How a Progressive Student Unknowingly Supported Minimum Wage Laws for the Continuation of the “White Working Force”

It is pretty painful when you end up supporting something you are opposed to.

How terrible have college students’ reasoning skills and economic understanding become? This seems to be the question on everyone’s mind as the nation looks on the violence perpetuated by Antifa in the name of “Anti-fascism” and, arguably, pro-communist beliefs. Yet these same beliefs, which compel them to action, only exist so long as their illogical, contradictory, and unsound conclusions exist.

Unfortunately, the logical construction of their ideas is often overshadowed by repetitious rhetoric by all those right-of-center, including libertarians. Yet, the logical proofs of these ideas ought not be ignored. So, what is an example of one of their illogical, and embarrassingly contradictory, arguments?

Thanks to University of Wisconsin-Madison student, Will Stern, we have a painfully entertaining example.

To begin, I am not implying that Will Stern is a member of Antifa – rather I am suggesting his reasoning skills, and his argument, should have been more thoroughly considered as they provide a fantastic case for abolishing minimum wage laws, something assumingly antithetical to what he believes.

It seems, as Mr. Stern begins his argument, that the main argument is about political inconsistencies. He argues that the GOP is worried about wage decreases because of immigration but finds it inconsistent that they do not support minimum wage increases when (he believes) it would help them. A fair criticism and one that is not going to be directly addressed in this article.

As Mr. Stern continues, he suggests an increase in minimum wage would secure wages for “Donald Trump’s middle class white base” as immigrants would not be able to undercut their wages. His economic misunderstandings and poor reasoning skills have just forced him to admit two things: 1) that these middle class, white workers should be paid more so as to undercut immigrant jobs while securing their own and 2) that middle class, white, GOP voting folks are among the only people that deserve jobs.

These middle class, white workers, as described above, are owed more, according to Mr. Stern. By suggesting that GOP voters ought to support increased minimum wages laws, he is suggesting that, for the protection of this monolithic group, that they should arbitrarily increase the value of these workers. Economically (and logically), this would create large unemployment in immigrant circles as they would not be able to provide (to employers) the return value of an increased wage. This is largely because an increase in value-paid out by employers would require better communication and labor skills – skills many non-natives are lacking.

It is of no doubt to me that Mr. Stern believes (incorrectly) that employment opportunity would not decrease. If he did, he would have just openly supported an increase in minimum wage for the protection of “Donald Trump’s middle class white base” as there would be less jobs for immigrants because of the market would force employees to be more skilled than what immigrants could provide, thus securing jobs for this white, GOP-voting monolith who are more likely to hold these skills.

Continuing, if he holds that minimum wage laws should be in place, he is suggesting that government is compelled to protect the interests of “white America” by increasing the bar for entry into the labor market – something native Americans are more capable of reaching than immigrants. Of course, this shouldn’t be of any surprise to history enthusiasts – the minimum wage was created to do exactly this.

College has become an incubator for this type of illogical reasoning. This is not an isolated incident of what is an embarrassing and unknowing admission in favor of something they likely aren’t. If we are to have true, genuine, and objective political discourse, something this country desperately needs, we need to reject unsound arguments like Mr. Stern’s. We need to embrace truth rather than virtue signal about a political doctrines. When we don’t, the consequence becomes what we have seen with Mr. Stern: the innocent enough, yet embarrassingly painful promotion of a doctrine contradictory to reason, life, and freedom.

Questions, comments, gripes or complaints?