patrick.net

zzyzzx says

Obligtory:

my god, that is good.

indigenous says

You are implying that slavery was not replaced because of a picture of pickers still picking. IOW you are saying there are only absolutes. I'am saying that slavery or cheap labor has largely and continually being replaced by technology as in the two charts.

Yeah, there are absolutes. You absolutely need people to pick peppers for pickling. Just like you still need people to flip burgers and get more buns from the back freezer and take the trash out to the dumpster.

Your argument that something besides human labor was used for cotton picking needs some evidence for it.

Here's Texas Cotton Picking, 1920 - that's more than a half century after the Civil War and the "Slavery was on the way out from technology".

Take another look at these graphs:

A little perspective on guns:

indigenous says

Technology would have replaced slavery in short order.

So a half century isn't short order?

I don't care about your charts. Cereal growing wasn't what the South was built on, but King Cotton. Show me machines picking the cotton within a few decades of the Civil War, or there isn't any "Short Order".

thunderlips11 says

So a half century isn't short order?

In the scheme of thing it is a short period of time and has got progressively better the tractor for instance:

In 1892 in the tiny village in Northeast Iowa, John Froelich (1849 -1933) invented the first successful gasoline-powered engine that could be driven backwards and forwards. The word “tractor” wasn't used in those days, but that's what it was. At that time, steam-powered engines were used to thresh wheat.

indigenous says

I'am saying that slavery or cheap labor has largely and continually being replaced by technology as in the two charts.

Chart 1 is about crop genetics and fertilizer. It has nothing to do with cheap labor or slavery. BTW how much slavery was in the US in 1940 when the chart starts?

Chart 2 is just plain old wrong. Where did it come from? Somebody just made up the numbers. Where did they get the 1840/1850 numbers from anyway? The 1840/1850 census didn't record occupation. As per the census of 1860 there were 433,895 farmers and 735,679 farm workers out of a workforce of 8,173,731 for a total of 14% of the workforce. Go ahead look it up. The document you are looking for is 1860a-15.pdf. https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

The libertarian mantra: It's true because I believe it should be true.

indigenous says

In 1892 in the tiny village in Northeast Iowa, John Froelich (1849 -1933) invented the first successful gasoline-powered engine that could be driven backwards and forwards. The word “tractor” wasn't used in those days, but that's what it was. At that time, steam-powered engines were used to thresh wheat.

Is cotton a cereal? What the South was built on King Cotton, not King Barley.

bob2356 says

The libertarian mantra: It's true because I believe it should be true.

Yep. Apparently people picking cotton by hand everywhere in the South 60 years after the Civil War meant that slavery would have replaced by Technology in "Short Order".

The Glibertarian version of history includes Bleeding Kansas where people killed each other over the Tariff Rate, or those famous books "Tariffs are a Positive Good." and "Uncle Tom's Tariff."

Southerners screamed about extending Anti-Tariff states and defending their "peculiar institution" of widespread Anti-Tariff sentiment. They even passed the Fugitive Tariff Act that required Escaped Black Tariff Supporters to be sent back to the Anti-Tariff South .

bob2356 says

Chart 1 is about crop genetics and fertilizer. It has nothing to do with cheap labor or slavery. BTW how much slavery was in the US in 1940 when the chart starts?

A key metric about this subject is the value of the products produced which even you can see has gone up. It is about value!

bob2356 says

Chart 2 is just plain old wrong. Where did it come from? Somebody just made up the numbers. Where did they get the 1840/1850 numbers from anyway? The 1840/1850 census didn't record occupation. As per the census of 1860 there were 433,895 farmers and 735,679 farm workers out of a workforce of 8,173,731 for a total of 14% of the workforce. Go ahead look it up. The document you are looking for is 1860a-15.pdf. https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

The main point is that the amount of labor required to produce farm goods has gone down a lot. A 100 years ago 60% of the population were farmers today it is what 2%?

