Industrial revolution sweatshop pay why

[Lights]

Heyy I've been getting into conversations about minimum wage lately and have a question on how to argue why getting rid of minimum wage would not result in sweatshop type conditions that we saw in the USA during the industrial revolution with things such as child labor and low pay. 

Or rather specifically why was the pay so abhorrent back then in the USA without the minimum wage~? Bad working conditions and bad pay. 

There was still competition and competing companies and it didn't result in higher paying jobs. 

What was the roadblock~? 

 

Bonus question: Stefan says the state has no money-- meaning that the money is all from us through forced taxing I presume--- but doesn't government sectors also create and make money such as the federal postal office through package sales and stamps ect

[Goldenages]

23 minutes ago, Lights said:

Stefan says the state has no money-- and that the money is all from us --- but doesn't government sectors also create and make money such as the federal postal office through package sales and stamps ect

Yes. But with what right does the state have a monopoly for this?

 

25 minutes ago, Lights said:

Heyy I've been getting into conversations about minimum wage lately and have a question on how to argue why getting rid of minimum wage would not result in sweatshop type conditions that we saw in the USA during the industrial revolution with things such as child labor and low pay. 

Or rather specifically why was the pay so abhorrent back then in the USA without the minimum wage~? Bad working conditions and bad pay. 

There was still competition and competing companies and it didn't result in higher paying jobs. 

What was the roadblock~? 

There was an enormous rise in wages and wealth. And yes, industrialization does not start with turbine blades and nuclear power plants. I just know the history in Europe - it started with cloth and clothes. Before the first factorys were built all clothes were handmade, and poor people wore them till they decayed on the body, cause they were expensive. So the first shirts, trousers etc. had to be produced cheap, simply because in the beginning there was nobody who could afford a high price. But within years and a few decades both wages and wealth grew, and in Paris opened the first big store, Le Bon Marche , still existing today

In this first decades the middle class came into existence. Growth and competiton between corporations was so intense that the wages rose because there was a shortage, thus a high demand, for workers. Thats the normal way when the state does not enforce low skilled migration, just to claim thereafter that we all are responsible for so many poor people and of course have to pay.

Child labour was the norm throughout the whole history. Before the industrial revolution a child could work in agriculture, cadge, starve, or steal. Then they could work in factorys, as soon as wages were high enough for the parents to take care of their childs, child labour came to an end and better education could start. It was - and is - capitalism who freed the poor. And it was - and is - capitalism who produces wealth, and as soon as there is wealth the Socialists come and claim it is their merit.

Why weren´t there any Socialists in the middle ages?  I mean, circumstances were really terrible back then.

Today, with so much low skilled migration in a more and more demanding work environment, of course there is low demand for this kind of work and of course wages cannot rise. But thats an effect of a state policy and not an effect of the free market. Before 1914 in Europe, you did not need any passport to travel from one country to another. You did not need any documents to get hired abroad, if a company needed you they hired you. Despite lunatic Kings and Emperors economical freedom was unrivaled high in pre war Europe, and til the moment the government started propaganda there was no hate between countries.

 

regards

Andi

[Lights]

3 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Yes. But with what right does the state have a monopoly for this?

What would you say to someone who said "yea but there's 3 other post offices like fed ex therefore it's not a huge monopoly"

[RichardY]

There are sweatshops already in the UK, paying below the minimum wage. Similar corruption in agriculture, "if" you're connected you can sometimes get around taxes. In Manchester, Primark(a low cost retailer) was purchasing clothing from sweatshops there.

Had a German ancestor come to work in Britain in the textile industry pre 1914(now all gone). Steel manufacture gone, highest electric prices(tax) in Europe.

@Goldenages Some children worked under contract in merchant houses, York being one popular place. Watched a BBC documentary about it called "Children of the middle-ages". An example of a contract mentioned no Drinking at the Tavern, no fornicating with the women of the house, no dice. Under pain of having the contract double from 12 years to 24.

[ofd]

Quote

There was still competition and competing companies and it didn't result in higher paying jobs. 

What was the roadblock~? 

Supply and demand and the fight against unionisation of labour. There was an influx of cheap labour and labour unions were fought with the help of the state. The lower limit for wage in the absence of labour unions is the amount of money needed for a worker not to starve and to have a place to sleep.

