Difference between revisions of "325--Week 3 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing”) |
|||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” == | == Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''What is "pacing"?''' | ||
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday | In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday | ||
| Line 80: | Line 82: | ||
I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can't be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don't need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn | I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can't be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don't need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn | ||
| − | I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South, which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner | + | I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between '''employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South,''' which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner |
I was quite surprised at Smith's argument highlighting slaves' agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a "push-and-pull" relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon | I was quite surprised at Smith's argument highlighting slaves' agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a "push-and-pull" relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon | ||
| − | I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners? - Lon | + | '''I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners?''' - Lon |
No, Lon, you're not alone in your understanding of slave/owner relationships. I didn't realize, either, that slaves used to negotiate with their masters about their labor; I actually didn't think they had that much power in the slave/master relationship. Was this common? -Kelly W | No, Lon, you're not alone in your understanding of slave/owner relationships. I didn't realize, either, that slaves used to negotiate with their masters about their labor; I actually didn't think they had that much power in the slave/master relationship. Was this common? -Kelly W | ||
| Line 92: | Line 94: | ||
I agree with both Kelly, Lon, and Karen. First with Lon that the whole push-pull idea makes perfect sense because the slave labor was based on such a supply and demand still that it does fit together and give the slaves a little piece of the power with their masters. Kelly, from what I understand it did become quite common because after all the more you attempted to keep a slave happy the better work they would do for their masters. Karen is correct in saying that there was no direct power because of the push-pull factor these two groups held over the other one. A lot of this dealt with how each group was treated.--Sean Marren | I agree with both Kelly, Lon, and Karen. First with Lon that the whole push-pull idea makes perfect sense because the slave labor was based on such a supply and demand still that it does fit together and give the slaves a little piece of the power with their masters. Kelly, from what I understand it did become quite common because after all the more you attempted to keep a slave happy the better work they would do for their masters. Karen is correct in saying that there was no direct power because of the push-pull factor these two groups held over the other one. A lot of this dealt with how each group was treated.--Sean Marren | ||
| − | On a completely different topic, yet one that caught my attention, when discussing the labor question on pg. 186, a commissioner in 1841 remarked "the superintendent should be a man of science and well acquainted with the best models of the musket." To play off of our discussion on Tuesday, it appears this is proof that the superior technology of the rifle was not used in government armories or, it seems, anywhere widespread in the arms manufactuing industry so many years after its invention. It did present a question though, could a man be both a man of science and one who favors musket production over the rifle? - Adam Shlossman | + | On a completely different topic, yet one that caught my attention, when discussing the labor question on pg. 186, a commissioner in 1841 remarked "the superintendent should be a man of science and well acquainted with the best models of the musket." To play off of our discussion on Tuesday, it appears this is proof that the superior technology of the rifle was not used in government armories or, it seems, anywhere widespread in the arms manufactuing industry so many years after its invention. It did present a question though, could a man be both '''a man of science''' and one who favors musket production over the rifle? - Adam Shlossman |
When reading the 'Pacing' article, I couldn't help but think of two things. First, I read somewhere about the human cost of the increasing use of machinery during the industrial revolution (not only just wounds, etc but)like the turning of men/women into the cogs of the machine. It happens even today. Worker A puts in cog 1 all day long, worker b tightens cog 1 and readies cog 2, so on and so forth. Very dehumanizing -- Jeff Phillips | When reading the 'Pacing' article, I couldn't help but think of two things. First, I read somewhere about the human cost of the increasing use of machinery during the industrial revolution (not only just wounds, etc but)like the turning of men/women into the cogs of the machine. It happens even today. Worker A puts in cog 1 all day long, worker b tightens cog 1 and readies cog 2, so on and so forth. Very dehumanizing -- Jeff Phillips | ||