So you can so your usual lets wallow in the minutia, but the point is that the amount of labor has gone down while the amount of farm products produced has gone way up. Therefore far less dependent on labor or slave labor and has been that way since technology started influencing farming.

indigenous says

The main point is that the amount of labor required to produce farm goods has gone down a lot. A 100 years ago 60% of the population were farmers today it is what 2%?

So you can so your usual lets wallow in the minutia, but the point is that the amount of labor has gone down while the amount of farm products produced has gone way up. Therefore far less dependent on labor or slave labor and has been that way since technology started influencing farming.

Farmers were 15% of the workforce (not population) in the 1910 census with farm labor another 15% for a total of 30%. That would be just about the same as 1860 except 15% of the farm workforce were slaves and didn't get counted. The number is about 4% of workforce today. Errors in the 100-200% range being minutia must be a libertarian thing.

When in your odd world did technology start influencing farming. Hint, tractor sales started getting substantial about 1920 with the 1917 introduction of the fordson tractor starting at $395. Tractor sales were reasonably good at 100-200k a year through 1929 but fell to almost nothing during the depression. Then they exploded in WWII through the 1950's at 400-500k a year. The question still stands for the king of dodgem, how many slaves were there in the US in 1920 when tractor sales started in earnest?

1860
Total population: 31,443,321; farm population: 15,141,000 (est.); farmers 58% of labor force; Number of farms: 2,044,000; average acres: 199

1900
Total population: 75,994,266; farm population: 29,414,000 (est.); farmers 38% of labor force; Number of farms: 5,740,000; average acres: 147

So it went down 20% in 40 years

not including the slaves.

bob2356 says

Errors in the 100-200% range being minutia must be a libertarian thing.

and apparently your libby thing as well

There were numerous advancements in farming technology, that continued to reduce the labor necessary for farming from the 1800s on

I cant believe you guys engage this idiot, its obvious he doesnt even know what hes talking about

errc says

I cant believe you guys engage this idiot, its obvious he doesnt even know what hes talking about

Says the poster child for drug abuse...

Quigley says

I've been using guns unsupervised since I was 10 and I still haven't shot anyone

Dang, so you are still having a problem aiming. :)

"Shitty Shitty Bang Bang".

This phrase either explains Quigley's mastery of weapons, or
refers to Rin's latest canadian hoe conquest...

mmmarvel says

Quigley says

I've been using guns unsupervised since I was 10 and I still haven't shot anyone

Dang, so you are still having a problem aiming. :)

www.youtube.com/embed/cER1Kn0PlDY

indigenous says

1860

Total population: 31,443,321; farm population: 15,141,000 (est.); farmers 58% of labor force; Number of farms: 2,044,000; average acres: 199

1900

Total population: 75,994,266; farm population: 29,414,000 (est.); farmers 38% of labor force; Number of farms: 5,740,000; average acres: 147

So it went down 20% in 40 years

not including the slaves.

Where did these numbers come from? Nice references to your sources. Not. I gave you the link to the actual census itself. I even gave you the occupations page. So you are saying these numbers you got from wherever (anal orifice?) are more accurate than the actual census itself? Really? How does that work? Show me the errors in the census. The census bureau would love to hear about it from you I'm sure.

The question stands, how many slaves were there in 1920 when farms started to mechanize or in 1960 when genetics and fertilizer started to really push up crop yields. Still waiting. and waiting and waiting and waiting.

errc says

I cant believe you guys engage this idiot, its obvious he doesnt even know what hes talking about

Because it's actually funny to see how many ways he can twist and turn. Indi is the best tap dancer in america, perhaps the world..

bob2356 says

Where did these numbers come from?

https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

bob2356 says

I gave you the link to the actual census itself.

where?

bob2356 says

The question stands, how many slaves were there in 1920

I'm assuming none. Which indicates that the slavery did go away and would have by itself because of technology. If not for the fugitive slave act, which prolonged it's existence.

