Bill Gates is best known as the co-founder of Microsoft and one of the wealthiest men in the world. However, with his recent book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” advocating for the use of entirely synthetic beef, Gates has become an increasingly influential force in a new realm: politics.
Notably, 88.8% of his individual <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Bill+Gates">contributions</a> to Political Action Committees (PACs) or directly to political candidates were made in the fall of 2020. While his donations were made to both sides of the aisle, the sudden spike in his political activity has sparked some added interest. In order to understand the development of the Gates we know today, it’s important to take a step back.
In 2000, Bill and his wife founded the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). The <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation/">original</a> goal of the foundation was to provide funding for poorer communities and provide scholarships for students. Since then, it has evolved into a philanthropic organization that helps impoverished countries dealing with educational, environmental, and humanitarian issues.
Over the years, the BMGF has <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Warren-Buffett">received</a> endowments from many prominent entrepreneurs, such as its third trustee Warren Buffet, and is now <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/?list=billionaires&amp;sh=2f4a0818689f">reported</a> to be the largest private charitable foundation in the world. 
Undoubtedly, the organization has donated to admirable causes and provided countless impoverished individuals with valuable opportunities. However, the charity has been also been an agent advocating for centralized and universal reforms, which detractors view as having caused more harm than good.
When it comes to education, Gates was at the forefront of efforts regarding “Common Core” during the Obama administration. The Common Core was an initiative designed to <a href="http://www.corestandards.org/">standardize</a> language, arts, and mathematics courses for K-12 students around the nation. While it has been implemented in all but nine states, it has proven to be a colossal failure. As the Federalist <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/31/first-common-core-high-school-grads-worst-prepared-for-college-in-15-years/">reported</a>, “The class of 2019, the first to experience all four high school years under the Common Core, is the worst-prepared for college in 15 years.” Gates himself even <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/Education/Council-of-Great-City-Schools">admitted</a> that the results were not what he wanted them to be, saying not enough action was taken. 
More recently, The Washington Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-behind-anti-racist-math-push/">reported</a> that the Gates Foundation has donated more than $140 million to organizations promoting “anti-racist” math education, such as “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction.” This organization makes multiple controversial and unsubstantiated <a href="https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf">claims</a>, with one being that the act of focusing on obtaining the correct answer is an example of white supremacy. Nevertheless, the BMGF are explicitly <a href="https://equitablemath.org/">thanked</a> for their “generous financial support” on the company’s website.
With the mission of the foundation clearly aligning with liberal or left-leaning ideology, the personnel emulate these same values. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 81.4% of all <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/bill-melinda-gates-foundation/totals?id=D000031958">donations</a> from affiliates of the BMGF were to Democrats during the past election cycle, with the total differential between the two parties being $703,172. Furthermore, <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Global-Policy-and-Advocacy/Rob-Nabors">some</a> of the organization’s leadership <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Gargee-Ghosh">positions</a> are held by former Obama staffers.