[Goldenages]

8 hours ago, Lights said:

What would you say to someone who said "yea but there's 3 other post offices like fed ex therefore it's not a huge monopoly"

I would say it is not the duty of the state to run business, as less as it is the duty of business to pass laws.

regards

Andi

[Garrett]

20 hours ago, Lights said:

Bonus question: Stefan says the state has no money-- meaning that the money is all from us through forced taxing I presume--- but doesn't government sectors also create and make money such as the federal postal office through package sales and stamps ect

Last time I asked, the post office swears it doesn't get a dime of tax money, and that it operates financially independently of the government. I wouldn't be surprised to find they got a direct cash infusion bailout somewhere along the line, under the radar or not. But at least in concept it is independent of the government.

[Lights]

Right well I got in a discussion about how amazon got a government subsidie to work with the federal post office to get packages $2.00 off. And I was saying that we are funding that through taxes and the person was arguing that the money is not from our taxes at all but is from the post office getting more business through amazon therefore being able to afford the $2.00 discount because of the increased business contract with amazon. And she was arguing that the post office makes money and isn't propped up by our taxes 

[Goldenages]

Well, I can´t tell you wether this is true in that particular case.

But I can tell you that in Brussels they have several offices installed for lobbying, i.e. corruption. Years ago there was a discussion about environmental friendly illuminants - the bureaucrats wanted to get rid of the bulbs. Several big companies invested in research for a replacement and offered so called energy saving lamps, way more expensive, spreading scary light, and containing mercury(!).  From the instructions: "In case your new, environmental friendly lamp brakes, open the window, close the door and wait for at least 30 minutes til the mercury is vaporized". (No, I never used them. I importet a whole bunch of normal bulbs from Romania.)

So normally, these so called environmental friendly bulbs would never have a chance on the market. And here is where lobbying and the unholy alliance of politics and economy kicks in: New laws were created, and the sell of lightbulbs was forbidden. Some clever companies, however, still sold them for several years - they declared their lightbulbs as small ovens, a nice additional heat, and as a side effect, they advertised, they even produce some light

Thats just one of many, many, examples. Every few months they come with another crazy idea, recently in gastronomy. Many small entrepenuers can not fullfill the new regulations and have to give up, taken over by some big players - thats the way overregulated states go. Situation in the US seems to be similar, in one of his last videos Stefan mentioned the sum that is paid for bribery, its huge.

Centuries ago the civilized world managed to separate state and church. The next step is to separate state and economy, and this is done best by getting rid of the state at all.

regards

Andi

[Kikker]

1 hour ago, Goldenages said:

But I can tell you that in Brussels they have several offices installed for lobbying, i.e. corruption. Years ago there was a discussion about environmental friendly illuminants - the bureaucrats wanted to get rid of the bulbs. Several big companies invested in research for a replacement and offered so called energy saving lamps, way more expensive, spreading scary light, and containing mercury(!).  From the instructions: "In case your new, environmental friendly lamp brakes, open the window, close the door and wait for at least 30 minutes til the mercury is vaporized". (No, I never used them. I importet a whole bunch of normal bulbs from Romania.)

They where 175% more expensive but about 600-800% more durable, meaning it's cheaper in the long run. The color spectrum is experienced as less pleasant but it should achieve any brightness a normal bulb can after a few seconds. It's energy efficiency is from 40 watt to 8 watt meaning it's 500% more efficient. The mercury is potentially dangerous. The argument is that it compensates it's own mercury pollution by reducing the need for energy plants which in the case of coal produces mercury pollution. The total mercury pollution should be 200% or so more if your country has a lot of other energy sources.

1 hour ago, Goldenages said:

So normally, these so called environmental friendly bulbs would never have a chance on the market. And here is where lobbying and the unholy alliance of politics and economy kicks in: New laws were created, and the sell of lightbulbs was forbidden. Some clever companies, however, still sold them for several years - they declared their lightbulbs as small ovens, a nice additional heat, and as a side effect, they advertised, they even produce some light

But you failed to mention the import tariffs raised on Compact fluorescent lamps until 2008 under the normal light bulb lobby to protect the European Market. You just experienced a power switch in an government agency.

