To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Social Security Act 1938

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Social Security Act 1938 is a New Zealand Act of Parliament concerning unemployment insurance which established New Zealand as a welfare state. This act is important in the history of social welfare, as it established the first ever social security system in the world.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    4 186 741
    2 103
    1 542
    33 256
    423 866
  • The New Deal: Crash Course US History #34
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt's Speech Upon Signing the Social Security Act (1935)
  • Teaching American History: FDR Fireside Chat - Social Security
  • NEW ZEALAND HISTORY IN THE MAKING (1938) [Modified]
  • How the West Betrayed Czechoslovakia to Hitler (The Munich Agreement,1938)

Transcription

Episode 34 – The New Deal Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re going to get a little bit controversial, as we discuss the FDR administration’s response to the Great Depression: the New Deal. That’s the National Recovery Administration, by the way, not the National Rifle Association or the No Rodents Allowed Club, which I’m a card-carrying member of. Did the New Deal end the Depression (spoiler alert: mehhh)? More controversially, did it destroy American freedom or expand the definition of liberty? In the end, was it a good thing? Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Yes. Ohh, Me from the Past, you are not qualified to make that statement. What? I was just trying to be, like, provocative and controversial. Isn’t that what gets views? You have the worst ideas about how to make people like you. But anyway, not EVERYTHING about the New Deal was controversial. This is CrashCourse, not TMZ. intro The New Deal redefined the role of the federal government for most Americans and it led to a re-alignment of the constituents in the Democratic Party, the so-called New Deal coalition. (Good job with the naming there, historians.) And regardless of whether you think the New Deal meant more freedom for more people or was a plot by red shirt wearing Communists, the New Deal is extremely important in American history. Wait a second. I’m wearing a red shirt. What are you trying to say about me, Stan? As the owner of the means of production, I demand that you dock the wages of the writer who made that joke. So after his mediocre response to the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover did not have any chance of winning the presidential election of 1932, but he also ran like he didn’t actually want the job. Plus, his opponent was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was as close to a born politician as the United States has ever seen, except for Kid President. The phrase New Deal came from FDR’s campaign, and when he was running FDR suggested that it was the government’s responsibility to guarantee every man a right to make a comfortable living, but he didn’t say HOW he meant to accomplish this. Like, it wasn’t gonna come from government spending, since FDR was calling for a balanced budget and criticizing Hoover for spending so much. Maybe it would somehow magically happen if we made alcohol legal again and one thing FDR did call for was an end to Prohibition, which was a campaign promise he kept. After three years of Great Depression, many Americans seriously needed a drink, and the government sought tax revenue, so no more Prohibition. FDR won 57% of the vote and the Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in a decade. While FDR gets most of the credit, he didn’t actually create the New Deal or put it into effect. It was passed by Congress. So WTFDR was the New Deal? Basically, it was a set of government programs intended to fix the depression and prevent future depressions. There are a couple of ways historians conceptualize it. One is to categorize the programs by their function. This is where we see the New Deal described as three R’s. The relief programs gave help, usually money, to poor people in need. Recovery programs were intended to fix the economy in the short run and put people back to work. And lastly, the Run DMC program was designed to increase the sales of Adidas shoes. No, alas, it was reform programs that were designed to regulate the economy in the future to prevent future depression. But some of the programs, like Social Security, don’t fit easily into one category, and there are some blurred lines between recovery and reform. Like, how do you categorize the bank holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of March 1933, for example? FDR’s order to close the banks temporarily also created the FDIC, which insures individual deposits against future banking disasters. By the way, we still have all that stuff, but was it recovery, because it helped the short-term economy by making more stable banks, or was it reform because federal deposit insurance prevents bank runs? A second way to think about the New Deal is to divide it into phases, which historians with their A number one naming creativity call the First and Second New Deal. This more chronological approach indicates that there has to be some kind of cause and effect thing going on because otherwise why would there be a second New Deal if the first one worked so perfectly? The First New Deal comprises Roosevelt’s programs before 1935, many of which were passed in the first hundred days of his presidency. It turns out that when it comes to getting our notoriously gridlocked Congress to pass legislation, nothing motivates like crisis and fear. Stan can I get the foreshadowing filter? We may see this again. So, in a brief break from its trademark obstructionism, Congress passed laws establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps, which paid young people to build national parks, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Glass Stegall act, which barred commercial banks from buying and selling stocks, and the National Industrial Recovery Act. Which established the National Recovery Administration, which has lightening bolts in its claws. The NRA was designed to be government planners and business leaders working together to coordinate industry standards for production, prices, and working conditions. But that whole public-private cooperation idea wasn’t much immediate help to many of the starving unemployed, so the Hundred Days reluctantly included the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, to give welfare payments to people who were desperate. Alright. Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. Roosevelt worried about people becoming dependent on relief handouts, and preferred programs that created temporary jobs. One section of the NIRA created the Public Works Administration, which appropriated $33 billion to build stuff like the Triborough Bridge. So much for a balanced budget. The Civil Works Administration, launched in November 1933 and eventually employed 4 million people building bridges, schools, and airports. Government intervention reached its highest point however in the Tennessee Valley Authority. This program built a series of dams in the Tennessee River Valley to control floods, prevent deforestation, and provide cheap electric power to people in rural counties in seven southern states. But, despite all that sweet sweet electricity, the TVA was really controversial because it put the government in direct competition with private companies. Other than the NIRA, few acts were as contentious as the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The AAA basically gave the government the power to try to raise farm prices by setting production quotas and paying farmers to plant less food. This seemed ridiculous to the hungry Americans who watched as 6 million pigs were slaughtered and not made into bacon. Wait, Stan, 6 million pigs? But…bacon is good for me... Only property owning farmers actually saw the benefits of the AAA, so most African American farmers who were tenants or sharecroppers continued to suffer. And the suffering was especially acute in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado, where drought created the Dust Bowl. All this direct government intervention in the economy was too much for the Supreme Court. In 1936 the court struck down the AAA in U.S. v. Butler. Earlier in the Schechter Poultry case (AKA the sick chicken case - finally a Supreme Court case with an interesting name) the court invalidated the NIRA because its regulations “delegated legislative powers to the president and attempted to regulate local businesses that did not engage in interstate commerce.”