Yes, the title of this blog post is serious…and no I’m not some racist bigot that wants the poor – specifically the poor black community – to suffer and stagnate in poverty. My reasons for its opposition are quite the opposite: I want the poorest of the poor to be able to seek a job.

Here’s why.

To begin, I understand the common belief many people hold when it comes to the minimum wage. It’s noble; it provides a “living wage”; it prevents the crudest forms of exploitation; etc. These are all understandable, and I have sympathy to these points of view. But they’re wrong.

The thing that’s most interesting about the minimum wage is its history.

The minimum wage is most notably known for being implemented by white racist labor unions in South Africa and the US. The reason for this was because the average black laborer was willing to work at a lower wage than the average white worker. The result: because blacks became more attractive to employers, whites saw their jobs disappear. So, to retaliate against this competition in the labor force, the white unions lobbied for laws like the Davis-Bacon Act , which mandated a prevailing wage for all public works projects. This law, while making some people feel warm and fuzzy inside, actually discriminated heavily against the black population. After the passing of Davis-Bacon, soon followed the federal minimum wage, which now applies to all labor markets in the US. These laws, which are now revered today by academia and the media, were actually passed under racist intentions.

More to the point, employers have every incentive to pay their workers based on their perceived productivity level. Thus, a black man who possesses far fewer skills than the average white man, is not even considered for the same job, for the sole reason that the employer is forced to pay a mandated wage. As a result, the poorly educated black laborer had no chance to participate in the job market. The refs eject him from the game before the game even begins.

It’s also important to note that the history of black employment is not what most people think. Believe it or not, unemployment amongst blacks is higher now than it was during Jim Crow. It’s true. Look it up, or you can choose to read Walter E. Williams’, Race and Economics. (important note: Dr. Williams is a black man)

When the minimum wage is seriously examined, one finds that it can be understood through basic economics. The law of demand will tell you less is demanded when prices are higher, and this applies to food, cars, computers, etc. For example, less people own Ferrari’s and more own Toyota Camry’s, for one simple reason: the price. The Camry is listed at around $22,000. Some Ferrari’s are priced at around $225,000. The Camry is not as fast as the Ferrari, and it has less features, but more people own them because they are offered at a price that is suitable for most consumers.

Now, just imagine if the federal government mandated all car buyers purchase a car that is at least $225,000. Two things would happen. One, less people would own cars; two, no interested buyers would ever consider buying the Camry. Why buy the Camry when you can buy a better car – the Ferrari – for the same exact price? The Camry would be excluded from the market and Toyota would likely run out of business.

Similarly, poorly educated, less skilled blacks are excluded from the job market, because of the effects of a mandated minimum wage. If you’re an employer, why pay someone with a limited skill set $7.25/hr, when you know you can pay the same wage to someone with a more impressive set of skills? Raising someone’s wage does not consequently raise their level of productivity for an employer.

No one wants to think about the employer when it comes to the minimum wage, and no one really wants to think about economics, either. It’s always about intentions, and what our politicians try to do. Intentions mean nothing; they only make us feel better about ourselves.

The fact of the matter is, it’s the minimum wage’s effects that are discriminatory.

With a struggling economy, we are seeing teenagers – the group most likely to receive a minimum wage – with less and less opportunity. Unemployment amongst teenagers is around 25 percent. More specifically, black teenage unemployment is at a staggering 45 percent!

If we want more people to be employed, how about we create more opportunity for the poor? The mandated wage restricts opportunity and discriminates against the poorest of the poor. Instead of someone making $4.00/hr, that person is making nothing.

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” … so, let’s start thinking about the results…

The Green Bay Packers are a unique sports franchise. They are the only professional sports team without a primary owner. They are owned by shareholders, not an individual or a family. And with the recent stock offering by the Packers, my cousin (a Bears fan) posted an article on Facebook titled,  “Green Bay Packers Stock Offering: Packers 12, Shareholders 0.”

Now before I continue, I have to admit, I’m a die hard Packers fan. Always have been since my childhood. Yes, I grew up in the Chicago-land area. Don’t ask…I think I was dropped on my head…multiple times. But, hey, with the way things are going I can’t complain.

To summarize the theme of the article: Packers fans are being cheated.

Here’s why according to the writer:

Offering to sell 250,000 shares initially, and up to 880,000 shares total if that’s what the market will bear, the Packers stand to make anywhere from $62.5 million to $220 million off this share issuance. In exchange, they’re offering to give you [the shareholder]:

• Bragging rights

• The right to sit in a meeting

And … that’s it.

The writer concludes by saying:

Seems to me, somebody’s playing the Packers fans for chumps.

He insinuates a form of exploitation. Packers fans are dumb and team management is ripping them off.

But, it appears to me the writer completely ignores the intangible reasons fans would purchase team stock for the Green Bay Packers or any other historic franchise. He forgot to ask one simple question: Why? He seems puzzled, but never really tries to put himself in the shoes of an interested shareholder of the Green Bay Packers.

Yeah, okay, as a shareholder I only get a meeting and bragging rights. So what?  The reasons someone would own anything – stock, cars, homes, shoes, etc. –  can sometimes be more personal than monetary.

Did the writer ever consider the feeling it brings a grandfather when he shows their grandchild they “own” a share of the Green Bay Packers? What about the nostalgic affect it would have on someone who grew up only knowing green and gold? What about how proud someone would feel knowing that their purchase helped their team gather the resources it needed to win championships? What about the joy it would bring to a man who walked into his man-cave and saw a share of Green Bay Packers stock framed above his couch? I could go on and on. What you and I find valuable may not be valuable to someone else. Just because we cannot relate to the interests of the buyer, does not make them stupid. It makes them different than you. Period.

The point being, incentives do not always have to be based on monetary reasons.

And, to gloat a little bit: While owning a share of Packers stock is not “true ownership,” it is still considered an investment for buyers. The ROI is not dividends or perks – it’s the Lombardi Trophy. Championships. After all, the results speak loudly – throughout history fans have witnessed an all time record 13 NFL Championships, including 4 Super Bowl Championships.

Who’re the chumps now?

All in all, the lesson learned here is this: Bears suck. Packers rule.