.
bob2356 says

Because it's actually funny to see how many ways he can twist and turn. Indi is the best tap dancer in america, perhaps the world..

Bob is the greatest at misdirection.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Where did these numbers come from?

https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

and they sourced them from where? there are no sources listed on their site either. it's true because I believe it should be true. Your numbers are fucked up anyway. The "population on the farm", whatever that means, doubled between 1860 and 1900. How does that represent technology reducing the number of farm workers. The key word is reducing. Doubling the number of people is not reducing, except to orwell. As usual your math skills suck. Even if I take your who knows where the came from numbers as correct it represents a greater increase in industrial workers than farm workers. The key word there is increase. It's that tricky rates of change thing that always trips you up because you don't have the vaguest clue how it works.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

I gave you the link to the actual census itself.

where?

bob2356 says

Go ahead look it up. The document you are looking for is 1860a-15.pdf. https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

Wasn't it clear enough for you the first time?

indigenous says

bob2356 says

The question stands, how many slaves were there in 1920

I'm assuming none. Which indicates that the slavery did go away and would have by itself because of technology. If not for the fugitive slave act, which prolonged it's existence.

What technology was that between the civil war and the 1920's when farms started mechanizing? What's another 70 or so years of slavery. The slaves certainly wouldn't have minded I'm sure.

What a joke.

bob2356 says

and they sourced them from where? there are no sources listed on their site either.

Got me it was the first site listed on a google search.

bob2356 says

How does that represent technology reducing the number of farm workers.

As I stated it is about percentages.

bob2356 says

he key word is reducing

Which it did by 20% not including the slaves.

bob2356 says

it represents a greater increase in industrial workers than farm workers.

That is always how the economy grows. Your math skill and or logic is suspect.

bob2356 says

What technology was that between the civil war and the 1920's when farms started mechanizing?

Many:

1. Cotton Gin: In colonial times, cotton cloth was more expensive than linen or wool because of the extreme difficulty of separating seed from the clinging fibers. One man could pick the seeds from only about 1 pound of cotton fiber per day.

In 1793, Eli Whitney built a machine consisting of a row of close-set wheels with saw-like teeth around their perimeters. The wheels protruded through narrow slits between metal bars into a hopper filled with cotton bolls. As the wheels revolved, the teeth caught the cotton fibers and pulled them through the slits, which were too narrow for the seeds to pass, thus separating the two.

Whitney's cotton gin allowed 1,000 pounds of cotton to be cleaned in the time it took one man to do 5 pounds by hand. As a result, the price of cotton cloth plummeted, the cotton plantation culture of the South was established and the use of slave labor in growing cotton became entrenched.

2. Reaper/Binder: Small grains had been harvested by hand for centuries, cut with sickles or scythes, hand-raked and tied into sheaves. Grain harvesting machines first appeared in Great Britain in about 1800, and in the U.S. a decade or two later, but most failed. Obed Hussey and Cyrus McCormick developed successful reapers during the 1830s. McCormick's machine became the more popular one; today he is credited with inventing the reaper. Those early machines still required the sheaves to be bound by hand, but in 1857 the Marsh brothers equipped a reaper with moving canvases that carried the grain to a platform where it was tied into bundles by a worker riding on the machine.

The first twine knotter was demonstrated in 1867 by John Appleby. Sylvanus Locke developed a wire binder in about 1874 and it was adopted by McCormick. Wire dominated for a short while, but bits of wire got into the grain and ended up inside livestock and flour with disastrous results. William Deering adopted the twine-tying mechanism for his popular Deering harvesters, and in about 1881, McCormick did as well.

3. Thresher: When grain was being cut by hand, the method for separating the kernels from the straw was equally slow and labor intensive. Grain was hauled to a barn where it was spread on a threshing floor and either beaten with hand flails or trampled by animals. That knocked the kernels free of the straw, which was then raked away. The remaining mixture was winnowed by tossing it into the air where the wind was relied upon to blow the chaff and lighter debris away from the heavier grain, which fell back onto the threshing floor.

