Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 325:questions:week_4_questions_comments-325_19 [2019/09/19 12:41] – jmcclurken
+++ 325:questions:week_4_questions_comments-325_19 [2019/11/14 02:33] (current) – 108.45.143.34
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 -- Erin Madden
-The main argument from Danly that I got from reading this was basically the answer to the second question as well. The way that railroads and trains were portrayed in America is that it is a piece of technology that practically can be  put anywhere and not disrupt nature. Artists and photographers constantly made the railroads look as if they just fell into the landscape. Its really cool to read about this because I never really have thought how photography could have persuaded the public at this time. If the trains in pictures seem to be doing no harm it could make sense to someone that they aren’t. On page 12, the picture of the train going through the mountains adds to this idea and Danly even argued that “suggesting the easy assimilation of new technological forms into the aesthetic mode of the picturesque.” (page 13) meaning that putting technology into pictures of things the public was familiar with would overall bring normality to it. -Tory Martin
+Railroads were glorified in American art. They ranged from a seemingly almost religious glow about them, to a variant of dirty and dark imagery. I supposed the content of the art depended heavily on which side of the political spectrum the artist subscribed to regarding railroads. - Elizabeth Davis
-The imagery used to depict railroads with nature quickly takes a turn for the worse as the initial glorification of the railroad ends. The Hudson River School of art main focus was on capturing the beauty of landscape. The railroad and nature can be seen as conflicting views, the railroad disturbs a quiet landscape and changes the surroundings that the artists strived to depict. - John Liberty
+The main argument from Danly that I got from reading this was basically the answer to the second question as well. The way that railroads and trains were portrayed in America is that it is a piece of technology that practically can be  put anywhere and not disrupt nature. Artists and photographers constantly made the railroads look as if they just fell into the landscape. **Its really cool to read about this because I never really have thought how photography could have persuaded the public at this time. If the trains in pictures seem to be doing no harm it could make sense to someone that they aren’t.** On page 12, the picture of the train going through the mountains adds to this idea and Danly even argued that “suggesting the easy assimilation of new technological forms into the aesthetic mode of the picturesque.” (page 13) meaning that putting technology into pictures of things the public was familiar with would overall bring normality to it. -Tory Martin
+**The imagery used to depict railroads with nature quickly takes a turn for the worse as the initial glorification of the railroad ends. The Hudson River School of art main focus was on capturing the beauty of landscape.** The railroad and nature can be seen as conflicting views, the railroad disturbs a quiet landscape and changes the surroundings that the artists strived to depict. - John Liberty
 Most art at the time of the emergence of the steam engine portrayed the locomotive as a triumph of man over nature. “Railroads in the western landscape can be seen as direct expressions of the ideology of Manifest Destiny”(pg. 17). At this period in American history, Americans were clamoring to conquer the land west of the mississippi. The notion of manifest destiny was exemplified by the revolutionary nature of the steam engine, allowing people to move swiftly across the country. Steam engines were often depicted as blazing their way through an untamed wilderness, bringing civilization westward. -Zachary Kennedy
@@ Line 38: / Line 40: @@
 ===== Arthur McEvoy, "Working Environments" =====
-Professor Bower’s study examines the phenomena of work-site accidents within the industrial sector during the early twentieth century, by delving into historic compensation laws & insurance.
+Professor Bower’s study examines the phenomena of work-site accidents within the industrial sector during the early twentieth century, by delving into historic compensation laws & insurance. Although I do not know the monetary value of a human life during the time that this study was conducted, the U.S. Office of Management currently values a human life at around $8 million, which is presumably far greater than that of a worker’s life in the nineteenth & early twentieth century. I would argue that since the value of an individual’s life has grown in monetary value since the poor employee settlement laws of the past, we can attribute this to the satisfactory work compensation & protection laws we have today. **As jobs become safer in the United States due to the recent rise of automation in the workforce, can we expect a decline in the quality of worker protection and compensation laws?** (--Nate Stringer)
-Although I do not know the monetary value of a human life during the time that this study was conducted, the U.S. Office of Management currently values a human life at around $8 million, which is presumably far greater than that of a worker’s life in the nineteenth & early twentieth century. I would argue that since the value of an individual’s life has grown in monetary value since the poor employee settlement laws of the past, we can attribute this to the satisfactory work compensation & protection laws we have today.
