Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Subscribe Now! Open envelope icon with @ symbol.
White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Line-art icon representing RP article category
Kids
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Magazine
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Articles
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Book Reviews
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Movie Reviews
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Daily devotional
Line-art icon representing RP article category
Contests

More of Reformed Perspective!

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

The parables of Jesus teach eternal truths, but they also offer surprising practical lessons for worldly affairs. In the Gospel According to Matthew (chapter 25, verses 14-30) we find Jesus' Parable of the Talents. As with all the biblical parables, it has many layers of meaning. Its essence relates to how we are to use God's gift of grace. As regards the material world, it is a story about capital, investment, entrepreneurship, and the proper use of scarce economic resources. It is a direct rebuttal to those who see a contradiction between business success and living the Christian life.

A rich man who was going on a long journey called his three servants together. He told them they would be caretakers of his property while he was gone. The master had carefully assessed the natural abilities of each servant. He gave five talents to one servant, two to another, and one to the third – to each according to his ability. The master then left on his journey.

The servants went forth into a world open to enterprise and investment. The servant who had received five talents went into business and made five more. The servant who received two made two more. But the servant who received one hid the master's property in a hole in the ground.

The master returned to settle his accounts. The servant who had received five talents came forth. "My lord," he said, "you entrusted me with five talents; see, I have made five more!"

"Well done, good and faithful servant!" the master responded. "You have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your lord!"

Then the servant who had been given two talents approached the master. "My lord," he said, "you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have made two talents more!" The master praised the servant in a like manner.

Then the one who had been given one talent approached his master. "My lord," he said, "I knew you to be a hard man; you reap where you have not sown, and gather where you have not scattered; and being afraid I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours!"

The master's response was swift and harsh: "You wicked and indolent slave! You were aware that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered; you ought for that reason to have invested my money with the bankers; then, on my return, I should have received my own with interest."

The master ordered that the talent be taken away from the lazy servant and given to the one with the ten talents. "For to every one who possesses not," said the master, “even that which he has shall be taken away. Cast that useless slave into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and the grinding of teeth!"

This is not a story we often hear from the pulpit. Our times still exalt a socialist ethic where making a profit is suspect, and entrepreneurship is frowned upon. Yet the story relays a readily apparent ethical meaning, and even deeper lessons for understanding human accountability in economic life.

A closer look

The word "talent" in this parable has two meanings. It is a monetary unit: it was the largest denomination of the time. Biblical scholar John R. Donovan tells us a single talent was equivalent to the wage of an ordinary worker for fifteen years. So we know the amount given to each servant was considerable.

More broadly interpreted, the talents refer to all of the various gifts God has given us for our use. This definition embraces all gifts - natural, spiritual, and material. It includes our natural abilities and resources our health, education - as well as our possessions, money, and opportunities.

One of the simplest lessons from this parable is that it is not immoral to profit from our resources, wit, and labor. The alternative to profit is loss, and surely the loss of wealth, especially when due to a lack of initiative, does not constitute good stewardship.

Matthew's parable presupposes a local understanding of the proper stewardship of money. According to rabbinical law, burying was regarded as the best security against theft. If a person entrusted with money buried it as soon as he had it in his possession, he would be free from liability if anything should happen to it. The opposite was true for money that was tied in a cloth. In this case, the person was responsible for covering any loss incurred due to the inadequate care of the deposit.

Yet in this story, the master turned this understanding on its head. He considered burying the talent - and thus breaking even - to be a loss, because he thought that capital ought to earn a reasonable rate of return. In this understanding, time is money (or interest).

The parable also contains a critical lesson about how we are to use our God-given capacities and resources. In the book of Genesis God gave Adam the Earth with which to mix his labor for his own use. In the parable, in a similar manner, the master expected his servants to seek material gain. Rather than passively preserve what they have been given, they were expected to invest the money. The master was angered at the timidity of the servant who had received the one talent. God commands us to use our talents towards productive ends. The parable emphasizes the need for work and creativity as opposed to idleness.

The quest for security

Throughout history, people have tried to construct institutions to provide perfect security, as the failed servant did. Such efforts range from the Greco-Roman welfare states, to full-scale Soviet totalitarianism, to the Luddite communes of the 1960s. From time to time, these efforts have been embraced as Christian solutions to future insecurities. Yet in the Parable of the Talents, courage in the face of an unknown future is rewarded in the first servant, who has been given the most. He had traded the five talents, and in doing so, acquired five more. It would have been safer for the servant to have invested the money in the bank to receive interest. For his faith in his master he is allowed to keep what had been entrusted to him and what he earned, and he is invited to rejoice with the master.

This implies a moral obligation to confront uncertainty in an enterprising way. No one does this better than the entrepreneur. Long before he knows if there will be a return on his investments or ideas, he risks his time and property. He must pay out wages long before he has any idea if he has accurately predicted future events. He looks to the future with courage and a sense of opportunity. In creating new enterprises he opens up alternatives for workers to choose among in earning a wage and developing skills.

Why, then, are entrepreneurs so often castigated as poor servants of God? Many religious leaders speak and act as if the businessman's use of his natural talents and resources to turn a profit is immoral, a notion that should be cast aside in light of the Parable of the Talents. The lazy servant could have avoided his dismal fate by being more entrepreneurial. If he had made an effort to trade with his master's money and came back with less than a talent, he would not have been treated so harshly, for he would have labored on behalf of his master.

Entrepreneurship and greed

Religion must begin to recognize entrepreneurship for what it is - a vocation. The ability to succeed in business, stock trading, or investment banking is a talent. Like other gifts, it should not be squandered, but used to its fullest for the glory of God. Critics link capitalism with greed, yet the fundamental nature of the entrepreneurial vocation is to focus on the needs of customers. To succeed, the entrepreneur must serve others.

Greed is a spiritual hazard that threatens us all, regardless of our wealth or vocation. The term has a proportional element, meaning there is an excessive or insatiable desire for material gain, regardless of financial status. The desire is excessive when, in the depths of a person's being, it outweighs moral and spiritual concerns. This parable makes very clear that wealth as such is not unjust - for the first servant received more than the second and third. And when turning a profit is the goal of using the entrepreneurial talent, it is not greed. It is the proper use of the gift.

