DOCSLIB.ORG

Labor Force and Employment, 1800-1960

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Labor Force and Employment, 1800-1960 This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after 1800 Volume Author/Editor: Dorothy S. Brady, ed. Volume Publisher: NBER Volume ISBN: 0-870-14186-4 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/brad66-1 Publication Date: 1966 Chapter Title: Labor Force and Employment, 1800–1960 Chapter Author: Stanley Lebergott Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c1567 Chapter pages in book: (p. 117 - 204) Labor Force and Employment, 1800—1960 STANLEY LEBERGOTT WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY I Historical Comparison of U.S. and U.K. Employment The full meaning of the employment trends shown in Tables 1 and 2 for this lengthy period can be understood best by reviewing the entire span of American history. So laudable an enterprise must be left to others. Here we seek only to consider a few obvious implications. In this section we make some contrasts with the concurrent employment changes in the United Kingdom—that colonial power once dominating this country, our competitor in third country markets, and perhaps our closest ally (Table 3). To do so we telescope our history into five periods. 1840—60 From the late 1830's, with Jackson's frigid treatment of joyous entre- preneurial expectations in banking, down to the eve of the Civil War, the United States decisively expanded its home market, while the United Kingdom extended its outward markets even more than those at home. The 60 per cent rise in U.S. farm employment was twice the rate of gain for the U.K. But exports were not the key. U.S. grain exports constituted an undistinguished footnote to the rise:wheat exports rose from $2 million to a mere $4 million; and while cotton exports gained from 744,000 to 1,768,000 pounds, tripling in value, neither category accounted for the bulk of the rise in farm employment. Even were we to attribute all the rise in farm slave employment to export sales—and a large segment was surely attributable merely to maintenance and expansion of the slave capital stock—the rise of over 50 per cent in the free farm labor force was another matter.That gain derived primarily from the support of a massive population increase—in city slums, in the open country, on frontier farms. TABLE 1 ThE LABORFORCE, BY(thousands)INDUSTRYManufacturingANDSTATUS1800—1960 Total TextileCotton PrimaryIronSteel and Transport 1800 1,900Total1,370FreeSlave530Agricul—1,400ture Fishing5 Mining10 Construe—tion EngagedPersons EarnersWage1 EarnersWage1 Trade VesselsOcean40 Rail—way Teachers5 ServiceDomestic40 1840183018201810 5,6604,2003,1352,3304,1803,0202,1851,590 1,4801,180950740 3,5702,9652,4701.950 2415146 32221311 290 50075 72551210 24205 350 95706050 7 45302012 24016011070 1880187018601850 17,39012,93011,1108,2508,7706,2802,340 1,970 8,9206,7905,8804,520 41283130 176280180102 900780520410 3,2902,4701,5301,200 17513512292 130437835 1,9301,310890530 135125145135 4161608020 23017011580 1,1301,000600350 1920191019001890 41,61029,07023,32037,480 10,79011,77011,6809,960 53686960 1,1801,068440637 1,6651,2331,9491,510 11,190 8,3324,3905,895 450370303222 460306222149 5,8455,3203,9702,960 205150105120 2,2361,8551,040750 436350752595 1,6602,0901,8001,580 1960195019401930 74,06065,47056,29048,830 10,5605,9707,8709,575 45776073 1,009901925709 3,6403,0291,9881,876 11,30917,145 15,6489,884 300350400372 530550485375 12,15214,0519,3288,122 135130150160 1,3731,1601,659883 1,8501,2701,0861,044 2,4891,9952,3002,270 over.aPersons engaged (employees, wage earners, salaried, self—euipl'oye4 and unpaid family workers), unless otherwise specified. Aged ten and PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THETABLE LABOR 2 FORCE, BY IU)USTRY Atsi) STATUS Total Primary(Farm, Ocean LaborForce Free Slave Farm• Nonf arm Mining)Fishing, Construc—tioij Manufac—turing Trade Transportand Rail Domestics 1800 100.0 72.1 27.9 73.7 26.3 74.5 • 2.1 2.1 1840183018201810 100.0 69.768.273.871.9 26.228.130.331.8 63.168.878.880.9 36.9 31.221.219.1 64.169.781.679.6 5.1 8.82.8 6.2 1.81.71,62.6 4.23.83.53.0 1880187018501860 100.0 78.976.1 21.123.9 51.354.852.552.9 48.747,547.145.2 53.154.154.956.4 4.75.26.05.0 