{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","uuid":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","normalized_title":"timeforthingslaborleisureandtheriseofmassconsumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","isbns":["9780674250529","9780674250536","9780674979512"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":355,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%20for%20Things%20Labor%2C%20Leisure%2C%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20Mass%20Consumption","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/search"},"page":{"printed_page":161,"pdf_page":169,"physical_index":169,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"1b51828cfbeb7e2dfc9d5328b16447da06f4ed9cba0bc4347f55471dc9d46755"},"chapter":"FOR","content":"Various organs of the state were fully in support of the project to standardize the economy. In addition to the ongoing special work of the Bureau of Standards, standardization was more generally actively promoted by the Department of Commerce, especially in the early 1920s, under Herbert Hoover.37 An engineer by training and a leading light of the eficiency movement, as Secretary of Commerce Hoover enthusiastically advocated “the elimination of waste in industry through standardization.”38 With this objective in mind, he created, in 1922, the Division of Simplified Practice, as a department within the Bureau of Standards. According to Hoover, the division was to be “the medium through which producers, distributers, and consumers could agree upon simplification of production by reducing the number of sizes and models of products” (quoted in Noble 1977, p. 81). From the point of view of the state, the benefits of standardization were increasing eficiency, improved and cheaper products for consumers, and greater economic stability. E. T. Pickard, chief of the textile division of the Department of Commerce, speaking at an industry meeting, afirmed with great enthusiasm the advantages of standardization for industry while also noting its broader importance for national wellbeing: “Standardization, simplification and the elimination of waste, when confined to reasonable measures and operations, may be interpreted in terms of national welfare. . . . They lead to stabilization of trade and industry and equilibrium of employment. The resulting economies of production and distribution enhance the purchasing powers of the consuming public, thus enabling them to enjoy a progressively higher standard of living.”39 The New York Times in 1919 published an article making a similar point, suggesting that the vicissitudes of industrial capitalism could be tamed by the mindful application of a standardized approach to production: “Debt to standardization: It Has Brought Order Out of Chaos in the Machinery World,” ran the headline.40 Thus, even before the era of Keynesian macroeconomic policy, standardized production, which entailed a coordinated economy, was seen as a means whereby economic stability could be maintained. The perspective of the Commerce Department was not, however, always shared by other government organizations. There was some suspicion that standardization of commodities would lead to monopoly. Indeed, rumors circulated in 1931 that the Federal Trade Commission would rule against guidelines for voluntary standardization drawn up by industry in collaboration with the Commerce Department (the FTC later denied that these rumors were true).41\n\nStandardization of Consumption, Work, and Wages\n\n161","previous_page":160,"next_page":162}