INDUSTRIALIZATION HAD MORE LOSERS THAN WINNERS

INDUSTRIALIZATION HAD MORE LOSERS THAN WINNERS

            The huge expansion in the manufacturing sector since industrial revolution was as a result of the increased knowledge in the production sector. However, all the benefits stunningly went disproportionately to the unskilled labour. Capital owners, innovators, land owners and human capital owners all realized modest gains, or no gain at all from such advances. The unskilled workers, specific women experienced enormous benefits. Comparing the number of people who were negatively affected by the trend with the few who benefited, concluding that the losers of industrial revolution were more than the winners won’t be challenged

Modern growth was driven by the people who came up with new knowledge. But mostly, the knowledge creators did not reap many benefits from it. It was spilled out, and ended up rewarding the rest of the factors which cooperated in the production process (Harley, 160). In general, the ultimate incident technological advancement benefits could have been either with land, capital, or with unskilled labor contingent to the elasticity gauge while supplying the factors.

Since industrialization recorded none of its income gains to the capital owners, the rental of capital remained just to be the real interest rate. But the rate of real interest has been declining since the era of industrial revolution, because the capital stock has recorded a huge growth (Harley, 160). The stock of capital has been expanding indefinitely. And has even grown faster compared to the total incomes a scenario which has maintained the real returns per unit capital low. Since the human capital returns are expected to be in line with physical capital returns in any competitive economy, skilled workers gains have been limited (Mokyr, 69).

Ricardo, who was the first economist focusing explicitly on income distribution, he had foreseen a future where land rents were supposed to increase relatively to the capital returns and wages in the case where population was to increase, because land remained to be a fixed production factor. But just like the case of capital, no gains showed up to the owners of land (Mokyr, 69).

Soon after industrial revolution period set in, the question on machinery also became a debatable matter. Because definitely the labor demand was to be affected largely, and indeed it was. Ricardo, who initially had defended the adoption of machinery as a benefiting factor to the economy, he came up with a contrasting model in 1821 stating that some of the machines would encourage unemployment. This actually came to pass when a large number of employees lost their jobs and livelihoods early twentieth century when industrial revolution was beginning (Crafts, 745).

Many tasks which were being performed by human beings were replaced by the machines like threshing of grains. Staple winter occupations which used to absorb more than a quarter of the total agricultural labor requirement were also mechanized. This resulted to much more people joining the unemployment sector which also turned to increased suffering and poverty at low class level. It for that reason that unlike in United States of America, very few charities were realized from England (Crafts, 745)

To sum up, industrial revolution cannot be seen to have resulted into greater fortunes especially to the people at the low class level. This is because; it almost left a large number of people unemployed and hence increasing poverty and suffering. To some states like the USA, for some reason industrial revolution created greater fortunes to people as it led to increased incomes, reduced commodity prices and changed the standards of living greatly. However, when comparing the two sides, losers and winners, the losers were many hence having the right to conclude that Industrial Revolution had more losers than winners.

Work cited

Harley, C. Knick. “Reassessing the industrial revolution: a macro view.” The British Industrial       Revolution. Routledge, 2018. 160-205.

Mokyr, Joel. “Is there still life in the pessimist case? consumption during the industrial       revolution, 1790—1850.” The Journal of Economic History 48.1 (2014): 69-92.

Crafts, Nicholas FR. “Exogenous or endogenous growth? The industrial revolution            reconsidered.” The Journal of Economic History 55.4 (2015): 745-772.