Iv’e read the Austrian argument that these kids were actually starving if they didn’t work. But what of the argument here
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/industrial_revolution_provides
of dangerous conditions, 19 hour days? That’s what they teach one in school.
Any links clarifying this?
Its… its the onion. The onion is satire.
Basic Praxeology: You wouldn’t do something if it didn’t benefit you in some way. So you wouldn’t work a 19 hour shift if you thought your life would be worse with it.
History: Child labor was on the decline for years before FDR finally outlawed it under pressure from White Male unionists who didn’t want the competition.
No one thought it was extortion when you worked on a farm with your parents 60 hours per week as soon as you were able. Why do people think its extortion to work for (on average) double wages at 48 hours per week?
Sorry for double post, but reduction to the absurd:
If a capitalist employer gains say 2x more than he pays you for your labor, we’ll call that extortion.
If I went to the future, and worked in some factory where I could earn the modern equivalent of six figures to operate some machine working 30 hours a week, that would be awesome. But it would be extortion if the owner only paid me half of what I was producing. Liberals still be b*tchin’
Capital investment makes the extortion theory of wages moot.
The best presentation I’ve encountered about the IR was by Robert LeFevre, in a 4-part lecture which you can find here.
Not only is it extremely informative, but LeFevre has an amazing, folksy, grandfatherly voice and rhetorical style. Quite an entertaining piece, but the info it contains really needs to be transcribed. Maybe I’ll get around to that one of these days.
TY for the link. Work cut out for me now [;)]