pull down to refresh

Great points. It's hard (maybe impossible) to disentangle all these factors when evaluating major historical events.
There's a perspective, based on revealed preference, that says people preferred the industrial cities, however harsh and ugly they were. Otherwise they wouldn't have moved there. As you point out that misses the contribution of a political act that forced them into the cities. The Enclosure Act is a tricky one to evaluate from a property rights perspective and requires more nuance than it's usually given.
We in developed economies obviously think of that kind of child labor as horrific, but I don't know how to weigh it against other similarly developed economies. If you look around the world today, there are many poor places where kids have to work in horrible conditions or face starvation. That said, however much worse the Industrial Revolution made that should be counted on the cost side of the ledger.
In general, when politicians attempt to accelerate (or decelerate) historical trends, it's going to make the transition more costly than it needed to be.
reply
deleted by author
reply
To me that primarily means keeping their thumbs off the scales. If the powerful don't get to use the state to force everyone else into enriching them, then the natural dynamics will unfold in a way that benefits a wide swath of the population.
The analogy to the industrial revolution would be if people hadn't been forced from land they had legitimate claims to. In that counterfactual, industrialization would have occurred less rapidly and people would have moved to the cities only when it offered them legitimately better opportunities. It's easy to speculate that part of that would be in the form of less horrible working conditions.
reply