Minimum Wage to Increase in 18 States – Here’s How a Rise Could Hurt Workers

What’s going on?

The minimum wage is set to increase in 18 states and around 20 cities and counties for the new year, CNNMoney reported.

Does a mandated minimum wage help workers?

That’s up for debate. On today’s show, Doc talked about how increasing minimum wage ends up hitting workers in the long term when employers have to reduce their hours, work them harder in less time or turn to automation instead of human employees.

“You think randomly you can just mandate $15 without knowing any of these individual companies’ profit margins and what the books are?” Doc asked. “You think they’re making enough to cover that? What if they’re not?”

Companies can’t just magically pay more, and they’re dealing with profit margin expectations and stockholders.

“This is a failure across the board,” Doc said.

Which states are raising hourly minimum wage?

  • Alaska: $9.84
  • Arizona: $10.50
  • California: $10.50 or $11, depending on if the business has more than 25 employees
  • Colorado: $10.20
  • Florida: $8.25
  • Hawaii: $10.10
  • Maine: $10
  • Michigan: $9.25
  • Minnesota: $7.87, rising to $9.65 for businesses passing a threshold of an annual gross revenue of $500,000 or more
  • Missouri: $7.85
  • Montana: $8.30
  • New Jersey: $8.60
  • New York: varies depending on location and company size; learn more here
  • Ohio: $8.30
  • Rhode Island: $10.10
  • South Dakota: $8.85
  • Vermont: $10.50
  • Washington state: $11.50

Do you think an increased minimum wage will help or hurt workers? Let us know in the comment section below

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: New law going into effect across the country as of Monday. Lots of states have new minimum wage laws going into effect. Federal minimum wage, 7.25 right now. A bunch of states have said we want to hire minimum wage.

Minimum wages are a scam. It's a bad idea. They do not have their intended effect.

But to the extent that we are going to have minimum wages, of course, states should be able to pass a minimum wage. In fact, the federal government should leave it on states. Make it whatever you want, states. The federal government doesn't need involved in this.

Eighteen states are going to have a new minimum wage beginning Monday. Eight states are inflation-adjusted, where they're going up because of previous laws that tie into inflation.

New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Missouri. All inflation adjusted. Other states are seeing an increase because of specific legislation.

Colorado and Hawaii, New York and Vermont, all had higher -- or will have higher minimum wages because of the legislature.

Rhode Island, Arizona, California, Washington, and Michigan, all going up.

Minimum wages are a bad idea. The idea is, a minimum wage to, what? What's the point of a minimum wage? You're not taken advantage of? Well, here's the thing, if you feel like you're being taken advantage of, don't work for the company.

But, Doc, without it, they could pay nothing. Great. Then don't work for them. If enough people said, I'm not going to work for them because it's too low, they would be forced to, if they wanted to hire people, raise the salary. Races the hourly wage. That's how it works.

History has proven that. As evident by the fact that, does everybody on the planet -- let's just go to America. Does everybody in America only make the minimum wage?

KAL: Obviously not.

DOC: No. They make more than that. So if companies were just out to screw people, they only pay them the minimum, they pay them more.

For example, after they passed the new tax bill, multiple companies came out, Wells Fargo, AT&T, somebody else -- I think Fifth-Third Bank. Multiple companies came out and said, we are raising our in-house minimum wage to I think $15 an hour. Significantly higher than whatever their state or federal minimum wage is.

Why would they do that? We're talking for hourly employees at the lower end who would be the ones most likely to have a minimum wage-type salary, income.

They're willing to do that. Walmart, who gets a bum rap for, you know, such I low wages and so on and so forth. Walmart, for years, has had less than one or 2 percent of all of their employees making minimum wage. And they made a commitment a year or two ago, that by right about now probably, that no employee would make minimum wage, they would all be over minimum wage.

That's pretty good. Why don't they just pay a minimum wage, how much they would save?

KAL: Legally, they don't have to.

DOC: Exactly. So there's the fallacy number one, that it wouldn't happen without the law. But, again, minimum wage for, what? So people make more.

Is that a livable wage? Because the fight for 15 people say, we need a livable wage. Fifteen dollars an hour. Minimum wage. Fifteen dollars -- so $15 an hour is a livable wage?

