It is not a garbage argument. You even admitted that the alternative would have been unemployment. A workforce willing to work less hours that has received a sudden influx in government spending will see a decrease in unemployment. The statement about restoring employment is slightly hyperbolic, but it is understandable when it is taken into account that people worked 25% fewer hours during the New Deal. The study, regardless of erroneous charges about bias, indicates the damage done by artificial wage inflation and collusive price fixing.
It is not false. The assertion is not that wage inflation increased unemployment rate to 25% of the enitre workforce, but that it increased by 25%. A cursory calculation shows that the unemployment rate without artifical wage inflation would have been approximately 19%.
It was not only the steel industry that was price fixed but also durable goods such as textiles. Two years of supressed consumption due to price fixing would have a marked effect on the economy. Still, price fixing did not cease with the end of the NIRA. Antitrust cases perpetuated at NIRA levels until 1939 when FRD admitted that the cartels were impeding recovery and resumed antitrust prosecutions.
You can continue to assert that, and I will continue to assert that certain provisions prolonged it. I really see no point in continuing if that is the case.