The first threshing machine with a revolving, toothed cylinder and concaves was invented in 1786 in Scotland by Andrew Meikle. Brothers Hiram and John Pitts are credited with invention of the first successful American separator in 1830, as well as with adapting a horse tread power to run the thing. Hiram soon added a fanning mill to the threshing drum to separate and clean the grain at the same time.

Later improvements resulted in machines that extracted virtually all the grain from the straw and thoroughly cleaned it.

4. Steam Engine: Until the end of the 18th century, American farmers relied primarily upon their own strong backs and arms and those of family members, hired men or slaves. New farm machines then being developed required more power, so oxen, horses and mules were pressed into service. Stationary steam engines were used early on to run cotton gins and mills. The additional power required by improved threshing machines led to the development of portable steam power, which made its first appearance in 1849.

At first, horses were used to haul portable steam engines from job to job. During the 1870s, several inventors developed practical drive systems and the self-propelled steam traction engine became common as power for the many threshing rigs around the country. Such machines were also used to pull multiple gangplows in the large fields of the wheat belt.

5. Combined Harvester-Thresher: By the 1920s the steam traction engine was on it's way out, but it paved the way for the gasoline tractors that followed.

Although a "traveling thrasher" (or combined harvester-thresher) was patented as early as 1828, the first successful machine was built by Hiram Moore in 1834. Moore's combine successfully cut and threshed grain, although it had to be winnowed later. After the Civil War, big horse-drawn, ground-driven combines were developed in the wheat-growing regions of the Northwest. In 1871, B.F. Cook put a steam engine on a combine to drive the mechanism, decreasing the number of horses needed to pull the machine. In about 1886, California farmer George Berry built a combine around a steam traction engine and voilà: the first self-propelled combine.

6. Auto Truck: Machinery, critters and crops, among other heavy things, all need to be moved around the farm or to market. Two-wheeled carts sufficed for early farmers. Soon 4-wheeled wagons became the norm and were universally used for a couple of centuries. It's impossible to pin down the first motor truck, but steam-, electric- and gas-powered commercial vehicles made their appearance at about the turn of the 20th century and by 1910 were common in urban areas. The first real attempt to make a vehicle to replace the ubiquitous farm wagon was by International Harvester with its "Auto Wagon" introduced in 1907. Since that time farm trucks of all sizes have proliferated and today no self-respecting farmer is without his pickup.

7. Gasoline Tractor: Steam tractors required a lot of water and fuel (coal, wood or straw), and a trained engineer at the wheel. The internal combustion engine, developed in the 1890s, offered an alternative to steam. John Froehlich is generally credited with inventing the first successful tractor in 1892. The first commercially successful tractor was built in Charles City, Iowa, by Charles Hart and Charles Parr. Early tractors were big, heavy, awkward and none too reliable, but by 1920 the better ones had survived and were becoming hugely popular on American farms for heavy tillage and belt work.

8. General Purpose Tractor: During the 1920s, row-crop work such as planting and cultivating was still largely done by horses as tractors were too heavy and not versatile enough for those lighter jobs. Several lightweight row crop tractors had been tried, but most were not satisfactory. Several manufacturers offered motor cultivators during the 'teens, but few farmers were willing to buy a machine that was used only a month or two each year.

In 1924, IH introduced the Farmall, the first real general purpose tractor that could pull heavy tillage and harvesting machines as well as plant and cultivate row crops. The Farmall quickly caught on; by 1930, IH was churning out 200 Farmalls per day. Soon, every major tractor manufacturer offered a similar row crop machine. The swift mechanization of American farms that occurred during the late 1930s and early 1940s was on its way.

9. Rubber Tires: Steel-lugged wheels limited speed, vibrated, shook bolts loose and quickly dug themselves into soft ground if they spun, not to mention what they did to the driver's innards.

