Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Truth About Gilded Age America

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 3:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On another thread in this forum, "Thatcher owns the Socialists", 000ike said "The government barely did anything during the guilded age. If you don't want me to call it Laissez faire, fine,...but that really does not address my point. The poor and the worker still suffered due to unrestrained corporate greed." So I would like to address the common myth of the Gilded Age, namely, that it was a time period in which the worker suffered and was exploited by greedy businessmen and factory owners. It's one of the most pervasive myths in American history.

You will always be able to look at any era and say that the poor and the worker suffered terrible conditions due to corporate greed. Take the Gilded Age and the child labor in the factories during this period. In school we hear about the awful, unsanitary conditions that children had to face while working long hours in the factories. We hear all about the government's response to these supposed evils and cruelties. But what is the reality?

The reality is that while working long hours in factories isn't the ideal life for any child, the alternative choices were far worse. The introduction of the factory system offered a means of survival for tens of thousands of children who otherwise wouldn't have survived in pre-capitalistic eras. This is because the income of their parent(s) was not sufficient; their wages were so low that adults could not support their entire families on them. This is evidenced by the fact that obviously, children would only go to work with their parent's permission, and usually at their request. Why would so many parents send their children to the factories if it wasn't beneficial and worthwhile?

As Ludwig Von Mises writes, "The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them.

"It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the nurseries and the kitchen and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them, in the strict sense of the term, from death by starvation."

Conditions of employment and sanitation are acknowledged to have been the best in larger and newer factories. But as government regulation of factories and child labor laws increased dramatically, the owners of these factories - who were more frequently and more rigorously inspected by government appointed workers - increasingly chose to dismiss children from employment rather than comply with a growing amount of arbitrary, ever-shifting regulations.

The result was that dismissed children, who needed the work in order to survive, were forced to seek jobs in smaller, older, and dirtier factories. Those who could not find new jobs were reduced to irregular agricultural labor, or even worse, as Von Mises put it, "to infest the country as vagabonds, beggars, tramps, robbers and prostitutes."

There is almost no period in human history which saw as rapid and widespread an increase in the well being of the ordinary man as the Gilded Age. The amount of immigration to America was off the charts. Populations exploded during this time period and mortality rates shot down, especially among infants. These facts are undeniable and well documented. Some conditions weren't perfect, of course, especially compared to the ones we enjoy today, but they were the best options for the people who chose them - and the alternatives were 1000x worse.

Did the millions of immigrants during this time period keep coming to America so they could be exploited and cheated? Did parents keep sending their kids to the factories so they could be enslaved and endangered? Of course not. Anyone who says so is probably applying modern, 21st century standards and choices to the 19th century, when standards were much worse and choices much fewer. The stream of immigration during this period is continuous, meaning that year after year, people felt that these "Gilded Age conditions" of which Ike speaks so negatively were far better for the improvement of their lives than any other option available to them at the time. Clearly what immigrants received in America, and what people received in the factories, was far superior to what they had before.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 3:39:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's sort of missing the point. You're simply saying what would have happened to the children if they hadn't gone to work would have been worse than if they had...but still within the context of the same system. The point is that the system should be different and that children shouldn't have to work in miserable conditions in order to survive. I guarantee you if you were a child working in one of those factories you would not sympathize with the arguments you are making now.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

Jat's essay lacks legitimate facts.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:16:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

They also teach in schools that Truman did the right thing dropping the atom bomb.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:17:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.

That doesn't mean it was a free market, it was mercantilism to the max hombre.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:16:25 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

They also teach in schools that Truman did the right thing dropping the atom bomb.

No....they don't. We had a debate in APUSH about that, it was 50/50 class opinion
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:18:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:16:25 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

They also teach in schools that Truman did the right thing dropping the atom bomb.

No....they don't. We had a debate in APUSH about that, it was 50/50 class opinion

That was class opinion. In schools, they teach it was the right thing.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:18:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:17:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.

That doesn't mean it was a free market, it was mercantilism to the max hombre.

But that isn't the point. Jat is arguing that the worker didn't suffer,...the fat conglomerates weren't greedy. He's basically trying to be an annoying revisionist like DK.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:18:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:16:25 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

They also teach in schools that Truman did the right thing dropping the atom bomb.

No....they don't. We had a debate in APUSH about that, it was 50/50 class opinion

Kind of interesting how you seem to think it unreasonable to think that the government could possibly choose to push itself in a positive light irrespective of actual events. They don't have an incentive to do that?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:19:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:18:20 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:16:25 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

They also teach in schools that Truman did the right thing dropping the atom bomb.

