4 ms·

Uh...the gilded age resulted in massive industrial and income expansion, the rise of the US onto the world stage financially and the lowering of maternal death

Uh...the gilded age resulted in massive industrial and income expansion, the rise of the US onto the world stage financially and the lowering of maternal death rates, raising of life expectancy and a general post-industrial boom. Wages and average per capita savings doubled. It was also associated with the immigration of tens of millions of impoverished people, which is part of the reason for the massive inequality numbers - the population doubled during this period.

metalliqaz 9y ago
Excuse me but those benefits weren't result of the Guilded Age. Correlation, not causation. Both things were a result of the industrial revolution and globalization.
- ajross 9y ago
  Exactly. As was communism for that matter. Ultimately almost all major economic change had technology at its root. And where that change has undesirable side effects it's the job of government to address them.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Exactly. The Gilded Age was also a result of the industrial revolution and globalization. It describes a period of history - during which, these things happened.
knuththetruth 9y ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/306012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dar...
pdeuchler 9y ago
Wet pavements do not cause rain
- ameister14 9y ago
  You can't really support the argument that the Gilded Age actively caused these negative things by virtue of them taking place during the Gilded Age without supporting the argument that the Gilded Age caused positive things by virtue of them taking place during the period.
  - and0 9y ago
    And if you have morals, you can also say they weren't worth it. You could make the same argument about slavery, etc, but suggesting it was totally worth would be pretty bonkers. Humanity can accomplish great things without dehumanizing or hurting most of the population, and being critical of the morality of these systems is a big part of that.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      Are you actually saying that the advancements coming from a foundation built in the latter half of the 19th century aren't worth the cost? I don't agree with that at all, and I'm not sure I would if I had to pay that cost myself, either.
      - and0 9y ago
        Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do. This isn't black and white issue, like I have to pick between "a couple generations have horrible working lives" vs "antibiotics exist". I'm asking if both were possible, and I'd argue that they would be if the people at the top were willing to accept even a little less.
        ameister14 9y ago
        I think the phrasing of your first sentence is fascinating. Does that mean you think that the behavior (union busting, incorporation, or the creation of financial markets, for example) was solely intended to have malicious consequences, and that there were no positive motivations or intent? Also, it's not that odd. It's a direct response to the criticism you levy - that these things are not worth it. How are you to judge if you only take the immoral acts in a vacuum? You brought up slavery again; their conditions were not slave-like, simply impoverished. I agree that it's a good idea to question whether periods of chaos, destruction or immorality are actually necessary for progress. It's been pretty much taken as a given since Hegel, but it's a good thing to verify and even within those boundaries there may be some behaviors we can effectively limit while leaving the good bits. As to your final argument, I don't actually know if that's true, but it's immaterial because that's not how people have done it.
EGreg 9y ago
The same old arguments. "Inequality is totally OK" "But if many people have total food insecurity and bad health outcomes, that's bad right?" "Well hey but in the long run people got wealthier overall than if we redistributed wealth and no one would have an incentive to work like a dog" "That would have happened anyway because it's not capitalism but science and technology that drives wealth forward" "Look, Capitalism works far better, the USSR didn't have a choice consumer devices or food while the West did" "Fine but the USSR actually lifted more people out of poverty faster and its GDP grew faster than the USA, plus they endured two world wars on their own soil and still were able to bounce back and expand ... and China just lifted the most people out of poverty ever, wages increased 25x over 20 years, all through central planning and building entire cities" "Yeah but China is a hugely authoritarian state and is not free. Plus they adopted some capitalist principles and that's why they are so successful. Look at Venezuela and North Korea. Socialism does't work." "Well China is quite centrally planned as was the Interstate Highway system and other infra projects. And all those were a success. As for Venezuela did you forget the sanctions and oil prices drop? And North Korea has had sanctions for decades just because they are communists." "Redistributing just destroys all incentive to work." "We are automating everything anyway. We will need to redistribute money to a growing unemployed / underemployed class." "Universal health care results in death panels and long waits. The government dictates how much doctors can charge and this stifles innovation --" "-- and the USA is an outlier in how much we spend on healthcare, because there is no collective bargaining the prices down" "Yeah and also no death panels. Look at the wait times in other countries--" "As opposed to the infinite wait times in the USA for those who have 'access' but can't afford to even do a basic preventative checkup? And even if we remove those, the wait times in the USA are atrocious too. And other countries have more doctors per capita and more hospital beds too. Medicare gets better prices than almost all smaller insurers." "We get BETTER doctors and beds. The USA leads the world in medical innovation precisely because providers are not squeezed like they are by Amazon, Apple and other monopolies, so it attracts innovation from around the world and peopel vote with their feet" "Well maybe if you abolished drug patents innovatio could come from all over the world instead of the chilling effects we have today. Open source beats closed in the long run and Open source Drugs would beat big pharma in the long tail whose plight isn't even worth pursuing for these guys. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants, why is medicine different than science?" Ayn Rand: "Stop robbing a man of the product of his own mind. I DID build that!" "But living in the 21st century who do we compensate for all the advances throughout human history that preceded us? Can't we accept that this is a free gift and redistribute the wealth?" "Socialist!" "You support Billionaires!" "No I don't, billionaires are the product of government favors and I want to shrink government" "Then abolish patents" "No that is intellectual property" Etc :)

metalliqaz 9y ago

Excuse me but those benefits weren't result of the Guilded Age. Correlation, not causation. Both things were a result of the industrial revolution and globalization.

