3 ms·

There was a belief between the 70s and early 90s that less economic security among workers would not only make them less likely to strike but would also shape t

There was a belief between the 70s and early 90s that less economic security among workers would not only make them less likely to strike but would also shape them behaviorally so they’d be more likely to get (And stay) married and attend church while being less likely to have children out of wedlock, gamble, and participate in anti-social risky behavior. The thinking at the time was the American worker was soft and decadent - thanks in part by the unions - and that was the ultimate cause of the social changes, unrest and malaise from the previous and current decade. It was a massive social engineering experiment that backfired spectacularly.

jacobolus 7y ago
> There was a belief [...] Who had this belief? I have never in my life heard someone claim that economic insecurity leads to more marriages, more stable families, and less other risk taking. Who exactly was doing this “social engineering experiment”? My impression is rather that various corporate interests with influence in one major political party tried to cut down unions, labor laws, consumer protections, antitrust law, etc. as a way to save money and avoid legal liability, not really caring too much about the broader societal implications. Alongside that, there was also a “tough on crime” movement, and lots of racist/nativist agitation, because fear is an effective way to drive votes.
- spamizbad 7y ago
  Who? A certain strain of Reagan/Bush conservative intellectuals of that era. David Frum’s 1994 book “Dead Right” talks about it briefly (he mostly lambasts it from the right). It should be mentioned this view fell into the memory hole of politics after Clinton’s victories in the 90s. For obvious reasons for being both wrong and politically toxic for supply-siders.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    The documentary Century of Self (re: Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays) gets into this type of thing, and many, many others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Full: https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s 10 minute trailer/summary: https://youtu.be/D_0g1RUQMVQ https://youtu.be/D_0g1RUQMVQ If someone wants to check out the above political aspect, fast forward to the 3 hour mark or so. Fair warning, this would be typically filed under conspiracy theories / propaganda by most people, but even so, it is by far one of the most compelling ones I've seen. It very much advocates for the common man, and I believe makes a decent case. It certainly has had a major effect on the way I view how the world works, but YMMV.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    > A certain strain of Reagan/Bush conservative intellectuals of that era. This is a very vague description. Maybe you can provide some specific names and ideally some citations people directly making this argument? For instance, saying that less employment security would lead to more stable marriages? I was a young child during the Bush I presidency, so I wasn’t really aware of philosophical debates among conservative “intellectuals” at the time, but my impression from afterward is that the (disingenuous) claim was always that getting rid of unions, privatizing infrastructure and institutions, halting antitrust enforcement, gutting labor laws, forcing welfare recipients to get jobs ASAP, etc. would spur innovation, help small businesses, grow the economy, and ultimately increase wages and wealth for average residents.

jacobolus 7y ago

> There was a belief [...] Who had this belief? I have never in my life heard someone claim that economic insecurity leads to more marriages, more stable families, and less other risk taking. Who exactly was doing this “social engineering experiment”? My impression is rather that various corporate interests with influence in one major political party tried to cut down unions, labor laws, consumer protections, antitrust law, etc. as a way to save money and avoid legal liability, not really caring too much about the broader societal implications. Alongside that, there was also a “tough on crime” movement, and lots of racist/nativist agitation, because fear is an effective way to drive votes.

spamizbad 7y ago
Who? A certain strain of Reagan/Bush conservative intellectuals of that era. David Frum’s 1994 book “Dead Right” talks about it briefly (he mostly lambasts it from the right). It should be mentioned this view fell into the memory hole of politics after Clinton’s victories in the 90s. For obvious reasons for being both wrong and politically toxic for supply-siders.
- mistermann 7y ago
  The documentary Century of Self (re: Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays) gets into this type of thing, and many, many others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Full: https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s 10 minute trailer/summary: https://youtu.be/D_0g1RUQMVQ https://youtu.be/D_0g1RUQMVQ If someone wants to check out the above political aspect, fast forward to the 3 hour mark or so. Fair warning, this would be typically filed under conspiracy theories / propaganda by most people, but even so, it is by far one of the most compelling ones I've seen. It very much advocates for the common man, and I believe makes a decent case. It certainly has had a major effect on the way I view how the world works, but YMMV.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  > A certain strain of Reagan/Bush conservative intellectuals of that era. This is a very vague description. Maybe you can provide some specific names and ideally some citations people directly making this argument? For instance, saying that less employment security would lead to more stable marriages? I was a young child during the Bush I presidency, so I wasn’t really aware of philosophical debates among conservative “intellectuals” at the time, but my impression from afterward is that the (disingenuous) claim was always that getting rid of unions, privatizing infrastructure and institutions, halting antitrust enforcement, gutting labor laws, forcing welfare recipients to get jobs ASAP, etc. would spur innovation, help small businesses, grow the economy, and ultimately increase wages and wealth for average residents.