And the Pullman company famous for its luxury railroad cars, whose paternalistic policies in the “model town” established outside Chicago to house its workers led directly to one of the great industrial crises in American history, the Pullman strike of 1894: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

From the Wikipedia article you reference: "When his company laid off workers and lowered wages, it did not reduce rents, and the workers called for a strike."

Was it the paternalistic policies or economic factors that caused the strike?

Both. The economic conditions of 1894 were the precipitating cause. The paternalistic policies were a contributing cause.

Pullman, Illinois was the definition of a company town.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-lab...

The rent problem was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the paternalism was what inclined the workers to respond to it so forcefully. The workers in Pullman were already frustrated with the company, and then the rents-and-wages issue pushed the situation over the edge.

It's not that much different than insurance companies and a lot of employers paying people to go to the gym.

It's one thing if an employer kicks $250 my way for joining the wellness program. It's entirely different when half of my compensation or even my job itself depends on it.

It's already troublesome when the employer gets their hands on employees' health information. It's none of their business, and the 250 dollars are just pocket change. You have to give it to U-Haul: you know where you stand, if you smoke or vape you can't work there, and if you don't they won't spy on you beyond drug and nicotine testing.

I disagree; I think it IS their business. Healthier employees cost less to insure, and health insurance is a large cost of employing people.

If the American people don't like this, then they need to vote for health insurance to be totally separate from employment. But Americans won't do that, because that's "socialism". So we're getting exactly what we've voted for.

If employers are expected to subsidize your health insurance costs, they have every right to your health information.

I think you and the person you're replying to are in agreement; what they very likely meant by "health is none of an employer's business" is that the act of insuring people should not be part of an employer's business.

>the act of insuring people should not be part of an employer's business.

It shouldn't be (IMO), but it currently is, and there's no sign that's going to change soon. The American people have consistently voted to keep things the way they are, and resisted attempts at decoupling employment from health insurance. Therefore, since the American people have saddled employers with this responsibility, I feel the employers have every right to your health information.

By the same rationale, if taxpayers are expected to subsidize my health insurance costs, shouldn't they have access to my health information too?

Britain demonstrates how it's done: what is paid for from public funds is decided by an expert committee. It is no one's business what any individual is suffering from, and it doesn't matter, what counts is aggregate demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_...

"I disagree; I think it IS their business. Healthier employees cost less to insure, and health insurance is a large cost of employing people."

Health information is private for very good reasons. Employers who don't understand medicine have no business gaining access to our medical records, making decisions, and potentially discriminating based on their ignorant assumptions about employee health statues and problems.

"If the American people don't like this, then they need to vote for health insurance to be totally separate from employment. But Americans won't do that, because that's "socialism". So we're getting exactly what we've voted for."

This "we" business is a very lazy argument. There are large numbers of people who have been against this system. "WE" are not getting what "we" voted for, without even considering that we haven't really had the opportunity to vote for it in the first place.

"If employers are expected to subsidize your health insurance costs, they have every right to your health information."

This subsidization is a pooled, monetary component of employee compensation. While population-based behaviors will impact the overall insurance cost, individaul behaviors aren't likely to. But since you're so bent on giving employers actionable information about worker lifestyle choices, perhaps you should focus on easy choices that impact ability to work like prescription drug use like Ambien, guys who stay up late to watch sports, or anyone who stays up late to watch late shows, drinking too much, eating too much, eating an unhealthy diet (which depends on who you ask of course) . . .

By the way: given that employer-mediated health insurance is part of the compensation package, if this mediation was no longer connected with employment, do you just assume that the employer keeps the money that was previously part of an employee's earnings? Or do employees get the compensation that was bargained for? Or is it sent to the government for the provision of universal healthcare? Either way, the employer is paying a wage for services rendered.

>This "we" business is a very lazy argument. There are large numbers of people who have been against this system.

It's not lazy at all; it's absolutely true. Those "large numbers" haven't been enough to change anything. If the American people really wanted this situation fixed, it would be, but they don't, so it isn't.

>"WE" are not getting what "we" voted for, without even considering that we haven't really had the opportunity to vote for it in the first place."

Bullshit. Health insurance has been a major campaign platform for some time now. Have you forgotten Obamacare and what a big issue that was? And ever since then, the GOP has been campaigning on the idea of rescinding it, while the Democrats have campaigned on either keeping it intact or going to single-payer or some other scheme in between. The voters have absolutely had the opportunity to vote for it; that's what they've been doing for at least 15 years now.

> perhaps you should focus on easy choices that impact ability to work like prescription drug use like Ambien, guys who stay up late to watch sports, or anyone who stays up late to watch late shows, drinking too much, eating too much, eating an unhealthy diet (which depends on who you ask of course) . . .

That's all perfectly fine with me. Employers have all kinds of rights to police employee behavior and discriminate against them as long as it's not a "protected class". Why should employers be forced to pay higher insurance costs for unhealthy employees? And again, if you don't like it, there's the voting booth, but most Americans don't want to change this so good luck with that.