KAL: No.

DOC: I don't know where you're living. Lots of these people that say that are living in places like New York City. Fifteen dollars an hour. Even if you're working 40 hours a week, that's $600 a week.

KAL: That's before taxes.

DOC: Right.

That's before taxes. You're making $31,000 a year. That's what that would be?

Fifteen dollars an hour, times 40 hours a week, times 52 weeks out of the year. Thirty-one thousand, that's a livable wage?

KAL: I don't know if you noticed, the average rent in New York is probably about 2,000, maybe 2500 a month.

DOC: Right. Really, really high. So obviously -- and remember, 15, they were saying was the livable wage.

At the minimum wage, at the federal level, it's, what is that? $14,000 a year, if you work 40 hours a week. So it's obviously not a livable wage.

What is a minimum wage then? It's not livable. It's not needed. What is it?

It's just a way for progressives to say, you've got to pay more. And then every day, they constantly say, it's not enough. We got to amp that up. Amp that up. Make it higher. Make it higher. Make it higher.

And if minimum wage was such a good idea, where it finally helps people because they cannot live making less than this -- it's an insult. Then why don't we just make the minimum wage $1,000 an hour?

KAL: Because now you're just being unrealistic, Doc.

DOC: Ah, that's what I heard from others when I suggest this. Okay. How about $100 an hour?

KAL: Still, just unrealistic.

DOC: Well, why?

KAL: Who is going to pay $100 an hour for a burger flipper?

DOC: So you realize at some point the company can't afford that.

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: But you think randomly, you can just mandate 15 without knowing any of these individual company's profit margins, what the books are? You can just go in and say, you must pay 15, because you think they're making enough to pay for that. What if they're not? So they just go out of business and you don't care? Here's what happens, companies don't just pay more and say, well, we're going to make less. They have bills they have to pay. And stockholders to answer to and profit margins, and all kinds of things. So they have to try to maintain that same profit margin. They simply say, you the employees are going to work fewer hours. And the work that we need done, that won't get done because you're working fewer hours. We're now going to say, Kal must do double the work.

We expect more from you in the same amount of time. They cut hours. They cut full-time employees --

KAL: Or they find automation solutions.

DOC: Or they find automation they have to cut. So this is a failure across-the-board. If it's a good idea at 7.25 an hour, based on their logic, then why not pay everybody a million dollars an hour? And guess what, just after a few weeks, everybody is rich, and all of our problems are solved.

KAL: No.

DOC: They know it won't work that way. But somehow they believe they can do it a little bit on the other end.

I have an example from an obvious progressive how this is a failure.

Over the week, last week, a bunch of people reporting on the new minimum wage. And somebody sent me a story from Yahoo finance. Ah, the great financial brain trust that is Yahoo.

Okay. So they have their little reporters there. And the story is reported. Then they're all talking about it. And they have a couple of chicks there. And some dude. And they're talking about this.

And the main reporter, the reporter, she's giving a bunch of the facts and the figures. And this is like, a 30, 40-second clip I want you to hear. Then they go to Rick Newman. He is also a reporter, writer there. Whatever. Yahoo finance.

He starts defending the idea of a minimum wage and challenges the woman on her suggestion that AT&T and these other companies said they're going to pay more and give bonuses now because of the new tax law.

But I think you'll realize that he talks squarely out of his backside and contradicts himself multiple times.

Listen to his arguments based on minimum wage, and then you'll realize, wait. But wait a minute. Then your other argument doesn't necessarily make sense or mean anything.

This is Rick Newman from Yahoo Finance.

VOICE: The states are taking control of this issue, which used to be kind of a federal issue.

VOICE: Yes, exactly.

VOICE: There used to be a federal minimum wage. But it's so low. It's $7.25. Right?

VOICE: Yep.

VOICE: And that hasn't gone up years.

VOICE: Since 2009.

VOICE: President Obama wanted to raise it up to 9 or 9.50. He couldn't get that. And Republicans don't seem likely to raise it at all. So states and cities are kind of saying what --

DOC: So hang on. Pause right there for a second. So to the states' rights points, he sounds like he's glad. States are going to -- local communities.

