Myth of the Robber Barons

[SpuriusMaximus]

So your solution would be to charge them rates considerably higher than that or leave them behind in Europe?

Do you people just hate the idea that you can help someone else and make a profit on it?

I'm game. How does getting some people dead by the time they're on the other side of the ocean helping them?

Do you think those people actually made an informed decision to pay for something which will get them sick and often slowly starved to death? Or maybe such fraudulent ads advertising that as luxurious and elegant accomodations may have something to do with it?

If that's the great help and benefit of an unregulated robber-baron market, then I think I can do without _that_.

 

[Patrick_R]

Why does child labor exist? Because families are poor and they need the income. Period.

The US saw a decline in child labor as the economy grew more productive and produced more wealth. At one time all children worked on the farm. Then fewer and fewer went to work until around 1% of children were working at which time the government outlawed it. Wow thanks government for outlawing something the market had made unnecessary.

It certainly screwed poor families and outlawing child labor in 3rd world countries where people live on dollars a day is a nasty sort of unintended evil. Those families still need the money and those kids will still go to work. But instead of working in legal businesses they will work in the black market - what kind of job do you think that is? Prostitution and drug running...maybe?

You guys cannot wish away, regulate away, or legislate away the problems of the world. It doesn't happen over night.

 

[Patrick_R]

Do you just hate the idea that making profit doesn't necessarily help people?

You can make a profit via voluntary transactions and that is good.

You can make a profit via threat of violence and that is bad.

I've always made that distinction.

Giving someone a job that they voluntarily agree to take and paying them $1 an hour to produce you something that is sold to consumers willing to buy it which earns you millions is not bad. You created a job, a product people are willing to buy, and improved your life, the employees life, and the consumers life. That is a good thing.

 

[Patrick_R]

I'm game. How does getting some people dead by the time they're on the other side of the ocean helping them?

Good thing no one died on their trans atlantic ships before or after Vanderbilt came along...

 

[Z]

The lesser of two evils is still an evil.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But I also have no real incentive to want to bring back those good ol' days.

Yes, the period of robber barons and savage exploitation and child labour, sorta served its purpose... in much the same way as the Black Death did. Are we all richer now because of it? Well, yes, but then we also have to thank most of our prosperity to the Black Death which got the ball rolling in this direction. Would I want to bring back the good ol' days of unregulated robber-barons? No, not any more than I would want to bring back the Black Death.

That was some sacrificed generation, plain and simple. We benefit from their sacrifice, yes, in much the same way as we benefit from medical research on humans at Auschwitz. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should bring back that age. I profit from their sacrifice, yes, but I have no intention whatsoever to sacrifice my generation too on the altar of the holy dollar.

 

[Alt+F4]

Think about this: When people came to the US originally many had to pay large sums of money and the conditions were NOT any better and the ships were even slower. The cost was so high many sold themselves into servitude for 7 years!

I repeat, 7 years.

Flash forward to that evil robber baron. He gave you more space, a faster rate of speed for $30, far cheaper than the competition. And he didn't force anyone on his boats. They volunteered to pay the $30 and go aboard.

You should brush up on your U.S. history. Indentured servants were given a lump sum payment of money or land when their service was done. Immigrants were just dumped on the dock.

Flash forward to the age of the robber baron, well now an immigrant died during a two week vogage rather than a three month one.

 

[Biscuit]

Nonsense. Taking someone from their home, by force, and then forcing them to work for you by threatening them from violence A) violates the freedom/harm principal B) would not simply return just because there are no minimum wage laws.

How do we go from No slavery and no minimum wage to a minimum wage and no slavery back to no minimum wage and thus a return of slavery. It does not make sense.

So you stand by the freedom/harm principal but ignore the harm that the robber barons inflicted on workers.

You want to state that workers from the robber baron age were happy and well treated. You scold people who then try and apply todays standards on workers from that era. So simply put one could argue that brining blacks to america as slaves made them better off then leaving them in Africa and applying our modern day standards that slavery is wrong is unfair.

Blacks got a free ride to america something most european workers, at the time, would have a hard time affording.

Africa was a savage and dangerous place with a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and the constant threat of warfare.

Primitive, by the standards of the time, medical care and housing was all that Africa had to offer.

In America they were a valuable commodity were their health and well being was critical to being able turn a profit. So with some exception Africans were better off as slave labor in America and else were than they were in Africa.

