[Nunt]

- in an-cap society there is no mandated wealth transfer, no minimum wage, etc...
- this means most of the people will be too poor to afford health care insurance

There are various levels of healthcare some of which the poor will be able to afford and some of which the poor will not be able to afford. It makes no sense to look at healthcare through are "all or nothing" view. Healthcare is a heterogeneous product. I am fairly optimistic that poor people will still get affordable health care. Once government monopolies and regulations get out of the way you'll probably notice that a 15 min doctor's examination which ends in prescribing a pill that costs 1 cent to make isn't going to be very costly.

- the an-cap answer to this is charity

- the rich pay for charity

The top 1% aren't the only source of charity, nor are they the only form of charity. Charity can be vertical: rich to poor. Charity can be horizontal: from middle to middle or from poor to poor. For example regular people can organize health care through mutual insurance organizations, membership associations and cooperatives.

- the rich decide what kind of charity will be available to the poor

As for all consumer goods and services, the super-rich aren't the corporations best costumers. Sure, super-rich will spend a lot of money per capita, but there's millions of middle class and lower class consumers. These consumers are by far the most important group. These consumers will be the main source of income for the hospitals. And it will be to these consumer's preferences that hospitals will cater to. Which company do you think will be the most powerful: a company that makes cheap electronic devices or a company that builds million dollar yachts?

- the rich ultimately employ a great number of people, they may decide to have recruiters discriminate against people who've had abortions (no anti-discrimination legislation exists), or make them pay a fine before they can be hired (which means only wealthy people would have abortions because only they can afford the consequences of getting found out)

The rich are not a single entity. They're still millions of individuals who act individually. So it seems unlikely that the rich will act as one block. Some rich will be against abortion, some rich will not be against it. This is the advantage of a decentralized system. You will probably always find someone who shares your ideas.

Furthermore, the rich are not the only employers. Pension funds and insurance companies are typically investors of many billions of dollars. These are not the savings accounts of the super rich but the aggregate savings of millions of middle and lower class people.

Finally, it would be very dangerous for a company to try and uphold unpopular morals. The end of the production chain are the consumer goods. The large majority of consumer goods are not bought by the super-rich. They are bought by regular consumers. So unless you are a yacht building company, your source of income will be regular consumers. Those may choose to avoid or boycott your company. So if you piss people off by doing stuff they find injust, they'll stop buying your stuff and you will loose your super-rich status fast enough.

[Rothbardian]

How far do my land rights reach?

If a farmer tills the soil he is actively engaged with the top foot of land.
What if minerals or other resources are discovered under the field? Does the farmer own them by default or does he own the access rights via the surface of his field? What if someone attempted to tunnel under his land from a neighboring property in order to build a road or railway?

Currently land rights in Malaysia extend to the centre of the Earth, in Japan they reach 50 meters from the property.

You have a right to what you actually use. What this means as far as tunneling under my property in a libertarian society is that you can do so, but if your actions damage my property at all then I can come after you for damages.

The way this differs from a statist system is only that if the person tunneling or wanting to use my property can simply put on a badge or stand in front of a flag while destroying my property and I have no recourse.

[Eran]

They couldn't compete with the efficiency of mass-production which, by definition, restricts the ratio of employers to employees.

Of course not. Neither could small businesses. But you can easily be self-employed as a taxi driver, a gardener or a cleaner, not to mention a lawyer or a web designer.

Because the same logic does not apply to farmers since they've no incentive to drive down wages and working conditions of consumers (except their own employees).

Farmers have an interest in driving up food prices. We all depend critically on food grown by farmers. Why aren't they charging the most people can afford for food?

Nothing supports the assertion re wages at market clearing level, which is patently false as wages at market clearing level often involve appalling conditions.

Not really. Very few Americans work at minimum wage jobs. That means that the vast majority of Americans would earn above minimum wage in a free market. The conditions involved may not be ideal, but wouldn't necessarily be "appalling". Freed from a web of government restrictions and taxes, living (and working) conditions would get much better.

Any counter-evidence that doesn't come from a biased source? You only have to look at actual legislation of conditions existing more than a century after industrialisation had obviated rural production.

You were making a positive claim regarding conditions. Please provide any evidence (from an unbiased source!). Alternatively, explain how the history of legislation provides any evidence in support of your assertions.

They pretty much could as you go down the labour market, were it not for rules preventing it.

The less skilled the worker, the easier he is to replace, but also the easier it is for him to find a new employer.

As soon as workers have some skills, if only on-the-job experience, replacing them becomes more expensive. You cannot stay competitive for long if your policies cause faster employee turnover while your competitors treat their employees decently, and retain them for longer.

See, this is what the mass of people you need to convince know to be untrue from their own experience.

How do you know? My personal experience has been very positive with each of the dozen or so firms that employed me over the years. So has the experience of most people I know.

