Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Assignment 2 Adam Smith (Grace Mahoney)
Shifting our jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy. I believe in the idea of laissez-faire economics. People who believe in a laissez-faire approach to trade believe that the government should stay out of how people run businesses. Laissez-faire means HANDS OFF. If the government were to be involved in the decision of shifting jobs overseas, they would try and prevent this, because the government wants more money for itself. If we shifted jobs overseas, other countries besides our own might prosper. If the government follows the laissez-faire policy, though, businesses would prosper enormously! If labor natural resources were cheaper somewhere else, why would we not go there? It would only save our countries' businesses money, so they can expand further! Plus, if we shift jobs overseas, we are bringing jobs to people who might have otherwise been unemployed and would have starved on the streets! Shifting our jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy, because in the end it will only save us money and also bring jobs to the less fortunate.
Thomas Malthus (Lauren Chapski)
Thomas Malthus (Lauren Chapski)
People always say a good thing can't last forever. In Britain's case, our surplus of food, and abundance of jobs won't last forever. We only have a limited supply of food, and at the rate of people coming into our country, our food and resources are bound to run out eventually. I developed this idea further and called it the Malthusian Dilemma. Although poverty is unavoidable, shifting jobs overseas would certainly decrease the poverty level significantly. It would provide the homeless with jobs, which would provide them with money so they can buy food and eventually a home. It would also positively impact our economy because we will have natural resources that can help with making new inventions. Our economy and the general welfare of the people will be better than ever. Shifting jobs overseas could be the best thing to happen to Britain.
People always say a good thing can't last forever. In Britain's case, our surplus of food, and abundance of jobs won't last forever. We only have a limited supply of food, and at the rate of people coming into our country, our food and resources are bound to run out eventually. I developed this idea further and called it the Malthusian Dilemma. Although poverty is unavoidable, shifting jobs overseas would certainly decrease the poverty level significantly. It would provide the homeless with jobs, which would provide them with money so they can buy food and eventually a home. It would also positively impact our economy because we will have natural resources that can help with making new inventions. Our economy and the general welfare of the people will be better than ever. Shifting jobs overseas could be the best thing to happen to Britain.
Assignment 2 Adam Smith (Katie Lavan)
Adam Smith (K. Lavan)
I strongly believe that shifting jobs oversees to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy. I believe that the government should not interfere with jobs. I am a strong believer in the approach called laissez-faire economics. It does not have any government involvement. If the government was involved, they would shift and replace our jobs overseas and would decrease production. Prices would rise since the products are outsourced and products would not be available to everyone. Involving the government in the jobs of the men and women of Britain is a huge mistake. If we were to shift jobs overseas, hundreds and thousands of men and women would be jobless and have no income. They would not be able to provide for their families with the necessities. So many of us would struggle to put food on the table. By keeping jobs in our country, we are giving thousands of men and women jobs to provide for their families. There are many ways we can boost our economy, but shifting jobs overseas is not one of them.
I strongly believe that shifting jobs oversees to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy. I believe that the government should not interfere with jobs. I am a strong believer in the approach called laissez-faire economics. It does not have any government involvement. If the government was involved, they would shift and replace our jobs overseas and would decrease production. Prices would rise since the products are outsourced and products would not be available to everyone. Involving the government in the jobs of the men and women of Britain is a huge mistake. If we were to shift jobs overseas, hundreds and thousands of men and women would be jobless and have no income. They would not be able to provide for their families with the necessities. So many of us would struggle to put food on the table. By keeping jobs in our country, we are giving thousands of men and women jobs to provide for their families. There are many ways we can boost our economy, but shifting jobs overseas is not one of them.
Thomas Malthus Post #2 (Brian C.)
Yes, shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy. The amount of humans in the world is increasing exponentially (ex: 2,4,8,16,32), while the amount of resources we are making for ourselves is only going up linearly (2,4,6,8,10). Creating products in the US is much more expensive than creating the same products overseas. Taking advantage of cheap labor and natural resources overseas will increase the amount of resources (manufactured and natural) for OUR country, in turn giving ample opportunity for those lower in society not to worry about prices of basic staples, but to focus their attention and concern to contributing to society. If we cannot have the means for basic survival, then society cannot advance, and the only way to keep basic survival from being an issue is to shift jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources.
Quarter 2- Assignment 2: Adam Smith (Amin Rajaee)
Adam Smith (Amin Rajaee)
I believe that shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy. As I am the main proponent of the approach against government interference called laissez-faire economics, I completely disagree with the idea of shifting jobs overseas. The government will not and must not shift our jobs overseas. This would interfere with the production of wealth. Government regulations will cause our economy to become worse. A bad economy is exactly what we don't need. We will be losing jobs and people won't have the money they need to take care of their families. I have asserted that a free market, the unregulated exchange of goods and services, would help all people. It would produce more goods at lower prices, so people can afford them with the money they make from jobs in this country. Shifting these jobs overseas will create a decrease in jobs because people will refuse to move overseas. Also, this country would not have any future if we depend on other countries for our resources. With government's "hands-off" of the free operation of economy, there will be no need to shift jobs overseas. There are many other solutions for this economy like adopting the free market, increasing wages, and increasing the amount of jobs. Therefore, the idea of shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy.
I believe that shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy. As I am the main proponent of the approach against government interference called laissez-faire economics, I completely disagree with the idea of shifting jobs overseas. The government will not and must not shift our jobs overseas. This would interfere with the production of wealth. Government regulations will cause our economy to become worse. A bad economy is exactly what we don't need. We will be losing jobs and people won't have the money they need to take care of their families. I have asserted that a free market, the unregulated exchange of goods and services, would help all people. It would produce more goods at lower prices, so people can afford them with the money they make from jobs in this country. Shifting these jobs overseas will create a decrease in jobs because people will refuse to move overseas. Also, this country would not have any future if we depend on other countries for our resources. With government's "hands-off" of the free operation of economy, there will be no need to shift jobs overseas. There are many other solutions for this economy like adopting the free market, increasing wages, and increasing the amount of jobs. Therefore, the idea of shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy.
Robert Owen (J. Horgan)
Would taking overseas jobs benefit us by cheap labor sources and natural resources making it the best possible solution for our country? Of course not! I have see first hand how this method ultimately fails. A few years back, I believe it was 1826, when I had sailed over to America to start a Utopian Community in New Harmony, Indiana. Boy was I surprised when things weren't going as plan. I guess I should have known that's it is only human nature that the people want to be better than each other. The community failed due to a lack of individual sovereignty and private property. From this I learned that we have to stay on our turf and fend for our selves. Everyone is in it for their own countries; why would they want to help benefit us? Having been born in the United Kingdom, I know we have all of the best resources we need right here. We are strong and we do not need to resort to working in other countries to get by.
Spencer Taylor (Karl MArx)
Spencer Taylor (KARL MARX)
I am completely against shifting jobs overseas for many reasons. Why would we purposefully take jobs away from the people of our country? That is essentially what we are doing by shifting jobs abroad, how is that supposed to be good for the economy. We need to have faith in our own country instead of going off into different countries searching for what we have yet to make. If we are paying money for natural resources and labor, we are not setting up a good system for our country to do well in the future. This whole idea will not do the industry any good to outsource very much because we will fail to develop our own infrastructure which is crucial to the well being of our beloved Great Britain. Our country and its economy will never thrive if we become too dependent on oversea labor and industry. We are paying for all the natural resources which will only harm our economy. To further our progress as a country we need to harness resources by using our own labor sources. We are under-minding our own work force and looking for an easier way out. Unfortunately, the easier way out will cost us in the long run.
