There are many differences between Massachusetts and Louisiana. Besides the obvious superficial differences in culture, cuisine and mannerisms, there are a number of fundamental differences between the states, including principal industries, standards of living, income distribution, etc. New Orleans and Boston, both comparably populated cities, have vastly different costs of living. Using the Economic Policy Institute’s Basic Family Budget Calculator, living expenses for one parent and one child in New Orleans is $27,192, while in Boston it is a staggering $49,848. Despite these large and fundamental differences between states, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other Democrats have decided to push the national wage issue towards a vote. This angered me that some Washington politician could even assume what would be best for our state. Let me be clear: I am fine with a national initiative to raise awareness for individual states to individually raise the minimum wage. In fact, I encourage discussion on the issue. But to push for a national federal increase is not only shortsightedly populist but entirely unnecessary and potentially damaging. The proposed increase is from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, which is about a 40 percent increase. Prima facie, this is substantial for an across-the-board increase. Yet for Massachusetts, which already has a higher minimum wage, this is a fairly paltry increase of only 50 cents an hour. In 2007, $7.25 will be lower than the Massachusetts minimum wage. Employers in Massachusetts are already ready for the adjustment because, for the most part, it will not change anything. This begs the question, why raise the federal minimum wage? Why not leave it for the states to decide? In fact 20 states have already raised their minimum wage over the federal one. Joining them in 2007, another six have already passed legislation that will raise their minimum wage. Current increased minimum wages range from $6.15 to $7.63 per hour. I doubt that Kennedy or any number of other senators from any number of states know much about the economic state of Louisiana. Heck, I doubt they know much of anything about Louisiana. Why do they think they know what’s best for us? Of course, there are many arguments as to why the minimum wage should be higher, as there are many arguments as to why minimum wage should be left where it is. If there wasn’t disagreement, then this would be a non-issue. By the same token there is disagreement about how much to raise the minimum wage. In The New York Times, Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey, D-N.Y., stated that he wanted a $10 minimum wage. Besides the fact that he could lead an initiative to raise the minimum wage in his own state, why entrust people like him to the economic welfare of each state when they can make its own decisions? When Kennedy pushed for a national minimum wage, it smacked of arrogance to me. To me, it sounds like, “I know what’s good for you, better than you know yourself. You’re unable or unwilling to make those decisions yourself.” If the minimum wage is raised and it is found to benefit most states yet is damaging to Louisiana, what is the chance that the law will be repealed? Seeing as how we don’t elect any other state’s national legislators, the answer is not good. If Louisiana decides to pass a minimum wage law and it proves to be detrimental, even to a certain group of people, the law can easily be changed as needed. Montana distinguishes between large and small employers when determining the appropriate minimum wage: any enterprise with annual receipts over $625,000 has a higher minimum wage. Will the federal law offer a state-by-state flexibility? Emphatically, no. Localities can and should make the majority of economic decisions. For example, the San Diego council recently approved the banning of Wal-Mart stores out of concern for traffic and the effects on small business. This may or may not be the best solution for them, but they will figure out what is best for them, and they are directly responsible to their citizens. The same cannot be said for national politicians. Instead of worrying about things that local officials can change, maybe senators should worry about things that they have substantial sovereign control, like the growing federal debt, Social Security, corruption, immigration and healthcare. Oh, and let’s not forget about Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Israel/Palestine. Isn’t that enough for them to worry about?
—–Contact Jonathan Lo at jlo@lsureveille.com