engine of souls | forum 3

mre · Senior Member

Assignment #8: Industrialization Webquest

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

2. Is capitalism a socially responsible economic theory?

During the Second Industrial Revolution, capitalism was a socially responsible economic theory because of social mobility, a free enterprise system, and the instilment of desire to improve for an increase in capital and success through the capitalistic platform of individualism.

Capitalism, which is a primary economic theory today used in the United States and around the world is based off of fiscal individualism and relies on a free enterprise system in order for the establishment of competition and bases itself on the private sector’s ownership of capital. During the Second Industrial Revolution, Capitalism, clearly remained socially responsible, or ethical, based on what developed out of it and based on what its principles are.

Capitalism can be best described as socially responsible because of the fairness and equal playing field it provides. Although this may be difficult to see because of capitalism’s ability to divide people into different social classes based on income (lower, middle, upper), everyone has an opportunity to fluctuate based on the success or failure they achieve. It instills a sense of fiscal responsibility in regards to social mobility because if you are smart with your money, you can move up the social ladder; while if you spend your money unwisely, chances are you will go broke and descend. Those who were true examples of the “rags to riches” tradition that is a true example of capitalism at work during the Second Industrial Revolution were two prominent wealthy men, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Carnegie was the son of a washerwoman and a father who worked himself to death in the mills. Carnegie would eventually evolve into wealth for his innovations to the steel industry. Rockefeller himself worked as a youngster on a farm raising turkeys for a neighbor. His fiscal responsibility and success with hard work carried him to be one of the greatest oil producers in the world, as well as one of the worlds wealthiest. Although many claim that capitalism has no stock for immigrants, including during the Second Industrial Revolution, however this statement is inconclusive and false. Take for example David Lawlor, an Irish immigrant who came to the United States in 1872. He started out laboring in the textile mills of Fall River, Massachusetts and worked hard in studying in night school and would eventually become an exceptional advertising executive. Through capitalism’s platform of social mobility with fiscal responsibility and achievement, people like Lawlor were able to ascend in social status.

Another platform of capitalism that makes it so socially responsible is the free enterprise system it establishes. Free Enterprise itself is the backbone of capitalism, for it establishes fair opportunity, competition, and fiscal responsibility. In a free enterprise society, there is loose government regulation, allowing for businesses to have more abundant economic success. More income to a company means more employment opportunities. This is a result of the “trickle down effect” which is a sub theory in capitalism under the free enterprise system. Free Enterprise also offers for competition. In relation to the Second Industrial Revolution, someone like Rockefeller would have to offer the best oil product at a good price in order to attract consumers. This idea of a better product at a better price is a result of capitalism’s competitive theories that drive businesses to create sufficient products at fair prices, offering numerous fiscal benefits for consumers of all social classes during the late 19th century and in modern times.

Capitalism is also socially responsible because it encourages all people to aim for success and try hard not only to prosper, but to survive. It provides fairness in the retrospect for those who work hard to socially mobilize upward, and those who are able to survive and succeed. Although capitalism has been described as an economic theory that only tends to those who reap its benefits such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, while leaving laborers in textile mills and railroads in shambles by socialists such as Eugene V. Debs are false. It is clear that these people did not work their way up and take advantage of further education like people such as David Lawlor, who himself was a textile mill worker, in order to improve their standard of living. Such educational opportunities to improve social status during the late 19th century existed with the great influx of public schools, law schools, medical schools, universities, and dental schools. This time period also saw a great influx of women even taking advantage of these economic and socially mobilizing opportunities. Unlike socialism which is capitalism’s polar opposite and supports redistribution of wealth, capitalism is really what you as an individual make of it. In a capitalistic society, if you chose to work in the factories young and not seek a higher social standing through educational opportunities, then you would not succeed as great obviously as people like Lawlor who sought and partook in education. In summary, capitalism provided drive for success and for a better life for lower class children such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, as well as immigrants such as Lawlor. Capitalism provided for their fair earnings for all of their hard work and fiscal responsibility and although it kept them wealthy above others, in all reality it was the individual who carried himself to his own social status.

Capitalism now and during the 19th century clearly has proven to be an ethical, fair, and socially responsible theory for it provides competitive markets and provides survival for companies who make fiscally intelligent decisions. It also encourages opportunity and social mobility and let’s one decide where he or she wants to stand financially and socially in life by fairly rewarding those who excel in these socially mobilizing opportunities and by rewarding each individual based on their efforts to achieve well paying jobs and success in life.

-- Edited by Justin BRAGA on Thursday 31st of December 2009 04:39:01 PM

-- Edited by Justin BRAGA on Thursday 31st of December 2009 04:39:35 PM

-- Edited by Justin BRAGA on Thursday 31st of December 2009 08:21:51 PM

felicity · Veteran Member

Do you believe that capitalism is the best economic plan for our county, despite the economic crashes that happen every couple of years?

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Justin, does everyone really have an equal opportunity to secede? People with more money obviously have more chances to be successful in life. Is it really equal if a millionaire’s child can get the best teachers and education in the world while most people go to public school?

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Felicity, you seem have the misconception that it is the fault of capitalism. These crises are primarily caused by poor management of money and overly power government regulations. Let us start out with fiscal irresponsibility of people. The reason for these "crashes" that you speak of in the housing market, are because people clearly bought homes they couldn't afford. They did not take into consideration the possibility of losing a job or going through hard times and instead signed their names off on a huge, un- payable house. The second part is government taxes. The United States has one of the highest business taxes in the world. If we were a true capitalistic society that did not have so much government regulation and unionism, large labor companies may stay in this nation rather than going overseas to countries such as China for cheap labor and a primarily un-unionized workforce. Now I'm not saying that workers don't have the right to voice concerns, but unions cause nothing but issues for the companies and in fact the workers too but forcing the companies to pack up and go overseas. In regards to the bank collapse let us look at Federal regulatory legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which was revised under the Clinton Administration. This required banks to give loans, even if they couldn't be paid back to low income people, primarily minorities. In a capitalistic society you buy what you can afford and if you unwisely overspend, you fairly pay the consequences. This country has moved away from capitalism since the Second Industrial Revolution to a more Socialist, regulatory agenda which in part is the cause for much of our current economic distress.

Matt, you seem to forget that the millionaire has earned his money. Clearly he has worked hard in order to gather that much money. Why shouldn't he be able to send his child to a private school? Are you saying that everyone should be required to go to public school? Now this is not to say that public school is bad or whether private school is better, but you should not strip the choice from he who has the opportunity to attain such an education at a private school. You also seem to miss the actual effect of capitalism in public school. Do you realize that there are students who succeed and get full paid scholarships to excellent universities nationwide, and then they move up the social ladder if they get a good paying job. That my friend is capitalism at work.

Cara · Veteran Member

Justin, what about those who are unable to achieve the infamous "rags-to-riches"? Do they deserve to suffer? What if, for example, they can't afford health care? According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." It seems as if the "fend for yourself" attitude of capitalism causes thousands fo deaths in those who are less than fortunate.

Also, in response to your response to Felicity, you said, "If we were a true capitalistic society that did not have so much government regulation and unionism, large labor companies may stay in this nation rather than going overseas to countries such as China for cheap labor and a primarily un-unionized workforce."

Why can't the companies care about the people who work for them rather than just profit margins. It seems as if its workers should be a companies number one priorities because with out the workers, there would be no profit. Henry Ford, a captain of industry in the early 1900's paid his workers good wages, $5 an hour, and gave them reasonable work days, 8 hours a day. The conditions these Chinese workers live are horrid. They are often working in sweatshops, forced to live in cramped company housing, and rarely receive worker's compensation for injuries which occur on the job. It this the kind of workforce you want making your goods?

