What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Bishop Fulton Sheen on Capital, Labor, and Economic Man

fultonsheen.jpg

Apropos the economics discussion below, some may find Bishop Sheen's remarks pertinent:

Address Delivered on February 7, 1943

Why have not the moral forces of the nation, such as education, press, radio, all the clergy of all denominations, the social reformers, been more insistent on developing a new order instead of patching up the old one? Perhaps the principal reason is because they have been getting behind certain movements instead of ahead of them. The first thought that comes to a particular group which wishes to further legislation in its favor is to wire educators, clergymen, actors, and social workers, to lend their names as sponsors of its cause- and there are at least five hundred such professional signers in our country who keep their fountain pens uncapped for just such demented and cheap publicity. It is just this irrational mentality which substitutes imitation for thinking by pushing some group or class instead of leading for the common good that has paralyzed the regeneration of society.

A few generations ago it was the fashion to get behind Capitalism, and political parties were formed to support its legislation. Now it is the fashion and mood to get behind Labor which develops its own parties, while John Q. Public and the common good is like ground meat in the sandwich. Each class demands its rights in the name of freedom, forgetting that, as Lincoln once said, "Sheep and wolves never agree on the definition of freedom."

The Christian solution is to get behind neither Capital nor Labor exclusively; but to be behind Capital when Marxian Socialism would destroy private property, and to be behind Labor when Monopolistic Capitalism would claim the priority of profits over the right to a just wage. If we are behind either Capital or Labor, at what point will either stop in their demands? Or is there a stopping point? Did Capital ever decide for itself, when it was in the saddle, that it would take no more than ten per cent profits? Capital took all the profits the traffic would bear. Now that Capital is unseated and Labor is riding the economic horse, what limits does Labor set itself? Is there a wage beyond which it will not ask? Are there certain minimum hours below which it will not seek to work? They too will get all the traffic will bear. When self-interest and class-interest become the standard, then who shall say there is a right and wrong? As the old Chinese proverb put it: "No good rat will injure the grain near its hole."

This brings us to a consideration of the economic and political principle of the Christian order. The Christian order starts with man; all other orders start with a class. Capitalism and Communism, for example, though opposite in their directions, like branches of a tree, are nevertheless rooted in the same economic principle, that a class is to take all. Communism is only rotted Capitalism. Under Capitalism the employer takes all; under Marxian Socialism the employee takes all.

The Christian economic order starts with man. Its basic principle, is this: Economic activity is not the end of human life, but the Servant of human life. Therefore, the true primary end of economic production is not profit, but the satisfaction of human needs. In other words, *production exists primarily for consumption*, and only secondarily for profits. The old order was: Consumption exists for production and production for finance. The Christian order reverses it: Finance exists for production, production for consumption. This demands a revolutionary change of the whole economic order, because it affirms the primacy of the human over the economic. Its starting principle is that the right of a man to a living wage is prior to the right of return on investments.

From this basic principle of the Christian economic charter the following conclusions are drawn:

First, when an industry is unable to pay a wage sufficient not only for a moderately comfortable life but also for savings, the difference should be made up either by industry pooling a percentage of all wages paid, or, in default of this, by the State.

Second, neither the capitalist's right to profits nor the laborer's right to organization are absolute and unlimited; they are both subject to the common good of all. Both the right to profits and the right to organization are means, and as means they are to be judged by the way they promote the true ends of life: Religion, general prosperity, peace, and happy human relations. These rights therefore can be suspended for the common good of all.

Third, the consumer must not be treated as the indispensable condition of unlimited demands by Labor or unlimited profits by capital, but the person whose interest is the true end of the whole process.

Fourth, the distinction between Capital and Labor which has its basis in whether one buys labor or sells it, must be broken down and must give way to a union of Capital and Labor on the basis of the common service they render to the nation. To ask which is more important - Capital or Labor - is like asking which is more important to a man, the right leg or the left. Since they both have a common function, they should function together. Conflicts between Capital and Labor are wrong, not because they hold up the delivery of goods, but for the moral reason that they create distorted personal relationships, just as the quarrel of a husband and wife disrupts the good of the family.