[Goldenages]

31 minutes ago, Kikker said:

They where 175% more expensive but about 600-800% more durable, meaning it's cheaper in the long run. The color spectrum is experienced as less pleasant but it should achieve any brightness a normal bulb can after a few seconds. It's energy efficiency is from 40 watt to 8 watt meaning it's 500% more efficient. The mercury is potentially dangerous. The argument is that it compensates it's own mercury pollution by reducing the need for energy plants which in the case of coal produces mercury pollution. The total mercury pollution should be 200% or so more if your country has a lot of other energy sources.

Well, if they are so magnificent - why did they make extra laws to protect them?

regards

Andi

[Kikker]

Just noticed I was a bit obscure, I meant that mercury pollution generally increases with the new lamps.

51 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

Well, if they are so magnificent - why did they make extra laws to protect them?

regards

Andi

I'm just speculating because I'm not going to research the issue in detail. But I think you can imagine a push from Germany for a greener Europa, abolishing the import tariffs. Then when they decide the market was changing too slowly (probably estimated at decades) because of the already established brands they decided to campaign in favor of the new lamp. Add a little lobby money from established overseas companies (or maybe domestic looking to destroy competition) and you get a situation where report after report is produced which outlines the advantages of the new lamps, occasionally obscuring negatives. Public opinion changes, a few major companies which produce both lamps are happy to switch completely for compensation (probably a few bribes) and the path is free to ban the normal lamp.

In short, it fits the green agenda and government action hastens (maybe causes) the transition pretty well in this case.

[Tyler H]

The post office gets ~$18B In subsidies every year. 

[Tyler H]

Also, if the government could run a profitable business they wouldn't need to steal the initial "investment".  

[Jsbrads]

On 9/9/2017 at 7:45 AM, Tyler H said:

The post office gets ~$18B In subsidies every year. 

Tyler is right, Post Offices have all sorts of government entanglements besides for quiet subsidies during profitable years.

post offices' land was purchased by Feds, they use the land rent free from local jurisdictions.

And the Post office gets bailed out by Feds every time they screw up and wind up with a budget shortfall. 

[Jsbrads]

Every sweat shop offers the lowest wages they can get away with, but they always offer more than the alternate opportunities in a Free Market situation. 

Average Americans living on less than $1 a day in the 1800s, fled the poorest farms for jobs that were less dangerous, less hard and better paying in the cities (some got paid $1.25/day, but it was consistent work and usually easier than farm work).

every time you stop a company from offering jobs at $1.25/day, you must understand you are dooming those people to remain stuck at $1/day and their jobs are often much harder and much more dangerous than the sweat shop opportunity.

[smarterthanone]

You have to understand money is not an actual thing, its a way to measure value which is just a kind of subjective nebula for the most part. The reason we are so much better off now than a long time ago is because of technology. Imaging there is an alternate universe. There is a huge economic collapse and everyone makes half what they make now. So the average Joe instead of making $28k per year now only makes $14k per year... BUUUUTTTT also in this alternate universe technology is advanced about 200 years. So while Joe only makes $14k, a computer for home use is a 20 core, super computer by todays standards and only costs $50. So Joe is still better off, why? because of technology. Technology is really just how to get more value for less costs. This is why poor schmucks today have cell phones and flat screen tvs and an old jalopy to drive, in many ways they live better than Kings of ancient times!!!!!

The other thing to think about is as technology increases, robots and automation will take over. In the short term yes there are displacement issues but forget that for a minute. Imagine there are no more burger flippers, or shit jobs at all. No postmen, no stock workers at the store, cashiers etc. Now every job is going to produce more value because each job like say an engineer is worth more than minimum wage. So in theory, everyone will forget there was such a thing as burger flippers and everyone will assume engineer assistant is the shittiest job available. So everyone produces more value, period, because there is no such job that produces less. Just like there is no such thing as a cotton picker as a job anymore. What do stupid people do? They will do shit jobs still, clean toilets when the toilet cleaner bots break but the repairman didnt get there yet, prostitute, charge for backyard wrestling, rely on charity etc. BUT see the top point, they will still be better off than the poor people are today.