[1] Thanks, ThoughtBubble. So with the Supreme Court invalidating acts left and right, it looked like the New Deal was about to unravel. FDR responded by proposing a law that would allow him to appoint new Supreme Court justices if sitting justices reached the age of 70 and failed to retire. Now, this was totally constitutional – you can go ahead at the Constitution, if Nicolas Cage hasn’t already swiped it – but it seemed like such a blatant power grab that Roosevelt’s plan to “pack the court” brought on a huge backlash. Stop everything. I’ve just been informed that Nicolas Cage stole the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. I want to apologize to Nic Cage himself and also everyone involved in the National Treasure franchise, which is truly a national treasure. Anyway, in the end, the Supreme Court began upholding the New Deal laws, starting a new era of Supreme Court jurisprudence in which the government regulation of the economy was allowed under a very broad reading of the commerce clause. Because really isn’t all commerce interstate commerce? I mean if I go to Jimmy John’s, don’t I exit the state of hungry and enter the state of satisfied? Thus began the Second New Deal shifting focus away from recovery and towards economic security. Two laws stand out for their far-reaching effects here, the National Labor Relations Act, also called the Wagner Act, and the Social Security Act. The Wagner Act guaranteed workers the right to unionize and it created a National Labor Relations Board to hear disputes over unfair labor practices. In 1934 alone there were more than 2,000 strikes, including one that involved 400,000 textile workers. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? Man, I wish there were a union to prevent me from getting electrocuted. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. And I’m usually wrong and get shocked. “Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is an adequate wage.” Uh I mean you usually don’t make it this easy, but I’m going to guess that it’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Dang it! Eleanor Roosevelt? Eleanor. Of course it was Eleanor. Gah! The most important union during the 1930s was the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which set out to unionize entire industries like steel manufacturing and automobile workers. In 1936 the United Auto Workers launched a new tactic called the sit-down strike. Workers at the Fisher Body Plant in Flint, Michigan simply stopped working, sat down, and occupied the plant. Eventually GM agreed to negotiate, and the UAW won. Union membership rose to 9 million people as “CIO unions helped to stabilize a chaotic employment situation and offered members a sense of dignity and freedom.”[2] That quote, by the way, is from our old buddy Eric Foner. God, I love you, Foner. And unions played an important role in shaping the ideology of the second New Deal because they insisted that the economic downturn had been caused by underconsumption, and that the best way to combat the depression was to raise workers’ wages so that they could buy lots of stuff. The thinking went that if people experienced less economic insecurity, they would spend more of their money so there were widespread calls for public housing and universal health insurance. And that brings us to the crowning achievement of the Second New Deal, and/or the crowning achievement of its Communist plot, the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Security included unemployment insurance, aid to the disabled, aid to poor families with children, and, of course, retirement benefits. It was, and is, funded through payroll taxes rather than general tax revenue, and while state and local governments retained a lot of discretion over how benefits would be distributed, Social Security still represented a transformation in the relationship between the federal government and American citizens. Like, before the New Deal, most Americans didn’t expect the government to help them in times of economic distress. After the New Deal the question was no longer if the government should intervene, but how it should. For a while, the U.S. government under FDR embraced Keynesian economics, the idea that the government should spend money even if it means going into deficits in order to prop up demand. And this meant that the state was much more present in people’s lives. I mean for some people that meant relief or social security checks. For others, it meant a job with the most successful government employment program, the Works Progress Administration. The WPA didn’t just build post offices, it paid painters to make them beautiful with murals, it paid actors and writers to put together plays, and ultimately employed more than 3 million Americans each year until it ended in 1943. It also, by the way, payed for lots of photographers to take amazing photographs, which we can show you for free because they are owned by the government so I’m just going to keep talking about how great they are. Oh, look at that one, that’s a winner. Okay. Equally transformative, if less visually stimulating, was the change that the New Deal brought to American politics. The popularity of FDR and his programs brought together urban progressives who would have been Republicans two decades earlier, with unionized workers - often immigrants, left wing intellectuals, urban Catholics and Jews. FDR also gained the support of middle class homeowners, and he brought African Americans into the Democratic Party. Who was left to be a Republican, Stan? I guess there weren’t many, which is why FDR kept getting re-elected until, you know, he died. But, fascinatingly, one of the biggest and politically most important blocs in the New Deal Coalition was white southerners, many of whom were extremely racist. Democrats had dominated in the South since the end of reconstruction, you know since the other party was the party of Lincoln. And all those Southern democrats who had been in Congress for so long became important legislative leaders. In fact, without them, FDR never could have passed the New Deal laws, but Southerners expected whites to dominate the government and the economy and they insisted on local administration of many New Deal programs. And that ensured that the AAA and the NLRA would exclude sharecroppers, and tenant farmers, and domestic servants, all of whom were disproportionately African American. So, did the New Deal end the depression? No. I mean, by 1940 over 15% of the American workforce remained unemployed. But, then again, when FDR took office in 1933, the unemployment rate was at 25%. Maybe the best evidence that government spending was working is that when FDR reduced government subsidies to farms and the WPA in 1937, unemployment immediately jumped back up to almost 20%. And many economic historians believe that it’s inaccurate to say that government spending failed to end the Depression because in the end, at least according to a lot of economists, what brought the Depression to an end was a massive government spending program called World War II. So, given that, is the New Deal really that important? Yes. Because first, it changed the shape of the American Democratic Party. African Americans and union workers became reliable Democratic votes. And secondly, it changed our way of thinking. Like, liberalism in the 19th century meant limited government and free-market economics. Roosevelt used the term to refer to a large, active state that saw liberty as “greater security for the average man.” And that idea that liberty is more closely linked to security than it is to, like, freedom from government intervention is still really important in the way we think about liberty today. No matter where they fall on the contemporary political spectrum, politicians are constantly talking about keeping Americans safe. Also our tendency to associate the New Deal with FDR himself points to what Arthur Schlessinger called the “imperial presidency.” That is, we tend to associate all government policy with the president. Like, after Jackson and Lincoln’s presidencies Congress reasserted itself as the most important branch of the government. But that didn’t happen after FDR. But above all that, the New Deal changed the expectations that Americans had of their government. Now, when things go sour, we expect the government to do something. We’ll give our last words today to Eric Foner, who never Foner-s it in, the New Deal “made the government an institution directly experienced in Americans’ daily lives and directly concerned with their welfare.”[3] Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people. And it is possible because of your support at subbable.com. Here at Crash Course we want to make educational video for free, for everyone, forever. And that’s possible thanks to your subscription at subbable.com. You can make a monthly subscription and the price is up to you. It can even be zero dollars although more is better. Thanks so much for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. ________________ [1] Foner. Give me Liberty ebook version p. 870 [2] Foner. Give me Liberty ebook version p. 873 [3] Give me Liberty ebook version p. 898

