8 ms·

Reminds me of Henry Ford: > The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socializati

Reminds me of Henry Ford: > The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#3b27e5f9766d https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-stor...

smacktoward 7y ago
And the Pullman company famous for its luxury railroad cars, whose paternalistic policies in the “model town” established outside Chicago to house its workers led directly to one of the great industrial crises in American history, the Pullman strike of 1894: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
- ryanmarsh 7y ago
  From the Wikipedia article you reference: "When his company laid off workers and lowered wages, it did not reduce rents, and the workers called for a strike." Was it the paternalistic policies or economic factors that caused the strike?
  - CalChris 7y ago
    Both. The economic conditions of 1894 were the precipitating cause. The paternalistic policies were a contributing cause. Pullman, Illinois was the definition of a company town. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-labor_day_9-2 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-lab...
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    The rent problem was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the paternalism was what inclined the workers to respond to it so forcefully. The workers in Pullman were already frustrated with the company, and then the rents-and-wages issue pushed the situation over the edge.
corporate_shi11 7y ago
Incentivizing immigrants to learn English and learn about American culture are positive for the society as a whole, as they help encourage the process of integration. Remember that a nation works best when there is a shared culture and a shared language - these things being inseparable - which encourage unity and community.
- avs733 7y ago
  for profit, non democratic entities, where a single individual uses their access to capital to dictate what moral behaviors are positive for society are not. The fact that the narratives in most countries continue to be built from the basic assumption that those with power are superior is a pretty basic failing of the promise of the internet in my mind.
- partlysean 7y ago
  I reject that premise. Embracing cultural homogeny encourages isolation and resentment, not unity and community. A nation can’t operate at its best without embracing diverse cultures and language. To do otherwise would leave us with incestuous, tired ideas. Stripping away unique cultural experience for the sake of “integration” hurts everyone. There is nothing to be gained and a whole lot to lose.
  - refurb 7y ago
    You seem to be confusing a strong culture with not embracing new ideas. Those aren’t intrinsically linked. Encouraging immigrants to adopt Western values like gender equality, support for democratic ideas is a good thing, not a bad thing.
    - goldcd 7y ago
      The part that concerns me, is that this always seems to be one-sided - "You will be better if you adopt our values" Rarely does anybody make the statement that "My adoption of your values will improve me" Implicit subtext is that, all of my values are better than yours. Strikes me that this is probably quite unlikely.
dehrmann 7y ago
It's not that much different than insurance companies and a lot of employers paying people to go to the gym.
- brewdad 7y ago
  It's one thing if an employer kicks $250 my way for joining the wellness program. It's entirely different when half of my compensation or even my job itself depends on it.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    It's already troublesome when the employer gets their hands on employees' health information. It's none of their business, and the 250 dollars are just pocket change. You have to give it to U-Haul: you know where you stand, if you smoke or vape you can't work there, and if you don't they won't spy on you beyond drug and nicotine testing.
    - magduf 7y ago
      I disagree; I think it IS their business. Healthier employees cost less to insure, and health insurance is a large cost of employing people. If the American people don't like this, then they need to vote for health insurance to be totally separate from employment. But Americans won't do that, because that's "socialism". So we're getting exactly what we've voted for. If employers are expected to subsidize your health insurance costs, they have every right to your health information.
      - derefr 7y ago
        I think you and the person you're replying to are in agreement; what they very likely meant by "health is none of an employer's business" is that the act of insuring people should not be part of an employer's business.
        magduf 7y ago

smacktoward 7y ago

And the Pullman company famous for its luxury railroad cars, whose paternalistic policies in the “model town” established outside Chicago to house its workers led directly to one of the great industrial crises in American history, the Pullman strike of 1894: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

ryanmarsh 7y ago
From the Wikipedia article you reference: "When his company laid off workers and lowered wages, it did not reduce rents, and the workers called for a strike." Was it the paternalistic policies or economic factors that caused the strike?
- CalChris 7y ago
  Both. The economic conditions of 1894 were the precipitating cause. The paternalistic policies were a contributing cause. Pullman, Illinois was the definition of a company town. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-labor_day_9-2 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-lab...
- smacktoward 7y ago
  The rent problem was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the paternalism was what inclined the workers to respond to it so forcefully. The workers in Pullman were already frustrated with the company, and then the rents-and-wages issue pushed the situation over the edge.

corporate_shi11 7y ago

Incentivizing immigrants to learn English and learn about American culture are positive for the society as a whole, as they help encourage the process of integration. Remember that a nation works best when there is a shared culture and a shared language - these things being inseparable - which encourage unity and community.

avs733 7y ago
for profit, non democratic entities, where a single individual uses their access to capital to dictate what moral behaviors are positive for society are not. The fact that the narratives in most countries continue to be built from the basic assumption that those with power are superior is a pretty basic failing of the promise of the internet in my mind.
partlysean 7y ago
I reject that premise. Embracing cultural homogeny encourages isolation and resentment, not unity and community. A nation can’t operate at its best without embracing diverse cultures and language. To do otherwise would leave us with incestuous, tired ideas. Stripping away unique cultural experience for the sake of “integration” hurts everyone. There is nothing to be gained and a whole lot to lose.
- refurb 7y ago
  You seem to be confusing a strong culture with not embracing new ideas. Those aren’t intrinsically linked. Encouraging immigrants to adopt Western values like gender equality, support for democratic ideas is a good thing, not a bad thing.
  - goldcd 7y ago
    The part that concerns me, is that this always seems to be one-sided - "You will be better if you adopt our values" Rarely does anybody make the statement that "My adoption of your values will improve me" Implicit subtext is that, all of my values are better than yours. Strikes me that this is probably quite unlikely.

dehrmann 7y ago

It's not that much different than insurance companies and a lot of employers paying people to go to the gym.

brewdad 7y ago
It's one thing if an employer kicks $250 my way for joining the wellness program. It's entirely different when half of my compensation or even my job itself depends on it.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  It's already troublesome when the employer gets their hands on employees' health information. It's none of their business, and the 250 dollars are just pocket change. You have to give it to U-Haul: you know where you stand, if you smoke or vape you can't work there, and if you don't they won't spy on you beyond drug and nicotine testing.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I disagree; I think it IS their business. Healthier employees cost less to insure, and health insurance is a large cost of employing people. If the American people don't like this, then they need to vote for health insurance to be totally separate from employment. But Americans won't do that, because that's "socialism". So we're getting exactly what we've voted for. If employers are expected to subsidize your health insurance costs, they have every right to your health information.
    - derefr 7y ago
      I think you and the person you're replying to are in agreement; what they very likely meant by "health is none of an employer's business" is that the act of insuring people should not be part of an employer's business.
      - magduf 7y ago