In addition to condemning profit, religious leaders often favor varieties of social leveling and redistribution of income. Universal health care, greater social welfare spending and higher taxes on the rich are all promoted in the name of Christian ethics. The ultimate goal of such constructs is equality, as if the inequalities that exist among people are somehow inherently unjust. Yet this is not how Jesus tells it in the Parable of the Talents. The master entrusted to each of his servants talents according to his ability. One received five, while another received only one. The one who received the least does not receive sympathy from the master for his lack of resources in comparison to what his colleagues have been given.

We can infer from this parable leveling of money or the reallocation of resources is not a proper moral concern. The individual talents and raw materials that each of us has are not inherently unjust; there will always be rampant inequalities among people. A moral system is one which recognizes this and allows each person to use his or her talents to the fullest. We all have the responsibility to employ the faculties with which we have been endowed.

We can also apply the lesson of this parable to our nation's social policy. In our existing system, the labor of workers is taxed to provide support for many who do not work. We often hear that there are "no jobs" for many of our poor. Yet there is always work to be done. A man with two working hands can find work for a dollar an hour. He makes a decision not to work. Moreover, our welfare system discourages work. It creates the perverse incentive to go on welfare unless there is a job that will pay at least as much as government relief. God commands all people to use the talents they have been given, yet in the name of charity our welfare system encourages people to let their natural skills atrophy, or keeps them from discovering their talents at all.

We encourage sin this way. The Parable of the Talents implies that inactivity - or wasting entrepreneurial talent - incites the wrath of God. After all, the lowly servant had not squandered his lord's money; he just hid it in the ground, something that was permissible in rabbinical law. The rapidity of the master's reaction is surprising. He calls him "wicked and slothful" and banishes him forever. Apparently it is not just the servant's sloth that brings such wrath on his head. He has also shown no contrition, and has blamed the master for his timidity. His excuse for not investing the money is that he viewed the master as a hard and exacting man, though he had been given generous resources. Bible scholar John Meir comments, "Out of fear of failure, he has refused to even try to succeed."

This parable also tells us something about macroeconomics. The master went on his journey leaving behind a total of eight talents; upon his return it has become fifteen. The parable is not the story of a zero-sum gain. One person's gain is not another's expense. The successful trading of the first servant does not hinder the prospects for the third servant. So it is true in the economy of today. Unlike what is so often preached from some pulpits, the success of the rich does not come at the expense of the poor.

If by becoming rich the most successful servant had hurt others, the master would not have praised him. A wise use of resources in investment and saving at interest is not only right from the individual point of view; it helps others in the economy as well. A rising tide lifts all boats, as John Kennedy used to say. Similarly, the wealth of the developed world is not on the backs of developing nations. The Parable of the Talents implies a free and open economy.

Often left-leaning Christians will cite Jesus' words: "How hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to pass through the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." His disciples were taken aback at this, and wondered then who could be saved. Jesus answers their fears, "For man it is impossible, but not for God." This does not mean that our material success will keep us from heaven, yet it does imply the necessity to order our lives properly before all our material concerns. Our concern for God must come just as the servants thought of their master's interest as they pursued profit. It remains true that for all of our worldly goods and deeds, we rely completely on God to attain salvation.

But for the conduct of economics, we rely heavily on entrepreneurship, investment, risk taking, and the expansion of wealth and prosperity. We should lend a critical eye to the way our culture treats enterprise. Business magazines carry stories of business success all the time. The hero is often the forward-looking, courageous, and cheerful entrepreneur, who is much like the capable servant given five talents. Yet at the same time popular religious faith continues to extol and promote behavior endemic to the idle servant who was banished by the master.

Christianity is often blamed for the failed socialist projects the world over. And in many cases misguided Christians have been involved in building socialist constructs. The lesson of the Parable of the Talents needs to be better understood. The socialist dream is not a moral one. It simply institutionalizes the condemned behavior of the lesser servant. Where God commands creative action, socialism encourages laziness. Where He demands faith and hope in the future, socialism promises a base form of security. Where the Parable of the Talents implies the morality of freedom to trade, invest, and profit, socialism denies it.

All people of faith need to work to close the chasm that exists between religion and economic understanding. Jesus' parable is a good place to begin to incorporate the morality of enterprise and the free market into Christian ethics.

This article first appeared in the March 2000 issue of the magazine. It is reprinted with permission from the Freeman. Image by Drazen Zigic on Freepik

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, People we should know

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) showed us that free enterprise is necessary for freedom
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

On why freer trade is best

The following is based on Real Talk’s episode #126, “Mere Economics and the Issue of Tariffs,” with host Lucas Holtvlüwer talking to economics ...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Work is Worship

Done right, it is an expression of God’s character and beauty **** There we sat under the starry skies, talking faith, family, fun and business. A...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Let's not be the squeaky wheel

Fewer people are using VIA Rail, more trains are behind schedule, and the Crown corporation continues to bleed money by the millions: that’s what Ca...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Tariffs are terrible economics: why Canada shouldn’t hit back

Free trade – free of barriers and restrictions – has, traditionally, been pretty exclusive to the Right side of the political spectrum. But now, with President Trump implementing tariffs on steel and threatening tariffs on Canada and Mexico, we’re even hearing the Left talk about the harms that tariffs could cause. And not just to Canada and Mexico, but to American consumers too. As the far-left stalwart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC) noted on X, “Remember: *WE* pay the tariffs….Trump is all about making inflation WORSE for working class Americans, not better.” But what is she talking about when she says Americans pay the tariffs it charges? Think of it this way. Imagine two towns located right next to each other – Town A and Town B – and each has a car mechanic. These mechanics are full-service: they go right to your house to do the repairs. The only difference between the two is that the car mechanic in Town A – let’s call him Arnold – is way cheaper, so not only do all the folks in Town A use Arnold, so do most of the folks in Town B. That, understandably, makes the mechanic in town B – we’ll him Bill – quite unhappy, as it really hurts his business. So Bill demands that his town put in a tariff of sorts. He wants a 25% surcharge on any “out of town” car mechanics. He argues that this surcharge will be incredibly beneficial – applying it to Arnold for the work he does in Town B will help fund Town B’s government. It will also help protect Town B’s homegrown car repair businesses – Bill’s – by making his prices seem more competitive. And, Bill notes, if he gets more business, the government will benefit from the taxes he’ll pay. Bill pitches his tariff/surcharge as a win/win all the way around. But Bill is forgetting someone – several someones, in fact. The surcharge will make Arnold’s prices higher. Any Town B clients who do continue to use him will now be paying 25% more. And any clients he loses to Bill will be impacted too, having to pay Bill’s higher prices for their car repairs, taking a bigger chunk out of their household budget than ever before. In other words, Bill is staying in business at the expense of the car repair consumers in his own town. That’s not win/win at all – that’s a win for Bill, at the cost of everyone else in town. This is what AOC meant when she said that Americans will pay the tariffs they charge. Canada rightly fears American tariffs on the energy and goods they produce. Those tariffs could hurt our producers badly. But hitting back at American tariffs with our own tariffs on US goods is only going to compound the pain. It might benefit some of our producers – whoever makes the goods that compete with imported American goods – but that benefit will come at the expense of Canadian consumers overall by making them pay more. Just like Town B’s car repair “tariff” hurt Town B’s citizens. Is there an explicitly biblical perspective to be brought here? Well, what about Leviticus 19:15? “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” God equates justice and impartiality, which prompts a question: should a government take actions that benefit some of its citizens – some producers – at the expense of other citizens, the consumers and producers who use those goods? Isn’t that partiality? God also speaks to this in His Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). “Do unto others as you would like done unto you,” applied to the economic realm would mean that car mechanic Bill wouldn’t argue for his surcharge because he wouldn’t want that same surcharge applied to everything he buys. If Town A has cheap car parts, or groceries, or gasoline, he’d love to be able to benefit. The fact is, tariffs always hurt consumers, so no matter what the US does, let’s not let tariffs beget more tariffs. Instead of putting up trade barriers, there are actually interprovincial trade barriers that we could greatly benefit from taking down, as Pierre Poilievre has been highlighting recently. In  the video below Remy highlights one of the ills caused by tariffs – fewer choices and higher costs. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Economics

