FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Socialist vs Oligarch in US history

   
Author Topic: Socialist vs Oligarch in US history
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
I've read a few Historical Fiction books recently and a reoccurring theme seems to keep popping up. I'm curious if this is something in the bias of the fiction writer, or something with a historical reality.

The major tension in US History has not been North and South, White and Black, Liberal and Conservative, the Red Scares and Communist Witch hunts. Its been simple Cheap Labor vs Labor Rights. All those other divisions of politics has been covers for this one main desire.

From Shay's rebellion before the Constitution was created, to our modern fight over illegal immigration, the desire to find cheap labor, and the desire to get paid well for one's labor is the central theme of our history.

Shay's rebellion was a rebellion of small farmers against the landed aristocracy of Mass. One book I am reading argues that this rebellion pushed for the creation of the constitution as a property owners defense against these rebels.

I've often heard arguments that the civil war was not about slavery, but about the rights of the states. What it seems to boil down to is the rights of the wealthy Southern oligarch's versus the rights of the wealth Northern bankers seeking a return on the loans that were made to the south. In other words--the wealthy Oligarch's of the states striving to stay in power.

Slavery, whether the true cause of, or just the cover story for the Civil War was a major issue in 18th and early 19th century America. Why? Because it was about cheap labor for the Southern Oligarch, against being paid a descent wage for a descent job for the slaves.

It wasn't until the early 20th century that a final name was created for the Pro-Workers-Rights people. Anarchists, Abolitionists, Rebel all were partial names, given to different fronts for these people seeking to break the hold of the Oligarchs. The name discovered was Socialist, or Communist.

The next big fights against the Oligarchs were Unions, Anti-Monopoly Legislation, and Teddy Roosevelt. The government jumped back and forth, first helping the Socialists, then the Oligarchs, trying to strike a balance between succumbing to the men of power and succumbing to mob rule, and the rule of corrupt thugs who controlled the mobs.

Today we have TARP funds going out to save the Oligarchs, and the first raise in the Minimum wage in 30 years to help the Socialists. While the Conservatives are usually the Oligarch's, its the business Conservatives who want to maintain the cheap labor of Illegal Immigrants. The Social conservatives want to stop it as a dilution to their perceived cultural purity. Meanwhile the liberals want to help the poor and hungry workers that make up the Illegal Immigrants, but they also want to stop them from taking jobs from other Americans, or forcing the pay rates to be low.

Anyway, I find it an interesting point to view many of our present day events from.

Oligarchs want to keep Health Care as a great perk for their noble selves, and not be forced to pay for it for their workers.

Socialists see health care as a well earned part of their pay.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
That seems a rather un-intuitive view of the healthcare debate. If it were really about compensation, why not simply demand higher wages and buy the healthcare? Which would you rather have: An insurance policy that costs 100 dollars, or 5 $20 bills? If you would rather have the former, you need a very good explanation, because the plain cash could be used either to buy the policy, or for something else you need even more; it follows that it is more valuable. No?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Health care aside (and of course, there are multiple variables that play into any of the issues outlined in the initial post), I think the history of mankind has pitted the haves vs. the have-nots.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, it can be argued that it's better to get the insurance policy costing $100, all things being equal.

If everyone got the 5 $20 bills, a large number of them would not choose to buy health coverage. Because of this, they would not go for routine or preventative visits to the doctor, which would cause them to have more need of care for serious health concerns including emergency care.

What does that matter to those that do buy the insurance? Costs of health care will go up, meaning the cost of insurance will go up. So, while everyone is given 5 $20 bills... the cost of insurance is now $120.

Of course, that's one argument.

The difference between your two options comes down to freedom vs. responsibility, which is always tough. Giving the money rather than the coverage means that many people will not use it as intended . While some would argue that is their choice, it can also be argued that their choice is impacting others. However, giving the coverage rather than the money conjures the idea that people don't know what is best for them, so government has to take care of them - which is also distasteful.

