# data[].attributes.headline
Children were treated like slaves and were paid minimal wages, dragged out of homes if they didn't want to work and given life threatening punishments .  

# data[].attributes.subject
Children were treated like slaves and were paid minimal wages, dragged out of homes if they didn't want to work and given life threatening punishments .  

# data[].attributes.body
In the London 2012 olympics opening ceremony they did a performance of the transition between the agricultural and indsutrial stages

# data[].attributes.body
The industrial revolution meant mass production, rather than production of goods 1 by 1. small businesses perished as a result of the factories

# data[].attributes.body
The slums of the big cities, where most of the working class lived was a horrible place. Disease was everywhere, it was overcrowded and there wasn't enough food or water.

# data[].attributes.body
child labour was going on until the Chart

# data[].attributes.body
James Brindley was a canal builder, one of the greatest canal engineers of the industrial revolution. His special clay materials and techniques for using them, are still being used today

# data[].attributes.body
A link on child labour during the industrial revolution.http://youtu.be/NCX0GlWijWo

: ) : ) : )

# data[].attributes.body
I would prefer a million times and more to live now rather than then

# data[].attributes.body
The Chartists fought for better working and living conditions for the lower classes

# data[].attributes.body
children young as 15 were forced to work

# data[].attributes.body
Housing conditions of the working class

# data[].attributes.body
Housing conditions of the working class

# data[].attributes.body
This image depicts in a creative way how the lower-class workers were the cause for the upper class's success.

# data[].attributes.body
a link on life expectancy and living standards during the industrial revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Did living standards improve during the Industrial Revolution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AS WE showed in a previous blog post, Europe went through a period of astonishing growth after about 1760. The level of income that Europe has today could not have been reached without the Industrial Revolution. In fact, people often refer to two revolutions (though historians bicker about terminology).

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr "poor effort" - turn that frown upside down!

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr "poor effort" - turn that frown upside down!

# data[].attributes.body
"The smallest child in the factories were scavengers……they go under the machine, while it is going……….it is very dangerous when they first come, but they become used to it." Charles Aberdeen worked in a Manchester cotton factory, written in 1832.

# data[].attributes.body
"Two children I know got employment in a factory when they were five years old………….the spinning men or women employ children if they can get a child to do their business……..the child is paid one shilling or one shilling and six pence, and they will take that (five year old) child before they take an older one who will cost more."George Gould, a Manchester merchant, written in 1816.

# data[].attributes.body
Child LAbour in the Industrial revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain's Industrial Revolution to succeed, new research by a leading economic historian has concluded.

After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford's Professor Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously realised. Her estimates suggest that, by the early 19th century, England had more than a million child workers (including around 350,000 seven- to 10-year-olds) - accounting for 15 per cent of the total labour force. The work is likely to transform the academic world's understanding of that crucial period of British history which was the launch-pad of the nation's economic and imperial power.

Early factory owners - located in the countryside in order to exploit power from fast-flowing rivers - found that local labour was scarce and that those agricultural workers who were available were unsuitable for industrial production. They therefore opted instead to create a new work force composed of children, tailor-made for their factories.

"Factory owners were looking for cheap, malleable and fast-learning work forces - and found them ready-made among the children of the urban workhouses," said Professor Humphries. Her statistical research shows, for the first time, the precise extent to which the exploitation of children massively increased as newly emerging factories began their operations in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Her work has revealed that during most of the 18th century only around 35 per cent of ten year old working-class boys were in the labour force while the figure for 1791-1820 (when large scale industrialisation started) was 55 per cent, rising to 60 per cent for the period of 1821-1850.

The number of eight-year-old working-class boys at work also rose substantially in that period - with around a third of them being part of the work force between 1791 and 1850 compared to less than 20 per cent before 1791.

The use of working-class children to provide much of the labour force for the Industrial Revolution was, however, merely an expansion and extension of an already long-established practice of working-class children employed by farmers or artisans.

Professor Humphries's research - just published by Cambridge University Press - reveals that the average age at which working-class children started work fell from eleven and a half (prior to 1791) to 10 for the period 1791-1850.

