7 ms·

> History teaches us what happens without any labour protection, so that's not an option. What, you become the richest, most powerful country in the world? (I

by aianus 10y ago

> History teaches us what happens without any labour protection, so that's not an option. What, you become the richest, most powerful country in the world? (I think America has the weakest labour laws in the developed world).

Helmet 10y ago
Well, there was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop And also this (which was, fundamentally, an economic institution): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  You can't really use slavery or sweatshops as an argument one way or the other here. Sweatshops were by no means limited to the US. Nor was slavery, for that matter. The main differences is that US slavery was domestic (and mostly contained to the south)[0]. Whereas European imperial powers (England, France, Belgium, etc.) outsourced their slavery, practicing forced relocation of people within their colonies and engaging those colonists in forced labor with the threat of violence[1]. That continued well into the 20th century. [0] Though not as much as people like to think - the North was very happy to make money off of the slave trade, as long as they didn't permanently hold those slaves. [1] One can try to engage in the abstract argument of, "well, is it philosophically better to enslave people within each others' native lands, rather than to bring them all to the seat of the empire and enslave them there", but that's a hair that's not worth splitting, and a far cry from the original statement.
morsch 10y ago
The sum of power or wealth is not a very sensible metric, unless you are a country and not a person. The per-capita median of power or wealth is a more sensible metric. A specific lower percentile may be even more sensible.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
America became the richest, most powerful country before any country had substantial labour protections.
- ch4s3 10y ago
  > America became the richest, most powerful country More accurately, this happened because every other power was laid to waste by two successive world wars. You'd have been hard pressed to find a standing factory in Germany, Britain, or Russia in June of 1945.
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    The manufacturing output of the US passed Britain to take first place in 1890. https://www.quora.com/Economic-History-At-what-point-did-the-US-become-the-biggest-economy-in-the-world https://www.quora.com/Economic-History-At-what-point-did-the...
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      Uh the US is a far bigger place? The civil war kicked off our version of the second industrial revolution, and the frontier (see ailroads) acted as starter fluid. Obviously US was looking great at that time, hence the immigration boom. (As Mark Twain went for in the name, the guilded age did have plenty of issues, but so did Europe. Class was strictly more palpable there, generally speaking.) Then, as others with that firm foundation, we surfed tsunami of two world wars that swallowed everyone else. That seal Ed the deal (and the second got us out of the great depression).
    - Retric 10y ago
      Minor nitpick 1916, the year U.S. output overtook that of the entire British empire. And that was in the middle of WWI. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower/384034/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the... Further, the US has had several boom and bust cycles people only really hear about 'the great depression' but there have been plenty of major slumps in the US economy for example around the Civil War. So, a nominal lead in good times is not that meaningful. So it was only during WWII that the US went from near parity to a massive and sustained lead. And it did not take that long before we gave that up to either China or the EU depending on how you want to slice it.
lawless123 10y ago
>What, you become the richest, most powerful country in the world? No you do that during world war by being the only country left with with virtually no damage to factories/infrastructure due to geography. You then use that to establish a global hegemony. And even then it only enriches the top of your society.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  Look at the US's GDP history. It started growing faster than Europe at the end of the 19th century. And you say it only enriched the top of our society? First look up what median means, then realize that the US's median income is 50% higher than Germany's. For a population several times larger and several times more diverse.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >the US's median income is 50% higher than Germany's Source? I'm looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income and none of the sources show a difference as high as that. Also if you look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... the US has much lower median wealth than most European economies.
    - pc86 10y ago
      I see you slipped in the word "wealth" when the GP specifically mentioned "income." Any reason for choosing one over the other?
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        I linked to wealth statistics alongside income statistics, because I think it's a relevant data point. I thought the distinction was fairly clear, but perhaps I should have emphasised it more?
        10y ago
pantalaimon 10y ago
> you become the richest, most powerful country in the world Wait, I am a country? Sure I love to slave away for the greater good of some business people to become the richest of the world! Oh how I rejoice of the thought that my lack of enjoyment in life is made up by bringing the company I work for at the top of international rankings!
- ci5er 10y ago
  Gotta be better than sitting home and watching day-time television...
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Not really. Not to mention that there are infinitely many ways to spend time in a more rewarding (and for many also more socially useful) way than TV or a dayjob.
    - ci5er 10y ago
      Maybe. I've always enjoyed whatever corporate employment I have had, because I could build things using much (!) more expensive equipment than I could afford to set up on my own. Maybe I've been fortunate - or maybe I'm just wired differently.
      - Nadya 10y ago
        The things I enjoy building don't require expensive equipment. Just a little bit of time - which is spent working a 9 to 5. Most people work their 9 to 5 to pay their various bills (Rent, Food, Utilities, Internet, Entertainment). I think it is important to enjoy your work or else you'll be unhappy. But I don't think it's uncommon to enjoy your hobbies more than your work. For example - I love languages! I wanted to become a polyglot in high school and speak several languages well enough to hold small talk. Practicing a language to fluency without residing in a country it is spoken is a lot of effort and requires a lot of self-motivation and time dedication. I rarely study anymore and am no longer confident in my ability to hold small talk in German or Portuguese. It's extremely satisfying to learn about various cultures, their history, and being able to speak with natives! You learn so many things about the world when you expand your ability to explore other cultures. No work to me is more satisfying. But cultural and linguistic anthropologists, after putting themselves into debt from college, hardly make more than a McDonald's Manager. Not to mention work is sparse and difficult to find - nearly impossible outside of academia. I went with a job with more job opportunities and a higher base salary so that I could afford my more expensive hobbies like playing video games and actually visiting other countries to learn about their cultures. Something I wouldn't be able to afford to do if I had my "dream job" instead of a "well paying job". But that leaves with me less energy and less motivation to study the foreign languages I would like to learn. I had to cut it down from twelve languages to three languages and I'm still not fluent in the two I'm studying. It's just too mentally exhausting to go from my day job to studying foreign languages during my free time day in and day out.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>richest, most powerful country in the world? To be fair this happened during a period of high unionization and a top income tax rate approaching 80%, or more. I'm not saying those things caused the growth, but they didn't stop it obviously. Also your comment is dismissive of things like income inequality, companies hoarding cash instead of investing it, healthcare access, quality of life, stagnant wages, etc and other things have the US hasn't solved but has been better addressed in more liberal nations. That high GDP is nice, but it doesn't stop poverty in the south side of Chicago nor does it create jobs in the rust belt. Maybe if we took these issues more seriously we wouldn't have elections where loud-mouth populists win due to electorate anger and instead have a system of government that reflects the needs of the people more than corporations.