There’s No Free Lunch: 250 Economic Truths

by David L. Bahnsen 2021 / 308 pages This is a wonderful primer on economics from a conservative Christian perspective (and the second There’s No Free Lunch book I’ve read this year). Bahnsen is the son of famed Reformed presuppositional apologist Greg Bahnsen, and is famed in his own right as a hedge fund manager for a billion-dollar fund. Here he’s collected 250 concise quotes by a host of famed conservative economists, one per page, and then expanded on each point being made. The quotes are grouped under headings like: Crony Capitalism, Minimum Wage, Division of Labor, and Socialism. To give you a taste, here’s a couple shorter quotes, this one from Milton Friedman: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” Here’s another, this time from Thomas Sowell: “The first lesson of economics is scarcity. There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” These are worth chewing on, and both show why No Free Lunch should be read slowly. But as meaty as these thought are, Bahnsen has made them digestible to all by packaging them into one-page, bite-size servings. Well done!...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Economics

No Free Lunch: Six economic lies you’ve been taught and probably believe

by Caleb Fuller 20021 / 138 pages Every now and again I’ll hand out a book to any nephews or nieces willing to give it a go. And with Caleb Fuller’s No Free Lunch, I’ve found the next book I’m going to pitch to them. While Fuller addresses six lies, there is one truth he’s trying to present: that every opportunity you pursue, comes at a cost. What cost? The time and money you put into it – and here’s the important part – which can’t then be spent on other opportunities. This “opportunity cost” could be known as the “you-can’t-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too principle” or, as the book title puts it, “there’s no free lunch.” So, then, when a government jobs program funds summer work for students, what we see is all the students getting jobs. But what we don’t see is the opportunity cost to this program – we don’t see all the other jobs that companies might have started on their own – and maybe full-time even – had the government not taxed them to fund their summer jobs program. Fuller shows how much damage is done by the well-meaning, but economically ignorant, and highlights how there is on many issues a consensus among economists on both the Left and Right, that politicians on the Left will simply defy. My only disappointment with this punchy book is that this Christian professor never makes plain why the Left fails, and the free market works. He never mentions how the foundation for the free market – private property rights – is simply obedience to God’s command, “Do not steal” (Ex. 20:15). In fact, God is not mentioned in the whole book. For a more explicitly Christian economics book sharing this same great name, check out David Bahnsen's No Free Lunch....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, News

Premier Ford calls on the feds to make EV cars more expensive

Ontario’s premier has asked the federal government to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles, which would make these cars twice as expensive as they would otherwise be. Why would Premier Doug Ford want to so strongly discourage consumers from buying these EVs? Aren’t EVs the way of the future? The premier explained he wants the tariff to protect Ontario jobs. Back in April, he announced he was gifting $2.5 billion of Ontario taxpayers’ money to induce Honda to build four EV manufacturing plants in the province. The federal government added in their own $2.5 billion in tax credits. Combined, this $5 billion would create 1,000 jobs, which works out to a cost of $5 million per job. It’s not surprising then, that the premier wants to protect these positions – they were a very expensive purchase. But why are these Chinese cars so cheap? In an interview with the Toronto Sun’s Brian Lilley, the president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Association, Flavio Volpe, raised the possibility of forced labor – slaves – sometimes being involved. That could be a reason to ban sales altogether, not simply penalize them. Another critique is that the Chinese government is heavily subsiding these vehicles. But The Hub has calculated that overall, the federal, Ontario, and Quebec governments have combined to offer $40 billion in subsidies and tax credits to our own EV industry. Or as Kiernan Green noted: “This represents 15 percent more than the companies themselves have put forward for their investments in Canada’s EV sector.” If subsidization is an unfair business practice, then shouldn’t we should stop it ourselves (Matt. 7:12)? And if it isn’t unfair, why are we complaining? There are other issues involved here: as Flavio Volpe noted, the same federal government that is subsidizing Canadian production is also involved in subsidizing foreign EV production too – the Liberals announced a program this past December that could credit EV manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, with as much as a $20,0000 credit per EV car sold. It is more complicated than that, but the short of it is, the government has gotten itself so muddled up in this market that its right hand is actively working against its left hand. Might that be evidence that it should get both hands, and its nose, out of the business sphere? Taxpayers are shouldering a heavy burden for EV cars. And now, if this tariff goes through, Canadians will be asked to shoulder even more, as less expensive Chinese competitors will be tariffed out of the marketplace. There is a broader lesson here, as this is what tariffs always do, protecting local producers at the expense of local consumers. God calls on the government to administer justice, and one of the first principles of justice is impartiality (Lev. 19:15, James 2:8). What we have happening here is an example of the government picking winners and losers, favoring EV producers over EV purchasers (and all of it done at the expensive of taxpayers). Why the one over the other? What business is it of government to show such favoritism? Picture credit: adapted from a photo by Bruce Reeve/flickr.com and used under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Economics, Teen fiction