The slave traders did Africans a favor, made a profit, and did so without government regulation. Applying todays standards is unfair.

 

[Patrick_R]

But I also have no real incentive to want to bring back those good ol' days.

No, bring back the good old rules - government stays out of business interests (well technically interferes less because our government did have stupid subsidy and protection policies).

Yes, the period of robber barons and savage exploitation and child labour, sorta served its purpose...

WTF? Giving people jobs, with higher wages than they would have otherwised earned, falling prices and rising standards of living was savage exploitation?

in much the same way as the Black Death did. Are we all richer now because of it? Well, yes, but then we also have to thank most of our prosperity to the Black Death which got the ball rolling in this direction. Would I want to bring back the good ol' days of unregulated robber-barons? No, not any more than I would want to bring back the Black Death.

What kind of sick and twisted argument is that? You're comparing a viral infection to people making a profit by improving the lives of others in society?

That was some sacrificed generation, plain and simple. We benefit from their sacrifice, yes, in much the same way as we benefit from medical research on humans at Auschwitz. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should bring back that age. I profit from their sacrifice, yes, but I have no intention whatsoever to sacrifice my generation too on the altar of the holy dollar.

Again, sickness and absurdity. Taking people by force and violently experimenting on their person IS NOT the same as GIVING SOMEONE A JOB, PAYING THEM FOR THEIR WORK, SELLING GOODS AT A CHEAPER PRICE THAN THE COMPETITION, and overall IMPROVING THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Actions by force cannot be made into an analogy about a system of voluntary transactions JUST because you don't think the standards are up your modern conceptions.

 

[Lothian]

Think about this: When people came to the US originally many had to pay large sums of money and the conditions were NOT any better and the ships were even slower. The cost was so high many sold themselves into servitude for 7 years!

I repeat, 7 years.

Flash forward to that evil robber baron. He gave you more space, a faster rate of speed for $30, far cheaper than the competition. And he didn't force anyone on his boats. They volunteered to pay the $30 and go aboard.

I am not convinced that pointing out that the demand for option B is greater than the demand for option A means anything more than option A has less demand than option B.

You seem to think it does.

 

[Patrick_R]

So you stand by the freedom/harm principal but ignore the harm that the robber barons inflicted on workers.

What giving them a job, a higher wage so they could afford better living conditions? Or the harm of reducing the cost of living and helping to improve living standards?

I'm not sure, which of these was "harmful" things are you worried about most.

You want to state that workers from the robber baron age were happy and well treated.

Bull, there lives were better, but not perfect. Were they well treated? Probably better than trying to scrape a living on their farms and probably a lot better than in Europe where they had to deal with those elitist aristocrats.

You scold people who then try and apply todays standards on workers from that era.

Yes, because you actually think that if government had of been invovled those peoples lives would have been even better as if government can snap its fingers and POOOF create wealth to spread around. You want them to have AC'd homes, and health insurance etc etc etc

So simply put one could argue that brining blacks to america as slaves made them better off then leaving them in Africa and applying our modern day standards that slavery is wrong is unfair.

Do you people every pay attention. If you bothered, for a moment to even try and understand the freedom/harm principal you wouldn't even dare suggest bringing back slavery.

 

[Alt+F4]

Actions by force cannot be made into an analogy about a system of voluntary transactions JUST because you don't think the standards are up your modern conceptions.

When people are desperate enough to go on a coffin ship I don't consider that a voluntary action.

It is possible for the robber barons to have made a profit and treated people like human beings. Assume the cost of the trip was $30 and the profit margin for the robber baron was $20. Why couldn't the robber baron have invested one more dollar into better conditions on the ship? In this way fewer immigrants would die on the voyage and the robber baron would still have a hefty profit of $19.

Why didn't they do that? Because why settle for $19 when you can have $20.

 

[Patrick_R]

I am not convinced that pointing out that the demand for option B is greater than the demand for option A means anything more than option A has less demand than option B.

You seem to think it does.

Are we comparing 7 years of servitude to $30 of cash in 1850 here?

 

[Cleon]

You can make a profit via voluntary transactions and that is good.

You can make a profit via threat of violence and that is bad.

I've always made that distinction.

Giving someone a job that they voluntarily agree to take and paying them $1 an hour to produce you something that is sold to consumers willing to buy it which earns you millions is not bad. You created a job, a product people are willing to buy, and improved your life, the employees life, and the consumers life. That is a good thing.