The new research shows the extent to which Britain's Industrial Revolution - the first in the world - was initially dependent, as far as the factories were concerned, on what were, in effect, child slaves. They weren't paid - simply fed and given dormitory accommodation. In the 1790s, there were, at any one time, tens of thousands of such unpaid child workers.

Her statistical analysis of vast quantities of data, extracted from 600 autobiographies, is also revealing how the Industrial Revolution helped change life and culture in other ways too.

Industrialisation removed rigid social control over young people's lives and allowed them therefore to get married much younger (typically in their early twenties rather than their mid to late twenties). This led to much larger families which in turn led to rapid population growth - and a sharp reduction in the percentage of women in the work force. Whereas in agricultural society, women had been integrated into the work force, industrialisation and the increase in family size drove them into the home while their husbands and sons went out to work in mines, railways, docks and factories.

Together with the Industrial Revolution and the increase in family size, a range of other factors - wars, empire-building and labour mobility - strained fathers' links to their growing families, and single-parent households increased dramatically.

By the early 19th century, up to 18 per cent of families were being abandoned by fathers. Many other men died in accidents, epidemics and wars - and the new research suggests that around a third of working-class children grew up in single-parent families.

"This process further increased pressure on mothers to send their young children out to work," said Professor Humphries. "The new research is revealing for the first time the extent to which the English Industrial Revolution - and indirectly the imperial expansion it helped generate - depended on child labour. The newly collated evidence transforms our understanding of the causes and consequences of the Industrial Revolution - especially the nature of the labour force and the relationship between the family and the economy," she said.

Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution by Jane Humphries, published by Cambridge University Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revealed: Industrial Revolution was powered by child slaves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain's Industrial Revolution to succeed, new research by a leading economic historian has concluded. After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford's Professor Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously realised.

# data[].attributes.body
Child labour was very sad and it killed many any many many children and many more for .And this little para shows what they faced : )

Children had worked alongside their parents on farms for generations. This tradition continued during the Industrial Revolution as children worked with their parents in factories and mills around Britain. Hours were long, labour was hard and pay was minimal, or non-existent. Factory owners utilised every source of employment they could.

Children were sought after as they could be trained easily and paid a minimum wage. The Industrial Revolution resulted in the exploitation of children in many different industries.

Children were often forced to work in difficult conditions for long hours. They received little pay and were harshly disciplined. There were no restrictions on the age of workers or number of hours that could be worked. Exploitation, however, prompted reform and by the mid-19th century, the government took steps to reducing child labour.

Jobs for children in the Industrial Revolution

The first jobs for children in the Industrial Revolution were in water-powered cotton mills. Factory owners approached poor families and orphanages and offered to house, feed and clothe children in exchange for labour. Trapped by economic circumstances, families handed over their children to work in the cotton mills.

Children were called apprentices in the cotton mills. Although children were housed, fed and clothed, they were forced to work six days a week, from six in the morning to seven at night.
Spinning required a warm and humid atmosphere. Steam engines contributed to the heat as cotton mills were poorly ventilated. Children were forced to work in these uncomfortable conditions.

Machinery was not fenced off and children were exposed to the moving parts. This led to a large number of injuries in the cotton mills. Children could have their hands crushed by moving machines. If their hair became tangled in the machine, their scalps could be ripped off. Some children were killed instantly when they went to sleep and fell into their machine.

Cotton mills, and later factories, exercised a regime of strict discipline and harsh punishment.
By 1788, over two-thirds of workers in textile factories were children. Some factories employed children as young as five or six. Other factories worked children as many as 16 hours a day.

As steam power was applied to factory machines, children were hired in greater numbers by factory owners. Children were the ideal employee as factory owners needed large numbers of workers for a very low cost. Factory owners preferred to employ children as they were obedient, easily trained and low cost and low maintenance. The poor treatment of children in cotton mills continued in the factories.

Children were used to carry out hazardous jobs. Children were ordered to move between machinery where adults could not fit, to fix broken machines. In match factories, children dipped matches into phosphorous. This chemical caused the children's teeth to rot later in life. Some died from the long-term effects of breathing phosphorous.

Children were also employed in mining. Mining was a very dangerous occupation because there were no safety guidelines. There were often explosions and roofs caved in, trapping the miners. Cutting and moving coal was a job done by men, women and children.