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Cara, with all due respect, your reasoning is self contradictory and in some aspects a complete misunderstanding. First off, you mention health care not being accessible enough; however do you realize that true capitalism would actually fix the health care issues? Do you realize that states regulate what health insurance companies you can buy from? There are over a thousand health insurance companies in this country, yet some states allow as little as two to do business in their respective state. That is not capitalism! These regulations drive up costs and drive down quality due to lack of competition. With capitalistic competitive markets, quality of health insurance goes up, and prices go down. So Cara, if you take a position supporting regulation, I ask you, do you think people should suffer, because this is what your regulation is doing. Capitalism would make health more accessible based on the evidence provided above, while regulation clearly does vice versa. Also you seem to misconceive the "rags to riches". You don't have to be rich like Carnegie to achieve this. Just by doing well in school, not saying you have to be top of the class, and being able to get a good job possibly by going to college, you can achieve success in capitalism. Lastly, many employers are good to their employees. We have to face reality that in a world of growing scientific technology as well as more of a need for education required jobs, labor jobs such as meat packing will gradually watch their wages fall because the value of their jobs are going down as jobs require more education. Henry Ford would pay well because technology was not as good back in the early 20th century where labor jobs were a hit, while today technology in the car industry has gone up and people, who are educated and can work this technology, will make more than someone who just puts the bumper on a car. Capitalism keeps up with the changing times clearly. As for unions, they do nothing but create strikes and run businesses out of this country. Would you rather make some money Cara, than make none at all because you were fired because your company is leaving? Cara, I ask you to ponder that.

Arthur · Veteran Member

6. Was growing class division a threat to American democracy?

The increasing growth of class division in the late19th century ultimately did not threaten the democracy of America but strengthened it. This was probably due in no small part to the wisdom that the founding fathers imparted to the Constitution, which seemed to be challenged at every turn since its ratification. Whether or not the country’s growing class division actually posed a threat to American democracy really depended on which side if the railroad tracks you lived. If you were a struggling mill worker, practically starving to death, you were exercising your Constitutional rights of free speech to demonstrate that things were far from equal as promised to you in the Constitution. If, on the hand, you were a mill owner, railroad tycoon, or any other Capitalist, the growing voice of an ever-expanding working class and its call for a greater share of your profits, was a definite threat to your view American democracy and your “pursuit of happiness.” However, the working classes’ challenge to the sitting power structure did affect democracy and the aristocratic class that controlled it.

Democracy allows the population to decide who represents the people and who is in charge of the country’s governing. In theory, the government (voted in by the people) is a reflection of the country itself and all of its inhabitants. For example, during the Jacksonian era, when the population of America was mostly agrarian, Jackson “the people’s president” was brought into office by the poor and middle class. Democracy is always relevant to the times and serves the needs of the times. But by the end of the 19th century the working class had exponentially outnumbered the upper class to the point where their sheer numbers overwhelmed the rich’s traditional ability to control or influence government to always be beneficial to the rich.

During the 1890’s however, some people argued that the rising class diversity was deconstructive and threatening democracy. Many factory workers were unsatisfied with their wages and working conditions. These angry poor Americans, many of them Irish and German immigrants, rioted in the streets for more money and more humane working conditions. These riots were extremely violent and chaotic. In these riots, vandalism and threatening employers was common. In the great railroad strike of 1877, the working class rioters halted the railroads from Baltimore to Pittsburg and the violence spread all the way to San Francisco. This cross-country unrest spread like a “conflagration” and revealed the deep dissatisfaction of a growing majority of workers with their lot in America. The angry middle and upper land-owning class grew increasingly worried to the point where they were in a state of panic about “anarchists” threatening the very foundations of America. The terrified rich and owners of the railroads demanded federal and military intervention and argued that these violent labor strikes were a sign of a brewing revolution. Since the upper class made up most of the political power structure, the rich got what they wanted; military troops crushed many riots and halted strikes. As demonstrated by the Fall River mill worker, Thomas O’Donnell’s testimony to the US Senate in 1883, most senators could not relate to a poor Irish immigrant’s struggle to feed his family.

In time we have realized that the growing class division, which has transformed from the late 1800’s to the present day, has not hurt or abolished the form of government that America utilizes to ensure freedom and representation, which is democracy. In fact, history now shows that this critical chapter in America’s growth reveals the wisdom of the Constitution and the balance of power of the three branches of government. This system enabled the country to survive deeply conflicting interests in the most ethnically and economically diverse nation in the world. In the long run, the conflicts were the beginning point of more growth and attainment of prosperity to increasing numbers of people at all levels of society, although every advance was hard-won and in many cases paid for in blood.

-- Edited by Arthur on Sunday 3rd of January 2010 04:20:15 PM

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Arthur you are absolutely correct that our class system has not harmed America. In fact under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, all people must treated equally under the law, no matter what social class. Would you say that your position here based on social classes favors or opposes Capitalism?

Arthur · Veteran Member

Justin, it favors capitalism because the ongoing conflict to improve the American standard of living at all levels of society could only be resolved with a political system that insured everybody's rights and in a system of government that had a balance of power specifically designed to resolve social conflicts.

biggrin

courtney · Veteran Member

IS INDUSTRIALIZATION A CIVILIZATION NECESSITY?

Is Industrialization a civilization necessity? This is a question that can be looked at in 2 different ways. In the 19th century major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transportation were made. Technology was rapidly growing, Immigration in the US was growing, and more people were becoming equal, and finding jobs. Civilization was becoming more structured and it seemed to be falling into place. This, in time, proves that industrialization is a civilization necessity.

If we hadn’t discovered the use of mining and if we didn’t improve transportation the people wouldn’t know any better. Civilization would not change and there would be a different definition of civilization of the 19th century. This shows that Industrialization is not a necessity if we don’t know the effects in the long run. If the Industrialization Revolution did not happen life would have stay the same that it was in the 16th and 17th century.

This concludes that Industrialization could be a civilization necessity but at the same time it is not needed if the people didn’t know about it.

AWHBRY · Veteran Member

4.Can alternative political philosophies operate in a democracy?

Before i discuss the my question i want to define what a democracy is and what other political philosophies can operate with in one.

(The other three existing political philosophies include anarchism, socialism, & communism)

A democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

Anarchism is the political theory carried by people who believe in a form of society that should not ruled by any government all together to give them the opportunity of complete social and political liberty

Socialism is an economic view supporting stronger state government wherein it should have complete control over major corporations/industries and using those profits to provide benefits to citizens (socialism strictly pertains to and economic system)

Communism is similar to socialism, however it also involves the political system in addition to an economic system. Communism seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively. Communism is a practiced theory trying to ensure equality both materialistically and mentally. Tries to prevent the negative effects of class division.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anarchism is almost the opposite of what democracy is. You cannot have anarchism exist as another political philosophy operating within a democracy because they would undermine each other. Anarchism does not allow the election of representatives or give the citizens full political participation. Anarchy involves chaos and disorder as it lacks a recognized government. In such chaos an individual or a party may attempt to take control of the masses, wherein overtime it would be turned into a monarchy. The structure that a democracy provides is much more effective if a civilization wishes to progress as whole and not individually.