A parliamentary coalition government consists of competing interests and its membership is liquid. A group of the biggest, most powerful companies/billionaires would de-facto rule an anarcho-capitalist society, sure membership of this illustrous group (which may be prone to cartel formation, which, though unstable, may still be profitable) will be liquid and the members will have competing interests but you're not getting rid of them by buying the services of a non-member company anymore than you get rid of a parliamentary government by voting for an opposition party or having one party leave the coalition, to be replaced by one that was formerly part of the opposition

I want to challenge the bolded claim. When I buy services from a non-member company, I get precisely the services I paid for, from the company I chose.

When I vote for an opposition party, I am still stuck with the "services" provided by the one, ruling coalition.

The coalition may have multiple parties, but decisions ultimately boil down to a single decision-maker. The Minister of Education sets one education policy, regardless of which party he happens to be from. There is only one budget. Only one set of tax rules. Only one supreme court, etc.

Money = power (money literally means control over natural resources and labor).

Be careful there. In our current society, there is no doubt that money buys power. You can use money to buy political influence, and politicians have real power (often life-and-death) over their subjects.

In an an-cap society, money allows you to buy things - services, products, land, labour. But each time you buy something, the person from whom you purchase has to value the money you pay them more than the property (or time and labour) they are giving up.

You can only get people to do your will by persuading them that they are better off that way. You cannot force anybody to do anything. Your power has a very different character than political power.

- in an-cap society there is no mandated wealth transfer, no minimum wage, etc...

Correct.

- this means most of the people will be too poor to afford health care insurance

Why? On the contrary. Without oppressive regulations, health care would be much more affordable. Without suffocating taxes, people's available income would be much greater. Without a web of restricting regulations, starting a new business would be much easier, hence strengthening the relative power of employees vs. employers.

- the an-cap answer to this is charity

That's one answer. Mutual aid is another. Self help is the best answer.

From a different perspective, if by "charity" we mean "one-sided transfer of resources from better off to the needy, based on a desire to help the latter", than charity is what the welfare state is based on. Democracies pay welfare precisely because their citizens want the poor helped. That desire to help the poor would only strengthen, not weaken, in an anarchy.

- the rich pay for charity

Wrong again. The rich pay more, per person, but not necessarily in the aggregate.

- the rich may decide not to build charitable hospitals for the poor (which means no affordable abortions)

"The rich" isn't a single person. In today's US, for example, wealthy people are as likely to be Republican (or anti-abortion) as they are to be Democrat (or pro-choice). It is enough that a small number of Soros's (or a larger number of pro-choice activists) donate money to build affordable clinics.

- the rich ultimately employ a great number of people, they may decide to have recruiters discriminate against people who've had abortions (no anti-discrimination legislation exists), or make them pay a fine before they can be hired (which means only wealthy people would have abortions because only they can afford the consequences of getting found out)

Wrong on several levels. First, much employment is provided by widely-owned public corporations on the one hand, and small businesses on the other. Neither category is particularly owned by the rich. Second, businesses who discriminate are at a competitive disadvantage relative to businesses who don't discriminate. Effectively, discriminating business-owners are paying the cost of discrimination out of their own pockets.

While it is possible that some people will choose to do so, the suggestion that something like abortion could be (1) popular enough that under a democracy it would be legal, but (2) have a significant fraction of business owners willing to pay (out of their own pocket - not that of voters and taxpayers) to penalise those who underwent abortion seems unlikely.

The richest companies and billionaires could even use violence, sure they couldn't shoot people but they could use hunger as a weapon (just block food transports on the roads owned by the richest companies and billionaires), like African warlords do to beat populations into submission.

They cannot do so, any more than a democratically-elected President can order the army to blockade a town (or even a democratically-elected legislature legislate the same).

At the end of the day, the nominal powers of a government are much greater than those of private individuals or groups in an anarchy. The only thing that stops government from abusing those powers (more than they already do) is the weight of public sentiment.

The weight of public sentiment is much more effective in an anarchy than in a democracy. In the latter, the public is heard every few years, and a minority, even a sizeable minority, can often be ignored with impunity. A solid majority can ignore the interests and wishes of, say, a 20% minority. In an anarchy, people speak (with their wallets) every day. And no company can afford to alienate 20% of the buying public while its competitors do not.

[SueDeNîmes]

They couldn't compete with the efficiency of mass-production which, by definition, restricts the ratio of employers to employees.

Of course not. Neither could small businesses. But you can easily be self-employed as a taxi driver, a gardener or a cleaner, not to mention a lawyer or a web designer.

But not "many more millions" as you claimed. Then it would rapidly become impossible and most would be back accepting terms dictated by a few employers for reasons inherent in mass-production.

Farmers have an interest in driving up food prices. We all depend critically on food grown by farmers. Why aren't they charging the most people can afford for food?

Mainly because they couldn't defend their farms from expropriation. Also for the same reason wage labourers aren't dictating wages : surplus supply.