Goodbye for now
Karl Marx
I am completely against shifting jobs overseas for many reasons. Why would we purposefully take jobs away from the people of our country? That is essentially what we are doing by shifting jobs abroad, how is that supposed to be good for the economy. We need to have faith in our own country instead of going off into different countries searching for what we have yet to make. If we are paying money for natural resources and labor, we are not setting up a good system for our country to do well in the future. This whole idea will not do the industry any good to outsource very much because we will fail to develop our own infrastructure which is crucial to the well being of our beloved Great Britain. Our country and its economy will never thrive if we become too dependent on oversea labor and industry. We are paying for all the natural resources which will only harm our economy. To further our progress as a country we need to harness resources by using our own labor sources. We are under-minding our own work force and looking for an easier way out. Unfortunately, the easier way out will cost us in the long run.
Goodbye for now
Karl Marx
Q-2 Assign.-2: Herbert Spencer (Milan Toljan)
Prompt: Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy.
I must, as a utilitarian and supporter of Laizzez-faire principles, disagree with this idea to shift jobs overseas. The government should first of all not be interfering in the economic business of the citizens. All business owners should be entitled to the control of their own company. Even without government interference outsourcing jobs to other countries would not be beneficial. If we were to outsource jobs to countries with cheaper labor and resources this would drastically reduce the price of the product. This price increase would indeed increase demand for any one product, but our domestic labour force would be unable to purchase these products. They would be unable to purchase these internationally made products because as unemployed citizens they would have no income whatsoever. Therefore this product, though more inexpensively produced, would become useless for the lack of a sufficient buying market. In addition for all products that are imported into our country should be marked with an import tax that goes to our government. This will further protect our economy from undermining foreign production and trade. This will also help further stimulate our already flourishing economy.
Quarter 2, Assignment 2
David Riccardo (S. Basler)
The doors shut on the face of a factory worker, and there is no turning back, no escaping the "prison" that they live in each day. Hour after hour, they stand there, fingers working, sweat dripping down their neck. But they cannot stop. The air, filled with dust and not a single window to let sunlight in. They cannot breathe, yet, they cannot stop. Why should they be forced to work in terrible conditions? If we want output, the workers need to be in conditions where they are comfortable, not where they are suffering for over thirteen hours of their day. In fact, in The Law of Comparative Cost, an article which I wrote, I proposed that "people everywhere would benefit most from by concentrating on the production of goods in which the conditions are the most favorable". We already send economic goods overseas, yet the government refuses to move the people to better conditions. Imagine however, how much more production we would have if we moved workers overseas! They could work in much larger buildings with much better conditions. If this were to happen, the workers would most likely be much more useful in supplying our country with the demands that we need. For one, if conditions were better, they would be less likely to be sick or injured, thus, speeding up the means of production. Also, if we shifted work overseas, we could be able to hire twice as many workers, creating more products at an even faster rate. We cannot stand here and watch our citizens suffer before our own eyes. If we want to be able to earn money on our profits, we need to treat our workers the right way.
The doors shut on the face of a factory worker, and there is no turning back, no escaping the "prison" that they live in each day. Hour after hour, they stand there, fingers working, sweat dripping down their neck. But they cannot stop. The air, filled with dust and not a single window to let sunlight in. They cannot breathe, yet, they cannot stop. Why should they be forced to work in terrible conditions? If we want output, the workers need to be in conditions where they are comfortable, not where they are suffering for over thirteen hours of their day. In fact, in The Law of Comparative Cost, an article which I wrote, I proposed that "people everywhere would benefit most from by concentrating on the production of goods in which the conditions are the most favorable". We already send economic goods overseas, yet the government refuses to move the people to better conditions. Imagine however, how much more production we would have if we moved workers overseas! They could work in much larger buildings with much better conditions. If this were to happen, the workers would most likely be much more useful in supplying our country with the demands that we need. For one, if conditions were better, they would be less likely to be sick or injured, thus, speeding up the means of production. Also, if we shifted work overseas, we could be able to hire twice as many workers, creating more products at an even faster rate. We cannot stand here and watch our citizens suffer before our own eyes. If we want to be able to earn money on our profits, we need to treat our workers the right way.
Quarter 2 - Assignment 2: David Ricardo (Maria Nunez)
Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy. There are other possible solutions for our economy. One solution is to follow the laissez-fair approach. The laissez-fair approach states that the government must not interfere in the free operation of the economy. Therefore, our government must not shift jobs overseas in order to take advantage of cheap labor and natural resources. Another solution is to make goods more affordable and available to everyone, which can be achieved through the free market. This would be better for our economy than shifting jobs overseas. A third solution is to increase wages. Wage increases are futile because they will cover the cost of necessities. When wages are high, families have more children instead of raising the family's current standard of living. This action causes our economy to drop. A final solution is a decrease in the size of families. This would be the most beneficial for our economy. Individuals should be left to improve their lot through thrift, hard work, and limiting the size of their families in order to increase our economy. In conclusion, shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and natural resources is not the best possible solution for our economy.
Q2A2 Female textile worker (Josh Fradin)
I believe that this is a great idea and solution to boost up our economy. Even with my bad job working in the textile factory where I get paid nothing, I would be able to provide food for my family. This will really change my mind about the Industrial Revolution. I use to work on the farm and I was able to grow food for my family, but now I work in a factory and all the food and resources will be cheap. My family would feel the same way about this. My kids loved running in the fields on the farm, but they would love having more food for less money. This will also give other families that don’t get paid as much to provide for their families. I would also feel bad about having people living in other countries working for our country. This would be taking away from other country’s produce and products. This might cause their economy to drop. Prices may go up on products because of supply and demand. There might also be a point of conflict where the population increase and the resources drop. A man made this up because this type of thing has happened before. I believe this is called the “Malthusian Dilemma.” But who cares this will really help our economy. I am all for shifting jobs to other countries to take advantage of cheap resources.
Quarter 2- Assignment 2 (Nick DiBiasio- London Male Factory Worker)
I have been working in the factories for a long time now, and yes it has worn on me. Working sixteen hours per day, six days a week in a loud, dusty and dangerous environment has not grown on me or my family. Shipping jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources is not the best possible solution for our economy. Yes, I hate where I work but think about it, will life overseas be any better? We are humans and shouldn't be forced to move overseas for jobs. A long process of transportation which will probably cost lot's of money will disband everything I know. My family is the only thing I work and live for and sending me overseas, changes everything. Not only is it inhuman but the transportation of us workers will greatly effect our economy. I hope some people understand where us workers are coming from, or life will be even worse.
Quarter 2, Assignment 2
Jeremy Bentham (E. Kalander)
Shifting our jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor
sources and natural resources is not, by any standards, the right path for our
economy to follow. By moving overseas, we are loosing large homegrown
corporations, which will not only decrease our citizens national pride, but
will also force many hard workers onto the streets. We should not take pride
for granted. Pride in your country is equivalent to happiness. Keeping the
citizens happy should be our number one goal, not quibbling over negligible
funds that will not matter when the sun sets. How ignorant are these officials
thinking that moving across seas will save us money? By shipping our jobs, we
will be forced to spend a great deal of money on transportation. Now, not only
will this be more trouble than it’s worth, we will be taking advantage of the
workers overseas. If we can’t bother to pay the oversea workers as well as we
pay our own, for doing the same job nonetheless, then why bother paying them at
all? Humans are humans, no matter where they come from in the world. We should
treat them all with respect. In conclusion, I would say no, do not ship our
jobs overseas to take advantage of innocent civilians and natural resources.