18.919.].13.814.5 11.110.18.06.43.12.32.0 1.9 4.26.57.75.4 1920191019001890 100.0100.0 25.931.440.242.774.168.659.8 57.3 34.442.644.828,9 3.05.25.76.5 26.922.220,318.8 14.014.213.712.7 5,95.43.93.7 4.05.66.26.8 1960195019401930 100.0100.0 21.612.017,08.1 91,988.083.078.4 23.813.51889,1 4,94.63.34.1 23.223.920.1.20.2 19.018.616.6 1,42.33.7 3.43.04.14.6 TABLE 3 U.S. AND U.K. BY lSkO_Ig&Oa Trade Agriculture Fishing Mining(CoalU.K. ConstructionU.K.b CottonU.K. Textilesb TransportOcean Railway OccupationsCCommercialU.K. 1850—511840—41 4,5203,570U.S. 2,0171,515U.K. U.S.3024 U.K.3724 102U.S.32 Only)n.a. 410290U.S. 497377A B U.S.9272 331260A B 135U.S.95 U.K. 15676 U.S.207 U.K.292 530350U.S. 9195A B 1860—611890—911880—811870—71 9,9608,9205,8806,790 1,5021,6331,769 1,942 60412831 54 614840 440280176180 632485351n.e. 1,510900780520 902877716594 222175135122 529485450 120125135145236206192203 42075016080 213 1589660 2,9601,9301,310890 475363217132 1920—211910—111900—01 10,79011,77011,6801,4491,553 1,425 536869 5153 1,1801,068637 1,2481,049780 1,2331,9491,665 1,1451,219 899 739 450370303 580524 560 205150105314293264 2,2361,8551,040 3573733205,8455,320 3,973 1,491896613 1,759 1960—611950—511940—411930—31 10,5605,9709,5757,8701,2191,353n.e. 45776073 n.e.2640 1,009901925709 n.e.791n.a.931 3,6403,0291,8761,988 1,282n.e.987 300350400372 n.e.322n.e.564 135130150160n.e.218n.a.305 1,3731,1601,659883 n.a.n.e.318305 14,05112,1529,3288,122 2,2132,323n.e.n.a. docks";pp.• a 60—61,Source: for 118,agriculture,weFor 188; the andU.S., United usepresent agriculture,Kingdom, estimates. AnnualFor Abstract the U.K., ofand Statistics,B. forestry; R. Mitchell 1961,for coal,and p. Phyllis106. 1940 figureFor Deane, U.K. is Abstract vesselthat for transport of 1938. British we Historicaluse "sea, canals,Statistics, and1962, CbData inin column A A based are foron "cotmnercialFactory Inspectors occupations'; returns; in in B, B,f for or "coninercial insured employees. finance and insurance occupations (excluding clerical staff)." LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT, 1800—1960 121 Intimately linked to the advance was the concurrent rise in railroad employment: 300 per cent for the United States, compared with 100 per cent for the United Kingdom.' For the United Kingdom, railways offered only a superior means oftransport, competitive with existing roads and canals; for the United States, they constituted the very conditions for opening new territory, breaking into areas that had virtually no transport worthy of the name.2 Linked to the population advance was the 150percent rise in U.S. trade employment, compared with a mere 30 per cent for the U.K. London, Glasgow, Bath, and Barset had long since acquired their comple- ment of drapers, greengrocers, and apothecaries. New London, Chicago, and Etruria had still to develop such a network of shops. Why, one may ask, if extensive development were so characteristic of the U.S., did construction employment in the U.S. gain 80 per cent—not much more than the U.K. 60 per cent? It is likely that the answer lies in the nature of our measures. A substantial amount of construction for the new U.S. population was of the crudest sort, done by farmers themselves with the help of their laborers or slaves. Performed in this way, it created fewer opportunities for full time construction employees than the mere volume of construction would suggest. Finally, for both fishing and vessel employment, the rate of U.S. rise (50 per cent) was below the U.K. (70 per cent).For both industries, 1860 was a U.S. peak, the war then breaking permanently the U.S. rate of advance in these industries. 1860—80 Themost decisive contrast for these decades is in agriculture, where U.S. employment increased 100 per cent, while in the U.K. it decreased 15 per cent. The forceful U.S. advance in agriculture did far more than surpass the 1840—60 rate;it was of a different character.American wheat Shad begun flooding into markets from Wales to Sicily, successfully competing With exports from Devon, Cawnpore, and the Ukraine. The greater 1840—60 rise in U.S. than U.K. farm employment had reflected the extensive development of the U.S. and its home market. The 1860—80 rise now reported the swelling U.S. competitive advantage in world export markets. Concurrent export strength in mining (a 60 per cent employment 1Forrailroads we compute an 1850—60 change as being a more helpful basis for contrasting the two nations than the astronomical 1840—60 change. 