FEBRUARY 10, 2015
The Eugenics Plot Behind the Minimum
Wage
There really was a white male scheme to
exterminate African Americans
by JEFFREY A. TUCKER
In his
“
Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. identifies the
government as the enemy of the rights and dignity of blacks. He was
locked up for marching without a permit. King cites the injustices of the
police and courts in particular. And he inspired a movement to raise
public consciousness against state brutality, especially as it involved
fire hoses, billy clubs, and jail cells.
Less obvious, however, had been the role of a more covert means of
subjugation forms of state coercion deeply embedded in the law and
history of the United States. And they were offered as policies grounded
in science and the scientific management of society.
Consider the minimum wage. How much does racism have to do with it? Far
more than most people realize. A careful look at its history shows that
the minimum wage was originally conceived as part of a
eugenics strategy an attempt to engineer a master race through
public policy designed to cleanse the citizenry of undesirables. To that
end, the state would have to bring about the isolation, sterilization,
and extermination of nonprivileged populations.
The eugenics movement almost universally supported by the scholarly and
popular press in the first decades of the 20th century came about as a
reaction to the dramatic demographic changes of the latter part of the
19th century. Incomes rose and lifetimes had expanded like never before
in history. Such gains applied to all races and classes. Infant mortality
collapsed. All of this was due to a massive expansion of markets,
technology, and trade, and it changed the world. It meant a dramatic
expansion of population among all groups. The great unwashed masses were
living longer and reproducing faster.
This trend worried the white ruling class in most European countries and
in the United States. As John Carey documented in
Intellectuals and the Masses (1992), all the founders of modern
literary culture from H.G. Wells to T.S. Elliot loathed the new
prosperity and variously spoke out on behalf of extermination and racial
cleansing to put an end to newly emerging demographic trends. As Wells
summed up, “The extravagant swarm of new births was the essential
disaster of the nineteenth century.”
The eugenics movement, as an application of the principle of the “planned
society,” was deeply hostile to free markets. As
The New Republic
summarized in a 1916 editorial:
Imbecility breeds imbecility as certainly as white hens breed white
chickens; and under laissez-faire imbecility is given full chance to
breed, and does so in fact at a rate far superior to that of able
stocks.
To counter the trends unleashed by capitalism, states and the national
government began to implement policies designed to support “superior”
races and classes and discourage procreation of the “inferior” ones. As
explained by Edwin Black’s 2003 book,
War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master
Race, the goal as regards women and children was exclusionist,
but as regards nonwhites, it was essentially exterminationist. The chosen
means were not firing squads and gas chambers but the more peaceful and
subtle methods of sterilization, exclusion from jobs, and coercive
segregation.
It was during this period and for this reason that we saw the first trial
runs of the minimum wage in Massachusetts in 1912. The new law pertained
only to women and children as a measure to disemploy them and other
“social dependents” from the labor force. Even though the measure was
small and not well enforced, it did indeed
reduce employment among the targeted groups.
To understand why this wasn’t seen as a failure, take a look at the first
modern discussions of the minimum wage appearing in the academic
literature. Most of these writings would have been completely forgotten
but for a seminal 2005 article in the
Journal of Economic
Perspectives
by Thomas C. Leonard.
Leonard documents an alarming series of academic articles and books
appearing between the 1890s and the 1920s that were remarkably explicit
about a variety of legislative attempts to squeeze people out of the work
force. These articles were not written by marginal figures or radicals
but by the leaders of the profession, the authors of the great textbooks,
and the opinion leaders who shaped public policy.
“Progressive economists, like their neoclassical critics,” Leonard
explains, “believed that binding minimum wages would cause job losses.
However, the progressive economists also believed that the job loss
induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it performed the
eugenic service ridding the labor force of the ‘unemployable.’”
At least the eugenicists, for all their pseudo-scientific blathering,
were not naïve about the effects of wage floors. These days, you can
count on media talking heads and countless politicians to proclaim how
wonderful the minimum wage is for the poor. Wage floors will improve the
standard of living, they say. But back in 1912, they knew better
minimum wages exclude workers and they favored them
preciselybecause such wage floors drive people out of the job market.
People without jobs cannot prosper and are thereby discouraged from
reproducing. Minimum wages were designed specifically to purify the
demographic landscape of racial inferiors and to keep women at the
margins of society.
The famed Fabian socialist Sidney Webb was as blunt as anyone in his 1912
article “The
Economic Theory of the Minimum Wage”:
Legal Minimum Wage positively increases the productivity of the nation’s
industry, by ensuring that the surplus of unemployed workmen shall be
exclusively the least efficient workmen; or, to put it in another way, by
ensuring that all the situations shall be filled by the most efficient
operatives who are available.
The intellectual history shows that whole purpose of the minimum wage was
to create unemployment among people who the elites did not believe
were worthy of holding jobs.
