Life Before Entitlement
Justin Katz
My knowledge of social history is not sufficiently detailed to take this without some suspicion (although those on the other end of the political spectrum will no doubt dismiss it without consideration). There may certainly be a significant "yes, but" required in the assessment of the period in question, but this strikes me as something that ought to be remembered:
In the 19th century, even though capitalism had only existed for a short time, and had just started putting a dent in pre-capitalism's legacy of poverty, the vast, vast majority of Americans were already able to support their own lives through their own productive work. Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority.
But in a culture that revered individual responsibility and regarded being "on the dole" as shameful, formal charity was almost always a last resort. Typically people who hit tough times would first dip into their savings. They might take out loans and get their hands on whatever commercial credit was available. If that wasn't enough, they might insist that other family members enter the workforce. And that was just the start.
Although it may have amplified important principles that already existed in the culture, a reasonable historical analysis could find that progressive governance merely happened to coincide with the prosperity of 20th century America. Indeed, certain of its initiatives have arguably hindered economic and social advancement, but because of the way they overlap in history, we've come to feel that big, minutely involved governance has a causative relationship with that which was good in the past dozen decades.
Of course, even if there were some truth to that feeling, the next questions are whether such government will inevitably lead to circumstances such as we currently face and whether our circumstances truly do herald the collapse of our society. If both are the case, then a good half-century is hardly worth the cost.
Typically people who hit tough times would first dip into their savings. They might take out loans and get their hands on whatever commercial credit was available. If that wasn't enough, they might insist that other family members enter the workforce. And that was just the start.
Some revelation there, Justin, and news to me that American consumers aren't overextended on their credit cards and up to their ears in mortgage debt. Not to mention the long past days of single wage earner families (think you even wrote about that, no?). If only they sent their children to work in the factories like the good old days, eh?
There are certain human ailments known as "diseases of affluence," which can include obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In some ways, progressivism/socialism could be considered a disease of our society's affluence. When a country becomes wealthy enough through free trade, comparative advantage, and division of labor, it can over several generations become divorced from its roots and turn its attention to fundamentally different types of causes. Each new progressive restriction on the market comes with a cost, and these inefficiencies do not exist independent of each other. Like traffic congestion, they can grow exponentially over the decades. Examine any one in isolation and it seems minor enough, but like visitors throwing pebbles into a natural stream, it won't be too many years before the flow is radically changed. I am not sure that we are truly in a "Great Stagnation" in terms of historical productivity growth, as some economists have hypothesised, but it's certainly something to consider.
Lots of benefits to banning child labor. But now 12 and 13 year olds can't work even simple jobs like cash registers or shelving books so they come home to empty houses after school, do drugs, watch TV, eat fatty snack foods, and get into all kinds of trouble. They enter high school having no concept of work or the value of a dollar. I certainly would have benefited from a part-time job at that age. Progressives look at benefits, but libertarians consider costs.
I guess my parents were child abusers. I always had a job from age 12. May dad was disabled when I was 15 and all my siblings had to work. Go figure all of us turned out to be hard working productive members of society never running afoul of the law. To this day we've all raised families and continued to work. Except a niece and nephew that are still in school, all our children have grown and pursued careers of their own. All that from a disabled father and a mother who was forced to go back to work because of it. Sorry for the ramble. It must be flashbacks onset by having to work at such a young age. Can I get a disability for that?
"Can I get a disability for that?"
Depends. Are you a fireman?
"I am not sure that we are truly in a "Great Stagnation" in terms of historical productivity growth, as some economists have hypothesised"
I am.
Spot on analysis in the rest of your post.
"Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority."
In the 19th century, this is so anti-historical that it is almost laughable.
It is true that in villages, farmers ate. In bad years they did not. In a sense, mill workers could support themsleves. The idea that they had "savings" is laughable "I owe my soul to the company store".
Although it is true that some individuals succeeded, it is hard for us to imagine the grinding poverty of the 19th century. Even the well to do, didn't do so well. If you live na 19th century house,look at the sizes of the original closets. Think how little clothing would fill them. Who populated those "wagon trains" headed West, successful burghers? In the Civil War, much of the Union army could not speak English,they joined the army to eat.
It was capitalism,which we are now running away from,and railroads which opened markets and lowered food costs that cured all this (that and public education). Mutual aid may have kept some from starving (imagine a time when there was a mutual aid society to send poor Jewish boys to law school)but it was industry that did the most.