Not really. Very few Americans work at minimum wage jobs. That means that the vast majority of Americans would earn above minimum wage in a free market. The conditions involved may not be ideal, but wouldn't necessarily be "appalling". Freed from a web of government restrictions and taxes, living (and working) conditions would get much better.

And since wage labour isn't unique to modern America, this hardly addresses my comment.

You were making a positive claim regarding conditions. Please provide any evidence (from an unbiased source!). Alternatively, explain how the history of legislation provides any evidence in support of your assertions.

The Factory Acts were forced through a century and more after industrialisation began. The first restricted childrens' working to 12 hrs a day, still nearly twice those worked by rural children. Subsequent Acts mandated food breaks every 9 hours, then one half day rest per week, safety guards on machinery to which limbs and lives were frequently lost, and prohibited the physical shackling of indentured 'pauper apprentices' who tried to run away. Appalling conditions. The legislation was precipitated by running strikes, sometimes devolving into pitched battles, and (the first) two general strikes. The opposition of factory owners is also a matter of historical record from Parliamentary debate and leaflets they published (appealing to property rights and 'the free market').

If your positive claim that conditions improved simply through productivity were true, none of it would have happened.

The less skilled the worker, the easier he is to replace, but also the easier it is for him to find a new employer.

Barring full employment, that's self-contradictory.

As soon as workers have some skills, if only on-the-job experience, replacing them becomes more expensive. You cannot stay competitive for long if your policies cause faster employee turnover while your competitors treat their employees decently, and retain them for longer.

So long as there are willing and able unemployed, you can do just that. In fact you can be even more competitive by dodging the issue altogether, hiring ad hoc and zero hours contracting - increasingly common forms of "employment"

How do you know? My personal experience has been very positive with each of the dozen or so firms that employed me over the years. So has the experience of most people I know.

But you live in a world with democratic protections. If most people believed they weren't necessary, it wouldn't even be an issue.

[Eran]

But not "many more millions" as you claimed. Then it would rapidly become impossible and most would be back accepting terms dictated by a few employers for reasons inherent in mass-production.

Who knows how many people can find productive employment in lines that require modest amounts of capital? More and more, I would say, as we transition from an industrial to a knowledge and service economy.

Mainly because they couldn't defend their farms from expropriation. Also for the same reason wage labourers aren't dictating wages : surplus supply.

Hold on. What expropriation? Why aren't farmers merely raising food prices by, say, 10%? Surely that wouldn't cause mass expropriation?

As for your second point, it touches on the issue. Whether or not there is surplus supply depends on the price level (or wage level, in the case of labour). IF there is "surplus supply" of labour, wages are too high. At the market-clearing level, by definition, there is no surplus of labour. At that level, employers lose any advantage they had over employees, as the supply of labour matches the demand.

At that level, an employer who tries to exploit his workers (in the sense of offering worse conditions than the norm) will be penalised by losing his workers.

The Factory Acts were forced through a century and more after industrialisation began. The first restricted childrens' working to 12 hrs a day, still nearly twice those worked by rural children.

Do you have any reference relating to your statement regarding the hours worked by rural children?

Subsequent Acts mandated food breaks every 9 hours, then one half day rest per week, safety guards on machinery to which limbs and lives were frequently lost, and prohibited the physical shackling of indentured 'pauper apprentices' who tried to run away. Appalling conditions.

The only children being shackled were orphans under government care.

And while the conditions may have been appalling by modern standards, or even by the standards of the middle and upper classes who voted for Parliament, the Factory Acts in and by themselves don't indicate in any way that the conditions were any worse

If your positive claim that conditions improved simply through productivity were true, none of it would have happened.

How do you know? Most people today work under conditions which are much better than the minimum legal requirements. How do you explain that?

The less skilled the worker, the easier he is to replace, but also the easier it is for him to find a new employer.

Barring full employment, that's self-contradictory.

An economy can persist in a situation in which there isn't full employment, yet there are many wanted ads and open positions.

Under market-clearing wages, the number of job seekers and number of jobs available is matched, even if, at any given time, some people are looking for work, while some employers are looking for workers.

In fact you can be even more competitive by dodging the issue altogether, hiring ad hoc and zero hours contracting - increasingly common forms of "employment"

I don't think I understand what you mean here.

[Pants-of-dog]

You have a right to what you actually use.

Let's say you spend a day digging a tunnel. That night you go home. In the morning, you find I have placed an apple in the tunnel. I am now using it for storage.

Is the tunnel now mine? I assume so, since I started using it after you finished using it.

[SueDeNîmes]

Who knows how many people can find productive employment in lines that require modest amounts of capital? More and more, I would say, as we transition from an industrial to a knowledge and service economy.

Who knows how indebted, underemployed and insecure they'll become trying. Who knows what trade deficits we can rack up meantime.