Q2- Assignment 2
Herbert Spencer (Anna Buckley)
To be frank, I simply believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase and the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. It's a simply concept that everyone should adapt to. If businesses, who have money and power, find it necessary to have cheap labor overseas, so be it! They are the ones who are keeping our economy going, and they should continue to do so. The better they do, the better our economy does! By having companies not spend as much money on labor, their product will become cheaper and competition will arise and the economy will become better. It's a win win situation for us all here because we are the ones benefitting from it all. The weak powerless people should be doing cheap work because that's where they should stay in the society, powerless and weak. In order to keep the economy good, we need to give the power to those wealthy businesses because they will be the ones helping the economy become good. The weak however won't help us anyway so why not put them to do cheap work for the powerful and wealthy people? This is the way it is supposed to be, and the way it needs to be to have a successful economy.
To be frank, I simply believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase and the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. It's a simply concept that everyone should adapt to. If businesses, who have money and power, find it necessary to have cheap labor overseas, so be it! They are the ones who are keeping our economy going, and they should continue to do so. The better they do, the better our economy does! By having companies not spend as much money on labor, their product will become cheaper and competition will arise and the economy will become better. It's a win win situation for us all here because we are the ones benefitting from it all. The weak powerless people should be doing cheap work because that's where they should stay in the society, powerless and weak. In order to keep the economy good, we need to give the power to those wealthy businesses because they will be the ones helping the economy become good. The weak however won't help us anyway so why not put them to do cheap work for the powerful and wealthy people? This is the way it is supposed to be, and the way it needs to be to have a successful economy.
Assignment 2, Quarter 2 economy have less money for our workers to pay. We have the resources here, so why should we go somewhere else to get more resources?
Friedrich Engels (M. Gempp)
We should not shift jobs overseas for cheap labor and more resources because we have everything we need here. If we go overseas, or even go to other countries near us, we will have to negotiate with them, and earn their trust. Some countries may not be trusted, instead of being your ally in battle, they may go against you. We have all the resources we need in our country, and we don't have to risk being destroyed by other countries in case we do negotiate with them. Also, negotiating will also cause us to pay that certain country. As well, we have to pay for the shipping people over, shipping them back, it is this any other transportation needs, we will have to pay which will have our economy drop, which will cause it have less money to pay for workers. We have enough resources in our country, so we don't have to risk being untrusted by other countries. If we absolutely need more resources, we can go to our neighboring countries, not the ones that are overseas that will cause us to risk our economy by sending people to a foreign country, in which they will have no idea what goes on in that country. Staying in our country for natural resources, or emergencies, our neighboring country that we know we can trust, our economy will rise massively.
We should not shift jobs overseas for cheap labor and more resources because we have everything we need here. If we go overseas, or even go to other countries near us, we will have to negotiate with them, and earn their trust. Some countries may not be trusted, instead of being your ally in battle, they may go against you. We have all the resources we need in our country, and we don't have to risk being destroyed by other countries in case we do negotiate with them. Also, negotiating will also cause us to pay that certain country. As well, we have to pay for the shipping people over, shipping them back, it is this any other transportation needs, we will have to pay which will have our economy drop, which will cause it have less money to pay for workers. We have enough resources in our country, so we don't have to risk being untrusted by other countries. If we absolutely need more resources, we can go to our neighboring countries, not the ones that are overseas that will cause us to risk our economy by sending people to a foreign country, in which they will have no idea what goes on in that country. Staying in our country for natural resources, or emergencies, our neighboring country that we know we can trust, our economy will rise massively.
Quarter 2 Assignment 1- Male London Factory Worker (I. Iannotti)
I've been working in the factory for as long as I can remember now. My suffering has continued, but my family is getting by due to the fact that all of us work everyday. Shifting jobs overseas is the worst possible thing that could happen to my family and I during tough times like these. We have been making barely enough money to survive. Our friends, home, and family are the only stable things we have. Leaving this place of torture is like leaving a place of comfort, as well. I have adapted to the conditons that I live in and moving to a new place and losing the little stability that may family and I have is a scary thing to think about. The people that want to ship jobs overseas are taking one thing into account, money. However, it the lives of my family and of many other people that they would be destroying. All I am asking is that people think less about profit and more about how this movement of jobs would ruin lives of the lower class. I can't imagine losing the place I live after already losing so much because of this Industial Revolution.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Quarter 2: Assignment 2: Kristin Carosotto (Robert Owen)
Why ship workers over seas when we, as the country of Britain, have plenty of resources and workers to get the job done here? We obtain a surplus natural resources that run this industrial revolution, and there is no need for any more. Also, shipping workers over seas would just put stress on the economic stability of Britain. Not only would we have to play for the long journeys overseas for the workers, we would also have to pay for the shipment of the goods back to Britain. With these expenses there would also be no substantial gain other than lowering wages which are already incredibly low. If one were to look at the pros and cons of this situation the cons would outweigh the pros by a whole spinning jenny. Shipping workers over seas would be one of Britain's worst decisions. It is just not logical to go and collect resources form another country when there is already enough in your own country and not gaining anything substantial from it. Having workers solely in this country has benefited us greatly so far so I do not see any point of changing our methods in the near future.
Quarter 2: Assignment 2
Karl Marx (K. Gammino)
The question at hand is, should we send our people to other countries to gather resources? The answer is obvious, no we should not! The heart of all human societies is production, that is indeed true. But, we certainly do not need to go to other countries to find that heart. Nature provides us with society. From nature we get things like cotton, water, wood and many essential things that we need to run our mills. Without these things we would not have a steady production. The best thing for our economy would be to stay where we are. Going to other countries for natural resources that we have is frivolous. Our accomplishments lately are enough to live off of. New ways of farming, such as the irrigation and rotation of crops from the Dutch, and new technology. We would be beyond ok staying in our own country. If we did go oversees to take advantage of cheap work sources and natural resources, we could be facing large amounts of money. In order to get citizens to collect resources abroad, we need way to get them across sea. A train isn't going to allow you to cross a body of water. So, transportation would cost extra money that we could be earning and saving by just staying here. We are getting along just find on our own. Seizing another country for things we have is unneeded. We are a unified country, we can fend for ourselves. That is why we do not need to travel to other countries in order to gather natural resources.
Quarter 2 - Assignment 2
Jeremy Bentham (J. Bernard-Sasges)
Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor is a terrible idea. First of all, how is that any way to treat our own citizens? Would you rather have a product given to you created by one of your own brothers or by someone working for little money overseas? Clearly, the proper choice is that of your brother. Keeping manufacturing inside of our borders is important for the concept that as a consumer, it is better to have a product created by someone of your own nationality, your "brother," if you will. Another reason why outsourcing is a horrible concept is that it is horrible for a country's overall happiness. As a citizen of a country, I value the happiness of my fellow citizens, and if we outsource labor, then we are simply outsourcing happiness, and importing suffering. This is a horrible thing to even think of. Is it really better at the end of the day to demolish your countries happiness and risk the quality of a product by outsourcing jobs? No It is important that we keep in mind the idea of happiness to the greatest number of our citizens, and if we don't we are shooting ourselves in the foot. WE are the ones who would outsource these jobs, so WE would be the ones sacrificing our happiness. It is important to treasure our country's fraternity and citizenship, and if we outsource jobs we are flushing these values down the toilet, and sacrificing our own happiness for that of less people.
Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor is a terrible idea. First of all, how is that any way to treat our own citizens? Would you rather have a product given to you created by one of your own brothers or by someone working for little money overseas? Clearly, the proper choice is that of your brother. Keeping manufacturing inside of our borders is important for the concept that as a consumer, it is better to have a product created by someone of your own nationality, your "brother," if you will. Another reason why outsourcing is a horrible concept is that it is horrible for a country's overall happiness. As a citizen of a country, I value the happiness of my fellow citizens, and if we outsource labor, then we are simply outsourcing happiness, and importing suffering. This is a horrible thing to even think of. Is it really better at the end of the day to demolish your countries happiness and risk the quality of a product by outsourcing jobs? No It is important that we keep in mind the idea of happiness to the greatest number of our citizens, and if we don't we are shooting ourselves in the foot. WE are the ones who would outsource these jobs, so WE would be the ones sacrificing our happiness. It is important to treasure our country's fraternity and citizenship, and if we outsource jobs we are flushing these values down the toilet, and sacrificing our own happiness for that of less people.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Quarter 2- Assignment 2: Young Coal Miner (Alec Gannon)
Young Coal Miner (Alec Gannon)
I feel sick; I feel exhausted; but ultimately, I feel unappreciated. For us coal miners have provided great work under such poor conditions, yet it appears beneficial for the upper class to shift jobs aways. Although, it was to my understanding that Britain had all the resources. We were told Britain is superior, yet the jobs are being moved away. Why must we have jobs shifted overseas? Is my work rate not enough for these upperclassman? I had done this job with pride, yet now I am being told someone oversees can do it just as well. Am I inferior? I thought that our work rate was exceptional, but clearly the coal that stains my flesh is not enough to gain some appreciation. The upper class cannot shift jobs away so that they will solely become wealthier. I could get on my knees and beg like the child they perceive me to be, but I have pride. Overseas, workers will continue to be put in danger. Us miners will continue to witness fellow workers die. We will continue to damage my lungs. We will continue to be unappreciated. But it is allegedly said that our "economics" will benefit. Well I want to ask one question regarding the expansion of these dangerous jobs: "What's in it for us?"
I feel sick; I feel exhausted; but ultimately, I feel unappreciated. For us coal miners have provided great work under such poor conditions, yet it appears beneficial for the upper class to shift jobs aways. Although, it was to my understanding that Britain had all the resources. We were told Britain is superior, yet the jobs are being moved away. Why must we have jobs shifted overseas? Is my work rate not enough for these upperclassman? I had done this job with pride, yet now I am being told someone oversees can do it just as well. Am I inferior? I thought that our work rate was exceptional, but clearly the coal that stains my flesh is not enough to gain some appreciation. The upper class cannot shift jobs away so that they will solely become wealthier. I could get on my knees and beg like the child they perceive me to be, but I have pride. Overseas, workers will continue to be put in danger. Us miners will continue to witness fellow workers die. We will continue to damage my lungs. We will continue to be unappreciated. But it is allegedly said that our "economics" will benefit. Well I want to ask one question regarding the expansion of these dangerous jobs: "What's in it for us?"
Quarter 2 Assignment 2
Female textile mill worker in London (M. Rodrigue)
My family has lived in our home of Great Britain for generations. Not to say that working conditions at the mill are all too wonderful, but this is all we've ever known. First we get kicked off of our farmland to work in the crowded cities, now we are expected to move overseas? What will our future entail? We know nothing of the conditions elsewhere, how to survive. We can barely survive in an area we have grown accustomed to. Sure, maybe more natural resources will strengthen our economy. It may provide cheap labor. But labor on our part is never cheap. It is taxing, and at times, hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. A fresh start may be something well needed, but until we know of what we shall get ourselves into, we shall stick to our old-fashioned ways.
My family has lived in our home of Great Britain for generations. Not to say that working conditions at the mill are all too wonderful, but this is all we've ever known. First we get kicked off of our farmland to work in the crowded cities, now we are expected to move overseas? What will our future entail? We know nothing of the conditions elsewhere, how to survive. We can barely survive in an area we have grown accustomed to. Sure, maybe more natural resources will strengthen our economy. It may provide cheap labor. But labor on our part is never cheap. It is taxing, and at times, hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. A fresh start may be something well needed, but until we know of what we shall get ourselves into, we shall stick to our old-fashioned ways.
Quarter 2 Assignment 2
Friedrich Engels (E. Abbott)
To send people to other countries to receive natural resources would be completely unnecessary because we have enough resources of our own. To send people overseas would be ridiculous because instead we could become friendly with these countries who have the resources we want. With being friends with them could provide our country with a friend and an ally for the future. Besides just sending people in to take resources to bring back we could negotiate with a country. Decide it's better to be friends and if they provide us with things we could maybe provide them with resources. Also, in the future if we need a country as a friend or to provide us with other things that we don't have we will have a country at hand instead of a country we are just stealing from. If we are going into this Industrial Revolution we need supporters. We shouldn't have to send people into these countries though, we should take matters into our own hands as a whole country. Not everyone can be trusted anyway so how can we trust them to provide for our country in other countries? We can't. That is why we shouldn't send people into other countries to receive natural resources.
To send people to other countries to receive natural resources would be completely unnecessary because we have enough resources of our own. To send people overseas would be ridiculous because instead we could become friendly with these countries who have the resources we want. With being friends with them could provide our country with a friend and an ally for the future. Besides just sending people in to take resources to bring back we could negotiate with a country. Decide it's better to be friends and if they provide us with things we could maybe provide them with resources. Also, in the future if we need a country as a friend or to provide us with other things that we don't have we will have a country at hand instead of a country we are just stealing from. If we are going into this Industrial Revolution we need supporters. We shouldn't have to send people into these countries though, we should take matters into our own hands as a whole country. Not everyone can be trusted anyway so how can we trust them to provide for our country in other countries? We can't. That is why we shouldn't send people into other countries to receive natural resources.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Quarter 2 Assignment 2 - Prompt assigned 11/18; Post by 11/20; Comment twice by 11/22
Using the lens of your assigned person, respond to the following prompt. You will obviously need to suspend accurate time and place to respond.
Prompt: Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Continuation of today's class discussion...
We were discussing the effects of cost-benefit analysis applied to issues of morality. Our basis for discussion stems from Jeremy Bentham's principle of utilitarianism. Two issues discussed were from Professor Sandel's lecture - 1. dollar value on human life with the Ford Pinto and 2. Throwing Christians to the Lions in the coliseum.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Adam Smith (Grace Mahoney)
The statement that says "Europe's Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens in a positive way" is absolutely true. Overall, the Industrial Revolution brought wealth to everybody. When most people hear "industrial revolution", the first thing that pops into their minds is textile mills. Some might say that the people working in the mills were effected in a negative way, but I disagree. I believe that even though the mill workers had long hours and bad working conditions, that they still benefitted. Someone earning money by their own labor always benefits themselves. Mill workers were also benefitting society, because they are producing something that people need. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the factory owners benefitted also, because the products their factories produced were so high in supply and also demand. Even people not directly involved in the making of goods in factories benefitted- when citizens needed clothing, they were able to purchase it easily. Because of these things, I know that the Industrial Revolution benefitted everyone.
Quarter 2 - Assignment 1: David Ricardo (Maria Nunez)
I believe that the Industrial Revolution has positively impacted all of Europe's citizens. Obviously, the wealthy people benefited by being able to produce more goods more cheaply and quickly. At first, I did not think that the working class could escape poverty but the Industrial Revolution greatly helped. The government is not involved. Families are able to earn money to pay for some of life's necessities. They aren't earning a lot of money but they can use whatever they earn to buy items they need or want. And, if they want more, they can work more to earn additional money to pay for things for additional family members. The production lines produce more goods more cheaply so the cost of items is more reasonable. A family might not be able to afford to pay for custom made shoes for each family member, but if the shoes are made more cheaply, each person can have a pair. They might not be as comfortable and durable as custom shoes but they are certainly better than no shoes at all. By limiting the size of their families, individuals can improve the living situation for all family members.
