Views

Minimum Wages are Popular — and Unwise

Details

Tuesday, 18 August 2026

Written by John Hood

As a Freedom Conservative, I recognize that some policies I favor are broadly popular, others draw mixed reviews, and a few are broadly unpopular. I also recognize that, as a commentator rather than candidate for office, I enjoy a greater latitude to advocate policies I think are wise even though most of my fellow North Carolinians do not (yet) agree with them.
One example is a minimum wage set by government diktat. The United States specifies a national minimum wage of $7.25 an hour for most jobs. Most industrialized countries set wage floors, often higher ones in real terms than America’s. Furthermore, most states set minimum wages within their jurisdictions that are higher than the federal floor, including Florida at $14 an hour, California at $16.90, New York at $17, and the District of Columbia at $18.40.
North Carolina is one of the states that hasn’t raised the legally required minimum. That is one reason the Tar Heel State fares well in national comparisons of state regulatory burdens. For example, in the Fraser Institute’s most recent Economic Freedom of North America Index, North Carolina ranks 7th. Among our neighbors, only Tennessee (2nd) is rated higher in economic freedom.
I think employers and employees should be free to strike their own bargains. If I offer you $5 an hour, you won’t work for anything less than $10, and I deem that too high a price to pay for your labor, then we make no deal. Or we might meet in the middle, at $7.50, and become colleagues.
That doesn’t mean I see no role for government. Recourse to the courts to resolve contract disputes is essential. Certain forms of regulation may also be necessary to deter fraud and other forms of abuse — to ensure that the explicit or implicit bargain struck represents a true meeting of the minds. But I don’t think that, in a free society, regulators or politicians possess either the requisite knowledge or the moral authority to determine what a “fair” rate of compensation is for any or all jobs.
Still, I freely admit that most North Carolinians, and very possibly most of my readers, do not agree with this view. They believe it is possible and prudent to set wage floors.
Over the decades, I have argued that even when judged on its own terms — making poor people better off — the minimum wage is ineffective. Many workers gain higher incomes, of course. But many of these beneficiaries of the policy are not poor. Among the ranks of minimum-wage workers are millions of teenagers, young adults, or retirees whose household incomes far exceed the poverty level. At the same time, a minimum wage clearly makes some workers worse off. Often young and inexperienced, they do not yet possess the skills required to produce enough output per hour to make it worthwhile to hire them at the minimum. In response, employers redistribute the workload among fewer, higher-paid employees or automate tasks such as greeting customers, taking orders, accepting payment, and delivering goods or services. The result is that folks who are, indeed, disproportionately poor fail to gain employment at all.
Whether minimum wages produce joblessness is a question scholars have explored for many decades. Until the 1980s, the vast majority of studies showed a negative relationship between minimum-wage hikes and job creation or employment rates. Over the ensuing couple of decades, some scholars employing new models and empirical techniques challenged the traditional view with papers that showed scant effects on or even increases in employment.
I still think the traditional view is correct. In a comprehensive survey published in the journal Industrial Relations in 2022, University of California-Irvine scholar David Neumark and economist Peter Shirley concluded that there was “a clear preponderance of negative estimates” in the scholarly literature, especially “for teens and young adults and the less educated.”
I also think citing such findings is unlikely to change many minds. That won’t stop me from trying.

Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Troy's Perspective: DSA promotes anti-capitalism

Details

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

Written by Troy Williams

Democrats have often downplayed the presence of socialists within their ranks. However, the reality is that the Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with chapters in all 50 states. Furthermore, a CNN poll indicates that at least one-third of registered Democratic Party members identify as socialists, suggesting that socialist ideas are more deeply embedded in the party than some may acknowledge. With this significant percentage identifying as socialists, one might question the actual numbers.
The Democratic Socialists of America has several local chapters and organizing groups in North Carolina. One of the largest chapters in the state is the NC Triangle DSA, which serves Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and the surrounding communities. Although DSA does not appear to have a direct presence in Fayetteville or Cumberland County, some of their ideas are clearly influencing our community. It is concerning to see responsible adults promoting anti-capitalistic rhetoric in an area that North Carolina has designated as a Tier 1 low-wealth county.
Anti-capitalists hold a variety of beliefs, which means that many people can find common ground with certain aspects of their philosophy. The main divide among them lies in the methods used to achieve specific goals and objectives. For instance, while the aim of reducing economic inequality by narrowing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor is commendable, the approach of bringing down the wealthy to assist the poor is not practical.
Many citizens likely support strengthening social safety nets to reduce poverty and economic insecurity, which aligns with mainstream socialist objectives. However, critics argue that capitalism is an important component of economic growth and improving living standards. Large corporations often exert significant influence over politics, labor markets and society, a phenomenon that some view as a normal cost of doing business.
Here are some clearer examples: We need data centers. While regulation is important, we must not try to hinder their development. We should also embrace new technology industries, including emerging drone manufacturers. Economic development should not be restricted to just restaurants and gas stations on every corner.
Can poverty be eradicated without capitalism? The short answer is no; no one has proven a reliable method for eliminating poverty without some form of market-based economic activity. While the idea of providing free resources may appeal to some, the concept of the "Robin Hood Syndrome"—taking from the rich to give to the poor—is fundamentally flawed and may even be considered morally wrong by some.
The government's role is not just to provide free resources. A more effective solution to poverty is allowing the working class to retain more of their earnings by reducing taxes.
Our community's greatest asset is our children, so let's invest in their future. Education is the most effective path out of poverty. As August approaches and students head back to school, let's show our support for them and the dedicated educators who are shaping America's future leaders. There's nothing to protest—only much to celebrate.

