The Roaring Twenties seemed to have good, stable economic situation as well as development in industries, technologies, and home construction. I had the feeling that the workers were getting the most out of it during this time because employers spent money to give educational, medical help for employees and their families… employee welfare and their rights were much more considered. Business values influenced many people: governments took care of business, feminists, and many people believed that their way of living have improved. Average wages rose 1% annually and usually skilled workers did better than unskilled laborers. However, I felt that in this section of the reading…the economy was developing and many people got advantages out of it!
However, because of the labor movement of the twenties where it was known to be the
“era of defeat, retreat, and division (183)”, it became the biggest downfall of the society. Thus, in the end… workers were not able to buy enough of anything to keep up their lives because their income was too low and many people suffered from having no job. It says in the novel that national income fell in a huge amount (83 to 40billion dollars in only three years) and working people were the ones who had to experience these difficulties. Wages were cut and the depression really affected minority and immigrants (they were even told to go back to their countries).
My question: on pg 179-180, the novel discusses about how the profit in media came from advertising. Do you think this is still happening today? If so, what would that be and why?
I have no idea what to write so I’m going to post a quote I found interesting and see what happens,
This is a quote from page 176 talking about how business magnates were the new celebrities and had become, "'the dictators of our destines,' replacing 'the statesmen, the priest, the philosopher, as the creator of standards of ethics and behavior,' and reigning as 'the final authority on the conduct of American society.'"
I thought this was particularly interesting given how corrupt all of the business people turned out to be and how un-ethical their conduct was.
My question on all of this is do you think that the celebrities have as much power over us now as the businessmen did then?
I found it really interesting to read about the labor movement in a time of prosperity, when there was truly a middle class. Whenever I think of the 1920’s I exclusively think of an explosion of culture: the teenager, a sexual revolution, suffrage, music, classy parties with fancy cocktails (maybe that’s only because of the musical Thoroughly Modern Millie)…But, as always, there was much to this decade!
I also didn’t realize “yellow dog contracts” where as old as the 20’s. It continues to shock me that companies have their employees sign a contract that says they have no intention of joining a union. As if those welfare programs would permanently solve all the problems of the working class (although the programs are pretty great!). It makes unions into a group of employees working against the corporation instead of an organization working WITH the corporation.
I wonder if more people would join unions if they didn’t have those contracts. Do they really stop people from joining them?
this reading left me a tiny bit confused. I had understood from chapter 6 that things were improving for workers, at least lawfully speaking, with the magna carta Clayton act thing, but then these "yellow dog contracts" seemed to do the exact oposite everyone had been working for.
The idea of being a great big business tycoon was completely romanticized. It seems to me as if everyone in America suddenly fell in love with the kind of people so many had been recently striking against. the book "The man nobody knows" (italics isn't working for some reason) for example showed Jesus as a business man. I guess I don't know what I'm getting at, but I'm just confused as to why the public opinion changed so much. were people really just completely turned around by what they read in the business celebrity magazines that were apparently so popular?
In page 181, the reading goes on to talk about wages rising and Calvin Coolige talking about post apocalyptic new heaven and earth. From what I understand, didn't Calvin Coolidge fire all of the striking Boston Police officers in 1919 and hire new ones to take their place? Where does he get the nerve to say that the man who builds a factory builds a temple??
question: The second part of the reading talks about how the business men were the celebrities of the 20's and goes on to explain how having the business man as "the final authority on the conduct of American society" meant that the worker of the 20's was told to revere his boss as a god, what are the cultural implications for the mind of the contemporary American worker of having actors and musicians as the celebrities of our time?[/i]
Alex has a brilliant post. As Julie says, the roaring twenties were good for average laborers even though unions decreased in power. Corporate welfare was one reason for the decline in unions. Companies were giving workers some of the benefits that they sought through unions. The corporate welfare movement espoused the point of view that the interests of corporations and labor were the same. The political climate became more conservative as radial politics were out of sync with the time. Women gained their right to vote and the sale of alcohol was banned.
The 1920s were kind of like the last decade where everyone lived beyond their means. this is to say the average quality of life increase was a topicle increase, that from this point in time seems short lived.
Ny question is why did corporations decide to pursue principles of corporate welfare and why did unions not respond to protect their interests?
also
are unions populations anticoralated with economic groath? also how did aboliton affect the labor forces.
The unions were just so lame at this point in time, it seems strange to me that at the point when unions are at their weakest that companys would start providing benifits and increasing wages. I figure that most likly people no longer felt the need to unionize so strongly because of the added benifits. Also unsurprisingly the great depression sucked a ton, for instance wages for construction workers fell 48 percent. It also hit balcks a and immagrants especialy hard. In pitsberg blacks composed 8% of the population yet acounted for 38% of the unemployed.