Quarter 2- Assignment 1: Adam Smith (Amin Rajaee)
Adam Smith (Amin Rajaee)
I believe that Europe's Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens. People spoke out and their ideas were beginning to truly be listened to and taken into consideration. By doing so, they have helped increase the population and wealth of Europe. I am a great example of one of those people. The French word, "Laissez-faire," implies, "hands-off," or, "let it be." I am the main proponent of the approach against government interference called laissez-faire economics. Laissez-faire economics are what free the exchange of goods and services from government regulation. Government regulation, like taxes, interfere with the production of wealth. The word laissez-faire is telling the government to keep their hands off the operation of the economy. I believe that free market economies are the most productive and helpful to their societies. They help everyone, not just the rich. This would make goods more affordable for everyone by producing them at lower prices. The Industrial Revolution of Europe most definitely impacted all of its citizens in a positive way. Laissez-faire is just one positive example of many that are coming from the Industrial Revolution.
Q2-Herbert Spencer
Herbert Spencer (Anna Buckley)
Everyone cannot be satisfied, just as not everyone can benefit positively from something. I have studied societies for a long time, and I know that not all of the citizens can be positively impacted by the industrial revolution. There will always be two kinds of people the powerful and the powerless. Neither can benefit positively from something only one does and one doesnt. I myself don't take sides, I believe in social Darwinism or "survival of the fittest". I believe that whoever is in power should stay in power, and whoever is weak stay weak. Through this I know that not everyone can be positively influenced because there is a strong and a weak force in each society and neither can be pleased by the same thing. For the industrial revolution the power shifted, therefore one side is not in favor of the shift. In this case the wealthy are at loss. The power has gone to the workers and the land owners and away from the government and the people in charge. Now the government is unhappy and negatively impacted by this industrial revolution. Every person cannot be impacted by the industrial revolution because there is two sides to every society. While the strong is happy, the weak will always be unhappy. Therefore every citizen cannot be positively impacted from the industrial revolution.
Everyone cannot be satisfied, just as not everyone can benefit positively from something. I have studied societies for a long time, and I know that not all of the citizens can be positively impacted by the industrial revolution. There will always be two kinds of people the powerful and the powerless. Neither can benefit positively from something only one does and one doesnt. I myself don't take sides, I believe in social Darwinism or "survival of the fittest". I believe that whoever is in power should stay in power, and whoever is weak stay weak. Through this I know that not everyone can be positively influenced because there is a strong and a weak force in each society and neither can be pleased by the same thing. For the industrial revolution the power shifted, therefore one side is not in favor of the shift. In this case the wealthy are at loss. The power has gone to the workers and the land owners and away from the government and the people in charge. Now the government is unhappy and negatively impacted by this industrial revolution. Every person cannot be impacted by the industrial revolution because there is two sides to every society. While the strong is happy, the weak will always be unhappy. Therefore every citizen cannot be positively impacted from the industrial revolution.
Quarter 2 Assignment 1
Robert Owen (Julie Horgan)
The Industrial Revolution here in Europe has not been the most positive thing for everyone. Just this morning I walked into a factory in Manchester and boy did I see the devastation that has been brought to our people. Bloody hands and zombie like children were everywhere. This one poor lad had his hand stuck in one of those water frames and all the owner of the factory did for him was wrap some cloth around the wound and ordered him back to work! What madness. Even though these factories have helped do away with slavery, when I am in them, I see most of the same anguish in the workers' eyes as in the slaves'. With all of their hard work, these factory people are paid very little, worked so very much, are sick a lot of the time, and injure themselves on a daily basis. How can the Industrial Revolution be positive when people are working in unsafe environments everyday? The moans still ring in my ears from all of the sorry souls in that factory. So no. No the Industrial Revolution has definitely not been been the most positive impact.
The Industrial Revolution here in Europe has not been the most positive thing for everyone. Just this morning I walked into a factory in Manchester and boy did I see the devastation that has been brought to our people. Bloody hands and zombie like children were everywhere. This one poor lad had his hand stuck in one of those water frames and all the owner of the factory did for him was wrap some cloth around the wound and ordered him back to work! What madness. Even though these factories have helped do away with slavery, when I am in them, I see most of the same anguish in the workers' eyes as in the slaves'. With all of their hard work, these factory people are paid very little, worked so very much, are sick a lot of the time, and injure themselves on a daily basis. How can the Industrial Revolution be positive when people are working in unsafe environments everyday? The moans still ring in my ears from all of the sorry souls in that factory. So no. No the Industrial Revolution has definitely not been been the most positive impact.
Quarter 2- Assignment 1
David Riccardo (Sarah Basler)
A filthy stench seems to cling to my lungs as I walk through the crowded streets. My feet sink into the mud below me, and I am constantly swinging my arms in attempt to keep the bugs out of my hair and eyes. As I look around, all I can see are people. People crying, yelling, pushing, and shoving, trying to make their way to their job before it is too late. There is only one word that I can use to describe this: overpopulation. What had begun as a way to get people out of poverty, as become the cause of the death of hundreds of people. Women and children forced to work thirteen hours a day for six days a week, in cramped factory rooms with no air to breathe and dangerous machines. True, the production is increasing, but as the population increases, we are needing more and more production, thus putting more and more people to work. This only results in more people crammed into smaller rooms, which causes diseases to spread quickly and people to loose their. Instead of making all of the goods ourselves, I believe we should rely on international trade. Not only would this mean that people wouldn't have to work as hard, but we could also get more goods without worrying about not having enough. It is bad enough that the cities are filthy. We don't need people starving on top of that. The Industrial Revolution was meant to start something good, but instead, it has simply led to more people than our profits can handle.
A filthy stench seems to cling to my lungs as I walk through the crowded streets. My feet sink into the mud below me, and I am constantly swinging my arms in attempt to keep the bugs out of my hair and eyes. As I look around, all I can see are people. People crying, yelling, pushing, and shoving, trying to make their way to their job before it is too late. There is only one word that I can use to describe this: overpopulation. What had begun as a way to get people out of poverty, as become the cause of the death of hundreds of people. Women and children forced to work thirteen hours a day for six days a week, in cramped factory rooms with no air to breathe and dangerous machines. True, the production is increasing, but as the population increases, we are needing more and more production, thus putting more and more people to work. This only results in more people crammed into smaller rooms, which causes diseases to spread quickly and people to loose their. Instead of making all of the goods ourselves, I believe we should rely on international trade. Not only would this mean that people wouldn't have to work as hard, but we could also get more goods without worrying about not having enough. It is bad enough that the cities are filthy. We don't need people starving on top of that. The Industrial Revolution was meant to start something good, but instead, it has simply led to more people than our profits can handle.
Quarter 2 assignment 1
Friedrich Engels (M. Gempp)
Europe's industrial revolution was not a benefit any of us, it impacted all of us in a negative way. For example, they had the lower class live in worse conditions and tenements near the railroad station. Most of the factory workers had to live in terrible conditions in the tenements because they only had possibly enough room for two people to sleep on a bed and have the entire home warm. The money was always very scarce because it was normally use to pay for their stay in the tenements and for the food that they are given. Also the higher class lives in better condition, in their own houses, they had enough money to buy whatever they wanted and needed, and they didn't have these terrible conditions that they had to survive with unlike the lower-class, or the factory workers. I think that everyone should be living the same way with either better apartments or sharing households that two or more families could live and when they worked. People shouldn't live and bad conditions because it can affect their health, it could affect the job that they worked in, it could make conditions worse for everybody living around them, and also a very hard life on them because they never experience relaxing, they were always working, except Sundays. Also farmers were being kicked off their land today going to city once again, to work at the factories. Farmers should say on their farms and plan for their own good and plant for the community to in case they have customers that comes them and buy their products. The government should not be kicking farmers off the Atlanta they look in the factory so that the city could have more workers and possibly have worse conditions for everybody living there. Everybody should be equal with their jobs, money, and everything else. This revolution is also causing people to lose their job because new technology that is taking over everyone's job that everyone else only does my hand. This revolution has definitely been negative and many ways and has had a very big impact on the factory workers, the farmers, and a lot of the lower-class.
