At 9/15/12 09:58 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 9/14/12 07:06 PM, Warforger wrote:
The economic growth back then was shit in comparison to today,Um, it was greatest period of economic growth in American history
That was unequally distributed and was frequently disrupted by some of the worst recessions and depressions we've ever been in. By comparison in the 40's and 50's after Liberal programs like the G.I. Bill the nation created its large Middle Class out of the shell of the old economic system.
Wages were terrible? America was basically a new country starting from scratch. Without the capital accumulation that takes centuries, of course wages aren't going to be good. The point is, the growth was enormous. That's what matters.
The point is on the other hand was that growth was concentrated in the rich. They could have payed people more but they didn't. It was a terrible time to live in if you weren't rich.
pro-tip; EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD HAD SHITTY WAGES. That was life. Except, nowhere else were things improving as much as in america.
Actually things were pretty well in the early 1800's, but things actually became worse in the Gilded age. For example, the Lowell factory system developed in the early 1800's, the conditions were good, the pay was good and the workers were housed. As the Gilded age commenced this was all the opposite.
Seriously though, if the taxation adn regulartory structure that is in place was enforced back then, america would never have gotten off the ground in the first place and would be a third-world country. Yes, really, because the gilded age made america industrialised, which is what makes higher wages and better standards of living possible.
Funny, because America achieved its greatest point in power and economic status right after that happened in the 40's and 50's. Otherwise, going by this logic Stalin was great because he industrialized the Soviet Union, and higher wages and better standard living isn't possible without it therefore he was a great leader.
This at the end of the day was not even mentioning working conditions, which often led to things like I said before with Sawdust in meat.This has nothing to do with "regulations". Because America was in the middle of economic DEVELOPMENT they didn't have the productivity that they do today and so would have starved if they didn't eat shit.
.....What? Companies could have easily say kept sawdust out of meat but since it was cheaper not to do so they kept it. This un-regulated atmosphere lead to countless people dying due to tainted food which they had little other choice of getting.
Overall economic booms did not benefit everyone evenly, wages for the average worker would go up slightly but then go up ALOTa lot*
This is why you don't send your kids to public school.
Yes, public schools crank out retard children, who are retarded because they make a couple of offhand spelling errors on a forum they can't edit.
In any case, the period of real wage increases of the poor during the gilded age has never been matched since. There are no absolutes in economics, only relatives, and relatively speaking, the poor never saw a greater rate of improvement after the gilded age.
.....Right because after the 1930's poor people just began disappearing because they began joining the Middle Class, by the 1960's they made up 20% of the population and by the end of the 60's due to both the programs of Johnson and Kennedy as well as the booming economy they only made up 10% of the population. During the Gilded age they made gains because they made up the majority of the population, which they would do so until the late 40's. By the way, their wages didn't keep up with prices, thus for all this talk of wages it didn't matter at the end of the day.
more for the upper class, this if of course why Labor Unions became large (despite winning no strikes) this is also why during the subsequent period criticism of Capitalism was very acceptable and why Socialist organizations reached such performance as taking a couple of seats in the House or taking the governorship of cities.This just means there was inequality, it does not mean that the lasseiz-faire system was not optimal.
........What? The problem was that the lasseiz-faire system made this inequality worse, hence why it wasn't very popular.
So yah, in today's economic world things aren't great, but dear lord in the Gilded age you ate shit and who knows even literally back then. It was fucking terrible. To compliment on it being a success and calling the modern economy crap is just flat out ignorant.I don't think you understand, the economy of today is only possible because of the gilded age.
NO COUNTRY was ever good right from the beginning. No system could have made live comparable to today during the gilded age without killing off most people and giving their resources to the ramining few, but this would have meant that there wouldn't have been economic development in the future.
Economic development had been going on during the entire time. But you're missing the entire point. The economics of the Gilded age were terrible, inequality was rampant and growing, wages did not keep up with prices, labor unions were outright ignored and so many people held a terrible living standard.
I really don't understand how you don't get it that until the means of production are built up, you can't have modern standards of living. And it was precisely the guilded age that led to this building up.
The reason things are so much better now has nothing to do with regulations, but because of productivity. We can produce way, way more things now at much better quality and much lower cost because of centuries of capital investment.
yah you've completely lost track of what I was saying. When businesses were un-regulated they made many practices which screwed over the consumer and the worker, regulations are now in place which keep them from doing such bullshit.