Economy & Business

Government Should Dump Wage Laws

Protestors outside a Miami McDonald’s demand a $15 minimum wage, November 10, 2015. (Joe Raedle/Getty)

What should government do about wages? Butt out.

From minimum wages to living wages, liberal busybodies keep trying to decide how much Americans should be paid for their labor. They need to stop.

Here’s why.

First, fundamental freedom. As long as an employer and employee are happy with whatever wage is being paid and received, it’s none of the government’s damn business what that figure is. If Gomez wants to pay Wilcox $5 per hour to paint his house, and Wilcox is happy to earn that amount, who is the government to step between them and stop their deal?

If Gomez is making Wilcox work at gunpoint, then call the police. Otherwise, leave them alone. Government’s vaunted definition of social justice should not undermine two infinitely higher virtues: mutual benefit and shared happiness.

Second, the minimum wage is self-contradictory. No wage at all would be okay. But, somehow, a less-than-minimum wage is illegal.

It is perfectly legal for Jackson to have an intern and pay her $0 per hour. However, if he tells her, “I cannot afford to pay you the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. But I can afford to pay you $6 per hour. What do you think?”

The intern replies, “I would prefer $6 to $0. So, great.”

Well, that’s illegal. How does that make any sense at all?

Third, liberals who clamor for a higher minimum wage cannot decide how high it should be.

The minimum wage is self-contradictory. No wage at all would be okay. But, somehow, a less-than-minimum wage is illegal.

Obama wants to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. (What an odd number. Why not just $10.00?) On Capitol Hill, 32 senators and 165 House members — all Democrats — want to hike the minimum wage to $12 per hour. City councils in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle recently voted to raise the minimum wages in those localities to $15 per hour.

If caring, compassionate, brilliant statists — from the federal bureaucracy to the White House to Capitol Hill to the Golden Gate Bridge — cannot agree on what the proper minimum wage should be, why should any American have any confidence that anyone in government has any idea what any worker ought to receive for an hour of his labor?

Indeed, is it possible — just possible — that a worker and his employer might know what that wage should be better than someone at city hall or on Capitol Hill?

Fourth, many of those who holler for higher minimum wages are rampantly hypocritical. Among the 197 Democrats who co-sponsored a bill to create a $12-per-hour federal minimum wage, 94 percent pay their congressional interns precisely $0.00.

If it’s okay for these bleeding-heart employers in the public sector to pay their interns no money whatsoever, who are they to tell private-sector employers what to pay their employees? Anyone on Capitol Hill who does not pay his interns at least the minimum wage has zero moral standing to lecture other people about what they should pay their employees.

Fifth, why stop at $15 per hour? Who is to say that $7.25 or $10.10 or even $15 is the correct minimum wage? Indeed, why not raise it to $100 per hour? This policy would have enormous economic benefits:

‐Assuming 52 weeks of labor at 40 hours each, every American would earn at least $208,000 annually.

‐With such huge paychecks, every American worker would occupy at least the top 3 percent.

‐Everyone earning $208,000 would fall into the 33 percent tax bracket. This would generate roughly $9 trillion in income-tax revenues annually. Americans could pay off the $18.6 trillion national debt in just over two years!

#share#Free-marketeers should promote this modest proposal and let the Left slowly conclude that, at some point, artificially raising the price of labor will kill jobs for human beings, while creating new opportunities for robots.

Only an idea as wacky as a $100-per-hour minimum wage can penetrate liberals’ concrete skulls.

But then again, maybe not.

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor of National Review Online.

Most Popular

Energy & Environment

The Climate Trap for Democrats

The more the climate debate changes, the more it stays the same. Polls show that the public is worried about climate change, but that doesn’t mean that it is any more ready to bear any burden or pay any price to combat it. If President Donald Trump claws his way to victory again in Pennsylvania and the ... Read More

Kamala Harris Runs for Queen

I’m going to let you in on a secret about the 2020 presidential contest: Unless unforeseen circumstances lead to a true wave election, the legislative stakes will be extremely low. The odds are heavily stacked against Democrats’ retaking the Senate, and that means that even if a Democrat wins the White House, ... Read More

What We’ve Learned about Jussie Smollett

It’s been a few weeks since March 26, when all charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and the actor declared that his version of events had been proven correct. How’s that going? Smollett’s celebrity defenders have gone quiet. His publicists and lawyers are dodging reporters. The @StandwithJussie ... Read More
Politics & Policy

But Why Is Guatemala Hungry?

I really, really don’t want to be on the “Nicolas Kristof Wrote Something Dumb” beat, but, Jiminy Cricket! Kristof has taken a trip to Guatemala, with a young woman from Arizona State University in tow. “My annual win-a-trip journey,” he writes. Reporting from Guatemala, he discovers that many ... Read More