Young children worked as 'trappers'. They operated trap doors with strings. As coal wagons approached, the trappers opened the trap door. This job was easy but children were forced to sit in a dark, cold hole while working. Older children carried coal down long mine shafts. Most children who worked in coalmines and iron mines died before the age of 25.

Child labour was used in almost every industry during the Industrial Revolution. Children worked in gas works, nail factories, construction sites, shipyards and chimney sweeping. The use of child labour in factories revealed a social problem. Families, trapped by poverty, were forced to send their children to work in poor conditions for equally poor pay. A

Soure: http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-58_u-505_t-1366_c-5260/child-labour/qld/child-labour/industrial-revolution-societies-and-change/the-impact-

# data[].attributes.body
Lower class

# data[].attributes.body
Children worked during the industrial revolution. Poor times eh?

# data[].attributes.body
Good Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John Majewski is an economics major at the University of Texas at Austin. He is currently serving as a summer intern with the Institute for Humane Studies. Following graduation in 1988, John hopes to pursue a Ph.D. in economics. This paper was awarded second prize, college division, in FEE's Freedom Essay Contest.
How the industrial revolution raised the quality of life for workers and their families

Since it began approximately two centuries ago, the industrial revolution has captured the minds of an endless number of historians and economists. An era of relatively laissez faire economics, the period between 1760-1850 is for many academics the key to unlocking the secrets of economic growth, technological change, and economic development. But, for defenders of the classical liberal tradition of free enterprise, the industrial revolution is important for more insidious reasons. Writers such as Dickens, Engels, and the Hammonds have made the terms industrial revolution and capitalism synonymous with degradation of the working class. Pessimistic interpretations of the industrial revolution have led to the popular acceptance of what R.M. Hartwell terms the "theory of immiseration"-a belief that unrestrained capitalism was making the rich richer and the poor poorer during the industrial revolution (Hartwell, 1974). For the general public, the horrors of the industrial revolution prove the horrors of capitalism.

But it is not only laymen who perceive the industrial revolution in terms of "dark, satanic mills." A brief glance at almost any university history or English textbook reveals that most academics who do not specifically study the industrial revolution accept without reservation the view that capitalism led to a deterioration of living conditions for the working class. For example, a text commonly used in college British literature classes describes the industrial revolution in these terms:

For the great majority of the laboring class the results of the policy (of laissez faire) were inadequate wages, long hours of work under sordid conditions, and the large-scale employment of women and children for tasks which destroy body and soul. Reports from investigating committees on coal mines found male and female children ten or even five years of age harnessed to heavy coal-sledges which they dragged crawling on their hands and knees . . . (Norton Anthology, p. 3).

Such harsh interpretation of the industrial revolution has directly affected public policy. The industrial revolution has become a successful battle cry for detractors of capitalism. The specter of working class poverty and misery during the industrial revolution has been and still remains an important justification for government intervention into social and economic affairs. A vast amount of legislation, from minimum wage to antitrust laws, owes its existence to the anticapitalist mentality created by pessimistic views of the industrial revolution. As Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek pointedly argues, the industrial revolution portrayed by the pessimists is the "one supreme myth which more than any other has served to discredit the economic system to which we owe our modern day civilization" (Hayek, pp. 9-10).

This paper will attempt to show that the pessimistic interpretations, however popular, are unfounded. It will be argued that the quantitative (material) standard of living improved as real wages rose, while falling mortality rates indicate that the qualitative (sociological) standard of living also improved. Although there was considerable social and economic disruption throughout the revolution, this paper will try to show that these problems were caused by various government interventions, especially the Napoleonic Wars. Far from being a cause of misery and despair, this essay concludes, capitalism in the early nineteenth century improved the standard of living and set the stage for the modern comforts that we enjoy today.
An Increase in Real Wages
As noted above, the pessimistic case is widely accepted by both the general public and academia. However, it is fair to say that the majority of modern economic historians who study the industrial revolution believe that at least a slight increase in the material standard of living occurred. Since the introduction of reliable statistical evidence in Sir John Clapham's An Economic History of Modern Britain in 1926, it has become increasingly obvious that real wages rose. The evidence is now so conclusive that one historian has confidently declared that "unless new errors are discovered, the debate over real wages in the early nineteenth century is over: the average worker was much better off in any decade from the 1830s on than any decade before 1820" (Williamson, p. 18).

