By Mark Lagerkvist | New Jersey Watchdog
This is the one political contest Chris Christie lost in Tuesday’s election. By a 61-39 percent spread, New Jersey voters passed a constitutional amendment[1] that will raise the minimum wage for workers by a dollar an hour – from $7.25 to $8.25.[2]
“That is a stupid way to do it,” Christie told reporters during a public appearance last year. “That is not what the constitution is there for.”
Voters disagreed. While they re-elected Christie by a large margin – 60-38 percent – the electorate turned the tables on the ballot question.
As a result, minimum wage – plus annual cost-of-living increases in perpetuity – is cemented into the state constitution.
When a recession strikes, for example, the Legislature may be powerless to stop automatic increases until the law is changed, adjusted or repealed via another amendment.
The amendment gives lawmakers a last laugh over Christie. The governor conditionally vetoed a minimum wage bill earlier this year. As an alternative, he favored a gradual increase without any automatic yearly raises.
“The sudden, significant minimum-wage increase in this bill, coupled with automatic raises each year tied to the Unites States consumer price index, will jeopardize the economic recovery we all seek,” wrote Christie[3] in this veto message.
Unable to override Christie’s veto, lawmakers voted in two successive sessions to put the question on the ballot.
New Jersey was the only state that has a minimum wage question on its ballot this year. But what happened here may be a bellwether for the rest of the country.
At least four other states – Alaska, Missouri, New Mexico and South Dakota – are considering similar proposals in 2014. Efforts also are under way to put minimum wage measures on the ballot in Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Hawaii and Idaho, according to Ballotpedia.org[4]
Your right to bear arms is in the constitution also .look how well that's restricted in NJ.
The Governor didn't lose a thing. He prefers ballot issues and letting the people decide. Most people don't understand the ramifications of making this a Constitutional issue. Most just thought it was a simple way to raise low end wages. That's what happens with a large block of low informed voters.
To everyone who voted yes on question 2, let me give you some perspective: If I own a business with 5 minimum wage full time employees I now have to pay $200 more out in payroll each week. That's $800 per month. That a mortgage payment, car payments etc. that I can no longer make. The result-I have to either raise prices or let people go. In order to make up the $800 per month I'll price myself out of business. If I let people go, my service will suffer and customers will go elsewhere. Either way, I'm in a bad spot. So when you're kid comes home and says he/she was let go due to the minimum wage increase, have the guts to look them in the face and tell you voted yes to question 2. Point 2-a favorite response to the minimum wage debate is"You can't provide for a family on minimum wage". Well, if you're at a point where you have a family and you're STILL only making minimum wage-the pay is not the problem, the job is not the problem-YOU are the problem.
This sets up a nightmare scenario. When we have stagflation (when not if) wages will be automatically increased against the will of employers while business erodes…this is going to be ugly in the future.