5 ms·

When I read about the Pressed Steel Car strike of 1909[0] and other various labor conditions of the early 20th century (child labor, 72-hour workweeks, company

When I read about the Pressed Steel Car strike of 1909[0] and other various labor conditions of the early 20th century (child labor, 72-hour workweeks, company stores), I think that a 40+ hour work week in front of a desk is pretty civil in comparison. I mean, the Pressed Steel Car factory was supposedly bad even by the standards of the day, but one person dying on average a day? And remember, a lot of people came to the cities in the first place because the work there was favorable compared to farm work. The outcome of your factory work was generally more predictable as well. All this to say that, in light of historical perspective: 1) The notion of calling the United States of today "third world" strikes me as extremely hyperbolic. The average human in 2017 (at least in the OECD) probably works way less than the average worker at any point in human history, and probably lives better. 2) The notion of "working to excess" is probably overstated. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressed_Steel_Car_strike_of_1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressed_Steel_Car_strike_of_19...

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>was favorable compared to farm work This, I believe, is a misconception. There's only so much farm work and population increases means work had to be found elsewhere. On top of automation lowering the number of farm hands one needed, and worse, a lot of that work being temporary seasonal work that paid very little. The Grapes of Wrath and The Jungle show the brutality of this period from both urban and rural perspectives. A lot of urban dwellers in that period would have been fine with farm work. If anything, it was safer and healthier than factory work.
- Brendinooo 10y ago
  You're probably right; I'm sure there were many different reasons for urban migration. And yes, undoubtedly safer. I don't have a source handy, but I remember reading that for farmers who didn't own their land, it was really difficult when bad weather ruined the crop and you couldn't make rent as a result, not to mention the fact that you didn't have food that season either. That's what I was referring to.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>was favorable compared to farm work This, I believe, is a misconception. There's only so much farm work and population increases means work had to be found elsewhere. On top of automation lowering the number of farm hands one needed, and worse, a lot of that work being temporary seasonal work that paid very little. The Grapes of Wrath and The Jungle show the brutality of this period from both urban and rural perspectives. A lot of urban dwellers in that period would have been fine with farm work. If anything, it was safer and healthier than factory work.

Brendinooo 10y ago
You're probably right; I'm sure there were many different reasons for urban migration. And yes, undoubtedly safer. I don't have a source handy, but I remember reading that for farmers who didn't own their land, it was really difficult when bad weather ruined the crop and you couldn't make rent as a result, not to mention the fact that you didn't have food that season either. That's what I was referring to.