A question for constitutional fans on the current supposed stalemate between the president and congress. If the Congress declines to act, why shouldn’t the president declare that the opportunity to do so fulfills the constitutional mandate for advice and consent (and in fact, silence implies consent), and simply swear in his nominee. This probably would kick off furious rulings on the part of the current supreme court judges, but it would all be fun.
I think Obama is too much of a deferential establishment man to rock any boats, but I don’t understand why everyone just assumes that Congress as one branch of the government can nullify the powers granted by the constitution to the other two branches.
I don’t see how Congress controls the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. The remit of the SCOTUS is specified in the Constitution, as interpreted in Marbury v. Madison.
I’ve said all this here before but two of my favorite policy wonks seriously question the California proposed $15 minimum wage — as usual for progressive wonks somehow ignoring especially relevant factors (isn’t that what economics is NOT supposed to do); never know it from their writings anyway:
***********************
Do we really need a doctorate in economics to understand that over 40 years per capita income something like doubles — doubled since 1968 anyway when the federal minimum was $11. If we told Americans of 1968 that by 2016 the federal minimum would shrink (!) by almost $4, what could they have imagined was about to cause such an apparent economic catastrophe: a comet strike, a limited nuclear exchange, a succession of world wide plagues?
* * * * * *
Does anybody ever take into account that selling fewer hours for more dollars could still put labor well ahead — just like the market for any other commodity? Lots of over-workers would like to give up one job out there as well. Or that perpetual fast food examples concern the industry with the highest labor labor costs, 33% — compare Walmart 7%?
Half median is poor measure of what the market might bear in a union-stripped economy with a low median.
Perhaps most important: 100,000 out of (my guesstimate) 200,000 Chicago, gang-age males are in street gangs. For the same reason my old “gang” wont go to work anymore — American born cat drivers? We used to earn $800+ for 60 grueling hours — definitely wont for $400+ (pre Uber). Ditto for the Crips and the Bloods — until low skill jobs pay $600-800 a week (again? — check supermarket contracts). Ditto for all fast food jobs in Chicago which are wholly owned by Mexican and Indian immigrants slaved to work for next-to-nothing. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
By 2022, $15 will be worth 15% less (get me LBJ!).
* * * * * *
yr..per capita</b?..real..nominal..dbl-index..%-of
(2013 dollars)
“Central Banks Warm To Collective Bargaining” by Ronald Janssen
Something peculiar is happening. Up until recently, many central bankers were looking at robust collective bargaining and wage formation systems as a possible source for inflationary wage developments. Indeed, central banks, and the ECB in particular, have on numerous occasions called for more flexible and decentralised (read: weakened) wage bargaining systems so as to remove […] https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/03/43370/
A question for constitutional fans on the current supposed stalemate between the president and congress. If the Congress declines to act, why shouldn’t the president declare that the opportunity to do so fulfills the constitutional mandate for advice and consent (and in fact, silence implies consent), and simply swear in his nominee. This probably would kick off furious rulings on the part of the current supreme court judges, but it would all be fun.
I think Obama is too much of a deferential establishment man to rock any boats, but I don’t understand why everyone just assumes that Congress as one branch of the government can nullify the powers granted by the constitution to the other two branches.
nihil:
Good question for JackD or Beverly. They are the attorneys here.
Ultimately Congress wins such confrontations because of its power of the purse and ability to control the jurisdiction of the courts.
I don’t see how Congress controls the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. The remit of the SCOTUS is specified in the Constitution, as interpreted in Marbury v. Madison.
I’ve said all this here before but two of my favorite policy wonks seriously question the California proposed $15 minimum wage — as usual for progressive wonks somehow ignoring especially relevant factors (isn’t that what economics is NOT supposed to do); never know it from their writings anyway:
***********************
Do we really need a doctorate in economics to understand that over 40 years per capita income something like doubles — doubled since 1968 anyway when the federal minimum was $11. If we told Americans of 1968 that by 2016 the federal minimum would shrink (!) by almost $4, what could they have imagined was about to cause such an apparent economic catastrophe: a comet strike, a limited nuclear exchange, a succession of world wide plagues?
* * * * * *
Does anybody ever take into account that selling fewer hours for more dollars could still put labor well ahead — just like the market for any other commodity? Lots of over-workers would like to give up one job out there as well. Or that perpetual fast food examples concern the industry with the highest labor labor costs, 33% — compare Walmart 7%?
Half median is poor measure of what the market might bear in a union-stripped economy with a low median.
Perhaps most important: 100,000 out of (my guesstimate) 200,000 Chicago, gang-age males are in street gangs. For the same reason my old “gang” wont go to work anymore — American born cat drivers? We used to earn $800+ for 60 grueling hours — definitely wont for $400+ (pre Uber). Ditto for the Crips and the Bloods — until low skill jobs pay $600-800 a week (again? — check supermarket contracts). Ditto for all fast food jobs in Chicago which are wholly owned by Mexican and Indian immigrants slaved to work for next-to-nothing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
By 2022, $15 will be worth 15% less (get me LBJ!).
* * * * * *
yr..per capita</b?..real..nominal..dbl-index..%-of
(2013 dollars)
68…15,473….10.74..(1.60)……10.74……100%
69-70-71-72-73
74…18,284…..9.43…(2.00)……12.61
75…18,313…..9.08…(2.10)……12.61
76…18,945…..9.40…(2.30)……13.04……..72%
77
78…20,422…..9.45…(2.65)……14.11
79…20,696…..9.29…(2.90)……14.32
80…20,236…..8.75…(3.10)……14.00
81…20,112…..8.57…(3.35)……13.89……..62%
82-83-84-85-86-87-88-89
90…24,000…..6.76…(3.80)……16.56
91…23,540…..7.26…(4.25)……16.24……..44%
92-93-94-95
96…25,887…..7.04…(4.75)……17.85
97…26,884…..7.46…(5.15)……19.02……..39%
98-99-00-01-02-03-04-05-06
07…29,075…..6.56…(5.85)……20.09
08…28,166…..7.07…(6.55)……19.45
09…27,819…..7.86…(7.25)……19.42……..40%
10-11-12-14-15
“Central Banks Warm To Collective Bargaining” by Ronald Janssen
Something peculiar is happening. Up until recently, many central bankers were looking at robust collective bargaining and wage formation systems as a possible source for inflationary wage developments. Indeed, central banks, and the ECB in particular, have on numerous occasions called for more flexible and decentralised (read: weakened) wage bargaining systems so as to remove […]
https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/03/43370/