3 ms·

Factory workers were paid handsomely and competition for such jobs was fierce.

jjoonathan 13y ago
[citation needed]
jjoonathan 13y ago
[citation needed] Also, "handsomely" is relative: if the quality of life of peasants plummeted due to enclosure until it was far below the QOL for factory workers and enclosure happened because of the industrial revolution, it would be disingenuous to say that the industrial revolution provided a handsome alternative to peasant life. The freedom of choice can be immensely powerful or worse than useless depending on circumstances -- a distinction often lost on or intentionally glossed over by free-market drum beaters. If I kidnap you and give you the choice between having your throat slit and your chest stabbed, am I not still a murderer once you lie dead on the floor? I'm not enough of a historian to provide an informed opinion on the situation at hand but I've seen this exact same excuse (the poor people chose X so X was actually good for them) used in so many completely inappropriate circumstances that I had to speak up.
- Panos 13y ago
  The initial stages of the industrial revolution were not so good for the workers. However, the mass production phase, did increase the standard of living. The best example is "The five-dollar workday": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
  - sogen 13y ago
    That's the current wage in Mexico!
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Isn't five dollars a day more than double the UN poverty line - even today??
moocowduckquack 13y ago
That would suggest a surplus of labour competing for high wages. Are you sure about this? Economically it doesn't make sense and we also know that until legislation finally restricted the practice, the factories were employing kids wherever possible to keep wages down.
rsynnott 13y ago
Certainly in the early industrial revolution the "paid handsomely" bit was not true. People took the jobs because it was that or starve, and many of them starved anyway. This was especially the case during deflationary periods, as wages fell.

[citation needed]

[citation needed] Also, "handsomely" is relative: if the quality of life of peasants plummeted due to enclosure until it was far below the QOL for factory workers and enclosure happened because of the industrial revolution, it would be disingenuous to say that the industrial revolution provided a handsome alternative to peasant life. The freedom of choice can be immensely powerful or worse than useless depending on circumstances -- a distinction often lost on or intentionally glossed over by free-market drum beaters. If I kidnap you and give you the choice between having your throat slit and your chest stabbed, am I not still a murderer once you lie dead on the floor? I'm not enough of a historian to provide an informed opinion on the situation at hand but I've seen this exact same excuse (the poor people chose X so X was actually good for them) used in so many completely inappropriate circumstances that I had to speak up.

Panos 13y ago
The initial stages of the industrial revolution were not so good for the workers. However, the mass production phase, did increase the standard of living. The best example is "The five-dollar workday": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
- sogen 13y ago
  That's the current wage in Mexico!
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Isn't five dollars a day more than double the UN poverty line - even today??

moocowduckquack 13y ago

That would suggest a surplus of labour competing for high wages. Are you sure about this? Economically it doesn't make sense and we also know that until legislation finally restricted the practice, the factories were employing kids wherever possible to keep wages down.

rsynnott 13y ago

Certainly in the early industrial revolution the "paid handsomely" bit was not true. People took the jobs because it was that or starve, and many of them starved anyway. This was especially the case during deflationary periods, as wages fell.