screen-shot-2016-03-01-at-2-54-11-pm-150x150-6626910In his push for a statewide $15-an-hour minimum wage, Governor Andrew Cuomo frequently invokes fairness, justice and the rhetoric of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. But the pre-FDR Progressive Era advocates of the minimum wage had a worldview that today might best fit in at a Donald Trump rally.

The little-known historical background is recounted in a fascinating new book, “Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era” by Princeton University economist and research scholar Thomas C. Leonard.

The nation’s first state minimum wage laws, dating back to before World War I, applied only to women and children—both as a way of shielding them from exploitation and, not incidentally, of curbing job competition for adult male breadwinners.  (A 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning those laws was hailed by some feminists of the time as a victory over patronizing sexism.)

As Leonard’s book shows, the pro-minimum wage progressives of the early 20th century—including many of the formative figures in the burgeoning fields of political science and sociology—also were motivated by a desire to cull the labor pool. He writes:

The many left progressives who advocated the minimum wage … agreed that [it] would throw the least productive employees out of work or prevent their employment in the first place. But these reformers saw the removal of the less productive not as a cost of the minimum wage but as a positive benefit to society. Removing the inferior from work was not a regrettable outcome, justified by the higher wages for other workers. Removing the inferior from work benefited society by protecting American wages and Anglo-Saxon racial integrity.

Among those cited by Leonard as thought leaders on the issue was Paul Underwood Kellogg, an influential progressive journalist who, in the wake of World War I, would be among the founders of the American Civil Liberties Union. Like many other progressives, Kellogg agreed with a 1911 congressional commission finding that immigration from southern and eastern Europe was a danger to the American society and culture. But in place of the commission’s recommendation for a literacy test to screen immigrants, Kellogg came up with what he thought would be a more effective reform: an extra-high minimum wage, applying only to immigrants, which could serve as a sort of “tariff” on cheap labor from overseas.

Kellogg proposed that it be against the law for any business to hire an immigrant for “less than a living wage—say, $2.50 or $3 a day—until five years has elapsed and he has become a naturalized citizen.”  According to Leonard, that pay range started 50 percent higher than what the average low-wage worker earned in 1910 (i.e., in the same ballpark as the 67 percent hike Cuomo now is seeking).

In Kellogg’s own words:

It would not be the intent of result of such legislation to pay new coming foreigners $3 a day. No corporation would hire Angelo Lucca and Alexis Spivak for $3 a day as long as they could get John Smith and Michael Murphy and Carl Sneider for less.  It would be the intent and result of such legislation to exclude Lucca and Spivak and other ‘greeners’ from our congregate industries, which beckon to them now.

That passage didn’t come from a grimy handbill distributed at torchlit nationalist rallies. It was from an article by Kellogg in the July 1913 edition of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science—then, as now, a respected and influential professional journal.

Leonard again:

The economists among labor reformers well understood that a minimum wage, as a wage floor, caused unemployment. while alternative policy options, such as wage subsidies for the working poor, could uplift skilled workers without throwing the least skilled out of work. Royal Meeker … a Princeton economist [and key advisor to President Woodrow Wilson] trained at Columbia … opposed subsidizing poor workers’  wages on these very grounds. Eugenically minded economists such as Meeker preferred the minimum wage to wage subsidies, not in spite of the unemployment the minimum wage caused but because of it.

In other words, the goal of a minimum wage was not to lift people out of poverty but to reserve jobs for better qualified native-born American men while discouraging the reproduction of lesser humans, with their “incompetence and unthrift.” Meeker and his ilk would not have been fans of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Needless to say, such a base motive is the furthest thing from Cuomo’s mind. And while the early progressives took it for granted that a minimum wage would increase unemployment, Cuomo has insisted that a higher minimum wage will have no negative impact on employment opportunities for anyone.  All the same, unless the governor and his union allies want a strange new passenger to board their “Drive for $15” RV, he might want to hide “Illiberal Reformers” from The Donald.

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

One of New York’s Biggest Medicaid Contractors Is Quietly Acquiring a Competitor

Author's note: This post has been updated to correct an error in the second paragraph. As state lawmakers debate the future of Medicaid home care, one of the program's bigg Read More

The Union Gave Them the Wrong Data. The Pols Cited It Anyway.

The episode shows the extent to which New York elected officials fail to question the state’s public employee unions—or look at data themselves. Read More

New York’s Home Health Workforce Jumped by 12 Percent in One Year

New York's home health workforce has continued its pattern of extraordinary growth, increasing by 62,000 jobs or 12 percent in a single year, according to newly released data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Read More

While New York’s Medicaid Budget Soared, Public Health Funding Languished

Four years after a devastating pandemic, the state has made no major investment to repair or improve its public health defenses. While funding for Medicaid over the past four years Read More

Unions are pressing bogus arguments for blowing up NY’s public pension debts

New York's public employee unions are arguing, without evidence, that state lawmakers need to retroactively sweeten the pensions of workers who have been on the job for more than a decade. In fact, state and federal data show why state lawmakers shouldn't. Read More

A Medicaid Grant Recipient Sponsors a Pro-Hochul Publicity Campaign

While much of the health-care industry is attacking Governor Hochul's Medicaid budget, at least one organization is rallying to her side: Somos Community Care, a politically active medical group in the Bronx that recently r Read More

New Jersey’s Pandemic Report Shines Harsh Light on a New York Scandal

A recently published independent review of New Jersey's pandemic response holds lessons for New York on at least two levels. First, it marked the only serious attempt by any state t Read More

Senate, Assembly Budget Plans Include $4B Pension Giveaway

A little-noticed provision in lawmakers’ budget proposals would also be the most costly: their proposal to change state retirement rules would slam New York taxpayers with more than $4 billion in new debt, and immediately drive up pension costs, by retroactively sweetening the pension benefits of public employees. Read More