The Minimum Strategy for a Minimum Wage Bill

With the Senate Parliamentarian’s determination that the Democrats’ $15 Minimum Wage effort does not meet the Senate’s budget reconciliation process, this part of the bill passed by the House will have to be removed thus avoiding a no-win Republican filibuster from stymieing on the entire $1.9T COVID Relief/Stimulus package. The question now becomes “What to do?”

There are, as there almost always are, a variety of different strategies that could be chosen. There are even the strategies that there was and has been no evidence that Democrats or Republicans ever thought of for dealing with the Minimum Wage effort. Among the ‘known’ options are:

• ·    Abandon the effort, or delay it until they can find a strategy that they feel has sufficient support
• ·    Over-rule the Parliamentarian’s decision and proceed with the Minimum Wage in the bill
• ·    Put forth an independent Minimum Wage bill and see what happens
• ·    Make some modifications / compromise on the wage limit to be enacted, and see what happens
• ·    Look at, or for, solutions that haven’t been considered so far

Then there are the ‘unknown’ options, the approaches that neither political party has considered or thought of as a solution to the national issue of what the nation’s Minimum Wage should be. These ‘unknown’ solutions in a general sense would represent proposals, policies and strategies that were not used on the provisions that the Senate will eliminate from the Relief/Stimulus bill. Since the premise here is that no one in the Senate or House proposed an alternative bill that would have achieved the desired goals that none of the politicians had sound and reasoned solution which would have been a better strategic approach.

Now it is important to make sure that you know that the “goals” are when you are choosing your solution to reach those goals and the strategies / approaches that you believe will be key to the success of your plan. In that context, the “goals” are an essential element of what your solution both requires and will deliver. There were a number of widely publicized “goals” associated with the $15 Minimum Wage bill; and it is likely that there were some “goals” that may never have seen the light of day as they were the typical “behind closed doors” requirements and conditions that politicians of any orientation engage in. On the publicly presented “goals” list were:

• ·         $15 minimum wage limit
• ·         Bipartisan support
• ·         Economic stimulus effect & COVID recovery
• ·         Income equity/equality progress
• ·         Reduction in poverty levels

As to the “behind closed doors” objectives, one would have to have access to what deals were cut that have not been promoted, and of course, we don’t know these.

To have been successful where Congress and the Democrats appear not to have been at this juncture, it would seem the solution path, policy and strategies that where selected contributed to the failure of that task. This failure could be the result of poor problem analysis and problem-solving on the part of the bill’s proponents. To the extent that this was a causal element to the case, one tactic to moving forward in any attempt to pursue passing a Minimum Wage bill would be to:

• ·    Engage a critical thinking analyst or innovative problem-solver who can offer some alternative solutions.
• ·    Consider strategies that will enable the Senate & House to accomplish something on a bipartisan basis to the degree that is a ‘key’ requirement versus a ‘nice to have’ condition.

It is unlikely the Democrats will pursue a re-analysis methodology, and Republicans already demonstrated that they didn’t do such an analysis on the Minimum Wage issue. There is not much evidence that these are concepts that fit within the political mind and politicians do not appear to apply any reasonable level of problem-solving to other issues either. None-the-less, looking at the Minimum Wage issue through a problem-solving method would reveal aspects of the issue that might be what the Democrats ought to do now.

To start, is the $15 an hour rate the right amount? $15 was presumably picked in that it represented an amount that would produce an annual income level that would lift millions of people above the nation’s poverty level. Given this goal, compromising on the Minimum Wage rate that would be sufficiently acceptable to get it passed would be one approach. There was even some discussion about this idea, but it did not come to fruition so obviously as a strategy and alternative it was insufficient. However, this approach (finding an equilibrium point) is an old-strategy and an inept and enfeebled one in many situations. What is needed here is something with a little more nuance and intelligence. [Yes, something beyond the scope of a political mind.] A little thought and the question of a Minimum Wage could follow a couple of other routes to a resolution. The current proposal already contains a year-by-year increase until the $15 rate is reached. States already have different set minimum rates.  Overlay this with differing ‘Cost Of Living’ levels in different states and the number of options begins to expand geometrically. Finally, there is an accountability factor which no one has considered that could turn into the leverage that one might gain in attaining bipartisan support. In retrospect, it is obvious that the Democrats did not have a viable strategy. However, it was fairly self-evident that the likelihood of success was very much in question before this week.

