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.
That single data point does not define the intent of the minimum wage itself. This is on you to prove
That single data point is one more from that article than you provided.
Oh, also that article explains the 0.25 amount was a compromise wage to give the people something because Republicans wouldn’t support an actual living wage.
You show your ignorance again the article does not say that. The only time the article mentions Republican opposition they then cite what the opposition was for.
Many representatives had told her that they agreed with the principles of the bill but that they objected to a five-man wage board with broad powers.
See that’s how you provide a quote that way both people know what is being referenced.
So even if you are right, it’s the Republican’s fault.
The democrats had 334 of the 435 seats in the house and 77 Senate seats in 1938 the Republicans could not block anything. Do you ever wonder why every claim you make is so easily refuted?
Hahaha poor Jimbo, not understanding the basics of political discourse. You’re picking apart pieces of the story to have something to argue with.
Just highlighting more lies by you, the Republicans didn’t block minimum wage there wasn’t enough of them to block it.
Fact is, the minimum wage was always intended to be a living wage. Despite failed attempts previous at the turn of the decade due to republican opposition, you still think FDR was lying then AND the Government has been lying about it the entire time, but you won’t assign the proper blame to the Republicans and Supreme Court who required the minimum wage to not be a full living wage.
There is a lot of stupid in this section so I’ll try to address it all. There was not enough Republicans to block anything, the dems had veto proof numbers. The Supreme Court didn’t block any bill because the rminimim wage was was set 0.40 rather than 0.25 that might be the most moronic excuse you came up with.
And once again, the fact that the minimum wage hasn’t been a living wage or wasn’t on day one does not underscore the intent of minimum wage. Just like how the US has never been a perfect union even though the intent is to get closer to perfection. Just because we had a Civil War and currently have record levels of wealth inequality does not mean this experiment in democracy is a failure. It just means we still have work to do.
If the intent was for minimum wage to be a living wage it would have gotten done.
deleted by creator
That single data point is one more from that article than you provided.
You show your ignorance again the article does not say that. The only time the article mentions Republican opposition they then cite what the opposition was for.
See that’s how you provide a quote that way both people know what is being referenced.
The democrats had 334 of the 435 seats in the house and 77 Senate seats in 1938 the Republicans could not block anything. Do you ever wonder why every claim you make is so easily refuted?
deleted by creator
Just highlighting more lies by you, the Republicans didn’t block minimum wage there wasn’t enough of them to block it.
There is a lot of stupid in this section so I’ll try to address it all. There was not enough Republicans to block anything, the dems had veto proof numbers. The Supreme Court didn’t block any bill because the rminimim wage was was set 0.40 rather than 0.25 that might be the most moronic excuse you came up with.
If the intent was for minimum wage to be a living wage it would have gotten done.
deleted by creator
They had opportunities to make minimum wage a living wage but choose not to. Their actions make it clear what their intent was.
deleted by creator
If you think hard I’m sure you can figure it out.
deleted by creator