Background

After winning the 1935 election the newly elected First Labour Government immediately issued a Christmas bonus to the unemployed.[2] However, a regular unemployment benefit was not introduced until the passing of the Social Security Act in 1938; that benefit was "payable to a person 16 years of age and over who has been in New Zealand for at least 12 months and is unemployed, is capable of and willing to undertake suitable work, and has taken reasonable steps to secure employment"[3]

New Zealand did have several extant social welfare benefits started by the Liberal Government which implemented a tax-funded means tested old-age pension in 1898 and widows benefit in 1911. A limited form of payment to the unemployed was created during the Great Depression of the early 1930s by the United/Reform Coalition.[4]

The development of social security policy, a commitment which all Labour MPs were enthusiastic about, but was itself a subject of considerable division within the government. Finance Minister Walter Nash initially proposed a contributory, national insurance type scheme though the caucus rejected it. Arnold Nordmeyer chaired both the caucus committee and the parliamentary select committee which were set up to consider the matter more in depth. After much discussion and debate the committees recommended a scheme for a means-tested pension, a universal superannuation, provisions for universal medical benefits (hospital treatment, maternity benefits and general practitioner consultations) which would all to be financed from direct taxation. At Nordmeyer's insistence, both the health and pensions schemes were combined into one measure.[5]

The recommendations given became the basis of what was to be incorporated in the Social Security Act.