Now take on “bipartisan support”. Was it a necessity, or just a desired but optional requirement? Facts would indicate the later. It is not that the Democrats did not want or were unwilling to engage with Republicans in order to obtain some support; however, it is not clear that either the Democrats or the Republicans, who were willing to find “common ground”, possessed the skill sets or competencies that might have been necessary to find a path leading to that ground. So, if one lacks the strategies to accomplish a task, it is hardly surprising that one would fail at it. There is also one or two assumptions regarding bipartisanship that are not a given and should either or both assumptions be invalid then the possibility of success is greatly reduce or in some situations prohibits the possibility of success completely. The assumptions are that the Democrats are willing to accommodate some Republican modifications, and that the Republicans are willing to engage in accomplishing Democratic goals. It is difficult to assess if it is the assumptions that are wrong, or that failure may be primarily a consequence of not possessing the requisite skills to achieve either compromise or better yet a superior solution that delivers more that is beneficial to the nation and acceptable to both sides, a near impossible accomplishment for today’s politicians.

The economic stimulus and COVID-recovery objectives are a more ideological issue. Both sides want the same results at a theoretical level. They both want a robust, prosperous, and growing economy that restores employment and encompasses a competitive financial and business environment. Of course, the two parties have different views and approaches for how the end results are to be achieved. My perspective is that neither party is particularly adept or competent in this area, and since it is directly tied with the Minimum Wage issue, it is a central source of disagreement for the two parties. The issue seems to have boiled down to two views:

•        Raising the Minimum Wage will cost jobs.
    This is bad and will not be good for the economy.
  
  
•      Raising the Minimum Wage will lift millions of works out of poverty and enable the economy to make greater gains over time.

Since you probably have you own view and know what the answer is, it would seem pointless to state which is right (in the non-political ideology sense that is). But that does not mean either party is right or wrong. Mostly it means they do not really know because they have not so much assessed and understood the issue as just parroting the party-line. It is a tenet of faith for both. It must be true because they ‘believe’ it is true and they are ‘right’ because of that ideological requirement.

When viewing the Minimum Wage issue as a legislative effort with these diametrically opposed views, it would seem to render the potential for a bipartisan bill to be zero. However, the outcome of a purely Democratic bill would only be the result of not seeing the issue as an opportunity to take a different path than the ones the two parties follow over and over again and fail at finding common ground. If only one or the other could see the issue through a STEM perspective, they might find that rare path to success overlooked when one is wearing partisan blinders.

The goals of income equity and reducing poverty levels are targeted goals related to making the value of work which is part of a robust economy valued sufficiently to enable it to provide a living-wage. There is an economic, ethical, and humanitarian inconsistency in having a booming economy and also having members of the workforce that do not earn a sufficient wage to provide for a basic living standard.

The contest over the Minimum Wage bill could truly be a contest of ideas. However, for there to be contest there must be ideas. Absent ideas there is nothing to base a decision upon. Since there is no STEM-based proof of which, if either, of the partisan views is correct this points to an obvious STEM-type of solution. Incorporate into the Minimum Wage bill some unnatural ‘natural’ experiments. Attaining bi-partisan support ought to be quite simple. In truth, it should be almost impossible to prevent a stampede of Democrats and Republicans to support such a bill. The difficult of course would be for Democrats or Republicans to comprehend what such a bill would require and how to go about structuring and implementing it. While this solution is simple, it is not obvious. While beneficial, it is not ideological. And, while this would serve the nation’s interests it might also expose the truth about the competencies of political parties and those who claim to be leading us.