4 ms·

> Nobody gave up any rights to work on the railroad. Because they didn't have any. Like the right for equal pay. The right to a safe working environment. The r

> Nobody gave up any rights to work on the railroad. Because they didn't have any. Like the right for equal pay. The right to a safe working environment. The right to adequate breaks. The right to insurance etc. You think they had the same rights as you do today? I'm not saying the project was a bad project, it was amazing. I'm saying that the speed of its development isn't something we can long for, without also mentioning it requires conditions which completely suck for its workforce in 1865, just to mention one thing. > The railroad also saved lots of lives. Before the railroad, an estimated 65,000 people died on the Oregon Trail. After, they hopped on a train and arrived intact 3 days later. That's great, I'm happy it was built. You're missing the point. I'm not criticising the project, for its time it was amazing. I'm criticising the fact that it shouldn't be held as a standard for construction today. I'm not sure in what field of work you're in, but I'm sure if you give up half your salary, work twice as hard, take fewer breaks, give up your insurance and workplace safety, that the company could save money, hire more people, get things done faster. But while a project would get doen faster, actual society (i.e., the measure of your wellbeing, which is what much of life is about) would become worse. For example, we can probably build things faster if we took into Bangladeshi labourers and paid them a fraction of our salaries, let them sleep in barracks, give them no health insurance, no workplace safety, see tons of them die. Indeed, it's how Qatar is building out its infrastructure massively at the moment, at breakneck speeds. But it's no example to me of how we should look to construct things today, nor is the transcontinental railroad an example for today, however amazing it was to build in the 1860s.

WalterBright 5y ago
> Because they didn't have any. There were no guards to prevent the workers from dropping their tools and leaving. That is a fundamental right. > I'm criticising the fact that it shouldn't be held as a standard for construction today. A 100 times increase in distance in 10% of the time with no powered construction equipment cannot be explained as merely paying people half as much and not giving medical insurance (though I'm sure they had medical teams on site to do what they could, but medical practice in those days was a bit frightening to us today). There was no intent to grind up workers blood to use as lubricant, and in fact they did many things along the way to reduce worker deaths and injuries. See my other comment about how they cut down on the use of nitro as it was too dangerous, despite being twice as fast as black powder.
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  It's quite interesting how you're completely unwilling to argue the original point (which is that a 1860s construction project is no model for today as it came at a great cost we're not willing to accept, besides being completely incomparable to the modern-day example you gave), but completely willing to argue quite meaningless aspects to the discussion seemingly for the sake of it.

WalterBright 5y ago

> Because they didn't have any. There were no guards to prevent the workers from dropping their tools and leaving. That is a fundamental right. > I'm criticising the fact that it shouldn't be held as a standard for construction today. A 100 times increase in distance in 10% of the time with no powered construction equipment cannot be explained as merely paying people half as much and not giving medical insurance (though I'm sure they had medical teams on site to do what they could, but medical practice in those days was a bit frightening to us today). There was no intent to grind up workers blood to use as lubricant, and in fact they did many things along the way to reduce worker deaths and injuries. See my other comment about how they cut down on the use of nitro as it was too dangerous, despite being twice as fast as black powder.

IkmoIkmo 5y ago
It's quite interesting how you're completely unwilling to argue the original point (which is that a 1860s construction project is no model for today as it came at a great cost we're not willing to accept, besides being completely incomparable to the modern-day example you gave), but completely willing to argue quite meaningless aspects to the discussion seemingly for the sake of it.