Hold on. What expropriation? Why aren't farmers merely raising food prices by, say, 10%? Surely that wouldn't cause mass expropriation?

Hold on. You asked "Why aren't they charging the most people can afford for food?" to which my answer stands. Now you're asking why they aren't merely raising food prices by, say, 10%. They sometimes are.

As for your second point, it touches on the issue. Whether or not there is surplus supply depends on the price level (or wage level, in the case of labour). IF there is "surplus supply" of labour, wages are too high. At the market-clearing level, by definition, there is no surplus of labour. At that level, employers lose any advantage they had over employees, as the supply of labour matches the demand.

At that level, an employer who tries to exploit his workers (in the sense of offering worse conditions than the norm) will be penalised by losing his workers.

And since surpluses occur, market clearing is obviously an unrealistic simplifying assumption. Especially for labour, the demand for which is as much a function of demand for its product as its price. But the answer stands assuming market clearing : consumers can bid food prices down for the same reason employers can bid wages and conditions down.

Do you have any reference relating to your statement regarding the hours worked by rural children?

The only children being shackled were orphans under government care.

And while the conditions may have been appalling by modern standards, or even by the standards of the middle and upper classes who voted for Parliament, the Factory Acts in and by themselves don't indicate in any way that the conditions were any worse.

I think I've already argued in bits you've edited out why they do, but you're conceding the original point here anyway. Conditions were appalling before democratic intervention and improved thereupon. Yep, cheers, but not exactly news.

How do you know?

Because people would have been striking, fighting and eventually legislating for conditions they already had. Factory owners would have been protesting and lobbying about... wtf?

Most people today work under conditions which are much better than the minimum legal requirements. How do you explain that?

I'm not sure they do. I've seen plenty of worksites that don't meet minimum legal requirements and far worse in places that barely have legal minimum requirements.

An economy can persist in a situation in which there isn't full employment, yet there are many wanted ads and open positions.

Under market-clearing wages, the number of job seekers and number of jobs available is matched, even if, at any given time, some people are looking for work, while some employers are looking for workers.

But saying "market clearing wages" doesn't mean there's such a thing in the real world. Firms don't hire extraneous labour just because it's cheap. And it wouldn't make what you said true anyway.

I don't think I understand what you mean here.

Marginal employment - ad hoc hiring, sub-sub contracting, zero hours contracting etc - is on the increase. It means what you said about firms not retaining workers being uncompetitive is wrong.

[Eran]

You asked "Why aren't they charging the most people can afford for food?" to which my answer stands. Now you're asking why they aren't merely raising food prices by, say, 10%. They sometimes are.

Why aren't food prices higher than they are now, given that an incremental increase in food prices would serve the interests of the farmer class, a class with much greater power, as I have demonstrated, than the capitalist class?

And since surpluses occur, market clearing is obviously an unrealistic simplifying assumption.

It isn't. Surpluses are easy to explain in the presence of government intervention, including both minimum wage and unemployment compensation.

Especially for labour, the demand for which is as much a function of demand for its product as its price. But the answer stands assuming market clearing : consumers can bid food prices down for the same reason employers can bid wages and conditions down.

Labour isn't different in that respect from any other means of production such as land and raw materials.

Farmers were analogous to employers, customers to employees. In both cases, a relatively numerically small class controls vital resources and thus, by your logic, able to exploit the rest of society.

If consumers can bid food prices down, why can't employees bid wages up?

Conditions were appalling before democratic intervention and improved thereupon.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever, and made only one unsubstantiated statement regarding working hours of rural children.

Because people would have been striking, fighting and eventually legislating for conditions they already had. Factory owners would have been protesting and lobbying about... wtf?

I am asking what mechanism causes employers to offer the vast majority of American employees terms (both wages and others) which are substantially better than the minimum legislated standard.

Let's review your argument. You state that the only reason employers don't drive wages and work conditions down to the floor is the "democratic intervention". The democratic intervention took the form of various labour regulations covering minimum wage, maximum hours, workplace safety, etc.

But if that was the case, we would have seen employers using their position to push down wages and conditions to the legislated minimum.

Instead, we see that the vast majority of employers offer well above the minimum, suggesting that that "democratic intervention" isn't really effective in determining wages for most workers. Rather, wages are determined by supply and demand, a process that would have worked just as well (actually, better) without that "democratic intervention".

I'm not sure they do.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 3% of American workers had wages at or below the Federal minimum wage. Employers thus voluntarily paid 97% of workers more than the legislated minimum. How do you explain that?

But saying "market clearing wages" doesn't mean there's such a thing in the real world. Firms don't hire extraneous labour just because it's cheap.

Various labour regulations make wages only part of the total cost of employing a person. Paying people lower wages thus only partially reduces their cost to the employer. Often, even with minimum wage wages (or possibly even working for free), those labour regulations mean that the cost of employing a person are higher than their marginal contribution to the business.