No....they don't. We had a debate in APUSH about that, it was 50/50 class opinion

That was class opinion. In schools, they teach it was the right thing.

no...they told US to decide. that's why we debated it....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:20:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:18:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:17:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.

That doesn't mean it was a free market, it was mercantilism to the max hombre.

But that isn't the point. Jat is arguing that the worker didn't suffer,...the fat conglomerates weren't greedy. He's basically trying to be an annoying revisionist like DK.

I know right, revisionists are just fringe crazies Ron Paul capitalism greedy conspiratorial anti-moon landing herpy derpy darrrrr.........
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:20:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:19:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:18:20 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:16:25 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

They also teach in schools that Truman did the right thing dropping the atom bomb.

No....they don't. We had a debate in APUSH about that, it was 50/50 class opinion

That was class opinion. In schools, they teach it was the right thing.

no...they told US to decide. that's why we debated it....

So, that was in history class?

Cause. Every history class I've ever been in has said he made the right choice. Not that I disagreed.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:21:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
jat, can I put this on the DDO Blog?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:20:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:18:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:17:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.

That doesn't mean it was a free market, it was mercantilism to the max hombre.

But that isn't the point. Jat is arguing that the worker didn't suffer,...the fat conglomerates weren't greedy. He's basically trying to be an annoying revisionist like DK.

I know right, revisionists are just fringe crazies Ron Paul capitalism greedy conspiratorial anti-moon landing herpy derpy darrrrr.........

what are you doing?...it's like you're deliberately ignoring the point of the post you quoted and finding something else to whine about.

Do you or don't you believe that workers suffered during the Gilded Age?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:21:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 3:39:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
That's sort of missing the point. You're simply saying what would have happened to the children if they hadn't gone to work would have been worse than if they had...

Yes, and that this was the best choice they had, and that the alternative was often not having enough food in the family for everyone to survive.

but still within the context of the same system. The point is that the system should be different and that children shouldn't have to work in miserable conditions in order to survive.

Life isn't fair, because nature/the world is indifferent. There shouldn't be millions of children in countries like Zimbabwe and Rwanda who will be lucky if they make it to age 40 because the odds are they'll starve or come down with a lethal disease sometime beforehand. But, as I type these words, millions of children across the globe are facing this situation.

You have to understand that before the emergence of the factory system, most people lived in conditions closer to the ones I just described. It was ridiculously common for women and/or their babies to die in childbirth, mortality rates in general were staggeringly high, people wore the same clothes for years at a time, sanitation was expensive (bathing was ridiculously infrequent), so disease was rampant... If a child was working in a factory, it was so they could do everything they could to escape this kind of life, to the greatest extent possible. It was so their parents would have enough money in the family for all the children to survive. All too often, the alternative to a child working in a factory was either working in a less safe and worse paying factory, things like prostitution, begging, thieving, etc, or death.

I guarantee you if you were a child working in one of those factories you would not sympathize with the arguments you are making now.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. You and I are living in the 21st century in highly developed countries, with standards for medicine and technology that the children you refer to could not have imagined in their wildest dreams. You're injecting a 21st century view while analyzing a period from 2 centuries ago. If I were a child working in one of those factories, I would be aware that the factories are relatively new innovations, and beforehand my options for survival would be very few. Remember, people didn't work in the factories as a hobby - they did it because either it was necessary or it somehow paid off.

Your argument is basically "well yeah, I concede that it may have been their best possible option given their reality, but their reality (the system they worked in) still sucked." The question you have to ask yourself is by whose standards does it suck? By your standards it sucks because you can't imagine yourself or anyone you know having to be subject to them. I guarantee you, if you lived in the 19th century and could easily imagine you and your family and friends dying of starvation, if you had a sure means of survival, you'd be immensely grateful.

And you'd be immensely pissed off at anyone who tried to "improve" the system by outlawing child labor, because again, your options would either be to find a new factory to employ you, which would almost necessarily mean more danger and less income, or you could resort to the kinds of employment that the most desperate human beings resort to, or you could die.

Your misunderstanding results from the fact that you (and almost everyone you know, I assume) take your survival for granted, and your next meal for granted, and a lack of child labor for granted, and a certain amount of entertainment for granted. I do too. But you wouldn't if you were a child in the 19th century whose family needed extra income to help out his family, and your and your family would probably be very grateful for employment at the factory.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:23:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:21:27 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
jat, can I put this on the DDO Blog?

For sure, whatever you want to do with it is fine by me
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:25:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:21:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:20:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:18:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:17:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.

That doesn't mean it was a free market, it was mercantilism to the max hombre.

