The Argument Against Minimum Wage

Minimum wage laws are put in place by the government for a myriad of supposed reasons: stimulating the economy, increasing the take-home pay of the average worker, helping the poor, and so on. However, experience has shown that such statutes rarely benefit those for which benefit is intended. To start with, the role of government was never to control the economy. According to Romans 13, rulers are to punish evildoers and reward the righteous. The economy can take care of itself. History tells us that the more the government tries to influence the economy, the less smoothly the country operates. Communism, the ultimate government control over economical components, has always failed miserably. There is no Biblical rationale for minimum wage laws either. Although we are told to help the widows and the fatherless, God's Word never encourages a fix on contractual proceedings. Rather, we are to uphold the agreements we have made with other people. A prime example of this is found in Matthew 20, where Christ tells a parable about a man who hired many different workers for many different time periods, but gave them all the same wage. When those who had worked the longest complained, he told them that what he gave was his business, not theirs. What about the way these laws really work? Doesn't a minimum wage increase benefit the lower-class worker? Not at all. When the minimum wage is raised or implemented to begin with, the employers don't begin paying more. Instead, they can no longer afford to pay all of their employees! As a result, the less skilled workers are quickly laid off to pay for those in higher positions. When employees are laid off, the company stocks rise due to the drop in payment. This increases the income of the rich shareholders and the owners of the company rather than the poor. Instead of benefiting the poor and minority unskilled workers, minimum wage laws only pay more for highly skilled employees and shareholding tycoons. In Him, D3


Kristin said...

Hi D3!

Thanks for stopping by my blog. I've actually been reading your blog for a while now but I've never commented. I found you through Blogging Boy Scout and The Account.

I'll be adding you to my blog roll.


gabriel said...

so would you describe yourself as a libertarian when it comes to the economy?

where does the bible give explicit instructions against a minimum wage?

why is it that conservatives are in favor of a gay marriage ammendment? is it really the government's job to say who can get married?

is it the government's place to say that 12 year olds can't get married? is it the govenments place to tell people when they can drink? when they can drive? when they can smoke? when they can buy a firearm?

is it the governments job to tell us when to go to war?

is it the governments job to tell 6 year olds that they cannot work?

David S. MacMillan III said...

If you wanna put it that way, I'm an anarchist when it comes to the economy (figuratively, of course). The government has no ethical or constitutional right to regulate the economy except possibly in times of war when such measures are necessary to stop actual invasion.

Read Matthew 20. That's as explicit as it gets.

According to Romans and Corinthians, it is the responsibility of the government to punish evil and reward good. Homosexual marriage is sin. For that matter, homosexuality itself is sin. Since we can't get the feds to ban sodomy, the least we can do is prevent sodomite perversion of marriage.

It is the government's responsibility to uphold the authority of parents. That's why, until they become adults, children are not allowed to marry w/o their parent's consent.

Under the 10 amendment to the U.S. constitution, the state governments have the right to do anything not expressly prohibited therein. They cannot, however, place any restrictions on firearms, because of the 2nd and 14th amendments. Nor can they impede the right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law (14th again).

The government has every right to declare and wage war, and levy taxes or drafts to support it. If the people don't like the war, they can impeach the House of Representatives or the president (or just not vote the next time around).

It is not the government's responsibility to tell 6-year-olds that they cannot work. This impedes the right of contract.

In Him,


David Ketter said...

Alright D3, kick butt!

That being said, I think I wouldn't be making $7.25 an hour if there wasn't a minimum wage...figures (not that they give me that many hours...)...but I do agree with you.

Lewis said...

Another line on the minimum wage is that it actually impedes its professed purpose, which is to make provide "reasonable" wages for the lowest strata of employees, i.e., improve their living conditions.

The problem is that costs don't disappear. If an employer is forced to pay artificial wages, he will make up the costs in one of two ways: raise prices on the products sold, or cut employment.

With the first scenario, the costs of products rise in proportion to the rise of an employee's salary; no savings here.

With the second... well, duh.

Then, of course, a host of legislation ensues, prohibiting "cost-raising", stipulating the required number of employees, etc.

One would wonder how much insanely better off everyone would be if there was no "board of Employment".