2Weare not designating the railways as a sine qua non in development, but simply noting that the first transport network, whether road, rail or canal, had a role in cutting the cost of importing population, as well as of exporting goods, that was so significant as to be different in kind from a merely cheaper means of transport.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the TROUBLE with ARISTOCRACY Hans Van
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery 1 THE TROUBLE WITH ARISTOCRACY Hans van Wees and Nick Fisher ‘The history of aristocracies … is littered with self-serving myths which outsiders have been surprisingly willing to accept uncritically’, a recent study warns (Doyle 2010, xv). Our volume shows that ancient ‘aristocracies’ and their modern students are no exception. In antiquity, upper classes commonly claimed that they had inherited, or ought to have inherited, their status, privilege and power because their families excelled in personal virtues such as generosity, hospitality and military prowess while abstaining from ignoble ‘money-making’ pursuits such as commerce or manual labour. In modern scholarship, these claims are often translated into a belief that a hereditary ‘aristocratic’ class is identifiable at most times and places in the ancient world, whether or not it is in actually in power as an oligarchy, and that deep ideological divisions existed between ‘aristocratic values’ and the norms and ideals of lower or ‘middling’ classes. Such ancient claims and modern interpretations are pervasively questioned in this volume.1 We suggest that ‘aristocracy’ is only rarely a helpful concept for the analysis of political struggles and historical developments or of ideological divisions and contested discourses in literary and material cultures in the ancient world. Moreover, we argue that a serious study of these subjects requires close analysis of the nature of social inequality in any given time and place, rather than broad generalizations about aristocracies or indeed other elites and their putative ideologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristocratic Identities in the Roman Senate from the Social War to the Flavian Dynasty
    Aristocratic Identities in the Roman Senate From the Social War to the Flavian Dynasty By Jessica J. Stephens A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Greek and Roman History) in the University of Michigan 2016 Doctoral Committee: Professor David Potter, chair Professor Bruce W. Frier Professor Richard Janko Professor Nicola Terrenato [Type text] [Type text] © Jessica J. Stephens 2016 Dedication To those of us who do not hesitate to take the long and winding road, who are stars in someone else’s sky, and who walk the hillside in the sweet summer sun. ii [Type text] [Type text] Acknowledgements I owe my deep gratitude to many people whose intellectual, emotional, and financial support made my journey possible. Without Dr. T., Eric, Jay, and Maryanne, my academic career would have never begun and I will forever be grateful for the opportunities they gave me. At Michigan, guidance in negotiating the administrative side of the PhD given by Kathleen and Michelle has been invaluable, and I have treasured the conversations I have had with them and Terre, Diana, and Molly about gardening and travelling. The network of gardeners at Project Grow has provided me with hundreds of hours of joy and a respite from the stress of the academy. I owe many thanks to my fellow graduate students, not only for attending the brown bags and Three Field Talks I gave that helped shape this project, but also for their astute feedback, wonderful camaraderie, and constant support over our many years together. Due particular recognition for reading chapters, lengthy discussions, office friendships, and hours of good company are the following: Michael McOsker, Karen Acton, Beth Platte, Trevor Kilgore, Patrick Parker, Anna Whittington, Gene Cassedy, Ryan Hughes, Ananda Burra, Tim Hart, Matt Naglak, Garrett Ryan, and Ellen Cole Lee.
    [Show full text]
  • How a Democracy Becomes an Aristocracy
    Academic rigour, journalistic flair What’s in a name? How a democracy becomes an aristocracy October 7, 2016 2.23pm AEDT What do you call a democracy that depends on the exclusion of whole groups from political participation? Gaia/Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA This article is part of the Democracy Futures series, a joint global initiative with the Author Sydney Democracy Network. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century. Sandra Field Assistant Professor of Humanities (Philosophy), Yale-NUS College Is there something about the deep logic of democracy that destines it to succeed in the world? Democ- racy, the form of politics that includes everyone as equals – does it perhaps suit human nature better than the alternatives? After all, surely any person who is excluded from the decision-making in a society will be more liable to rise up against it. From ancient thinkers like Seneca to contemporary thinkers like Francis Fukuyama, we can see some version of this line of thought. Seneca thought that tyrannies could never last long; Fukuyama famously argued that liberal democracy is the end of history. I want to focus instead on the person credited with giving the most direct and uncompromising state- ment of this thought: Benedict de Spinoza. For centuries, “democracy” was a term of abuse, understood as a dangerous form of mob rule. Spinoza was one of the first in the history of modern political thought to celebrate democracy. Living in the 17th-century Dutch Republic, amid political turmoil in his own country, and witnessing the disorders across the channel in England, Spinoza was intensely interested in the concrete, material basis for peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Trotsky and the Problem of Soviet Bureaucracy
    TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY by Thomas Marshall Twiss B.A., Mount Union College, 1971 M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1972 M.S., Drexel University, 1997 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2009 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Thomas Marshall Twiss It was defended on April 16, 2009 and approved by William Chase, Professor, Department of History Ronald H. Linden, Professor, Department of Political Science Ilya Prizel, Professor, Department of Political Science Dissertation Advisor: Jonathan Harris, Professor, Department of Political Science ii Copyright © by Thomas Marshall Twiss 2009 iii TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY Thomas Marshall Twiss, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2009 In 1917 the Bolsheviks anticipated, on the basis of the Marxist classics, that the proletarian revolution would put an end to bureaucracy. However, soon after the revolution many within the Bolshevik Party, including Trotsky, were denouncing Soviet bureaucracy as a persistent problem. In fact, for Trotsky the problem of Soviet bureaucracy became the central political and theoretical issue that preoccupied him for the remainder of his life. This study examines the development of Leon Trotsky’s views on that subject from the first years after the Russian Revolution through the completion of his work The Revolution Betrayed in 1936. In his various writings over these years Trotsky expressed three main understandings of the nature of the problem: During the civil war and the first years of NEP he denounced inefficiency in the distribution of supplies to the Red Army and resources throughout the economy as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intellectual Aristocracy of the German Nation
    Dueling Students: Conflict, Masculinity, and Politics in German Universities, 1890-1914 Lisa Fetheringill Zwicker The University of Michigan Press, 2011 http://press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=2665215 Chapter 1 Students: The Intellectual Aristocracy of the German Nation In Germany, the academically educated, as a body, constitute a kind of intellectual aristocracy. Those that belong include theologians and teachers, judges and civil servants, doctors and engineers, in short all who through their courses at the universities have received entry into the learned or the leading professions. On the whole, the members of these professions make up a homogenous social stratum and acknowl- edge each other as socially equal on the basis of their academic education. —Friedrich Paulsen, Professor of Philosophy, Berlin1 Young, colorfully costumed men marching in parades, long lines of schol- ars in libraries assimilating the works of Germany’s cultural heroes, dash- ing fraternity men defending their honor with swords—these are a few of the images that the word student would call up in the imagination of many nineteenth-century Germans. The pageantry of student fraternities and grand university ceremonies allowed them a role in dramatic public events rivaled only by military parades. The life of full freedom, thought essential to the student experience, was a special period without requirements or du- ties. Such a life without daily obligations was allowed to almost no other group within German society, even small children. The noble pursuit of Bildung, a concept with connections both to personal development and to national culture, allowed many Germans to see students as the embodi- ment of the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irony of Populism: the Republican Shift and the Inevitability of American Aristocracy
    THE IRONY OF POPULISM: THE REPUBLICAN SHIFT AND THE INEVITABILITY OF AMERICAN ARISTOCRACY Zvi S. Rosen* I. INTRODUCTION Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.1 On April 8, 1913, the populist dream of true mass democracy came to pass with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment.2 The undemocratic Senate, relic of the attempt to produce a republican system of mixed government, had faded into the realm of historical trivia, to be replaced with the modern elected senate. From this point forward, all three forms of government contained within our mixed government would be popularly elected,3 and America had undergone its transformation from a democratic republic to a democracy with scattered bits of republicanism. However, this is not what actually happened. The republican system around which the Constitution is built withstood the modification of the Seventeenth Amendment, and the system of mixed government endures to this day. Rather, what the Seventeenth Amendment achieved was merely the diminution of the Senate.4 The aristocratic component of the government, which the Framers thought so important, found a new home in the federal judiciary, where it resides to this day. As the courts * Mr. Rosen is currently pursuing his LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law at the George Washington University. Prior to this the author completed his J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman History the LEGENDARY PERIOD of the KINGS (753
