3 ms·

> Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. s/Socialism

> Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. s/Socialism/Unions/; s/America/Tech/; s/poor/workers/; s/millionaires/billionaire founders/

CryptoPunk 7y ago
Unions did take root in America. For a time all major industrial sectors were dominated by unions. It resulted in America losing its manufacturing edge and seeing most manufacturing migrate to Asia. The entire passenger rail service also went bankrupt due to the demands of the Brotherhoods, which had a stranglehold on the industry. Today, besides a few notable exceptions like Hollywood and the screen actors guild, unions are only growing in the public sector, and that's because taxpayers are forced to subsidize their inefficiency. Also, socialism did take root in America. Look at the percentage of GDP consumed by government spending since 1900. It's steadily grown, especially on social welfare programs. America paid a very heavy price to gain real world experience with unions/socialism. Let's hope that after paying the price from that century-long mistake, it learns a lesson.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Interestingly enough, America's manufacturing prowress also coincided with the prowress of unions. It was the rise of the executive class that doomed both America's manufacturing and its unions. It turns out that when the people who don't actually make anything have total leverage, they do a good job of fucking everything up. The entire passenger rail service also went bankrupt due to the demands of the Brotherhoods, which had a stranglehold on the industry. This is simply false. Passenger rail service went bankrupt as a result of many forces, including the rise of the automobile and the dominance of the cargo transport industry in America, which owns almost all of the rail lines in the US and prioritizes freight shipping over passenger conveyance.
  - masonic 7y ago
    America's manufacturing prowress also coincided with the prowress of unions. It coincided with World War II and its aftermath. You're confusing cause with effect. And I think the word you want is "prowess".
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    No, American manufacturing started losing its competitive edge in the heydey of unions. It is only because American manufacturing saw a market decline that union membership rates in the private sector declined. When US manufacturing was expanding the fastest was when unions had no power, in the late 19th century, and that was also when wages were increasing at their fastest rate. Unlike the post-war wage growth, the wage growth of the late 19th century did not come at the expense of the industry that was providing those wages. >>This is simply false. Passenger rail service went bankrupt as a result of many forces You should read up on the agreement that the brotherhoods forced on the passenger rail lines and what that did to their financial position. The growing power of the brotherhoods is primarily what did the rail lines in.

CryptoPunk 7y ago

Unions did take root in America. For a time all major industrial sectors were dominated by unions. It resulted in America losing its manufacturing edge and seeing most manufacturing migrate to Asia. The entire passenger rail service also went bankrupt due to the demands of the Brotherhoods, which had a stranglehold on the industry. Today, besides a few notable exceptions like Hollywood and the screen actors guild, unions are only growing in the public sector, and that's because taxpayers are forced to subsidize their inefficiency. Also, socialism did take root in America. Look at the percentage of GDP consumed by government spending since 1900. It's steadily grown, especially on social welfare programs. America paid a very heavy price to gain real world experience with unions/socialism. Let's hope that after paying the price from that century-long mistake, it learns a lesson.

gamblor956 7y ago
Interestingly enough, America's manufacturing prowress also coincided with the prowress of unions. It was the rise of the executive class that doomed both America's manufacturing and its unions. It turns out that when the people who don't actually make anything have total leverage, they do a good job of fucking everything up. The entire passenger rail service also went bankrupt due to the demands of the Brotherhoods, which had a stranglehold on the industry. This is simply false. Passenger rail service went bankrupt as a result of many forces, including the rise of the automobile and the dominance of the cargo transport industry in America, which owns almost all of the rail lines in the US and prioritizes freight shipping over passenger conveyance.
- masonic 7y ago
  America's manufacturing prowress also coincided with the prowress of unions. It coincided with World War II and its aftermath. You're confusing cause with effect. And I think the word you want is "prowess".
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  No, American manufacturing started losing its competitive edge in the heydey of unions. It is only because American manufacturing saw a market decline that union membership rates in the private sector declined. When US manufacturing was expanding the fastest was when unions had no power, in the late 19th century, and that was also when wages were increasing at their fastest rate. Unlike the post-war wage growth, the wage growth of the late 19th century did not come at the expense of the industry that was providing those wages. >>This is simply false. Passenger rail service went bankrupt as a result of many forces You should read up on the agreement that the brotherhoods forced on the passenger rail lines and what that did to their financial position. The growing power of the brotherhoods is primarily what did the rail lines in.