Is this what could’ve caused the unemployment in women in those days -another gov. intervention?
Read a some of the other threads, follow the links. antiwar.com is great. fee.org is good. You can get a ton of stuff free right here at this site. It’s credible information.
That wouldn’t make sense if only men had a min wage. Then men, not women, would be unemployed.
Not to mention the minimum wage was part of the New Deal, which came about 20 years after this incident.
The ironic thing about these laws is that there are occasional exceptions where people want to hang these rules, such as a kid who really wants to work, but cannot because the government said so with bullets.
I figured that men were in high demand whereas women were in low demand so to pay a minimum wage for men wouldn’t have had such a huge effect but a minimum wage for women would’ve caused them to be less marketable. Hence there was only a minimum wage for men because most women were unemployed.
And weren’t there minimum wages at the state level?
What does workers beating or murdering women have to do with free trade? It seems like there was a legal problem with respect to the enforcement of trade. You don’t need to regulate working conditions or pay in order to stop owners from physically beating their workers. You need an uncorrupted judicial system.