I know that I should not be surprised that most people have little knowledge regarding the history of capitalism. Our schools certainly don’t teach it, and everybody “knows” that capitalism leads to all sorts of evils, such as abuse of employees by employers, “predatory” lending, and “dog-eat-dog” competition. These myths and fallacies are repeated by the media and most Americans with alarming frequency. As an example, I recently received an email that contained the following statement:
A study of history makes it clear that corporations are not interested in protecting their employees unless forced to by law.
Actually, history shows the opposite. For example, in 1869 George Westinghouse implemented a nine-hour work day (ten hours was common) and also instituted “welfare” programs for his employees. In 1914 Henry Ford doubled the daily wage of his workers and reduced the hours worked per day. Ford, who called his policy “enlightened self-interest,” later described the results:
In 1914, when the first plan went into effect, we had 14,000 employees and it had been necessary to hire at the rate of about 53,000 a year in order to keep a constant force of 14,000. In 1915 we had to hire only 6,000 men and the majority of these new men were taken on because of the growth of the business. [Henry Ford, My Life and Work, (Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing Co.) p. 119.]
When Ford’s profits soared, other companies began emulating his policies. Ford, Westinghouse, and others, did not have to be forced to “protect” their employees. They simply needed to be free to act as they judged best.
Another statement from the email:
The housing crisis is another example of an unregulated market… Banks are only interested in getting the deal done. Shareholders are only interested in profit, and the CEO knows that he will be replaced if the bank isn’t profitable. Regulation provide a mediator between the company and the consumer.
Many others have pointed out the myth that the mortgage market is unregulated, so I will not repeat those points here. I will point out that John Allison at BB&T was interested in more than getting the deal done, and his company has been very successful. Nor was he replaced by stockholders.
Further, regulators are not “mediators.” They are dictators who impose their will on businessmen. Regulators force businessmen to act contrary to their own judgment. When a businessman is free and makes a poor decision, he (and those who voluntarily associate with him) suffers the consequences. When a regulator makes a poor decision, everyone suffers.
Finally, one last statement from the email:
The trick is finding a balance between competition and cooperation. While I favor individual freedom, we can’t go to the extreme of Social Darwinism. We need some regulations to protect the masses.
This claim is loaded with too many myths and fallacies to address in a single post. Those myths and fallacies are founded on a false alternative: We must choose between “competition and cooperation.” Freedom is viewed as “survival of the fittest.” According to this view, success can only be gained at the expense of others.
Again, history (and the contemporary world) provides a different picture. Prior to the advent of the “entitlement” state, mutual aid societies were common throughout the United States. These societies were voluntary, cooperative organizations that provided health care, burial insurance, and other benefits to members. As one example, in Tampa, workers in the cigar industry formed five different mutual aid societies.
Contrast these voluntary, cooperative endeavors with the competition for “entitlement” benefits. Seniors demand that Social Security be protected from budget cuts. Advocates for the poor lobby for more programs to help the needy. The unemployed call for an expansion of unemployment benefits. Supporters of these programs, and others like them, compete for the “privilege” of plundering their neighbors.
Brian Phillips (2013.02.08 )
No aspect of Fordism became more passé than his ideas about high wages. While liberal economists like Robert Reich still argue about the economic benefits of greater income equality, corporations have realized that they can get away with paying relatively less and less.
While corporate profits relative to GDP are soaring, employee compensation relative to GDP has steadily decline.
This doesn't even include the vastly lower wages received by a growing population of foreign laborers who work indirectly for U.S. corporations. Just look at how bad conditions are for garment workers in Bangladesh or tech workers in China.
The industrial revolution is not continuing as Ford predicted, and — at least as far as wages are concerned — that's a tragedy.
Ford's doubling of the daily wage to $5 came with a price even you would deem beyond reason.
It was advanced by investigators for the newly formed Sociological Department who brought their questionnaires to the home of every Ford employee. Ford company workers discovered that achieving their five-dollar day came with some rigid stipulations. One stipulation: below the age of twenty-two, to be married.
Another mandate was that a Ford worker needed permission from a Ford executive if he wanted to get his own automobile.
The reason for the pay rise was not as some seem to think it was. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labour force.
And, for years Ford also resorted to legal as well as thug tactics to prevent workers in Ford plants from unionizing.
In December 1937, the company was found in violation of the Wagner Act and was ordered to cease interfering with workers’ efforts to unionize. In 1941, when wages at Ford were in fact lower than the average wage for the industry, Henry Ford continued to insist that “we do not intend to submit to any union.”
Finally, in the spring of 1941 — after violent strikes, brutal assaults by Ford agents and government pressure — Ford and his company capitulated and agreed to a union shop. Ford workers were finally able to negotiate a contract.
A vital, productive economy depends on strong unions as well as on enlightened employers.