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.
    • @[email protected]
      4•2 months ago

      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•2 months ago

        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.

          • @[email protected]
            -2•2 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              3•2 months ago

              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.