Explain why children were willing to work for so much less than men.
Excerpt one primary source that describes the rhythm of work for child laborers.
How should Parliament regulate child labor?
Children working in the textile factories and coal mines led to higher mortality among the youth. The working conditions were terrible and they were prone to more diseases, physical deformities, and injuries. Overall, the health of adolescents decreased immensely during the Industrial Revolution, due mostly to unfair and inhumane working conditions. Child mortality rates cannot easily be tracked as far back as 1750, but records show that mortality in England were much higher in industrial areas, as shown on the map of England. The lightly colored regions have the lowest amount of child deaths per 1,000, and the darkest regions have the highest.
Defend employers on why they chose hire children in the factories.
ReplyDeleteWith the fast growing economy and expanding businesses, anyone willing to work is worthy of a job. The age or size does not matter; and in fact smaller bodies in the factory would be more advantageous because they could be more nimble and better able to move around. As children were willing to work for cheaper, employers could get more labor more less money, hence getting more profit out of business. If a child began to work and support their family instead of going to school, it was their choice, and it would just be a matter of time for an employer to hire them.
DeleteSuppose you were a manager or owner of a wealthy coal mining business. What are alternatives to making the same money, without the use of young children?
ReplyDeleteAs coal mines being cheap, undesirable labor, my job would be to make it look like a nice place to work. Making the conditions looking nicer than they really are, hulling out coal would appear to be a pampered, well-paying job. Once I lure in new workers, I could have them locked in to the industry on a contract. From there, I can continue on with the cramped, claustrophobic working conditions.
DeleteHansel and Gretel as heads of recruiting and Pinnochio for retention?!!
DeleteSuppose you were a small child, if you were no longer allowed to work in a factory, how would your life change? Are you dependent on the money you earn? What would you do instead of working?
ReplyDeleteGreat question, Nicholas. I do wonder how many of these children worked to help support their families. And remember, no more than a generation earlier, the women and children had all been working on the family farm.
DeleteWhat affects would earlier limitations on child labor have on England's road to becoming an industrial powerhouse?
ReplyDeleteImagine you are a owner of a factory in England. What would be another way of getting your product out besides the use of children or manpower in general?
ReplyDeleteDuring the Industrial Revolution, many textile factories began the use of machinery in place of manpower. At first, machines were usually powered or maintained by workers, but later technology like the Water Frame by Richard Arkwright could be used without the need for workers operating or constantly maintaining them. Machine power like this could replace common manpower and child workers alike.
DeleteWhy do we not use child labor today? If we had our current technology in 1800, would there still be child workers? Are there still children working in conditions like this today?
ReplyDeleteSome poor countries actually still use child labor in modern times. If we had today's technology back in the 1800's, kids would not be needed. Machines today use minimal human help.
DeleteEvaluate the conditions of why children began to work. Why did they make this decision? What were the advantages they thought would come out it?
ReplyDelete#2
ReplyDeleteChildren were willing to work for much less than men because available children were superfluous. Also, because they were not educated, they lacked the ability to argue with authority. Children were small, and optimal for tight working spaces. Additionally, the poor were willing to let their children work because it meant more income, and school was too expensive anyway. The youth were taken advantage of due to ignorance and eagerness to bring in money for their desperate and suffering families.
If Parliament banned all child labor, how would that effect work in the factories?
ReplyDeleteThe ban of all child labor in industrial factories would force the factory owners to find another source of employees. Luckily for them, the population of industrial cities was constantly growing. Densely populated areas provided grounds for unpleasant living conditions and poverty. Impoverished adults would need a source of income for their families, be it mining, building, or working in the factories. People's desperation for money would give factory owners ample supply of workers
Delete3. Excerpt on primary source that describes the rhythm of work for child laborers.
ReplyDelete“The British Industrial Revolution” p. 64-65
Mill girls woke up at 3 am and went to the textile factory. They were given 15 minutes for breakfast, 15 minutes for a drinking break, and 30 minutes for dinner. They were not given any other breaks and sometimes, their chores took up the time of breakfast or drinking. They got home at 10 pm and were put to bed at 11pm with little food given to them. Approximately 4 hours of sleep each night was followed by an 18 hour work day. The parents struggled to send their daughters to work and have them return to a household where they would be fed meager helpings.
Why did Parliament decide to take action when they did? What suddenly made them realize that child labor was abusive, and if they acknowledged it all along, what prevented earlier changes?
ReplyDeleteDefend the statement that child labor is more important than getting an education.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete4.How should Parliament regulate child labor?
ReplyDeleteIn 1833, the Parliament finally took action on the horrible conditions child workers were living in. They cut down on the power that employers had to the children’s lives. Minimizing the age of workers helped to sustain the overall health of children at the time. Before, children were hired as young as 7 years old. Working in a textile mill or in a coal mine could lead to mutilated bodies; prolonging labor would improve their health. Children were getting 4 hours of sleep every night from the excessive work hours. After the Factory Act, employers could only hold work hours for no more than nine hours a day. Additionally, employers had to provide schooling during the day because children were there missing school. Before the Factory Act, the conditions in textile mills or coal mines would cause respiratory problems and result in mutilated bodies, and were horrendous. Inspectors were sent out by the government to examine working conditions. The Factory overall tremendously improved the lives for many.
If you were alive in this time period, before the Factory Act, would you apply for a job at a textile mill or coal mine? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIf I were alive in this time period, I would apply for a job definitely. Supporting my family is a priority over schooling. A textile mill is a better option because there I could avoid major physical labor at the coal mine. Being a young worker, I wouldn't be able to join a union or strike. From there, I wouldn't have much of a choice to work or not.
Delete1.Why did child mortality in England increase from 1750-1800? (Include child mortality in England for both 1750 and 1800 in answering this question)
ReplyDeleteChildren working in the textile factories and coal mines led to higher mortality among the youth. The working conditions were terrible and they were prone to more diseases, physical deformities, and injuries. Overall, the health of adolescents decreased immensely during the Industrial Revolution, due mostly to unfair and inhumane working conditions. Child mortality rates cannot easily be tracked as far back as 1750, but records show that mortality in England were much higher in industrial areas, as shown on the map of England. The lightly colored regions have the lowest amount of child deaths per 1,000, and the darkest regions have the highest.