The Hyperinflation Devastation

by Connor Boyack 400 pages / 2019 Rating: GOOD/Great/Give Remember those “Choose Your Own Adventure” books kids loved back in the 1980s? Rea...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Christians can’t “invest” in cryptocurrency

I hope this headline got your attention! I can hear some of the objections already: What do you mean, we can’t invest in cryptocurrency; don�...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Investing in Eternity: thinking 30 million years ahead
Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Economics

Christian Economics in One Lesson

by Gary North 2015 / 268 pages Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is what its title suggests, just one economic lesson explained in the fi...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Economics

Economics in One Lesson

by Henry Hazlitt 1946 / 193 pages Universal basic income, a four-day work week, and government-funded daycare are just a few big-ticket proposals that are gaining momentum nationally, and even within our own church circles. All these proposals boil down to getting more while doing less. Promises have been made that middle and lower class families will not have to pay a cent more in taxes but the wealthy 1% will do all the heavy lifting.  In Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt argues that all these policies can’t deliver what they promise. He argues that many of these proposals only focus on a special interest group in the present and fail to consider how the proposal will affect the general populace both now and in the future.  For example, when a government announces a multitude of public “make-work” projects, at first glance these projects seem like a good idea, or at least seem like they couldn’t do any harm. The citizens get: An employment opportunity  Tangible infrastructure But Hazlitt warns that although these benefits look attractive, there are many indirect consequences that are not considered.  First, someone must pay for these employment opportunities. For every dollar spent on a public work project, a dollar will be taken away from a taxpaying citizen. Not only are the citizens as a whole worse off, there is now less money for them to create new jobs. Second, now that the infrastructure exists it is easy to assume that without that piece of infrastructure the country would be worse off – having a bridge would seem obviously better than not having a bridge. But in reality, one thing has been created instead of others. Instead of the government-built bridge there could’ve been citizen-built houses, or cars, or dresses and coats. All of these items are unrealized because the bridge is now standing. Although Hazlitt wrote this over 70 years ago, many of the issues he deals with are just as relevant as ever. We should be wary of governmental promises to ease our daily tasks. Our sinful nature yearns for an easy life; that is why these promises are so alluring to us. However, as Christians we are not called to an easy life. That does not mean that we should always seek out the hard way, but we shouldn’t become entangled in false promises of an easy way. To get Economics in One Lesson as a free pdf book, click here....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, Science - Environment

Thinking on the margin, or why some pollution is better than none

Another economic principle Christian teens (& adults) need to know ***** An important aspect of economics is counting the costs of an action or purchase, and, on the flipside, also evaluating the benefit that could result. With these two concepts, cost and benefit, we can understand how people make their decisions. When the benefit of taking an action is greater than the cost, people will take that action. For example, if buying a soda would bring you $3 worth of enjoyment, but it only costs $1, then you’ll choose to buy the soda. And afterwards, if you’ve had your fill of soda, you might hardly enjoy another soda, and perhaps value it at just a quarter. So of course you then won’t buy it for $1. What is “marginal thinking"? This example illustrates the meaning of the concept of marginality. When economists use the term “marginal benefit,” they are referring to the benefit added by the last unit purchased – in this case the last soda. Another example: when you decide whether to work for another hour, you don’t consider the cost and benefit of all the hours you already worked. Instead, you consider the cost and benefit associated with the final (or marginal) hour under consideration. So when you “think marginal," then think about the cost and benefit of “one more unit.” And whether people realize it or not, we all engage in marginal thinking. Imagine you’re deciding to buy an ice cream cone. Let’s say a single scoop cone costs $2, and every additional scoop costs 50 cents. When deciding whether to buy a single scoop you have to compare how much benefit you get from the single cone to the cost of the cone ($2). So long as you value the single scoop cone at more than $2 you buy it. When the marginal benefit of an action is greater than the cost, people will do that action. What about the second scoop? Well, each scoop is 50 cents, so you’ll choose to buy the second scoop if you enjoy it at a value more than 50 cents. You’ll keep purchasing more scoops but at some point, another scoop just won’t be worth another 50 cents to you, so you’ll stop. Why does it matter? So hopefully you understand marginal thinking, because now we have to consider why it matters. Marginal thinking is valuable in all sorts of applications. For students, marginal thinking can help you prioritize your studying. I always tell my students that, if their goal is a good GPA, they shouldn’t spend much time trying to improve their grade from a 96% to a 98%. Why? First, both grades are an “A” so the marginal benefit to your GPA is nothing. Also, once your grade is already high, it’s much more difficult to move it up. Therefore, the cost is high and the marginal benefit is low. Most students would be better off dedicating their time to working on a class where they have a 79% since the cost is lower – just a little more study could boost them up a letter grade – and the marginal benefit is higher. In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of a man who manages the money of a rich man. The manager is going to be fired because of his wasteful practices. When he discovers this, he forgives the debtors of his master to make friends before he’s fired. Jesus tells us in Luke 16:8a, “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” In 16:9 He goes on to give the meaning of the parable, “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” The point of the parable is not that we should be dishonest in our dealings. Instead, it’s that we should use our resources shrewdly for the Kingdom. Christians are called to be good stewards of the resources we are given, which includes our time. As the studying example above illustrates, effective use of time requires the ability to consider the relevant costs and benefits of a given decision. There’s a “good” amount of pollution and crime? Marginal thinking is also valuable when it comes to thinking about policy. Economists have a pithy saying: the efficient amount of anything is not zero. It’s tempting to believe bad things should be eliminated completely. For example, many people would likely support the phrase, “politicians should eliminate pollution.” But imagine what it would mean to eliminate the very last “units” of pollution. Almost every vehicle, either personal or those used for transporting goods and services, relies on some form of pollution to operate. If we had zero pollution, our grocery stores would receive zero food deliveries because we wouldn’t have semi-trucks, and they would receive zero visits from us, because we wouldn’t have cars.  Elimination of all pollution, at least at this point, would result in most of humanity returning to subsistence conditions – the cost is too high, and thus that is a “purchase” we shouldn’t make. Of course, some pollution should be eliminated. If a factory is dumping toxic waste into a public river, the cost of allowing the pollution to continue is very high. As strange as it might sound, the efficient amount of crime is also not zero. Imagine how much money and how many resources would need to be spent to ensure zero crime. We’d need a police officer on every street corner 24/7. Think of how high your taxes would need to be to support those pensions! Surely taxpayers have other priorities with higher marginal benefits than preventing some minor traffic violation. No Nirvana naivete This sort of logic can be summarized neatly by saying economics as a field is inherently opposed to the Nirvana fallacy. The Nirvana fallacy is the mistake that is made when people compare the real world to an unrealistically ideal alternative. We would all like to get a grade of 100% in every class and live in a world without crime or pollution. But these are unrealistic desires for this world. A solid understanding of marginal analysis complements the Christian understanding of our fallen world. When politicians offer us a vision of a world where all bad is eliminated, a clear understanding of marginal analysis provides us with an argument for why such a world is out of reach. Economists Armen Alchian and William Allen rightly summarize this in the foreword of their book Universal Economics. They say: “since the discouraging fiasco in the Garden of Eden, all the world has been a place conspicuous in its scarcity of resources, contributing heavily to an abundance of various sorrows and sins. People have had to adjust and adapt to limitations of what is available to satisfy unlimited desires.” In sum, marginal thinking helps us better understand the nature of our own decisions. When applied properly, this way of thinking provides a more sober view of the important decisions we make in our personal lives and in the public square. Peter Jacobsen is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ottawa University and the Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He has previously written for both the Foundation for Economic Education and the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH – an economic principle Christian teens (& adults) need to know