Socialism seems more compatible with a democracy and in my opinion would have a good chance of successfully thriving within a democracy. If states had more control, or unlimited control then the state government could expand as necessary. The election of representatives could obv. still coexist with socialism because this economic view does not alter that, it does however change the organization of politics & tips the balance more into the states' legislatures (which would alter sections of The Constitution). People would still be greatly involved with politics and more closely influence the decisions that effect them most, which i would see as a benefit to the public.

Communism may have a chance to exist within a democracy because it is similar to socialism. Like socialism, communism seeks to do away with privately owned property but they also try to control distribution of property to keep classlessness. But in a democracy the people must elect representatives; now people normally base decisions on personal goals and material achievements made by a person, which means that that individual will have shown such achievements through educational achievements obviously but financially as well. If we had a communistic society how would we be able to distinguish those individuals? You could say through their educational progress but that is only shown when people strive to be successful in the world, because the economy causes them to be competitive in order to support themselves, their families, and enjoy luxuries. You know they are smart because they use their education to further better their lifestyles. People would not have competition in an economy if we had communism because it would create an economy where people don't strive to be successful financially. And then with out people having such motives, advancements of all varieties from ones in the medical field to the neurological or astronomical might cease to evolve because individuals would no longer have those motives (if they were the only ones) to push them to making discoveries and progress in that field.

Vanessa Souza · Member

3. Were the methods/objectives of the Labor Movement effective?

The 20th century was the time of industrialization, invention and also the time of frustrated workers creating the Labor Movements. Post civil war many people were grateful for the many job opportunities which were available to them. As time went on people were becoming dissatisfied with working conditions and their wages. The Labor Movements took place as people began to work together to get their demands across.

There were many Union groups during this time who organized to achieve their goals. The National Labor Union (1866) was a formation of many smaller groups to create a union group with 300,000 members. Their goals were to support causes such as temperance, women’s rights, and more power to the working class. This Union group, however, did not survive the depression of 1873.

After the NLU came the Knights of Labor in 1869. This organizations goals were: an eight hour work day, no child labor or convict contracts (did not want more completion from cheap labor) replacement of traditional wages, equal pay for equal work, public land policies to aid settlers, and a graduated income tax. They also proposed a system in which the workers would be provided with independence that would allow them to follow political and social pursuits. Despite the groups opposition to strikes they eventually won important strikes in 1884 and 1885 (Union Pacific, Wabash Railroad). The Knights of Labor did not discriminate against race, wealth, education, or skill except people such as lawyers and bankers. The Knights quickly grew in numbers with their striking victories. In 1886, the Haymarket Riot decimated their influence and made the group appear more radical then was desired. By 1900 their numbers dropped from 700,000 to 100,000. The Knights of Labor faced more issues as discrimination against blacks existed in the south and the failure of the strike against Jay Gould’s southwestern railroad system in 1886. Though the Knights continued they were unsuccessful in achieving their goals.

The American Federation of Labor (1886) became the leading union after the Knights of Labor. Unlike the Knights, AFL included mainly only skilled workers who believed the wages should be high for them. They also did not include women or blacks. Leaded by Samuel Gompers (who believed in strikes), the union group grew from 140,000 to almost one million in just 4 years. This union group was successful in some of their goals through the method of strike. Through discrimination of women came the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union.

The Labor Movement was successful in organizing groups of workers for a common purpose. Methods such as striking proved to be dangerous but powerful while political methods were more difficult. Though all groups did not achieve all of their goals, they all made a large impact during the 19th century Second Industrial Revolution.

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

Courtney-

How can Industrial Revolution being a civilian necessity be seen in two different ways? What are the two specific ways in which the theory can be looked at? Also, why wouldn't the people have known any better and why wouldn't civilization have changed at all? Even though without industrial revolution, technology would not have progressed but other things even such as imigration, may have changed. What were the differences between the American civilization in the 16th and 17th century and life after the Industrial Revolution?

Sarah.

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

10. What is the relationship between wealth and progress?

Progress is the ideal that world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, ECT. An increase in progress is often followed by an increase in wealth

The Bessemer process was formed to reduce the cost of steel. This proved to work and made the steel industry a billion dollar industry. This increased our science and technological progress and also gave the steel companies wealth.

Frederick Winslow Taylor also improved industrial efficacy by creating a faster process to create steel. This would lead to higher profits as now more steel is being produced per day and in was an advancement of technology.

The Railroads also had a big part in expanding modernization by making the traveling more possible. They also made millions of dollars for the railroad owners. The railroads charged so much the government passed acts in order to regulate the cost for poor farmers.

Progress usually makes money because anything new that increases progress is valuable. If you invent a new product or technique and you expand progress you gain the wealth you earn.

Cara · Veteran Member

During the Second Industrial Revolution, Laissez-faire capitalism emerged as an
seemingly socially-responsible economic theory. There are, however, many reasons why this form of capitalism was actually irresponsible including that is fostered many corrupt business practices, workers were not treated fairly, and that the "rags-to-riches" stories that were supposed direct effect of capitalism rarely happened.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the economic system which allows industry to go unchecked and unregulated. It also calls for the government to protect a business's rights by imposing protective tariffs. Capitalism relies on the ideas of "fiscal individualism" and a "free" enterprise system in order to establish a competition between corporations. Capitalism also bases itself on the private sector’s ownership of capital. This ownership makes almost all leaders of businesses strive for higher profit margins, many times as all costs. These costs often lead to many corrupt businesses practices.

The ways of acquiring greater profits often lead to bribery, instances of businesses lying to the government, and the distribution of defective goods without refund. During the late 19th century, there were many examples of bribery used by the so called, "captains of industry." Thomas Edison had promised New Jersey politicians $1000 each if they would pass legislation that would be favorable toward his business. Daniel Drew and Jay Gould also bribed New York politicians to legalize their issue of $8 million in essentially fake, "watered stock," which bore no real value. This stock is technically considered fraud because those who bought it were buying with without knowledge of its (lack of) value. The rail company Union pacific also gained millions through government bonds. These bonds eventually lead to the Credit Mobilier scandal which issued $94 million in bonds while the actually construction only cost $44 million. The remaining $50 million served as a sort of profit for the company and company stock was issued to Congressmen to prevent investigation. Andrew Carnegie also charged the U.S. government overly inflated prices for his steel when President Cleveland's adviser William Whitney wished to purchase it in order to create a "steel navy." Another example of corruption involving the military was when J.P. Morgan, a man who ended up being among the richest during the time, bought 5,000 defective rifles from an arsenal for $3.50 a piece and sold them in the field to a general for
$22 a piece. The problem was, however, that the guns would shoot off the soldiers' thumbs when fired. Morgan refused to give any sort of a refund or compensation to the soldiers. Obviously, this greed, corruption, and disregard for the law and even just other people caused by the desire for profits using the capitalistic systems is not socially responsible.

As another result of the social irresponsibility of capitalism is the lack of ethical treatment for workers in order to make higher profits. One example of this was the practices of J. Pierpont Morgan. Morgan was known to exhaust his 200,000 men with 12 hour days for wages which could not support their families with. Also, Union Pacific's employees, which included 20,000 immigrants and war veterans, had to lay 5 miles of track a day and died by the hundreds from the extreme temperatures and Indian attacks from the company's invasion of their territory. The death toll, which resulted in only the railroad industry's desire for profits, in 1889 amounted to 22,000 people. The rates of death, however, did nothing to stop the conditions these workers were subjected to, furthering the idea that capitalism, and the importance it placed on profits, was socially irresponsible in the sense that it placed material goods and money with a higher value than it did the human life.

