Unseen Consequences of Minimum Wage Laws

By Matthew Hayward

The Unseen Consequences of the Minimum Wage

As an advocate for limited government and free markets, I've often found myself in debates over the minimum wage. It's a contentious issue, with well-meaning proponents arguing that it's necessary to ensure workers can afford basic necessities. However, the minimum wage, while well-intentioned, often does more harm than good. A recent article even suggests that minimum wage laws may contribute to homelessness.

The Free Market and the Value of Labor

In a genuinely free market, the value of labor is determined by supply and demand. If no one is willing to work for less than a specific wage to roof a house, then the market has found its minimum wage. Conversely, a maximum wage is found if an employer is unwilling to pay more than a certain amount. Pay should be determined based on the value of labor and the willingness to provide that labor.

The Unseen Job Loss

When a potential job exists but is worth less to the employer than the "minimum" wage, the job ceases to exist. But what if a person needs a job and is willing to work for less than the minimum wage? The unseen consequence of the minimum wage is that it prices out low-skilled workers from the labor market. Both the person needing the work done and the person needing the job lose out. It's a harsh reality that is often overlooked in the minimum wage debate.

The Paradox of the Minimum Wage

While I am opposed to the minimum wage, if we are to have one, it is only logical that the wage should pay enough to not qualify for any government assistance. The term "minimum wage" should logically mean a wage that pays a minimum to not need government assistance. However, this is often not the case, and many minimum-wage workers still rely on government aid to make ends meet, creating taxpayer corporate subsidies.

The Impact of Existing Employees

Another critical aspect of the minimum wage debate that often gets overlooked is its impact on existing employees. Consider this scenario: an employee has worked at a company for two years, starting at $13 an hour and working up to $17 an hour through hard work and dedication. Then, the minimum wage is increased to $15 an hour. Suddenly, new hires without experience earn half the raise this dedicated employee had to earn. It can feel like a slap in the face. The employee's hard work and loyalty have been devalued. It's another unseen consequence of the minimum wage and one that can have a significant impact on workplace morale and productivity.

The Unintended Consequences in the Restaurant Industry of Mandatory Minimums

Drawing from my experience in the restaurant industry, I've seen firsthand how mandatory minimums can distort the labor market. When I worked in places with minimum tip-out requirements, 95% of the time, the minimum was the amount tipped out. However, when there was no minimum, I almost always made more than the often mandatory 2% of sales.

When you set an artificial minimum, you create an obligation and an expectation. Those who tip out feel they have met their duty by tipping what was required; they do not consider a person's labor and its actual value to them. It also discourages those who work harder if they get paid the same as those who do not.

This experience in the restaurant industry can be extrapolated to the broader labor market. Some jobs pay less in a world without a minimum wage. However, other jobs could pay more. Employers would be free to reward hard work and initiative without the constraints of a mandated wage floor. This could lead to a more dynamic and responsive labor market where wages are more closely aligned with the actual value of labor.

Removing the minimum wage could lead to a more equitable distribution of wages based on each worker's value to their job. It's a perspective that challenges conventional wisdom but one that is worth considering in the ongoing debate about the minimum wage.

Conclusion

The minimum wage is a complex issue with no easy solutions. However, it's essential to consider these laws' unseen consequences and question whether they are genuinely achieving their intended goals. As we continue to debate this issue, let's remember that the best wage is not necessarily the one set by government mandate but the one determined by the value of labor in a free and open market.

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

By Matthew Hayward 9/19/2025 The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning. This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement. Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

Search This Blog