Banjo
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Peter Hume,

The reason things improved regarding the health of the population was a direct consequence of controls instituted by the government. If the status quo had prevailed, there would have been dire consequences in the longer term for the psychological and physical well-being of the workforce.

The effect of the industrial revolution was initially to debase conditions amenable to human well-being. It was the experience of witnessing a rapid decline in these areas that spurred those in authority to act in an attempt to assuage the damage - it was "only" then that the industrial juggernaut was able resume its course.

Btw - I know you like posing questions, however, there is no requirement for me to comply with your particular method of engagement.

"...there would have been dire consequences in the longer term for the psychological and physical well-being of the workforce."

As proved by you assuming it in the first place.

"The effect of the industrial revolution was initially to debase conditions amenable to human well-being."

The unprecedented rise in population was just a strange coincidence I suppose?

"It was the experience of witnessing a rapid decline in these areas that spurred those in authority to act in an attempt to assuage the damage - it was "only" then that the industrial juggernaut was able resume its course."

If the authorities could make wealth out of nothing just by passing laws, why didn't they do it before capitalism came along?

"Btw - I know you like posing questions, however, there is no requirement for me to comply with your particular method of engagement."

No, circularity being all the proof you require apparently.

Peter, Hume,

I haven't "assumed" anything - it's you who assumes without studying the detail of the times.

Here's some more "emotive" information

From William Cobbett (1824):

"What, then must be the situation of the poor creatures who are doomed to toil day after day, for three hundred and thirteen days in the year, fourteen hours in each day, in an average of eighty-two degrees?
...Not only is there not a breath of sweet air in these truly infernal scenes, but for a large part of the time, there is the abominable and pernicious stink of the gas to assist in the murderous effects of the heat. In addition to the noxious effluvia of the gas, mixed with the steam, there are the dust, and what is called cotton-flyings, or fuz, which the unfortunate creatures have to inhale; and the fact is, the notorious fact is, that well constitutioned men are rendered old and past labour at forty years of age and that children are rendered decrepit and deformed, and thousands upon thousands of them slaughtered by consumptions, before they arrive at the age of sixteen."

This, from Edwin Chadwick's report on sanitation in the towns (1842)
(in comparing arrangements to regimental camps and quarters)

"The towns whose populations never change their encampment, have no such care, and whilst the houses, streets, courts, lanes, and streams are polluted and rendered pestilential, the civic officers have generally contented themselves with the most barbarous expedients, or sit still amid the pollution..."

On housing from the Lord's Sessional Papers (1842):

""The chief rents differ materially according to the situation, but are in all cases high; and thus arises the inducement to pack houses so close. They are built back to back, without ventilation or drainage; and like a honeycomb, every particle of space is occupied. double rows of these houses form courts,with perhaps, a pump at one end and a privy at the other, common to the occupants of about twenty houses."

.

Dear Peter,

.

I have no particular point to make. I simply thought you might be interested in viewing the film of inequality over a period of time rather than just looking at the latest snapshots.

This was in relation to your comment that democracy was "highly redistributionist", a fair measure of redistribution of wealth being the degree of inequality as indicated by the Gini index.

The latest snapshot pictures of inequality, apart from a few notable exceptions (e.g., South Africa), confirm that democracy is, indeed, more redistributionist than other political regimes.

The advantage of viewing the film of inequality over a period of time is that it allows us to see the evolution leading up to the latest snapshot and gauge the future tendancy. The film indicates that in India, the world's largest democracy, inequality is increasing (i.e., redistribution is less effective) whereas in the USA inequality following redistribution remains stable.

Over the same period, inequality in China, which is the world's largest non-democratic country, is improving and looks like it could soon become a more egalitarian country than the USA. In other words, the non-democratic political regime of China could perhaps prove more highly redistributionist than American democracy.

The same evolution towards lower inequality (following redistribution) can be observed in Russia, which, for all intents and purposes, perhaps you will agree, may be considered as having a non-democratic political regime;

I should add that it is also interesting to note that the Gini cefficient for Australia has remained stable at 35.2 over the same period (from 2000 to 2007), like that of the USA.

While we like to think of ourselves as enjoying a particularly egalitarian society in Australia, in reality, we only arrive in 40th position in the hit parade according to the Gini index, the most egalitarian country being Denmark with a coefficient of inequality of 24.7

I hope I have clarified that for you, Peter.

.

John Fielden was a factory owner and the M.P. for Oldham in Lancashire. He was a leading advocate for factory reform and is known for his widely read pamphlet "The Curse of the Factory System", written in 1836.
Here is an excerpt titled "Dismal Solitudes of Torture":

"It may not be amiss to inquire how it came to pass originally, that, in England, always boasting of her humanity, laws were necessary in order to protect little children from the cruelties of the master-manufacturers, and even from their parents.
....The custom was for the master to clothe his apprentices, and to feed and lodge them in an "apprentice house" near the factory; overseers were appointed to see to the works, whose interest it was to work the children to the utmost, because their pay was in proportion to the quantity of work that they could exact. Cruelty was, of course, the consequence; and there is abundant evidence on record, and preserved in the recollections of some who still live, to show, that, in many of the manufacturing districts, but particularly, I am afraid, in the guilty county to which I belong, cruelties the most heart-rending were practised upon the unoffending and friendless creatures who were thus consigned to the charge of master-manufacturers; that they were harassed to the brink of death by excess labour, that they were flogged, fettered, and tortured in the most exquisite refinement of cruelty; that they were, in many cases, starved to the bone while flogged in their work, and that even in some instances, they were driven to commit suicide to evade the cruelties of the world...."

John Fielden was a parliamentary sponsor of the 1847 Factory Act which was also known as the Ten Hours Act which restricted the working hours of women and children to ten hours a day. It had been introduced as a bill in Parliament a year before in 1846, but was defeated by a coalition of Conservatives and free traders....