Finally, the famous "rags-to-riches" stories which are often attributed as one of the greatest possibilities capitalism offers does not happen as much as this myth would like you to believe. While Andrew Carnegie's story of modest beginnings in a poor family to becoming one of the richest men of his time inspired many, most stories of wealthy businessmen do not have the same origins. J.P. Morgan, for example, was born into an influential family, attended prestigious schools to prepare him for a career in business, and often used connections he gained through his father's career in finance to get ahead. A study done of the origins of 303 leading business executives in the textile, railroad, and steel industries in the 1870's, 90% of them came from families in the middle or upper class.

It is clear that capitalism is a socially irresponsible economic theory because of the disregard for workers it causes as well as how it causes executives to do anything to make a profit, no matter how corrupt the means.

Cara · Veteran Member

JUSTINNNNNNN,

* Cara, with all due respect, your reasoning is self contradictory and in some aspects a complete misunderstanding. First off, you mention health care not being accessible enough; however do you realize that true capitalism would actually fix the health care issues? Do you realize that states regulate what health insurance companies you can buy from? There are over a thousand health insurance companies in this country, yet some states allow as little as two to do business in their respective state. That is not capitalism! These regulations drive up costs and drive down quality due to lack of competition. With capitalistic competitive markets, quality of health insurance goes up, and prices go down. So Cara, if you take a position supporting regulation, I ask you, do you think people should suffer, because this is what your regulation is doing.

Can you honestly prove this? I actually don't think this is true at all, if anything, it would cause a demand for a higher quality of service and insurance. Could some of the health care companies be banned because their quality wasn't good enough? Look at different interpretations. Also, yes, the price may go down with more competition, though wouldn't quality also fall? Co-pays would go up people would be pushed into debt, it wouldn't be fun. Also, bribery still occurs today. For example...

* Michael B McAllister earned $3.33 million in compensation as CEO of Humana. "Forbes 2006 Executive Pay list," April 20, 2006.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/AG0Q.html.

* John W Rowe earned $22.2 million in compensation as CEO of Aetna. Rowe has since left Aetna. "Forbes 2004 Executive Pay list," April 21, 2005.
http://www.forbes.com/static/execpay2005/LIRS5NI.html?passListId=12
&passYear=2005&passListType=Person&uniqueId=S5NI&datatype=Person

* Bill McGuire has stock options worth $1.6 billion at the end of 2005, as CEO of UnitedHealth Group. Robert Simison, "SEC Investigates UnitedHealth Over Stock-Options Practices," Bloomberg News, December 27, 2006; Michael Regan, "Business 2006: Who Won, Who Lost," Associated Press,December 26, 2006.

These bribes presumably allow these companies to make more profits(i address bribery and its relationship in capitalism in my essay above :D)

Also concerning health care, the U.S. is one of the few modern countries without socialized medicine..see below

"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html

We're behind Slovenia. Seriously.

* Capitalism would make health more accessible based on the evidence provided above, while regulation clearly does vice versa. Also you seem to misconceive the "rags to riches". You don't have to be rich like Carnegie to achieve this. Just by doing well in school, not saying you have to be top of the class, and being able to get a good job possibly by going to college, you can achieve success in capitalism.

Just, how many people actually achieve this success? How does how one does in school relate? I don't understand the relevance of this.

* Lastly, many employers are good to their employees. We have to face reality that in a world of growing scientific technology as well as more of a need for education required jobs, labor jobs such as meat packing will gradually watch their wages fall because the value of their jobs are going down as jobs require more education.

Why do the value of these jobs fall? Even with technological advances, you will always need someone to move meat to packing facilities, flip burgers, etc. Many jobs are requiring more education but does that mean minimum wage jobs will be eliminated? No.

* Henry Ford would pay well because technology was not as good back in the early 20th century where labor jobs were a hit, while today technology in the car industry has gone up and people, who are educated and can work this technology, will make more than someone who just puts the bumper on a car.

Henry Ford could pay his factory workers well because he was making good profits. There's no doubt that the engineers he employed got paid much more, but the manual laborers are still required, even today. Even if their job is "easy."

* Capitalism keeps up with the changing times clearly. As for unions, they do nothing but create strikes and run businesses out of this country.

Teachers are in unions. Do you see our schooling system being outsourced? Noooo. Try asking a laborer, or teacher to leave the union. They'll pretty just laugh. Unions protect the individual rather than just having the executive's need for profits served without regard to the workforce.

* Would you rather make some money Cara, than make none at all because you were fired because your company is leaving? Cara, I ask you to ponder that.

.......JBraga, not all unions runs businesses out of the country. In fact, "Made in the USA" is a major selling point of some products today. And while I'd like to make some money at a job rather than have it be outsourced, that shouldnt be my only option. If it is, it capitalism really socially responsible? With all due respect, Justin, I think you need to "ponder" that.

:P

P.S. I watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" over vacation, its all about the state of healthcare in the U.S. Socialism's cool. You should watch it XD

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

Matt-

How is an increase in progress an increase and wealth and how does one develop into the other? Does progress always turn into wealth and can wealth sometimes turn into progress? It is true the Bessemer process reduced the cost of steel making it more affordable, therefore increasing sales and gaining major profit. The statement is accurate because steel companies gained profit mainly because steel was in such high demand that more of the product had to be produced, making it possible to reduce prices. So how specifically was steel an advancement in technology? How did railroads make traveling more possible?
-Where were the railroads made and how far could they travel? You should probably give an example, such as the transcontinental railroad. Also, why would the government want the railroad owners to gain millions of dollars? Explain how their goal was to settle the West and expand their power and their people to the Pacific Ocean.

-Sarah

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Cara my dear Socialist friend, let me keep this brief.

"Also, yes, the price may go down with more competition, though wouldn't quality also fall?"- Cara.

Ok this clearly shows that you are showing no knowledge of the economic principle of competition which is the heart of capitalism. Common sense here: If I have two insurance options in Massachusetts which populates 6 million people, then the ratio of company to customer would be 1:3,000,00. There is clearly very little competition for these two companies and therefore they can raise prices and lower quality because the people of the state would not have many options to choose from. However if there are 1,000 companies competing in this state, there would be a company to customer ratio of 1:6,000. This therefore would force companies, because there are more of them, to offer better plans at better prices because they would have more companies competing with them for the same consumers.

A perfect example of this is with the American Car Industry. For years, Toyota and Honda outsold both Ford and GM. One American brand learned its lesson, one didn't. Because of the clear competition, Ford built a better quality vehicle and reduced prices. GM, which has been sadly taken over by the Federal Government, has not done so. Ford's sales have gone up, GM's are still in the cellar. Do you now see this principle of competition Cara? It would have the same effect in the health care system.

Also, it bothers me that you degrade the great doctors of our health care system. Do you realize that people migrate here by the thousands from Canada, who by the way have your prized single payer system, for intensive care such as cancer treatment because care in Canada is so poor? Or for example Great Britain, who compared to the United States have a 25% less chance of survival from breast and prostate cancer. Great Britain also has a single payer system, and British politicians are telling us not to make the same mistake that they did. Catch the trend? Also on a more personal note, the American Health Care System is the reason why I am not deaf and more importantly not dead. The same doctors you criticize removed a tumor in my inner ear, heading toward my brain and eating through the bones in my head. Today I am alive and hearing great. So before you defame doctors based on some phony liberal statistics, look at all the people who have been saved by this great country's health system. Is reform necessary, yes, but not in the socialist manner that you suggest. It will clearly only make things worse. You and Michael Moore can enjoy less chances of survival in Canada which has a socialist's famed healthcare system. I rest my case. Thank you very much for this spirited and important debate and God Bless America!