Solid rubber tires began to be fitted to industrial tractors in about 1920, and Florida citrus growers experimented with large truck tires on tractors in 1928. Harvey Firestone became interested and in 1932, fitted large, low-pressure tires to an Allis-Chalmers U owned by farmer Albert Schroeder. The tires were a huge success and AC began to offer air tires on the Model U tractor late in 1932, an industry first.

The advantage of pneumatic tires over steel wheels in fuel economy and performance, not to mention driver comfort, sold farmers on their advantages and by 1940, 95 percent of tractors were ordered on rubber. Harvey Firestone's dream of putting the farm on rubber was on its way to being reality.

10. Hydraulic Implement Lift with Draft Control: The first tractor mechanical lift appeared in 1927, and a hydraulic lift in 1934. These lifts, however, were just that: lifts. They raised and then dropped the implement without the operator having to wrestle a hand lever but depth control still required frequent manipulation of a lever or crank.

Irishman Harry Ferguson can claim credit for the first hydraulic lift with automatic draft control. By 1933, he had perfected a way of attaching an implement to a tractor by three arms. The tension load on the lower arms and the compression load on the upper arm caused the "virtual hitch" point to be near the tractor's front axle, thus keeping the front end of the tractor on the ground. In addition, the top link compression load operated a hydraulic valve that caused the implement depth to be automatically regulated according to the draft needed to pull it.

Ferguson's 3-point hitch was probably the most revolutionary improvement in tractor and implement technology during the first half of the 20th century. Today, virtually every tractor sold anywhere in the world features a 3-point hitch based on Ferguson's system.

indigenous says

Whitney's cotton gin allowed 1,000 pounds of cotton to be cleaned in the time it took one man to do 5 pounds by hand. As a result, the price of cotton cloth plummeted, the cotton plantation culture of the South was established and the use of slave labor in growing cotton became entrenched.

What?

indigenous says

bob2356 says

How does that represent technology reducing the number of farm workers.

As I stated it is about percentages.

Which just goes to show you don't understand percentage or much of anything else in math. Look at your own numbers: 1860 2 million farms at 200 acres per is 400 million acres 1910 5.7 million farms at 150 acres per is 855 million acres. So you doubled the acres farmed plus 7% and doubled the number of people farming. Wow how does the percentages work on on that? Where is all that reduction in labor and slaves you are talking about?

indigenous says

Many:

That's the funniest thing you've posted in a long time. Do you ever read what you post? Almost everything on your list was pre 1800's or post wwI.

thunderlips11 says

cotton plantation culture of the South was established and the use of slave labor in growing cotton became entrenched.

They are wrong on that .

bob2356 says

Which just goes to show you don't understand percentage or much of anything else in math.

Here you go with your usual MO of misdirection, change the subject, ad hominem type stuff.

For the 3rd time,

1860: farmers 58% of labor force;

1900 farmers 38% of labor force [not including slaves]

Do you see that Bob? that is a 20% difference

bob2356 says

Almost everything on your list was pre 1800's or post wwI.

Personal computers came on the scene in the late 70s but were not in wide use until the late 90s, that is a 20 window in a day age where technology moves much quicker than the 1800s

indigenous says

They are wrong on that

I don't understand. Are you saying slavery did not matter because it would be replaced by automation in the 1800s???

lostand confused says

I don't understand. Are you saying slavery did not matter because it would be replaced by automation in the 1800s???

I'm saying that the need for slaves would diminish over the years. The percentage of the labor force in farming went from 58/% in 1860 to 2% today. I many have misspoke a little by stating in short order, but so what, the point is still the same.

indigenous says

I'm saying that the need for slaves would diminish over the years.

Wrong! America has always needed manual laborers, especially in the years following the Civil War as Reconstruction gave way to the Industrial Revolution. Plenty of people were effectively slaves in this era, with long hours, meager wages, and robber barons watching over to ensure nobody left the factory with enough to skip work the next day.
It took the labor movement and Teddy Roosevelt to emancipate the American worker and give him a voice.
Today we see a regression to those bad old days in many sectors of our economy. The rich are just vastly richer now and the poor even more desperate.

