[PatrickHenry]

I think there's more to it than you suggest. People observing the living conditions of slaves often remarked how much better off they were than so-called "free" men.

Slavery is a special case. We were talking about mill workers, presumably in England. Free men. It's simple economics. Employers don't pay more than they need to. If labor was abundant, and willing to do the work for the wages offered, then it's a done deal. The worker always has a choice of rejecting the job. If he takes it, that's because he thinks it's his best option. In a primitive economy, there arent too many options. As wealth increases, and other people start up businesses, skilled labor becomes more valuable, and wages rise. You know ... supply and demand. There's not much more to it.

[CobaltBlue]

Well of course there is more to it than that, if you happen to be the the commodity.

There may not be any reasonable alternative, but, nevertheless, the "creative destruction" of capitalism isn't terribly pleasant when it's you who are being destroyed.

The "laws" of economics aren't exactly the laws of physics. One of the ways that entrepreneurs have traditionally cut costs is by externalizing the real cost of their products. For example, burning high sulphur coal causes a release of sulphuric acid. If you are able to externalize costs, then you can escape liability for the true cost of your industry and pass the costs on to others.

We can really see this being done in China, today. As conservatives, we don't like seeing industrialists accused of externalizing costs, except that we don't seem to have a problem when we're blaming the Chinese. Chinese goods are cheaper than American goods, in large part because Chines manufacturers are not subject to the same environmental laws as American manufacturers.

China's development reminds me of the mid-Victorian era Industrial Revolution, when nobody cared about the environment or the health of the workers.