Originally Posted by Ardentfrost there was major workforce turmoil throughout the 1800's? I dunno man... seems to me you're full of shit. A Curriculum of United States Labor History for Teachers. 1833 Workingmen's Ticket is a political party formed of men and women to promote labor ideology. 1836 The National ...
12-20-2007, 04:59 PM
| #141 | ||||
| George W Bush, God's Tool  Independent ny 
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost A Curriculum of United States Labor History for Teachers.
1833 Workingmen's Ticket is a political party formed of men and women to promote labor ideology. 1836 The National Cooperative Association of Cordwainers, the first national union of a specific trade, was founded in New York City. A convention of mechanics, farmers, and workingmen met in Utica, NY. The wrote a Declaration of Rights which opposed bank notes, paper money, arbitrary power of the courts, and called for legislation to guarantee labor the right to organize to increase wages. They formed the Equal Rights Party to be free of existing party control. Lowell girls go on strike again over working conditions and wages. 1837 Panic of 1837 puts an end to the National Trades Union and most other unions. President Jackson declares ten hour day in Philadelphia Navy Yard to quell discontent caused by Panic of 1837. 1848 Child labor law in Pennsylvania makes twelve the minimum age for workers in commercial occupations. Pennsylvania passes a ten hour day law. When employers violate it women mill workers riot and attack the factory gates with axes. 1860 Successful strike of 20,000 shoemakers in New England. Abraham Lincoln, in support of New England shoemakers, says, "Thank God that we have a system of labor where there can be a strike." 1867 Knights of St. Crispin founded which was a union open to all factory workers in the shoe industry. General strike of Chicago trade unions demanding an 8 hour day. 1870 First written contract between coal miners and coal mine operators signed. Due to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, infant mortality in New York is 65% higher than in 1810. 1877 National railroad strikes crippled the country. Federal troops needed to be called out as some state militias sided with strikers. 1894 Strike by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Palace Car Company near Chicago is defeated by the use of injunctions and federal troops. This is just a sample - yes Ardent there was many major labor disputes and guess what? The government was involved (both for good and not so good) - so I guess you are the one that is full of shit?
__________________
| ||||
     |
|
12-20-2007, 05:08 PM
| #142 | ||||
| For those about to rock...  libertarian Atlanta, GA
| From that post, I can only guess you're trying to prove my point. Government was involved in none of that except when they were supposed to be (like when it got violent, or when the workers were government workers). The point I was making was that all that was the market correcting itself as it needed to. Government didn't step in until WAY WAY WAY (that's 3 'way's) later. Unions are great when they're localized and work to accomplish an objective. I don't agree with the nationalization of unions, and THEY worked to funnel boatloads of money into the government to get legislation passed to maintain their own power... but everything you posted is good news to me. | ||||
| |
|
12-20-2007, 05:14 PM
| #143 | ||||
| George W Bush, God's Tool Independent ny
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost Dude you are so blind to your ideology I almost pity you -
You said there was no major workforce turmoil in the 1800s - I proved you WRONG You said government didn't do anything - there are many including all the way back in 1837 when President Jackson declared a 10 hour work day to quell tensions, there are other such examples - again you are WRONG You said I was wrong that it took generations for things to get better - again you are WRONG You've been wrong throughout this whole exchange... Your revisionists history fools no one and just makes you look pathetic | ||||
| |
|
12-20-2007, 05:22 PM
| #144 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Addressing one at a time: Originally Posted by David Octavius How is that turmoil? There was a problem, people unionized and fixed it. That IS the free market solution, so by giving examples of that happening you are only proving that the free market works.
 Looks to me like you have an off way of viewing good things. | ||||
| |
|
12-21-2007, 08:53 AM
| #145 | ||||
| George W Bush, God's Tool Independent ny
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost What I mean is that there was a general labor discontent throughout the 1800s that was not just confined to just these events. Whereas now you may have a strike here or there over contracts, back then it was over major things like sanitation, safe working conditions, hours worked etc and unlike these few events I quoted, many movements failed. For many, unions and safer conditions took a very long time to take hold and only after constant struggle with employees. You see this as a good thing, I don't - a slow reacting market is a failure in my eyes. Unsafe working conditions is a violation of liberty as far as I am concerned and there is nothing wrong with government stepping in - they didn't soon enough, but they should of.