Because cities -- some cities have higher minimum wages too. That he's happy they're doing this. Hey, they didn't get it done at the federal level.

Republicans aren't going to do it. Obama wanted it, and they wouldn't let him. So good, they're taking it on their own.

Do you say the same thing about states' rights when it comes to other issues? Probably not.

KAL: No.

DOC: But okay. He's happy they're doing it.

VOICE: Kind of saying, well, we'll just take care of it in our own states. And that's what's happening.

VOICE: And do you think that's right? Do you think it should be a state issue? I mean, we know that depending on where you live, the cost of living could be astronomically higher if you're in the northeast compared to say, someone somewhere in the Midwest.

DOC: I mean, I think the shift here is that the federal government is becoming a backstop in -- and if there's enough political motivation in the states to do it, and in cities -- cities can do this too. Let's keep in mind.

Then they're doing it. Of course, the way you want people to get ahead is not by earning minimum wage.

The way you want people to get ahead is to have more skills so they actually demand --

DOC: Hold it. Hold it. Hold it right there.

So you want people -- minimum wage is not going to get them ahead. So why are you advocating this?

You want them to have more than that? Okay. Got you. All right.

VOICE: By earning minimum wage. The way you want people to get ahead is to have more skills so they can actually demand -- get out of the minimum wage. That's kind of an problem, which is a different problem.

But this is a backstop.

VOICE: Yeah. And it's interesting to see the corporations that are now taking a stand as well. So it's getting more and more micro.

Wells Fargo just announced that it will be raising its minimum wage to $15 for its employees. So companies are taking it into their own hands. And many of them are crediting the tax bill, saying that because we are saving money, we're going to be giving it back to their employees, which is a big question that we are wondering.

VOICE: Yeah, I don't buy that.

DOC: Hold it right there.

So the companies have announced that. Right? Back that up about 10 seconds, Kal. The companies have announced, that's why they're doing it.

And he questions, no, they're not.

Okay. They've told you this is what they're doing. But you don't believe it still. Okay. Listen.

VOICE: That are now taking a stand as well. So it's getting more and more micro. Wells Fargo just announced that it will be raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour for its employees. So companies are taking it into their own hands. And many of them are crediting the tax bill, saying, because we're saving money, we will be giving it back to the employees. Which is a big question that we're wondering --

VOICE: I don't buy that, sorry.

VOICE: I'm not sure I translate --

VOICE: Yeah

VOICE: The reason they're doing it is for the right reason economically, which is they have to raise pay to get the workers they need. That's what you want to happen.

DOC: Wait. Wait. What?

They're doing it to get better workers. They're raising it. He doesn't -- won't give any credit to the Republicans and the tax bill. They didn't do it for that.

No, it's not that.

KAL: No.

DOC: No.

They're doing it because that's how you get better workers.

So they're doing it to get -- they're just taking it on their own to get better workers. Doesn't that then show you that you don't need a minimum wage?

KAL: Kind of proves a point.

DOC: Right. He just talked himself around and goes exactly against why we need a minimum wage.

From his perspective, I mean. Okay. A little more.

VOICE: I'm not sure if it will translate.

VOICE: The reason they're doing it is for the right reason economically, which is, they have to raise pay to get the workers they need. That's what you want to happen. And, you know, we're basically getting into a labor shortage in some parts of the country. That's great news. Because then workers get raises for the right reason, because the economy is really humming.

VOICE: Yep.

VOICE: But there will still be some people left out.

DOC: Did you catch it at the end?

KAL: There will still be some people left.

DOC: He talked himself into a corner and realized he was being an outright hypocrite. And was going to be called because -- like, but there will still be some people left behind.

Why would they be left behind? You just said --

KAL: The economy is humming.

DOC: It's humming. We got a labor shortage. And this is going to get it done. They're doing it for the right reasons.

Some people will be left behind.

And what? You believe 7.25 is enough for them? Right?

Oh, it's not. Is 15 enough? Okay. Well, if 15 is good, isn't a million better?

Dude, it doesn't work. It absolutely doesn't work.

You're just an overemotional, illogical, hand-wringing progressive that will not let free markets go because you're ultimately about control.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.