Where was the "mututal aid" in the "Dust Bowl" of the 30's. What there was were armed guards at the California border to keep the "Okies" out.
Homeownership was precarious. Mortgages had a 3 year term (usually renewed,as with current commercial loans). When things got bad,the banks refused to renew and demanded the cash. That caused most of the foreclosures in the 1930's.
After the Civil War, we let southerners starve, farmers had to eat on their "seed money".
The 19th century was not a Golden Era, but we survived it.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Some revelation there, Justin, and news to me that American consumers aren't overextended on their credit cards and up to their ears in mortgage debt. Not to mention the long past days of single wage earner families (think you even wrote about that, no?). If only they sent their children to work in the factories like the good old days, eh?
Posted by: Russ at January 18, 2012 8:52 AMThere are certain human ailments known as "diseases of affluence," which can include obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In some ways, progressivism/socialism could be considered a disease of our society's affluence. When a country becomes wealthy enough through free trade, comparative advantage, and division of labor, it can over several generations become divorced from its roots and turn its attention to fundamentally different types of causes. Each new progressive restriction on the market comes with a cost, and these inefficiencies do not exist independent of each other. Like traffic congestion, they can grow exponentially over the decades. Examine any one in isolation and it seems minor enough, but like visitors throwing pebbles into a natural stream, it won't be too many years before the flow is radically changed. I am not sure that we are truly in a "Great Stagnation" in terms of historical productivity growth, as some economists have hypothesised, but it's certainly something to consider.
Posted by: Dan at January 18, 2012 8:52 AMLots of benefits to banning child labor. But now 12 and 13 year olds can't work even simple jobs like cash registers or shelving books so they come home to empty houses after school, do drugs, watch TV, eat fatty snack foods, and get into all kinds of trouble. They enter high school having no concept of work or the value of a dollar. I certainly would have benefited from a part-time job at that age. Progressives look at benefits, but libertarians consider costs.
Posted by: Dan at January 18, 2012 9:13 AMI guess my parents were child abusers. I always had a job from age 12. May dad was disabled when I was 15 and all my siblings had to work. Go figure all of us turned out to be hard working productive members of society never running afoul of the law. To this day we've all raised families and continued to work. Except a niece and nephew that are still in school, all our children have grown and pursued careers of their own. All that from a disabled father and a mother who was forced to go back to work because of it. Sorry for the ramble. It must be flashbacks onset by having to work at such a young age. Can I get a disability for that?
Posted by: Max D at January 18, 2012 9:57 AM"Can I get a disability for that?"
Depends. Are you a fireman?
Posted by: Dan at January 18, 2012 10:38 AM"I am not sure that we are truly in a "Great Stagnation" in terms of historical productivity growth, as some economists have hypothesised"
I am.
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at January 18, 2012 1:16 PMSpot on analysis in the rest of your post.
"Only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority depended on assistance and aid–and there was no shortage of aid available to help that minority."
In the 19th century, this is so anti-historical that it is almost laughable.
It is true that in villages, farmers ate. In bad years they did not. In a sense, mill workers could support themsleves. The idea that they had "savings" is laughable "I owe my soul to the company store".
Although it is true that some individuals succeeded, it is hard for us to imagine the grinding poverty of the 19th century. Even the well to do, didn't do so well. If you live na 19th century house,look at the sizes of the original closets. Think how little clothing would fill them. Who populated those "wagon trains" headed West, successful burghers? In the Civil War, much of the Union army could not speak English,they joined the army to eat.
It was capitalism,which we are now running away from,and railroads which opened markets and lowered food costs that cured all this (that and public education). Mutual aid may have kept some from starving (imagine a time when there was a mutual aid society to send poor Jewish boys to law school)but it was industry that did the most.
Where was the "mututal aid" in the "Dust Bowl" of the 30's. What there was were armed guards at the California border to keep the "Okies" out.
Homeownership was precarious. Mortgages had a 3 year term (usually renewed,as with current commercial loans). When things got bad,the banks refused to renew and demanded the cash. That caused most of the foreclosures in the 1930's.
After the Civil War, we let southerners starve, farmers had to eat on their "seed money".
The 19th century was not a Golden Era, but we survived it.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at January 18, 2012 2:24 PM