Europe's industrial revolution was not a benefit any of us, it impacted all of us in a negative way. For example, they had the lower class live in worse conditions and tenements near the railroad station. Most of the factory workers had to live in terrible conditions in the tenements because they only had possibly enough room for two people to sleep on a bed and have the entire home warm. The money was always very scarce because it was normally use to pay for their stay in the tenements and for the food that they are given. Also the higher class lives in better condition, in their own houses, they had enough money to buy whatever they wanted and needed, and they didn't have these terrible conditions that they had to survive with unlike the lower-class, or the factory workers. I think that everyone should be living the same way with either better apartments or sharing households that two or more families could live and when they worked. People shouldn't live and bad conditions because it can affect their health, it could affect the job that they worked in, it could make conditions worse for everybody living around them, and also a very hard life on them because they never experience relaxing, they were always working, except Sundays. Also farmers were being kicked off their land today going to city once again, to work at the factories. Farmers should say on their farms and plan for their own good and plant for the community to in case they have customers that comes them and buy their products. The government should not be kicking farmers off the Atlanta they look in the factory so that the city could have more workers and possibly have worse conditions for everybody living there. Everybody should be equal with their jobs, money, and everything else. This revolution is also causing people to lose their job because new technology that is taking over everyone's job that everyone else only does my hand. This revolution has definitely been negative and many ways and has had a very big impact on the factory workers, the farmers, and a lot of the lower-class.
Q-2-Herbert Spencer (Milan Toljan)
Prompt: Europe's Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens in a positive way.
The matter of Europe's Industrial Revolution is similar to a two sided coin. The revolution benefited curtain people and not others. In the case of the lower and middle classes the industrial revolution was extremely beneficial. These classes of citizens were during and after the revolution, provided with jobs and a steady source of income. This is because with the industrial revolution citizens transitioned from an agriculturally based society to a factory and mass production driven society. People were no longer only making money during the time of the year when they could grow their crops. On the other hand upper class citizens and the nobility began to lose much of their power during the industrial revolution. As workers became more equal and band together, they understood their power in numbers. With this new found power they began to demand more rights as citizens. As a supporter and forerunner for Social Darwinism this is not a just way to run a society. The nobility who are now losing their power and authority to the masses are being treated just as unjustly. It is the nobilities right from birth to rule, as it is why they are at all existent. With this change in society, as an effect of Europe's Industrial Revolution, all people of society will be influenced either positively or negatively.
Quarter 2- Assignment 1: London Factory Worker (I.Iannotti)
My whole life I have lived with enemies. Enemies of every shape and size imaginable for a person, but for the first time in my life, my enemy is not a person at all. My enemy is a loud, dirty, violent machine in a cold, disgusting place. A place where I happen to spend at least twelve hours a day, six or seven days a week. The work is exhausting, and the picture in my mind of limbs and fingers being sliced off in a second is one that I will never forget. I hear their screams, but I can do nothing about it. My only breaks are when the factory owner allows, and with my current record of not being a perfect factory worker, my breaks are not very frequent. I can feel my hearing fade away as well, as the deafening machines take it out of me slowly with everyday I spend in that place. However, my hearing isn't all that is slipping away. The polluted air that I breathe every single day suffocates me with a firm grip, as if this very factory wants to make it even more clear that it owns me. The factory is the reason I am alive, but it is also the reason I am dying. The idea that some people of Britain believe that this Industrial Revolution is helping everyone makes me sick. This revolution has ruined my life, taken the life of others, and although the concept seems beneficial, this revolution will ruin the lives of lower class people over the world, and very fast.
Quarter 2- Assignment 1 - Male London Factory Worker (Nick DiBiasio)
From working on a farm, to working in a factory, there has been a major role change in our society in the past decade. Due to innovations and new technologies, life on a farm changed to life in a factory. At first, people like me were getting very excited, not only were we not working in hot and humid conditions in the summer or working with swollen and sore hands but we were sitting down. At first, the industrial revolution was a good thing, hence it made things a lot more easier and simpler but in the long term it made life more exhausting. Not only were we getting paid almost nothing, but we had to work more than 16 hour shifts. Mill owners and business owners got so carried away with money and growth that they barely cared for us. Over time, technology advanced so much that machines took over people's jobs. Some people including my brother started breaking machinery. Many people didn't understand the conditions we were in, so we ended up creating labor unions in which we fought for better work conditions and most importantly, better pay. I just hope that the technology advancements slow down for a little because our society has to adjust to it.
Female Textile Mill Worker (Josh Fradin)
I have been one angry mother since I was forced to leave the farm to work in the Mill factory. My family and I enjoyed our time on the farm, but ideas such as having one big piece of land to farm on is better than a bunch of separately owned farms on a big piece of land. It was easy on the farm because all the food we needed we just had to grow it. Now I have to things such as spinning and weaving on machines which gets very boring. The only thing that I happy about is how Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin which picks the seeds out of the cotton at a much faster pace than a human would. At work all I use are my hands and because of this they are starting to hurt. The only day off we have is on Sunday when me and the rest of the girls have fun. I believe this Industrial Revolution has negatively affected all the citizens here in London. Machines now have started to take jobs from citizens and they are ending up without a job. People like my family and I are unhappy about where we are working and how we had to move to the city because that is where the factory is. I can only think of one group of people who could be happy from the Industrial Revolution and those people are the ones who invented these machines. They are making a lot of money, while everyone else is working hard. We also have to live in tenements with other families which are filled with disease. I cannot see anyone liking the Industrial Revolution right now.
Quarter Two- Assignment 1 Brian Caskey- Thomas Malthus
Thomas Malthus (Brian C)
Yes the Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of it's citizens in a positive way. I believe in the fact that humans multiply to fast for resource production to keep up. There will eventually be too many people in the world and not enough food. Humans can multiply exponentially, going 2,4,8,16,32 and so on, yet agriculture and other resources can only increase linearly, going 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and so on. The industrial revolution helped temporarily solve this problem because though resources are still, and always will be, being produced linearly, they are at a much higher rate. One person now has a much higher output than what he or she needs, and can give to the rest of the world. The industrial revolution has positively effected the world because humans can provide for the number of people in the world. Someday that number will again, be too high for technology to meet unless technology advances again, but for now the amount of resources and the amount of people match well. There are no famines or shortages of any kind, accept for some money. But the Industrial Revolution has positively impacted everyone because everyone now has the opportunity to have sufficient resources.
Yes the Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of it's citizens in a positive way. I believe in the fact that humans multiply to fast for resource production to keep up. There will eventually be too many people in the world and not enough food. Humans can multiply exponentially, going 2,4,8,16,32 and so on, yet agriculture and other resources can only increase linearly, going 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and so on. The industrial revolution helped temporarily solve this problem because though resources are still, and always will be, being produced linearly, they are at a much higher rate. One person now has a much higher output than what he or she needs, and can give to the rest of the world. The industrial revolution has positively effected the world because humans can provide for the number of people in the world. Someday that number will again, be too high for technology to meet unless technology advances again, but for now the amount of resources and the amount of people match well. There are no famines or shortages of any kind, accept for some money. But the Industrial Revolution has positively impacted everyone because everyone now has the opportunity to have sufficient resources.