Dan DeBruler: We Were Always Becoming

Details

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

Written by Dan DeBruler

At a recent Saturday morning gathering of several men, I posed a question:
“When did you become the man you are today?”
The idea was simple, but the implications led us into a much deeper conversation about how the way we think affects nearly everything else. After a few attempts by the typical “I’ll go first” guys, the others gathered around the table began to catch on. There was no right or wrong answer. Speaking first did not require any special courage, and waiting for someone else to respond did not make an answer less meaningful.
This was not a test. It was an invitation to honesty. Honesty with one another. Honesty with ourselves. And, perhaps most importantly, honesty before God.
None of us became who we are in a single moment. There may have been defining experiences along the way—a decision, a loss, a success, a failure, a relationship, or a season of hardship—but even those moments became part of something larger.
We were shaped gradually.
The question was intended to help us consider the decisions, habits, assumptions, and compromises that formed the person we have become. Some of those influences were obvious. Others worked quietly
beneath the surface.
That is the troubling thing about becoming: It often happens while we believe we are simply doing. We go to work. We come home. We respond to problems. We entertain ourselves. We manage our responsibilities. We repeat familiar routines. We tell ourselves that these are merely isolated choices—small decisions that have little bearing on anything beyond the moment.
But repeated choices rarely remain isolated. A decision becomes easier the second time. A reaction becomes a pattern. A pattern becomes a habit. A habit begins shaping the way we think. And eventually, the way we think becomes part of our character.
Every tomorrow reveals that we were always becoming. The person we are today is, in many ways, the accumulation of yesterday’s responses. That does not mean we are imprisoned by our past or unable to change. It does mean that change requires more than good intentions.
We must learn to pay attention.
What are our current habits teaching us? What do our private choices reveal about what we truly value? Are our routines shaping us into people who are patient, courageous, truthful, generous, and dependable? Or are we slowly becoming more distracted, defensive, resentful, or self-centered?
These questions are not meant to produce shame. They are meant to awaken us.
We cannot change every circumstance that has shaped us, but we can become more intentional about what shapes us next. We can examine our thinking, challenge unhealthy patterns, repair neglected relationships, and choose better responses.
The question is not merely, “What am I doing today?”
The better question may be, “Who am I becoming through what I am doing today?”
Tomorrow will eventually give us the answer.

This, that, and the other, August 2026 edition

Details

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

Written by Margaret Dickson

U.S. Vice President JD Vance and I do not have much in common and do not share many of the same views.
I did not go to Yale Law School. Nor was I mentored by one of my law professors audacious enough to write a book on child-raising entitled Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. I do not support aggressive immigration enforcement by ICE or tariffs on nations that have historically been our friends.
We do agree, however, that our country is on the brink of a population bust and probably sooner than most of us expected.
Americans have long read about declining populations in various European and Asian nations, with South Korea currently holding the title of the lowest fertility rate in the world at approximately .08 lives births for women of childbearing age. The bottom line is that South Korea and many other nations are nowhere near replacing their population the old-fashioned way, not including immigration. Sociologists point fingers at high costs of living, economic stressors, and changing social priorities as causes for foregoing parenthood.
The United States is joining the ranks of population-declining nations, with a birth rate of 1.6 prospective live births per mother, considerably below the 2.1 figure considered the replacement level.
Political immigration policies have dramatically lowered the number of people entering the United States, accelerating our race to the population cliff. Current projections are that the US population will stop growing sometime in the 2030s, with the actual decline beginning in the 2050s.
If we want to avoid falling off this cliff, demographers say we need to support the needs of young families for housing, child care, cost of living, quality public education and affordable health care. Otherwise, the cliff looms.
It is worth noting that JD Vance and his wife, and one-time law school tutor, welcomed their 4th child this month, doing their part to avoid the cliff.
It is also interesting that the Vice President, who, as a federal employee, has paternity leave available, is not taking it, leaving mom with 3 children under 9 and a newborn infant.
What sort of role model is that for would-be fathers in a culture not nurturing of young families?

Several weeks ago, I wrote about tattoos, the most recent in a long line of columns on that topic, which has fascinated me for years. Tattoos are ubiquitous in today’s American culture, so reader response was—well— ho hum. No one pays much attention to tattoos these days.
That said, I did have this unexpected, unusual, and very positive reflection from one reader.
“Margaret, appreciate your column, and decided to respond to your tattoo article. As an aging lady, I found myself losing color in my face. I couldn’t keep eyeliner on. It would be faded before I left the bathroom after applying it most mornings. So I consulted Dr. T for my 60th birthday, and his wife tattooed eyeliner for me. Doctor gave me numbing shots, so no pain. Fairly quickly finished in a few hours. I needed a second swipe, but was rattled by the laser, so never returned. At nearing 85, still looks good, very pleased with it. Can’t say that I’ve saved enough by not buying eyeliner to have paid for it as yet. But happy with my birthday gift. Thank you for your efforts to inform our community and keep us connected.”
Nothing like a happy customer!

And, finally, brace yourself.
We are fewer than 100 days away from our much-anticipated—and in some cases, dreaded—midterm elections. We in North Carolina are hosting one of our nation’s marquee US Senate races and all that comes with it. Ours is not as fraught as Senate contests in Texas or Maine, but millions in advertising dollars are coming our way as the outcome of North Carolina’s race will be an important factor in which party controls the Senate and how difficult life will be for its minority members.