Good Gawd don't make me puke. Spare me the conjecture. Fuck Roosevelt he did not do shit, I'm tired of educating you mutts about this...

Rosevelt was disaster. His New Deal took 20 years of reworking before it started to work. And if not for WWII and the post war boom it created. We would have probably been worse off than the USSR when the Soviet Union collapsed. It would have probably been us first.

I meant Theodore Roosevelt

You are right FDR was an absolute fucking disaster but that is another can of worms.

indigenous says

Here you go with your usual MO of misdirection, change the subject, ad hominem type stuff.

For the 3rd time,

1860: farmers 58% of labor force;

1900 farmers 38% of labor force [not including slaves]

Do you see that Bob? that is a 20% difference

For the third time your numbers mean nothing. What you posted was the population and farm population. The entire population isn't the labor force you ninny. It wasn't a difference because farming was less labor intensive. The farm workers per acre didn't change much at all according to YOUR numbers if you could figure out how to read them. The number of acres farmed doubled, the number of farm workers doubled. Where exactly did automation reduce farm labor?

indigenous says

What you posted was the population and farm population.

It clearly states percentage of the labor force?

Assuming that people had the same grocery basket that mean that fewer farmers are producing more goods.

And since there was considerable deflation during that time period the price of the goods were not helped by inflation.

dodgerfanjohn says

You still suck Obama

Why am I not surprised that not even one of your points holds up ?

dodgerfanjohn says

IF you want me to accept your proposals, first explain where and how each of the individuals obtained their guns and how your proposals would have prevented that.

Any valid proposal for reducing gun violence, doesn't have to be something that would have clearly prevented any specific mass murder in the past, to be good and valid, especially with regard to the long term impacts. Reducing the amount of guns available to criminals is not something that is going to happen quickly.

dodgerfanjohn says

Make mental illness treatment and awareness a key platform of you administration and a focus of Obamacare.

Obamacare does radically increase access to mental health care.

dodgerfanjohn says

Either you are an idiot or you think the American people are. Stop using the 30,000 gun deaths per year number. It's utter bullshit. 19,000 of those deaths are suicide. 18,999 of those would occur regardless of access to firearms. ~8000 of the deaths are gang related.

Guns not being in the hands of people who committed suicide probably prevents at least some suicides. Gang related murder is one of the biggest focuses of his reforms. Making it harder for dealers to sell guns to kids on the street. Sellers are going to start being liable for who they sell to. I.e, selling to the guy who sells to the gangs could get a dealer in big big trouble.

Too bad you hate Obama and are therefore too biased to even listen to him. When he makes the point about all the things we are willing to do for safety such as seat belts, but can't regulate guns in any way, he makes a point that proves where you are coming from.

dodgerfanjohn says

moron

Lay off the sauce bro. At least until after 3.

Ironman says

Isn't it absolutely amazing, after reading all the crap Marcus posts here, the school board actually allows him to be alone in a classroom full of kids?? No wonder the current generation of high school graduates are so fucked up in the head.

You can imagine how thrilled I was when my high school age step daughter came home excited about how much one of her teachers hates Donald Trump.

Teachers like Marcus are absolute abominations.

Why do teacher say anything about politics?

I dunno. Also dunno why Marcus chose to un-ignore me for a few hours. Guess thats all it took to get his blood boiling enough to make him ignore me again.

But then again I dont understand teacher logic, or lack thereof.

I wouldn't know he has had me on ignore for longer than I can remember, which is fine...

dodgerfanjohn says

Eeesh, listening to this guy is giving me a headache.

Ha Ha! Obama trolled you so badly that you took the time to create a thread about how irritating he was!

Obama pwned you. Obama is winning teh internets!