But obviously, the cheaper labour is, the more firms would be inclined to hire people.

Marginal employment - ad hoc hiring, sub-sub contracting, zero hours contracting etc - is on the increase. It means what you said about firms not retaining workers being uncompetitive is wrong.

That depends on industry and circumstances. Often, those practices are in place to bypass expensive labour regulations which otherwise would have made offering a job impossible.

[Rothbardian]

Let's say you spend a day digging a tunnel. That night you go home. In the morning, you find I have placed an apple in the tunnel. I am now using it for storage.

Is the tunnel now mine? I assume so, since I started using it after you finished using it.

You can assume whatever you want, but you were trespassing and violating my property rights.

[SueDeNîmes]

Why aren't food prices higher than they are now, given that an incremental increase in food prices would serve the interests of the farmer class, a class with much greater power, as I have demonstrated, than the capitalist class?

It isn't. Surpluses are easy to explain in the presence of government intervention, including both minimum wage and unemployment compensation.

Labour isn't different in that respect from any other means of production such as land and raw materials.

Farmers were analogous to employers, customers to employees.

In whose analogy?

In both cases, a relatively numerically small class controls vital resources and thus, by your logic, able to exploit the rest of society.

But it isn't my logic, it's yours.

If consumers can bid food prices down, why can't employees bid wages up?

As I've repeatedly said and you keep editing out, because a) farmers couldn't protect their farms from expropriation if they threatened food supply and b) supply - consumers can bid food prices down for the same reason employers can bid wages and conditions down.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever, and made only one unsubstantiated statement regarding working hours of rural children.

I've repeatedly explained why historical record is evidence and would make absolutely no sense if decent conditions had come about simply through productivity. Each time, you edit a load out and ask why modern Americans don't all earn minimum wage.

I am asking what mechanism causes employers to offer the vast majority of American employees terms (both wages and others) which are substantially better than the minimum legislated standard.

Let's review your argument. [..! STRAWMAN ALERT !..] You state that the only reason employers don't drive wages and work conditions down to the floor is the "democratic intervention".

Garbage. People didn't all earn the same and work in equally terrible conditions before said interventions and you wouldn't expect them to afterwards.

The democratic intervention took the form of various labour regulations covering minimum wage, maximum hours, workplace safety, etc.

But if that was the case, we would have seen employers using their position to push down wages and conditions to the legislated minimum.

Instead, we see that the vast majority of employers offer well above the minimum, suggesting that that "democratic intervention" isn't really effective in determining wages for most workers. Rather, wages are determined by supply and demand, a process that would have worked just as well (actually, better) without that "democratic intervention".

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 3% of American workers had wages at or below the Federal minimum wage. Employers thus voluntarily paid 97% of workers more than the legislated minimum. How do you explain that?

Because MW earners have the least bargaining power and so on up the labour market. Obviously. Move production to someplace workers as a class have fewer potections, hence less bargaing power, and you see the same differentials with worse wages and conditions accross the board. Or move the latter workers to the US and they get US wages and conditions with the same skills and productivity. If this is supposed to contradict something I've said, I suggest reading and responding to what people actually write, preferably in full

Various labour regulations make wages only part of the total cost of employing a person. Paying people lower wages thus only partially reduces their cost to the employer. Often, even with minimum wage wages (or possibly even working for free), those labour regulations mean that the cost of employing a person are higher than their marginal contribution to the business.

That doesn't mean the labour market would otherwise clear before costs exceeded marginal contribution. Firms don't hire extraneous labour just because it's cheap. If an employer can't produce more in safe decent conditions, it's no use blaming safe decent conditions.

But obviously, the cheaper labour is, the more firms would be inclined to hire people.

Obviously not without sufficient demand for the product of their labour.

That depends on industry and circumstances. Often, those practices are in place to bypass expensive labour regulations which otherwise would have made offering a job impossible.

On the contrary, casualisation has occurred with reduced employee protections.

[Eran]

In whose analogy?

In mine.

Let me summarize my analogy:

Capitalists -> Farmers
Workers -> Food Customers
Pressure to lower wages -> Pressure to increase food prices
Monopoly over means of production -> Monopoly over food production
Strong negotiating position due to necessity of employment -> Strong negotiating position due to necessity of food

So you see, all the arguments explaining why capitalists power must be controlled by government action would apply (in greater strength) to "prove" that farmer power must similarly be controlled by government action, perhaps setting maximum food prices (equivalent to minimum wage).

Yet we see that left to the operation of the free market, food production works remarkably well. Doesn't that conclusively prove that the arguments you present for the supposedly malign power of capitalists and employers are invalid?

I've repeatedly explained why historical record is evidence and would make absolutely no sense if decent conditions had come about simply through productivity.

