this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
-61 points (11.4% liked)

Conservative

391 readers
113 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] breadsmasher 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Source on all your statistics and values.

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

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.

[–] breadsmasher 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Don't be mad that you asked for sources and they were provided.

[–] breadsmasher 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] breadsmasher 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Jesus christ.

Are you debating what you believe you can read from someones mind?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you debating what you believe you can read from someones mind?

Yeah, we both are. Your argument is that FDR said it so it must be true, mine is what he did contradicts what he said.

Remember the old adage actions speak louder than words. FDR had the support to implement a living wage but implemented minimum wage instead.

[–] breadsmasher 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And back to the start we go.

You said “minimum wage wasn't intended to be a living wage”. FDR in his speech specifically stated it was intended.

Your statement was factually false.

“Minimum wage was intended to be a living wage but FDR and the american government failed to achieve this”. I agree. It didn’t become a living wage.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

FDR stating something does not make it true. Do you have any tangible evidence that FDR pushed for a living wage?

[–] breadsmasher 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I give up. You clearly have a wildly different understanding of the word intended.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're confusing "said he intended" with intended.

[–] breadsmasher 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ok, clarifying further then, for my benefit.

I am trying to understand your position - this is my summary/interpretation which could still be wildly off base. Apologies if that is the case.

“FDR may have said he intended minimum wage to be a living wage, but that was only a speech meant for the people, so they think he will help. He was lying and never actually intended the minimum wage to be a living wage at all. Instead FDR wanted a minimum wage far lower than a living, thriving wage despite what he said”

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago