“You can’t reasonably use early 19th century England as an example of free markets.”
Really? If they weren’t free markets, then what was? Laissez faire was official policy at the time, especially early in the century.
Is your argument that “perfectly free” markets have never existed, and thus can never be criticized? That’s just a cheap debating trick; the inverse would be to claim that “perfectly free” statism has never existed, and thus statism is only deficient because it’s not extreme enough. It’s equally nonsense in either case. There were less governmental restrictions on labor markets in early nineteenth century England than nearly anywhere else, ever. You’re going to have to use historical evidence if you’d like to refute that.
so long as there is no alternative on the market, firms productivity will suffer under monopoly and there will be even greater poverty.
also from the book:
The masters’ spokesmen maintained that economic and social evils were bound to follow any attempt to interfere with the labour market. Shortened working hours could only result in the triumph of foreign competition, producing lower wages and unemployment.
Notably, none of that actually happened. In fact, banning child labor raised wages for adults, allowing (“social evils” such as) adults being able to support their own children without sending them off to work in factories. Increased wages also encouraged investment in capital - you know - “capitalism.”
You are the one making the assertion that 19th century england was laissez faire. The only evidence you offered is from a bleeding heart speech at a court trial. Thanks. We already know that leftist rhetoric exists.
In order to prove this is a free market failure you need to A) show the extent of which self ownership and homesteading were respected, and B) show that THESE RIGHTS lead to bad outcomes. You haven’t done either.
It was childish of you to think you could dismiss free markets in one stroke. Thousands of people have studied history and economics their entire careers and come out in favor of free markets, communism/socialism, monarchy etc. You cannot destroy any political or economic system so easily. The proponents of all schools have sophisticated rebuttals ready for all points made regularly against them.
I didn’t say foreign labor markets would win. I said that if monopolies are the root cause of poor working conditions, nothing will ever get better if you don’t break the monopoly. I.e. treat the cause, not the symptom. The extortionists will still be in power, albeit producing less goods and services.
Make with the evidence. This is empty lip service. Moreover, anything could happen on the market at any time. Its an empirical phenomenon with many different factors, most of them unknown. You have to default to theory in order to make sense of economic arrangements, otherwise you’re left concluding that a decrease in the number of pirates at sea causes labor markets to strengthen… I would speculate that englands economy would continue to become more robust in spite of labor laws. Because I have theory.
Rothbard talks about how the minimum wage causes capital structures to over mechanize. Is capital investment good a priori? No. You have to make a cost benefit analysis on the market.
Child labor was banned because adults didn’t want to compete with children for jobs. Real wages went up because worker productivity increased through captial and technology. That capital accumulation was realized by people (including children) working 12 hours a day.
A child + a man could get more work done than the man alone. Would barring the child from working increase economic productivity? Would it make it easier to accumulate capital? The fact of the matter is, increased productivity allowed the family to be able to afford children who didn’t work. The labor laws thwarted the realization of this state of affairs. Capital accumulation and technological progress allowed us to realize the better state of affairs.
Saying that labor laws made things better for people in general is like saying that a law that made it illegal to drink cyanide kept them from drinking it.