Money / Politics

Learn History…NEW is Not always NEW

living wage

The definition and dollar amount of a “living wage” as you may imagine varies…According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary the definition of “living wage” is an amount of money you are paid for a job that is large enough to provide you with the basic things (such as food and shelter) needed to live an acceptable life.

Many in the current competition for the Democratic Presidential Nominee favor a “living wage”. Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, as he calls himself, seems the most vocal on the issue. Bernie talks of a “living wage” as if it’s a NEW idea. Well, as politicians often try to take stuff that does not belong to them…Bernie has been puffing life back into an idea both Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt touted long ago.

Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for a “living wage” using it as part of his platform when he ran a third time for President as a progressive in the newly formed “Bull Moose” Party in 1912. He lost that race, but here’s a passage from one of his campaign speeches:

“We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit a reasonable saving for old age.”

FDR signed the National Industrial Recovery ActJune 16, 1933 which

incorporated a “living wage” and the following passage is part of what FDR said about it:

“In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe.”

In 1935, the Supreme Court found the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional.

So, the “living wage” is NOT a new idea. It does have a Do-Good feeling to it. But in practice it has not yet been shown to work. If we look back at the colony of Plymouth, their first experiment was that all should work a communal farm, and the crop yield was to be distributed equally among them.

That didn’t work. Everyone was not working as hard as they should. Crop yield was low. Governor Bradford changed that by putting in place the rule that, “If one didn’t work, they wouldn’t eat.” Sounds harsh, but it worked. Property was assigned to families and they could keep what they grew. Crops were plentiful and their entire community benefitted.

As with all progressive ideas…they must progress. So, the “living wage” will soon progress to a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI guarantees minimum income, regardless of whether someone works, and without eligibility tests. As history is said to repeat itself…or at least rhyme, the likely outcome of receiving an income without working, will sound a lot like Plymouth in its communal days. People will starve.

Let’s learn our history, so we don’t believe every “NEW” rollout of campaign ideas are new. Let’s spread the lessons of our history, so we repeat what was good and defeat what was bad.

Diana Erbio is a freelance writer and author of “Coming to America: A Girl Struggles to Find her Way in a New World”, along with her Blog Series, “Statues: The People They Salute”.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Diana Erbio

Leave a Reply

5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Excellent article as always Diana. If most people had a solid understanding of the history of not only our country, but that of the world’s history over the last 5,000 years, there would be no audience for 99.99 percent of what is referred to as the Democrat agenda. Virtually nothing the current crop of Democrats are trying to sell the American people is what could be accurately referred to as “NEW”. It’s all recycled old, failed policy ideas from the standard socialist / communist playbook that has already been demonstrated a number of times over the past century to achieve nothing but abject poverty, misery and needless suffering for the citizens of the countries foolish enough to buy into and vote for this rhetoric. Of course under our current public education system, that has been dominated by the left for decades now, accurate history of any sort is no longer… Read more »


If God wanted the poor to be rich, He would make it so.

Jack Thomas

Wages should be determined by the free market, not the federal government. I’ve said it before in a related post on this subject and I’ll say it again because the underlying principles of capitalism apply and their importance cannot be over-emphasized: The objective of being in business, apart from making a profit, is to REMAIN in business. That often becomes impossible when the government mandates an unsustainable cost which actually stifles growth, rather than stimulating growth. Politicians like socialist Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders and others of his ilk simply don’t understand this because they’ve never had to meet a payroll.


Very interesting article. This is why it is so important that history is taught in schools and why everyone should have a knowledge of our past so we don’t repeat mistakes but learn from them.

g schalk

A ‘living wage’ was the idea behind collective barganing, which will evolve into collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.