4 ms·

Have you actually read any muckrake pieces of that time? The industrial revolution brought about the redunancy of weavers who were skilled workers that were bro

Have you actually read any muckrake pieces of that time? The industrial revolution brought about the redunancy of weavers who were skilled workers that were brought to poverty[1]. 1. http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook/IndustrialRevolution/IREffects.html#workingconditions http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook...

fennecfoxen 11y ago
And everyone who was not a weaver (most of the population, and mostly not skilled workers) could now afford unthinkable luxuries in their daily life, like a second or third shirt (lightly used). I think this has been posted around here before: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-lesson-in.html http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l...
branchless 11y ago
I think the main problem is workers lacked choice due to access to alternative means of employment due to land enclosure laws. Had they been able to choose between say farming and working 12 hour shifts in bad conditions they would have looked at the risk/reward. As it was the choice was work or starve. Wages are therefore set at subsistence levels rather than at the floor set by the alternative. Land enclosure created unemployment. Employers were not bidding against one another to secure workers, they were in a dutch auction with labourers to "save them". Similarly today due to very high land prices we cannot work selectively (unless you earn a lot). Were land prices to be suppressed I think we would see people choose to work less which would put pressure on employers who would have to hand over to workers a greater share of the value they produce.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  Would that be a capitalistic move to suppress land prices?
  - branchless 11y ago
    Land value tax. It's actually extremely capitalistic in my opinion. It trims the fat of speculators, forces people to use land effectively or pay the price and in general cuts out dynastic wasters. http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ Can't reply to you - one of the mods has disabled my ability to post (haven't posted in an hour and get "you're submitting too fast"). Or perhaps the thread has been closed down. Who knows.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      I think you've mistaken "capitalistic" for "good"; each of your points is a way in which LVT is not capitalistic, even if it is a way in which it is desirable.
AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
Of course they were brought to poverty. They were obsoleted by technology. The link you provide proves my point readily: > Since population was increasing in Great Britain at the same time that landowners were enclosing common village lands, people from the countryside flocked to the towns and the new factories to get work. At the time, Europe's population was increasing 300% per century, whereas in prior eras the population increase was around 3% per century. Why was the population increasing so rapidly? Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Obtaining household goods was becoming less of a struggle, people were living beyond the age of 40, and famine was no longer a daily reality for most. The societal changes that occurred due to the industrial revolution were significant and immediate; of course there were issues dealing with this change. It was the most potent moment of change the modern world has ever seen - a culmination of the ideology of the Renaissance paired with the technology of the times.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  Your claim is that capitalism solved poverty and didn't create any instances. I'm pointing to an instance where people became impoverished because they were rendered redundant from capitalism. That's all I'm saying. You seem to be arguing against something that isn't my point.
  - thatswrong0 11y ago
    I think it's pretty obvious they meant poverty as a whole, in which case you're just being pedantic.
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  > Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Capitalism? Or just plain technological progress?

fennecfoxen 11y ago

And everyone who was not a weaver (most of the population, and mostly not skilled workers) could now afford unthinkable luxuries in their daily life, like a second or third shirt (lightly used). I think this has been posted around here before: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-lesson-in.html http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l...

branchless 11y ago

I think the main problem is workers lacked choice due to access to alternative means of employment due to land enclosure laws. Had they been able to choose between say farming and working 12 hour shifts in bad conditions they would have looked at the risk/reward. As it was the choice was work or starve. Wages are therefore set at subsistence levels rather than at the floor set by the alternative. Land enclosure created unemployment. Employers were not bidding against one another to secure workers, they were in a dutch auction with labourers to "save them". Similarly today due to very high land prices we cannot work selectively (unless you earn a lot). Were land prices to be suppressed I think we would see people choose to work less which would put pressure on employers who would have to hand over to workers a greater share of the value they produce.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago
Would that be a capitalistic move to suppress land prices?
- branchless 11y ago
  Land value tax. It's actually extremely capitalistic in my opinion. It trims the fat of speculators, forces people to use land effectively or pay the price and in general cuts out dynastic wasters. http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/ Can't reply to you - one of the mods has disabled my ability to post (haven't posted in an hour and get "you're submitting too fast"). Or perhaps the thread has been closed down. Who knows.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    I think you've mistaken "capitalistic" for "good"; each of your points is a way in which LVT is not capitalistic, even if it is a way in which it is desirable.

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago

Of course they were brought to poverty. They were obsoleted by technology. The link you provide proves my point readily: > Since population was increasing in Great Britain at the same time that landowners were enclosing common village lands, people from the countryside flocked to the towns and the new factories to get work. At the time, Europe's population was increasing 300% per century, whereas in prior eras the population increase was around 3% per century. Why was the population increasing so rapidly? Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Obtaining household goods was becoming less of a struggle, people were living beyond the age of 40, and famine was no longer a daily reality for most. The societal changes that occurred due to the industrial revolution were significant and immediate; of course there were issues dealing with this change. It was the most potent moment of change the modern world has ever seen - a culmination of the ideology of the Renaissance paired with the technology of the times.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago
Your claim is that capitalism solved poverty and didn't create any instances. I'm pointing to an instance where people became impoverished because they were rendered redundant from capitalism. That's all I'm saying. You seem to be arguing against something that isn't my point.
- thatswrong0 11y ago
  I think it's pretty obvious they meant poverty as a whole, in which case you're just being pedantic.
loup-vaillant 11y ago
> Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Capitalism? Or just plain technological progress?