Re: Help with a Minimum Wage Model

From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 11:22:43 MDT

  • Next message: Brendan Coffey: "Re: Arab World Stunned by Baghdad's Fall"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:41 PM
    Subject: Re: Help with a Minimum Wage Model

    > Steve Davies wrote:
    >
    > > ...
    > >
    > >hat was enclosed in the eighteenth century (almost entirely pasture) was
    > >*not* owned in common. There is still several million acres of "common
    land"
    > >in Britain and every square foot of it is privately owned. "Common land"
    in
    > >English law is privately owned land where the owner does not have the
    right
    > >to exclude others from access to the land i.e. there is a public right of
    > >access (in the 18th century this included the right to graze livestock).
    The
    > >Enclosure Acts were not put through by landlords against the wishes of
    their
    > >tenants. On the contrary, the Acts resulted from petitions which were
    signed
    > >and drawn up by all of the people with an interest, including the
    tenants.
    > >T...
    > >Steve Davies
    > >
    > Legally you may have the terms right. But how was the law enforced? I
    > quote:
    > The law forbids the man or woman
    > Who steals a goose from off the common
    > But lets the greater felon loose
    > Who steals the common from the goose.
    >
    > So at least some portion of the population disagreed with your history.
    > And they were present.

    Indeed. There were contemporaries who objected to the legal process by which
    the right of public access to "common land" was terminated. As I said there
    were winners and losers. Tenant farmers (who were involved in the enclosure
    petitions) were winners because they acquired the right to prevent free
    access to their land. The class of landless labourers (cottars) were broadly
    losers because they lost the ability to keep livestock and graze them on the
    commons. However they did gain indirectly from the increase in agricultural
    efficiency that the enclosure process led to. The verse you quote was quite
    a common sentiment, particularly among Tories such as Goldsmith. Economic
    change is always unpopular with those who bear the cost, for obvious
    reasons. However the process of enclosures during the 18th century was
    largely consensual. SD



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 11:31:12 MDT