Did the industrial revolution increase or decrease poverty?
Has absolute poverty increased or decreased since the industrial revolution, in terms of a percentage of population and in terms of the total number of people in absolute poverty?
Has relative poverty increased or decreased since the industrial revolution?
What can we do about the prevalence of poverty worldwide?
Answers:
The industrial revolution increased standard of living and expanded the middle class. Because production of goods was streamlined. It allowed a 'middle class' other than merchants to appear. We then got a surplus of goods as well, alowing prices of many things to decrease. The industrial revolutions influcence on poverty as a problem was realitivly uneffective, because poverity is more of a social issue having to do with how people spend and save money. Especialy in modern westernized countries.
Poverty in non industrialized countries will have to be delt with on a case by case basis, because making a blanket statement is unfair to any one type of people. Alot of it is caused by poplulation problems, and resource distribution problems.
I don't think it really changed the percentages, but it did change the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
there was a huge poor immigration influx that was the main source of temporal poverty,,,jobs in the coal mines and factories and such,,,this in the long run reallyh paid off,,but yes in the short run there was a depression
The fact is that the poor have become more poorer and the so called revolutions have in fact helped the have's and not the have nots.
This depends on your measures of poverty absolute and relative.
In that the industrial revolution increased the wealth of nations it propably decresed the level of absolute poverty and contributed to improvement of life by several indicators (length of lifespan, cash wealth etc)
HOWEVER
The IR did lead to severe societal disruption with high rural to urban migration, transnational migrations and technological and sociological change. Famine which is probably the key measure of absolute poverty reduced over time and was extinguished from the industrial world as agriculture moved from subsistance to producing vast surpluses relative to the farming comunity.
Relative poverty may have increased as a comsumer society developed which attached strong value to manufactured good s that were constantly being outmoded by new designs and fashions.
What a bunch of knuckleheaded answers (except the two before me). Of course the industrial revolution decreased poverty. It just goes to show how pathetic we have become. Our recent ancestors had to struggle to eat, we struggle to get the latest cell phone. Of course the devide between rich and poor has grown, but the poor have become weathier than the rich used to be. The rich have become super wealthy. The only reason the poor should complain is that they are jeaolous of the rich even though their own wealth has dramatically increased as well. Just a point. If everybody's wealth increases 10 per cent, the gap between the rich and poor increases. Say you have 100 and your rich neighbor has 1000. There is a 900 dollar difference. You increase both by 10 per cent, the difference between $110 and $1100 is $990 so it is meaningless to say the gap widens. The truth is that everyones wealth has increased big time.
Poverty hasnt decreased, childrens morality ratings have increased from 1950-1990's. Also where you are born also defines your life chances, there is more poverty in the North and urban areas in recent years. Many families still live on the breadline even with the Welfare System. Of course the welfare system has got better since the beveridge report was done there is still a 'class' divide even though they dont call it that anymore.
"In terms of social structure, the Industrial Revolution witnessed the triumph of a middle class of industrialists and businessmen over a landed class of nobility & gentry.
(But what happened to the middle class today?)
Ordinary working people found increased opportunities for employment in the new mills and factories but these were often under strict working conditions with long hours of labor dominated by a pace set by machines. Harsh working conditions were prevalent long before the industrial revolution took place as well. Pre-industrial society was very static and often cruel-child labor, dirty living conditions and long working hours were just as prevalent before the Industrial Revolution.
(Have child laborers been replaced by illegal immigrants and homeless day workers?)
Child labor
Child labor existed before the Industrial Revolution, and in fact dates back to prehistoric times. Politicians tried to limit child labor by law. Factory owners resisted; some felt that they were aiding the poor by giving their children money to buy food to avoid starvation, and others simply welcomed the cheap labor. In 1833, the first law against child labor, the Factory Act of 1833, was passed in England: Children younger than nine were not allowed to work, children were not permitted to work at night and the work day of youth under the age of 18 was limited to twelve hours. Factory inspectors supervised the execution of this law. About ten years later, the employment of children and women in mining was forbidden. These laws decreased the number of child laborers; however child labor remained in Europe up to the 20th century.
The rapid industrialization of the English economy cost many craft workers their jobs. The textile industry in particular industrialized early, and many weavers found themselves suddenly unemployed since they could no longer compete with machines which only required relatively limited (and unskilled) labor to produce more cloth than a single weaver. Many such unemployed workers, weavers and others, turned their animosity towards the machines that had taken their jobs and began destroying factories and machinery. These attackers became known as Luddites, supposedly followers of Ned Ludd, a folklore figure. The first attacks of the Luddite movement began in 1811. The Luddites rapidly gained popularity, and the British government had to take drastic measures to protect industry.