P.S. I would rather have my face sewn to the carpet than watch any documentary by Michael Moore :P! Just saying!

felicity · Veteran Member

The growing class division was a threat to American democracy because it was reminiscent of aristocracy, and dissolved comradely among the classes. After the Second Industrial Revolution the working poor struggled to climb the rungs of the social ladder, and were met with hostility by company owners and discrimination by America’s wealthy classes.
The Second Industrial Revolution created a slew of new jobs, and in turn, a host of new troublesome issues. The working poor were the driving force behind the factories and power plants that transformed America from a consumerist nation into a nation that exported more goods than it imported. Unfortunately, the men and women employed at these institutions were considered expendable, and were often treated without dignity. The way the Pullman Company treated their workers resulted in one of the most notorious strikes of all time; the alliance between the American Railroad Union and the disgruntled Pullman employees. The workers charged Pullman with wage cuts, continuing high rents, and layoffs.
The owners of these factories reaped the benefits their workers could only dream of; money, class distinction, and comfort. Men like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller redefined the term “wealthy”; they took advantage of the opportunities presented by the Second Industrial Revolution and became America’s first billionaires. By keeping the majority suppressed, the minority made tremendous gain and furthered defined the growing class division between the incredibly wealthy and the working poor.

The division between the wealthy and working power strengthened through the years, until the minority had power of the majority, which is quite similar to aristocracy, a government that led the French to one of the bloodiest revolutions in history. The class division that took root in America was detrimental to Democracy, and dissolved the amiable relationships amongst the classes in America’s social hierarchy.

Kellyman · Member

#5 What were the costs and benefits of industrialization ?
The industrial growth had major effects on American life. The benefits was that , the value of goods produced by American industry increased between the mid 1800's. Advances in communication provided a boost for the economy. Inventers began to unleash there masterpieces and inventions to American and this resulted in a great advantage for America to grow in technology use. As to the harsh costs for the industrial revolution ,the demands for reform and protection for workers arose, government and unions began to take place.This lead to violent Strikes and Protest Acts and resulted with many people injured or dead because they were fighting for there beliefs.Many middle class and below and manafactures soon became aware of the working conditions, lack of necessities, urbanization, and education. The working conditions were terrible so it came up with labor laws that kept workers from working all day.Since there was so many workers working in bad conditions, the labor laws came to action. The Heath and Morals Act of (1802) limited children under fourteen from working over twelve hours a day. The factor Act of 1833, which enacted that no person under 18 years of age shall be allowed to work at night in machinery. It allowed the child under 18 to work less than 12 hours a day or less than 69 hours in any week. There was a ten hours act, which said that the women or children’s limit workdays are 10 hours.
smile

-- Edited by Kellyman on Monday 4th of January 2010 04:51:59 PM

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

7. Is corporate regulation by the government constitutional?

Different forms of corporate regulation by the government was considered constitutional during the Second Industrial Revolution because the system protected businesses from monopolization and instituted acts for the American people, along with ensuring the constitutional rights of the rapidly changing society. The establishment of the federal government and the ultimate reason for the fight for independence, dating all the way back to colonial times, was aimed at the countries’ need for a more effective business regulation. During the ninetieth century, the United States took part in a Second Industrial Revolution that forever altered the course of the businesses in the country, with government regulation helping the progress of the flourishing corporations. Social Reforms were beginning to become favored by the federal government during this time period as shown evident in acts such as the Interstate Commerce Act, which set up commission to regulate prices. Although the act clarified fair rates in order to protect the business of farmers, the outcome proved to be ineffective because it lacked enforcement, such as a common maximum cap price. The Interstate Commerce Act also made it mandatory that railroad rates be set as “reasonable and just” in the effort to keep farmers, shippers, and other corporations from going bankrupt. Another example of a government regulation law regarding the industrial businesses of the late 1800’s was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which was passed in the attempts to restrain large business combinations making “every contract, combination…or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce” an illegal action. One man that fought out against the government regulations of corporate businesses was Eugene V. Debs who was imprisoned for his prominent and successful Pullman strikes against. As leader of a major protest during a time was unionism was on the rise, he being an American union leader, fought for the justice of the working poor. Although his efforts were of a positive force, without government regulations and control, the situation would have spun out of control. In 1882, the word “trust” was brought in the American vocabulary as a signal of the idea of monopoly. John D. Rockefeller owned a vast majority of the oil business but he never achieved a complete form of monopoly because he neglected to gain entire control of the oil market in which he profited from. A situation in a market in which there are numerous consumers and one distributor of a sole product is what makes up the threat of monopoly. In the government’s effort to ensure the constitutional rights and justice of the people of the United States, regulation of corporate businesses became a priority and a major necessity to reform movement of the Industrial Revolution.

felicity · Veteran Member

That jerk above me-

Do you think that the governmet did enough to protect industries from monopolies? I feel as though the government did not follow through on their actions. For example, employees like those at the Pullman Company were forced to go to the AMU, rather than seek help with the government politicans.

-- Edited by felicity on Monday 4th of January 2010 05:19:20 PM

Kellyman · Member

Sarah - When you refer to " colonial times " , what do you exactly mean by that ?

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

Kellyman-

When referring to "colonial times" in my essay, I am speaking of the time of the thirteen original colonies. For example, a war that took place during the last few years of the stated time period was the French and Indian War, as known as the seven years war that took place during the years of 1756- 1763. The colonial times referring specifically to the newly European discoverment of the continent of North America dated roughly between the years 1492- 1763. Hope that clears it all up!

-Sarah

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

The jerk two posts above me-

In some cases no, I do not think the government did enough to protect industries from monopolies because under certain circumstances the U.S. federal government was involved in monopolies. Although monopoly was seen as a threat, I think govermental control was necesary in such a prominent time as the Second Industrial Revolution. Also, many actions were put through and followed out but with the exception of a few companies such as the Pullman Company, which I mentioned in my essay. The reason the companies neglected to seek out help from their government may have been because the federal government less favored big business corporations.

-Sarah

-- Edited by Sarah Flood on Tuesday 5th of January 2010 10:31:34 AM

AWHBRY · Veteran Member

not that it pertains to anyone's post but mine own, i wish to correct myself in say that i contradict myself in saying that communism would be able to exist within a democracy and then go on arguing how it wouldn't. So ... communism would not successfully exist within a democracy.

courtney · Veteran Member

Sarah,
That is good point you made i did not fully consider that when answering my question.

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

Felicity- Do you think your issue of the growing class division as a threat to American democracy is still applicable even in the 21st century?

-- Edited by Sarah Flood on Tuesday 5th of January 2010 10:48:37 AM

-- Edited by Sarah Flood on Tuesday 5th of January 2010 10:49:39 AM

felicity · Veteran Member

Sarah-

In fact, I do believe class divisons are a threat to American Democracy in the twenty-first century. Historically, class divisons have led to bloody revolutions, such as the French Revolution. The Indian caste system is a great example of how class divisons can dissolve deomcracy; men and women are placed in a social ranking at birth and are given no chance for mobility among the ranks. Even now, America still struggles with class divison; the immensley rich are eons above the working poor class-wise, which breeds hostility. Personally, I believe the gaps between each rung of the social ladder are a threat to American comradery, and in turn a threat to American Democracy.

felicity · Veteran Member

Matt- Do you believe wealth and progress can exist without each other? Altough they are interconnected, is their symbiotic relationship so extreme they would wither away without one another?