Implementation

Savage gave a broadcast to the nation on 2 April 1938 outlining the Labour government's intentions and details of the proposed bill. He outlined the details of a comprehensive scheme of social security to provide "a condition of social security unsurpassed in any other country in the world".[6] He stressed that the scheme had been carefully costed and was easily affordable to allay fears of tear away government spending. The details specified the following:

  • A means tested old age pension of £78 a year (30 shillings per week) to women over 60 and men over 65
  • A national superannuation scheme of £10 per annum (rising by £2 10s each year to reach the same level as the old age pension) to all aged 65 and over
  • All existing allowances for the unemployed, widows, orphans, veterans and the disabled were either continued or increased
  • A universal healthcare system providing free hospital treatment, free medicine, a maternity benefit and subsidized doctors visits

The scheme was to be funded by raising the existing level of income tax on wages from 8d in the pound to 1s and continuing the existing levy of £1 on every man over 20 years of age. To implement and administer all of the governments promises the Social Security Department would be established which would absorb the existing Pensions Department as well as the Employment Division of the Department of Labour. Savage also announced that the bill would contain a provision that it would not come into force until 1 April 1939, thereby giving the opposition National Party the opportunity to revoke it if they won the election scheduled for October that year as an inducement to re-elect Labour for another term.[7]

Reaction

Reverend W. H. A. Vickery (the mayor of Kaiapoi) sent Savage a letter suggesting he use the term "applied Christianity" to describe the government's scheme, which was adopted by Savage.[8] The opposition National Party were highly critical of the scheme raising concerns over the expense and criticizing the increased taxation that would result. National Party leader Adam Hamilton said Labour was wrong to claim that the benefits were free as everyone would be in the tax-gatherer's net and have to pay for everything they received.[4] Prominent National MP Sidney Holland unsuccessfully parodied Savage's description calling it "applied lunacy", which earned himself public displeasure. The scheme was also criticized by the radical-left in the Labour Party with MPs Gervan McMillan and Arnold Nordmeyer feeling the government had not gone far enough.[9]

The largest apprehension came from the New Zealand Branch of the British Medical Association (BMA) over the implementation of free general practitioner consultations. Doctors refused to accept a state fee for their services arguing that the doctor–patient relationship was dependent on direct payments from the patient. It would not be until 1941 that a compromise was reached where doctors charged patients directly and the patient could then claim a social security refund.[5]

The initiative received attention internationally as well. A 1939 government report in the United States of America for the Roosevelt administration described New Zealand as having made "the first attempt on a national scale to combine under one integrated system of economic security protection against all hazards which are covered by social insurance in other countries".[4]

Outcomes

The Social Security Act (as intended) became one of the main issues at the 1938 election campaign. Savage had used the act to set the agenda for the election which he thought would virtually guarantee Labour victory. Indeed, Labour was decisively re-elected increasing its share of the votes by 10% from 45 to 55 percent, though it actually did not gain any extra seats.[10] As predicted, the expense to fund the scheme was high. It was estimated to cost £17.85 million in its first year, up from just £7.5 million per-annum spent on the previous social services.[4]

The policies and emphases of the Social Security Act would set the social pattern of New Zealand for several generations. New Zealand was to remain a government regulated welfare state until the early 1990s when new neo-liberal policies (labeled Ruthanasia) superseded much of the surviving policies of the First Labour Government.[11]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Sinclair 1988, pp. 270.
  2. ^ King 2003.
  3. ^ "Social Security - Scope of Legislation of 1938". Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand.
  4. ^ a b c d "Cradle to grave in New Zealand - was the Welfare State born in 1938?". The New Zealand Herald. 14 September 2017. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  5. ^ a b Brown, Bruce. "Nordmeyer, Arnold Henry - Biography". Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
  6. ^ Brooking 1988, pp. 157–8.
  7. ^ Brooking 1988, p. 157.
  8. ^ Whitmore, Robbie. "Michael Joseph Savage - New Zealand in History". history-nz.org. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
  9. ^ Brooking 1988, p. 158.
  10. ^ Gustafson, Barry. "Savage, Michael Joseph - Biography". Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
  11. ^ Russell, Marcia (1996). Revolution: New Zealand from Fortress to Free Market. Hodder Moa Beckett. p. 220. ISBN 1869584287.

References

This page was last edited on 9 August 2023, at 02:45
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.