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.
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.
Then why was he able to get it to $0.30 a year later or $0.40 in 1945?
You still have not provided any supporting evidence that the minimum wage was intended to be a living wage, all you have is some guy said it so it must be true.
Then why was he able to get it to $0.30 a year later or $0.40 in 1945?
Because negotiations can happen with any new legislation, and the US votes every 2 years to elect or re-elect members of congress. Therefore the political landscape can vary greatly within a 2 year span and it can be easier or harder with each congress to pass or amend certain laws. There are 7 years between 1938 and 1945, enough time for the political landscape to change multiple times.
This is a great example of why we need better education in this country. This is some constitution 101 shit.
And yes, I provided a direct quote from FDR saying as much. You just didn’t like it. We back to circling around things you don’t want to accept, Jimbo?
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
Then why was he able to get it to $0.30 a year later or $0.40 in 1945?
You still have not provided any supporting evidence that the minimum wage was intended to be a living wage, all you have is some guy said it so it must be true.
Because negotiations can happen with any new legislation, and the US votes every 2 years to elect or re-elect members of congress. Therefore the political landscape can vary greatly within a 2 year span and it can be easier or harder with each congress to pass or amend certain laws. There are 7 years between 1938 and 1945, enough time for the political landscape to change multiple times.
This is a great example of why we need better education in this country. This is some constitution 101 shit.
And yes, I provided a direct quote from FDR saying as much. You just didn’t like it. We back to circling around things you don’t want to accept, Jimbo?