Arthur · Veteran Member

Kelly, is it true that the value of goods increased during industrialization? i thought that because there was more product, the demand for the goods became less, therefore leading to the decrease in the costs of goods made in American industry.

courtney · Veteran Member

Matt, I like your point in makin about progress turning into wealth, But Does Progress always turn into wealth? Also you mention that Wealth comes with progress, But does progress ever come after wealth?

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

[I am reposting my essay because there were a few typos that I just noticed and the forum would not let me edit it.]

7. Is corporate regulation by the government constitutional?

Different forms of corporate regulation by the government was considered constitutional during the Second Industrial Revolution because the system protected businesses from monopolization and instituted acts for the American people, along with ensuring the constitutional rights of the rapidly changing society. The establishment of the federal government and the ultimate reason for the fight for independence, dating all the way back to colonial times, was aimed at the countries’ need for a more effective business regulation. During the ninetieth century, the United States took part in a Second Industrial Revolution that forever altered the course of the businesses in the country, with government regulation helping the progress of the flourishing corporations. Social Reforms were beginning to become favored by the federal government during this time period as shown evident in acts such as the Interstate Commerce Act, which set up commission to regulate prices. Although the act clarified fair rates in order to protect the business of farmers, the outcome proved to be ineffective because it lacked enforcement, such as a common maximum cap price. The Interstate Commerce Act also made it mandatory that railroad rates be set as “reasonable and just” in the effort to keep farmers, shippers, and other corporations from going bankrupt. Another example of a government regulation law regarding the industrial businesses of the late 1800’s was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which was passed in the attempts to restrain large business combinations making “every contract, combination…or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce” an illegal action. One man that fought out against the government regulations of corporate businesses was Eugene V. Debs who was imprisoned for his prominent and successful Pullman strikes against the government. As an American union leader of a major protest during a time that unionism was on the rise, he fought for the justice of the working poor along with the working class citizens. Although his efforts were of a positive force, without government regulations and control, the situation would have spun out of control. In 1882, the word “trust” was aquired into the American vocabulary as a signal of the idea of monopoly. John D. Rockefeller owned a vast majority of the oil business but he never achieved a complete form of monopoly because he neglected to gain entire control of the oil market in which he profited from. A situation in a market in which there are numerous consumers and one distributor of a sole product is what makes up the threat of monopoly. In the government’s effort to ensure the constitutional rights and justice of the people of the United States, regulation of corporate businesses became a priority and a major necessity to the reform movement of the Second Industrial Revolution.

PatriciaC · Member

#5 what were the costs and benefits of industrialization?
There are many costs and benefits of industrialization. One benefit being during this time many factories and businesses started increasing due to mass production. The greater demand of these products being made by these factories and businesses made the cost of these products cost less. Also because all these factories and businesses were starting added many jobs into big cities which is a great benefit for the lower classes who didn’t have jobs and to new coming immigrants. America also benefited from the many inventors and their inventions such as the telegraph and the telephone which made communicating between both coasts much easier and of course faster. The invention of the model T car and the building of the railway connecting both coasts were also done during this time and were greatly benefited those traveling. As well as benefits there were many costs of industrialization. Many owners and executive workers were getting greedy and wanted more. These people had many workers, some had thousands, but these factories and businesses didn’t have unions which was a great cost for these workers. They were given long hours, they were locked in at times and they didn’t reach any benefits. These people were treated with so much disrespect and this caused them to go on strike which sometimes caused violence and deaths. Industrialization in America caused many people to immigrant which could be good but also bad because the “already been here” American citizens were competing for jobs with them and had to lower their expectations on what they would or wouldn’t do for work.

David · Member

#7

In this time period there were several different forms of corporate regulation by the government. It was considered constitutional during the Second Industrial Revolution because the system protected businesses from monopolization. During the ninetieth century, the United States took part in a Second Industrial Revolution that altered the course of the businesses in the U.S with government regulation helping the progress of the flourishing corporations. One example The Interstate Commerce Act, this act had made it mandatory that railroad rates be set as reasonable and just in the effort to keep farmers, shippers, and other corporations from going bankrupt. Another example of a government regulation law was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which was passed in the attempts to restrain large business combinations making an illegal action. A man that played a large role in this time was Eugene V. Debs who was later sent to prison for his prominent and successful Pullman strikes. In being a leader of a protest during a time when unionism was taking place he being as an American union leader, he fought for the justice of the working poor. Even though his efforts were of a positive impact but without government regulations and control the situation would have spun out of control. Another character that had a large role in this time was Rockefeller, he owned a vast majority of the oil business but he never achieved a complete form of monopoly because he neglected to gain entire control of the oil market in which he profited from. An issue in a market which there is numerous consumers and one distributor of a sole product is what makes up the threat of monopoly. In conclusion, in this time period it was almost needed for large business to regulated by the government therefore it is constitutional and was completely wanted by most businesses.

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Sarah- You ask a lot of questions -_-

How is an increase in progress an increase and wealth and how does one develop into the other?

Well it takes money to study at topic to make a new product or technique. For instance the light bulb had to go through many different prototypes all of which cost money for supplies. Then the light bulb was sold and makes companies billions.

Does progress always turn into wealth and can wealth sometimes turn into progress?

I suppose progress can be made without wealth like when Galileo Galilei discovered the earth revolved around the sun.

It is true the Bessemer process reduced the cost of steel making it more affordable, therefore increasing sales and gaining major profit. The statement is accurate because steel companies gained profit mainly because steel was in such high demand that more of the product had to be produced, making it possible to reduce prices. So how specifically was steel an advancement in technology?

Now people used steel instead of iron. Steel was cheaper and stronger.

How did railroads make traveling more possible?

....-_- really? ... The railroads could travel faster than humans on foot.

Ok on that note I’ll move on to different people

Felicity - Do you believe wealth and progress can exist without each other? Altough they are interconnected, is their symbiotic relationship so extreme they would wither away without one another?
Like I said to Sarah not always but most of the time they are related.

Courtney- I like your point in makin about progress turning into wealth, But Does Progress always turn into wealth? Also you mention that Wealth comes with progress, But does progress ever come after wealth?

No, progress does not always bring wealth but it does most of the time. Also wealth and progress move in a cycle. As I said to Sarah, it takes money to study at topic to make a new product or technique. For instance the light bulb had to go through many different prototypes all of which cost money for supplies. Then the light bulb was sold and makes companies billions.

David- You answer is very similar to Sarah’s, do you disagree with any point(s) she made?

mre · Senior Member

Excellent answers. Any follow-up questions for me? Grades Updated 1-10-10.

Savanna · Veteran Member

9. Is industrialization a civilization ‘necessity’? confuse

Industrialization is a necessity to a civilization. The definition of civilization from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is the following: 1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development.

The industrial revolution was the movment of technology and cultural devolopments. Technology sweeping across the U.S, changing our civilization and bringing more immagrants to our country. New machines were invented to make production easier, in result, more factories were opened. With new jobs available, more people moved from other countries to create new lives for themselves. The more people from around the world who moved here, made the counrty more culturally diverse. In order for there to be a civilization, there is a need for industrialization.
evileye

BritanyR · Member

3. Were the methods/objectives of the Labor Movement effective?

The knights of Labor

The organization believed that its predecessors had failed by limiting membership; the Knights proposed to organize both skilled and unskilled workers in the same union and opened their doors to blacks and women. In its early years, the organization was highly secret since in many areas union members were summarily fired. The Knights developed ornate rituals, drawn from freemasonry, to govern their meetings. By the early 1880s, the group had emerged as a national force and had dropped its initial secrecy. They sought to include within their ranks everyone but doctors, bankers, lawyers, liquor producers and gamblers.