Fifth, the wage contract should whenever possible be modified somewhat by a contract of partnership between employer and employee so that the wage earners are made sharers in some measure in the profits, management, or ownership, of industry. Since both produce social wealth there is no reason why both should not share in the wealth produced. A worker in a factory has more right to the profits of his industry than a man who clips coupons. The only way to make Labor responsible is to give it some capital to defend; and the only way to make Capital responsible is to make it labor for its right to possession. Did you ever hear an artist agitate for a five hour day? Why not? Because his work is his life. Today men do not work; they have employment. Work is a divine vocation; employment is an economic necessity. A laborer will sit down on some one else's tools, but no artist will sit down on his paint brushes. The reason is, the artist's work entails responsibility. That is why those who are getting behind either Capitalists, to defend them against labor racketeers, or behind Labor, to defend it against economic royalists, are delaying the day of economic peace, and contributing to the present economic conflict. The Christian solution is to unite them on the basis of a common task.

Sixth, the State, while justly altering an acquisitive society which causes profits to take precedence over the human, must avoid falling into the opposite extreme of substituting for the acquisitiveness of money an acquisitiveness of power, or by substituting for the authority of capital, the authority of labor or bureaucracy.

Seventh, Democracy should be extended, not curtailed. For many decades political power was controlled to a great extent by organized Capital, by merchants, lords of finance, and industrialists. Today the stage is being prepared for the control of political power by Labor. A class transmission of power is opposed to the basic principles of democracy. The Christian concept of politics is that government exists for the common good of all. If democracy is to be made effective the holders of economic power, whomsoever they be-whether Capital or Labor -must be made responsible to the community. They are its servants, not its masters.

Instead of asking "What do I get out of this," they should ask "What service can I render to my country?" Freedom, Fellowship, Service, these are the principles of a Christian social order derived from the basic principles that man is a creature of God, destined after a life of free service to enjoy eternal fellowship with Divine Love.

To be assured that a new order is needed, we need only look to the chaos around us. As the Holy Father wrote in his Christmas Message: "What is this World War, with all its attendant circumstances, whether they be remote or proximate causes, its progress and material, legal and moral effects? What is it but the crumbling process, not expected, perhaps, by the thoughtless but seen and deprecated by those whose gaze penetrated into the realities of a social order which-behind a deceptive exterior or the mask of conventional shibboleths - hid its mortal weakness and its unbridled lust for gain and power?

"That which in peacetime lay coiled up, broke loose at the out break of war in a sad succession of acts at variance with the human and Christian sense. Inter national agreements to make war less inhuman by confining it to the combatants, to regulate the procedure of occupation and the imprisonment of the conquered remained in various places a dead letter. And who can see the end of this progressive demoralization of the people, who can wish to watch impotently this disastrous progress? Should they not rather, over the ruins of a social order which has given such tragic proof of its ineptitude as a factor for the good of the people, gather together the hearts of all those who are magnanimous and upright in the solemn vow not to rest until in all peoples and all nations of the earth a vast legion shall be formed of those handfuls of men who, bent on bringing back society to its center of gravity, which is the law of God, aspire to the service of the human person and of his common life ennobled in God?"

In conclusion, in order to build up a new world we must begin thinking in a new way. Just as Totalitarianism cannot be defeated by thinking in the selfsame grooves which led to it, so neither can the selfishness, the egotism, and the class-conflicts of our social order be conquered by patching up the principles which produced it.

Why is it so important that we start with an entirely new set of principles, and a new standard of values? Because if we do not, we will end only by shifting power and booty from one party and class to another, instead of working for the good of all.

This war is the end of the Economic Man, and by the Economic Man I mean the Man whose basic principle was the primacy of profit. Unless we accept Christian principles based on the Primacy of the Person and the common good, we will end in the enthronement of Political Man. This is where the irreligious revolutions of both Marxian Socialism and Nazism ended; in the substitution of the acquisitiveness of power for the acquisitiveness of money. And the Political Man whose god is power, can be just as lustful, just as avaricious, as the Economic Man whose god is money.

The decent human person has little to choose between the two. Either we will restore Christian order based on the dignity of the f human person, or we will shift from a regime dictated by economics to a regime dictated by politics.

This war is an expression of a world disease. It will avail us naught to give this old order artificial respiration, for we are doing it to a corpse. Let us wear no widow's weeds of mourning because our superstitions are being carried to the grave. Rather should we be putting on our wedding garments to court a new world and a new order, in a renewed Divine Justice.

