3 ms·

You’d think that they’d stop working if they saw 1/4th of their compatriots just drop dead.

by Aeolun 3y ago

mschuster91 3y ago
It was a well-paid job for the time. Most of dangerous or otherwise physically taxing construction jobs still are well-paid, and for good reason.
- culi 3y ago
  They were paid $2.50 a day. Which is around $91 in today dollars. On top of that wage theft was all too common. And that's a wage that they had to fight to unionize to get up to
  - Retric 3y ago
    Assuming I am reading this right in 1905 1/4 of male workers over 16 made 8$/week or less. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu56779232&seq=14 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu56779232&seq=1... For unskilled labor 6 days a week at 2.50/day = 15$/week which would have been quite tempting especially if the risks where unclear. It’s worth remembering when doing inflation calculations just how poor people used to be. Take the average person’s budget today and remove their car, gadgets, AC, subscriptions, most of the pricy food options, etc. Healthcare was cheap and largely ineffective, collage was rare and minimalist by todays standards. Most of what people spend money on today simply didn’t exist so not having it was normal.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > It’s worth remembering when doing inflation calculations just how poor people used to be. And also, how much of the wealth created by the employees ended up in their pockets vs. the pockets of the owners, and how the standards of living were. Basically, back then with such a job you could afford a place to live, to have kids, a wife to take care of housework and, post 1930-ish, a car. Today? Most of my generation struggles to make rent because we're being bled dry.
      - kiba 3y ago
        Lifestyle inflation, urban planning, and choices makes living a quality life more difficult than it should be. You're able to afford a larger house and a car or two, but you're also spending more money than necessary on transportation and housing. Buying a car is expensive and so is the road built for cars. Trains are more expensive than a car, but its cost can be amortized across many riders. Housing is a problem of both government and market dysfunction and is directly tied to our transportation woes. People are tied to the idea of real estate as an investment which means they often opposed development. Planners continued to zone only SFH, and made middle housing illegal. They also don't do mixed zoning which improve efficient utilization of land. I supposed if income goes to workers more, they would just push the housing price higher. It can't be fixed unless we build sufficient housing.
        Retric 3y ago
        Lifestyle inflation is why people don’t feel so much wealthier than their grandparents, but housing isn’t the economic drain it seems like because so much of its value doesn’t require resources to create. It’s mostly redistribution of income from workers to other people and as such it gets into politics. Well that and the giant ball of suck associated with long commutes, but I am kind of hoping there’s going to be more pushback on that due to people working from home during COVID. Even those who still needed to go in had vastly less traffic.
        kiba 3y ago
        If you increases the income of workers that's going to go to right back into housing, unless you made changes on how the housing market works.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        And if we are talking late 1800's/early 1900's, Taxes were essentially non-existent, so people kept and spent more of their money. Taxes as a % of GDP was in the 5-10% range, opposed to ~40% today. They also didn't have to worry about the same healthcare costs, as they were healthier in general, and the options were far fewer when sick.

You’d think that they’d stop working if they saw 1/4th of their compatriots just drop dead.

by Aeolun 3y ago

You’d think that they’d stop working if they saw 1/4th of their compatriots just drop dead.

It was a well-paid job for the time. Most of dangerous or otherwise physically taxing construction jobs still are well-paid, and for good reason.

culi 3y ago
They were paid $2.50 a day. Which is around $91 in today dollars. On top of that wage theft was all too common. And that's a wage that they had to fight to unionize to get up to
- Retric 3y ago
  Assuming I am reading this right in 1905 1/4 of male workers over 16 made 8$/week or less. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu56779232&seq=14 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu56779232&seq=1... For unskilled labor 6 days a week at 2.50/day = 15$/week which would have been quite tempting especially if the risks where unclear. It’s worth remembering when doing inflation calculations just how poor people used to be. Take the average person’s budget today and remove their car, gadgets, AC, subscriptions, most of the pricy food options, etc. Healthcare was cheap and largely ineffective, collage was rare and minimalist by todays standards. Most of what people spend money on today simply didn’t exist so not having it was normal.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > It’s worth remembering when doing inflation calculations just how poor people used to be. And also, how much of the wealth created by the employees ended up in their pockets vs. the pockets of the owners, and how the standards of living were. Basically, back then with such a job you could afford a place to live, to have kids, a wife to take care of housework and, post 1930-ish, a car. Today? Most of my generation struggles to make rent because we're being bled dry.
    - kiba 3y ago
      Lifestyle inflation, urban planning, and choices makes living a quality life more difficult than it should be. You're able to afford a larger house and a car or two, but you're also spending more money than necessary on transportation and housing. Buying a car is expensive and so is the road built for cars. Trains are more expensive than a car, but its cost can be amortized across many riders. Housing is a problem of both government and market dysfunction and is directly tied to our transportation woes. People are tied to the idea of real estate as an investment which means they often opposed development. Planners continued to zone only SFH, and made middle housing illegal. They also don't do mixed zoning which improve efficient utilization of land. I supposed if income goes to workers more, they would just push the housing price higher. It can't be fixed unless we build sufficient housing.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Lifestyle inflation is why people don’t feel so much wealthier than their grandparents, but housing isn’t the economic drain it seems like because so much of its value doesn’t require resources to create. It’s mostly redistribution of income from workers to other people and as such it gets into politics. Well that and the giant ball of suck associated with long commutes, but I am kind of hoping there’s going to be more pushback on that due to people working from home during COVID. Even those who still needed to go in had vastly less traffic.
        kiba 3y ago
        If you increases the income of workers that's going to go to right back into housing, unless you made changes on how the housing market works.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      And if we are talking late 1800's/early 1900's, Taxes were essentially non-existent, so people kept and spent more of their money. Taxes as a % of GDP was in the 5-10% range, opposed to ~40% today. They also didn't have to worry about the same healthcare costs, as they were healthier in general, and the options were far fewer when sick.