Skip to main content

Minimum Wage is a Bad Idea--Here's Why

Well, it happened--minimum wage went up...again, at least for 18 states in our fair union.  Unfortunately, my state, Ohio, is one such state.  For many this is a time of jubilation as they celebrate the instantaneous raise that they did nothing whatsoever to earn, but for those of us who have brains that are even remotely economically-inclined, we know that the minimum wage going up is not a good thing.  For those of you who don't generally think about economics, here's why Uncle Sam (or, in this case, Uncle Sam's little brothers) raising the minimum wage is not a good thing:

1) It's a sign of the decline of our dollar.  We can argue over whether or not it's good for the economy to raise the minimum wage, but one thing is clear: it's not a sign of a thriving dollar.  Raising the minimum wage is the logical result of inflating the dollar, so, once again, the problem we're trying to fix is of our own making.  Many economists seem to think some inflation is a good idea, but the fact that you have to continue raising minimum wage to maintain a "living wage" should pretty much tell you that inflating your currency is not a great idea for the long-term viability of your economy.

2) It's not the government's job to guarantee you a living wage.  Speaking of a living wage, why is the government in the business of guaranteeing you a living wage?  Are we really going to try and interpret the "general welfare" bit of the Constitution to mean that the government, whether local or federal, was created to guarantee that every constituent has a job that provides a living wage?  That, my friends, is socialism.  That ain't what made America great, amiright?!

3) It's not your employer's job to guarantee you a living wage.  You ever had two jobs?  I have.  It's fun, if you're into cold meals and endless exhaustion.  Your employer is obligated to pay you whatever he has promised to pay you.  That's it.  An employer who wants decent employees will pay them enough to keep them satisfied.  A smart employer will pay his employees at least the median pay for the services they render him.  If he wants loyal, hardworking employees, he is free to motivate them by offering more than that.  No one has to work for another person, and, conversely, no business owner should have to employ someone or compensate them beyond what he desires. 

4) Everybody else gets a pay cut.  Economics, people.  It's really not that difficult to grasp.  If you require McDonald's to pay their people more, they will charge their customers more (or fire people).  Companies are not going to stop making a profit, nor should they, since businesses that don't make a profit can't hire new employees or compensate existing employees well.  When the government forces Starbucks to pay your barista $.15 more an hour, they are taking that directly out of your pocket.  Don't believe me?  Go order a small Frosty at Wendy's and tell me I'm wrong.  It's a rip-off, but I don't blame Wendy's.  As I stew over my micro Frosty, I curse inflation and the minimum wage, not Dave Thomas (may he rest in peace).

5) Not everyone needs a living wage.  Some people would work for less than a living wage.  Teenagers are the clear example of this.  Now, there are a variety of laws in the U.S. regarding minors, but the principle still applies--for those who would be willing to work for less, the minimum wage eliminates the opportunity to work altogether.  There are plenty of people who are looking for a second job or income to supplement their retirement that can't find it because companies can't afford them to pay them the minimum wage to do menial jobs.  Others who own their homes or whose housing is otherwise provided might only work for spending money.  The minimum wage inhibits companies from hiring these outliers. 

6) A living wage is relative.  How many times have you seen a "poor" person who just dropped $100 on a new haircut or a new pair of shoes?  I'm just sayin'.  What you can live on is different from what you are willing to live on.  The American economy is basically built on frivolous purchases, so we really have no idea what a living wage really means.  Instead of demanding that the government ensures the right to a living wage, maybe people should live within their means or get a second job.  The idea that everyone, regardless of their experience or skill-set, should be able to earn a living wage in 40 hours a week, while refusing to spend money thriftily, is economic madness.

That's just a couple of reasons I'm not celebrating the new minimum wage in my state.  Economics can get pretty complex, but some aspects of it are relatively common-sensical.  If the recent government shutdown was any indication, that might be exactly why our public officials can't figure it out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary