Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I'm not sure why the source of curricula would be relevant to my point. In either case, government mandated or local board/local school mandated, the result is the same...the student is not the chooser.

Nah. What accurate information would a 1912 farmer from the Ukraine or a prostitute from a small norther Italian village have had of life in New York?

Technological advance or regulation? It isn't either/or. Both can function to make conditions better, but both can function to make conditions worse too.

I'm sure they show working conditions that look awful to us. After all, England in 1850 was about 10-15 times poorer than industrialized countries are today.

But I'm just as sure that working conditions in 1900 were a lot less awful than they were in 1850. I would be very surprised if this museum showed any evidence suggesting otherwise. I would be just as surprised if they had evidence that English working conditions were worse in the 19th century than Indian working conditions were in 1990 -- which is the appropriate comparison, given that India was then a socialist democracy of about the same wealth as 19th century England.

Might be that they look awful - but compared with the 'standard' of other conditions in "that class" they are similar.

No, they didn't improve dramatically in that period - especially not before about 1900.

blatham wrote:
I'm not sure why the source of curricula would be relevant to my point. In either case, government mandated or local board/local school mandated, the result is the same...the student is not the chooser.

The source is relevant for two reasons. First, it's relevant because of who is getting patronized. I don't -- at least not in principle -- object to some patronizing of children and adolescents by grown-ups. There are very good reasons to believe that grown-ups know better than children what children need to learn to cope with life. So I don't mind in principle that grown-ups set the children's curriculum. But when the school board tells parents and principals what curriculum their pupils and children are to learn, that's grown-ups patronizing grown-ups. I don't see any justification for that. Parents and teachers know everything they need to know to compile a curriculum.

The second reason it's relevant is because bad schools are much easier to route around than bad school boards. When the Tennessee schoolboard prohibits the teaching of foreign languages, as it did in the 1920s, or if the Ohio schoolboard puts "Intelligent Design" into the Biology curriculum, as it recently did, the only way to save your kids from them is to move out of the school district in question. If a single school does this kind of stuff, you just put your child into a different school.

blatham wrote:
Nah. What accurate information would a 1912 farmer from the Ukraine or a prostitute from a small norther Italian village have had of life in New York?

Judging by the exhibits in the immigration museum on Ellis Island which I visited in early March, the poor European emigrants' dominant source of accurate information were letters from relatives and friends who were already in America. Typically, families would send their bread earners first -- usually the father and older sons -- and the other family members would follow one by one as the bread earners mailed the money for their passage. Different families emigrated to different cities, which gave them some workable way to compare between possible destinations. Believe it or not, the Ukrainian prostitutes and rural Italians of 1900 were just as intelligent, competent and curious as you are -- just poorer.

You give an example where regulation has been followed by great increases in workplace safety. But the time you're talking about was also a time of great technical progress, so the logic of your argument is the logic of the rooster who credits his crowing for the sunrise following it. Do you have any better evidence?

US Was Unusually Dangerous
Americans modified the path of industrialization that had been pioneered in Britain to fit the particular geographic and economic circumstances of the American continent. Reflecting the high wages and vast natural resources of a new continent, this American system encouraged use of labor saving machines and processes. These developments occurred within a legal and regulatory climate that diminished employer's interest in safety. As a result, Americans developed production methods that were both highly productive and often very dangerous. 3

Accidents Were "Cheap"
While workers injured on the job or their heirs might sue employers for damages, winning proved difficult. Where employers could show that the worker had assumed the risk, or had been injured by the actions of a fellow employee, or had himself been partly at fault, courts would usually deny liability. A number or surveys taken about 1900 showed that only about half of all workers fatally injured recovered anything and their average compensation only amounted to about half a year's pay. Because accidents were so cheap, American industrial methods developed with little reference to their safety. 4


Manufacturing
American manufacturing also developed in a distinctively American fashion that substituted power and machinery for labor and manufactured products with interchangeable arts for ease in mass production. Whether American methods were less safe than those in Europe is unclear but by 1900 they were extraordinarily risky by modern standards, for machines and power sources were largely unguarded. And while competition encouraged factory managers to strive for ever-increased output, they showed little interest in improving safety.7

...In 1910 Congress also established the Bureau of Mines in response to a series of disastrous and increasingly frequent explosions. The Bureau was to be a scientific, not a regulatory body and it was intended to discover and disseminate new knowledge on ways to improve mine safety.12

Workers' Compensation Laws Enacted
Far more important were new laws that raised the cost of accidents to employers. In 1908 Congress passed a federal employers' liability law that applied to railroad workers in interstate commerce and sharply limited defenses an employee could claim. Worker fatalities that had once cost the railroads perhaps $200 now cost $2,000. Two years later in 1910, New York became the first state to pass a workmen's compensation law. This was a European idea. Instead of requiring injured workers to sue for damages in court and prove the employer was negligent, the new law automatically compensated all injuries at a fixed rate. Compensation appealed to businesses because it made costs more predictable and reduced labor strife. To reformers and unions it promised greater and more certain benefits. Samuel Gompers, leader of the American Federation of Labor had studied the effects of compensation in Germany. He was impressed with how it stimulated business interest in safety, he said. Between 1911 and 1921 forty-four states passed compensation laws.13

Employers Become Interested in Safety
The sharp rise in accident costs that resulted from compensation laws and tighter employers' liability initiated the modern concern with work safety and initiated the long-term decline in work accidents and injuries. Large firms in railroading, mining, manufacturing and elsewhere suddenly became interested in safety. Companies began to guard machines and power sources while machinery makers developed safer designs. Managers began to look for hidden dangers at work, and to require that workers wear hard hats and safety glasses. They also set up safety departments run by engineers and safety committees that included both workers and managers. In 1913 companies founded the National Safety Council to pool information. Government agencies such as the Bureau of Mines and National Bureau of Standards provided scientific support while universities also researched safety problems for firms and industries14

Accident Rates Begin to Fall Steadily
During the years between World War I and World War II the combination of higher accident costs along with the institutionalization of safety concerns in large firms began to show results...

Yes. As I acknowledged, there is a paternalism danger to be aware of here. Still, many areas of education don't involve pre-adults at all, as in returning students, older grad students, technical training (or professional) upgrades, etc. where curricula are still not self-chosen.

Well, the farmer's wife claims to witness that same sunrise lighting two roosters out this morning. She asked me to pass along the following...

Reflecting the high wages and vast natural resources of a new continent, this American system encouraged use of labor saving machines and processes.

Whether American methods were less safe than those in Europe is unclear but by 1900 they were extraordinarily risky by modern standards, for machines and power sources were largely unguarded.

Accident Rates Begin to Fall Steadily
During the years between World War I and World War II the combination of higher accident costs along with the institutionalization of safety concerns in large firms began to show results...

I'm not denying that the accident rates fell steadily after work safety regulations were introduced. I'm just skeptical that it fell because they were introduced -- and your article provides no evidence that this was the case.

How might we resolve this question?

I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls. Sometimes I haven't had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election.

And if he doesn't, it will be because he blew it. There are four major reasons for my assertion:

First, my most recent poll (April 12-15, no longer his 'most recent') shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected - compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters - 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry's lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.

The President's problem is further compounded by the fact that he is now at the mercy of situations that are out of his control. While the economy is improving, voters historically do not look at indicators that measure trillions and billions of dollars. Instead, their focus is on hundreds and thousands of dollars. In this regard, there is less concern for increases in productivity and gross domestic product and more regard for growth in jobs and maintaining of health benefits. Just 12 years ago, the economy had begun its turnaround in the fourth quarter of 1991 and was in full recovery by spring 1992 - yet voters gave the President's father only 38% of the vote because it was all about "the economy, stupid."

The same holds true for Iraq. Will the United States actually be able to leave by June 30? Will Iraq be better off by then? Will the US be able to transfer power to a legitimate and unifying authority? Will the lives lost by the US and its allies be judged as the worth the final product? It is difficult to see how the President grabs control of this situation.

Finally, if history is any guide, Senator Kerry is a good closer. Something happens to him in the closing weeks of campaigns (that obviously is not happening now!). We have clearly seen that pattern in his 1996 victory over Governor Bill Weld for the Senate in Massachusetts and more recently in the 2004 Democratic primaries. All through 2003, Kerry's campaign lacked a focused message. He tends to be a nuanced candidate: thoughtful, briefed, and too willing to discuss a range of possible positions on every issue. It is often hard to determine where he actually stands. In a presidential campaign, if a candidate can't spell it out in a bumper sticker, he will have trouble grabbing the attention of voters. By early 2004, as Democratic voters in Iowa and elsewhere concluded that President Bush could be defeated, they found Governor Howard Dean's message to be too hot and began to give Kerry another look. Kerry came on strong with the simplest messages: "I'm a veteran", "I have the experience", and "I can win". His timing caused him to come on strong at the perfect time. As one former Vietnam War colleague told a television correspondent in Iowa: "John always knows when his homework is due."

We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry's to lose.

Alternatively, we might just agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.