If the old world of politicians who promise to the electorate everything it wants, from pillaging the Treasury to new tires and more sugar - if this world is passing, God be thanked. Let it perish!

If the old world of capitalism which thinks that property rights mean the right to accumulate profits uncontrolled by the common good and the rights of organized labor - if this world is dead, God be thanked. Let it perish!

If the old world of labor organizations which think there is no minimum to hours of work, no maximum to salary demands, and which would paralyze a national industry for five days because of a five-cent transportation charge - if this world is dead, God be thanked. Let it perish!

If the old world where a college education was a social necessity, instead of being what it ought to be, an intellectual privilege - if this world is dead, God be praised. Let it perish!

If the old world of social Christianity which emptied religion of God and Christianity of Christ, and which thought the whole business of religion was to drive an ambulance for social workers or to pipe naturalistic tunes for the intelligentsia who said they were only animals - if this world is dead, God be praised. Let it perish!

We are a creative people; we are responsive to human rights and needs as no nation in the world is responsive; we have tremendous powers of renewal. We must not delay the reconstruction, for when the boys come home from the battle-fronts of the world, they will share none of the old ideas. Every one of them will want a job and they will have a right to it whether they belong to a union or not; they will not admit that joining a union is the only condition on which a man may work. Every one of them will want a just wage and the right to raise a family in comfort and decency, and they will not admit that these personal and family rights are subject to and conditioned upon bond-holders receiving six per cent interest on their investments. Every one of them will have lived through a day when Capital ruled and when Labor ruled; and because they fought for neither while at war, they will fight for neither in peace. But they will fill up a great vacuum in our economic and political life, as they fight for the Common Good in which the uncommon man of Capital and the common man of organized power, will both be subject to the resurrection of a Justice under God. And with God on their side-who can stand against them?

Comments (22)

"...the Political Man whose god is power, can be just as lustful, just as avaricious, as the Economic Man whose god is money."

The good bishop is of course correct. What he didn't foresee (no fault of his own -- not many did, given the Cold War) was the morphing of the two into the Politico-Economic man: the neo-Marxist, or what Gottfried calls the post-Marxist, or from the other side, what might be called the Left-capitalist.

First, when an industry is unable to pay a wage sufficient not only for a moderately comfortable life but also for savings, the difference should be made up either by industry pooling a percentage of all wages paid, or, in default of this, by the State.

I don't understand this point at all. Why should "industry" come together to bail out an industry that is unable to pay these wages unless that industry is vital to the economy and suffering because of external factors (bad regulations, criminality, etc.)? For example, why should American IT, biotech and agriculture bail out the auto business and its workers since their inability to sustain themselves is their own damn fault?

Joining the discussion late but I don't understand the adversarial relationship between capital and labor, at least as far as they are economic concepts properly understood rather than political movements. Capital accumulation is what makes labor productive and allows for wage increases. At the same time, increases in labor productivity raise the return on capital. Anyway, for a different perspective, here is Garet Garrett writing in 1955 about the "Gilded Age" of late nineteenth, early twentieth century American industrialism:

NOW TO GO ON--

There was the fact, secondly, that in this period for the first time-possibly for the last and only time-the philosophy of Laissez Faire found here its suitable climate and could make its complete demonstration.

For better or worse, later generations have buried Laissez Faire in lime. Social teaching now says its only meaning was -every man for himself; devil take the hindmost. But for a nation of individualists, such as this nation had been from the beginning, it was a natural philosophy and responsive to the original political conviction that the first anxiety of a free people should be to limit the power of government. Let the people be; let them make their own mistakes and absorb
their own troubles. Few Americans now living have any idea how strong that conviction was.

The theorem of Laissez Faire was first clearly expounded by Adam Smith. It was this-that the individual, freely making his own decisions and pursuing his own selfish ends, was bound in the sum of things to serve the welfare of society whether he meant to or not, because the grand total of innumerable individual decisions, recorded in the market place, would represent a truth of economic reality such as could never be arrived at by the wisdom of bureaucratic government.
Therefore let him be.

If it was cruel, it was cruel in the way nature is cruel, and beneficent in the same way, if you stop looking at the weak and mistaken things that lie withering on the ground and look instead at the forest.