Quarter 2- Assignment 1
Friedrich Engels (E. Abbott)
Europe's Industrial Revolution was no benefit to all. We see unfair treatment towards lower classes once again to push the wealthier up in the social class. For the lower class they are being robbed of their land and hard work just so other people can make more money and forget about them. This just seems to be unfair and there needs to be another revolution to put an end to this. Also, with the new steam engines and new technology, the prices of manufactured goods are going down. These goods should be priced the same especially since their made by our own human race. Hard work and dedication goes into these things. People spend their lives everyday working on manufactured goods and for the prices of those to go down because of a couple new machines is absurd. We can't forget about the people behind the food we eat and the clothes we wear. If anything they should be getting more money because they are actually putting their life into their work while machines do all the work for the people. All the people have to do in mills now is set things up and let the machine do the work. If their is no stopping all these new inventions though, there needs to be a time and place where everyone is treated equal for their hard work.
Europe's Industrial Revolution was no benefit to all. We see unfair treatment towards lower classes once again to push the wealthier up in the social class. For the lower class they are being robbed of their land and hard work just so other people can make more money and forget about them. This just seems to be unfair and there needs to be another revolution to put an end to this. Also, with the new steam engines and new technology, the prices of manufactured goods are going down. These goods should be priced the same especially since their made by our own human race. Hard work and dedication goes into these things. People spend their lives everyday working on manufactured goods and for the prices of those to go down because of a couple new machines is absurd. We can't forget about the people behind the food we eat and the clothes we wear. If anything they should be getting more money because they are actually putting their life into their work while machines do all the work for the people. All the people have to do in mills now is set things up and let the machine do the work. If their is no stopping all these new inventions though, there needs to be a time and place where everyone is treated equal for their hard work.
Quarter 2 - Assignment 1
Jeremy Bentham (J. Bernard-Sasges)
The greatest thing to ever occur in this section of the world, if not the
world in its entirety, is the European Industrial Revolution. I wake up every
morning and tell myself, "I wouldn't let myself live with this if it
wasn't as good as it's said to be." This is absolutely true. I, being an
entirely reasonable human being understand that it has not benefitted an
absolute unanimity of the European population, however there is only way to
look at it: through the lens of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism allows for
people to see the bigger picture, the better picture, and the more accurate
view. Without utilitarianism, conceded, selfish, snobs of men would be in
charge, and the world wouldn't be worth living in. Utilitarianism lets the
viewer look at everyone. This way you include the poor servant, the wealthy
noble, and the middle class bourgeois all the same. This is the true face of
equality, as all are given an even opportunity. In this way, the European
Industrial Revolution has benefitted all of the people of Europe, and not just
the nobility or the church. This is they way it should be.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Quarter 2- Assignment 1
Female London textile mill worker (M. Rodrigue)
It was in the autumn of 1760 when my family and I were kicked off of our farmland. The land was to be consolidated and used for sheep pastures, so that more wool may be gathered. Left to our own devices, we decided to move to the city, in search of new work. I had found a job at a local textile mill in London, and boy were those looms a sight! It sure took me a while, but I managed to get the hang of weaving wool into cloth every day. Hours upon hours I would work, my hands growing sore and arms tired. It was not until the invention of new machines such as the spinning jenny and the water frame that work became far easier and more efficient. Thread and cloth could be created without the use of hands! The only physical labor required is making sure enough wool is in the machine and everything is running smoothly. Though us workers still endure the deafening sounds and choking fumes of the machines, the work pays. Furthermore, the management present in the mill is rough and strict, firing those who cannot keep pace and chastising others who make a mistake. Us workers live in crowded tenements and often risk catching diseases by living in such close quarters. We barely scrounge enough money to pay for necessities. The shift in hand work to machine work, in its entirety, is bittersweet. We could still be working the looms and bobbins one arm stroke and wheel turn at a time.
It was in the autumn of 1760 when my family and I were kicked off of our farmland. The land was to be consolidated and used for sheep pastures, so that more wool may be gathered. Left to our own devices, we decided to move to the city, in search of new work. I had found a job at a local textile mill in London, and boy were those looms a sight! It sure took me a while, but I managed to get the hang of weaving wool into cloth every day. Hours upon hours I would work, my hands growing sore and arms tired. It was not until the invention of new machines such as the spinning jenny and the water frame that work became far easier and more efficient. Thread and cloth could be created without the use of hands! The only physical labor required is making sure enough wool is in the machine and everything is running smoothly. Though us workers still endure the deafening sounds and choking fumes of the machines, the work pays. Furthermore, the management present in the mill is rough and strict, firing those who cannot keep pace and chastising others who make a mistake. Us workers live in crowded tenements and often risk catching diseases by living in such close quarters. We barely scrounge enough money to pay for necessities. The shift in hand work to machine work, in its entirety, is bittersweet. We could still be working the looms and bobbins one arm stroke and wheel turn at a time.
Adam Smith (Katie Lavan)
Adam Smith (K. Lavan)
I certainly believe that Europe's Industrial Revolution had a positive impact on people. Numerous men and women spread ideas that increased the population and brought wealth to our countries. The new ideas that increased the wealth in our countries helped everyone. The rich and poor were all taken care of as long as my idea was followed. I was a prominent believer of laissez-faire which means "hands off." The laissez-faire is an approach that has no government involvement. It asserted that there would be a free market which allowed the exchange of goods to be available to everybody. The free market produced lower prices for goods. The lower prices on goods made them affordable to everyone. The economy would grow the which would support new ventures and investments. The Industrial Revolution helped bring new ideas, like the one I strongly believed in, spread throughout Europe and allow the countries to flourish. All social classes benefitted by the new wave of ideas during Europe's Industrial Revolution.
I certainly believe that Europe's Industrial Revolution had a positive impact on people. Numerous men and women spread ideas that increased the population and brought wealth to our countries. The new ideas that increased the wealth in our countries helped everyone. The rich and poor were all taken care of as long as my idea was followed. I was a prominent believer of laissez-faire which means "hands off." The laissez-faire is an approach that has no government involvement. It asserted that there would be a free market which allowed the exchange of goods to be available to everybody. The free market produced lower prices for goods. The lower prices on goods made them affordable to everyone. The economy would grow the which would support new ventures and investments. The Industrial Revolution helped bring new ideas, like the one I strongly believed in, spread throughout Europe and allow the countries to flourish. All social classes benefitted by the new wave of ideas during Europe's Industrial Revolution.
Quarter 2- Assignment 1: Kristin Carosotto (Robert Owen)
Some may say that the industrial revolution is providing all people with adequate resources resulting in the industrial revolution being a positive impact on all citizens. This could not be farther from the truth. Those outside of the mills who are being provided with these resources that are being produced may consider this revolution as a substantial gain for themselves but do not consider the conditions in which these items are made. Most of the textile mills today are employing children to old adults who are working from dusk to after dawn with a pay that will not sustain a life for themselves and their families. Therefore, the industrial revolution has not made a positive impact on all citizens. I hope that soon all mills will resemble the ones that I manage in New Lanark. My mills provide the children with a good education, housing for the workers, and social time for them to enjoy each other. Along with free medical care since many people are injured working in mills. The well being of my workers are very important to me and should be for all mill owners. If the workers are happy and provided with necessary resources they will produce a better product and more of it. Overall Europe's Industrial Revolution has not positively impacted all of the citizens in a positive way.
Thomas Malthus (Lauren Chapski)
Thomas Malthus (Lauren Chapski)
Four million people. Four million mouths to feed, four million people who need jobs, four million people who need a home. Four million is the number of people who flocked into Britain from 1700 to 1800. Due to the industrial revolution, my home was being flooded with more and more people each day. The agricultural revolution, which began the industrial revolution, produced a surplus of food, initiating the population increase. At first it was nice to have some new neighbors, and the extra food was great, but the only problem is that the people will not stop coming. We only had so much extra food, and now that we are out, people are left starving in the streets. Everyday I see a new horror, whether it be the crowded slums, the starving families, children begging for money, and even sick peasants dying in the streets; just waiting to be put out of their misery. In 1798 I published An Essay on the Principle of Population, It goes into further detail about my beliefs, like how population growth will outpace food supply. The more people there are, the more people that need to be fed. Even those who are willing to work will find no job because they are already full. At this point coming to Britain is practically a death sentence, death by famine that is. The Industrial Revolution has certainly not positively impacted all the citizens because everyday I see more and more people gathered in the streets, basking in their own misery. I would advise that anyone who seeks happiness and hopes to live a long life go elsewhere because it will not be found here.
