3 ms·
> What eventually saved children from this was the rising productivity that came from industrialization. Not at all. On the contrary, the life expectancy dropp
by goodpoint 6y ago
> What eventually saved children from this was the rising productivity that came from industrialization.
Not at all. On the contrary, the life expectancy dropped to an all-time low for the underclass during the industrial revolution.
> subsistence farming before 1800, and children were put to work
It's been very common for children to start doing house work a young age and then learn a trade from their parents. And it's still the norm in many poor rural countries today.
It's very unfair to describe it as dangerous or abusive and compare it to the industrial revolution life.
- WalterBright 6y agoEngland saw a surge in population at the time, outpacing the food supply. That is the explanation for the drop in life expectancy. People did not migrate from the farms to the factories in order to lower their standard of living.
- alfiedotwtf 6y agoThere were plenty of examples in Factory Act testimonies by inspectors saying air quality for children in factories was unbearable leading to lung problems later on in life (average death being under 40)
- WalterBright 6y agoPeople wouldn't have sent their kids to the factories if life was better on the farm. I doubt that many people at the time were aware of the long term effects of smoke inhalation.
- pirocks 6y agoMy understanding is that the UK experienced a population boom due to increased farming productivity due to potatoes. The resulting population boom meant that there where more farmers than farms, so they had to go somewhere, and the only option was cities.