No, you haven't. You have shown that Parliament acted to impose minimal conditions in various Factory Acts. That doesn't show either (1) that factory conditions were necessarily worse than farm conditions, or (2) that conditions wouldn't have improved without government action.

[Pants-of-dog]

You can assume whatever you want, but you were trespassing and violating my property rights.

No. You weren't using it.

[SueDeNîmes]

In whose analogy?

In mine.

Let me summarize my analogy:

Capitalists -> Farmers
Workers -> Food Customers
Pressure to lower wages -> Pressure to increase food prices
Monopoly over means of production -> Monopoly over food production
Strong negotiating position due to necessity of employment -> Strong negotiating position due to necessity of food

So you see, all the arguments explaining why capitalists power must be controlled by government action would apply (in greater strength) to "prove" that farmer power must similarly be controlled by government action, perhaps setting maximum food prices (equivalent to minimum wage).

Yet we see that left to the operation of the free market, food production works remarkably well. Doesn't that conclusively prove that the arguments you present for the supposedly malign power of capitalists and employers are invalid?

Not even close. Here -yet again- is the bit you keep editing out :

Food supply -> Labour supply.

Capitalists/employers are the consumers of labour, not sellers of jobs like farmers sell food. When was the last time you popped out to buy a few jobs?

Both food and labour supply are abundant enough that a farmer or labourer withholding them will find others supplying them. Unless they form a cartel or union, but a cartel threatening food supply would soon find its farms expropriated.

Your analogy (for want of a better term) is actually quite funny.

I've repeatedly explained why historical record is evidence and would make absolutely no sense if decent conditions had come about simply through productivity.

No, you haven't. You have shown that Parliament acted to impose minimal conditions in various Factory Acts. That doesn't show either (1) that factory conditions were necessarily worse than farm conditions, or (2) that conditions wouldn't have improved without government action.

Nor does it show the opposite. What it shows is what I said and you keep editing out : that conditions were still appalling after a century of industrialisation, and improved by democratic intervention where productivity and labour markets had failed.

All the history I've read says conditions worsened, even compared to poor rural life. I'm not about to waste my time with a load of transcription which you'd just edit out and ignore anyway, but a minute's googling finds :

http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html

When the industrial revolution first came to Britain and the U.S., there was a high demand for labor. Families quickly migrated from the rural farm areas to the newly industrialized cities to find work. Once they got there, things did not look as bright as they did. To survive in even the lowest level of poverty, families had to have every able member of the family go to work. This led to the high rise in child labor in factories. Children were not treated well, overworked, and underpaid for a long time before anyone tried to change things for them.

The treatment of children in factories was often cruel and unusual, and the children's safety was generally neglected. The youngest children, who were not old enough to work the machines, were commonly sent to be assistants to textile workers. The people who the children served would beat them, verbally abuse them, and take no consideration for their safety. Both boys and girls who worked in factories were subject to beatings and other harsh forms of pain infliction. One common punishment for being late or not working up to quota would be to be "weighted." An overseer would tie a heavy weight to worker's neck, and have them walk up and down the factory aisles so the other children could see them and "take example." This could last up to an hour. Weighting could lead to serious injuries in the back and/or neck. Punishments such as this would often be dispensed under stringent rules. Boys were sometimes dragged naked from their beds and sent to the factories only holding their clothes, to be put on there. This was to make sure the boys would not be late, even by a few minutes.

In the time of the Industrial Revolution, the children of the families who moved to the crowded cities had their work situation go from bad to worse. In rural areas, children would have worked long hours with hard work for their families farms, but in the cities, the children worked longer hours with harder work for large companies. Harsher treatment, fewer rewards and more sickness and injury came from poorly regulated child labor.

There. Nutshell. I've read of far worse than that, but we didn't even need to go there to know that acceptable conditions did not come through productivity and the labour market.

[SueDeNîmes]

You can assume whatever you want, but you were trespassing and violating my property rights.

No. You weren't using it.

Hang on.. I was growing some grass there for my goat and someone dug a big hole. The mine is mine (Daisy gets the apple).

[Eran]

Food supply -> Labour supply.

This is my analogy.

I am equating Food supply -> Job supply, comparing farmers to employers. Both are a minority group providing something the rest of us find vital, food in the former case, jobs in the latter.

How is it that one minority group controlling a vital resource (farmers controlling food) is unable, in a free market, to exploit its position, while the other minority group controlling a vital resource (employers controlling jobs) is able to?

conditions were still appalling after a century of industrialisation

All it shows is that conditions were considered appalling by those controlling Parliament. NOT that they were any worse than rural conditions, with which budding middle-classes were entirely unfamiliar.

In fact, standards of living for industrial workers have improved throughout the 19th century, and were, by and large, much better than those available to the ancestors of those workers before industrialisation.

When the industrial revolution first came to Britain and the U.S., there was a high demand for labor. Families quickly migrated from the rural farm areas to the newly industrialized cities to find work.