ajross 9y ago
Exactly. As was communism for that matter. Ultimately almost all major economic change had technology at its root. And where that change has undesirable side effects it's the job of government to address them.
ameister14 9y ago
Exactly. The Gilded Age was also a result of the industrial revolution and globalization. It describes a period of history - during which, these things happened.

knuththetruth 9y ago

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/306012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dar...

pdeuchler 9y ago

Wet pavements do not cause rain

ameister14 9y ago
You can't really support the argument that the Gilded Age actively caused these negative things by virtue of them taking place during the Gilded Age without supporting the argument that the Gilded Age caused positive things by virtue of them taking place during the period.
- and0 9y ago
  And if you have morals, you can also say they weren't worth it. You could make the same argument about slavery, etc, but suggesting it was totally worth would be pretty bonkers. Humanity can accomplish great things without dehumanizing or hurting most of the population, and being critical of the morality of these systems is a big part of that.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Are you actually saying that the advancements coming from a foundation built in the latter half of the 19th century aren't worth the cost? I don't agree with that at all, and I'm not sure I would if I had to pay that cost myself, either.
    - and0 9y ago
      Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do. This isn't black and white issue, like I have to pick between "a couple generations have horrible working lives" vs "antibiotics exist". I'm asking if both were possible, and I'd argue that they would be if the people at the top were willing to accept even a little less.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        I think the phrasing of your first sentence is fascinating. Does that mean you think that the behavior (union busting, incorporation, or the creation of financial markets, for example) was solely intended to have malicious consequences, and that there were no positive motivations or intent? Also, it's not that odd. It's a direct response to the criticism you levy - that these things are not worth it. How are you to judge if you only take the immoral acts in a vacuum? You brought up slavery again; their conditions were not slave-like, simply impoverished. I agree that it's a good idea to question whether periods of chaos, destruction or immorality are actually necessary for progress. It's been pretty much taken as a given since Hegel, but it's a good thing to verify and even within those boundaries there may be some behaviors we can effectively limit while leaving the good bits. As to your final argument, I don't actually know if that's true, but it's immaterial because that's not how people have done it.

EGreg 9y ago

The same old arguments. "Inequality is totally OK" "But if many people have total food insecurity and bad health outcomes, that's bad right?" "Well hey but in the long run people got wealthier overall than if we redistributed wealth and no one would have an incentive to work like a dog" "That would have happened anyway because it's not capitalism but science and technology that drives wealth forward" "Look, Capitalism works far better, the USSR didn't have a choice consumer devices or food while the West did" "Fine but the USSR actually lifted more people out of poverty faster and its GDP grew faster than the USA, plus they endured two world wars on their own soil and still were able to bounce back and expand ... and China just lifted the most people out of poverty ever, wages increased 25x over 20 years, all through central planning and building entire cities" "Yeah but China is a hugely authoritarian state and is not free. Plus they adopted some capitalist principles and that's why they are so successful. Look at Venezuela and North Korea. Socialism does't work." "Well China is quite centrally planned as was the Interstate Highway system and other infra projects. And all those were a success. As for Venezuela did you forget the sanctions and oil prices drop? And North Korea has had sanctions for decades just because they are communists." "Redistributing just destroys all incentive to work." "We are automating everything anyway. We will need to redistribute money to a growing unemployed / underemployed class." "Universal health care results in death panels and long waits. The government dictates how much doctors can charge and this stifles innovation --" "-- and the USA is an outlier in how much we spend on healthcare, because there is no collective bargaining the prices down" "Yeah and also no death panels. Look at the wait times in other countries--" "As opposed to the infinite wait times in the USA for those who have 'access' but can't afford to even do a basic preventative checkup? And even if we remove those, the wait times in the USA are atrocious too. And other countries have more doctors per capita and more hospital beds too. Medicare gets better prices than almost all smaller insurers." "We get BETTER doctors and beds. The USA leads the world in medical innovation precisely because providers are not squeezed like they are by Amazon, Apple and other monopolies, so it attracts innovation from around the world and peopel vote with their feet" "Well maybe if you abolished drug patents innovatio could come from all over the world instead of the chilling effects we have today. Open source beats closed in the long run and Open source Drugs would beat big pharma in the long tail whose plight isn't even worth pursuing for these guys. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants, why is medicine different than science?" Ayn Rand: "Stop robbing a man of the product of his own mind. I DID build that!" "But living in the 21st century who do we compensate for all the advances throughout human history that preceded us? Can't we accept that this is a free gift and redistribute the wealth?" "Socialist!" "You support Billionaires!" "No I don't, billionaires are the product of government favors and I want to shrink government" "Then abolish patents" "No that is intellectual property" Etc :)