Small revolutions in schooling are occurring across the world. From homeschooling to microschools, many parents find themselves wanting more for their children in terms of education. Resources are available for independent schooling now more than ever, but some subjects remain difficult to tackle. My own field of economics remains elusive for many educators. Part of the difficulty is that many people don’t know what economics actually is. Many think economics is just composed of principles budgeting and investment. This view of economics and finance being the same is common, but it’s wrong. Instead, economics considers how people interact in a world where there are limited means but unlimited desires. The study of this interaction and the rules that govern it is of fundamental importance for anyone who wants to understand human flourishing, politics, or any topic of social importance. My high school economics teacher used to say, “everything goes back to economics.” Math and science, for example, are the tools people use to accomplish their goals. But the reasons they use these tools are economic. And I can’t think of a better starting point for understanding economics than the concept of opportunity cost. What is an “Opportunity Cost”? One of the most famous phrases in economics is, “there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.” This phrase is meant to illustrate the always present role of opportunity costs. Whenever you make any decision to do anything at all, you’re essentially choosing between two possibilities – your best option and your second-best option. Consider an example. Molly has three offers of how to spend her Saturday evening. She can study for her college algebra final exam, she can babysit for 3 hours at a rate of $15 per hour, or she can hang out with her friends. Let’s say her favorite option is to study, her second favorite is babysitting, and her third pick would be having out with friends. Since studying is Molly’s most urgent desire, she decides to allocate her time that way. But what did she give up? You might be tempted to say she sacrificed $45 and time with friends, but that isn’t really the case. After all, Molly couldn’t have babysat and spent time with friends. So even if she hadn’t studied, she would still have only been able to do one of these other options, so in a very real sense that’s the only option she was sacrificing. In this case, her second favorite option would have been to earn $45 babysitting. So, the “opportunity cost” of Molly’s studying is $45. To say it again, the opportunity cost is the option you value second highest and sacrificed when you decide to pursue your first choice. In this light, we can see every action has a cost. Time spent resting could be time learning or fixing up the house. Another hour of overtime at work is one less hour at home with family. Every time you say yes to one opportunity, that prevents you from accepting another. There is no free lunch. Why does it matter? The concept of opportunity cost is important for people to understand for several reasons. First, opportunity cost helps us understand some of the hard-to-see downsides of certain policies. Consider the income tax. If a government increases the income tax from 25% to 40% this has major ramifications for someone deciding whether they want to work an extra week during the summer for $1,500. With a 25% tax rate, the person takes home $1,125, while at 40%, the person only takes home only $900. Now let’s say this person values their relaxation time as being worth about $1,000 a week to them. Then this tax policy will make a big difference. The opportunity cost of working this week will be the equivalent of what this fellow valued for his time off: the opportunity cost for working would be $1,000. Now with a 30% tax rate, that extra paycheck is worth more to the person than the extra week off ($1,125 is greater than $1,000). But with a 40% tax rate, suddenly the relaxation is worth more ($1,000 is greater than $900)! So, by understanding the concept of opportunity cost, we can also understand that higher income taxes will mean people will work less. Even free comes with a cost Opportunity cost has practical usefulness too. Why is it that sometimes deals sound too good to be true? It’s because implicitly, we all have some understanding of opportunity cost. If a person offers to give you a free car, his opportunity cost is, at minimum, keeping the car for himself. Why would he give it away rather than keep it? Is it possible he is getting something from you? Something having a price of zero dollars is not the same as something being free. When my local ice cream shop offers “free” ice cream, I know there’s going to be a line going out the door. When I take into account the fact that my time is valuable, I realize waiting half an hour in line for free ice cream could have a higher cost than paying the regular $3 but without waiting. To learn more… If you’re interested in learning more about opportunity cost and how it applies in the world, I highly recommend reading Economics in One Lesson. Author Henry Hazlitt does an excellent job of applying the logic of opportunity cost, and the book will only cost you your time (as it is a free download at fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson). And trust me when I say, it’s worth the opportunity cost. Peter Jacobsen is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ottawa University and the Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He has previously written for both the Foundation for Economic Education and the Institute for Faith, Works, and Economics....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, Human Rights, Satire

On achieving equality...

I was recently confronted with the disturbing statistic that evidences the ultimate case of gender inequality: the life expectancy of males is 6.1 years lower than that of females. This phenomenon must be properly discussed. What is a more valuable commodity than life? Nothing, I would say. And yet females habitually possess over 8 percent more of it than men. It is clear that when it comes to life, there is no level playing field in our society between males and females. I, therefore, call upon the government to take measures to empower men to overcome this glaring inequality. What we need is legislation, programs, and lots of funding. First of all the government should enact human rights legislation which will unequivocally state that males have the right to the same life expectancy as females. This legislation will empower the government to make proactive adjustments in Health, Social, and Education programs. I would like to share with you the following suggestions for such adjustments. An immediate transfer of medical research dollars from female diseases to male diseases. The inclusion of a mandatory life expectancy rights component to be taught in all our schools starting at the kindergarten level. The appointment of kommissars (also call commissioners) for each federal and provincial ministry who are to scrutinize all proposed legislation for life expectancy bias. Mandatory sensitivity training for all our judges to ensure that crimes against women are not more discouraged than crimes against men. Mandatory affirmative low-stress jobs action for all businesses employing more than 10 people to ensure that men will be employed in at least 50 percent of such jobs. The creation of Men's Issues Department at both the federal and provincial levels. Thus far my suggestions. If we do not want to lose the image of Canada as a caring and nurturing society we had better implement these suggestions regardless of costs. Of course, some naive people may suggest that it would help if men changed their lifestyle by smoking, drinking, fighting, and fornicating less, and by being more spiritual and less macho. However, though in the past this might have been a solution, we now know that we can only lead fulfilling lives if we are true to ourselves. Since institutions of education and our public media zealously indoctrinate the populace with this new gospel, it would be futile to appeal to "the man kind" itself to heal the wound of life expectancy; the government is our only hope. This post first appeared way back in the May 1999 issue, but doesn't it seems like it was written for today? As Christians we believe God calls us not to be partial to rich or poor, black or white, young or old – He calls us to equality. But what kind of equality does God call us to? Is it an equality – as is called for in this article – of outcomes? Or is the equality meant to be in how we treat people? The world says the former, but God is calling us to the latter (Leviticus 19:15, James 2:1-9, Acts 10:34)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