    Roman History THE LEGENDARY PERIOD OF THE KINGS (753 - 510 B.C.) Rome was said to have been founded by Latin colonists from Alba Longa, a nearby city in ancient Latium. The legendary date of the founding was 753 B.C.; it was ascribed to Romulus and Remus, the twin sons of the daughter of the king of Alba Longa. Later legend carried the ancestry of the Romans back to the Trojans and their leader Aeneas, whose son Ascanius, or Iulus, was the founder and first king of Alba Longa. The tales concerning Romulus’s rule, notably the rape of the Sabine women and the war with the Sabines, point to an early infiltration of Sabine peoples or to a union of Latin and Sabine elements at the beginning. The three tribes that appear in the legend of Romulus as the parts of the new commonwealth suggest that Rome arose from the amalgamation of three stocks, thought to be Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan. The seven kings of the regal period begin with Romulus, from 753 to 715 B.C.; Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, from 534 to 510 B.C., the seventh and last king, whose tyrannical rule was overthrown when his son ravished Lucretia, the wife of a kinsman. Tarquinius was banished, and attempts by Etruscan or Latin cities to reinstate him on the throne at Rome were unavailing. Although the names, dates, and events of the regal period are considered as belonging to the realm of fiction and myth rather than to that of factual history, certain facts seem well attested: the existence of an early rule by kings; the growth of the city and its struggles with neighboring peoples; the conquest of Rome by Etruria and the establishment of a dynasty of Etruscan princes, symbolized by the rule of the Tarquins; the overthrow of this alien control; and the abolition of the kingship.
    [Show full text]
  • Romans History W2
    The Romans: History Worksheet 2A Name: _____________________________ Date: ____________________ Can you fill in this pyramid to show the social structure of ancient Rome? Choose one of Which of these these names for groups do you think each of the labels: The you would have liked most to have belonged to and why? • plebeians important • emperor man in the • senators empire. He has • slaves lots of power. He is called the • patricians _______________. • consuls These two people were chosen every year to run the empire. They were called ________________. This group of people were very important and helped to make the laws of Rome. They were called __________________. These people were the aristocracy of Rome. They were rich and came from noble families. They were called __________________. These people were the ordinary working people of ancient Rome. They were usually poor but they were able to vote. They were called __________________. These people were the poorest of ancient Rome. They had no rights and had to work constantly. They were called __________________. Copyright © PlanBee www.planbee.com The Romans: History Worksheet 2B Name: _____________________________ Date: ____________________ Can you describe the social position of each of these groups of people? Try to include Which of these details about: groups do you think you would have liked • what they did Emperor to have belonged to for their work and why? • whether or not they could vote • how much power they had Consuls Senators Patricians Plebeians Slaves Copyright © PlanBee www.planbee.com The Romans: History Worksheet 2C Name: _____________________________ Date: ____________________ Can you write a definition for each of these ancient Roman terms? Monarchy Republic Empire Emperor Senate Senator Consul Patrician Plebeian Slave Freedman Copyright © PlanBee www.planbee.com The Romans: History Information Sheet A How ancient Rome was organised Until 509 BC, Rome had been a monarchy.
    [Show full text]
  • Slaves, Coloni, and Status Confusion in the Late Roman Empire
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council --Online Archive National Collegiate Honors Council Spring 2017 Slaves, Coloni, and Status Confusion in the Late Roman Empire Hannah Basta Georgia State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcjournal Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Higher Education Commons, Higher Education Administration Commons, and the Liberal Studies Commons Basta, Hannah, "Slaves, Coloni, and Status Confusion in the Late Roman Empire" (2017). Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council --Online Archive. 558. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcjournal/558 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the National Collegiate Honors Council at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council --Online Archive by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Journal OF THE National Collegiate Honors Council PORTZ-PRIZE-WINNING ESSAY, 2016 Slaves, Coloni, and Status Confusion in the Late Roman Empire Hannah Basta Georgia State University INTRODUCTION rom the dawn of the Roman Empire, slavery played a major and essen- tial role in Roman society . While slavery never completely disappeared fromF ancient Roman society, its position in the Roman economy shifted at the beginning of the period called Late Antiquity (14 CE–500 CE) . At this time, the slave system of the Roman world adjusted to a new category of labor . Overall, the numbers of slaves declined, an event that historian Ramsey MacMullen, drawing from legal debates and legislation of the period, attri- butes to the accumulation of debt and poverty among Roman citizens in the third century CE .