Karl Marx saw the industrialization process as the logical dialectical progression of feudal economic modes, necessary for the full development of capitalism, which he saw as in itself a necessary precursor to the development of socialism and eventually communism."-- from Answers.com
In my opinion poverty overall has increased because the Industrial Revolution has enabled families to dissipate. Once the technology changes, so do jobs. People have become dependent on their jobs instead of their family. So, instead of staying home people now migrate to wherever their boss wants them to go; or go wherever the job interview is. Poor people cannot do this and so they remain impecunious.
I believe that we underuse the internet today. Too many 'jobs' do not require an employee to be any place in particular, yet the highways are clogged with commuters like lemmings trying to kill themselves going to work wasting gasoline; where they sit at a desk using a computer.
The answer to poverty today is the act of sharing and providing education or job training to those who cannot afford it.
The process anyone can have to escape poverty is not dependent on their character, but on the greed and stinginess of the weathly.
Just before the Industrial Revolution, 9 in 10 people were below the poverty line, or, living off the land, with no income but market trading. Most Peasants moved towards,or into towns, swelling them to over-population. This in effect kept the poverty level the same because people were still without jobs thanks to over crowding. Diseases, ill health and being uneducated, forced the Government to act, as the Towns became cess-pits of human misery never seen on such a massive scale. Laws were passed to help alleviate the problem, although unscrupulous Mill owners kept wages to a minimum and exploited the work force.
Towns grew into cities, which enabled the Rich to take further advantage of the vulnerable under classes.
But that isn't quite answering the question. The top 5% of the country earn more than the rest put together. If this percentage grew to 20%, then more people could distribute the wealth around more equally. However, if that wealth was spread out, it would do more harm than good for the economy.
The simple fact is that initially it decreased. By "initially" I mean the first 100 years. Nowadays the situation has become so complex you cannot say that holds true anymore since there are so many factors that can push poverty one way or the other. One classical example that comes to my mind is Brazil. The country itself is quite wealthy with lots of natural resources and a well developed industry. The problem lies in the fact that wealth there is highly concentrated in very few hands. And it' got nothing to do with the industry since services now dominate. And the fact that wealth is highly concentrated is perhaps the single factor which determines that many brazilian citizens live below the poverty line.
In the US, the total number of people in absolute poverty is close to none (by UN standards of absolute poverty).
It makes no sense to talk in terms of total number of people when comparing over time, as there are a lot more people in the world now that before the industrial revolution: more rich, more poor, more comfy.
The industrial revolution did massively increase the relative proportion of the those in the middle class, reducing poverty.
That trend is now being reversed, however, and the middle class beginning to go bye-bye (thank you Reaganomics).
In the whole world, comparing before the industrial revolution to now, I'd bet the proportion of poor is lower and the proportion of middle class is much, much higher.
I bet the UN would have some accurate stats on all this, though.
BTW, there's a plan floating around not being acted on that would cut "absolute poverty" -- which is to say people who habitually wake up not knowing whether they're going to eat today -- in HALF in a mere 10 years.
What you do is, you connect villages via roads, and provide each village with a truck, and high yield seed, and fertilizer.
People can then grow surplus food, some of which they donate to schools, so all kids can get an education (and not have to spend the day acquiring food), and they use the truck to take the rest of the surplus food to market.
The truck is also used to bring things like medical supplies to the village.
By working first with those governments who aren't corrupt (yes, there are, so, governments, for example, in Africa, where the governments WOULD help their people if they had the resources), you'd lift those people up.
Then their neighbors in corrupt countries would put pressure to have the same help.
Cut absolute poverty in half in 10 years.
I say, let's do it.
dont know ,but there sure is alot of unemployment now
My poor relatives have a bigger TV than I do.
Reverse the industrial Revolution haha. Seriously tho poverty has increased. The industrial economy cant and wasnt made to service everybody. It was made to benefit the British economy, which it did, now everybody wants to do it and it doesn't work alot of the time. The World Bank in it's attempts at industrializing the "less developed nations" succeeded in only pushing many of them into poverty. When everybody takes care of themselves and their family, it works often times, but when you have to get a paycheck to feed your family alot of times it doesn't work
This question assumes that there was only one revolution at one point in time and that it is over.
3 ways in which the bystander apathy effect might be reduced.?
