More money in the pockets of entry-level workers sounds great, but Rachel Greszler of the conservative Heritage Foundation argues that such workers, and the economy writ large, are hurt more than helped by increases in the minimum wage.
“Franklin Roosevelt’s Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act,” dated June 16 1933.
The law I have just signed was passed to put people back to work, to let them buy more of the products of farms and factories and start our business at a living rate again. This task is in two stages; first, to get many hundreds of thousands of the unemployed back on the payroll by snowfall and, second, to plan for a better future for the longer pull. While we shall not neglect the second, the first stage is an emergency job. It has the right of way.
The second part of the Act gives employment through a vast program of public works. Our studies show that we should be able to hire many men at once and to step up to about a million new jobs by October 1st, and a much greater number later. We must put at the head of our list those works which are fully ready to start now. Our first purpose is to create employment as fast as we can, but we should not pour money into unproved projects.
We have worked out our plans for action. Some of the work will start tomorrow. I am making available $400,000,000 for State roads under regulations which I have just signed, and I am told that the States will get this work under way at once. I have also just released over $200,000,000 for the Navy to start building ships under the London Treaty.
In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
That’s all well and good that FDR said his goal was to have everyone have a living wage, but the minimum wage didn’t do that. A full time minimum wage worker in 1940 would have rent consume 50% food 35% which leaves 15% for clothes, medical, hygiene, & utilities. It was barely enough to survive on and many people had to forgo necessities.
The evidence that minimum wage was intended to be a living wage is that FDR said it was. Have you started believing everything a politician says?
There is no external evidence to support FDRs claim. Looking at the Fair Labor Standards Act contradicts his claim, $0.25 an hour is not enough, the act passed easily and $0.35 could have been set if they wanted to.
Minimum wage never fulfilled its claimed goal. FDR had opportunities to make minimum wage a living wage but never did, the very next year minimum wage was raised to $0.30 per hour, still below a living wage.
Politics are gonna politic, and there’s always going to be someone against something, even if I’d seems like a no-brainer.
In the case of minimum wage though, that’s all the more reason to push to expand it, not just give up because FDR didn’t get it perfect the first time.
Politics are gonna politic, and there’s always going to be someone against something, even if I’d seems like a no-brainer.
If the intent was a living wage then why did FDR champion the $0.25 bill instead of the AFL backed $0.40 bill? He had veto proof majority for its passing. The politics was pretending minimum wage wage was intended to be a living wage.
Because politics is just as much about cooperation as it is about passing legislation.
What you’re leaving out is the veto-proof majority he had was a result of compromises due to opposition from Southern States and previous attempts at similar bills being struck down by the Supreme Court.
$0.25 is more than half of the AFL backed $0.40 figure you gave, so considering he had to compromise to appeal to the minority AND Supreme Court it’s actually not a bad floor.
Once again, just because it wasn’t the ideal amount on day 1 doesn’t mean the original intent was a lie. What a dumb hill to die on.
Source on all your statistics and values. I provided an original source from the FDR library of speeches. I went out of my way to give you an accurate source as possible.
Now your turn. Don’t pull anecdotal numbers from your ass that you vaguely remember. Provide a real, verified source.
You seem to think people had zero money when that was implemented. Do you think it’s better today? Minimum wage covers nothing. Rent on a house is over the amount minimum wage pays.
edit
You said “minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage”
I said “never INTENDED - factually false”. He absolutely intended it.
You now saying all that other stuff is irrelevant, moving of the goal posts.
Meat $6 per month (1/2 lb per day)
Eggs $1 per month (2 dozen)
Bread $0.40 per month (3 loafs)
Fruits $2 per month (1/2 lb per day)
Vegitables $2 per month (1/2 lb per day)
Milk $1.50 per month (2 gallons)
Cereal $0.35 per month (2 boxes)
Flour $0.05 per month (1 lb)
Total $13.30
You seem to think people had zero money when that was implemented.
Where did I state that?
Minimum wage covers nothing. Rent on a house is over the amount minimum wage pays.
Never made the claim that it was.
You said “minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage”
I said “never INTENDED - factually false”. He absolutely intended it.
Do not judge a bill based on what a politician says judge it on what it actually does. At the inception of the minimum wage it was below a living wage.
You now saying all that other stuff is irrelevant, moving of the goal posts.
I’m judging minimum wage based on results not the propaganda spewed out of a politicians upper oriface.
Read the rest of my post. Learn what the word “intended” means. Understand how “intended” doesn’t mean successfully implemented. Understand that by stating “it wasn’t intended” is false.
Is english your first language? I can simplify it for you if the language is a challenge
Only a fool determines intent based solely on what someone says, espically a politician. Blindly believing that FDR intended minimum wage to be a living wage because he said so but somehow couldn’t get a living wage passed is impressively naive. The National Industrial Recovery Act passed the House 329-80 & senate 60-26, he had the votes for 0.35 per hour but didn’t do it.
Though often considered the baseline of livable wages, it is important to note that even when it was first created, it did not represent a true living wage.
So when it was created. It wasn’t a living wage. I’ll tell you another secret. Politicians say one thing and do another.
I think people forget until Reagan came into power, living in poverty was normal for many people. I think people don’t realize the difference between growing up in the 70’s and current times.