An abundance mentality in business

Christian entrepreneurs may be positioned to help the next generation become entrepreneurs too ***** Christian business owners often speak about an ...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Children’s picture books, Economics

Nobody knows how to make a pizza

by Julie Borowski 2019 / 30 pages Rating: Good/GREAT/Give The picture book's title makes a claim that my daughter just couldn't believe: "Come on...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

The art of the apology

In the middle of a leaders’ coaching session, focusing on how they engaged in difficult conversations with their teams, I began to notice a theme. T...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

The hidden tax of inflation

Prices are on the rise in many countries around the world. Price increases are measured by a statistic called inflation, which expresses the percent p...
Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

What does a Reformed entrepreneur look like?

What is it about Reformed Christians that has so many wired to be entrepreneurs? Think about all the landscape professionals and nursery operators in Ontario, the construction companies and dairy farms in BC, and the myriad cabinet shops in southwestern Australia! Very different businesses, but every company began with the dream of an individual or team that saw a need in the marketplace for their expertise: “We can do this better than others, and we can provide for our families and employees by sharing our expertise with the public, and charging the right prices for what we do.” That concept might sound mundane to some, but it’s incredibly invigorating and challenging to an entrepreneur! But what should we as Reformed Christians look like as entrepreneurs and employers? And how can we use God’s Word to guide us as leaders in the workplace? How can we be effective witnesses for the Lord, and conscientious stewards of what He provides for us? Be willing to take on responsibility Along with the excitement of starting something new, the Christian entrepreneur will also face many hurdles and pressures. When you work for someone else, you are rarely confronted with the realities of making sure there are enough funds in the bank to make payroll, or worrying that your biggest account won’t pay their bill on time so that you can send out checks to your vendors and partners. Especially early in a company’s life, the owners have many decisions to make and can feel like they are the only one worried about whether or not their enterprise will survive. These pressures multiply when the owners hire their first employee: we have to recruit the right people with the right skills so the company can grow; we need to file reams of paperwork with multiple government agencies; we need to choose and purchase benefit packages we might never have thought about. Despite the additional pressures, entrepreneurs who have a team can be many times more effective than when they are on their own. Be ambitious Throughout the Scriptures, the Lord commands His people to be hard-working, diligent, and industrious, not so that they would become rich, but because He wants us to use for His glory the gifts He has given us. In Matthew 24, the Lord Jesus praises the work of the two servants who managed well the funds their master entrusted to them. The master is furious with the servant who just buried his treasure in the ground: “You wicked and slothful servant!” And he commands that this “worthless” man be cast into the outer darkness. We do not know specifically what the two righteous servants did with the money they received (the first “traded with them,” and the second “made two talents more,”) but we do know that they were commended for their diligence. “Well done, good and faithful servant!” While some in today’s culture may look askance at profit-making, the Bible never condemns this basic tenet of capitalism that makes a free market function. Use your growing influence to aid and not exploit As they worked hard, and aimed for a return on their investments, God’s people were also to deal righteously with their servants and laborers. In Deuteronomy 24:15, the Lord through Moses instructs landowners: “You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers, or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin…” The Lord is angered when profits are made by those who mistreat or cheat their employees. In James 5, those who have “hoarded wealth” are warned that “the wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you… The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.” Pay others as you would like to be paid In a recent issue of Reformed Perspective, Peter Jacobsen wrote about the negative effects of minimum wage policies – unintended consequences such as higher unemployment among the young and less skilled, and even intentionally evil consequences such as economic punishment of recent immigrants willing to work for lower wages than native-born employees. Jacobsen cited the writings of economist Thomas Sowell, a black American economist who delights in using real data to debunk “woke,” generally accepted theories about socialism, communism, racism, and more. Christian business leaders need wisdom to discern what is best for their employees, for the health of their company, and for their customers. Since we are commanded to be righteous and generous in how we treat our fellow workers, hopefully a hike in a mandated minimum wage does not have a significant impact on our businesses, since we are likely being far more generous with most of our workforce. Create opportunities for others to be fruitful Not only must we never withhold the wages earned by employees, we are also not to be so focused on profit that we leave no opportunities for others to profit from our enterprise. After instructing about paying wages on the same day as earned, Moses commands that farmers should leave enough crops in their fields for others to glean: “When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands” (Deut. 24:19). King David’s great-grandmother benefited from this generosity to the poor! Are there ways that we in our modern workplaces can put in place similar policies that would help our neighbors, and our brothers and sisters? In my hometown, a local company owns and maintains a scenic, rural retreat and training center that it makes available for no cost to Christian organizations. This same company has hired a part-time chaplain to be available for their employees as they need a listening ear, and invites other local employers to avail themselves of this minister’s services. Another company nearby hires mentally disabled employees for janitorial work. Might the floors be cleaner and the windows sparkle more if a contract service were used? Possibly. But what a joy to be able to provide work and routine for those who otherwise might not have such opportunities. Seize the charitable opportunities that come with business success The principle of tithing and charitable giving also has a place in this discussion. Christians are expected to be generous with what the Lord has given. In 2 Corinthians 9, Paul reminds his readers “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.” And in 1 Corinthians 16, Paul writes “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income” (NIV). The phrase “in keeping with your income” (or “as he may prosper” in the ESV) is telling: business owners often enjoy seasons of prosperity beyond what a typical wage earner may experience, and should be known for their generosity to causes that benefit their church community, and their neighbors’ well being.  May the Lord continue to bless the businesses in our church communities, and give wisdom to those entrusted to run them for his glory. Marty VanDriel is the CEO of a manufacturing company in Ferndale, Washington. Comments, feedback, and also suggestions for future topics dealing with business, employment, and finance are more than welcome at [email protected]....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

