, Prop. 206 forces non-union companies to cave in. It’s no surprise that unions were the initiative’s loudest backers.

Such political favoritism is a bad idea for a state that wants a dynamic and flourishing economy. Workers and employers should be free to decide for themselves what pay workers earn. If a company pays too little, job-seekers will go elsewhere. It’s not the government’s job to put its thumb on the scale.

It’s not just a bad idea; it’s also illegal. Government isn’t allowed to use business regulations to pick winners and losers in the economy. Prop. 206 doesn’t just violate laws limiting government spending, it also violates the Constitution’s requirement that the state treat people equally.

It would be nice if everyone could have more money. If we could wave a magic wand, we could make the minimum wage $100 or $1000 an hour. But in real life, those costs must be paid by someone. In this case, they come from the pockets of taxpayers, low-income consumers, and people who need jobs. The Arizona Supreme Court should strike it down.
Timothy Sandefur is the vice president of litigation at the Goldwater Institute

___________________________________________________________

The views expressed in guest commentaries are those of the author and are not the views of the Arizona Capitol Times.

4 comments

  1. There is only one guaranteed winner from mandated wage increases. The “Feds”.

    Assume 700,000 AZ minimum wage workers – which I have heard quoted. Assume 34 hours per week (BLS Work Week Average). Assume 52 weeks (Includes PTO). Assume $ 1.95/Hr increase (2017). Assume FICA/Med gets 15.3%:

    700,000 X 34 X 52 X $1.95 = $ 2,413,320,000 X .153 = $ 369,237,960 ($369 Million) Additional collected for FICA/Med from the “Needy” and their employers. WOW, just think if we raise the Federal Minimum from $ 7.25 to $ 15.00. We can save Social Security and Medicare on the backs of the poor –
    Estimated $84 Billion/year FICA/Med.

    And the Minimum Wage workers move from the 10% IRS Income Tax bracket to 15%, and now make too much to be eligible from Low Income Tax Credits.

    The only guaranteed losers are the “Forgotten Middle Class”, with prices going up, as they wait for their deferred merit and tenure pay increases as employers scramble to cover their new mandated and ever-increasing minimum wage costs.

    Bill Riddle
    Phoenix, Glendale, Chandler

  2. Same old tired argument — dating back to the Reconstruction era (post-Civil War) — for underpaying and exploiting workers, the least creative and least effective way to increase profits. On the contrary, employers who pay just wages almost always report savings in terms of easier recruitment of top talent, radically decreased worker turnover, greater worker initiative and innovation on the job, and increased customer satisfaction and revenues.

    Once again, lazy thinking among some backward business interests risks all Arizona businesses’ futures. Scrooge, be gone!

  3. Based on these “Let them eat cake” comments, I suspect Timothy is related to Goldwater Institute’s Christina Sandefur, who’s suing to kill Arizona’s Medicaid expansion and as a result hundreds of poor Arizonans.

  4. It’s interesting to me that the same people who support minimum wage laws are horrified at the idea of placing a minimum value on any other commodity. What would the reaction be if the government established a minimum price for oranges? Establishing the minimum price for an hour of labor is no different and has the same effect–it removes market forces from the equation (which always distorts the marketplace) and hurts those least able to afford the commodity or the products that come from it. There is no magical money fairy that will somehow make wages go up without impacting pricing or the hiring decisions of the businesses affected.

    Low-income families are always hardest hit because the small increase in their own incomes will not offset the decreased spending power of their paychecks. The saddest part is that they will see the pay raise and will think they are better off even as their standard of living continues to sink.

    The way to earn more is to bring more value. Get more education. Seek greater workplace responsibility. Bring more and you’ll get more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

constitution

Article V resolution gives Arizona a seat at the table

So today, as the governor of Arizona, I’m proud to applaud our state legislators for passing an “Article V resolution” to limit the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government and finally impose fiscal restraints on the tax-and-spenders in Washington.