The evidence vindicates such confidence. Although money wages remained stable, the prices of manufactured and agricultural goods plummeted as entrepreneurs struggled to deliver consumers low-priced goods and services (Hartwell, 1971, pp. 326-27). Although the extent of the increase in real wages is hotly debated, the most recent evidence suggests that blue-collar real wages doubled between 1810 and 1850 (Williamson, p. 18), McCloskey, although emphasizing a much longer period of time, also concludes that real wages increased significantly. He argues that real wages rose from an average of £11 per capita in 1780 to £28 per capita in 1860 (McCloskey, p. 108).

As one can imagine, the increase in real wages resulted in significant improvements in the standard of living. An excellent example is the changes in diet that occurred. Per capita consumption of meat, sugar, tea, beer, and eggs all increased. An even better indication of the rising affluence was the great increase of imported foods. Per capita consumption of foreign cocoa, cheese, coffee, rice, sugar, and tobacco increased. Meanwhile, meat, vegetables, and fruits, long considered luxuries, were by 1850 eaten regularly (Hartwell, 1971, pp. 328-29). in fact, the average weekly English diet of 1850-five ounces of butter, thirty ounces of meat, fifty-six ounces of potatoes, and sixteen ounces of fruits and vegetables-is quite similar to the English diet of today (Hartwell, 1971, p. 330).

Although such improvements obviously are important, they take on added significance when considering the large population increase that took place during the industrial revolution. Because of a fall in the death rate, the population of England and Wales rose 1.25 percent per year between 1780 and 1860, an annual expansion that translates into an unprecedented threefold increase (McCloskey, pp. 105-108). Rising real wages (and consequent increases in food consumption) coupled with a rapidly rising population was a first in European history. The Malthusian trap of geometrically increasing populations outstripping arithmetically increasing food supplies had finally been broken. Whereas more people invariably resulted in less food per person throughout earlier European history, the industrial revolution provided more food per person. Breaking the bonds of Malthus is perhaps the crowning accomplishment of capitalism in general and the industrial revolution in particular.
Untenable Arguments
Considering the preponderance of evidence indicating substantial improvement in real wages, it is clear that the arguments of early pessimists, such as Engels, have become untenable. Clearly, the material standard of living did not plummet. With the advent of reliable statistical evidence supporting real wage increases, sophisticated pessimists began to emphasize the qualitative effects of industrialization. Openly admitting that the working class enjoyed higher wages, more food, and better clothing, these pessimists argue that the cost for such gains in material wealth was dear. They contend that the evils of child labor, sordid working conditions, increased pollution, and various other discomforts outweighed any progress due to increasing real wages. E.P. Thompson, in his influential book The Making of the English Working Class, succinctly summarizes this new pessimistic position, arguing that, "By 1840 most people were 'better off' than their forerunners, but they suffered and continued to suffer this slight improvement as a catastrophic experience" (Rude, p. 67-68).

The pessimistic quantitative versus qualitative position is open to considerable criticism. For example, many of the poor conditions cited by the pessimists existed well before the industrial revolution. Pre-industrial society was very static and often cruel-child labor, dirty living conditions, long working hours, and a host of other ills associated with nineteenth-century capitalism were just as prevalent before the industrial revolution. Although by today's standard conditions were indeed poor, they were no worse than living conditions before the revolution (Hartwell, 1971, pp. 339-341).

A second general problem with the new pessimistic position is that it fails to take into account the significant improvement in life expectancy that took place. The great population explosion that happened during the industrial revolution was fueled by a steep fall in death rates. Even in cities, where living conditions are said to have been the worst, mortality rates improved somewhat (McCloskey, pp. 105-106). Deteriorating living conditions and longer life spans are difficult positions to reconcile. Clearly, improving mortality rates indicate that the standard of living rose during the industrial revolution.