And it gets worse. Webb wrote:
What would be the result of a Legal Minimum Wage on the employer’s
persistent desire to use boy labor, girl labor, married women’s labor,
the labor of old men, of the feeble-minded, of the decrepit and
broken-down invalids and all the other alternatives to the engagement of
competent male adult workers at a full Standard Rate? … To put it
shortly, all such labor is parasitic on other classes of the community,
and is at present employed in this way only because it is
parasitic.
Further, Webb avers: “The unemployable, to put it bluntly, do not and
cannot under any circumstances earn their keep. What we have to do with
them is to see that as few as possible of them are produced.”
Though Webb was writing about the experience in the United Kingdom, and
his focus was on keeping the lower classes from flourishing, his views
were not unusual. The same thinking was alive in the US context, but
race, not class, became the decisive factor.
Henry Rogers Seager of Columbia University, and later president of the
American Economic Association, laid it all out in
“The Theory of the Minimum Wage” as
published in the American Labor Legislation Review in 1913: “The
operation of the minimum wage requirement would merely extend the
definition of defectives to embrace all individuals, who even after
having received special training, remain incapable of adequate
self-support.”
Further, he wrote, “If we are to maintain a race that is to be made of up
of capable, efficient and independent individuals and family groups we
must courageously cut off lines of heredity that have been proved to be
undesirable by isolation or sterilization.”
Isolation and sterilization of less desirable population groups are a
form of slow-motion extermination. The minimum wage was part of that
agenda. That was its purpose and intent. The opinion makers of 100 years
ago were not shy about saying so. The policy was an important piece of
weaponry in their eugenic war against nonelite population
groups.
Princeton University’s Royal Meeker was Woodrow Wilson’s commissioner of
labor. “It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law even if it deprives
these unfortunates of work,” Meeker
argued in 1910. “Better that the state should support the inefficient
wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize
incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their
kind.”
Frank Taussig, who was otherwise a good economist, asked in his
bestselling textbook
Principles of Economics (1911): “How to deal with the
unemployable?”
They “should simply be stamped out,” he stated.
We have not reached the stage where we can proceed to chloroform them
once and for all; but at least they can be segregated, shut up in refuges
and asylums, and prevented from propagating their kind.…
What are the possibilities of employing at the prescribed wages all the
healthy able-bodied who apply? The persons affected by such legislation
would be those in the lowest economic and social group. The wages at
which they can find employment depend on the prices at which their
product will sell in the market; or in the technical language of modern
economics, on the marginal utility of their services. All those whose
additional product would so depress prices that the minimum could no
longer be paid by employers would have to go without employment. It might
be practicable to prevent employers from paying any one less than the
minimum; though the power of law must be very strong indeed, and very
rigidly exercised, in order to prevent the making of bargains which are
welcome to both bargainers.
These are but a small sample and pertain only to this one policy.
Eugenics influenced other areas of American policy, too, especially
racial segregation. Obviously you can’t have the races socializing and
partying together if the goal is to gradually exterminate one and boost
the population of the other. This goal was a driving force behind such
policies as regulations on dance clubs, for example. It was also a
motivation behind the proliferation of marriage licenses, designed to
keep the unfit from marrying and reproducing.
But the minimum wage is in a special category because, these days, its
effects are so little understood. One hundred years ago, legislating a
price floor on wages was a policy deliberately conceived to impoverish
the lower classes and the undesirables, and thereby to disincentivize
their reproduction. A polite gulag.
As time went on, the blood lust of the eugenics movement died down, but
the persistence of its minimum wage policies did not. A national minimum
wage passed in 1931 with the Davis-Bacon Act. It required that firms
receiving federal contracts pay prevailing wages, which meant union
wages, a principle that later became a national minimum wage.
Speeches in support of the law were explicit about the fear that black
workers were undercutting the demands of white-only unions. The minimum
wage was a fix: it made it impossible to work for less.
Thesordid
history of the
minimum wage law is harrowing in its intent but, at least, realistic
about what wage floors actually do. They stop upward mobility.
Eugenics as an idea eventually lost favor after World War II, when it
came to be associated with the Third Reich. But the labor policies to
which it gave rise did not go away. They came to be promoted not as a
method of exclusion and extermination but rather, however implausibly, as
a positive effort to benefit the poor.
Whatever the intentions, the effects are still the same. On that the
eugenicists were right. The eugenics movement, however evil its motive,
understood an economic truth: the minimum wage excludes people from the
job market. It takes away from marginal populations their most important
power in the job market: the power to work for less. It cartelizes the
labor market by allowing higher-wage groups access while excluding
lower-wage groups.
King wrote of the cruelty of government in his day. That cruelty extends
far back in time, and is crystallized by a wage policy that effectively
makes productivity and upward mobility illegal. If we want to reject
eugenic policies and the racial malice behind them, we should also
repudiate the minimum wage and embrace the universal right to
bargain.
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-eugenics-plot-of-the-minimum-wage
-- --
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