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey DJ,

Thanks! Watch your mouth, though (j/k). Acually, it probably isn't a good idea to say "kick butt" to a fellow Christian (and, incidentally, one of the owners of The Non-Conformist).


gabriel said...

before you go bad mouthing me (david ketter), i must admit that i enjoy the role of devil's advocate.

that being said, you all should do a study into the equalibrium theory.

gabriel said...

hey, i thought i'd drop a line here, because i just get tired of scrolling down.

how can god have two covenants in place at the same time?

how can god continue the old covenant with israel, if he has begun a new covenant with the universal church?

romans 10:12 says that there is no distinction between jew and greek, so how is there some covenant still in place? isn't that what hebrews is all about? the new covenant to replace the old.


gabriel said...

consider the palestinian christians, what would you say to them, david ketter.

would you tell them to renounce their heritage to become what god did not make them? there is no shame in being a palestinian christian, yet so many in the church see palestine as merely a bug to be crushed by the almighty's foot, and not a nation that needs saving, just as you and i once did.

the israelis hate them, palestinians hate them, and the christians in america don't seem to care (because they are palestinians).

David Ketter said...

how can god have two covenants in place at the same time?

First of all, He's God...He can do whatever He wants. That being said, it's important to notice the distinction. God's covenant with Israel is a corporate covenant with a particular group - exclusive promise. The "New Covenant" is an open offer - available to anyone and is given on individual basis.

would you tell them to renounce their heritage to become what god did not make them?

It's not the Palestinian people that I take issue with, but Palestinian sovereignty. Before Arafat, Palestinians were perfectly content to live under an Israelite government...so long as Israel is in control of the covenant land, everything's fine.

before you go bad mouthing me (david ketter), i must admit that i enjoy the role of devil's advocate.

I wasn't badmouthing you...just pointing out that our differences are too different for me to work peaceably with you.

David S. MacMillan III said...

how can god have two covenants in place at the same time?

If we estimate that there are 1,500,000,000 Christians alive today, that would mean that God has 1,500,000,000 covenants.

how can god continue the old covenant with israel, if he has begun a new covenant with the universal church?

Very simple. Romans 11 (again) says that "the natural branches" (Israel) were "broken off" of the vine (the universal church that has existed since Adam) so that the wild branches, or Gentiles, could be grafted in. However, says Paul, since God broke off the natural branches to include the Gentiles, he can easily graft them back in. Paul goes on to say "so all Israel will be saved". Apparently, the unconditional promise of blessing upon the descendants of Abraham is still in effect, even though the majority of the Jews left their faith by rejected the covenant of salvation through Christ. "Hardening in part has come to the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Also, it would seem from this verse that one day Christ will open the eyes of all the Jews still alive.

romans 10:12 says that there is no distinction between jew and greek, so how is there some covenant still in place?

That is in reference to people who are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Within the church there is no distinction between those who were Jews beforehand and those who were Gentiles beforehand.

isn't that what hebrews is all about? the new covenant to replace the old.

Hebrews is all about the establishment of Christ as God. The new covenant did not replace the old. Instead, it was the completion of the old covenant.

"I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it."

The way of salvation was always either looking forward to or backwards to the sacrifice of Christ. But the unconditional promise of blessing on the children of Israel still continues to this day.

gabriel said...

i was refering to the kick butt comment (david ketter)

so god made a covenant with israel, he told them he'd send them a king, and he did, king david. but the covenant wasn't all about king david was it, it was about something greater than david, it was about christ. he told them he'd make them a great nation, and he did. but it wasn't all about making them an earthly nation was it? no he made them into a supernatural nation, the church. he promised them a land flowing with milk and honey, and they got canaan. but it wasn't all about canaan, it was about heaven.

MVB said...

:) I think that there should be a minumum wage, just so no company would misuse an employee. Yes, sometimes it hurts small businesses, but yeah, I think it is neccessary. How high or low it should be is a different question....

MVB said...

Telling someone to kick butt, is not bad mouthing. There is another way of saying it that could be taken badly, though.....

gabriel said...

once again i find myself slave to sarcasm.

SecDef said...


When interpereting passages of Scripture, one sometimes comes accross two valid interperatations; however, upon closer inspection, it is seen that one of the interperetations can only interperet part, while the other can interperet the whole thing.

Thus it is with Israel. Yes, they are a Spiritual nation (= the Church). That is not in dispute. However, they are also a natural entity. There is neither male nor female IN THE SPIRIT (i.e. not on earth, otherwise homosexuality would be OK). Same with Jews & Greeks. Yes, a true Jew is one who is saved; there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ; but on this earth, there are differences. (Note that the Jews are called natural branches, while the Gentiles are called wild branches in ROmans 11).

