The real history behind the minimum wage (HINT: It involves progressives and eugenics)

Using his pen and phone strategy, President Obama passed an executive action raising the minimum wage for government contractors to $10.10 an hour. During the State of the Union, the President expressed his desire for Congress to follow suit and raise the federal minimum wage in kind. So where did the idea of a minimum wage come from? On radio this morning, Glenn and Stu laid out the history of the minimum wage… though you probably have a pretty good idea already.

“I want to show you how history absolutely repeats itself. And it repeats itself until somebody says, ‘Wait a minute. Hold it just a second. Water will certainly wet us. Fire will certainly burn,’” Glenn said. “As long as you allow people to say, ‘Shut up, you're not allowed to say that,’ history will repeat itself. And history repeats itself in the worst possible ways.”

If the minimum wage actually worked, it would be a job creator. It is not. In fact, it destroys jobs.

“What happens with the minimum wage? There are some jobs that are only worth a certain amount of money. It's not worth paying somebody $15 an hour to come here and lick stamps. It's just not worth it,” Glenn explained. “So what does that mean? A, it means your life becomes for miserable. You have to spend more time because the company has to now dump all that work you on, because they can no longer afford to have somebody do that task at this price. Now, if the company says, ‘We're just going to have to outsource it,’ then they outsource it to somebody they will pay much, much, less in Mexico or in India, so that job is gone.”

So where did the concept originate from?

“Well, they very clearly had an idea to get rid of the lower classes – a sort of Eugenic way to get rid of people who are inferior,” Stu explained. “They would price them out of the labor market so they wouldn't have jobs.”

Sidney Webb, English economist and co-Founder of the Fabian Society in the early 1900s, believed that establishing a minimum wage above the value of “the unemployables” as he called them, would lock them out of the market thus eliminating them as a class.

“Of all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners," Webb said.

That was actually a common sentiment in America at the time. in America shared this belief as well. Around the same time, a Princeton economist said this:

“It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law even if it deprives these unfortunates of work… better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.”

Who was that Princeton economist? Royal Meeker, U.S. Commissioner of Labor, under Woodrow Wilson.

Doesn’t all make so much more sense now?

There is another aspect to the minimum wage that is equally important. A hike in the minimum wage isn’t just a hike in the minimum wage. It’s a hike in the union wage. And a hike in the union wage means more votes for the Democratic Party. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“And the other part of this, which I think is just as bad because I kind of had this disconnect my whole life with minimum wage,” Stu said. “They want to make it as a political issue, but why do they care? Why do unions support it so much?”

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union explained the relation:

“Often times, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases… such increases are one of the many advantages of being a union member.”

“ A hike in the minimum wage is not just a hike in the minimum wage. It's a hike in the union wage, and that's one of the reasons that they never talk with it, why the Democrats love this so much,” Stu continued. “They're pumping tons of dues and eventually campaign cash into their own campaigns by raising the minimum wage. It hikes up the union wages.”

“There's the truth,” Glenn concluded. “And history repeats itself. And we're going to complete the cycle.”

Stu had a more in-depth explanation on last week’s Wonderful World of Stu. Check out the monologue below:

Front page image courtesy of the AP

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?