Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Americans love the minimum wage, unless you tell them the truth about it

February 13, 2014
Wilson

Writer

The below is based off the monologue from the latest episode of The Wonderful World of Stu. Watch the whole episode HERE.

You may not know this about me, but my world hasn't always been so wonderful.

You see, I used to make minimum wage. Oh, the dreaded minimum wage! The memories…they hurt. The employment, cash, and unlimited access to fries still gives me nightmares. Yes, was once was employed by McDonald's and they paid me the federally mandated minimum. And that is a travesty and a sham and a mockery - its a traveshamockery.

Why? Because I most certainly deserved much, much less.

I was pretty much horrible at my job, unless my job was thievery of McNuggets.  I eventually was fired for skipping work on two consecutive weeks, one to play wiffleball and two to go trick or treating with two hot girls from my class.

By the way, I got lucky.  Tons of candy that night.  I mean neither of the girls would look at me, but I scored three full size milky ways.  Boom.

So was life on minimum wage really so terrible? If you listen to the media and either political party, you would think so.

FS-PINTEREST-WAGE

"No one who works full time in America should have to live in poverty.  Join the fight to raise the minimum wage." You send nonsense like that when you see it on social networks, and we get anti-social, this time on the minimum wage debate.

Politicians talk about the minimum wage because voters heart the minimum wage. A Gallup poll found that 76% say they would vote for a law to for raise it.

FS Raising Wage Bar Graph

That's a whopping three quarters of the population in agreement! I understand why. If you're not making minimum wage, you feel like its mean not to raise it.  And if McDonald’s told my 16-year-old self that they were raising my pay, I would have been psyched. And that's probably how most people who make minimum wage would react when they see this plastered all over the White House website:

FS-WH-RAISE-WAGE

Let's take a step back for a second and actually look at who is working for minimum wage.

Let’s take 100 fries represent the workforce in America.  How many of them actually make the minimum wage? One.  Just one.

FS One Percent Title

"One percent of the us labor force earns the minimum wage." All these evil capitalist businesses out there required only to pay their peasant workers minimum wage and yet only one percent of them actually do it.  Doesn't that crush the boogeyman of the evil capitalist right off the bat?

Remember, the issue the White House says is so pressing is people working full time, trying to support a household.  Well, of that one percent, teenagers make up the largest age group.

In fact, "most minimum wage workers are under 25." 55% of minimum wage workers are under the age of 25.   Ok, so we've established it's mostly kids making minimum wage.  I say kids because they're all on mommy and daddy's health insurance.   But surely they're at least full time like the president said, right?

"Less than one-third work full-time." Only 32% of minimum wage workers work full time.  This is how progressives fight battles by the way. They look at an issue this big, like a pile of 100 fries, and only tell you about this part of it 1/3rd of one fry, but according to the president, these full time minimum wage earners are living in poverty-and that's why he wants to raise the wage.

Yeah, about that. You see, a full time minimum wage worker in 2014 makes $3,410 dollars more than the federal poverty limit.  So, depending on his family size, a full time minimum wage worker could take as much as 11 weeks of unpaid vacation and still clear the poverty line. He might not make the kind of cash Obama and his friends make, but someone should tell the president to look at their own numbers before running his mouth.

So why is this administration obsessed with raising the wages of a fraction of 1% of the country that is already living above the poverty line?

Do you remember the State of the Union? Remember how happy AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was. Why was he so happy?

Labor unions, like Trumka's AFL-CIO, universally throw their support behind proposals to hike the minimum wage.  But why?  Union workers don’t make minimum wage.  Well, some unions peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage. The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union explained that this is a commonplace practice.

"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."

You see what I'm getting at here, don't you?

A hike in the minimum wage isn't just a hike in the minimum wage. It’s a hike in the union wage.  But, the progressive union slush fund giveaway act has a terrible ring to it- so minimum wage it is.

Higher minimum wage means higher union wages, higher union dues, more money to spend on Democratic campaigns. A higher minimum wage also means more job security for union members. The increase restricts businesses from hiring lower skilled workers who would gladly accept a lower wage in exchange for experience.  And that same principle applies to every workplace when it comes to raising the minimum wage artificially. What does that mean for unemployment? A study called "effects of the minimum wage on employment dynamics" from Texas A&M University found that: "a ten percent increase to the minimum wage results in a reduction of approximately one-quarter of the net job growth rate."

The President is currently pushing not a 10 percent increase, but a 40 percent increase in the minimum wage. Progressives have always done that. What was their goal?  Unemployment and of course, eugenics.

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.

FS-WEBB-TEAROUT

 “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." – Sidney Webb

Many 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.

Remember in the beginning we showed the poll that said most Americans support an increase in minimum wage? 75%.  A really popular policy.

FS Raising Wage Bar Graph

What happens when you ask Americans if they favored minimum wage if it caused some employers to lay off workers.

FS-Lay-Off-Workers-Bar-Graph

Favor: 37%. Oppose? 56%.

Most Americans would oppose raising the minimum wage. There is disagreement on how many jobs would be lost, but economists generally agree- if you raise the minimum wage, some jobs will be lost.  But the American people never hear that.  As soon as they do, they completely turn on this horrible policy, one with an ugly past, and an incredibly corrupt present.

To review: 1) Americans love the minimum wage, unless you tell them the truth about it.  2) Minimum wage has a past that could make a decent horror film. 3) Unions want increases in minimum wage because it means more cash for them, and more campaign cash for Democrats.

What an adorable circle of corruption.  Give me more fries.

WATCH:

The SAVE Act scandal: Why are Democrats blocking voter security?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

Dire Wolves resurrected: CIA’s shocking plan exposed

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Top THREE takeaways from Trump's "Liberation Day"

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.