While Gates has not declared himself to be either a Republican or a Democrat, he has given millions of dollars to liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood, where his father <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/bill-gates-sr-father-microsoft-founder-dies-94-73033685">was</a> an active board member. From 2010-2013, BMGF <a href="https://www.mrc.org/articles/planned-parenthood%25E2%2580%2599s-biggest-donors-give-374-million-four-years">donated</a> over $14.5 million to Planned Parenthood, making them one of the company’s largest donors.
Other examples of Gates’ donations include efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change. In 2019 alone, the BMGF <a href="https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation-commits-310-million-for-climate-adaptation-action">pledged</a> $310 million to the Global Commission on Adaption to take “climate action.” Gates’ efforts on the matter began in 2006 when he founded TerraPower, a company researching methods to produce more “environmental-friendly” nuclear energy.
Since then, Gates has <a href="https://fortune.com/2020/02/10/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-climate-change-gender-equality-focus/">stated</a> that climate change will be a priority for the BMGF moving forward. He is also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/bill-gates-says-we-need-more-elon-musks-to-tackle-climate-change.html">urging</a> other wealthy individuals to follow in the steps of Elon Musk and begin focusing on eco-friendly projects.
In addition, Gates’s foundation also wields significant influence on the world stage, with the BMGF reportedly <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8760199/gates-foundation-criticism">spending</a> more on global health than the World Health Organization.
Domestically, Bill Gates has recently become the largest owner of farmland in the United States, with American farmers <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bill-gates-and-neo-feudalism-a-closer-look-at-farmer-bill">expressing</a> concern while referencing Gates’ impact on agriculture in India and Mexico. 
As the BMGF’s website states, one of its six divisions is dedicated to promoting public policy with foreign governments. They have worked with prominent countries <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do">including</a> China and India, as well as smaller, more agriculturally based countries such as Ethiopia. However, the foundation’s interventions have not always led to positive results.
BMGF <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bill-gates-and-neo-feudalism-a-closer-look-at-farmer-bill">reportedly</a> spent $4.9 billion forcing African countries to abandon their established farming methods and use GMO agriculture techniques attempted in the United States. In the 18 African countries where this methodology was applied, hunger <a href="https://www.rosalux.de/en/publication/id/42635/false-promises-the-alliance-for-a-green-revolution-in-africa-agra">increased</a> by 30% with the total number of people experiencing hunger rising by approximately 30 million.
The majority of Gates’ activism has come through his philanthropy and donations, but in recent years, Gates has also made controversial political statements.
In early 2019, Gates <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/bill-gates-americas-tax-system-is-not-fair.html">proposed</a> raising the estate tax, which deals with the transfer of property after death, as well as the capital gains tax, which pertains to assets sold for a higher price than their purchasing price. Ultimately, he believes the United States needs a more progressive tax system.
Gates also started a <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/podcast">podcast</a> in December of 2020 with actress Rashida Jones, where the two pose questions dealing with societal and cultural matters such as inequality and climate change.
It may be that he has become more comfortable when it comes to speaking his mind, or perhaps he has been forced into the political spotlight because of the nature of his charity. However, regardless of intent, Gates has evolved into an extremely influential and powerful political force, with the ability to influence policies worldwide.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Bill Gates