Besides the two general arguments outlined above, the qualitative pessimistic position can be refuted by a close look at its specific charges.
Technological unemployment and underemployment
It has been long held by many pessimists that the wage increases of the industrial revolution were eroded away by extremely high unemployment and underemployment rates caused by the introduction of labor-saving technology. Although there were some pockets of technological unemployment, the calculations of Williamson suggest that the unemployment rate was at most eight percent per year, and was probably far lower (Williamson, p. 22). Furthermore, the stable money wages between 1820 and 1850 indicate that there was little competition from unemployed workers that would have lowered wages (Hartwell, 1971, pp. 318-319). As for underemployment, the tremendous shift from agriculture, which provided only seasonal employment, to the more stable manufacturing sector, led to decreasing underemployment (Hartwell 1971, p. 323).
Pollution and Urban Conditions
Another popular argument of the pessimists is that the real wage increases were merely "bribes" to workers forced to endure polluted and unsanitary urban conditions. According to this line of reasoning, the gain in real wages was simply a means of luring workers to the horrid working conditions of the cities, and did not constitute a net gain in wealth. Although it is certainly true that urban conditions during the industrial revolution were appalling, the aforementioned improvement in mortality rates indicates that conditions were not bad enough to grievously affect the health of the city dwellers. Secondly, the workers voluntarily moved into urban areas, suggesting that the "opportunity cost" of pollution and various other urban discomforts did not outweigh the gains in real wages.
Child Labor
Another qualitative argument brought forth by the pessimists is that children were forced to endure long hours of work in unhealthy conditions. Although the existence of child labor cannot be denied, it is clear that most pessimists have overstated both its magnitude and the effects on the health of the children involved. In fact, much of the evidence for the pessimist's case comes from the very famous, yet very inaccurate, reports from the government committees investigating the factory system. Almost all of the "condition of England" novels by Dickens, as well as the works of Engels and the Hammonds, have been in large part based on these committee reports (Jefferson, p. 189). Politically motivated and seriously defective, the evidence in these reports is marred by the fact that the doctors who testified against child labor in the factories had not even been in a factory and refused to testify under oath (Hutt, pp. 161-167). Moreover, the great improvement in mortality rates seems to indicate that either child labor was not extensive as before or was less harmful. Indeed, it was the great improvement in productivity instigated by the industrial revolution that has enabled Western societies to banish child labor.
Capitalism and "the spirit of the age"
Perhaps the most common yet most difficult to define charge made against capitalism and the industrial revolution is that the working class was filled with "spiritual" loss. According to this argument, rural farm workers were torn from their roots and thrust into the industrial towns and cities, thus losing sense of their heritage and individualism. However, the very fact that workers moved voluntarily from rural to urban areas once again suggests that the advantages of more material wealth outweighed the "opportunity cost" incurred from the move. Moreover, many friendly societies, workers' societies, and voluntary organizations developed during this time, throwing the whole notion of "isolation of the individual" into dispute (Ashton, p. 137).

Any sociological costs endured during the industrial revolution must be counterbalanced against the many sociological benefits. For the first time, there was a sense of hope and optimism. The industrial revolution spawned the attitude that progress could be made and problems could be solved. Perhaps it is worth quoting Hartwell at length on this point:

The new attitude to social problems that emerged with the industrial revolution was that ills should be identified, examined, analyzed, publicized, and remedied, either by voluntary or legislative action. Thus evils that had long existed-child labor, for instance-and had long been accepted as inevitable, were re garded as new ills to be remedied rather than old ills to be endured (Hartwell, 1971, p. 343).

Government Intervenes
As the above analysis demonstrates, the industrial revolution resulted in a significant improvement in the quality of life for the working class. However, progress was slow, uneven, and sometimes nonexistent during many periods. For example, in the early stages of the revolution growth was minimal, resulting in little or no improvement for the working class (Williamson, p. 162). Is capitalism to blame for this slow rate of progress? To the contrary, it was the many forms of government intervention, not capitalism, which slowed British economic growth during the industrial revolution.