Anyhow it worked, as nothing else had ever worked; and although it worked for the strong in a pre-eminent way, it worked also for the weak and for the wage earners, all emotional
sayings to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is true that when the employer brought in new and faster machines his single idea was to produce more goods with less labor and that profit was his motive. It is true also that when the immediate effect was to displace labor he thought very little about it. He simply took it for granted that the labor he could dispense with would be absorbed elsewhere in the free economic system, and in fact it was, not despite the machine but because of it, since what the machine really did in a little while was greatly to increase the total demand for labor, as in the case of Great Britain's textile workers after the introduction of spinning and weaving machines.

Or, if the employer thought about it at all, he thought of the discharged wage earner as an individual like himself-an individual who in an expanding economy would somehow be
able to take care of himself, as in fact the individual did, with no benefit of government, no unemployment insurance, no social problem on his account, with the result that never before
on earth had there been such a nation of self-resourceful individuals.

In England at this time the social doctrine was that a man was entitled to a living by reason of having got himself born an Englishman; and in England there was wretched poverty. No American of this time ever imagined he was entitled to a living by reason of being an American; and the English kind of poverty was unknown here.

As these changes were taking place there were those who could see only the debris. Most people in fact were unable to understand the fabulous work of construction that was causing the litter. The Creator himself made a lot of litter. We are still clearing it away.

In 1886 the United States Commissioner of Labor made an ominous report on the displacement of the precious human hand by the insensate machine. Here were six hundred doing the work that had formerly employed 2,145, a displacement of 1,545 workers. Where were they, these 1,545, and what were they going to do? In a certain shoe factory one hundred doing the work that five hundred did before. In metal working industries manual labor had declined one-third. In flour milling it had declined three-fourths, and so on.

Statistically it was dire. What would become of the wage earner? And when he had been entirely dispensed with, who would consume the products of the machine? Should the machine be chained down? Should there be a holiday on invention?

There was never in our history a greater disparity between the emotional surface of American life and the underlying verities. The verities were such as these:
(1) At that time we were receiving immigrants from Europe at the rate of more than a million a year, most of it manual labor, and it was all absorbed, by the factories or by the soil.
(2) The national pay roll was all the time increasing.
(3) The standard of common living was rising because the trend of wages was upward and the trend of prices was downward, so that the buying power of the wage earner's dollar was consistently greater. This is only to say that the price of labor was rising and the price of everything else was falling.
(4) Never before in modern history had the physical welfare of the common man been so high; witness for one thing the fact that from fuller nourishment and less drudgery he was increasing in average size. In his book Recent Economic Changes, published in 1889, David A. Wells, United States Special Commissioner of Revenue and president of the Social Science Association, wrote: "Dealers in ready-made clothing in the United States assert that they have been obliged to adopt a larger scale of sizes, in width as well as in length, to meet the demands of the average American man, than were required ten years ago.... The American is, therefore, apparently gaining in size and weight, which could not have happened had there been anything like retrogression or progress toward poverty on the part of the masses."


Jeff C.,

You should know I have a particular weakness when it comes to Bishop Sheen -- when I was confirmed my Great Aunts (God rest their souls) gave me as a gift his autobiography which I still have to this day and just read again last year. He was a true Christian giant of the 20th Century, notwithstanding some of his weaker arguments above. Take for instance this statement:

"Therefore, the true primary end of economic production is not profit, but the satisfaction of human needs. In other words, *production exists primarily for consumption*, and only secondarily for profits. The old order was: Consumption exists for production and production for finance."

I don't know how to charitably interpret this other than Bishop Sheen should have taken some economics course before going off about the "old order" -- in a free market, capitalist system businesses exist first and foremost to satisfy human needs. Yes, they do so to make a profit, but if the need isn't there, no profit is to be had. Plain and simple.