-As jobs become safer in the United States due to the recent rise of automation in the workforce, can we expect a decline in the quality of worker protection and compensation laws? (--Nate Stringer)
-Any time companies try to speed things up and keep costs down, working conditions are not the first thing that come to mind, and you can see that throughout history.  Factory workers would lose body parts constantly because the companies wanted things done quick.  More goods, more money.  It makes sense why companies today are making factories more mechanized and less human reliant.  Things are getting done a lot faster, there are less people to get hurt, and they don’t have to jump through as many legal hoops.  Worker’s compensation can put a company out thousands of dollars, and we live in a very sue happy world.  Machines and robots are a smart investment for companies. -Claire Starke
+Any time companies try to speed things up and keep costs down, working conditions are not the first thing that come to mind, and you can see that throughout history.  Factory workers would lose body parts constantly because the companies wanted things done quick.  More goods, more money.  It makes sense why companies today are making factories more mechanized and less human reliant.  Things are getting done a lot faster, there are less people to get hurt, and they don’t have to jump through as many legal hoops.  Worker’s compensation can put a company out thousands of dollars, and we live in a very sue happy world.  **Machines and robots are a smart investment for companies.** -Claire Starke
 On page seventy-five, McEvoy says that Environmentalists traditionally work with "natural" subjects and ignores man-made objects even though there is an obivous relationship between the two. I am confused by this, as I can't see a subject that is purely "natural"; without any influence from human-contact. Going beyond that, I think that McEvoy's arguments about the role of workplace injuries and the hierarchical relationship is an interesting take on how technological advances, instead of leveling the playing field, created new barriers for workers to cross. - Kim Eastridge
@@ Line 53: / Line 51: @@
 === How does this document relate to McEvoy's article? ===
-To me, the most intriguing parts about Bowers's article were the many listed examples of causes of injury.The document emphasizes the connection between injury and money. With increased technology comes increased production and further leading to more injury without much safety regulation. The particular section that struck me was of the planing mill. There was such a demand for constant labor that three workers were severely injured because of the negligence of worker well-being. People injured or killed due to the workplace were reduced to statistics and loss of production. -Meghan McDonagh
+To me, the most intriguing parts about Bowers's article were the many listed examples of causes of injury.The document emphasizes the connection between injury and money. With increased technology comes increased production and further leading to more injury without much safety regulation. The particular section that struck me was of the planing mill. There was such a demand for constant labor that three workers were severely injured because of the negligence of worker well-being. **People injured or killed due to the workplace were reduced to statistics and loss of production**. -Meghan McDonagh
-Bowers goes into detail about the average fatality cut with 20 years of productive labor. With that in mind, however, the types of injuries that can be used together would cause an annual loss of more than 280,000,000 working days. Earning capacity would be just about 50 per cent with that playing a factor in the equation. This relates to McEvoy because the companies would not have good working conditions because the companies were only out to make a lot of money over a period of time, hence why there were a good amount of accidents that occurred because the employers thought that the expense with making the company safer would reduce the profits that the companies were trying to make. With 0 regards for work safety, this is so much more different than what we have going on today with companies and how much safety, training, etc. that goes into some companies. I believe that this total negligence by the workers lead to companies wanting laws to be able to protect their business and the profits that were wanting to make. – Hunter Dykhuis
+Bowers goes into detail about the average fatality cut with 20 years of productive labor. With that in mind, however, the types of injuries that can be used together would cause an annual loss of more than 280,000,000 working days. Earning capacity would be just about 50 per cent with that playing a factor in the equation. T**his relates to McEvoy because the companies would not have good working conditions because the companies were only out to make a lot of money over a period of time, hence why there were a good amount of accidents that occurred because the employers thought that the expense with making the company safer would reduce the profits that the companies were trying to make.** With 0 regards for work safety, this is so much more different than what we have going on today with companies and how much safety, training, etc. that goes into some companies. I believe that this total negligence by the workers lead to companies wanting laws to be able to protect their business and the profits that were wanting to make. – Hunter Dykhuis
 When reading this article, I was very interested to see how many fatalities there are in industrial accidents. I never knew  how dangerous and how negligent the work environment is and how many are due to human mistakes. This is similar to McEvoy's article as the companies focus more on the cost than the accident itself. McEvoy says " That we call workplace injuries "accidents" rather, than, say "production costs". (p.89) Which then leads to saying "labor is more than just an economic activity controlled by impersonal market forces: it is the manifestation of the worker's life force." Which means it is not just about the money and the costs due to an accident, but should be more on the what causes these accidents and the lack of protection. It is a human life, yes we must adapt, but safety precautions should be in place with sufficient state inspections. --- Erika M.
-In this reading McEvoy discusses the relationship between technology and increased industrialization and the environment as well as living conditions of those around industries and technology. First McEvoy talks about the changes in living conditions that come along with technological development, “it has roots in and impacts on its environment”; the most obvious example of this is the decrease of air quality due to pollution. McEvoy continues on to discuss the physical dangers of the workplace, and introduces the perspective of occupational hazards. As technology has developed, you can see the number of injuries or problems rooted in the workplace increase which has caused a perceived relationship between the two. -Emma Monaghan
+In this reading McEvoy discusses the relationship between technology and increased industrialization and the environment as well as living conditions of those around industries and technology. **First McEvoy talks about the changes in living conditions that come along with technological development, “it has roots in and impacts on its environment”; the most obvious example of this is the decrease of air quality due to pollution. McEvoy continues on to discuss the physical dangers of the workplace, and introduces the perspective of occupational hazards.** As technology has developed, you can see the number of injuries or problems rooted in the workplace increase which has caused a perceived relationship between the two. -Emma Monaghan