Four million people. Four million mouths to feed, four million people who need jobs, four million people who need a home. Four million is the number of people who flocked into Britain from 1700 to 1800. Due to the industrial revolution, my home was being flooded with more and more people each day. The agricultural revolution, which began the industrial revolution, produced a surplus of food, initiating the population increase. At first it was nice to have some new neighbors, and the extra food was great, but the only problem is that the people will not stop coming. We only had so much extra food, and now that we are out, people are left starving in the streets. Everyday I see a new horror, whether it be the crowded slums, the starving families, children begging for money, and even sick peasants dying in the streets; just waiting to be put out of their misery. In 1798 I published An Essay on the Principle of Population, It goes into further detail about my beliefs, like how population growth will outpace food supply. The more people there are, the more people that need to be fed. Even those who are willing to work will find no job because they are already full. At this point coming to Britain is practically a death sentence, death by famine that is. The Industrial Revolution has certainly not positively impacted all the citizens because everyday I see more and more people gathered in the streets, basking in their own misery. I would advise that anyone who seeks happiness and hopes to live a long life go elsewhere because it will not be found here.
Quarter 2: Assignment 1
Karl Marx (K. Gammino)
To many, Europe's Industrial Revolution benefitted most people in a positive way. Being a person with communistic views, I believe that everybody is eternally equal. The Industrial Revolution most definetley did benefit Europe technologically. At this time, the working class was indeed working. Citizens of Europe were working long, hard hours in dangerous environments. While they are risking their lives, at the same time they are fighting to keep their families alive. The class system at the time consisted of classes, factory and mill owners and everyone else. As the pyramid went down, so did the quality of life. The proletariat, or working class, will be triumphant. Workers will take control of production and set up a classless system. After this, wealth and power will be shared among all class lines! If the industrial revolution positively impacted all class lines, how come workers are still not being recognized for their hard, dangerous work? While workers are busy putting their lives at risk, owners of factories and mills are not contributing to the work. People of Europe need ultimate change. In this day in age, if you own a company, you are above all. The Industrial Revolution did not benefit ALL people of Europe in a positive way.
To many, Europe's Industrial Revolution benefitted most people in a positive way. Being a person with communistic views, I believe that everybody is eternally equal. The Industrial Revolution most definetley did benefit Europe technologically. At this time, the working class was indeed working. Citizens of Europe were working long, hard hours in dangerous environments. While they are risking their lives, at the same time they are fighting to keep their families alive. The class system at the time consisted of classes, factory and mill owners and everyone else. As the pyramid went down, so did the quality of life. The proletariat, or working class, will be triumphant. Workers will take control of production and set up a classless system. After this, wealth and power will be shared among all class lines! If the industrial revolution positively impacted all class lines, how come workers are still not being recognized for their hard, dangerous work? While workers are busy putting their lives at risk, owners of factories and mills are not contributing to the work. People of Europe need ultimate change. In this day in age, if you own a company, you are above all. The Industrial Revolution did not benefit ALL people of Europe in a positive way.
Young Coal Miner (Alec Gannon) - Period 5. Industrial Revolution
Young Coal Miner (Alec Gannon)
It's dark. It's difficult to breathe. And we are injury prone. It's would say that this is all worth the change. I want to do what a normal 12 year old boy would do, but I cant. That's not the reality of this situation. The reality of being a coal miner is that I am only 12 and I am already guessing how long I will live as a result of the coal dust destroying my lungs.The idea of mining is fairly new, not because I am only 12 years of age, but because of this Industrial Revolution. I have been told that miners will be revolutionary in innovating society and means of travel, and I have come to believe this as well. To say that my occupation, along with the entire Industrial Revolution, will positively impact many citizens is true, but to say it will positively impact coal miners is in no way true. The pay is not worth the working conditions that us miners must overcome. Abraham Darby decided to use coal rather than iron to smelt iron, and use this better-quality iron for parts of steam engines and bridges. Darby says that this new method of using coal with change the world, although I'm still not sure if that is worth seeing people die everyday while working. As Darby's ideas and the production of coal became more successful, more miners were hired. I usually work with the women, carting heavy carts of coal, or climbing ladders with baskets of coal. I yearn for the day that I can work with the men; I should be yearning for the day I can leave. I recently witness an explosion in which 11 people died, one of them being only 7 years old. Are these innocent children not too young to being involved in such a dangerous job? There remain children less than 10 years old being exposed to these gruesome deaths, yet we all continue to work. This Industrial Revolution clearly does not positively affect all of the people, as miners are traumatized, injured, and sometimes killed; although, what us miners do will benefit most.
Monday, November 11, 2013
karl marx-industrial revolution
Karl Marx (Spencer Taylor)
Well hello,
Some may say that Europe's Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens in a positive way. I completely disagree. Although the Industrial revolution may have made progress technologically speaking, it made zero progress in the well being of the vast majority of the human race. The structure of the Industrial Revolution is like a pyramid; on top you have the big boss company owners, and then as you get lower and lower you get all the people who are working for basically slave labor. I am a firm believer in communism, everyone is equal, so the capitalistic nature of the Industrial Revolution is completely against my beliefs. The only people who benefited from the Industrial Revolution are the business owners, the people who work in their factories were treated unfairly. The living conditions of these workers are truly appalling, they work strenuous hours, for little pay; barely enough to support their family. Not only do they work very hard long hours, it is very dangerous work, yet they still make nothing like the owners of these factories. So tell me, what makes the owners any more important or special than any of the people who actually work to provide the profit for the owners. NOTHING! Everyone should be treated and payed equally, that is the way of the future and the only way to achieve equal happiness.
Goodbye
-Karl Marx
Well hello,
Some may say that Europe's Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens in a positive way. I completely disagree. Although the Industrial revolution may have made progress technologically speaking, it made zero progress in the well being of the vast majority of the human race. The structure of the Industrial Revolution is like a pyramid; on top you have the big boss company owners, and then as you get lower and lower you get all the people who are working for basically slave labor. I am a firm believer in communism, everyone is equal, so the capitalistic nature of the Industrial Revolution is completely against my beliefs. The only people who benefited from the Industrial Revolution are the business owners, the people who work in their factories were treated unfairly. The living conditions of these workers are truly appalling, they work strenuous hours, for little pay; barely enough to support their family. Not only do they work very hard long hours, it is very dangerous work, yet they still make nothing like the owners of these factories. So tell me, what makes the owners any more important or special than any of the people who actually work to provide the profit for the owners. NOTHING! Everyone should be treated and payed equally, that is the way of the future and the only way to achieve equal happiness.
Goodbye
-Karl Marx
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Quarter 2 - Assignment 1: Assigned 11/11; Post by 11/13; Comment twice by 11/15
As a reminder, below is a list of the characters that were assigned in class last week. If you were absent and did not receive a name for the upcoming assignments, it is your responsibility to email me to get your character's name before beginning this assignments. Due dates will apply to everyone.
1. Jeremy Bentham
2. Herbert Spencer
3. Friedrich Engels
4. Thomas Malthus
5. Robert Owen
6. Karl Marx
7. David Riccardo
8. Adam Smith
9. Factory Worker (London)
10. Woman worker in a textile mill (London)
11. Young boy coal minerPrompt: React to the following statement in no less 10 sentences.
Europe's Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens in a positive way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)