Christie vetoes $15 an hour minimum wage bill pushed by N.J. Democrats https://t.co/pWeZ5cffbf pic.twitter.com/2cEk2AREOc
— NJ.com (@njdotcom) August 30, 2016
The economic case against wage controls is obvious. But how does this make political sense? How does Christie win politically from this?Answer that question and we have the key to actually rolling back wage controls. Because voters manifestly don't care about the economic case.
Well then Tim, all is lost isn't it.
Hardly, it's just that what wins politically is so different than what wins economically. Else we would get more of a free market and less of a parasitical oligarchy.So either we find a politically popular argument against wage controls, or we find a way to make a majority of voters economically literate What do you think is more likely in our lifetimes?"The 1% want to make your job illegal" might have legs.
Christie’s reasoning: "This type of heavy hand of government, to say that we know better than the people who actually run these businesses (but I guess they don't when "gouging" prices - Brutus), is the reason why in past administrations New Jersey has gotten LESS AND LESS AFFORDABLE," he said. Christie added: "This measure is a complete pander to folks who are uninformed because they neither receive the minimum wage or pay it." Christie also added that a rise in the min wage would bring about automation, which would replace min wage jobs. In 2015, New Jersey voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot question raised the min wage from $7.25 to $8.25 an hour in January and amends the state Constitution to tie future increases to inflation. Christie wondered why such a ballot question was circumnavigated this time. Interestingly, there’s this from the other side: "[Christie] has decided to allow employers to continue paying 975,000 New Jerseyans so little that THEY CAN'T SURVIVE ON THEIR WAGES ALONE IN THIS HIGH-COST STATE," said vice president of NJPP Whiten (from the liberal Trenton think tank, New Jersey Policy Perspective) "These workers and their families must continue to rely on the publicly funded safety net and the charity of the private nonprofit sector just to put food on the table, clothes on their backs and a roof over their heads."Why are the costs so high, I wonder? I just returned from Boston, where we rented an Airbnb unit in the Back Bay area where rent for a 950 square foot apartment costs $3,000/month! Everything we did and everywhere we went cost loads of money, and of course was accompanied by every sort of tax imaginable. Why is no one focusing on the cost-of0living of these cities? The answer’s pretty obvious. "The 1% want to make your job illegal." I like the slogan, even though the truth is more akin to "The unions want to make your job illegal".
I remember when this guy was rationing gasoline and threatening "price gougers" in the wake of hurricane Sandy. I applaud this veto but he's no hero when it comes to free markets.
Be thankful that his understanding is good. It could be better but it also could be much worse.
Christie was going to sign until he got his estimated monthly donut bill under the new minimum wage. Then he immediately vetoed the legislation.
I have yet to read what his motivation is. Perhaps nobody knows. His actions are the only incontrovertible fact.
Thank you Brutus!!Christie's statement seems a bit meandering compared to "the unions want to put poor folks on welfare" or something similarly direct.Wage control advocates say they want to give the poor a "raise". Then why not also make it illegal to fire them? Or at least require severance packages? Raising the minimum wage but leaving employers free to fire is an obvious attack on marginal workers.This is all the ammo a good politician should need to make a populist case against wage controls. Surprised that we don't see it more often. Now that the wage-control chickens are coming home to roost, perhaps we will.