Problem is, "voluntary" isn't always "voluntary." Lack of viable alternative options doesn't make it "voluntary" in the usual sense of the word.

"Creating jobs" doesn't make up for treating your employees like slaves, and no amount of window dressing will change that.

 

[Alt+F4]

Are we comparing 7 years of servitude to $30 of cash in 1850 here?

Again, unfair comparison. Indentured servants received land or money at the end of their service.

 

[Patrick_R]

When people are desperate enough to go on a coffin ship I don't consider that a voluntary action.

It most certainly is. No body put a gun to their head. No body forced them on the boat.

It is possible for the robber barons to have made a profit and treated people like human beings. Assume the cost of the trip was $30 and the profit margin for the robber baron was $20. Why couldn't the robber baron have invested one more dollar into better conditions on the ship? In this way fewer immigrants would die on the voyage and the robber baron would still have a hefty profit of $19.

Why didn't they do that? Because why settle for $19 when you can have $20.

Because the purpose of running a business is to make as much profit as possible. A business has no other moral obligation to society than to make a profit. In this society,of course, we have a free economy open to competition.

But you don't know how much profit he made. You don't know how close to the margin he was operating and you don't know the meaning of profit.

Profit is the reward you get by offering a service or good to people who want it by using the fewest resources to provide it. That means resources are freed to produce other things and generate MORE WEALTH.

But lets say he charged $1 less per passenger when he knows he could have made that dollar. He now has less money to invest in other areas of the company, expand services, innovate new solutions to provide a cheaper service. So maybe in the short run he does help a few people but in the long run they are likely to harm many many more than they every helped.

 

[Alt+F4]

"Creating jobs" doesn't make up for treating your employees like slaves, and no amount of window dressing will change that.

How true. Why should a worker be treated poorly just because the employeer can get away with it?

Walmart pays it's Nicaraguan workers about 15 cents an hour (13 for kids). Paying them two or three cents more would greatly increase their quality of life (I don't mean flat screen TVs and cell phones, I mean better nutrition and medical care). The extra two or three cents won't hurt Walmart's bottom line but the reason why they won't do it is because the Nicaraguans are willing to work for 15 cents.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the Libertarian way!

 

[Patrick_R]

Again, unfair comparison. Indentured servants received land or money at the end of their service.

And how much wealth do you think was lost by not owning their own labor?

Lets say in both days you could earn $2 a day - that is $5,110 in wealth that could have been generated over that time which has a value of $0 plus whatever land and cash you might get from your master.

Compared to the $5,110 - $30.

I'm of course, having to assume that you wouldn't work any harder when trying to improve your own life compared to working as a servant with no prospect of reward for 7 years...that is a big assumption.

Really, I'd have to bet that the $30 fair was fare cheaper than serving 7 years as a servant.

 

[Patrick_R]

How true. Why should a worker be treated poorly just because the employeer can get away with it?

Walmart pays it's Nicaraguan workers about 15 cents an hour (13 for kids). Paying them two or three cents more would greatly increase their quality of life (I don't mean flat screen TVs and cell phones, I mean better nutrition and medical care). The extra two or three cents won't hurt Walmart's bottom line but the reason why they won't do it is because the Nicaraguans are willing to work for 15 cents.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the Libertarian way!

When did Wal-Mart open up a super center in Nicaragua?

Lets say Wal-Mart actually has a factory down there. If Wal-Mart wasn't down there at all, what would those workers be doing?

 

[Praktik]

2. Even those figures just tell me a different story. I'll take your numbers so we don't argue about source and validity.

Between 1900 and 1930, decidedly non-keynesian years, the GDP pro capita in 2000 dollars rose from $4,921 to $6,418. But ok, the depression was already kicking in, let's take the $7,099 peak from 1929 instead. That's a total rise of about 40% in 30 years.

But in only 8 years of the New Deal, from 1933 to 1941 the same indicator rose from $5,056 to $9,079, or roughly by 80%.

In a comparable 30 year interval, from 1950 to 1980, that indicator approximately _doubled_.

So the way I read your numbers, yes, during these keynesian post-Great-Depression years, the economic growth was much faster than in the good ol' Laissez Faire years. So why would I want to bring those back?

I am interested in a direct response from Patrick to these points.