Did those families have work in rural farms? If so, they didn't migrate to find work, but rather to find better work. If they didn't, what would they have done if it wasn't for those budding industries? Starve to death? What have they done before the factories opened?

Once they got there, things did not look as bright as they did.

Nonsense. That makes sense for a handful of families. But to think that millions of people, over decades, have continued to be fooled into thinking that conditions are better than they actually were in the same country.... The facts of migration are that information about working conditions make their way back even across the ocean. A few miles within England certainly wouldn't have stopped the information.

I am not disputing the conditions in factories were, by modern standards, harsh. But none of the sources you provided, nor those quoted in the reference above, contrasts conditions in factories with those in the rural environment that those millions of people, by and large chose to leave.

In fact, we don't have to go back 150 years - the same story is unfolding today in China, Vietnam and other emerging economies. Rural workers choose to leave their villages and work in sweat shops while living in slums. The old myth of the enclosures doesn't apply. Rather, people unfamiliar with the realities of subsistence farming fail to understand how much more attractive even these appalling conditions are in comparison.

[SueDeNîmes]

Food supply -> Labour supply.

This is my analogy.

I am equating Food supply -> Job supply, comparing farmers to employers.

Then it isn't your analogy. Employers don't sell jobs like farmers sell food. Employers BUY labour. Workers sell labour like farmers sell food. Food and labour supply are abundant enough that a farmer or labourer withholding them will find others supplying them.

Both are a minority group providing something the rest of us find vital, food in the former case, jobs in the latter.

How is it that one minority group controlling a vital resource (farmers controlling food) is unable, in a free market, to exploit its position, while the other minority group controlling a vital resource (employers controlling jobs) is able to?

which I've answered several times (and again above) and you keep editing out. I can understand why you might not want to address what someone's actually said, but not how you imagine it'll persuade anyone of anything.

All it shows is that conditions were considered appalling by those controlling Parliament.

Yeah, the people falling exhausted into unguarded machinery were laughing.

NOT that they were any worse than rural conditions, with which budding middle-classes were entirely unfamiliar.

In fact, standards of living for industrial workers have improved throughout the 19th century, and were, by and large, much better than those available to the ancestors of those workers before industrialisation.

Not before the mid 19th century, the Factory Acts and a load of public health programs :

"Infant mortality data gathered from the registers of nine parishes in the industrial North of England are used as a concrete indicator of living standards for the early nineteenth century. Rising infant mortality in the sample parishes provides evidence that the standard of living was not improving substantially in these towns up to midcentury. This conclusion remains after considering the effect on mortality of population growth, climate, and feeding practices. "

- Hicks, Infant mortality and living standards of English workers during the Industrial Revolution, 1995

Did those families have work in rural farms? If so, they didn't migrate to find work, but rather to find better work. If they didn't, what would they have done if it wasn't for those budding industries? Starve to death? What have they done before the factories opened?

Nonsense. That makes sense for a handful of families. But to think that millions of people, over decades, have continued to be fooled into thinking that conditions are better than they actually were in the same country.... The facts of migration are that information about working conditions make their way back even across the ocean. A few miles within England certainly wouldn't have stopped the information.

But no one's saying they were "fooled". The Agricultural Revolution (1500s - 1800s, not the Neolithic one) saw dramatic yield and population increases over the century leading up to the IR. As each agricultural worker produced more, the proportion of the workforce in agriculture fell. Rural populations had adapted with "the putting-out system" - various cottage industries, mostly primitive spinning and textiles, for urban consumption. Domestic rural textile production became Britain's biggest industry excluding agriculture. So when the cotton mills and factories obviated all that, there was indeed a rural labour surplus. Others were forced off the land, others doubtless went looking for a better life as you say. But by the time of the Factory Acts, industrialisation was four generations along and urban populations had multiplied around the new industries. Going back to the plough was no more an option than it is for today's workforce.

I am not disputing the conditions in factories were, by modern standards, harsh. But none of the sources you provided, nor those quoted in the reference above, contrasts conditions in factories with those in the rural environment that those millions of people, by and large chose to leave.

It does exactly that. In big bold red type. That you've edited out. It says (again) :

"In the time of the Industrial Revolution, the children of the families who moved to the crowded cities had their work situation go from bad to worse. In rural areas, children would have worked long hours with hard work for their families farms, but in the cities, the children worked longer hours with harder work for large companies. Harsher treatment, fewer rewards and more sickness and injury came from poorly regulated child labor."

..which, to repeat myself, wasn't even the point. Even if rural children had been routinely culled and eaten prior to the IR, factory conditions were nontheless appalling compared to those enforced in legislation.

