The Maximum Wage Law



The United States enacted its minimum wage law in 1938. It didn’t cover all workers, and still doesn’t, but establishes a policy that in some cases government should abridge people’s freedom of contract to mandate a wage different from the one people might agree upon. The “principle” appears to be that some wage levels are too unfairly low to be allowable, even if the employee and employer agree to them. I must put “principle” in quotation marks, because some employment is not covered by the minimum wage law, so the “principle” does not apply to everyone.

Now, at the other end of the wage spectrum, we are enacting a maximum wage law. President Obama’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, is mandating substantial pay cuts for executives in banks and auto companies that received federal bailout money. In addition, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has proposed a plan to limit compensation of all bankers — not just those who received federal money — in an effort to prevent risky investments by banks. Bernanke’s maximum wage law would not set any hard-and-fast maximum; rather, it would allow the Fed to, at its discretion, veto compensation schemes it didn’t like.

Like the old minimum wage law, the new maximum wage law would not cover every worker, but Mr. Feinberg did say he hoped his guidelines “might be voluntarily adopted elsewhere.”

For decades the federal government has had a minimum wage law to keep people from being paid too little. Now it is enacting a maximum wage law to keep them from being paid too much. It doesn’t cover everyone, but with a foot in the door, it will be a small step toward broader coverage.

3 Comment(s)

  1. Great post, Randy, thanks.

    There was also a good Letter to the Editor the other day on this issue:

    I offer a John Adams quote found in David McCullough’s book “John Adams.” Adams stopped at a tavern for lodging. He happened to overhear several locals discussing British actions regarding taxation. One man says to the rest, “. . . if Parliament can take away Mr. Hancock’s wharf and Mr. Row’s wharf, they can take away your barn and my house.”

    Mr. Lewis might already be considered rich, as was Mr. Hancock, and the amount of severance may seem to be outrageous, but to you supporters of this confiscation I ask: If you grant the federal government’s pay czar the power to confiscate or alter the pay of 175 Americans today, whose barn or house is next?

    Peter Kirchman
    Bay City, Mich.

    Mary Theroux | Oct 23, 2009 | Reply

  2. Slightly off topic, but what I find intriguing is how our political leaders are fascinated with Authoritarianism to such an extent that they call everything a Czar. The Drug Czar, the Pay Czar, the Car Czar, etc.

    Here is a wikipedia entry on the number of Czars we’ve had (caveat utilis wiki).

    Steve Verdon | Oct 23, 2009 | Reply

  3. The lawyers and creative accountants usually discover loopholes within every regulation or law as soon as any new law is framed. Does the maximum salary capping include bonuses? and perks?

    Susmita Barua | Oct 25, 2009 | Reply

3 Trackback(s)

  1. Oct 24, 2009: from Paving Over Scarcity and Inequality « Scarcity and Inequality
  2. Aug 28, 2010: from Wage web » Maximum Wage Law
  3. Oct 31, 2010: from Wage web » Minimum Wage 1938

Post a Comment