Replacement theology can interperet the first part (spiritual Israel) but they cannot interperet the rest (e.g. the Scripture that states that there has been a hardening on the Jews in part until the number of the Gentiles has come in; that Scripture can ONLY be interpereted if one believe that Israel is a physical entity as well).


SecDef said...

*should be, "can only be EXPLAINED..."

David Ketter said...

Well, SecDef and D3 seem to have taken care of that...

Gabriel, you might want to tread lightly about how you talk about Israel (not that you've said anything derogatory about the people)...Why? Because your commenting on a blog that belongs to a guy with the blood of the Patriarchs in his veins (I'm jealous).

David S. MacMillan III said...

That's right; my dad's mom was a Jew. That makes me 1/2 Jew by tradition and 1/4 Jew by blood. I like to call myself a completed Jew; I know the Messiah.

But DJ's right. You aren't being derogatory or anything, Gabriel. :-)

gabriel said...

none of the following is written in disrepect for any persons who may read the following. if you're going to be offended, then just don't read it.

i just find it intersting that the only scripture you all have referenced so far is romans 11. to base something so huge on one chapter of the bible is bordering on prejudice.

you know i am related to edward the longshanks? isn't that interesting. i always cringe when i watch braveheart.

if you take a peek at matthew 1, you'll see jesus' geneology. so i guess you could say that david is related to jesus if he is related to the patriarchs.

which is pretty cool i guess. however, take a look at who is included in the geneology.

you will find whores, foreigners, murderers, adulterers, and lots of other nasty stuff.

so then, the savior of the world is related to some of the sinningest people in the world. king david's son raped his sister, david himself had sex with another man's wife and then had that man killed.

i mean, these people were bad.

what is the point in all this that i am talking about?
your anscestory is nothing to brag about. do you think that i enjoy walking around with a pagan king's blood running through my veins?

jesus himself had nothing to brag about when it came to his anscestory.

if you look in john 8:38-41, the jews tell jesus that their father is abraham, and jesus basically says, "i don't care if your father is abraham, i want to know who your mom is."

not that i am questioning where you stand with the lord, i'm not.

the real question for those who say their father is abraham would be, is your mother sarah or hagar?

and by the bye secdef (i am still trying to figure out what exactly your moniker means)

eveything seems so simple when you're one side of an argument, in fact, my position makes no sense at all to you, but that's because you aren't me. so it isn't really the best way of winning a debate by saying "your exegetical procedures are wooden".

i could say the exact same thing to you.

basically you are using an argument that says "you are wrong, because i say so"

which is the same argument that people make when they argue that god must exist, because it says so in the bible-as if atheists are debating what our bible says.

SecDef said...

Gabriel, Romans 11 is the principle Scripture, but there are others. A whole host of OT prophesies cannot be fully explained if Israel is not literal (e.g. Ezekiel 33-48, Zechariah 10-15, etc.). :) As for my name...it is short for Secretary of Defense. :D

David Ketter said...

your anscestory is nothing to brag about. do you think that i enjoy walking around with a pagan king's blood running through my veins?

Like it or not, we all have pagan blood...even the Israelites. The Reality, however, does not diminish their honor: "Theirs are the patriarchs, the covenants, the Law, the prophets..." I paraphrase what Paul wrote there.

Longshanks, huh? Perhaps I should inform you, then, of my lineage - the blood of Robert the Bruce and that of other great lords of Scotland runs in my veins. It's pretty sad that we can't agree...but how pathetic is it that our ancestors didn't either? LOL...just thought it was interesting...

gabriel said...

yeah, isn't it a shame how the church is so divided?

do any of you guys ever listen to derek webb? he has a great song called 'tshirts'. you all should track it down and listen to it. you can probably get a 30 second clip from itunes store.

the good news is that one day we'll have all this behind us.

David Ketter said...

yeah, isn't it a shame how the church is so divided?

Denominational division may be a sign of weakness but that is not the problem. Christians need to be spiritually united. We don't always agree but we must work toward the furtherance of the Body - the coming "fullness of the Gentiles" and the redemption of Israel that draws nearer every day.

sally said...

wait, did you just call the poor wicked and the rich righteous?