UNIONS: NOT the cause of our 40 hour workweek
UNIONS: NOT the cause of our 40 hour workweek!When economists and historians were surveyed, 88% of them either agreed or mostly agreed with the proposition that economic growth – NOT Unions – was to thank for our reduced workweek. In fact, only 5-6% thought that unions were the primary cause. [1] While this - by itself - does not constitute evidence, the following points DO:• In 1790 about 90% of workers worked in agriculture. [2] They had almost no choice. People didn't have the luxury of ignoring food production. And until recent human history, 40 hours of labor a week generally wasn't productive enough to feed a family, so hours were long and labor was intensive. • Thankfully, as technology made it possible, fewer farms fed greater populations, and by 1990 the share of the labor force working in agriculture had dropped to only 2.6%. This decline occurred consistently throughout the decades. [2] [3] What's noteworthy is that freedom from these long hours and back-breaking labor didn't arise because someone passed a law mandating that everyone could stop working after only 8 hours and still magically have enough food to feed their families, rather it manifested because increases in productivity allowed people to leave the farm. Two of our sources confirm this was happening, one specifically noting the increase in per capita GDP from 1800 to 1860 [4] and the other noting its increase from 1890 and on. [5]• When people moved into manufacturing, they began working few hours over the decades. To confirm this, our video heavily relied upon two key sources. As the census explains, “Prior to 1913, except for the data in the Weeks Report and the Aldrich Reports, readily available data are extremely spotty and inadequate.” [6] The Weeks Report was part of the 1883 Census and the Aldrich Report was prepared for the 1893 Senate Committee on Finance. Since these are considered by most professionals to be the best sources from this era, they're what we used in our review. The data, despite well known inaccuracies, still show an undeniable trend. The average workweek declined from approximately 70 hours in 1830 to about 60 hours by 1890. [7] [8] As stated in the Weeks Report, “There having been a marked increase in the 10-hour period, and a marked DECREASE in the 12 to 13 and 13 to 14 hour periods between 1830 and 1880.” (FYI: the number of individuals working 8-9 hour work days was mostly unchanged at this point.) [7]• This, too, was the result of productivity increases; specifically, the implementation of steam power. As a 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded, after observing historical trends in labor productivity, “Controlling for firm size, location, industry, and other establishment characteristics, steam powered establishments had higher labor productivity than establishments using hand or animal power, or water power. ...The diffusion of steam power was an important factor behind the growth of labor productivity, accounting for 22 to 41 percent of that growth between 1850 and 1880..." [9]• In the 1900's, workweek hours declined again from around 55-60 hours to only 35-40 hours by 1938. This clearly demonstrates that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was essentially unnecessary, at least in regards to establishing a 40 hour workweek as the standard. [10] [11] [12] [13] • Furthermore, it was found (Whaples 1990a) that high unionization and strike levels reduced hours only to a small degree. [10] In city-level comparisons, for instance, "state maximum hours laws appear to have had little affect on average work hours, once the influences of other factors have been taken into account." "Overall, in cities where wages were one percent higher, hours were about -0.13 to -0.05 percent lower. ...This suggests that during the era of declining hours, workers were willing to use higher wages to 'buy' shorter hours." [10]• So despite the data showing a clear decline in work hours all occurring prior to Unions having successfully lobbied Congress to legislate the 40 hour standard, people still mistakenly believe that Unions were to thank for our 8 hour day and 40 hour workweek. Our graph, from the study "Trends in Hours: The U.S. from 1900 to 1950”, shows the decline from 1830 to 1990. We had already reached the 40 hour standard by 1938 WITHOUT the need for legislation. Furthermore, as this study states, the "decline was not even across workers: it benefited mostly low-wage earners who used to work the most in 1900.” [14]THE REALITY?Labor unions had been trying for decades to legislate a shorter workweek but their goals simply weren't mathematically feasible until per capita GDP and productivity had first increased. Once they DID increase the demands of Unions were finally possible. This is far different, however, from falsely concluding that their demands were the SOURCE of said advancement. Just as in 1791 when Philadelphia carpenters went on strike seeking a 10 hour work day or in 1835 when different Philadelphia strikers did the same. Just as in 1864, when the Chicago labor movement began demanding an 8 hour work day, similar to the National Labor Union in 1866 who declared it necessary to free people from "capitalist slavery." Just as with the Illinois strike of 1867, or the 8-hour proclamation declared by President Grant in 1869, the central demands of labor organizers in the 1870's, the objectives of the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions in 1884, or the American Federation of Labor in 1888, all of whom sought an 8 hour work day, little improvement could have resulted had the economic circumstances not first allowed it. Yes, unions demanded a shorter work day, and yes, unions demanded a shorter workweek, but PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES and ECONOMIC GROWTH gave it to us.