Talk:National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933

8 days a week

I don't see it addressed here (unless I missed it...), but I've seen criticism of FDR's approach. The argument goes, by encouraging unions as a means to protect buying power, NIRA actually inhibited the ability of the market to stabilize the economy. True? Or did improved buying power have the desired effect? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've not read anything that says that FDR intended to include unions in NIRA. Section 7(a) was added to the bill so that stronger pro-union bills (such as those pushed by Hugo Black and Robert F. Wagner) could be forestalled. That isn't really addressed in the article, but maybe it should be. I have read things that say FDR intended to protect buying power by promoting shorter work weeks and penalizing overtime; this would keep more people working at least some hours, and encourage employers to hire more people (rather than use longer working hours, longer work weeks, or OT to complete tasks with the existing workforce). There seems to be little evidence that unions were influential on NRA code bodies in general. They were very influential in a few cases, minimally influential in most, and in important cases (autos, steel, agriculture) had no influence. If NIRA's goal was to encourage hiring (even part-time employment), there's no evidence it worked -- since employment did not recover until 1936, and then the economy crashed again after FDR's budget-balancing in 1937. I don't know if the average employed person's wages rose in industries with a strong-union NIRA code; I've never seen a study about that. Some labor economics analyses say unions encourage higher wages through tightening entry into the workforce (thus driving up wages), but I've never seen anything that shows that industries with strong union growth post-NIRA (autos, rubber, mining, etc.) showed wage growth. It'd be great if you could find something. (I never found anything, but I have limited access to economics journals.) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

External Links

http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/1005RMEColumn.pdf I removed this link because it points to a biased political opinion that contains no documentation and adds little knowledge about the subject, NIRA. I substituted a link to a page that gives a brief discussion of the act and the full text of the legislation. Demeny 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Old talk

It is a little confusing Hello...i dont understand this site very well and it is making my brain have an ache

Well, go to the help, and if you have further questions, you can ask questions at my talk at Cameron Nedland 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I have no idea how to make a new subject deal... I was just wondereing what went wrong here

The NIRA was strongly supported by leading businessmen, some of whom had helped draft the legislation. Gerard Swope, head of General Electric, was one of whats pas first champions of this legislation—which legalized cartels and encouraged government spending on public works.

Thanks 2-28-07

Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article

From Rosenzweig's article: "the essay on the United States from 1918 to 1945 inaccurately describes the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 as in part a response to the “dissident challenges” of Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin—a curious characterization of a law enacted when Coughlin was still an enthusiastic backer of Roosevelt and Long was an official (if increasingly critical) ally [...] the essay’s incomplete, almost capricious, coverage than by the minor errors". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the NIRA?

I was originally searching for info about Roosevelt's NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act), and it redirected me straight to the NRA page. They definitely are not the same thing...I don't know if the page simply does not exist, but there's no indication that an article about it was not found, only that this one was found.

If I could just get some clarification on this, I would be very grateful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbymatt3 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you mis-typed. NIRA has re-directed to this article since 2005. Jheiv (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Industrial Recovery Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial points

I will be undertaking this review. The article appears detailed, well referenced, well written. It appears stable, and is largely the work of Tim1965, who has produced a range of high quality articles particularly in US Labor history and contemporary bios. All images have free use permissions of some sort attached, which look legit.

The overall structure looks sensible, canvassing background, enactment, structure, legal challenge, and impacts. I would consider creating a slightly more detailed lead - perhaps a first para on background, aim of the act and enactment; and a second para on the legal challenge and impact.

I will get to more detailed comments in coming days. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• YAY! - Tim1965 (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I expanded the lead, including cites. I didn't cite the sentences about the Act's structure, though, as that seemed unnecessary. But I appreciate any feedback on this. And thanks again for helping to review this article! - Tim1965 (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• Just to be cussed, now I think the lead may be too long, however, having checked it over, i think it should remain as it stands except for the removal of this sentence: "The Roosevelt administration began drafting a bill in April 1933, and the legislation was introduced in Congress the following month.[3]"

• Removed. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal challenge and nullification

• I believe it is incorrect to use the term "nullification" to refer to the ruling of the SCOTUS holding the act unconstitutional. The word nullification has a specific meaning in American constitutional jurisprudence. It refers to the theory that STATES (i.e. not the Federal courts) have the power to declare any given Federal law as unconstitutional and therefore null and void. You can see this fully explained here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29 . A better title for this section would be "Legal Challenge and overturning as Unconstitutional" or words to that effect. Again, specifically, the use of the term "Nullification" here is inaccurate because that term has a specific meaning, and does not reflect what occurred in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Len Katzman (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• I was a little unsure what was happening here: "The Schechter brothers had been indicted on 60 counts (of which 27 were dismissed by the trial court), acquitted on 14, and convicted in 19". If I have interpreted the article correctly, this perhaps should read "Under the new poultry code, the Schechter brothers were indicted on 60 counts (of which 27 were dismissed by the trial court), acquitted on 14, and convicted in 19". If my proposed revision is incorrect, then that means I haven't understood the circumstances of the origin of the sick chicken case. See what you think.

• You are correct. I have corrected the sentence. (I have a terrible writer's habit of using passive past-tense verbs rather than active past-tense verbs.) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall

• Apart from the above, the only other issues were some copyediting and style issues I tried to address as I went. You might want to check my edits and make sure I didn't change the intent of anything. Great job. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I did review them, and I found all of them to be appropriate. Several very good catches, in fact! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)