>Remember that a nation works best when there is a shared culture and a shared language - these things being inseparable - which encourage unity and community.

Which nations are these? Looking at the current major world economies:

- US: Federal. Many immigrant communities. English and Spanish.

- China: Two major languages, two SARs, each with another official language. "Chinese Tapei" with Hokkien. Regional cultures I'm not familiar with.

- EU: 24 languages, made up of multiple countries many of which have multiple official or minority languages.

- Japan: Shared culture and language, stagnant economy.

- India: Barely half of the country speak the most common language.

> - EU: 24 languages, made up of multiple countries many of which have multiple official or minority languages.

I'd argue that lack of a common language is one of the main factors in the UK leaving the EU. People here (in the UK) don't realise how similar they are to other Europeans, because they can't understand them or their media.

This problem is less pronounced for the rest of the EU, because they tend to be better at teaching/learning other languages there.

> "Japan: Shared culture and language, stagnant economy."

Somehow ignoring that Japan had a gigantic economic boom in the '70s through the '80s to become the world's 2nd largest economy. Setting aside that relating shared language to economic strength is nonsense anyway, Japan does not bolster your thesis.

I don't know why you picked that list of countries in particular, but in most rankings of countries (by happiness, productivity, social welfare, GDP per capita, etc.) you tend to see several of the nordic countries, which are all quite culturally-homogenous.

I would highlight "social welfare" rankings in particular: people seem to vote more for socialist measures—measures that tax them to provide for others—when they care more about those others. If this correlation holds (between lack of cultural diversity and social-welfare leanings), then it would suggest that the cultures that care most about helping their "fellow man" are the ones in which one's "fellow man" is the least different from oneself.

I welcome your counterpoints which are unpopular of course.

> Research shows that multiculturalism does not help nations and only leads to mutual distrust, increased political partisanship, and a whole host if other problems.

Factual proof done by research? Any links?

Not OP however I remember a Paradox of "Diverse Community" a while back.

Googled it and found the old article.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/11/paradox-diverse-commu...

Also one more

> In longitudinal perspective, an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/23321...

I would argue that the US is experiencing a lot of problems, particularly the rise of Trumpism, because there's now a large contingent of immigrants (many not-so-recent) who don't speak English and have a very different culture. This has stoked a lot of xenophobia, and calls to "build the wall".

China is almost all Mandarin. The SARs are really small exceptions and not like the rest of the country (by design).

Japan's main problems are a low birthrate, and inefficient business processes (too many people spending too much time at work, but not actually being productive). But still, they have one of the world's leading economies.

India is really a mess in a lot of ways, and as you point out, it isn't doing nearly as well as China economically even though it's started out from relatively the same point.

There are counterpoints, however. 1) Switzerland. 4 languages, and the country is both economically super-prosperous (per capita) and safe, with the highest standard of living in the world. 2) Canada. 2 main languages (English, French), and standard of living at least as good as neighboring USA.

I think the difference is that, in both these places, these countries basically started out with these major languages, and made very conscious decisions early on to accommodate these languages and regional cultures, and to be a place where they could all get along. But even this hasn't been perfect: Quebec has long had a separatist movement.

I reject that premise. Embracing cultural homogeny encourages isolation and resentment, not unity and community.

A nation can’t operate at its best without embracing diverse cultures and language. To do otherwise would leave us with incestuous, tired ideas. Stripping away unique cultural experience for the sake of “integration” hurts everyone. There is nothing to be gained and a whole lot to lose.

You seem to be confusing a strong culture with not embracing new ideas. Those aren’t intrinsically linked.

Encouraging immigrants to adopt Western values like gender equality, support for democratic ideas is a good thing, not a bad thing.

The part that concerns me, is that this always seems to be one-sided - "You will be better if you adopt our values"

Rarely does anybody make the statement that "My adoption of your values will improve me"

Implicit subtext is that, all of my values are better than yours. Strikes me that this is probably quite unlikely.

Actually, if I move to a new country, part of why I'm doing that is because it's better than my country, so their ideas/values are better than mine. So the adoption of these ideas/values will make me better.

The chances that 100% of their cultural values/ideas are better is probably pretty slim. And most people are moving for economic reasons, not cultural ones (though the two are often tightly coupled).

Take a move from the US to Canada. I might prefer Canada's nationalized health system to America's every-man-for-himself system. But, I might also prefer American's highly interventionist foreign policy and take that preference with me when I move. [Not claiming I believe in either, just an example]

>The chances that 100% of their cultural values/ideas are better is probably pretty slim. And most people are moving for economic reasons, not cultural ones (though the two are often tightly coupled).

The reason the new country is economically better is most likely due in some part to their culture, not just luck or geography.

This doesn't mean that 100% of their cultural values are better, of course. But you should, if immigrating, take a very careful look at their values, because there's likely some very important things that have caused that country to do so well and for your former country to not do so well.

So you're saying that an American immigrating to Japan should resist learning about Japanese culture or the Japanese language?

I _think_ what the poster tried to say is:

"Now as I have been welcomed in this country I am willing to adopt their habbits because I want to be part of this community and the community will accept me more easily when I am doing so."