So the choices are: Give money to a largely irresponsible society that will as often blow it on something frivolous as use it on healthcare, or install something akin to a governmental parent that is designed to spend the money in a certain way.

Neither is exactly my favorite option in the world.

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The major tension in US History has not been North and South, White and Black, Liberal and Conservative, the Red Scares and Communist Witch hunts. Its been simple Cheap Labor vs Labor Rights. All those other divisions of politics has been covers for this one main desire.
As someone who has spent a lot of time studying labor history over the last year and a half, yes, I agree, but I'm not sure it's that simple.

My favorite professor, who is a labor historian, refers to labor history as "the history of everything," because you can't JUST study labor law and worker/management relations. You quickly discover that location, race, gender, etc, all matter greatly, and that it's difficult, if not useless, to really study labor without heavy influences from the surrounding context.

But I think that the most deadly and destructive clashes in history have come as a result of labor disputes. I think the evolution of government's role in labor disputes is also fascinating. You know what the first cases that came under the court's purview regarding anti-monopoly legislation were? Anti-union lawsuits claiming unions were operating in restraint of interstate trade. It took 30 or 40 years for pro-labor legislation to be passed that exempted unions from prosecution under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The differing perceptions on how Americans feel and felt about labor and its role in society have changed drastically from generation to generation. We started America using British common law, which followed a more than two hundred year old statute that declared any combination of two or more people as an illegal combination. Unions were illegal. Attempting to bargain for better wages was illegal. It was coercion.

It wasn't until the mid-1850s that the Massachusetts State Supreme Court allowed unions to be legally formed, but the judge rendered his decision in a way that said they were legal, but the manner in which unions went about collective bargaining was up for debate, and that debate carried on from the day the federal court system adopted that policy as well, to the present day.

In general, public opinion reached a pro-labor peak in the 20s and 30s, even though arguably union power and membership actually peaked in the 70s. Depends on who you ask. Personally I think public opinion peaked in the 30s, and then started a downward spiral during WWII. 1947 was a bad year for labor, and it never really got better from there.

It's really a fascinating story. The area I would like to study personally when I get to grad school is post-industrial migration. There isn't a lot of clear data on where the millions of assembly line workers went when their jobs disappeared. I'd like to map what happened to them when they left the factories.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
I bet there's some fascinating stories waiting to be told there, Lyr.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If everyone got the 5 $20 bills, a large number of them would not choose to buy health coverage. Because of this, they would not go for routine or preventative visits to the doctor, which would cause them to have more need of care for serious health concerns including emergency care.
I wonder how many people who have health care still choose not to go for routine or preventative visits. I'm sure there is still a huge number of people who will wait for until the problem is serious before going to the doctor even with 'paid for without a choice' health care. Do young people need the $100 health care plan? Maybe they only need a $40 health care plan. It's a complicated issue
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
The last time I heard, it costs in excess of $200 a month for health insurance for an individual. $400 monthly for a family. (At least, here in Michigan a few years ago.) Not a lot of people can easily afford that, hence the problem.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I wonder how many people who have health care still choose not to go for routine or preventative visits. I'm sure there is still a huge number of people who will wait for until the problem is serious before going to the doctor even with 'paid for without a choice' health care. Do young people need the $100 health care plan? Maybe they only need a $40 health care plan. It's a complicated issue

Obviously the biggest drain is related to the most extreme cases, so a good part of the time the system saves money by eliminating superfluous or unneeded care. However, obviously the most expensive cases are the ones with a serious problem, and a patient who waits too long to be treated, creating the requirement for more care.

There's a bit of viscous cycle in there as well. Because hospitals and insurance companies both have to factor in the cases in which proper care is not sought at an early enough time, the premiums for everyone, as well as the hospital bills for the uninsured, go up. As premiums rise, fewer people, especially the young, will not get coverage. And as hospital bills for the uninsured rise (they are already at a patently ridiculous level) fewer people seek earlier care for problems that may get worse later.