If I ask a question at this time do I just get American replies?
when's the last time you said 'sorry' and not meant it?
If all is not lost, where is it?
Anybody doing DD100 Understanding Social Science?
Do you dislike Germans or French?
id like to meet u saddos who answer obviously silly questions with?
if your girlfriend won the lotto and did not tell you would you dump her?
Has relative poverty increased or decreased since the industrial revolution?
What can we do about the prevalence of poverty worldwide?
Answers:
The industrial revolution increased standard of living and expanded the middle class. Because production of goods was streamlined. It allowed a 'middle class' other than merchants to appear. We then got a surplus of goods as well, alowing prices of many things to decrease. The industrial revolutions influcence on poverty as a problem was realitivly uneffective, because poverity is more of a social issue having to do with how people spend and save money. Especialy in modern westernized countries.
Poverty in non industrialized countries will have to be delt with on a case by case basis, because making a blanket statement is unfair to any one type of people. Alot of it is caused by poplulation problems, and resource distribution problems.
I don't think it really changed the percentages, but it did change the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
there was a huge poor immigration influx that was the main source of temporal poverty,,,jobs in the coal mines and factories and such,,,this in the long run reallyh paid off,,but yes in the short run there was a depression
The fact is that the poor have become more poorer and the so called revolutions have in fact helped the have's and not the have nots.
This depends on your measures of poverty absolute and relative.
In that the industrial revolution increased the wealth of nations it propably decresed the level of absolute poverty and contributed to improvement of life by several indicators (length of lifespan, cash wealth etc)
HOWEVER
The IR did lead to severe societal disruption with high rural to urban migration, transnational migrations and technological and sociological change. Famine which is probably the key measure of absolute poverty reduced over time and was extinguished from the industrial world as agriculture moved from subsistance to producing vast surpluses relative to the farming comunity.
Relative poverty may have increased as a comsumer society developed which attached strong value to manufactured good s that were constantly being outmoded by new designs and fashions.
What a bunch of knuckleheaded answers (except the two before me). Of course the industrial revolution decreased poverty. It just goes to show how pathetic we have become. Our recent ancestors had to struggle to eat, we struggle to get the latest cell phone. Of course the devide between rich and poor has grown, but the poor have become weathier than the rich used to be. The rich have become super wealthy. The only reason the poor should complain is that they are jeaolous of the rich even though their own wealth has dramatically increased as well. Just a point. If everybody's wealth increases 10 per cent, the gap between the rich and poor increases. Say you have 100 and your rich neighbor has 1000. There is a 900 dollar difference. You increase both by 10 per cent, the difference between $110 and $1100 is $990 so it is meaningless to say the gap widens. The truth is that everyones wealth has increased big time.
Poverty hasnt decreased, childrens morality ratings have increased from 1950-1990's. Also where you are born also defines your life chances, there is more poverty in the North and urban areas in recent years. Many families still live on the breadline even with the Welfare System. Of course the welfare system has got better since the beveridge report was done there is still a 'class' divide even though they dont call it that anymore.
"In terms of social structure, the Industrial Revolution witnessed the triumph of a middle class of industrialists and businessmen over a landed class of nobility & gentry.
(But what happened to the middle class today?)
Ordinary working people found increased opportunities for employment in the new mills and factories but these were often under strict working conditions with long hours of labor dominated by a pace set by machines. Harsh working conditions were prevalent long before the industrial revolution took place as well. Pre-industrial society was very static and often cruel-child labor, dirty living conditions and long working hours were just as prevalent before the Industrial Revolution.
(Have child laborers been replaced by illegal immigrants and homeless day workers?)
Child labor
Child labor existed before the Industrial Revolution, and in fact dates back to prehistoric times. Politicians tried to limit child labor by law. Factory owners resisted; some felt that they were aiding the poor by giving their children money to buy food to avoid starvation, and others simply welcomed the cheap labor. In 1833, the first law against child labor, the Factory Act of 1833, was passed in England: Children younger than nine were not allowed to work, children were not permitted to work at night and the work day of youth under the age of 18 was limited to twelve hours. Factory inspectors supervised the execution of this law. About ten years later, the employment of children and women in mining was forbidden. These laws decreased the number of child laborers; however child labor remained in Europe up to the 20th century.
The rapid industrialization of the English economy cost many craft workers their jobs. The textile industry in particular industrialized early, and many weavers found themselves suddenly unemployed since they could no longer compete with machines which only required relatively limited (and unskilled) labor to produce more cloth than a single weaver. Many such unemployed workers, weavers and others, turned their animosity towards the machines that had taken their jobs and began destroying factories and machinery. These attackers became known as Luddites, supposedly followers of Ned Ludd, a folklore figure. The first attacks of the Luddite movement began in 1811. The Luddites rapidly gained popularity, and the British government had to take drastic measures to protect industry.