by aianus 10y ago

Helmet 10y ago

Well, there was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop And also this (which was, fundamentally, an economic institution): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

chimeracoder 10y ago
You can't really use slavery or sweatshops as an argument one way or the other here. Sweatshops were by no means limited to the US. Nor was slavery, for that matter. The main differences is that US slavery was domestic (and mostly contained to the south)[0]. Whereas European imperial powers (England, France, Belgium, etc.) outsourced their slavery, practicing forced relocation of people within their colonies and engaging those colonists in forced labor with the threat of violence[1]. That continued well into the 20th century. [0] Though not as much as people like to think - the North was very happy to make money off of the slave trade, as long as they didn't permanently hold those slaves. [1] One can try to engage in the abstract argument of, "well, is it philosophically better to enslave people within each others' native lands, rather than to bring them all to the seat of the empire and enslave them there", but that's a hair that's not worth splitting, and a far cry from the original statement.

morsch 10y ago

The sum of power or wealth is not a very sensible metric, unless you are a country and not a person. The per-capita median of power or wealth is a more sensible metric. A specific lower percentile may be even more sensible.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

America became the richest, most powerful country before any country had substantial labour protections.

ch4s3 10y ago
> America became the richest, most powerful country More accurately, this happened because every other power was laid to waste by two successive world wars. You'd have been hard pressed to find a standing factory in Germany, Britain, or Russia in June of 1945.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  The manufacturing output of the US passed Britain to take first place in 1890. https://www.quora.com/Economic-History-At-what-point-did-the-US-become-the-biggest-economy-in-the-world https://www.quora.com/Economic-History-At-what-point-did-the...
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    Uh the US is a far bigger place? The civil war kicked off our version of the second industrial revolution, and the frontier (see ailroads) acted as starter fluid. Obviously US was looking great at that time, hence the immigration boom. (As Mark Twain went for in the name, the guilded age did have plenty of issues, but so did Europe. Class was strictly more palpable there, generally speaking.) Then, as others with that firm foundation, we surfed tsunami of two world wars that swallowed everyone else. That seal Ed the deal (and the second got us out of the great depression).
  - Retric 10y ago
    Minor nitpick 1916, the year U.S. output overtook that of the entire British empire. And that was in the middle of WWI. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower/384034/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the... Further, the US has had several boom and bust cycles people only really hear about 'the great depression' but there have been plenty of major slumps in the US economy for example around the Civil War. So, a nominal lead in good times is not that meaningful. So it was only during WWII that the US went from near parity to a massive and sustained lead. And it did not take that long before we gave that up to either China or the EU depending on how you want to slice it.