____________________Citations:[1](note: figures may not add exactly up to 100% due to rounding.) http://employees.csbsju.edu/jolson/ECON315/Whaples2123771.pdf[2]https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm[3]https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/wp07105.pdf(also the source of one of the graphs depicted in the video)[4]http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8007.pdf[5]http://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/finklerm/DeLong_Growth_History_Ch5.pdf[6]http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-06.pdf[7]U.S. Department of Interior (1883) Census (a.k.a The Weeks Report)http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v20-01.pdf[8]The Aldrich Report from the 1893 Senate Committee on Finance.https://archive.org/details/wholesalepricesw03unit[9]http://www.nber.org/papers/w11931[10] Whaples (1990a)http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9026669/[11] Jones (1963) https://goo.gl/GszkyY[12]Owen (1976, 1988)https://goo.gl/7m0Xws[13](source is cited merely to confirm when the FLSA was passed)http://smallbusiness.chron.com/national-fair-labor-standards-act-2953.html[14]http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.149.8647&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Posted by We Are Capitalists on Saturday, September 5, 2015
Quote of the Day
If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber.
Albert Einstein
Tweet of the Day
@realDonaldTrump on Bush's Spanish: if we are supposed to speak Native American, which dialect do you speak--Cherokee, Apache, Sioux, other?
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) September 7, 2015
@realDonaldTrump's labor protectionism is Luddite. The US is the leading agricultural exporter, 2% of the labor force. China: over 33% LF.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) September 7, 2015
Anti-immigrants cite Friedman's welfare state argument but fail to quote: "Illegal Mexican immigration...over the border, is a good thing."
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) September 7, 2015
What countries stand to gain if Trump managed to succeed in spending $600B we don't have to uproot contributing members of American society?
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) September 7, 2015
We don't need judicial restraint but judges who restrain the tyranny of government.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) September 7, 2015
Image of the Day 
Great Talk On the US Government Heresies Against the Constitution
Facebook Corner
(Libertarian Republican). This is a perfect representation of what state worshipers want to do with society as a whole.
Here's Clinton's real campaign song: https://youtu.be/lh3gmOZQiiQ
(Justin Amash). “The president’s made it very clear he’s not going to sign any bill that includes defunding of Planned Parenthood, so that’s another issue that awaits a new president, hopefully with a different point of view about Planned Parenthood,” [Sen. Maj. Ldr. Mitch] McConnell said on the Kentucky station WYMT’s “Issues and Answers.” That argument is unlikely to sit well with conservatives eager for a confrontation. “Establishment Rs say, "Wait till we have a GOP pres." If that happens, they'll say, "Wait till we have a filibuster-proof majority."#excuses,” Freedom Caucus member Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) wrote on Twitter.
We need to end ALL federal subsidies and other tax gimmicks.
It's amazing how hard Republicans will fight to defund Planned Parenthood, defund Social Security, defund Medicare, and defund programs to feed starving children, but they always find money to put towards an increasingly absurd military budget and tax cuts for their corporate sponsors. I can't wait until Donald Trump causes the GOP to finally collapse.
It's amazing how many left-fascist trolls are willing to steal and spend other people's money in throwing more money at failed government programs that primaily benefit the bureaucratic parasites. I can't wait until the federal government collapses if and when the political whores' house of cards falls down on their morally corrupt asses.
(Independent Institute). "She should not be forced to violate her religious convictions. But, she also should not remain in a government job in which she is unwilling to do what the job legally requires. So, let her follow her religious convictions, free her from jail, and fire her from a job that, on religious grounds, she doesn’t want to do."