The Political Activism And Influence of Bill Gates

Readers Pass

The debate over competition of transgender individuals in sports with persons of their opposite, biological “assigned” sex at birth has been gaining traction over the past few years, but particularly since President Biden’s executive <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/">order</a> allowing transgender individuals to play on sports teams of their choosing.
While the notion of substantial physical differences between biological men and biological women is obvious to most, a deep physiological analysis can further help us to better understand the differences between the sexes and, therefore, how forcing the two sexes to physically compete can be harmful, particularly to women.
It is a scientific fact that humans, like all other mammals, have one male and one female parent. The result of mammalian mating produces offspring that are either male or female. There are no other sexes or genders.
There is also no denying the fact that males and females have unchangeable and distinct physical and psychological characteristics.
One such distinction is the structure of their skeletal systems. While it is commonly known that women generally have larger pelvic regions for birthing and men generally have more pronounced shapes in the jawline of the skull, the differences go deeper than that.
Sexual differences in bone structure <a href="https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/702735/">emerge</a> during adolescence. The development of one’s skeletal system is influenced primarily by the increase of hormones and, to a lesser extent, by nutritional intake. For males, the increase of testosterone and IGF-1 (insulin growth factor) causes rapid muscle mass and strength growth. For women, their increase in estrogen provides bone minerals and higher increase in bone mass in relation to muscle mass. 
Sexual differences only <a href="https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/JBMR.041005">become</a> more apparent after puberty as periosteal growth, which enlarges the diameter of bones, slows for females but drastically increases for males. And although males generally reach puberty two years later than females, they usually <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/83/5/1414/2865107">have</a> longer legs, and ultimately longer bodies because their epiphyseal fusion occurs later which causes their peak growth velocity to continue longer than that of females. This <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4397276/">phenomenon</a> is displayed by the development of their growth plates located near the longitudinal ends of each bone.
Males and females <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/83/5/1414/2865107">have</a> the same Bone Mineral Density (BMD) per capita, but because males generally have <a href="https://www.juniordentist.com/differentiate-male-skull-female-skull.html">larger</a> skulls and <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/83/5/1414/2865107">wider</a> vertebrae due to their higher bone mass, males are <a href="https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/JBMR.041005">less</a> likely to experience bone stress and osteoporotic fractures (fractures incurred from bumps and falls on more fragile bones). Even if the bones of the two sexes have the same nutritional value, because of the sheer size of male bones, they are less likely to be injured from experiencing the same impact.
This is backed up by a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9158436/">study</a> published in the National Library of Medicine, which showed that female cadets attending the US Military Academy had 2.5 times the number of injuries and 3.9 times more hospitalizations reported than that of their male counterparts.
Sex is <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julie_Gilchrist/publication/10747616_Prevention_of_lower_extremity_stress_fractures_in_athletes_and_soldiers_A_systematic_review/links/0c96053356d30c0ea0000000/Prevention-of-lower-extremity-stress-fractures-in-athletes-and-soldiers-A-systematic-review.pdf">found</a> to be the highest risk factor regarding stress fractures. A <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julie_Gilchrist/publication/10747616_Prevention_of_lower_extremity_stress_fractures_in_athletes_and_soldiers_A_systematic_review/links/0c96053356d30c0ea0000000/Prevention-of-lower-extremity-stress-fractures-in-athletes-and-soldiers-A-systematic-review.pdf">study</a> by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health further states “A number of military studies of Army basic training show that women performing the same prescribed physical activities as men incur stress fractures at incidences 2-10 times higher than those for men.”
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julie_Gilchrist/publication/10747616_Prevention_of_lower_extremity_stress_fractures_in_athletes_and_soldiers_A_systematic_review/links/0c96053356d30c0ea0000000/Prevention-of-lower-extremity-stress-fractures-in-athletes-and-soldiers-A-systematic-review.pdf">Some</a> civilian studies on the injuries of athletes can be misleading, since they do not account for men and women practicing together or competing against one another. However, there is overwhelming evidence that, when men and women partake in strenuous exercise at the same intensity levels, females are much more susceptible to incur injuries.
This is not to say there are not some exceptionally athletic women who could outperform most men. It simply shows that men’s bodies are capable of sustaining greater physical damage than women’s bodies.
Moving on, perhaps the most significant contrast of males and females is in their overall strength levels.
A <a href="https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81">study</a> in the Journal of Applied Physiology shows that men have approximately 40% greater upper body strength and 33% greater lower body strength than women on average. Overall, women <a href="http://archive.sciendo.com/SSR/ssr.2012.xxi.issue-3-4/v10237-012-0015-5/v10237-012-0015-5.pdf">have</a> somewhere between 37-68% the muscle strength of men.
Even when taken to the extremes, men’s strength far surpasses women’s. The gross average bench press power lifting <a href="https://www.castironstrength.com/elite-strength-sports-ipf-and-iwf-a-comparision-of-sex-and-performance/">record</a> for women is 228 pounds less than it is for men. Similarly for squatting, the women’s record is 292 pounds less than the men’s.
