5 ms·

The first link doesn't provide separate numbers for comparing public and private mines, so doesn't really prove anything; mining could just be inherently danger

The first link doesn't provide separate numbers for comparing public and private mines, so doesn't really prove anything; mining could just be inherently dangerous. The second link doesn't mention any instances of private employers killing their employees.

beobab 11y ago
I humbly suggest that sitting atop large quantities of explosive and riding the blast wave up into space is inherently dangerous, too.
- philh 11y ago
  The question adwn was talking about is not how many people will die? but will private companies kill more people than public companies? logicchains is suggesting that "private mining companies kill lots of people" says more about dangerous versus safe industries, than it does about private versus public companies.
dsr_ 11y ago
As to your first point: the USA does not have government-owned mines. Some public lands are leased for mining by private corporations. As to your second point: apparently you neither read the fine Wikipedia article nor followed up on any of the references provided. Here, read just the two first paragraphs of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre and you may become satisfied that, without restraint, some private employers will kill their employees.
- monort 11y ago
  It was National Guard who was killing strikers according to this article.
  - whybroke 11y ago
    Did you really read that article and think "this isn't an example of employers murdering employees" then downvote anyone who says otherwise? It seems this site has a serious infestation of rightwing cranks.
    - cmurf 11y ago
      Yeah, child labor laws were instituted for a reason: business will exploit anyone they are permitted to exploit. There's a long history of both labor laws and unions, trying to balance out the blood from a turnip mentality a business will try to get away with, again if permitted.
      - nickff 11y ago
        That's actually not why child labor laws were enacted. They were usually enacted at the behest of highly mechanized companies which required less labor, and preferred adult labor (, this is especially well-documented in England). Thus the highly mechanized companies put their less-mechanized competitors at a disadvantage by getting these laws enacted. In other places such as Prussia, child labor laws were enacted as a sort of stimulus/wealth transfer program. We must remember that depriving families of income doesn't help them; it is not as if children are sent to work to further enrich their wealthy parents. If you want to help poor children who have to work, please give them money and opportunities, and do not deprive them of the best of their (poor set of) options.
        TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        That is exactly why child labor laws were enacted. See e.g. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/childlabour.htm http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/stru... >We must remember that depriving families of income doesn't help them I believe similar arguments were made in favour of slavery. That didn't work out so well either. The best way to not deprive families of income is to... not deprive families of income. It's an unusual world view that suggests that not working their children to death somehow gets in the way of this.

beobab 11y ago

I humbly suggest that sitting atop large quantities of explosive and riding the blast wave up into space is inherently dangerous, too.

philh 11y ago
The question adwn was talking about is not how many people will die? but will private companies kill more people than public companies? logicchains is suggesting that "private mining companies kill lots of people" says more about dangerous versus safe industries, than it does about private versus public companies.

dsr_ 11y ago

As to your first point: the USA does not have government-owned mines. Some public lands are leased for mining by private corporations. As to your second point: apparently you neither read the fine Wikipedia article nor followed up on any of the references provided. Here, read just the two first paragraphs of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre and you may become satisfied that, without restraint, some private employers will kill their employees.

monort 11y ago
It was National Guard who was killing strikers according to this article.
- whybroke 11y ago
  Did you really read that article and think "this isn't an example of employers murdering employees" then downvote anyone who says otherwise? It seems this site has a serious infestation of rightwing cranks.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Yeah, child labor laws were instituted for a reason: business will exploit anyone they are permitted to exploit. There's a long history of both labor laws and unions, trying to balance out the blood from a turnip mentality a business will try to get away with, again if permitted.
    - nickff 11y ago
      That's actually not why child labor laws were enacted. They were usually enacted at the behest of highly mechanized companies which required less labor, and preferred adult labor (, this is especially well-documented in England). Thus the highly mechanized companies put their less-mechanized competitors at a disadvantage by getting these laws enacted. In other places such as Prussia, child labor laws were enacted as a sort of stimulus/wealth transfer program. We must remember that depriving families of income doesn't help them; it is not as if children are sent to work to further enrich their wealthy parents. If you want to help poor children who have to work, please give them money and opportunities, and do not deprive them of the best of their (poor set of) options.
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        That is exactly why child labor laws were enacted. See e.g. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/childlabour.htm http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/stru... >We must remember that depriving families of income doesn't help them I believe similar arguments were made in favour of slavery. That didn't work out so well either. The best way to not deprive families of income is to... not deprive families of income. It's an unusual world view that suggests that not working their children to death somehow gets in the way of this.