Gilded Age I'm stuck on a question!?

"gilded and perfumed but inwardly rotten nobility", is the definition of gilded on the word web site. I am not sure what you mean by gilded age, is there a certain time period and why was it called that name. I would think that the rich were trying to stay rich with no concern for workers or lower and middle class, it seems like the same thing that is going on now. When people are continuously held down and kept in poverty no matter how hard they work and strive to take care of their families my guess is sooner or later the words stop and the violence starts. I remember studying the French Revolution where the poor rose up against the rich to the point of killing many of the royalty. Maybe the rich should pay attention to history instead of continuing to be greedy at all costs.

The so called Gilded Age was only gilded for the wealthy few - it wasn't much different than one great plantation - the violence was aggravated by the wealthy for not paying living wages - dangerous working conditions and down right usury they used cops, national guards and there own hired thugs to maintain there statuesque but thanks to the unions and the brave workers joining them changes were made - what's interesting today insurance companies are actually doing the job the unions were striving for - safe working conditions - insurance companies will not insure a company if they are not operating safely.

It allowed a company to supply a excellent or provider in a market the place it was demanded. It did not attempt to distort prices or labor, it did not keep an eye on what the organization produced, and it failed to dictate who would buy or promote. The big majority of companies did not do the horrific factor acknowledged, and the firms that did do them, would not have lasted lengthy anyhow. Principally although, laissez-faire govt insurance policies allowed for an efficient market. Today our market is hindered with bureaucracies, that's why its within the crapper.

In the "Gilded Age" as now, a very few very rich, controlled the wealth of our nation. When workers tried to unite to force employers to pay fair wages, and furnish safe and humane working conditions, their "1%" hired thugs and paid the police to break up these organizations. It was to be done as violently as possible to prevent recurrences. They often instigated violence and blamed the unions, since their "1%" owned the newspapers. Workers don't instigate violence. We aren't equipped to do so. We don't have a sympathetic media on our side. Many lies are spread, now just as then.

History repeats itself.

idk