These disparities are not just due to bone size and testosterone levels. There are also distinct biomechanical differences between the sexes.
One of these reasons is the difference in “Q Angles” of men and women. The Q Angle is the angle between the quadriceps muscles and the patella tendon of the knee. It was often thought that women have larger Q angles than men because of their wider pelvises, but many <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article-abstract/69/11/897/2728437">studies</a> have shown that this is not the case. Instead, one <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881465/">study</a> floats the notion that it is due to women’s inward turning of their thigh bones otherwise known as “femoral anteversion.” Because of this, on average, women have a Q Angle of 18 degrees compared to 14 degrees for men.
According to a recent <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6648034/">study</a> by the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, “A higher Q Angle is associated with decreased isokinetic knee strength, power output, and torque angles.” Not only does this affect lifting capacities, but also tends to lead to joint disorders and sports injuries, with two of the most common injuries being ACL tears and Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome (Runner’s Knee).
The first — ACL tears — are a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4805849/">result</a> of smaller femoral notch dimensions and a less stable core (abdominal and hip stability). The second — Runner’s Knee — is <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/sportsdoc/Why-Women-Are-More-Affected-by-Runners-Knee.html#:~:text=One%2520of%2520the%2520most%2520common,knees%2520bent%2520for%2520prolonged%2520periods.">due</a> to women’s leg alignment from their Q Angle, looser joints, and weaker hip muscles.
When it comes to running in general, men generally have a physical advantage.
Male sprinters are <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026141">recorded</a> to have 47% greater hip extension strength and 56% greater knee extension strength than female sprinters. Researchers from Sports Medicine <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%252F00007256-200535120-00002">assert</a> the gap between men and women speeds is “biological in nature” and is “unlikely to narrow naturally.”
This gap becomes apparent even when comparing elite female athletes to non-elite male athletes. According to <a href="https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/">research</a> from Duke University, “Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World, and U.S. Champion Tori Bowie’s 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys.”
But it is not just distance running where men track better times. Men also record faster reactions for both auditory and visual stimuli. Researchers from India’s Department of Physiology <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/">show</a> men have stronger motor responses and can contract muscles quicker than women.
The final, critical discrepancy between the sexes is spatial ability which can be defined as: the ability to perceive, visualize, and manipulate three-dimensional objects in some way. Researchers from the Griffith University of Australia <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143902789.pdf">argue</a> that “Gender gaps in spatial ability are the largest of all gender differences in cognitive abilities.”
As their study claims, most researchers would conclude that this is a result of biological and social forces. The leading hypothesis is that males’ spatial skills come from their traditional “hunter” role where strong navigational and vision skills were necessary. However, a University of Chicago <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/668168">study</a> challenges this idea, “demonstrating that a trait now increases fitness does not constitute evidence that the trait is an adaption because the trait could have evolved for other reason.”
While the source of this ability is not crucial, the effect that it has on spatial ability such as hand-eye coordination is important. In virtually every study conducted on the matter, males are found to have significantly better hand-eye coordination than females.
Considering all the evidence and data provided by these studies and research, why should biological males who are generally bigger, stronger, faster, possess better hand-eye coordinated, are more spatially aware, and more are likely to injure women if they collide with them compete physically against women?
To argue that biological females can fairly compete with biological males is an act of unscientific lunacy.
Even the NCAA seems to be aware of these discrepancies, having a <a href="https://www.smith.edu/admission/studygroup/docs/NCAA-Policy-on-Transgender-Student.pdf">policy</a> preventing transgender female athletes from competing in sports of their born sex without having first gone through one year of hormone treatment.  While this is not an adequate policy to protect women, it does at least seem to acknowledge the existence of physical differences between the sexes.
According to a recent <a href="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/06/bjsports-2020-102329.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&amp;keytype=ref">study</a> by the British Journal of Sports Medicine, transgender female athletes perform at higher levels than their biological female counterparts and “more than 12 months of testosterone suppression may be needed to ensure that transgender women do not have an unfair competitive advantage when participating in elite level athletic competition.” 
However, these undeniable physical differences do not speak to the individual capabilities of women or of their areas of ability that surpasses that of their male counterparts. Women notably <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/668168">outperform</a> males in object memory location, verbal fluency, and recognition of facial emotional expressions. Other commonly accepted examples include better color shade recognition, as well as more acute senses of taste and smell.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Transgender Sports