The aims of the Knights of Labor included the following:

An eight-hour work day

Termination of child labor

Termination of the convict contract labor system (the concern was not for the prisoners; the Knights opposed competition from this cheap source of labor)

Establishment of cooperatives to replace the traditional wage system and help tame capitalism's excesses

Equal pay for equal work

Government ownership of telegraph facilities and the railroads

A public land policy designed to aid settlers and not speculators

A graduated income tax.

In its early years, the Knights opposed the use of strikes; however, new members and local leaders gradually radicalized the organization. By the mid-1880s, labor stoppages had become an effective tool. The KOL won important strikes on the Union Pacific in 1884 and the Wabash Railroad in 1885. However, failure in the Missouri Pacific strike in 1886 and the Haymarket Square Riot of the same year quickly eroded the Knights' influence—although no member was implicated in the latter event. In the public mind, the eight-hour work day and other demands by the KOL had become radical ideas; to many, the terms "unionism" and "anarchism" were synonymous. Labor leader Terence V. Powerdly's organizing skills had brought the group's membership to more than 700,000 in the early 1880s, but by 1900 that number had dropped to approximately 100,000.

The American federation of labor

The burgeoning strength of its member unions in the early twentieth century created a vibrant AFL and solidified trade union power. The Woodrow Wilson Presidential administration bestowed critical recognition on the AFL by establishing a separate Department of Labor in 1913. An alliance between labor and the Democratic party took shape during World War I when the administration created a National War Labor Board empowered to encourage trade union recognition. A grateful Gompers worked tirelessly for Wilson's war programs, promoting the American Alliance for Labor and Democracy and attacking more radical labor organizations. Stimulated by the AFL's alliance with the administration, trade union membership expanded from 1,562,000 in 1910 to 4,125,000 in 1919. The war's end brought an employer backlash, however, and subsequent unsympathetic Republican administrations weakened the AFL still more.

The Great Depression of the 1930s brought further strains as the industrial unions within the AFL's ranks, most notably John L. Lewis's United Mine Workers of America, challenged it to organize mass‐production workers. Refusing to devote scarce resources to a risky endeavor, the more cautious members of the AFL executive board balked. This strategy backfired in 1938 when eleven industrial unions created the rival Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).

Although the AFL had initially failed to organize the millions of nonunion workers seeking representation rights, it competed aggressively for new members throughout World War II and the postwar years, growing more rapidly than the CIO. Diluting their craft principles, AFL affiliates accepted masses of new members regardless of skill or job title. By the mid–1950s the AFL had 50 percent more members that the CIO (9 million to 6 million). In 1952 the incumbent Presidents of the two rival labor organizations died, clearing the way for a merger. The merged AFL‐CIO held its first convention in December 1955

theaa · Veteran Member

8.Can the pace of technological innovation be controlled?

With each day, new technologies are being invented without many people even knowing. Humans are always striving to make the next “bigger and better” model and want to benefit the world, especially if the inventors themselves can benefit. It is natural for human beings to have a curiosity for what the world provides and how to make it more efficient and valuable for them. The pace of technology cannot be controlled due to the natural human desire to advance by improving old inventions, creating new inventions, and always looking for the next big thing.

Improving old inventions allow the inventors to make a lot of money and make the invention more efficient. Creating a new, more efficient model of an old invention draws in buyers because it is believed that newer is better. As long as there are buyers looking to purchase the inventors improvements, they will want to continue to find ways to make invention better. For example, after the creation of factories, the machines that weaved textiles improved with each decade. When the older model wasn’t as efficient as the older one, the owner of the factory would buy new machines. As long as the inventors kept supplying the consumers, they would look for the newer models. No one wants an old model when they can have the new one.

Creating new inventions that were never thought of before appealed to many consumers with its novelty. Owning a new invention could be a topic of discussion, entertainment, or make daily life more efficient. People of the middle and upper classes bought new inventions more often than the poor since they could afford them, which helped increase the standards of living for the middle and upper classes with each new invention. They were looking for the next invention to advance their lives.

theaa · Veteran Member

Brittany, does the comparison of unions to anarchism in the Knights of Labor make their efforts to radicalize the industry ineffective because their numbers dropped?

BritanyR · Member

Justin you said that capitalism is socailly responsible because it encourages all people to aim for success and try hard not only to prosper, but to survive. You also said it provides fairness for those who work hard and to socially mobilize upward but thats not completely true because there were freed slaves and women who had been working all there lives and they never socailly mobilized upwards they were kept down because they were seen to be inferior.

so my question is:
How is capitalism fair to everyone if it excludes freed slaves and women are they not people too?

michaella · Member

3. During the 19th century there were many labor movements taking place. These labor movements were causes of employees wanting an end to long, usually 10 hours, workdays, unsafe working conditions, and low wages. Around this time there were three very popular labor movements all with different methods and strategies. Some did better than others, but at one point they all came to an end.
One of the Labor movements was called the Knights of Labor (KOL). The Knights of Labor was a secret society that was created in 1869. Founded by Terence V. Powderly, it main goal was “to secure to the workers the full enjoyment of the wealth they create.” This labor movement accepted blacks, whites, men, and women into their society, along with both skilled and unskilled workers. Some other objectives of the Knights of Labor was to put an end to child labor, convict labor, equal pay for women, an advancing income tax, and a accommodating employee and employer relationship. The Knights of Labor was one of many labor movements that supported the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Contract Labor Law. Some methods used in this union were aiding strikes and boycotts. Their greatest win was the Union Pacific Railroad strike in 1884. Unfortunately, due to the defeat of the Haymarket Square Riot and the Missouri Pacific Strike in 1886, this reduced some of the Knights Of Labors members. Although some of the unions methods were effective, other times they were not. Because of mismanagement and internal divisions between skilled and unskilled workers the Knights declined, while the AFL rose.
The AFL, also know as the American Federation of Labor was founded in 1886 and became one of the most subjugated unions during the 1890’s. Samuel Gompers, the leader of the AFL only allowed white skilled workers, assuming that having a large supply of skilled labor would keep wages up. The skilled trades all worked together fro prolabor national legislation and mutual support during boycotts and strikes. The AFL’s main goals was for higher wages, shorter hours, a safe work environment, and the right to organize. By 1900, Gomper had received one million members for his union. In that same year, the national Ladies’ Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) was established, due to many unions not supporting women. However, men also were leaders of this union.
The ILGWU labor movement was one of the first to have a primary female membership. The Ladies’ Garment Workers union dealt mainly with clothing and textile workers. Founded in 1900, in the city of New York, the union accepted immigrant workers, both skilled and unskilled. The union had two successful heaping strikes in New York City. The speakers at the strike spoke of solidarity and preparedness, the horrible working conditions, and the wages they earned. There was about 20,000 people included in this fourteen week strike. The strike was very violent with police arresting picketers and employers hired thugs to beat them, when the police weren’t looking. The second strike, was called the “Great Revolt,” having 60,000 cloakmakers in 1910. This strike led to an agreement called the “Protocol of Peace”. Many members of the union started getting involved in politics. Eventually the ILGWU formed with another textile union to form UNITE, and another organization that included hotel and restaurant employees to form UNITE THERE.
Just these three labor movement alone, had an impact on our history, never mind the many others that were out there. It is because of these labor movement and the changes in government and society that work hours are shorter and work environments are cleaner and safer. Unfortunately, one thing has not changed, and that is that women are still paid less than men today.