| ||||
| |
|
12-21-2007, 09:06 AM
| #146 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Did they fight for it? I mean, you're showing me instances of successful unionized disputes. When you bring in the late 1800's and early 1900's into the picture, it all changes because of labor force saturation. That's WHY the various industries were able to get away with that shit, and it was largely because of an immigration rate that was too high. Maybe our difference is that you see what we have NOW (required 8 hour work days, max 40 hour work weeks before time-and-a-half, 15 minute breaks every 4 hours, etc...) which is required by federal mandate as a good thing. I see the fact that it is required by the federal government and not by the unions themselves as a bad thing. And I'll tell you why: Requiring these things this specifically at the federal level ONLY destroys jobs and reduces productivity. I'm not promoting that a factory run it's line 16 hours a day with a single shift of underpaid employees, however the time the employees work, the benefits they get, and the pay they get should be between the worker and the employer. The employees have power, as the workers in the 1800's were discovering more and more. Without labor, the companies grind to a halt. They NEED to make their employees happy, and throughout the years companies have come to realize how important that aspect is. Look at the productivity of a company that works hard to make its employees happy to see this... like Southwest Airlines or SAS. But if you say someone can't work for more than 40 hours without getting time and a half, then it's cheaper for the company to hire 2 people to work 25 hours each if they need 50 hours of work done. If one of the guys would be willing to work the 50 hours with no added pay, the federal mandate has cost him 25 hours of pay a week. A job hasn't been created by the federal mandate, despite an additional person in this very defined system having a job, but it has created a situation in which 2 people now are paid far less than they would possibly otherwise want. | ||||
| |
|
12-21-2007, 11:24 AM
| #147 | ||||
| Banned  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| u guys need to lookup "union workers killed by companies or company demanded troops" free market "correcting" itself sounds more like the way libertarians complain the north "corrected" the south | ||||
| |
|
12-21-2007, 11:27 AM
| #148 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| As I've said, it's illegal for people to kill each other. The government should have incarcerated the people doing the killing. This is the difference between what libertarians want and what exists in blood diamond countries | ||||
| |
|
12-22-2007, 11:15 AM
| #149 | ||||
| Policy Wonk  Pragmatist NEIA
| I'd still like somebody to explain how capitalism is going to work in conjunction with democracy in this country when 99% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. Consumerism and capitalism aren't the same. This goes far beyond Pepsi vs. Coke. | ||||
| |
|
12-22-2007, 03:59 PM
| #150 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost
What this history excludes is the traditional Union opposition to the Unionization of Government Workers all the way through the 1930's. You cannot argue that the government is a greedy employer exploiting the workers for profit. And they also understood that the common Union household were also taxpayers. Union organization or government workers would lead to financial support for the growth of government, even wasteful government, at the expense of the taxpayer. And it has all come true. Nearly half of all organized labor today works for the government and spends dues for politics that promote the expansion of government in all areas. It is self serving self promotion activity and who gives a damn about the general public. As long as they are protected and they get theirs. Right now the goal is for government administration of all healthcare and all those new jobs for non-medical union paper shuflers you will need to talk to before you get to an actual doctor. Welcome to the future! 
__________________ Sock It To Me!  "Bureaucracy is a Parasite that Preys on Free Thought and Suffocates Free Spirit!" - Douglas Adams | ||||
| |
|
12-24-2007, 12:58 AM
| #151 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by bheld I don't see people being rich as a bad thing, however the spread being that large is a product of people with money being able to take advantage of a government trying to "help" the market after they do something that destimulates the same market.
With the now well understood powers of the work force, given a free, capitalist market, the spread wouldn't be near as bad as it is now. And if it got to a point where the work force was oppressed by the rich people, they would change the situation. All the powers are there now, it's just that many workers give up because they THINK they have the backing of the government, when in fact the government ends up helping those taking advantage of them more. | ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 03:05 AM
| #152 | ||||
| George W Bush, God's Tool Independent ny
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost What I can't understand Ardent is that as smart as you are (and clearly you are a smart guy) - why can't you see that there is no possible way for "the market" NOT to have any influence over government no matter the form? Its like that in absolute governments as well as governments that attempt to stay as far away as possible for the market.
Look at the "four Asian Tigers" - Tawain, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea. The governments (as far as I know so correct me if I am wrong) did stay out of the general market per se but were instrumental in creating and boosting the education system as well as redefining property rights. These were key drivers of their growth. Now since private property (laws) are an important prerequisite of a healthy and prosperous marketplace and since only government make those laws as well as enforce it - does it not follow that in almost ever case if not every case that the power players (or influencers) in the market will have a hand in making it and also changing the manner to which it is enforced? So to me, the market place and government go hand in hand - which makes sense, political actions have a large impact on the economy and the economy can drive political actions. So its about trying to find that balance in a republic and that in the end, it is the citizen who wins and not the consumer because we should be a nation of laws not of an economy. | ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 12:29 PM
| #153 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Oh, I agree in the current form of the government. But I *also* promote a smaller, less powerful government in conjunction with free market economics... you can't really have one without the other. I'm really just talking about what our goal should be here. If you want me to come up with interim policy, well, I just can't do that. I find it difficult to even support interim policy personally, or if I do it's because it's solely a move in the right direction. For instance, I can support the cutting of executive agencies to save on spending, but I find it difficult to promote something like federal school vouchers (because that still leaves a need for the DoEd, whereas I think schools should be taken care of locally). | ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 04:19 PM
| #154 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost what happens in the poorest countries of the poorest state? when everything is handled locally?
| ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 04:45 PM
| #155 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim You show me a poor county in a poor state with a population of children that would make the scenario unrealistic... I know of no state that cannot at least help out their poor counties.
| ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 04:51 PM
| #156 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost Mississippi, Louisianna, West Virginia...
Off the top of my head: Tunica County, Mississippi | ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 09:36 PM
| #157 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Those three states are just so destitute that they can't help those counties out? I don't buy it. I know for a fact there are lots of rich people in Mississippi.
| ||||
| |
|
12-27-2007, 06:00 AM
| #158 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost There are rich people in India too, lots of them and kids eat out of dumpsters, are we going to see how closely we can emulate that?
| ||||
| |
|
12-27-2007, 01:36 PM
| #159 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim I don't see what that has to do with anything. India has its own host of political problems.
I believe we're talking about schools here, right? If gotten out of federal control, it would go into more state control (it already is somewhat state controlled). If a state wanted to make it more county/community controlled, that's cool. If they wanted to control it themselves, whatever. That can go for funding also (those two things don't HAVE to be linked). If there are some really poor areas in a state (which all states have them, I'm pretty sure), then the state can raise money to help out those poorer areas. Whatever they want man, I don't care about state politics (except my state's politics, but considering one or two other people on these forums live in GA, I doubt we'd have some lively conversations about how Sonny Purdue sucks). The point is every state has rich and poor areas, there's no reason to think a state or even more local governments could handle the educating of their children. | ||||