The idea in mandating coverage is that it can work, along with other actions that must be taking in step with it, to reduce the number of illnesses and problems made worse by needless delays, and thus reduce premiums, and hospital bills too. The system will have to change gears itself to provide a greater degree of preventative care, and the culture will also have to adjust to actively seeking preventative care more often.

In CR, for example, coverage is mandated and state options are available at a flat rate with two coverage packages. Denial of coverage is illegal, and coverage is portable within the EU and between jobs, and between providers. State insurance is also accepted by most care providers. What has happened here is that a large number of small clinics have been opened and licensed to treat specific ailments. One is not obliged to see a primary care physician before a specialist, but a very small copay is required (the last time I saw an ENT it was about 2 dollars). Small clinics are available everywhere, and service a huge variety of needs, so the care is very diversified and personalized. Clinics live on personal recommendations, and in general they do smaller business, but with more people. Czechs go to the doctor much more often than most Americans, in my experience, for small check ups and doctor's notes for work. If someone has a cold or flu, it is normal and expected to take one week off of work for rest. I have had no experience with emergent cases or serious illness, apart from a flatmate needing back surgery on a nerve injury that was pretty severe. She got to pick her providers and hospital, and the state insurance paid the bill.

The thing is, whatever you have to say about it- and people have plenty to say about it in terms of productivity, graft, efficiency, etc- this system for all that it spends a fraction of what the US system costs per capita in the US, treats a population that is healthier, has ready access to care, and enjoys a life free of worries over medical bills. Honestly that has to be the most glorious part of the whole thing for me. Though I've been to a doctor all of one time in the period of my residence here, I have lived free of the worry of an accident or a sudden illness destroying my life. People here react to the American health care system as one would if told that cities in America did not have public sanitation departments, or police. Give me a thousand stories about care being slow, or there being waits, or whatever you want. The US produces all of those stories, and worse. And we all know that, and we still choose to believe it doesn't somehow matter- and I don't get that.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The last time I heard, it costs in excess of $200 a month for health insurance for an individual. $400 monthly for a family. (At least, here in Michigan a few years ago.) Not a lot of people can easily afford that, hence the problem.

Really? Before we foolishly added a car payment to the budget we always had an extra two or three hundred in discretionary cash. Do most people really max out their budgets until there's nothing left?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There's a bit of viscous cycle in there as well.
While probably unintended, I still think it's an apt description of the American health care system.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
AvidReader asked: "Do most people really max out their budgets until there's nothing left?"

Yes. That is why most people need automatic savings plans deducted from their paychecks each month, in order to have any savings.

There seems to be a natural law involved, something like nature abhoring a vaccuum, where the amount of one's spending tends to increase to match (or frequently exceed) the limits of one's earnings.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow. I'd be terrified to live like that. If I don't have a few thousand in savings, I'm convinced we're on the edge of disaster.

I think if we've developed a culture where a few hundred dollars a month is out of reach for the average family to ensure their safety, we've got a much larger, deeper problem than health care.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
Wow. I'd be terrified to live like that. If I don't have a few thousand in savings, I'm convinced we're on the edge of disaster.

Agree completely.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
Wow. I'd be terrified to live like that. If I don't have a few thousand in savings, I'm convinced we're on the edge of disaster.

I think if we've developed a culture where a few hundred dollars a month is out of reach for the average family to ensure their safety, we've got a much larger, deeper problem than health care.

Our current, not very good, health insurance is $850/month. Our much better but no longer available to us insurance was $1300/month. Family of four. If your employer doesn't pick up part of the tab, it's more than a few hundred dollars a month.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:
I think if we've developed a culture where a few hundred dollars a month is out of reach for the average family to ensure their safety, we've got a much larger, deeper problem than health care.