In fact, we don't have to go back 150 years - the same story is unfolding today in China, Vietnam and other emerging economies. Rural workers choose to leave their villages and work in sweat shops while living in slums. The old myth of the enclosures doesn't apply. Rather, people unfamiliar with the realities of subsistence farming fail to understand how much more attractive even these appalling conditions are in comparison.

and the reason many of them "choose" to move to industrial slums is to feed rural families whose livelihoods have been obviated by industrialisation. When they start having to restrict childrens' working to 12 hours a day etc, you'll have a valid comparison.

[Eran]

Employers don't sell jobs like farmers sell food. Employers BUY labour.

The difference between buying and selling is arbitrary. In each case, one thing is exchanged for the other, and one party to the exchange can use its negotiating power to improve its terms.

It doesn't make any difference, for the purpose of analysing your analysis of capitalist behaviour whether the small, privileged, "powerful" power to an exchange happens to be "buying" (in the sense of paying money for non-monetary goods) or "selling" (in the sense of receiving money for goods).

Even if rural children had been routinely culled and eaten prior to the IR, factory conditions were nontheless appalling compared to those enforced in legislation.

I agree - that wasn't your point. So returning to the point about the effect of legislation, what you are unable to show is that legislation improved the overall lot of poor families.

Consider, for example, legislation which limited hours worked by children. Working fewer hours, children earned less. How can you tell whether a family is better off with children working fewer hours (but making less money)?

Assuming that the parents of those children loved them just as much as modern parents love their children, don't you think those parents were in a better position to assess the overall good of the family than you are today, or even Parliament was at the time?

and the reason many of them "choose" to move to industrial slums is to feed rural families whose livelihoods have been obviated by industrialisation.

Most of those moving to industrial slums have previously been subsistence farmers. By definition, those are people who are largely self-sufficient. Their livelihoods may be marginally aided by industrialisation (e.g. because their clothing is getting cheaper), not obviated by it.

Instead, industrialisation and city life open new opportunities not previously open to those subsistence farmers. What they realise is that while life in the city isn't easy, it opens possibilities for themselves and, even more so, for their children.

[SueDeNîmes]

The difference between buying and selling is arbitrary. In each case, one thing is exchanged for the other, and one party to the exchange can use its negotiating power to improve its terms.

It doesn't make any difference, for the purpose of analysing your analysis of capitalist behaviour whether the small, privileged, "powerful" power to an exchange happens to be "buying" (in the sense of paying money for non-monetary goods) or "selling" (in the sense of receiving money for goods).

You've lost focus. As would have been obvious had you quoted me in full, I wasn't making any such argument. I was explaining why saying "Food supply -> Job supply" is not equivalent to saying "Food supply -> Labour supply" in your previous response (which would also have been obvious had you quoted me in full). It equivocates 'Job supply' with 'Labour supply,' reversing the supply / demand relation and bargaining power.

The difference between buying and selling isn't arbitrary btw, but it's not why the argument you keep attributing to others isn't the same as the one you keep editing out.

I agree - that wasn't your point. So returning to the point about the effect of legislation, what you are unable to show is that legislation improved the overall lot of poor families.

Since it did, I haven't even tried to show any such thing.

Consider, for example, legislation which limited hours worked by children. Working fewer hours, children earned less. How can you tell whether a family is better off with children working fewer hours (but making less money)?

Assuming that the parents of those children loved them just as much as modern parents love their children, don't you think those parents were in a better position to assess the overall good of the family than you are today, or even Parliament was at the time?

Since they voted for such legislation as soon they could - indeed eventually banning child labour altogether - it's a non-question.

Most of those moving to industrial slums have previously been subsistence farmers. By definition, those are people who are largely self-sufficient.

No, by definition, those are people who are no longer self-sufficient.

Their livelihoods may be marginally aided by industrialisation (e.g. because their clothing is getting cheaper), not obviated by it.

Instead, industrialisation and city life open new opportunities not previously open to those subsistence farmers. What they realise is that while life in the city isn't easy, it opens possibilities for themselves and, even more so, for their children.

I doubt you're entirely wrong or entirely right, but if you were entirely right it'd be unlike the urbanisation of Britain's rural labour surplus in the IR.

[Eran]

Since it did, I haven't even tried to show any such thing.

How do you know?

Any improvements created by the legislation came with costs. How do you know that the costs weren't higher than the value of the improvements?

Since they voted for such legislation as soon they could - indeed eventually banning child labour altogether - it's a non-question.

Why vote for banning child labour when you can simply refrain from sending your child to work? Banning child labour makes no sense from the perspective of a poor family.

[SueDeNîmes]

How do you know?

Any improvements created by the legislation came with costs. How do you know that the costs weren't higher than the value of the improvements?

I can't tell whether you want me to waste time with another history lesson you'd just edit out and ignore, or argue counterfactuals which neither of us can know.

Why vote for banning child labour when you can simply refrain from sending your child to work? Banning child labour makes no sense from the perspective of a poor family.

Because, unless you want your poor family to starve, you can't "simply refrain from sending your child to work" while employers employ children rather than adults.