As for the question of a "just wage" or a "living wage" (both phrases are used by Bishop Sheen and seem to pop up in the various Encyclicals you cited below in the other post), while I need to read more Catholic writing on this subject, I can't believe that the Holy Fathers would support the idea that someone who goofs off in school and fails to acquire useful skills but shows up at work expecting a "living wage" to support him is entitled to the same consideration as the skilled worker who studied hard in school, works hard, and would make a better worked than the goof-off. I would think there are reciprocal responsibilities on the workers side and a recognition that some jobs are not designed for raising a family, so if you want to raise a family those are not the jobs you should be aiming for. In other words, a business cannot simply offer a "living wage" to every single employee (their part-timers, their entry-level workers, etc.) without taking other factors into consideration, if that business wants to remain in operation. I doubt that the Church really wants to dismantle the entire free-market system that is currently generating more material prosperity for the world (and therefore building more missions, healing more sick, caring for more poor, etc.) than the world has ever known.

The Bishop's first point is what interest me, even though it drives Mike T. crazy -- I'm interested in ways in which the government can ameliorate some of the harsher outcomes of capitalism. Back in the 30s we had Social Security (which has probably outlived its usefulness) and today we have the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is basically a wage subsidy for the poor. Other types of means-tested subsidies that target the poor and keep the market working smoothly are the best type of government-run social program (ideally implemented at the State and local level).

Now I need to start reading some Encyclicals...

I don't know how to charitably interpret this other than Bishop Sheen should have taken some economics course before going off about the "old order"

Well, I've taken more than a few economics courses (B.A. Economics, 1993); I've studied the primary texts of the Classicals, Neo-Classicals, Monetarists, Supply-Siders and Austrians; and I think Bishop Sheen is right on the money (pun intended). The bishop is not an economist, 'tis true. But fortunately it's a matter of historical record, not economic theory, that finance has called the tune from the industrial revolution forward.

in a free market, capitalist system businesses exist first and foremost to satisfy human needs. Yes, they do so to make a profit, but if the need isn't there, no profit is to be had. Plain and simple.

You confuse "need" with "demand". There are many reasons why need may not correspond with demand, lack of purchasing power chief among them. The poor might have a need for heating oil, and the rich a demand for carriages, and yet there might easily be a surplus of the latter and a shortage of the former in a capitalist system.

In a capitalist economy (again - not to be confused with free enterprise), finance determines which needs are met, how much, at what price, and for whom. That is the "old order" to which the bishop refers.

I do have a few minor quibbles with Bishop Sheen's remarks. I think the 20th century - which was still unfolding for him in 1943 - has demonstrated that "developing a new order instead of patching up the old one" is a dangerous approach. As harsh a critic as I can be of our present system, there is much that is right about it and we should attempt to work with it. Furthermore I find that the magisterial statements of Catholic social doctrine are very careful to avoid "overthrow the old order" language. The Church seems to prefer reforming whatever systems are already in place, or at least to implement changes incrementally and with a minimum of social disruption.

Very glad to have found another admirer of Bishop Sheen! Though he was not an economist, we can be sure that he had a better grasp of Catholic social doctrine than either of us, or even both of us put together.

Re: the distributists, Catholics with an interest in economics should be paying attention. They may not get everything right, but so far as I know, they are the only ones seriously grappling with the teaching of the Magisterium when it comes to economics. And that's where we all need to start.

Jeff C.,

You say that I confuse need and demand -- that may be true but as I said in the previous post, there is not much the government can do to encourage the formation of good moral character (well, we can have public policies that encourage two parent, traditional families and are friendly to religion in the public square, but this has little to do with economics). You also claim that finance "determines which needs are met, how much, and for whom." We just have to agree to disagree -- if the demand for a good or service didn't exist, there would be no finance to capitalize a business to meet the demand for the good or service. You put the cart before the horse -- without the human need, finance can do nothing. It is helpless.

As for Bishop Sheen, I encourage folks to check out his TV show which is still shown on EWTN. He prepared for those shows by writing his talk out in longhand, then memorizing the talk, then going before his studio audience and boom, the cameras started rolling. He made very few mistakes! I suspect that his frugal early life on a downstate Illinois farm (yeah Illinois!) influenced his later thinking about economics. I also would never easily dismiss anything taught by the Magisterium or the good Bishop -- but I'm also not going to dismiss what I know about the world. So I need to pray and study and hope to come to a better understanding of both.

Jeff S., thanks for the reply. I've revised my comment to include an example of what I mean by confusing need and demand, and the inadequacy of capitalism to address needs in some cases. Gotta run ...

The closest present state to sheen's vision might be Social Democratic Denmark.