In the 70’s we wore hand me downs, had old cars, didn’t eat out, rarely went to movies and my father was a union auto worker who made more than most. Poverty was just a way of life.
Now everyone expects a huge home, new cars, new cell phone, new iPhone, etc
It isn’t that wages are not adequate, the expectations have changed.
FACTUALLY FALSE
“Franklin Roosevelt’s Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act,” dated June 16 1933.
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html
That’s all well and good that FDR said his goal was to have everyone have a living wage, but the minimum wage didn’t do that. A full time minimum wage worker in 1940 would have rent consume 50% food 35% which leaves 15% for clothes, medical, hygiene, & utilities. It was barely enough to survive on and many people had to forgo necessities.
Goalpost moving in action. The quote in my previous comment was that it wasn’t intended to be a living wage. Just take the L, dude.
Whether it was the intention or whether it was the effect are two separate threads of discussion.
The evidence that minimum wage was intended to be a living wage is that FDR said it was. Have you started believing everything a politician says?
There is no external evidence to support FDRs claim. Looking at the Fair Labor Standards Act contradicts his claim, $0.25 an hour is not enough, the act passed easily and $0.35 could have been set if they wanted to.
Quite a stretch to argue because minimum wage didn’t fulfill its intended goal on day 1 that wasn’t the intention….
Minimum wage never fulfilled its claimed goal. FDR had opportunities to make minimum wage a living wage but never did, the very next year minimum wage was raised to $0.30 per hour, still below a living wage.
I’ll agree with you there.
Politics are gonna politic, and there’s always going to be someone against something, even if I’d seems like a no-brainer.
In the case of minimum wage though, that’s all the more reason to push to expand it, not just give up because FDR didn’t get it perfect the first time.
If the intent was a living wage then why did FDR champion the $0.25 bill instead of the AFL backed $0.40 bill? He had veto proof majority for its passing. The politics was pretending minimum wage wage was intended to be a living wage.
Because politics is just as much about cooperation as it is about passing legislation.
What you’re leaving out is the veto-proof majority he had was a result of compromises due to opposition from Southern States and previous attempts at similar bills being struck down by the Supreme Court.
https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938
$0.25 is more than half of the AFL backed $0.40 figure you gave, so considering he had to compromise to appeal to the minority AND Supreme Court it’s actually not a bad floor.
Once again, just because it wasn’t the ideal amount on day 1 doesn’t mean the original intent was a lie. What a dumb hill to die on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise
Source on all your statistics and values. I provided an original source from the FDR library of speeches. I went out of my way to give you an accurate source as possible.
Now your turn. Don’t pull anecdotal numbers from your ass that you vaguely remember. Provide a real, verified source.
You seem to think people had zero money when that was implemented. Do you think it’s better today? Minimum wage covers nothing. Rent on a house is over the amount minimum wage pays.
edit
You said “minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage”
I said “never INTENDED - factually false”. He absolutely intended it.
You now saying all that other stuff is irrelevant, moving of the goal posts.
Average rent 1940 $27 per month
https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year
Food costs
https://www.thepeoplehistory.com/40sfood.html
Meat $6 per month (1/2 lb per day) Eggs $1 per month (2 dozen) Bread $0.40 per month (3 loafs) Fruits $2 per month (1/2 lb per day) Vegitables $2 per month (1/2 lb per day) Milk $1.50 per month (2 gallons) Cereal $0.35 per month (2 boxes) Flour $0.05 per month (1 lb)
Total $13.30
Where did I state that?
Never made the claim that it was.
Do not judge a bill based on what a politician says judge it on what it actually does. At the inception of the minimum wage it was below a living wage.
I’m judging minimum wage based on results not the propaganda spewed out of a politicians upper oriface.
Are you struggling to read?
Don’t be mad that you asked for sources and they were provided.
Sources are great.
Read the rest of my post. Learn what the word “intended” means. Understand how “intended” doesn’t mean successfully implemented. Understand that by stating “it wasn’t intended” is false.
Is english your first language? I can simplify it for you if the language is a challenge
Only a fool determines intent based solely on what someone says, espically a politician. Blindly believing that FDR intended minimum wage to be a living wage because he said so but somehow couldn’t get a living wage passed is impressively naive. The National Industrial Recovery Act passed the House 329-80 & senate 60-26, he had the votes for 0.35 per hour but didn’t do it.
Jesus christ.
Are you debating what you believe you can read from someones mind?
https://drexel.edu/hunger-free-center/research/briefs-and-reports/minimum-wage-is-not-enough/#:~:text=Though often considered the baseline,over the following 71 years.
Though often considered the baseline of livable wages, it is important to note that even when it was first created, it did not represent a true living wage.
So when it was created. It wasn’t a living wage. I’ll tell you another secret. Politicians say one thing and do another.
Like when Trump claims he knows NOTHING about Project 2025, right?
I think people forget until Reagan came into power, living in poverty was normal for many people. I think people don’t realize the difference between growing up in the 70’s and current times. In the 70’s we wore hand me downs, had old cars, didn’t eat out, rarely went to movies and my father was a union auto worker who made more than most. Poverty was just a way of life.
Now everyone expects a huge home, new cars, new cell phone, new iPhone, etc
It isn’t that wages are not adequate, the expectations have changed.