Can Men And Women Compete Athletically? Here’s What The Science Says.

LGBT

Transgender

After an arduous 2020 filled with countless ‘protests,’ a volatile election, deaths of beloved celebrities, and a global pandemic, we have rediscovered that there is nothing better than kicking back, putting your feet up, and watching a good film.
An often popular and enjoyable escape from the tragedies of the real world has been superhero movies. Superhero series <a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchise/?ref_=bo_lnav_hm_shrt">account</a> for five of the top ten highest-grossing franchises of all time, with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) sitting in first place with a gross revenue of $8.5 billion.
No matter if you grew up reading comic books, watching iconic Superman and Batman classics, or you merely began with the MCU in 2008, superheroes have most likely played a role in your life.
However, there have recently been two harmful degradations regarding the superhero universe which warrant lighting the Bat-Signal, or at least writing an article. These kryptonite crystals appear through the humanization and distortion of the heroes.
Before being misconstrued, we should define and explain humanization. Let this also being a warning to those that are not ‘up-to-date’ with the latest superhero releases…there are spoilers ahead.
The first — and arguably the most damaging — ploy against superheroes is their humanization, with humanization defined as the reduction of prominence and stature of powerful heroes to a common and quotidian level. The most notorious example of this diminution is ‘Fat Thor’ from Avenger’s: Endgame.
Thor, the god of thunder and ruler of Asgard, in a shocking and disturbing twist of fate, becomes a drunkard and oaf after Thanos defeated the Avengers in the previous film and annihilated half the population of the universe.
One could argue that such a traumatic event would cause anyone to spiral into a crippling depression, even someone as brave and powerful as a Norse god. However, that would still not justify his proceeding actions in the movie, such as his cowardly abdication of the Asgardians and acceptance of mediocrity.
In a scene where Thor encounters his mother from an alternate timeline and universe, she <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fonZPvshj_s&amp;t=292s">tells</a> Thor that because of his failures, he is just like everyone else; and that the measure of a hero is “how well they succeed at being who they are.”
While comments equating the shortcomings of Thor to that of an average person may just be an attempt to comfort the discouraged hero, the real harm lies in the notion that “being who you are” is what makes you super. 
Firstly, this assertion is an abasement of incredible feats and of outstanding characters. But more importantly, it is a jab at the virtues of a hero. What criteria makes you who you are meant to be, and why would that make you heroic? Are there no universally understood principles that make a superhero? 
Furthermore, if the threshold of being super is being yourself, isn’t every self-assured person on the face of the earth a superhero? Obviously, this cannot be the case.
The error lies in this all-inclusive message that everyone is super. Like the villain Syndrome says in The Incredibles, “When everyone is super, no one will be.”
As the criminal mastermind’s name insinuates, this is a disorderly, delusional, and relativistic philosophy which has unfortunately been widely accepted and adopted in today’s culture.
The second damning portrayal of superheroes has been in relation to their character. There is a balance that must be found when creating and developing a character. The archetypal hero can be overdone or overused, which is why characters with a darker and more enigmatic temperament, such as Wolverine, make for a refreshing break from the Captain Americas and Supermans of the superhero worlds.
However, portrayals like Amazon’s series The Boys undermines the legitimacy of superheroes entirely. Although the show intentionally depicts “The Seven” supers as non-heroes throughout its course, it seems to only harm the superhero genre.
If superheroes are not made out to be the outstanding examples of leadership, courage, and virtue in society, what role models are left to emulate?
This issue can be traced back to its definition.
The term “superhero” is two part — “super” refers to their incredible abilities, and “hero,” to their exceptional character and integrity. With enough diligence and application, anyone can become a trained warrior or a virtuous person, which are both worthwhile aspirations; but it is only the superheroes that attain both and to the highest degree.
They must have the capabilities to inflict great harm, but the character and prudence to refrain and to do good. As Dr. Jordan Peterson <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HwHbIjW7_s">says</a>, “The hero has to be a monster, but a controlled monster.”
Yet, that is not enough. They must choose to defend and promote the good. The act of willfully choosing the good or preventing the bad in order to follow and protect both the natural order and ethical framework of the world is what makes a superhero so admirable. 
Despite the degradations and perversions of modern superheroes, it is important to remember that the calling of every man and hero alike is found in serving others. And as long as there are extraordinary and vigilant people setting a good example and shining the beacon for help, there is still hope for the traditional and inspirational heroes to emerge.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

Justice League Photocall

Are Superheroes ‘Super’ Anymore?

