President Obama’s minimum wage hike proposal delivered in
the State of the Union address has prompted much chatter in the blogosphere on
the subject. If you’re a Café Hayek patron,
your min wage cup runneth over, and over, and over..
I did a little research on the matter, and learned that min
wage laws were not always allowed. In
1905, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Lochner
v. New York, that the NY legislature went too far in restricting the
vocation of bakers. The law attempted to
put a ceiling on the number of hours and days a person could work as a
baker. (According to some, this law was
to protect American bakers from immigrant competition, who would work harder
and longer than their American counterparts.)
The law was upheld through lower court rulings but was eventually overturned
(5-4) in a landmark decision. Justice Rufus
Wheeler, speaking for the court said that, “[the] Fourteenth Amendment
protected an individual's "general right to make a contract in relation to
his business.” Seems like common sense
to me. This ruling began what was known
as the Lochner Era, a prolonged period where the high court struck
down many regulations aimed at restricting personal liberty.
Then, in 1923, the Court struck down a federal 1918 law that
set minimum wages for women and children in the District of Columbia. The Court said that if the legislature could
set a min wage, nothing would prevent it from setting a max wage, and
apparently that notion did not sit well with the Justices. (I touched on this topic here.) They ruled 5-4 that this minimum wage law was
unconstitutional, based on similar grounds found in the Lochner case. However, this reprieve from the min wage
wouldn’t last long.
After fourteen years, a new case was brought before the
Court that would reinstate the min wage.
In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,
the Court ruled that legislatures could indeed restrict the activities of
individuals where the health and welfare of the community was involved. (And when isn’t the health and welfare of the
community not involved??) This case
effectively ended the Locher Era, as the New Deal Era drastically shifted the
direction of the Court.
Bring back the Lochner Era I say!
No comments:
Post a Comment