Comment on Opinion: Increasing the minimum wage comes at too high a price for workers | CNN
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 1 month agoMinimum wage never fulfilled its claimed goal
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.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 month ago
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.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 1 month ago
Because politics is just as much about cooperation as it is about getting as much passed as you want.
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.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 month ago
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.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 1 month ago
Because negotiations can happen with any new legislation, and the US votes every 2 years for elect or re-elect members of congress. Therefore the political landscape can vary greatly within a 2 year span. There are 7 years between 1938 and 1945.
This is a great example of why we need better education in this country.