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 13 the Roman Empire
    UNIT 13 THE ROMAN EMPIRE Structure 13.1 Introduction 13.2 The Roman Expansion 13.2.1 The First Phase 13.2.2 The Second Phase 13.3 Political Structure and Society 13.3.1 Social Orders and the Senate 13.3.2 Officials of the Republic 13.3.3 Struggle Between Patricians and Plebeians 13.3.4 The Assembly 13.3.5 Conflict of the Orders 13.3.6 Social Differentiation in Plebeians 13.4 Conflicts and Expansion 13.4.1 Professional Army and War Lords 13.4.2 Wars for Expansion 13.4.3 Struggle of War Lords with the Senate 13.5 Slavery 13.6 Summary 13.7 Exercises 13.1 INTRODUCTION You have read in Unit 12 that Alexander the Great created a vast, but shortlived empire, which was partitioned soon after his death. Following the end of the Persian empire, and with the disruption of the unity of Alexander’s Macedonian empire, a new political entity rose to prominence in the Mediterranean region. This was the Roman empire which became the largest and most enduring empire in antiquity. The nucleus of the empire lay in Italy and subsequently it encompassed the entire Mediterranean world. Roman expansion into the Mediterranean began soon after the break-up of the Macedonian empire. By this time the city of Rome in Italy had succeeded in bringing almost the entire Italian peninsula under its control. Rome was among the many settlements of Latin-speaking people in Italy. Latin forms part of the broad Indo-European group of languages. In the period after c.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Eric Foner's Preliminary Report
    -1- COLUMBIA AND SLAVERY: A PRELIMINARY REPORT Eric Foner Drawing on papers written by students in a seminar I directed in the spring of 2015 and another directed by Thai Jones in the spring of 2016, all of which will soon be posted in a new website, as well as my own research and relevant secondary sources, this report summarizes Columbia’s connections with slavery and with antislavery movements from the founding of King’s College to the end of the Civil War. Significant gaps remain in our knowledge, and investigations into the subject, as well as into the racial history of the university after 1865, will continue. -2- 1. King’s College and Slavery The fifth college founded in Britain’s North American colonies, King’s College, Columbia’s direct predecessor, opened its doors in July 1754 on a beautiful site in downtown New York City with a view of New York harbor, New Jersey, and Long Island. Not far away, at Wall and Pearl Streets, stood the municipal slave market. But more than geographic proximity linked King’s with slavery. One small indication of the connection appeared in the May 12, 1755 issue of the New-York Post-Boy or Weekly Gazette. The newspaper published an account of the swearing-in ceremony for the college governors, who took oaths of allegiance to the crown administered by Daniel Horsmanden, a justice of the colony’s Supreme Court. The same page carried an advertisement for the sale of “two likely Negro Boys and a Girl,” at a shop opposite Beekman’s Slip, a wharf at present-day Fulton Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Occupational Choice and the Spirit of Capitalism Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti the Question
    Occupational Choice and the Spirit of Capitalism Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti The Question: • Before the industrial revolution in Britain, enormous concentration of wealth within a small elite. • Theories of inequality and development would suggest that wealthy and educated elite should be well-placed to profit from new, investment-based technologies. • But in fact, industrialists rose from the middle class, and ultimately replaced the aristocracy as the economically dominant group. • What explains the changing fates of different social classes after the industrial revolution? Are Cultural Aspects Important? • Marx: economic relationships are the “base of society.” Culture and ideology merely reflects the material inter- ests of the class in control of the means of production. • Weber: culture and religion are key driving forces of the process of industrialization in the nineteenth century. • Both Marx and Weber: a one-way relationship, albeit in opposite directions. • This paper: the link runs both ways. Material conditions shape values (and their family transmission), but also values influence economic behavior (occupation, labor supply and investments). Our Approach: • Theory of endogenous preference formation. • Parents influence their children’s leisure and time preferences. • Preference formation interacts with occupational choice and labor supply decisions. • Analyze how incentives for preference formation vary across social classes. Key Findings: • Choice complementarity between: • Patience and steep income profiles. • Leisure taste and unearned income. • Endogenous sorting and stratification. • Pre-industrial upper class develops high leisure preference, but little patience. • After industrial revolution, the patient middle class overtakes the upper class (but ultimately turns lazy). Related Literature: • Becker and Mulligan (1997): Agents invest in their own patience.
    [Show full text]