Perhaps the most important of these many interventions that hindered progress was the long period of intense war during the early years of the revolution. From 1760 to 1815, Britain was constantly engaged in war, either against France or the American Colonies. In fact, between 1780 and 1810, England was in the midst of a massive military build-up that was unmatched until World War I (Williamson, p. 163). Early commentators were quick to recognize the debilitating effects of this military build-up on the English economy. The historian J.E. Thorold Rogers, for instance, observed that the cost of the Napoleonic Wars was high indeed:

Thousands of homes were starved in order to find the means for the great war . . . the resources on which the struggle was based, and without which it would have speedily collapsed, were the stint and starvation of labor, the overtaxed and underfed toils of childhood, and the underpayed and uncertain unemployment of men (Rogers, 1891, quoted in Hartwell, 1971, p. 326).

Modern statistical evidence and economic theory lends support to such observations. Government war spending and borrowing increased interest rates, thus "crowding out" private investors who desperately needed capital to construct new factories, build better canals, and design new inventions. Growth was present during the war, but it was excruciatingly small. In the long run, this meant fewer jobs and lower wages for the working class.

But, for the common man, the war had more painful and immediate consequences than slowing the rate of economic growth. Various government schemes to finance the war debt led to monetary instability and uncertainty. This monetary instability, coupled with severe harvest failures, led to rapidly increasing food prices throughout the Napoleonic Wars (Redford, pp. 89-93). In fact, food prices soared upward by more than twenty- five percent (Williamson, p. 187). Considering that the British working class then only earned on the average little more than £11 per year, it is no wonder how these developments led to hardships and deprivation that invariably resulted in social unrest.

Although decidedly the most important, war was not the only form of government intervention that decreased the quality of life. Government monopolies, such as the East India Company and Cutler's Company, served to lessen economic efficiency and growth. The entire area of foreign commerce and trade was forced to contend with massive government regulation (Ashton, pp. 138-39).

Notwithstanding the popularity of pessimistic interpretations, the evidence of increasing real incomes and improving mortality rates indicates that significant improvement took place in the standard of living of the working class. These factors and other evidence also suggest that most qualitative aspects of the quality of life at least remained stable, and probably improved. This progress took place despite constant warfare and other counterproductive forms of government intervention that significantly hindered improvement.

While these immediate effects should not be overlooked, the real benefits of the industrial revolution are enjoyed by those living in today's world of comparative luxury and splendor. The industrial revolution was the "great discontinuity" that built the foundations for our modern society (Hartwell, 1971). It has led us into an age without the famines, epidemics, and other disasters that continually plagued preindustrial societies. Perhaps the only way to fully appreciate the impact of the industrial revolution is to look at those in the modern world who have yet to undergo industrialization. The fate of the hungry and disease-ridden peasants in such areas as Africa and India is perhaps the most forceful and convincing argument in favor of capitalism's industrial revolution.
Sources
Ashton, T.S,. The Industrial Revolution 17601830 (London: Methuen and Co., 1957).

Hartwell, R.M.,"Capitalism and the Historians," Essays on Hayek (New York: New York University Press, 1976).

Hartwell, R.M., "History and Ideology," Modern Age, Vol. 18, No- 4. Fall, 1974.

Hartwell, R.M., The Industrial Revolution and Economic Growth (London: Methuen and Co.. 1971).

Hayek, F.A., Capitalism and the Historians (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1954).

Hurt. W.H., "The Factory System of the Early Nineteenth Century," Capitalism and the Historians F.A. Hayek. editor. (London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul, 1954).

Jefferson, J.M., "Industrialization and Poverty: in Fact and Fiction," The Long Debate on Poverty (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1972).

McCloskey, Donald, "The Industrial Revolution 1780-1860: A Survey." The Economic History of Britain Since 1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

North, Douglass. Structure and Change in Economic History (New York: Norton, 1981). The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol. 2 (London: Norton and Co., 1979).

Redford, Arthur. The Economic History of England (1760-1860) (London: Longmans, Green, and Co.. 1931).

Rude, George. Debate on Europe 1815-1850 (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).

Williamson, Jeffrey, Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1985).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Industrial Revolution: Working Class Poverty or Prosperity? | John Majewski

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Majewski is an economics major at the University of Texas at Austin. He is currently serving as a summer intern with the Institute for Humane Studies. Following graduation in 1988, John hopes to pursue a Ph.D. in economics. This paper was awarded second prize, college division, in FEE's Freedom Essay Contest.

# data[].attributes.body
child labour

# data[].attributes.body
child labour

# data[].attributes.body
An interview with Elizabeth Bently

What time did you begin to work at a factory? When I was six years old.