Jeff S. writes:

I'm interested in ways in which the government can ameliorate some of the harsher outcomes of capitalism.

I think it's wrong to state this thought this way. Capitalism doesn't create poverty, but rather fails to eliminate it even though capitalism pushes poverty and hardship further to the margins than any other arrangement. This, too, is a matter of historical record. Instead, perhaps say the goal should be to find ways for government or society to properly account for those who remain at the margins of society.

but rather fails to eliminate it even though capitalism pushes poverty and hardship further to the margins than any other arrangement.

This is an interesting way of considering it: the margins.

Let me see if I have this right. In 1510, the richest 1% would have none of the following: any of 50,000 music titles played by the best performers at instant fingertips; an emergency room within 15 minutes to repair all but the most severe cuts; food from 6 continents at a supermarket filled with food, in season and out, etc and so on. The second poorest 10% have these in America in 1510.

OK let's consider the real poor: in 1510, the poorest 3% of people had to beg for any rag to clothe themselves with, had to beg for any least morsel of food, and had no place to lay their head. In America in 2010, the poorest 3% sometimes have nothing but rags to clothe themselves with, often have to beg for any least morsel of food, and some of them have no place to lay their head.

I don't see any amazing change in the actual, on the ground circumstances of the extreme poor now and the extreme poor before the modern industrial-capital revolution hit. What is different, of course, is the relative difference between the poor now and the rich now (or even the modestly middle-income now), as opposed to the difference in 1510. But that is, of course, a marginal difference, not an absolute change.

It does sound kind of odd to lay this kind of poverty at the doors of capitalism. It doesn't excuse capitalism for neglecting the poor, either.

I actually think Andrew E. would agree with you, Tony. That is to say, I take his comment to have meant that poverty is not to be laid at the door of capitalism and that capitalism is beneficial in that it reduces poverty.

"poverty is not to be laid at the door of capitalism and that capitalism is beneficial in that it reduces poverty."

It's probably more accurate to say that not all poverty is to be laid at the door of capitalism. It's just as ridiculous to say that capitalism causes no poverty as it is to say that it causes all poverty.

The big problem with something like this statement

when an industry is unable to pay a wage sufficient not only for a moderately comfortable life but also for savings, the difference should be made up either by industry pooling a percentage of all wages paid, or, in default of this, by the State.

and with all types of bailout mechanisms (whether run directly by the state or not) is that they tend to support, and thus to encourage, poor planning, heedless lifestyles, excessive risk-taking, laziness, and other failures of sound employment of one's capabilities. But when government does it, it BOTH encourages all these ills, AND it usually runs roughshod over private and social enterprises of solidarity in their proper sphere of activity. Unless government learns to limit the damages from a failing industry by helping to support the lower-level social structures in dealing with the problem, it should generally keep its nose out.

Nevertheless, Sheen is great and his thoughts here are far more true than any little imperfections.

Andrew E., the passage you quote fails to mention one very, very important difference between the American Gilded Age and the same period in Europe. In America, if a laborer didn't like the deal offered by the factory or mine, he could walk away, go out west, and start plowing up the land. There was land available. Because of European history and social structures, this was not true there: the peasant or former peasant was not supported legally or socially in being completely free to walk away, and even if he decided to do so, the land was all claimed. Effectively, the peasants who felt strong enough to take on the difficulties in their system enough to walk away did so primarily by going to America where they really could make a choice about where to put their labor. And we benefited by receiving immigrants with enough get-up-and-go to actually get up and go.

I don't like government control of the economy. But we shouldn't pretend that the American Gilded Age was successful in producing its effects without some realization that it was based in part on ENORMOUS resources of basic raw materials that had been, till then, untapped by humanity.

"In America, if a laborer didn't like the deal offered by the factory or mine, he could walk away, go out west, and start plowing up the land."

While this was true theoretically it didn't always pan out this way in real life. There is a certain element of truth to the notion of "wage slavery," such as that expressed in the song Sixteen Tons -- "I owe my soul to the company store," etc. This doesn't mean that America was not a land of opportunity, but the negative aspects of the mine and factory employment of that time shouldn't be disregarded.

This doesn't mean that America was not a land of opportunity, but the negative aspects of the mine and factory employment of that time shouldn't be disregarded.