tony · Member

Industrialist leaders of the Gilded Age can be grouped together as captains of industry because their methods in manufacturing, business, and labor management represented innovation and promoted efficiency. Since industrialization was relatively new to the world at that point, the actions of the industrialist leaders set precedents for later businessmen, corporation owners, and employee-employer relationships. Industrialization, made great by people like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Henry Ford, eventually brought America to become one of the most powerful nations in the world.
Manufacturing pre-industrialization was horribly time consuming since it was carried out by independent artisans working on one piece at a time and without research into greater efficiency. But that changed with the arrival of the factory system. Ford popularized the assembly line, churning out products which have been made piece by piece with the labor of many workers at a vastly improved pace. The Bessemer process, introduced in America by Andrew Carnegie, offered a new way of producing steel, one that was cheaper, faster, and required less worker skill.
John D. Rockefeller’s wealth was not due primarily to improvements in the manufacturing process, but rather a new way of doing business. He recognized that without competition, he would be able to profit without limit. Rebates, buying out competing companies, and undercutting prices killed off virtually all his competition in the oil industry at great benefit to the American workers: kerosene prices fell by more than half, from 58 cents a gallon to 26 cents a gallon, in the period from 1865 to 1870. His monopoly also inspired the trust model, in which shares of stock were placed in the hands of a board of trustees, a method so effective that most major corporations adopted it.
Employees and employers had always had conflicting interests in the workplace. The employee wants to get better conditions, better wages, and less work; the employer wanted the exact opposite to keep costs down. Henry Ford, however, was one of the first to compromise. His workers were given much higher wages than almost anywhere else in any industry. The pay attracted the best workers around the area who were not motivated to leave, thereby creating knowledgeable employees who raised efficiency and reduced operating costs. Ford broke the cycle of not enough consumer capital to support consumption and falling prices due to overproducing, leading to wage cuts and more production, at least for his employees.
All of these men were motivated by profit and sometimes that became the workers’ loss. The nation as a whole, however, was rapidly growing in wealth, prosperity, and standard of living. The success of industrialism was due to those leaders, promoters, and captains of industry.

Kyle Hamel · Member

	Reply QuotePrinter Friendly
4.Can alternative political philosophies operate in a democracy?

There are a total of 4 political philosphies that exsist today. Besides a democracy there are communism, anarchism, and socialsm. I will discuss all of these 3 philosphis being able to operate in a democracy. A democracy is the citizens of the coutnry have the power and are able to be elect people to reperesent them. Communism seeks to control the citzens of a country. They want to control the citzens and the econmy. Comumunism want everyone to be equal in everway possible. Communism tries to do away with privitly owned busniess and privitly owned properties. This philosphy would have hard time working in a democracy because the people in a democracy have freedoms and the right to be different and and the right to make there own choices. The next philosphy is an anarchism. Anarchism is a theory of haveing no goverment, the the peole rule it, its self. This philosphy, out of the 3 that would of the hardest time wokring in a democracy, becuase it is the exact oppsite of a democracy. One reason for this is, becuase an anarchism does not have any election to select there own reps for goverment. The 3rd and last politcal philosphy is a socialism, A socialsm belives in a stronger state goverment. This philosphy will probly have the best chance in a democracy. It could work because elction for national and local goverments could still take place while some econmic and the citzens rights would change.

Mel · Member

#6- Was growing class division a threat to American society?

Growing class division surprisingly was not a threat to American society. During the last years of the nineteenth century, industries had affected America to become very prosperous. America became the best known country of natural resources including: coal, iron, ore, copper, lead, timber, and oil. The creation of new technological inventions changed the standard life of most people. These new inventions allowed people to produce more materials for a lower price.

Over hearing that America has civilized as the leading industrial power in the world dominating the three largest rivals Great Britain, France, Germany immigrants emerged from their countries. As a result, the population soared over a few years. Advanced in transportation systems, it allowed America to be the largest market in the world for industrial goods. The transportation network allowed business to transport their inventory all over the country and world.

Unfortunately growing class division grew as America became civilized. As America grew from industries, the rich class became more powerful. The gap between the rich and the poor widened more. The rich made a profit selling their supplies everywhere and getting immigrants to work for lower wages. These millionaires built new mansions outside the cities in the area known as the suburbs. The need for workers in the large corporations increased the work for the middle class. The middle class created jobs for accountants, clerical workers, and salespersons. The working conditions changed as more business created. The average work day for a worker would be ten hours a day and six days a week. Employers would determine their wages by the laws of supply and demand because there was usually a large supply of immigrants competes for factory work. Many wages for workers were cut and many were fired. Business owners hired more immigrants and cut the work of the middle class because they would work for low wages. As problems grew in the working environment like worker’s wages being cut and the rights for women and blacks not being equal, led to strikes. Many labor unions were created to better the conditions of the working environment. The strikes rose, but rapidly fell as a result of the violence of the riots.

Charlene · Veteran Member

Number Ten:

Progress relates to the advancements of science, technology and industrialization in a civilization. New scienctific and technological discoveries are often open new doors for an economy and money-making. Thus the more progress there is, the more wealth. The Bessemer Process and Taylor's discoveries led to the flourish of the nation's most wealthiest industries, the steel industry. Steel companies, such as Carnegie's Steel Company, provided the foundation for other industries, especially the railroad industry, which was vital for the economy during the nineteenth century since it provided faster, cheaper transportation and an expansion of the market. The advantages of the industrialized United States, seeing its potential, often led to foreigners to invest or contribute their wealth to American industries. Again, progress brings an abudance of wealth. Yet on the flip side of the coin, it also requires an abudance of wealth to bring progress.

tony · Member

Thea:
Do you think technological advancement should be controlled? Unbridled growth leads to the problems evident in the industrialized 19th century America: a focus on efficiency and not safety, profit for the owners but not the workers, child labor. Had America stayed with the skilled artisans creating items personally system, would these problems still exist? Maybe we should all forget some recent advances :)

-- Edited by tony on Saturday 16th of January 2010 12:09:36 AM

-- Edited by tony on Saturday 16th of January 2010 12:17:34 AM

CassandraBorges · Newbie

5. What were the costs & benefits of industrialization?

   For years, our nation had been based off of agriculture. When war began to approach, popularity over manufacturing increased. As a nation, Industrialization was very beneficial. However, for the common individual, was Industrialization really that beneficial to ones personal life, or more of just a cost of hard work and labor?
    Per capita income had increased by more than 2% a year, due to manufacturing, by 1900. Big businesses came into play, building large factories. These large factories offered hundreds of jobs to workers across New England and the Mid West. More goods were produced, lowering prices on iron, steel, land, land transportation equipment, etc. Also, many technological innovations such as developments in the steel and electric industries were made. The manufacturing of steel and iron provided an advantage to helping introduce new technologies. These industries provided opportunities for unskilled job workers. More benefits included electricity replacing steam as the main power source, and the introduction of new transportation.
     Even though Industrialization did prove to be very successful and prosperous to our nation, there were many costs that came with it. With several factories producing smoke, soot, and ashes in the air, health became a major concern, with pollution taking over. Also, as more jobs were being offered by manufacturers along urban settlements such as New York and Philadelphia, more and more people moved into these cities. The population was expanding ridiculously, as many people were attracted to this” promise of employment” in these urban cities. Most immigrants had lived in the slums of the cities and struggled to live their lives. Lastly, one should know that the workplace of these factory workers were dangerous and unhealthy working environments. Few received any benefits, and were overworked.