I agree that there is a fundamental problem, but disagree with your formulation. I would rather say "If we've developed a culture where the average family doesn't budget a couple of hundred dollars every month to savings, we've got a Serious Problem."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
My mom was talking about her insurance this weekend. Hers is pretty cheap, but to add her husband is $700 a month. That's a good bit more than $400 for a family. That's more than my rent.

What's really got me curious here is why the insurance companies don't do more to try to sell their policies to folks. If you know the local school board is selling insurance to their employees for $700 a month and you are that company with the $400 a month policy, why aren't you out putting leaflets on the windshields or taking out ads or something? From watching tv, you'd think we only sold life insurance in this country.

You'd think somebody would be trying to cash in, anyway.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Its a matter of real customers. They sell, and sell hard--to the Personnel managers of major companies, and other large employers. The idea is that if my company charges $1400 for insurance, and company B charges $700, there is not a whole lot I could do to get put into company B's insurance other than find a job at company B, and there aren't a lot of openings.

Right now you are trapped into the insurance that is offered through your company, as long as that company still manages to pay a large percentage of it.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
AR: yes, they sell their policies to companies. Individual insurance pretty much can't compete against company-based insurance, at the moment (and probably won't be able to with the new bill, either, though things will become somewhat more flexible).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
There are a number of ways for individuals to get insurance using on a group rate. I think AARP is one. Locally, members of the Arts Council can get insurance at the rate negotiated by the Arts Council. The idea is supposed to be that artists rarely work for a corporation that offers insurance, but in reality, anyone who joins the Arts Council can get the group rate, whether they are artists or not.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Its a matter of real customers. They sell, and sell hard--to the Personnel managers of major companies, and other large employers. The idea is that if my company charges $1400 for insurance, and company B charges $700, there is not a whole lot I could do to get put into company B's insurance other than find a job at company B, and there aren't a lot of openings.

Right now you are trapped into the insurance that is offered through your company, as long as that company still manages to pay a large percentage of it.

I have to honest, these numbers are making we sweat a little bit. Half my average month's pay is not an appropriate amount to be paying in insurance. Here in CR you are obliged to have national insurance (or better) in order to be licensed in a trade, or be fully employed. The price tag in dollars is between 50 and 100 a month. In local terms, that's between 3 and 7 percent of the average salary.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
There is another aspect to the health care/labor story that no one has mentioned yet. A surprising large number of the people I know can't get private insurance because they or someone in their family is considered high risk. The only way they can get insurance at all is to work for a large company or government. I know a lot of people who would be starting their own businesses or working at a more rewarding job with an existing small business, but they stay in bad jobs to get health insurance. I actually know several families that have given up their otherwise successful private businesses because of health insurance issue.

My sister and her husband run their own business. A couple of years ago their son had cancer and as a result, their insurance premiums went through the roof. They hired someone to do my sisters job and she went to teach school so they could get insurance.

The current insurance situation doesn't simply involve the battle between employers and laborers, it's even more about the battle between the Oligarchs of big business and the little guys.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
At least some of that should be ameliorated by the no pre-existing conditions, limitations of out of pocket expenses, and restrictions on charging higher rates for medical reasons aspects of the new health care legislation, no?

I haven't actually read those parts of the bill, but what I've read of analysis of the bill, a lot of people generally agree that it will have a solid effect, eventually, on those areas. A lot of it gets phased on over like a decade though.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Half my average month's pay is not an appropriate amount to be paying in insurance.
which is why the US is in such a rush to do healthcare reform.

I pay more monthly for family health care than I do for my family home.

Too young to go the AARP group, and the Art Guild locally is even more expensive.

I have to agree that this is not a Employer/Employee issue since what was the tipping point was the fact that employers are spending more and more on a benefit for their employees, that the employees are complaining about since it also is taking more and more of their income.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
At least some of that should be ameliorated by the no pre-existing conditions

Except that's already the case in California, and my ex and one of my kids keeps getting turned down for insurance anyway. And as of the first, the government-stimulus-helping-with-COBRA goes away.

And my boss wonders why I think government-paid healthcare is the way to go.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2