What was your business in the mill? I was a little doffer [worker who changes the bobbins on the frames in the spinning machines] What were your usual hours of labor in that mill? From 6 in the morning ‘till 7 at night. What time was allowed for your meals? Forty minutes at noon. Had you any time to get your breakfast or drinking? No, we got it as we could. Do you consider doffing a laborious [hard, tiring] employment? Yes. Does [your work] keep you constantly on your feet? Yes, there are so many frames, and they run so quick. Your labor is very excessive? Yes; you have not time for anything. Suppose you flagged [slowed down] a little, or were too late, what would they do? Strap [beat] us. Are they in the habit of strapping those who are last in doffing? Yes. Constantly? Yes. Girls as well as boys? Yes. Have you ever been strapped? Yes. Severely? Yes. Could you eat your food well in that factory? No, indeed, I had not much to eat, and the little I had I could not eat it, my appetite was so poor, and being covered with dust; and it was no use to take it home, I could not eat it, and the overlooker took it, and gave it to the pigs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Horrible Histories - Victorian Work Song

# data[].attributes.body
The factory fumes and gasses of improperly deposed of faeces caused death amongst the city slums. The decaying bodies also contributed to illnesses and death of other lower-class workers

# data[].attributes.body
a newspaper article on children working

# data[].attributes.body
The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, and the development of machine tools. It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal.

Source: Wikipedia.org

# data[].attributes.body
The Industrial Revolution, which took place from the 18th to 19th centuries, was a period during which predominantly agrarian, rural societies in Europe and America became industrial and urban. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain in the late 1700s, manufacturing was often done in people’s homes, using hand tools or basic machines. Industrialization marked a shift to powered, special-purpose machinery, factories and mass production. The iron and textile industries, along with the development of the steam engine, played central roles in the Industrial Revolution, which also saw improved systems of transportation, communication and banking. While industrialization brought about an increased volume and variety of manufactured goods and an improved standard of living for some, it also resulted in often grim employment and living conditions for the poor and working classes.

# data[].attributes.body
women and children were paid less than men were.

# data[].attributes.body
During the Industrial Revolution, people would work 12-16 hours a day, often referred to as the 'sun up to sun down day'. When the lower class started to fight for better working conditions, this was one of the things they fought for. Our modern working system is based off this 8 hour system.

# data[].attributes.body
children young as 15 worked for minimal wages

# data[].attributes.body
Child labour still occurs in many developing countries today. Often they are paid little and work long hours. They are usually producing cheap goods sold in Western society.

# data[].attributes.body
Owners of factories paid low wages, and lowered them if business was bad

# data[].attributes.body
The lower-class did not own any properties and would often have to share a one-room with 6 to 12 other people

# data[].attributes.body
A Pie graph on:

# data[].attributes.body
Lives of children during the Industrial Revolution

# data[].attributes.body
Workers protested for better conditions, rights and pay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Children Who Built Victorian Britain Part 1

# data[].attributes.body
Slavery has not changed since the Industrial Revoluion

# data[].attributes.body
Childlabour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Child Trafficking BBC Panorama Investigation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Children Who Built Victorian Britain Part

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UNICEF BT Cotton - Documentary on Child Labour

# data[].attributes.body
Many people working in factories would die before the age of 25 due to the fumes and chronic illnesses caused by working in the factories.

# data[].attributes.headline
a boy of 8 years old could get 3-4 pence a day

# data[].attributes.subject
a boy of 8 years old could get 3-4 pence a day

# data[].attributes.body
People begged for work

# data[].attributes.body
legless beggers

# data[].attributes.body
- what was the average wage of a man who worked in a factory?

- what was the average wage of a child who worked in a factory?

- what sort of work did men/children/women do?

- what sort of conditions did they live in? houses? apartments?

- what was the life expectancy?

- what primary sources can you find that depict the life and times of the poor in England? (e.g.: newspaper cartoons, diary entries)

- what songs (from musicals) can you find that relate to the life of the poor/working class?

- put yourself in the shoes of a working class man, woman or child - what would you be most likely to do? Would you prefer to live now or then?

- is child labour still happening today?