Factories Quotes



At Potsdam the Allies had called for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese and reiterated what had been allied policy that the surrender must be unconditional. Even after the Hiroshima bombing, the Japanese military cabinet voted not to surrender. After the second atomic bomb, the Emperor decided to surrender, but even then there was an attempted military coup to prevent that. Fortunately, the coup failed. We did not have any more atomic bombs immediately ready and it would have taken months to construct more.


He in that same year then persuaded sympathetic MP, John Hobhouse, to introduce the first bill into the House of Commons regulating child labor in the mills. Considered radical in its day, forbade employment of children under the age of 9 from working in the mills, and then limited the hours that children from 9 to 18 to 12 hours a day. The bill was rejected with the same claims that have been made regarding child labor reform attempts ever since. It would slow growth, harm the economy, exacerbate the poverty of poor families and interfere with the parents right to bring up their children. It was not until after his death in 1861 that meaningful child labor laws were passed for the British mills.


It is hard for us today to appreciate the 17th-20th centuries elites’ intense focus on child labor, but the abuses were horrible. Men and women like Schopenhauer would personally observe them every day. These quotes give us a historical feel for that issue, There has been so much reform, that almost all the abuses in modern times are in poorer countries which we do not get to see or experience—especially in the way that Schopenhauer did.


The left has always been ambivalent about automation. Many object to it on the grounds that it puts men out of work. However, others such as Lafage, argued that automation was the only economic way to reform the working hours and conditions of labor. The problem at the time was that as long as labor was so cheap, there was no motivation for the manufacturer to invest in better machinery. He and many others argued that minimum wages and their increases increase productivity because it would force manufacturers to invest in more productive equipment to reduce their labor costs.


Virtually every advance for the working class in England (and the other countries including America) was labeled “socialism” by the conservative economic factions of the time. However, socialists were strong advocates of all these economic reforms and even in the 19th century their impact was recognized.


The automobile assembly lines of Detroit, had been planned to be converted to factories to produce a huge supply of planes, tanks, trucks and guns which were instrumental in winning the Second World War.


Earlier, Jefferson was opposed to manufacturing in America as factories were a social blight in Europe which he wanted to keep out of the United States. He felt that we could import whatever we needed from Europe and not have the evils of industrialization. However, with the War of 1812, the Barbary Pirates and his mellowing when no longer President, and his willingness to change his positions as he learned more, he issued this letter. See another the following year: {615634}. His was considered such an important change of position—today we would accuse him of a flip flop— that other journals and periodicals reprinted the letter and commented upon his change. Despite his changed position, most Americans believe that Jefferson was opposed to manufacturing and industrialization for his entire life—not just the first part.


After the civil war there was a concerted effort to shape American opinion away from the notion that the Civil War has mainly about slavery which we now know was a false notion. Slavery was the only significant issue for both sides. This quotation is cited by many who argue that the prospect of the end of slavery was tantamount to economic confiscation and impoverishment for the slave owning minority and hence it drove them to rebellion. Also, Davis and others argue that the value of the slaves was so great that there was no possible economic way to compensate the slave owners for emancipation at fair market value which was why that “compromise” never went anywhere.