But that isn't the point. Jat is arguing that the worker didn't suffer,...the fat conglomerates weren't greedy. He's basically trying to be an annoying revisionist like DK.

I know right, revisionists are just fringe crazies Ron Paul capitalism greedy conspiratorial anti-moon landing herpy derpy darrrrr.........

what are you doing?...it's like you're deliberately ignoring the point of the post you quoted and finding something else to whine about.

Do you or don't you believe that workers suffered during the Gilded Age?

I think you're focusing on suffering alone and somehow extrapolating from that that the government wasn't a part of it. I agree with Jat to an extent in that the guilded age generally rose the level of wealth per person faster than any other period in history leading up to it. But that doesn't mean they had shatty conditions, just that they were less shatty then before. My post was more referring to your assumption that revisionism is automatically crazy or something and that we should just accept orthodox accounts of history blindly.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:25:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

Jat's essay lacks legitimate facts.

Nah, just you because its quite clear that your main source of knowledge is based on what you learned on high school and you also have a smug way of declaring how "clear cut" it is without question. I went through the high school education system, did well in school, then looked up the data myself and realized how bullsh1t it was.

You can't compare modern day times to the gilded age and say that the gilded age time sucked. Well, yea compared to modern day standards but that completely ignores the precedent of thousands of years of human history before it in which life was much worse.

There's plenty of evidence that life got much better during the industrialized age.
https://secure.resumeware.net...#

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com...

Ever heard of things called famines? It occured in the times before industrialized ages when it was quite a common occurence. The industrialized age pretty much ended with the exception of the Gream Famine of Ireland. Disease was very common during preindustrialized ages due to lack of hygiene.

Anybody who actually understand this stuff beyond the high school model realizes the benefits the gilded age had on the quality of life of everyone. Its pretty much the consensus among economists and historians.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:26:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

Jat's essay lacks legitimate facts.

Nah, just you because its quite clear that your main source of knowledge is based on what you learned on high school and you also have a smug way of declaring how "clear cut" it is without question. I went through the high school education system, did well in school, then looked up the data myself and realized how bullsh1t it was.

You can't compare modern day times to the gilded age and say that the gilded age time sucked. Well, yea compared to modern day standards but that completely ignores the precedent of thousands of years of human history before it in which life was much worse.

There's plenty of evidence that life got much better during the industrialized age.
http://cadmusjournal.org...
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com...

Ever heard of things called famines? It occured in the times before industrialized ages when it was quite a common occurence. The industrialized age pretty much ended with the exception of the Gream Famine of Ireland. Disease was very common during preindustrialized ages due to lack of hygiene.

Anybody who actually understand this stuff beyond the high school model realizes the benefits the gilded age had on the quality of life of everyone. Its pretty much the consensus among economists and historians.

Edited. Wrong link for the first one. Lol the first one was a tab I had open for a job I'm applying for.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:28:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:25:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:21:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:20:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:18:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:17:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.

That doesn't mean it was a free market, it was mercantilism to the max hombre.

But that isn't the point. Jat is arguing that the worker didn't suffer,...the fat conglomerates weren't greedy. He's basically trying to be an annoying revisionist like DK.

I know right, revisionists are just fringe crazies Ron Paul capitalism greedy conspiratorial anti-moon landing herpy derpy darrrrr.........

what are you doing?...it's like you're deliberately ignoring the point of the post you quoted and finding something else to whine about.

Do you or don't you believe that workers suffered during the Gilded Age?

I think you're focusing on suffering alone and somehow extrapolating from that that the government wasn't a part of it. I agree with Jat to an extent in that the guilded age generally rose the level of wealth per person faster than any other period in history leading up to it. But that doesn't mean they had shatty conditions, just that they were less shatty then before. My post was more referring to your assumption that revisionism is automatically crazy or something and that we should just accept orthodox accounts of history blindly.

When I say revisionism, I suppose I'm not using it literally. I mean more to say that they're deliberately taking a nonsensical position to feel more informed than anyone taught differently.

I have no problem with presenting another side of the issue, provided they actually have legitimate facts to support themselves.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:26:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Edited. Wrong link for the first one. Lol the first one was a tab I had open for a job I'm applying for.

lol good luck ;)
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:29:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:28:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:25:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:21:32 PM, 000ike wrote:

what are you doing?...it's like you're deliberately ignoring the point of the post you quoted and finding something else to whine about.

Do you or don't you believe that workers suffered during the Gilded Age?

I think you're focusing on suffering alone and somehow extrapolating from that that the government wasn't a part of it. I agree with Jat to an extent in that the guilded age generally rose the level of wealth per person faster than any other period in history leading up to it. But that doesn't mean they had shatty conditions, just that they were less shatty then before. My post was more referring to your assumption that revisionism is automatically crazy or something and that we should just accept orthodox accounts of history blindly.