What are you basing this interpretation on?

I agree 100%. Thanks for putting that in a way my comment didn’t fully reach.

> Encouraging immigrants to adopt Western values like gender equality, support for democratic ideas is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Says a person who is undoubtedly western. You might not get the same response from someone in China or Saudi Arabia.

It is a good thing.

>You might not get the same response from China or Saudi Arabia

In Saudi Arabia, if you’re not a man you might not even get a response. Or you could get beheaded.

[0]From Wikipedia:

In September 2011 a Sudanese migrant worker was beheaded for "sorcery",[37] ... Other forms of general discrimination, such as a lack of freedom of religion for non-Sunni Muslims, are also applicable.[12] ... The international organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) describes these conditions as "near-slavery" and attributes them to "deeply rooted gender, religious, and racial discrimination".[12] ... Trade unions, strikes, and collective bargaining are banned for both Saudi citizens and foreigners alike.[32]

Western values? Do you mean money? :P

Is there an actual argument for multi-culturalism being better for a nation? The argument for a homogeneous culture is easy to make. But multi-culturalism isn't obvious.

I would say that there is a lot of obvious evidence for the horrific failures of trying to impose a single culture in a place where multi-culturalism already exists. These failures have been so bad that the idea of cultural purity has earned a bad name.

The argument of what would be better if we started from scratch will hopefully never be relevant since most of us are in nations with multiple cultures.

It's you exaggerating with

> cultural purity

What next no-argument will you show up with, Rasenwahn of the Third Reich or Eugenics?

The OP said that

> the argument for a homogeneous culture is easy to make

and you end the discussion by speaking of the devil and the devil shows up?

How do you create a homogeneous culture out of a heterogeneous one? It's been tried so many times and it has either failed or been judged an atrocity.

Some people want to keep their culture, so you can either force them to change, move them, kill them, or stay multicultural. To avoid being terrible you just have to let others be and trust them even though they are different.

I don't believe I'm exaggerating that cultural homogeneity is a really ugly idea with a terrible history and it is hard to make an argument for it on a national scale.

>How do you create a homogeneous culture out of a heterogeneous one?

The U.S. used to do it to a certain extent. It was a part of the process of becoming American by joining the "melting pot" of cultures and becoming genuinely American. The idea of multiculturalism in America is relatively recent.

You can have both. You can learn English and about American culture while sticking to your own. In this way not only you don't lose anything, but also gain an advantage. Yes, you can get away with not speaking English in some areas of the USA (and not understanding some social/cultural cues), but it's hard to live in this way in the long term, especially if you plan to have a family.

Britain and Germany did very well in the 19th century, arguably better than now.

I don't see that many new ideas other than incremental improvements on things that are essentially from the Apollo/Concorde age.

Not integrating encourages isolation and resentment.

A nation becomes divided along linguistic lines when it has many different languages in use within its borders. In a nation as diverse as the US, it is of critical importance that there be unifying forces acting to bring us together against the natural tendency for division and divisiveness. Sharing a common language is one of these unifying forces, and when you share a common language with someone it's possible for you to share and grow your common common culture.

You see, when people do not share language, they are culturally isolated. I do not believe in forcefully imposing some American culture on all immigrants. What I want is cultural mixing, as has happened throughout America's history, but this can only happen within the context of a shared language.

It's baffling to me that some people are so resistant to this basic idea of linguistic unity. Building and maintaining a strong nation, just like building and maintaining any relationship or community, requires effort and care. Sure it takes effort to learn English, but the fruits of this effort are a stronger more united America and is an important step for new immigrants integrating into the American family. Remember that in the process of integration, there is also sharing, cooperation and community building.

> It's baffling to me that some people are so resistant to this basic idea of linguistic unity.

The problem, at least from my perspective, is that the issue is so often used as a proxy for less noble motives.

This comment is simply false. We can have a robust sharing of ideas and cultures all within the context of a single language.

In speaking a common language we gain tremendously both in unity and the opportunity for increased cultural sharing. Imagine a family in which everyone speaks different languages. There would be little interaction; the family would fall apart. Nations have historically fractured in this way along linguistic boundaries, and by not encouraging a single language in a country, we invite division, balkanization and national fracturing.

I'm curious as to why you are against a single language dominating in a country. Are you uncomfortable with people being expected to make the effort to learn a new language? Or do you just not care about nations (or the USA in particular) as units and don't mind if they fall apart.

Imagine if different areas of the United States still spoke the languages of first-generation immigrants.

You'd have the French, German, Dutch, English, native tribes, Spanish...

Not the United States of America, but the United States of Austria were actually a serious proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austr...

The issue usually isn't ethnic tensions, it's usually disenfranchisement expressing itself through nationalism.

for profit, non democratic entities, where a single individual uses their access to capital to dictate what moral behaviors are positive for society are not.

The fact that the narratives in most countries continue to be built from the basic assumption that those with power are superior is a pretty basic failing of the promise of the internet in my mind.