lawless123 10y ago

>What, you become the richest, most powerful country in the world? No you do that during world war by being the only country left with with virtually no damage to factories/infrastructure due to geography. You then use that to establish a global hegemony. And even then it only enriches the top of your society.

merpnderp 10y ago
Look at the US's GDP history. It started growing faster than Europe at the end of the 19th century. And you say it only enriched the top of our society? First look up what median means, then realize that the US's median income is 50% higher than Germany's. For a population several times larger and several times more diverse.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >the US's median income is 50% higher than Germany's Source? I'm looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income and none of the sources show a difference as high as that. Also if you look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... the US has much lower median wealth than most European economies.
  - pc86 10y ago
    I see you slipped in the word "wealth" when the GP specifically mentioned "income." Any reason for choosing one over the other?
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      I linked to wealth statistics alongside income statistics, because I think it's a relevant data point. I thought the distinction was fairly clear, but perhaps I should have emphasised it more?
      - 10y ago

pantalaimon 10y ago

> you become the richest, most powerful country in the world Wait, I am a country? Sure I love to slave away for the greater good of some business people to become the richest of the world! Oh how I rejoice of the thought that my lack of enjoyment in life is made up by bringing the company I work for at the top of international rankings!

ci5er 10y ago
Gotta be better than sitting home and watching day-time television...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Not really. Not to mention that there are infinitely many ways to spend time in a more rewarding (and for many also more socially useful) way than TV or a dayjob.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    Maybe. I've always enjoyed whatever corporate employment I have had, because I could build things using much (!) more expensive equipment than I could afford to set up on my own. Maybe I've been fortunate - or maybe I'm just wired differently.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      The things I enjoy building don't require expensive equipment. Just a little bit of time - which is spent working a 9 to 5. Most people work their 9 to 5 to pay their various bills (Rent, Food, Utilities, Internet, Entertainment). I think it is important to enjoy your work or else you'll be unhappy. But I don't think it's uncommon to enjoy your hobbies more than your work. For example - I love languages! I wanted to become a polyglot in high school and speak several languages well enough to hold small talk. Practicing a language to fluency without residing in a country it is spoken is a lot of effort and requires a lot of self-motivation and time dedication. I rarely study anymore and am no longer confident in my ability to hold small talk in German or Portuguese. It's extremely satisfying to learn about various cultures, their history, and being able to speak with natives! You learn so many things about the world when you expand your ability to explore other cultures. No work to me is more satisfying. But cultural and linguistic anthropologists, after putting themselves into debt from college, hardly make more than a McDonald's Manager. Not to mention work is sparse and difficult to find - nearly impossible outside of academia. I went with a job with more job opportunities and a higher base salary so that I could afford my more expensive hobbies like playing video games and actually visiting other countries to learn about their cultures. Something I wouldn't be able to afford to do if I had my "dream job" instead of a "well paying job". But that leaves with me less energy and less motivation to study the foreign languages I would like to learn. I had to cut it down from twelve languages to three languages and I'm still not fluent in the two I'm studying. It's just too mentally exhausting to go from my day job to studying foreign languages during my free time day in and day out.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>richest, most powerful country in the world? To be fair this happened during a period of high unionization and a top income tax rate approaching 80%, or more. I'm not saying those things caused the growth, but they didn't stop it obviously. Also your comment is dismissive of things like income inequality, companies hoarding cash instead of investing it, healthcare access, quality of life, stagnant wages, etc and other things have the US hasn't solved but has been better addressed in more liberal nations. That high GDP is nice, but it doesn't stop poverty in the south side of Chicago nor does it create jobs in the rust belt. Maybe if we took these issues more seriously we wouldn't have elections where loud-mouth populists win due to electorate anger and instead have a system of government that reflects the needs of the people more than corporations.