In this chapter the book mentions racateering, i have heard the term before but I have no idea what it means, what is it?
This quote from Chp. 7 really stuck in my mind: "The Supreme Court voided minimum wage laws as unconstitutional, since there can be no difference between the case of selling labor and the case of selling goods." Although labor is still a commodity today, I still can't wrap my head around people being valued as goods or tools for profit. Isn't that dehumanizing and just sad that this is how our economy operates? It was also depressing to hear that business magnates had become "the dictator of our destinies...the creator of standards of ethics and behavior...the final authority on the conduct of American society." It seemed to me that corporate executives were deities in American society during the Roaring 20's and had the power to do whatever they wanted.
Another quote that resonated w/ me was the idea that "the interests of the employer and employee are mutual and at bottom identical." Although there was great hope during this era as the standard of living was improving rapidly, even crazy ambitions to abolish poverty, I couldn't help but think about was the failure of Reagan's trickle down economic policies and how this has lead to where we are today: we have one of the highest GINI Coefficients (Bascially disparity in wealth) among 1st world nations. I couldn't help but wonder if the same result happened from Hoover's era. And I would argue it did and for support I have a quote from the book..."about a third of the nation's total personal income went to the richest 5 percent of the people.
The end of the chapter foreshadows the presidency of FDR and called him an advocate of government relief programs and unemployment insurance. My question is why does the economy need to be in shambles in order for it be all right for the government to intervene and provide various welfare and recovery programs? Why can't regulation always be a part of the system, won't it help prevent such collapses?
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 11:53 am Post subject:
Quote:
on pg 179-180, the novel discusses about how the profit in media came from advertising. Do you think this is still happening today? If so, what would that be and why?
Its everywhere! Look on the top of this page! Look at youtube, hulu, facebook, etc.
What pays for this website (I'm assuming this) are the ads, and we (CSW) don't have to pay for it because its ad-supported. Thats what pays for youtube, and hulu, and everything else. I think the average rate of ads on the TV is 17%, and its been steady at that rate for a while (episodes are around 46 minutes long each)
Quote:
I wonder if more people would join unions if they didn’t have those contracts. Do they really stop people from joining them?
Of course! You're risking your job for this, of course you'll think twice since job security means a lot to people. _________________ WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
This chapter, for me, felt like everything was falling even further apart. I think this peaked on p. 183, when "labor leaders echoes businessmen in their love of capitalism. Some even became capitalists themselves..." I mean, what's happening!? Is this the point at which we turn into modern America, where unions are these struggling little organizations, and every other activist, nonprofit group uses advertising and other "capitalist" resources to stay afloat? I just wonder what happened to all the stubborn integrity of the 1850's-1890's. I guess a lot of the main leaders have died at this point, so perhaps that's the reason?
In partial answer to Alex's question: state-sponsored welfare and other aid programs are only resorted to when all else fails, and I think that is an important thing that separates us from Socialist countries like, say, the Netherlands, where they give you $5,000 (approximate figure, from memory) when you have a baby, for expenses. If we didn't avoid handouts like the plague, people might give up on our work system to make a living -- and capitalism would suffer. So I would add a question to that, namely: should that/could that change? Is edging toward socialism, if it benefits this country's massive underclass, a good thing? (bonus: could we stand it if Obama went for this, and those idiots who've mislabeled him were validated?)
Looking at the early years of the great depression, it really makes me feel sad. The depression is the faults of the industrialists who have been running the country, but it's the workers who get to suffer the most.
During the 20s, the cooperation became the leader of union's action, and endorsed even more scientific management other speed-up schemes, the government set up a system of intervention that made legal strikes almost impossible.
The decline of unionism prevent wage hikes and worker's resistance against the speedups that limit industrial employment, therefore results in the earnings too little and jobless to common. I wondered. Could the situation be overturned? Could new unions rise up again in the 1920s, like how AFL, IWW and SP rise up in the end of 19th century and beginning of 20th century, why couldn't they?
To Answer Corinna's question: Is edging toward socialism, if it benefits this country's massive underclass, a good thing?
It's surely a good thing for the underclasses, but not for the upper classes; however, I think that both capitalism and socialism are necessary to maintain a economy system. When capitalism goes too extreme, it is the government's job to intervene and redistribute the wealth. At the end of the 20s, about a third of the nation's total income went to the the richest 5 percent of the people. And when the top 10 percent spent half the nation's expenditures on health care, education, and recreation, I think it might help to prevent the great depression, if the government can apply some degree of socialism to the system...or maybe not?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
