I see it as a fundamental violation of the principle of subsidiarity. And I opposed Nixon’s wage/price controls as much as FDR’s. Party neutral. I also see it as an over-simplified solution that has as many, if not more, negative side effects than benefits.
I suggest you read Centesimus Annus article 48 in full for a discussion of the proper role of the State.
- The responsibility to pay employees a just wage is the responsibility of the employer.
- The responsibility to assist employees in ensuring their employers actual pay the wage owed belongs to the State (see Rerum Novarum).
There
are a number of things that the State can do to assist workers in being better compensated. For example:
- They can assume taxation and regulatory policies to encourage greater economic activity (greater economic activity will result in higher employment)
- They can actually enforce immigration legislation to control the number of immigrants who come in the country and work. That would have the effect of limiting the size of the labor pool. The scarcer a resource, the more people will be willing to competitively pay to get that resource if it is needed. That works for material…but it also works for people.
From JPII, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis:
It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. **Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.”**In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of “psychological” emigration.
Note the bolded text above. The more you try to regulate equality (through wage controls…to include controlling the minimum wage), the more you are going to see the problems JPII highlighted above.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to regulate people treating each other with appropriate justice.
Also, let’s ask this other question: if an employer can afford to hire 100 people at $5 an hour, but if the minimum wage is raised to $10 an hour, the employer will find it necessary to implement automation so that he can reduce the number of employees required to do the job (say he only needs 30 higher-qualified employees vice 100 lower-skilled employees to do the same thing), who is better served? Sure, the 30 employees getting paid $10 an hour are better off…but what about the 70 who were laid off?
As far as safety regulations, with VERY few exceptions (interstate trucking, interstate rail, air travel, as well as customs safety regs for importing products), I think the appropriate place to regulate is at the state level and not the federal level. This for the purpose of subsidiarity as well as following the original intent of the US Constitution (show me where OSHA is mandated in Article 1 Section 8, please)