Indeed. The establishment of our transportation infrastructure and mineral resources came at great human cost. An estimated 3,500 railroad workers were killed every year until about 1907. From 1900 to 1945 more than 1,000 coal miners - sometimes as many as 2,000 - were killed every year in the mines. The "voluntary wage contract" is often more voluntary on one side than it is on the other.

This doesn't mean that America was not a land of opportunity, but the negative aspects of the mine and factory employment of that time shouldn't be disregarded.

Agreed, not disregarded but certainly compared to the alternatives, which is not to say that everywhere and always the alternatives were worse.

I've conversed with many people who would get great emotional satisfaction from arguing that government ended child labor, that Anglo-society's collective moral knowledge advanced to a point where we declared "Enough!" and outlawed the exploitation of our children by the factories. Well, I suppose, but only after capitalists, industrialists, entrepreneurs and laborers combined efforts over decades to raise the common standard of living to a point where the need for child labor went away. And in those places where living standards hadn't quite reached that point, all that was accomplished was to leave the unemployed children to become beggars, or worse, prostitutes.

Rob G, I agree.

Jeff Culbreath, that level of deaths is certainly unfortunate, but it hardly establishes, all by itself, that these were unduly harsh working environments for the times. Any activity that gave significant cuts, including a scythe, had the potential for infection and death, since there were no antibiotics. The number of deaths from farm-work per 1000 workers was not insignificant either. And deaths from blacksmith accidents and smoke inhalation, and deaths from tannic acid side-effects in tanneries, and deaths on oil rigs, and every other activity that involved use of muscles and tools and machines and chemicals. Life was a risky proposition.

Andrew, I agree with your point mostly, but I would point out that the according to those on the opposite side of the fence, the only way that the "need" for child labor could go away, and for the "standard of living" to be raised, was for a contemporaneous change in laws that fell on everyone equally mandating the same treatment of children and the same minimum standards for workers. No major businessman was going to give up the economic advantage of employing a child as long as he felt the encroachment of his competitor who had no compunction about using child labor. In this view, there would have been no large-scale effect from all the philanthropist-types preaching about child-labor, if they had not succeeded in effectuating the same benefits and the same drawbacks (of taking kids out of the factories) for all competitor businesses across the board - which took law.

Jeff Culbreath, that level of deaths is certainly unfortunate, but it hardly establishes, all by itself, that these were unduly harsh working environments for the times.

Tony, that these were "unduly harsh working environments for the times" is well established in the literature and was widely known at the time. Railroad work was fit only for Irish and Chinese. They used to say that "an Irishman is buried under every tie."

Jeff, I think we are talking at cross purposes. If you told those Irishmen EXACTLY what working conditions they would probably be in before they came over to the US, how many would still have made the trip and and taken their chances? Given conditions in Ireland, I am guessing many, probably most of them. If my guess is reasonable, then we would be saying in effect that as bad as conditions on the RRs were, it was a reasonable economic choice for an Irishman to choose to go into that labor contract. That labor contract was unreasonable for most others, because most others had better economic opportunities. But in ANY society, there is always a worst job around. My question is, was this job, with these conditions, really that much worse than the run of the mill other jobs around available to other unskilled workers with poor language ability and so on?

Can you really nit-pick against the claim to a living wage, without repudiating Bishop Sheen's argument entirely? No matter how much shareholders complain, nobody has a right to make a living off the labor of those whose livelihoods they do not support. How does the argument run:

Employer: I need this work done to maintain my business, but cannot afford to support you.

Beggar: I will work for you, but others will have to supplement your pay.

Employer: Perhaps you should have studied harder in school.

Beggar: Thank you. [thinks to himself] I could have done this work when I was twelve, and would have.

Can you really nit-pick against the claim to a living wage, without repudiating Bishop Sheen's argument entirely?

No, you can't. Good call.

when an industry is unable to pay a wage sufficient not only for a moderately comfortable life but also for savings, the difference should be made up either by industry pooling a percentage of all wages paid, or, in default of this, by the State.
I would say in a contextual defense of the good Bishop; he is living under the assumption that the "State" is working for the common good.

I would think/ hope he would be aghast at how the "State" now uses its monies from the backs of the productive to enslave a generational dependent class for political power. The same type of power he was railing against.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.