16848 pts ยท August 25, 2011
"The way of the future"
I would be interested to know what a soviet smart phone would be like, tiny screen, made of iron,3 kg, 10 year wait, AA batteries.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? The Russians are going to be forced into using less expensive devices that have headphone jacks
*Art vanDelay
Is that George Costanza?
Source: My great great grandfather did this
It was common for men to come here then pay to bring their families over.
The US was being flooded with immigrants from the supposedly more progressive European counties and few people went back home.
Whatever company that had company stores could not force people to work for them, people took the best jobs they could.
Yeah, I should have broadend the question to include ANY country in1912 where child labor and abject poverty did not exist.
You cannot legislate away poverty
In the old days children worked because poverty was universal and the only thing that stopped that was increased worker output.
If capitalists paid nothing no one would work for them, labor is a resource that must be competed for. I feel like I'm arguing with a child
Reason why we live so well now is because a single farmer can harvest thousands of acres a day, teamsters can transport 60k lbs at once ect
Workers can't be paid more without more output, worker output was very low without cheap steel and powered machinery that did not yet exist.
You can afford to outlaw child labor when you are prosperous enough to not induce starvation amongst workers.
It DID NOT eliminate child labor but limited the ages and hours from 9yrs and up and less than 12hrs/day.
That makes absolutely no sense. You can not legislate prosperity.
The power of capitalism is the individua incentive for efficiency and productivity, Slavery does not have that and is inferior to free labor
If you lived in an age when children did not go to school and normally worked as soon as they were fit this would hurt the family.
I meant socialist in a board pupular sense of highly regulated economy or planned economy or anything except a free market.
Was there any country in the world in 1912 that outlawed child labor?
The distinction between can get fuzzy so, just show me any part of the world that banned child labor in 1912.
In England they only started limited child labor in the late 19th century, it was ahead of the US but England was a more prosperous country.
Child labor laws only came into effect after worker output increased to the point where children didn't need to work to support the family
Grinding poverty and ceaseless labor was the norm for nearly all of human civilization, we are unbelievably fortunate to exist here and now.
Was that because of capitalism or the fact that it was a century ago? Can you show me a socialist part of the world that was better?
Fun Fact: We are still buying oil Russia
Fortunately for my wife my tool collection is limited by the size of the gararge. I would own a CNC maching center if I had the space.
International trade and economic codependency is a force but not as iron clad as complete destruction of an invader.
I would be interested to know what a soviet smart phone would be like, tiny screen, made of iron,3 kg, 10 year wait, AA batteries.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? The Russians are going to be forced into using less expensive devices that have headphone jacks
*Art vanDelay
Is that George Costanza?
Source: My great great grandfather did this
It was common for men to come here then pay to bring their families over.
The US was being flooded with immigrants from the supposedly more progressive European counties and few people went back home.
Whatever company that had company stores could not force people to work for them, people took the best jobs they could.
Yeah, I should have broadend the question to include ANY country in1912 where child labor and abject poverty did not exist.
You cannot legislate away poverty
In the old days children worked because poverty was universal and the only thing that stopped that was increased worker output.
If capitalists paid nothing no one would work for them, labor is a resource that must be competed for. I feel like I'm arguing with a child
Reason why we live so well now is because a single farmer can harvest thousands of acres a day, teamsters can transport 60k lbs at once ect
Workers can't be paid more without more output, worker output was very low without cheap steel and powered machinery that did not yet exist.
You can afford to outlaw child labor when you are prosperous enough to not induce starvation amongst workers.
It DID NOT eliminate child labor but limited the ages and hours from 9yrs and up and less than 12hrs/day.
That makes absolutely no sense. You can not legislate prosperity.
The power of capitalism is the individua incentive for efficiency and productivity, Slavery does not have that and is inferior to free labor
If you lived in an age when children did not go to school and normally worked as soon as they were fit this would hurt the family.
I meant socialist in a board pupular sense of highly regulated economy or planned economy or anything except a free market.
Was there any country in the world in 1912 that outlawed child labor?
The distinction between can get fuzzy so, just show me any part of the world that banned child labor in 1912.
In England they only started limited child labor in the late 19th century, it was ahead of the US but England was a more prosperous country.
Child labor laws only came into effect after worker output increased to the point where children didn't need to work to support the family
Grinding poverty and ceaseless labor was the norm for nearly all of human civilization, we are unbelievably fortunate to exist here and now.
Was that because of capitalism or the fact that it was a century ago? Can you show me a socialist part of the world that was better?
Fun Fact: We are still buying oil Russia
Fortunately for my wife my tool collection is limited by the size of the gararge. I would own a CNC maching center if I had the space.
International trade and economic codependency is a force but not as iron clad as complete destruction of an invader.