The impact of saying, “I’m so busy”

How many times have you asked someone “How are you doing?” and they respond with “Busy!”? In that response, they did not actually answer your caring inquiry and they unknowingly sabotaged their credibility as a leader.  Further, in their hurriedness, they potentially hijacked an opportunity to bless.  As Christ-following leaders, here’s why I suggest we do well to remove this response from our repertoire… and learn better ways.  Let me explain. We’re all busy. That comes with the position of being any sort of leader. However, even as deliberate leaders are often busy, they are not hurried.  Jesus himself was very busy, but not hurried.  I would suggest that responding with, “I’m so busy” does three things: Reveals our leadership Drains our credibility Limits the God-story 1. It reveals our leadership Newsflash: We are not a “hero” by being busier than others. Being busy is not a badge of honor. Our culture has hoisted the notion of "busyness" onto such a pedestal that many have simply learned to respond this way merely as a status symbol. In the past, I would work ridiculous hours – and be sure to let others know (subtly of course to maintain my “martyr syndrome”).  I burned the candle at both ends with noble church and community work.  I would even brag about my lack of sleep that week, or not attending my family’s vacation because “I have so much to do.”  Worse yet, I thought less of others who didn’t.  I viewed them as lazy or irresponsible.  I was unaware and delusional, arrogant, and prideful.  I wore my hurriedness as a badge of honor. Not only was it destructively sad, but it was also poor thinking.  More yet, it was weak theology, because I didn’t have my identity in Jesus.  My sense of worth came from what I did and accomplished… and what it took to get there.  I would even show up to public functions late and rushed, hoping guests would think, “Man, that guy sure works hard. Look at all his obligations and responsibilities. He’s so industrious… such a servant-heart.” Does that mean all who respond with “I’m so busy” are like I was?  Of course not…  but an addict can easily spot another addict. It doesn’t have to be this way.  Hang around effective leaders for a while and you’ll notice an inner calm and resolve, despite being in the press. A Christ-following leader rests in the unresolved.  They offer a vulnerable, gracious, or inquisitive response… despite being busy. 2. It drains my credibility Rather than being a badge of honor, responding with “I’m so busy” can actually convey: I’m not helping others grow: Show me someone who keeps telling everyone they're busy, and you often see a leader who needs to grow in investing in others.  Effective leaders know how to build, enable, and inspire people to accomplish something bigger and better than they could do on their own.  They look for smarter ways. I'm disorganized: In a lot of cases, a frantic pace is simply a lack of organization and healthy habits. I don't have clarity of what matters most: Without clarity of purpose, and focusing on what’s most important, it's easy to get lured into the frenzy of putting out fires because “I’m so” It might look like hard work, but in many cases, it's just squandered energy. I can’t say no: Enough said. 3. It limits the God-story Starting conversations about how busy you are is a great way to miss an opportunity to witness and bless others.  Why?  Unknowingly, you put up a wall with someone who cared enough to genuinely see how you’re doing.  We’ve also stunted the opportunity to share deeper reflections about where God is at work in your life.   We’ve limited others to see His beauty in the middle of trial or challenge. Ultimately, by saying, “Oh, I’m so busy”, others don’t get to be blessed by the work God is doing in this challenging season of life you’re in. Deliberate application  So, what might be a better way to respond when someone asks, “Hey, how are you doing?” Be thoughtfully deliberate.  Because being real opens meaningful conversation.  Maybe something like, “I’m doing well. Life’s a bit challenging right now, but it is well with my soul. Pressed but not crushed. You know, God is really showing me… Be vulnerable and curious. Because vulnerability builds trust and invites in a God-story.  “I’m actually in a season of struggle right now. Doing well, but feel stretched too thin. How do you manage to juggle all your roles these days? …Could we pray together?” Be a hope dispenser.  Because everyone needs encouragement in their busyness.   “Yes, well I’m really enjoying where God has me right now. What that looks like is…” This one of a ten-part series, “Moving from Hurried to Purposeful” that Darren Bosch has written for DeliberateU, a Christian business leaders mentorship group. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, Science - Environment

Manure into mattresses – we can "create" resources

Economist Julian Simon's key insight is that man's creativity – his brainpower – is a resource that creates other resources. So while some view a rising population as a threat to limited resources ("We're going to run out of oil!") Simon viewed a growing population as a growing resource base. Our brains, when properly applied, could in a reflection of God's own creativity, turn nothing (or next to it) into quite something. For example, when copper – a key element in our phone lines – started getting very expensive, this motivated some smart chaps to develop a much cheaper alternative: sand! That's what our telephone lines are today: Sand (silicon) + Human Creativity = Fiber optic cables Making sand into something is amazing enough, but a much more impressive example of "resource creation" is the way some farmers have turned poop into bedding (or if you prefer alliteration, manure into mattresses). It is quite a story! Rising prices prompts creative thinking Down where I live, in the Northern Washington/Southern BC area, some dairy farmers used to use sawdust as a cheap bedding material for their cows. The cows could sleep in it, poop on it, and the farmer could then come along, clean it out, and put a new layer down. Sawdust clumped together, making it easy to scoop away, but perhaps its most attractive quality was its cheapness. Sawdust used to be viewed as a waste product from the lumber industry – they couldn't give it away and would even bury it. But then creative farmers created a market for this castoff. Or to put it in more mathematical terms: Sawdust + Human Creativity = Cow bedding Some time later, other creative folks started to see more ways that sawdust could be used, including as fuel. Because it originated as a lumber waste product it was cheaper than many other fuel options. So some greenhouses owners figured out a way to use it to heat their buildings, and started to outbid the farmers. This result was this waste product – nothing more than garbage before human brainpower got involved – had so increased in value that farmers could no longer afford it. They needed to find a cheaper option for their bedding! And then it happened. Some ingenious dairy farmer, probably sitting out on his tractor staring out across his manure lagoon, started thinking about the possibilities in all this poop. The result was a separation system that used the undigested fibers found in cow manure. This is fed into a rotating drying drum, where high heat kills the germs, and the output is fibrous bedding material for the farmer's cows. Poop + Human Creativity = Cow bedding Manure has been turned into mattresses! Conclusion Julian Simon was an atheist, so he didn't understand why we have this capacity – why we have a mysterious, awesome ability to use our brains to create something out of nothing. But Simon did recognize Man was more than his mouth; he understood that Man wasn't best understood as a consumer of scarce resources, but that instead Man has an ability (and Christians would add, a calling) to be a producer of plenty. So, in this limited way, Simon has a more accurate understanding of Man than any of his critics. So where does our creative capacity come from? It is a reflection of God's creative Genius. We can't create ex nihilo – out of nothing – like God does, but when we take what was once useless, and put it to productive use, we show ourselves to be His image-bearers....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

