U.S. Workers Harmed by the New Deal

How New Labor Laws Increased Unemployment in the Great Depression

2 Comments
Join the Conversation
FDR signs the NLRA, 1935 - Wikipedia
FDR signs the NLRA, 1935 - Wikipedia
The Roosevelt administration's anti-business policies made it harder for employers to hire workers and made the economy worse during the Great Depression.

In the midst of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed two significant bills into law that were intended to boost employment. These were the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. However these laws, among others, ultimately caused higher unemployment and delayed economic recovery.

The National Labor Relations Act

Under the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was created. The NLRB guaranteed unions the right to collectively bargain with business leaders and provided government arbitration of labor-management disputes. In addition, unions were exempted from many federal regulations imposed on businesses, such as adhering to court injunctions and personal/property injury liability.

This act led to a great increase in union membership, making organized labor the powerful political and economic force that it is today. This new power enabled many unions to demand higher wages and better benefits for their workers. However, contrary to the assessment of most historians, these demands actually hurt more workers than they helped.

The Roosevelt administration acted on the premise that granting unions more power to demand higher wages would increase workers’ purchasing power, and that this increase would prompt workers to spend more, thus stimulating the economy. But only higher production can stimulate the economy, and production is determined by consumer demand.

When unions push employers to raise wages and benefits at a time when consumer demand does not justify an increase in production, then the natural result is that employers must stop hiring workers, thus causing more unemployment.

The Fair Labor Standards Act

While the NLRA strengthened unions, the FLSA was an effort to benefit mostly non-union workers. Under this act, a national minimum wage of 40 cents per hour and a national maximum workweek of 44 hours were established. The act also required that certain industries pay workers “time-and-a-half” for every hour worked over the maximum for the week. In addition, child labor was prohibited.

The minimum wage provision actually hurts workers because it could compel employers to pay them more than the value of production, and in a free market the value of production is once again determined by consumer demand. When pay exceeds production value, employers must inevitably hire fewer workers, thus raising unemployment.

The provision banning child labor was added not just to protect children but also to appease the labor unions. The unions had lobbied for an end to child labor for decades, not because they were concerned for child welfare, but because they worried that child labor competed with inefficient, politically-oriented organized labor. This explains why there was not a significant uproar about child labor on farms; children working on farms faced conditions just as harsh or harsher as children in industry, but because farm children did not compete with organized labor, few lobbied the government to protect them.

Unintended Consequences of the NLRA and FSLA

As often happens, government intervention in the free market causes unintended consequences. In this case, the anti-business theme of these laws caused people to withhold investment in business, which further stunted economic growth.

In addition, these laws placed additional costs on employers, and for many business owners struggling through the Great Depression, the only way to offset these extra costs was to hire fewer workers. These laws helped make the depression worse, and they were partly why by 1938, five years after Roosevelt took office and pledged economic recovery, one in every five Americans was still jobless.

Sources

DiLorenzo, Thomas J.: How Capitalism Saved America (New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 2004)

Wallechinsky, David; Wallace, Irving: The People’s Almanac (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975)

Woods Jr., Thomas E.: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004)

Walter Coffey, Walter Coffey

Walter Coffey - Walter Coffey is a freelance writer who resides in Houston, Texas. Walter has written several works of historical fiction and non-fiction, ...

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 6+2?

Comments

Jun 8, 2011 7:45 AM
Guest :
Walter, "The Roosevelt administration acted on the premise that granting unions more power to demand higher wages would increase workers’ purchasing power, and that this increase would prompt workers to spend more, thus stimulating the economy. But only higher production can stimulate the economy, and production is determined by consumer demand." The previous statement contradicts itself by saying that purchasing power is not consumer demand. Purchasing power IS consumer demand. It further states that production is "determined" by consumer demand. Okay, define, "determined." Does consumer demand cause the AMOUNT of production to rise and fall? This is the central tenet of consumerism, which is a flawed theory of economics. The facts are that the level of production is affected by a number of "factors of production" most of which are dependent upon the level of SAVINGS available in an economy AND the presence or absence of government coercion in the business environment. If savings are available, chiefly in the form of capital goods, if labor is available at market rates, if regulation, including taxation, is low, the GENERAL level of production will rise. Consumer demand can DIRECT production among sectors of an economy, but it cannot, by itself, raise the general level of production.
Jun 8, 2011 12:51 PM
Walter Coffey :
Purchasing power is not necessarily consumer demand; just because an individual has increased purchasing power does not mean that he will use that power to buy things. And purchasing power will not motivate an individual to buy a product he does not want or need. Businesses must create products and services that consumers will want to buy, and in this sense, consumer demand does play a key role in determining how much is produced. While I agree that there are many other factors to consider, and that consumer demand alone does not necessarily raise production, consumer demand is the prime factor to greater production in a free market economy.
2 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement