I've got quibbles with many of your policies, but this one's a deal-breaker.

Your economy just imploded.  Why should any of your workers put in any effort at all? 

Logical problem:  By what logic is a burger-flipper with 20 years' experience is worth one dime more than a burger-flipper with 20 days' experience?

Practical problem:  How is an entity as large as the government is going to be able to accurately reflect which experience and skill sets are in demand?   "We don't need those guys with their microcomputers, mainframes and COBOL are where it's at!  Wanna work at Google, go for it, but you've got no ADA experience, no COBOL, and no JCL.  $5/hour.  Now, processing wage analyses forms in the Data Processing subsection of the Department of Redundancy Department, that's career gold.  Everyone there has 20 years experience and a proper skill set, hence their $200/hour minimum pay grade!"

Economies based on the labor theory of value tend to fail pretty spectacularly.  You may not like the free market system, and you may attempt to moderate it by means of a minimum wage (thereby putting out of work anyone who can't produce more than the minimum wage), but going to full-on wage controls is nothing short of economic suicide. 

If the polls said you'd managed to con the voters into it, I'd be out of the country the week before election day.


Um...let me repeat myself
Minimum pay grade
"Every American deserves the opportunity to make an honest living for themselves. That

forget it , screw it all.

Here is my problem with a minimum pay grid:

What if you choose to take a lower paying job?  What if you choose to take a job you might normally be over-qualified for?

I know that a lot of us have probably heard that irritating phrase: you are over qualified.

When I moved from Los Angeles to BF Alabama, I took a huge jump down in job.  I moved from a senior technician position where I made around $25 an hour, ot a job at a small store where I made less then half that much money.  By the standards you are setting up, the place I am working at would never have hired me, because we do not do enough work to justify the higher wage I would have to be paid.

It also does not seem to take into account the standard of living for different areas.  Living in LA, $25 an hour was barely enough to get by.  I was still having to skip on some things, like car insurance and living in a place other then a slum.  Everything was so expensive, that that was not much above a starvation wage.

However, out here $12 is a damned good wage.  When you can rent a house for $300 a month, you can easily live at wages below $10 an hour.  And get by better then somebody living in LA that makes twice as much money.  Plus you are guaranteeing somebody who is laid off with a lot of experience will never get another good paying job.  Nobody would want to hire them, because their experience will make them cost more then somebody else with less experience.

And do not get mad and go away, this is part of what debate is all about.  I am not responding to be mean spirited, but am simply pointing out things you may not have thought about.  In the acedemic community, this is known as "Peer Review".  And the business world and government does the same thing.  The idea is to point out to you things you may have missed.

Notice, I called it Utopian.  To me, Utopian normally means "so good it is impossible to pull off in real life".  My fear is that most of the time, utopian ideas turn into dystopian workings if they are really tried.

Of course, I am a cynic.