Karl Marx saw the industrialization process as the logical dialectical progression of feudal economic modes, necessary for the full development of capitalism, which he saw as in itself a necessary precursor to the development of socialism and eventually communism."-- from Answers.com
In my opinion poverty overall has increased because the Industrial Revolution has enabled families to dissipate. Once the technology changes, so do jobs. People have become dependent on their jobs instead of their family. So, instead of staying home people now migrate to wherever their boss wants them to go; or go wherever the job interview is. Poor people cannot do this and so they remain impecunious.
I believe that we underuse the internet today. Too many 'jobs' do not require an employee to be any place in particular, yet the highways are clogged with commuters like lemmings trying to kill themselves going to work wasting gasoline; where they sit at a desk using a computer.
The answer to poverty today is the act of sharing and providing education or job training to those who cannot afford it.
The process anyone can have to escape poverty is not dependent on their character, but on the greed and stinginess of the weathly.
Just before the Industrial Revolution, 9 in 10 people were below the poverty line, or, living off the land, with no income but market trading. Most Peasants moved towards,or into towns, swelling them to over-population. This in effect kept the poverty level the same because people were still without jobs thanks to over crowding. Diseases, ill health and being uneducated, forced the Government to act, as the Towns became cess-pits of human misery never seen on such a massive scale. Laws were passed to help alleviate the problem, although unscrupulous Mill owners kept wages to a minimum and exploited the work force.
Towns grew into cities, which enabled the Rich to take further advantage of the vulnerable under classes.
But that isn't quite answering the question. The top 5% of the country earn more than the rest put together. If this percentage grew to 20%, then more people could distribute the wealth around more equally. However, if that wealth was spread out, it would do more harm than good for the economy.
The simple fact is that initially it decreased. By "initially" I mean the first 100 years. Nowadays the situation has become so complex you cannot say that holds true anymore since there are so many factors that can push poverty one way or the other. One classical example that comes to my mind is Brazil. The country itself is quite wealthy with lots of natural resources and a well developed industry. The problem lies in the fact that wealth there is highly concentrated in very few hands. And it' got nothing to do with the industry since services now dominate. And the fact that wealth is highly concentrated is perhaps the single factor which determines that many brazilian citizens live below the poverty line.
In the US, the total number of people in absolute poverty is close to none (by UN standards of absolute poverty).
It makes no sense to talk in terms of total number of people when comparing over time, as there are a lot more people in the world now that before the industrial revolution: more rich, more poor, more comfy.
The industrial revolution did massively increase the relative proportion of the those in the middle class, reducing poverty.
That trend is now being reversed, however, and the middle class beginning to go bye-bye (thank you Reaganomics).
In the whole world, comparing before the industrial revolution to now, I'd bet the proportion of poor is lower and the proportion of middle class is much, much higher.
I bet the UN would have some accurate stats on all this, though.
BTW, there's a plan floating around not being acted on that would cut "absolute poverty" -- which is to say people who habitually wake up not knowing whether they're going to eat today -- in HALF in a mere 10 years.
What you do is, you connect villages via roads, and provide each village with a truck, and high yield seed, and fertilizer.
People can then grow surplus food, some of which they donate to schools, so all kids can get an education (and not have to spend the day acquiring food), and they use the truck to take the rest of the surplus food to market.
The truck is also used to bring things like medical supplies to the village.
By working first with those governments who aren't corrupt (yes, there are, so, governments, for example, in Africa, where the governments WOULD help their people if they had the resources), you'd lift those people up.
Then their neighbors in corrupt countries would put pressure to have the same help.
Cut absolute poverty in half in 10 years.
I say, let's do it.
dont know ,but there sure is alot of unemployment now
My poor relatives have a bigger TV than I do.
Reverse the industrial Revolution haha. Seriously tho poverty has increased. The industrial economy cant and wasnt made to service everybody. It was made to benefit the British economy, which it did, now everybody wants to do it and it doesn't work alot of the time. The World Bank in it's attempts at industrializing the "less developed nations" succeeded in only pushing many of them into poverty. When everybody takes care of themselves and their family, it works often times, but when you have to get a paycheck to feed your family alot of times it doesn't work
This question assumes that there was only one revolution at one point in time and that it is over.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.