Econ 101 Court Cases - -law must have been enacted for this

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 101 Court Cases Lochner v. State of New York -statute prohibits employee from working extra to earn money they may desire -private contract rights protected under 14 th amendment -right to purchase and sell labor is protected by this amendment -unreasonable and unnecessary to interfere -ultimately not w/in the police power of the state -bakers are capable of informed judgment, not wards of the state, so the gov’t should not be making decisions for them regarding their employment -would be w/in the power of the state if there would be a negative externality present -“equal footing”- if bakers and employers were not on equal footing regarding negotiations (similar to monopoly), it might be inefficient, thus detracting from the public good -this labor law does not detract from the “safety, morals, nor welfare of the public” -contract law can be regulated for the common good and well-being of society
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: -law must have been enacted for this purpose-dissenting opinion states the law was clearly enacted for the safety of those working in bakeries and is therefore well within the police power of the state Muller v. Oregon-despite many advances women are still dependent on men- lack informed consent-it becomes necessary to restrict the contractual rights of women when doing so prevents excessive female strain in the workplace-deciding issue- to allow excessive strain would hamper womens ability to bear and care for children, a necessity for a robust society-women having healthy children is a positive externality of the market for female labor-women not being able to produce robust children would be a negative externality; it would be bad for society...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online