Comics

Superheroes

Superman

The Biden Administration is currently pushing the idea of raising the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour. While presented under the guise of helping lower income Americans, this aggressive policy proposal is actually an impetuous and injudicious solution that would harm the very people it is intended to aid. As a first step, as of January 22, 2021, the administration will soon be <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/22/fact-sheet-president-bidens-new-executive-actions-deliver-economic-relief-for-american-families-and-businesses-amid-the-covid-19-crises">requiring</a> that all Federal contractors pay a $15 minimum wage.
Since the establishment of the Fair Labor Act of 1938, businesses with an amended minimum annual revenue of $500,000 — as well as employers producing goods for commerce — must provide a minimum wage. This broad price floor has been an ongoing issue for many small businesses, but within the past few years, some cities and states have taken measures to augment this wage enforcement.
In June 2014, Seattle was the first city to pass a progressive wage policy championed by the slogan “Fight for 15.” The goal of the <a href="http://www.seattle.gov/laborstandards/ordinances/minimum-wage">ordinance</a> was to help low-income workers by gradually raising the minimum wage every year until finally reaching the $15 mark in January 2021.  
At the time the policy was passed, Seattle was experiencing an economic boom. With the growth of Amazon and real estate in the surrounding counties, Seattle became one of the fastest growing economic cities in America. Housing prices jumped up 25.4% in just two years, and along with waves of newcomers came a <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/business/seattle-areas-economic-boom-splashes-over-the-cascades-bringing-work-and-worries">slew</a> of new restaurant and entertainment businesses. 
However, the implementation of a $15 minimum wage did not bolster Seattle’s upward economic trend.
According to a recent <a href="http://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23532/w23532.pdf">study</a> of Seattle’s minimum wage policies by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “low-wage workers lost more than $2 in forgone employment opportunities for every $1 gained from higher hourly wages.” Furthermore, the lost income associated with the hour deductions of low-wage employees was greater than the wage increases, which resulted in a net loss of $74 a month for each employee.
In total, low-skilled workers had an estimated reduction of 3 million working hours, with 5,000 job losses.
While results of this study found marginal effects on employment losses, this outcome can be attributed to Seattle’s incremental increases as well as their minimum wage before their 2014 policy, since the city had the highest minimum wage in the nation.
As shown by the data, low-skilled workers are the ones who face the consequences of any reductions. If employers cut back hours or release employees, the higher-skilled workers will retain their positions while the lower-skilled are pushed out.
This economic phenomenon is well described by economist Thomas Sowell, who states, “making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount — and if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.”
Following in Seattle’s footsteps, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed similar legislation in April of 2016 to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by January of 2022.
California’s restaurant industry, at the time, was experiencing astounding growth. From 2010 to 2017, employment grew by 27% in full-service restaurant sectors and 35% in limited-service restaurant sectors.
Unfortunately, this growth was stunted by Governor Brown’s order. 
According to a <a href="http://ucreconomicforecast.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Minimum_Wage_4-17-19_FINAL.pdf">study</a> by UC Riverside School of Business, an estimated 38,000 jobs were lost due to California’s minimum wage increase. Had wages stayed the same, six of California’s highest income areas would have 7% more employees than the current number. 
Moreover, there is concern that during the next recession, California’s restaurant industry will face serious repercussions as the higher minimum wage is likely to create higher unemployment.
Similar to the discoveries of the study on Seattle, the data showed that low-skilled, disabled, and part-time workers were affected most by the policy, with both of these studies indicating that raising the minimum wage has a serious negative effect on low-skilled workers. 
If Biden’s initiative is passed, the Congressional Budget Office projects the country may lose up to 3.7 million jobs and real income would fall by $16 billion for families above the poverty line.  
But the heart of the minimum wage issue is summarized in the conclusion of the UC Riverside study. The researchers state, “The logic here is inescapable. Rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach, the level of the minimum wage should, at the very least, be tied to the level of income in the communities.”
A major issue with the Federal minimum wage is not the assurance of fair wages in cities where the real value of the dollar is lower. The problem is the enforcement of wages that are adjusted for city populaces upon rural areas. 
The real value of a dollar is significantly less in New York City than it is in rural Arkansas, for example. The Tax Foundation estimates the real value of $100 in Arkansas to be $117.23, while in New York, the real value of $100 is $85.91. So why should the government enforce both rural states and remote small businesses to pay the same dollar amount as cosmopolitan states and cities when there are serious discrepancies between the geographical locations?
One may instinctively agree with Biden’s statement that “No one working 40 hours a week should be below the poverty line.” But the reality is that arbitrarily and artificially inflating wages will not help the impoverished. It will only hurt them.
In the wise words of Henry Hazlitt, the great 20th century journalist, “The question is not whether we wish to see everybody as well off as possible. Among men of good will such an aim can be taken for granted. The real question concerns the proper means of achieving it.” 
It is very important to provide propitious opportunities for the destitute so they may prosper. However, raising the minimum wage is not only an inequitable and inefficacious solution to those living in rural areas, but it is also a regressive repression that harms the very people it is intended to help.
Paul Mosimann is a writer with a concentration in economics and political philosophy. His work has appeared in the Daily Signal and Free the People. Follow him on Twitter @MosimannPaul.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

Joe Biden

Why Minimum Wage Policies Do More Harm Than Good

Minimum Wage

Poverty

Menu

Paul Mosimann

The Political Activism And Influence of Bill Gates

Can Men And Women Compete Athletically? Here’s What The Science Says.

Are Superheroes ‘Super’ Anymore?

Why Minimum Wage Policies Do More Harm Than Good

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.