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.
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?
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.
I’m always impressed when ignorant people pretend they are experts. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set minimum wage for 1938, 1939, and 1945.
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?
I haven’t circled back just noted that your only evidence that minimum wage was intended to be a living wage was from a claim by slimy politician and that you can’t provide any evidence to support his claim.
Look man, I’m here to have actual discussions. But we can’t do that when you flat out refuse to accept any source you don’t like.
I provided you with direct quotes from FDR himself, The DOL, and another user provided additional proof to refute your original comment on this thread about the original intent of minimum wage.
As stubborn as you continue to be, you’re not right on this one. The sooner you accept how to be wrong, the sooner you can grow as a person and we can have a real discussion here.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set minimum wage for 1938, 1939, and 1945.
Newsflash, Jimbo: it’s always done that. That’s how laws work. Until repealed they remain valid.
I haven’t circled back just noted that your only evidence that minimum wage was intended to be a living wage was from a claim by slimy politician and that you can’t provide any evidence to support his claim.
I already addressed the evidence I did provide which you’re stubbornly ignoring like a child refusing to eat their vegetables, so I’m going to skip right past that and laugh at the fact that you just called FDR , the only president to have been elected 4x as slimy. 😂
Look man, I’m here to have actual discussions. But we can’t do that when you flat out refuse to accept any source you don’t like.
I provided you with direct quotes from FDR himself, The DOL, and another user provided additional proof to refute your original comment on this thread about the original intent of minimum wage.
I haven’t disputed that FDR made that claim, my dispute the whole time has been the accuracy of FDRs claim. No one has provided evidence to support his claim.
Newsflash, Jimbo: it’s always done that. That’s how laws work. Until repealed they remain valid.
Doubling down on your ignorance, too bad you can’t own it. The 1938 bill set the minimum wage in 1938 to 0.25, 1939 to 0.30 and 1945 to 0.40. There was not other votes as you eluded too in your previous post, the political climate didn’t change.
I already addressed the evidence I did provide which you’re stubbornly ignoring like a child refusing to eat their vegetable
Back to this tactic, never provide support for your claim then lie and claim you did.
What a strange tactic, double down on your lack of understanding of bill negotiations and refusal to accept verified sources of truth as proof you’re wrong in order to continue having a leg to stand on.
I guess I should expect as much from you, though. Have a nice day. :)
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?
I’m always impressed when ignorant people pretend they are experts. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set minimum wage for 1938, 1939, and 1945.
I haven’t circled back just noted that your only evidence that minimum wage was intended to be a living wage was from a claim by slimy politician and that you can’t provide any evidence to support his claim.
Look man, I’m here to have actual discussions. But we can’t do that when you flat out refuse to accept any source you don’t like.
I provided you with direct quotes from FDR himself, The DOL, and another user provided additional proof to refute your original comment on this thread about the original intent of minimum wage.
As stubborn as you continue to be, you’re not right on this one. The sooner you accept how to be wrong, the sooner you can grow as a person and we can have a real discussion here.
Newsflash, Jimbo: it’s always done that. That’s how laws work. Until repealed they remain valid.
I already addressed the evidence I did provide which you’re stubbornly ignoring like a child refusing to eat their vegetables, so I’m going to skip right past that and laugh at the fact that you just called FDR , the only president to have been elected 4x as slimy. 😂
Please continue the meltdown. It is hilarious.
I haven’t disputed that FDR made that claim, my dispute the whole time has been the accuracy of FDRs claim. No one has provided evidence to support his claim.
Doubling down on your ignorance, too bad you can’t own it. The 1938 bill set the minimum wage in 1938 to 0.25, 1939 to 0.30 and 1945 to 0.40. There was not other votes as you eluded too in your previous post, the political climate didn’t change.
Back to this tactic, never provide support for your claim then lie and claim you did.
What a strange tactic, double down on your lack of understanding of bill negotiations and refusal to accept verified sources of truth as proof you’re wrong in order to continue having a leg to stand on.
I guess I should expect as much from you, though. Have a nice day. :)