When I say revisionism, I suppose I'm not using it literally. I mean more to say that they're deliberately taking a nonsensical position to feel more informed than anyone taught differently.

I have no problem with presenting another side of the issue, provided they actually have legitimate facts to support themselves.

So you've moved from one incoherent position to another. Instead of thinking revisionism is automatically crazy, now you're just saying that revisionists are only revisionists to feel smarter. No substantiation though brah.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:31:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:28:28 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:26:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Edited. Wrong link for the first one. Lol the first one was a tab I had open for a job I'm applying for.

lol good luck ;)

thanks, i might be able to finish the application process :p
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:18:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:17:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:12:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. 60 hour work weeks
2. no compensation or insurance for work-related accidents
3. worker was worthless to employer
4. poor working conditions (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire)
5. erratic layoffs
6. J.D Rockerfeller's monopoly on oil
7. cutting wages while raising prices
8. trusts
9. pools
10. kicking off competition
11. Using money and bribes to control politics

A worker has no choice but to tolerate inhumane conditions if those conditions exist everywhere. What, they shouldn't work? They should just starve and die? What you call a free choice is a forced decision. Corporations were greedy, selfish inventions that impersonalized the employer-employee relation.

That doesn't mean it was a free market, it was mercantilism to the max hombre.

But that isn't the point. Jat is arguing that the worker didn't suffer,...the fat conglomerates weren't greedy. He's basically trying to be an annoying revisionist like DK.

Am I? Funny, I wasn't aware.

I thought I was arguing that for many children, employment in big factories saved from them from having to work in considerably more dangerous and worse paying factories, or from jobs like thievery, begging, and prostitution... And all too often, from death.

My argument is not that they did not suffer.

It is that because of the factories, they had the choice to suffer infinitely less than they did before. They had a sure means of survival. This is something few children living back then took for granted.

Some day, Ike, I'm sure humans will look back on our time period and say that we suffered because of how much and how often we have to work. People will be able to work less hours on less days for less years. Will that mean that doing the work was bad for us? Even if it's an awful, sh!tty job with long hours and an evil boss - there is a reason you are working the job, and it is to afford food, shelter, and even entertainment.

The bottom line is that all you proponents of the awfulness of Gilded Age America have to stop viewing their conditions from a 21st century, first world, technologically and medicinally advanced lens. View things from their point of view, and you will understand why so many children did work in factories willfully and happily and at their parents request.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:32:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 4:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:14:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 4:05:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/1/2012 3:59:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's annoying how revisionists don't realize the enormous burden of proof they hold,...as well as the enormous wealth of evidence they're trampling on. There are plenty of corroborated reasons while the Gilded Age is portrayed so negatively. Give me a moment to amass them.

Like how the government schools told you, so it must be true.

You take joy in being a contrarian and belittling things you think are too "common" lets say. You understand that the facts aren't on your side right? There's a reason why they teach what they do in school....it isn't a conspiracy.

Jat's essay lacks legitimate facts.

Nah, just you because its quite clear that your main source of knowledge is based on what you learned on high school and you also have a smug way of declaring how "clear cut" it is without question. I went through the high school education system, did well in school, then looked up the data myself and realized how bullsh1t it was.

You can't compare modern day times to the gilded age and say that the gilded age time sucked. Well, yea compared to modern day standards but that completely ignores the precedent of thousands of years of human history before it in which life was much worse.

There's plenty of evidence that life got much better during the industrialized age.
https://secure.resumeware.net...#

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com...

Ever heard of things called famines? It occured in the times before industrialized ages when it was quite a common occurence. The industrialized age pretty much ended with the exception of the Gream Famine of Ireland. Disease was very common during preindustrialized ages due to lack of hygiene.

Anybody who actually understand this stuff beyond the high school model realizes the benefits the gilded age had on the quality of life of everyone. Its pretty much the consensus among economists and historians.

All you did was give a link and prate on about how other people agree with you in your usual condescending, belittling attitude. This whole post was devoid of actual facts...and you don't actually address working conditions, which is what's being argued.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 4:34:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike, you're missing the point. It's not that workers didn't suffer. It's that they suffered infinitely less then they would have before it. That's why even strident anti-capitalists like Marx had to even applaud capitalism for the advances it brought. He just thought that there was a time to grow out of it. You're basically saying that workers were treated terribly because we're treated better now. But that's non-analogous seeing as we're only in our current economic condition owing to the previous developments of economics.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.