It is time for the states to lead.
Every once in awhile in the history of this great country of ours, the federal government just can't get the job done. Partisan gridlock, constitutional uncertainty, public distrust all play a role. But one of the great strengths of the American system is that the states -- those laboratories of democracy, as Louis Brandeis called them -- can act when Washington will not. Abolitionism, women's suffrage, health care reform, gay rights: All started at the state level.
This is one of those times. Our national system is inert. Our national leaders are mired in the muck of inaction.
And yet there is hope. For today is Election Day, and on this day, we will elect 36 governors. This is no time to stay home when the polling places are open. This is a time to choose leaders who will act where Washington has not.
I can think of no better example of the choice we face as a country today than the minimum wage.
After World War II, Congress set the minimum wage at approximately half the average wage in the country. In today's dollars, it was over $10 an hour. Earning the minimum wage, one full-time worker could support a family of three above the poverty line.
Today, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, less than 36 percent of the average wage. It's so low that it can't even keep a family of two out of poverty.
Unlike Social Security or Medicare payments, the minimum wage is not indexed to the cost of living. Only Congress can raise it. The last time they did so was 2009. Democrats proposed raising it again earlier this year, but the majority of senators opposed it.
The feds have failed to act. It's time for the states to lead.
And we have ample evidence that they can. Twenty-three states already have minimum wages higher than $7.25. Five states -- Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota -- have an initiative on today's ballot to increase theirs.
But not everyone is onboard.
"I don't think it serves a purpose," said Wisconsin's Republican governor Scott Walker last month.
"I don't think as governor I want to be the cause of someone losing their job," said Greg Abbott, the Republican candidate for governor in Texas, in explaining his opposition to raising the minimum wage. Pennsylvania's Republican governor Tom Corbett made a similar argument when stating his opposition last year.
At least they pretended to know what they were talking about. When Republican Governor Rick Scott was asked what Florida's minimum wage should be, he said, "How would I know?"
These men are on today's ballot in four of our nation's largest and most influential states.
And they are tragically out-of-step with the lessons of economic history. In a recent study, the economists Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley survey the vast research that economists have done measuring the impact of the minimum wage in recent decades -- 64 papers in total -- and they find "little or no evidence" that minimum wage increases caused job losses.
On the contrary, raising the minimum wage is a clear boost to the economy. In another recent paper, the economist Arindrajit Dube found that raising the minimum wage significantly reduces the poverty rate, a finding that is consistent with the other 12 studies economists have published in recent years measuring the same effect in different ways.
Only a politician severely out-of-touch with the modern economy could think otherwise. Today's corporations don't have to cut back jobs when wages rise. They have to cut back profits, which are at an all-time high. In the long run, they might not have to cut back anything. Higher wages lead to higher productivity, better health, fewer strikes, lower turnover, and higher consumption, which in turn leads to more demand for their products and therefore higher profits.
Individual companies may not want to raise wages if their competitors won't, but when everyone does it, everyone benefits.
Trying to save money by keeping the minimum wage low is like trying to improve your health by starving yourself. It's classic shortsighted behavior, hardly the visionary leadership that we'd like to see in the governor's mansion.
That's why today's election matters. In this age of do-nothing politics, it's easy to despair, but we must remember the intent behind the design. The same founding fathers who created a federal system that resists radical change also created a state system that encourages experimentation. Today we celebrate their creation, and we direct its attention to the challenges of our time.
If the feds do not act, the states will. We the voters will make sure of it.