Economic liberty and the case against a wage floor
Bob Zadek states flatly that there should be no minimum wage, arguing that it violates the principle of economic liberty. He concedes, grudgingly and for the sake of argument, that a minimum wage might be constitutional, but rejects it on principle regardless. From that premise he asks why, given fifty states each with its own complex economic system and realities, a national minimum wage is needed at all. He characterizes minimum wage laws as collectively operating as a sort of federal price fixing, and says a national minimum wage makes no economic sense whatsoever and cannot be justified. Local Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots Tyranny (2018)
Ilya Somin agrees that a national minimum wage is a bad idea for a number of reasons, including those Zadek mentioned. He notes that the national minimum wage has not been raised in 13 or 14 years and stands at $7.25 an hour, which he calls probably only a modest constraint on mobility, because relatively few jobs would open up below that level. He adds that many people, in the Democratic Party in particular, would like to raise it as high as $15, which he says would be a much more serious constraint on mobility and would put many people out of work. Even at $7.25, he says, the wage destroys some jobs, particularly in relatively poor states and for workers with relatively weak credentials trying to enter the marketplace. The Libertarian Dream Team - Ilya Somin (2022)
Federalism and “situational federalism”
Zadek uses the minimum wage as his lead example of what he calls the cheapening of federalism. He observes that federalism is generally taken in public discourse to mean devolving power from Washington to states and localities, and is generally looked upon as a conservative issue, but argues that it has become a rationalization to support a policy one wishes. On the minimum wage, he says, those who oppose a wage floor invoke federalism to oppose a federal minimum wage, while on social issues such as abortion conservatives want national action — the opposite of federalism. Local Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots Tyranny (2018)
Clint Bolick responds that there is very strong evidence for what he calls “situational federalism” — supporting federalism when it supports your views but not when it supports someone else’s. He argues that so long as federalism is used to expand freedom, everyone should support it, whether it takes the form of blue-state or red-state federalism, and warns that federalism will not be with us forever if people do not agree that there are certain things states ought to be able to do free from the interference of the national government. Local Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots Tyranny (2018)
Zadek returns to the federalism framing in a later episode, asking Somin whether eliminating a national minimum wage would open up mobility, letting states and businesses compete for wages and workers on a marketplace system. Somin agrees generally, and ties the question to his broader argument for decentralization and foot voting: decentralizing authority to state and local governments and to the private sector, so that people can choose where to live based in part on its policies. The Libertarian Dream Team - Ilya Somin (2022)
Historical racism and labor-market effects
In a separate episode, Zadek asks whether minimum wage laws are inherently racist in their effect — not in the words of the statute but in their effect — and whether they are a perfect example of governmental systemic racism. He notes that proponents of minimum wage laws would vehemently deny the charge. Towards a Libertarian Theory of Anti-Racism (2020)
Michael Tanner answers that minimum wage laws were historically, in many cases, intended to block African American participation in many labor fields. He says the people who sponsored this legislation were in many cases explicit that they were worried about African American laborers undercutting white wages, in many ways the same way people now worry about immigrants undercutting wages, and that they wanted to prevent African Americans from getting into these labor fields. Alongside minimum wage laws, he lists occupational licensing laws and union shops that African Americans could not belong to, saying the wage floor simply priced out a lot of African Americans from the labor market. Towards a Libertarian Theory of Anti-Racism (2020)
Tanner adds that today’s advocates of the minimum wage are certainly not racist and that nobody is out there saying they are trying to keep African Americans out of the labor force, but that the law still has the same impact, particularly for young African American men and particularly those without a lot of attachment to the labor force or a big skill set. He calls the blocking of entry-level labor-market access a big problem in the African American community. Towards a Libertarian Theory of Anti-Racism (2020)
Zadek supplements this with an account of a hearing he says he found available on the web, which he believes took place in 1948 before the US Senate Labor Committee, with an audio record. He describes a discussion between JFK, then a senator, and Jacob Javits, whom he calls a Republican but a very progressive one at a time when there were such things. According to Zadek, the two were discussing a federal increase in the minimum wage, and JFK insisted it be increased because his constituents — the Irish in Massachusetts generally and Boston specifically — were complaining that blacks were taking their jobs, and said he needed an increase in the minimum wage laws to protect the white people’s job. Zadek offers this as an example of a systemically racist statute on the books today, which he says ought to be complained about by those who complain about systemic racism but is not. Towards a Libertarian Theory of Anti-Racism (2020)
Mobility, zoning and occupational licensing
Somin’s minimum-wage discussion sits inside a broader argument about barriers to mobility. He says the report he worked on proposes breaking down barriers to foot voting and interstate and other interjurisdictional movement, and identifies exclusionary zoning as the biggest one, particularly a problem in California, where tight restrictions on building new housing make it almost impossible to build new housing, especially new cheap housing, in response to demand. He says this blocks millions of people from moving to places where they could find opportunity and better education, harms those people, reduces their choice, and damages the economy by making it less productive. The Libertarian Dream Team - Ilya Somin (2022)
He lists state-by-state occupational licensing as another barrier, alongside exclusionary zoning, and argues that decentralizing power and breaking down barriers to mobility together expand people’s ability to vote with their feet. In some cases, he notes, people can do so without physically moving, for example through school choice, which would let a family send children to a different school without changing address or buying a new house. 3 Libertarian Ideas to Strengthen Democracy (2022)
Across episodes: the same question in different frames
The topic recurs across four episodes, but the treatment shifts rather than develops along a single line. In the 2018 Bolick episode, the minimum wage is Zadek’s illustration of situational federalism, with Bolick supplying the term and the argument that federalism should be supported whenever it expands freedom. In the 2020 Tanner episode, the frame is racial history and labor-market exclusion, with Tanner supplying the historical account and Zadek adding the JFK hearing anecdote. In the two 2022 Somin episodes, the frame is mobility and foot voting, with Somin supplying the $7.25 and $15 figures and the modest-constraint assessment. The episodes do not argue with one another; they apply different libertarian arguments — federalism, anti-racism, and mobility — to the same institution.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the constitutional basis on which the national minimum wage was once of questionable constitutionality, nor which case or amendment settled the question. They do not give the name of any minimum wage bill, the date or outcome of the 1948 Senate hearing Zadek describes, or the titles and fields of the guests beyond what the labels show. The Somin excerpt breaks off mid-sentence on the point that the current national minimum wage is probably only a relatively modest obstacle to, and the article stops there.