Maybe there's more to the story. Maybe I'm missing something. I thought it might be an April Fools joke, but it's an article from a few days prior. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-minimum-wage_us_58dd4b66e4b05eae031e16c6 Iowa has apparently passed a bill that reverses local minimum wage increases and bans cities or counties from enacting them in the future. So, people who had received a wage increase will now lose that increase and go back to the state minimum wage, which is the same as the federal minimum at $7.25. The governor stated "It is a privilege, and it's something I'm very proud to do. I think it's going to have a long-term, lasting benefit for Iowa's competitive situation." So, he thinks that reducing the wages of people who had received a raise is going to have a lasting benefit for Iowa? Keeping wages low, and forbidding localities from enacting higher wages is going to provide a lasting benefit? On the one hand, it aggravates me to read this stuff. On the other hand, I have to remember that the citizens of this state voted to change from a bipartisan representation to a Republican representation, so they get what they voted for. I know there are a few members of this board who support this wholeheartedly. So, tell me why. Why do you think it's a good thing for a state to forbid a locality from enacting their own minimum wage increases, or rolling back already-enacted increases?