Frances Perkins (1880-1965)
U.S. Labor Secretary Frances Perkins (credit: Cornell University)
Frances Perkins was the first woman to serve in the United States Cabinet as Secretary of Labor under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. She left a lasting legacy in American labor relations, shaping New Deal policies and advocating for workers’ rights throughout her career. In her 1933 essay, “The Cost of a Five-Dollar Dress,” Perkins attacks the unfair labor practices masked by the too-good-to-be-true sale prices of clothing. This model, which provides a cheap option for high-demand apparel, persists today, contributing to the mistreatment of low-skill workers.
Perkins viewed the people as the foundation and purpose of government: “The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.” She grounded this philosophy in a belief in human dignity, believing that society should equip individuals to live a decent life. Perkins viewed government intervention as a necessary tool to ensure the well-being of the citizenry, particularly the working class. For Perkins, this meant ensuring fair wages and reasonable working conditions. She saw corporate power as a threat to human dignity and believed unchecked capitalism would lead to the deterioration of the American social order.
Her work with Franklin D. Roosevelt on New Deal legislation reflected her commitment to idealistic pragmatism. While she worked to bring economic reforms aimed at protecting workers, she did so within the constitutional and political framework of the United States. In her view, she was a sensible administrator who “came to Washington to work for God, FDR, and the millions of forgotten, plain common workingmen.” She understood her role as a steward of the public good, serving both Roosevelt and ordinary Americans.
She viewed the Constitution as a living document that must evolve with modern society’s challenges. Confronted with the Great Depression, she advocated not for a departure from the Constitution but for its interpretation to meet the demands of a complex industrial society. For Perkins, the Constitution’s framework granted Roosevelt’s administration the ability to take an active role in the economy. She saw the absence of government action not just as an economic misstep but as a moral failure to preserve the principle of human dignity. She told then-Governor Roosevelt, “We are not just dealing with mere figures on paper but with human beings, men, women and children who are out of work and hungry.”
Following this principle, Perkins frames one of her essays around the question, “Who pays the cost of a five-dollar dress?” to force her readers to confront the injustice inherent to slash-price bargains. Rather than assuming manufacturers bear the cost of bargains, Perkins posits that workers, primarily young and married women, pay the price by enduring brutal labor conditions. Although many manufacturers follow sustainable wage standards, recognizing that “security for… the country depends on building up the purchasing power of the wage-earners,” sweatshops exploit workers by paying them a fraction of the standard wage. As a result, sweatshops can outcompete industry standard prices, offering similar products for a fraction of the cost while maintaining high profit margins.
The inequitable system that Perkins saw endures in today’s globalized economy. While many manufacturers, now as then, adhere to the industry standard of sustainable wages, a vast network of underground sweatshops operates outside these norms, slashing labor costs to beat the competition. Perkins warned that this race to the bottom, which offers short-term customer benefits at the expense of long-term welfare, would ultimately destabilize the economy. Perkins knew that the purchasing power of workers is essential for the health of the economy as a whole. When companies suppress wages, the long-term consequences extend beyond the factory floor.
Sweatshops were a dangerous anomaly in Perkins’s time, operating on the fringe of industry. But with the advance of globalization, these anomalies have become standard in many countries across the world. Today, factories in developing countries resemble the sweatshops of Perkins’s lifetime. Through aggressive wage-suppression, these factories produce goods for the global market at prices lower than their fair-trade counterparts. Just as nearly a century ago, it is not the customer but the exploited worker who pays the cost of a bargain dress.
In Perkins’s era, labor exploitation, though often concealed, was locally based. Globalization enables consumers to distance themselves from the ethical implications of their purchase by obscuring product origins. When consumers cannot locate their clothing’s country of origin on a map, they disconnect the product from its production. Consequently, consumers are far less likely to consider the labor practices of the inexpensive clothes they readily enjoy. It is crucial for consumers to recognize their complicity in the hidden cost of the bargain deal. By striving for a more just economy where the true price of a dress provides fair wages and humane conditions for all workers, consumers can promote mindful consumerism and discourage unfair labor practices.
Frances Perkins’s critique in “The Cost of a Five-Dollar Dress” remains as relevant today as it was in 1933. The exploitation of workers she warned of has expanded globally. Perkins’s legacy, rooted in her belief in the power of government to protect human dignity, underscores the need for persistent vigilance against the exploitation of workers in an unregulated marketplace. As consumers, we must confront the hidden cost of the bargain deal, and strive for a more just economy—one where the true price of a dress provides fair wages and humane conditions for all workers. This vigilance is crucial in advocating for fair labor practices and ensuring the well-being of workers.
This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here.
Comments