Funny, isn’t it, that there were no regulations over internet commerce in the 1950s, and likely nothing about things like asbestos in clothing or lead in pipes if we go back to the 30’s. It’s almost like you need to expect more regulation as new information and technology is developed.
Slight quibble: You receive a pension if you retire from the military after a (generally) 20-plus-year career. This would only have applied to a small percentage of those who served in WW2.
I encountered something recently that made me think about the current nahployment crisis. The “servant crisis” of the first half of the 20th century. I’m not a historian, so I’m certainly getting details wrong, and maybe I’m even confused about the big picture.
Prior to the 20th century, servants were very common. Unless you were a servant, there was a good chance you had one. A live in maid to cook, clean, etc.
Starting in the early 20th century (or before) the poor working conditions and bad pay (sound familiar?) for servants meant that many left as other opportunities became available in factories or wherever. For a time these open servant positions could be filled with immigrants and African Americans moving from the south, but those people also left for better positions. The two world wars also played a big part in the lack of servants.
Hence the servant crisis. Middle class homes could no longer afford to hire servants, and it became more expensive for the wealthy.
The rise of labor saving devices in the home, such as washing machines, vacuums, etc, was a response to the dwindling servant class. Lack of humans to do the work caused the machine replacements, it wasn’t machine replacements putting people out of work.
No pension, but my father was in the Navy for a grand total of four years in the 1950s to pay for his college tuition and he’s still using the VA medical system almost 70 years later. Socialized medicine!
That’s your problem - you assume @Sam_Stone was using the term ‘socialism’ to refer to the economic policy that goes by that name. That’s not what he meant (and of he is capable of defining that term, I’ve never seen him do so). Socialism just means “something I [a conservative] dislike”.
See also: Communism, Marxism, Woke/Wokism, Fascism, Anarchy, Unconstitutional, Elitist.
Feel free to use interchangeably.
Agatha Christie is reported to have said that she “never thought she’d be rich enough to afford a car, or too poor to afford a maid” - the point being that cars became cheap and labor expensive.
I’ve heard that one reason the Romans didn’t advance technology as much as they could was because they had an ample supply of cheap and slave labor. Certainly they were technologically advanced for their time, but they often just turned to manpower to get things done rather than invest in innovative mechanical devices and technological solutions to do the work. So I guess the trade off between cheap manpower and machines has been going on for a long time.
I had a history professor who said that we have just as many servants as the Victorians did. It’s just that all of our servants are mechanical.
They had a grasp of creating pressure using steam, and even of using that steam pressure to do work (powering simple novelties like toys or making religious displays like statues that move or make noise). I’ve seen some speculation that without cheap slave labor they’d have had the incentive to create a steam engine.
However this wouldn’t have been trivial even with a full understanding of steam; a boiler large enough to power a galley, for example, was probably beyond their metallurgical skills.
Perhaps better intended for the take a modern invention back in time thread. I suspect it all works together.
The Romans had no need for a steam engine powerful enough to propel a galley, so they had no need for metallurgy advanced enough to build such a boiler. If they needed a large boiler, then there would have been motivations to develop better metallurgy and all of the other technology involved in building a steam ship. Which would have spawned other technologies that could use the advanced metallurgy (queue Connections intro music).
Going back to the “servant crisis” history. Lots of the technology involved in household labor saving devices already existed, but was either not popular or not put to domestic use until getting somebody else to do the work became difficult.
But it didn’t strike you as odd that John_T referred to the 50’s as ‘more socialist’? Because that’s who I was responding to.
But now we are getting into the endless, tedious discussion of what ‘socialism’ is, which never ends because no one can agree and the definition keeps shifting with the political winds. It’s a useless debate over terminology instead of real world actions and effects.
Let’s put it this way: In the 1950’s, the average person kept more of their income. They filled out less paperwork, and had to worry a lot less about whether what they were doing was forbidden by some federal, state or local regulation. They required fewer permits to do things, and in general the government was a much smaller part of their lives. And their were fewer social safety nets.
And that’s the standard answer from the left whenever someone complains about over-regulation: to use examples of regulation no one disagrees with (“What, you WANT your food to be poisoned? You WANT your kids ingesting lead?”) which ignores the myriad regulations that are much more debatable, introduced because of special interest pressure or political needs rather than wherher or not they do any good, or regulations that have an ostensibly good outcome but in practice do not work, or regulations introduced for ideological reasons, or are much more expensive than alternatives.
For an example, look at the ridiculous state of licensing laws. Now, most of these are state and local and not federal, but the same thing applies.
In Philadelphia, if you are a ‘blogger’ you need a city license, and you have to pay a $300 fee. In most states, hair styling is a licensed activity that requires more training hours than becoming an EMT.
Federal regulations demanding calorie count information be added to menus has cost small food businesses hundreds of millions of dollars. Obamacare significantly increased the paperwork burdens on businesses.
Then there are the regulations that are actually counterproductive. Rent control destroys rental markets and locks people into rent-controlled locations, lowering labor mobility. New regulations on vaping may drive people back to smoking cigarettes. Overzealous regulation by the FDA keeps life-saving drugs off the market and drives up the prices of drugs for everyone.
The Jones act requires that all ships that move between US ports be built, owned, and operated by American citizens. This blatantly protectionist law has made shipping more expensive and less flexible, and is probably contributing to the supply chain crisis. The Federal Reaserve studied the Jones act and concluded that it made shipping goods between U.S. ports considerably more expensive - as much as twice as expensive.
I could go on and on. The Register is full of terrible laws that cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
Unless you served during wartime, in which case you can have a wartime pension with as few as 90 days of active duty.
~Max
And this is a myth that you like to invoke. But it’s simply false.
“Worry less about some federal, state, or local regulation”? Are you forgetting that the government nationalized the steel industry in 1952? Or that the ICC decided on trucking routes? Or that it was illegal to own gold? That’s without mentioning the obvious segregation and miscegenation laws that were so important to social order.
This was also an era, let’s not forget, that was beset my recession. We had one in ‘49, ‘53, ‘57, and ‘60. It was not a time when some free market liberation was spreading throughout the land.
And? You yourself said that the register began in the 30’s. Are you positing that it was only the necessary stuff at first, and only became superfluous later? Or do you concede (as you appear to do) that there are good, worthwhile, and smart regulations that have been instituted in even recent times? If it’s the latter, than it doesn’t seem correct that the problem today is simply more regulations, since some are undoubtedly good and useful.
Hair stylists in many cases handle hazardous materials, and can make themselves and/or their customers seriously ill if they aren’t trained to do so properly.
It’s also a misnomer to believe that the licensing of barbers is a new phenomenon, reflecting a trend towards increased regulation of otherwise free activities.
From my googling, the first barber license laws were enacted in Minnesota in the 1890s. Another site tells me that North Carolina first established a barber licensing board in 1929. Of course, as with many things, this was in part to prevent black people from the profession, but any notion that a license requirement is a recent idea is not correct.
How do US laws cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars every year?
Since the Register and the entire discussion is about American law, not much except to the extent that the protectionism costs everyone.
But you know what I was talking about. This is just another in the endless stream of disingenuous attempts by you to ‘otherize’ me and point out that I shouldn’t have an opinion because I am not in the correct country. It’s a form of ad-hominem, and tells me that you got nuthin’ of substance to debate.
I just noticed this. The Jones Act was passed in 1920. What, pray tell, does that have to do with changes in modern commerce, or with a comparison between regulatory schemes in 1950’s America and modern times?