The $15 minimum wage - good intentions are not enough

In the US, the latest COVID-19 relief package has re-awoken the debate on minimum wage increases, and that policy conversation is spilling over into Canada, Australia, and much of the Western world too. Often policy proposals put Christians in difficult territory. The Bible was not written during a time where every person would be personally accountable for participating in the governing of a nation. There’s very little in the way of advice to voters on specific policies. However, this doesn’t mean Christians can’t form educated opinions about policies like the minimum wage. To do so, believers can evaluate the fruits of the policy.  Good intentions One way to evaluate whether the minimum wage increase would be a good thing is to see if the intended fruits of the policy are good and analyze whether the actual fruits will match the good intentions. Supporters of the minimum wage increase are ostensibly trying to help lower the level of poverty. Higher wages for the lowest wage workers could give them a chance at a better life. This intended fruit appears to be good. Lowering poverty seems to be unambiguously good. And a reasonable interpretation of Matthew 22:20-22 could claim it’s within the state’s right to take money from business profits and give it to workers. Combining this logic with verses like Psalm 41:1 could make a powerful case for this proposal. A Christian might be tempted to stop thinking here. Perhaps the increased cost to businesses is worth the poverty alleviation. However, even if someone does accept this trade-off, the biggest problem with increasing the minimum wage lies more in the results than intentions.  Bad results Good intentions are not enough to eliminate poverty, as evidenced by the American “war on poverty,” now entering its 58th year. The minimum wage law does not guarantee every person a job at $15/hour. In actuality, what the minimum wage law does is make it illegal to gainfully employ any worker whose skills don’t bring in $15 of hourly revenue. Economists refer to the revenue an additional worker brings in as “marginal revenue product.” For any worker with a marginal revenue product less than the minimum wage, employing them would either mean making a net loss on the hire or breaking the minimum wage law. Businesses must make a profit. If a business fails to do so, it will eventually have no option other than shutting its doors. If businesses fall behind competitors in making a profit, they also run the risk of being driven out of business. As such, hiring decisions in business are based on whether they generate profit. If a salesman, for example, sells $8 worth of products an hour, and he gets an offer for a wage of $7.50, the company finds hiring him to be worthwhile. However, a company that pays a salesman who sells $8 worth of products per hour a wage of $15 is losing $7/hour. Companies that hire this way will be outcompeted by those who don’t. So, what is the result of a minimum wage? Workers who don’t make their companies enough to warrant getting paid the minimum wage are fired. Economic theory suggests this, and a recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research surveys studies on the topic and shows the research overwhelmingly finds that unemployment results from the minimum wage. Not only do some workers not have their poverty alleviated, but the workers with the least opportunity are more impoverished. In fact, evidence suggests this unemployment is imposed on minority groups and women disproportionately. The problems don’t stop there. Unemployment increases, but some workers who previously made a minimum wage will keep their jobs. Aren’t these workers made better off? Not necessarily. If a worker was previously willing to work a job for $8 (as evidenced by the fact that they accepted the job), but now the same worker is being paid $15, this doesn’t mean they are $7 better off. Why? Well, since the employer is mandated to pay a higher wage, they are going to try to get the most work out of the worker possible. Workers might find that these new expectations and pressures make the job less enjoyable than if they were paid an $8 wage. Also, if you’re getting paid more than you would have needed to accept a job, and there are a lot of unemployed replacements waiting, you’re going to be willing to accept a less pleasant job to keep that high-paying job. A higher minimum wage gives workers less bargaining power and, as such, will lead to workers taking on jobs with bosses who don’t need to offer them as much dignity. This is not to say all bosses will take advantage of this position, but it seems unrealistic to assume none will. In sum, if we judge a policy by its fruits, a $15 minimum wage will increase the poverty of those with the lowest opportunity, and it carries the possibility of work becoming less dignified for those lucky enough to keep their jobs. Despite potentially good intentions, the results speak for themselves. Instead of giving more dignity to work and lifting people out of poverty, the minimum wage exacerbates both problems.  Bootleggers, Baptists, and bad intentions For argument’s sake, I’ve assumed good intentions on the part of minimum wage policy advocates to this point. However, it’s important to point out that the minimum wage is utilized as a tactic by racists and labor unions to cut out the competition. Stanford economist Thomas Sowell has chronicled how a Canadian minimum wage has racist roots. Sowell argues: “In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.” A largely automated company would love to increase the labor costs for its competitors. The results of the Australian minimum wage were similar. Sowell points out: “A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to ‘protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese’ who were willing to work for less.” Whenever Christians support policy, they should take care to avoid contributing to the “Bootleggers and Baptists” phenomena. This phrase describes how, when the US passed alcohol prohibition, the two major groups who supported it were Baptists who opposed alcohol and illegal alcohol bootleggers who stood to profit if legal alcohol distributors were closed. In supporting prohibition, Baptists supported the profits of bootleggers with bad intentions. In the cases Sowell cited, the “bootleggers” were racist who wanted to eliminate minority labor competition. Today, bootleggers can come in the form of a business like Amazon, which, as a largely online company, doesn’t rely on laborers who make less than $15 per hour. Since Amazon already pays its warehouse workers $15/hour, an increase in the minimum wage would do little to impact their costs, but it would raise the costs to one of Amazon's biggest competitors – Walmart. Bootleggers could also be skilled labor unions that lobby for the minimum wage to limit the competition from unskilled, but lower cost, labor. In these cases, the special interest groups intend the policy to prevent less fortunate low-skill laborers from having jobs. To make a positive difference in the world, Christians must consider more than their intentions behind policies. Instead, it is part of our responsibility, given the form of government God has allowed us to participate in, to be educated about the results of policy. In the case of raising the minimum wage, the results are in. Christians need to do better if we want to help the suffering of “the least of these.” Peter Jacobsen is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ottawa University and the Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He has previously written for both the Foundation for Economic Education and the Institute for Faith, Works, and Economics....

1 2