The author doesn't seem to know that the County Clerk is an elected position; she's not a civil servant. In fact, failing to fulfill her duties is a misdemeanor and grounds for impeachment. The Kentucky governor and attorney general have told her to resign or comply with the law. She also refused to allow her 6 deputy clerks to process the paperwork, so this is not simply an issue of religious accommodation but she's obstructing the law, a violation of the rule of law.
 |
| via Libertarian Catholic |
(liberty.me). Just imagine. The United States federal government randomly picks 11 million people from the street, puts them on a boat and deports them. Imagine the economic catastrophe for the remaining people.
Solid essay. Some nitpicks: Friedman didn't oppose unauthorized immigration. Here's what he actually said: "Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal." By the last point, he is really pointing out that unauthorized aliens don't qualify for welfare state benefits. The author doesn't look enough at the history of the migration problem. For example, we had fairly open borders until 1924 (start of the Border Patrol); open immigration (with some ugly exceptions, i.e., Asians) existed until WWI. Shamefully, 3 GOP Presidents scapegoated immigrants in the post-WWI and Great Depressions (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover), but from 1942-1964, with war-related labor shortages, the US instituted the Bracero (guest worker program) which reduced immigration arrests by up to 95%. It was the labor unions' leaning on a Democratic Congress and White House that led to the status quo. Interestingly enough, the anti-liberty immigration quotas did not apply to Western Hemisphere countries until the 1965 immigration act. The author doesn't discuss keyhole solutions that shamefully none of the GOP immigration restrictionists discuss, e.g., establishing a flexible guest worker program. (Lincoln contemptuously considered the anti-immigrant Know Nothings in the same category as slaveowners.) http://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/
This would create prosperity, not catastrophe
Don't be a retard. Maybe deporting nativists would...
Ok so if the reason people are pissed about the " illegal immigrants " is because they pay no taxes yet get benefits what if there were no taxes or government benefits would these same people be so against these immigrants or would they be excepting of them . That's what I would like to know.
No, it's simply the rationalization of anti-immigrants. Recall these people cite Friedman, but Friedman actually pointed out that unauthorized immigrants are good for the US economy. And they do pay taxes (among other things, their and employers' social security contributions have shored up social security by nearly 3/4$1T) and they are ineligible for welfare.
It's all a moot point since it couldn't be achieved anyhow. They MIGHT be able to get people to leave on their own if the jobs and welfare benefits were dried up, and that's just a maybe.
You might want to focus on the fact there are 1M fewer unauthorized immigrants today than in 2007. So DUI is legal as long as you male or home safe and don't hot anyone? That's bullshit and you know it. Laws exist for a reason and should be respected. End of discussion.
Laws exist for the benefit of the ruling class. End of discussion.
Imagine the chaos for the countries that are supposed to accept 11 Million people...I doubt they will take them...and then what?
Economically illiterate rubbish. "Based on March 2008 data collected by the Census Bureau, the Center estimates that unauthorized immigrants are 4% of the nation’s population and 5.4% of its workforce. ..Most children of unauthorized immigrants—73% in 2008—are U.S. citizens by birth....The 2007 median household income of unauthorized immigrants was $36,000." Note that 1M unauthorized immigrants have left the US since 2007 and now account for 3.5% of the population. Roughly 45% of households own a home, and they have shored up social security, for which they are ineligible, by about 3/4$1T. They are important contributors to the economy as workers and consumers. Even Milton Friedman, who anti-immigrants love to quote on the welfare state, actually said, "Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal." And so, the economically illiterate OP needs to really ask is "what countries stand to gain if the xenophobe Trump managed to succeed in spending $600B we don't have to uproot contributing members of American society?"
(Proud to be an American). Donald Trump says that if Jeb Bush is running for the American presidency, he should stick to speaking English. Do you agree or disagree with Trump on this?
If we are supposed to speak Native American, which dialect do you speak--Cherokee, Apache, Sioux or other?
Political Cartoon
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Tina Turner, "The Best". One of my all-time favorites.
