Pertaining To Today's Discussion

When we discussed Malala and the Nobel Peace Prize in class today, I was reminded of this inspirational cartoon. The website, Zen Pencils, takes meaningful quotes and illustrates them. This particular quote is from Malala, if anyone is interested.

Malala Yousafzai: I have the right

Thomas Malthus (Eva Lindquist)

        Shifting jobs overseas is not the best possible solution for our economy. Here is my thinking: First of all, spreading jobs to other countries leads to them earning more money. As in David Ricardo's "iron law of wages", these new workers will spend it on raising bigger families, causing more overpopulation. This will mean that we as a country are causing problems for others by giving out jobs. Furthermore, the cheap labor and natural resources available will be directed towards the betterment of that country, not ours. The jobs given by our country will be fulfilled, but not for long. As the population grows, more people will need more jobs. At one point, they will run out of resources to keep up with the population and depend on other countries for help. They will no longer be able to take responsibility for the jobs we offered them. This means that we are back where we started, and have fewer resources available. If we kept the jobs at home, there would be little difference in the present levels of poverty and population. In the end, shifting jobs overseas will increase the poverty of our country and another.

Adam Smith (Julian Wu)

Finally...a good idea. I would just like to bring up the idea of Laissez-faire again, and how it explains that a free market is the best solution for everyone! Firstly, by having cheap labor sources from overseas, it will benefit everyone. The people overseas will have a job, while our products will be produced faster and cheaper. Secondly, our products will get mass-produced, lowering the price of these products which will benefit anyone buying it. Thirdly, wages will increase because people will have jobs. The government should not be involved in this, only the businesses. However, if these businesses become greedy and begin to manipulate other people, then the government must step in. Shifting job overseas, it would benefit not only the entrepreneurs but also everyone, especially the working class. To sum it up, entrepreneurs' businesses will flourish. The working class will get an increase in wages, with the price of products decreasing! Clearly, this is the best possible solution for our economy.

Herbert Spencer (Olivia Harrington)

I believe that shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources is the best possible solution for our economy. This is the best thing to do for our economy because we have a beneficial way to maintain our stable and successful community. Shifting jobs overseas, would make our society even more productive than it already is. This system will help because we are always striving to make all aspects of life better than they already are. Also, we will be gaining money from this. The labor sources overseas is cheaper than the labor sources here. This could help us mass produce more than what we already have. Another benefit of this system is health. Many workers get very sick from working in the factories. This system will allow for less people to be working in the danger of disease and accidents. In textile mills, there is a lot of lint in the air. This is the air that the workers are breathing, and the lint damages their lungs. The factories are also very filthy causing disease to spread quickly. The machines may cause dangerous injuries. People living with this system would also have more time on their hands to do anything they desired, within reason. Overall, this system would boost the economy in our society, and it would help my fellow citizens.

Karl Marx (Braden Fleming)

Shifting Jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is not the best possible solution to fix our economy because it will only create an even larger gap between social classes. The wealthy will become more wealthy, while the poor will remain poor. Poverty is our most important economic problem right now and fixing that should be our main focus. The only people that will benefit from shifting the jobs overseas are the people of the upper class because they can have more resources to use for cheaper because of supply and demand. However, the entrepreneurs will not raise the wages of the workers because of Ricardo's law of iron wages. Everybody must be equal! This must be a priority of ours, and shifting jobs overseas will not fix the class problem we are facing now. Shifting jobs anywhere will not change the ideas of the entrepreneurs who run their businesses. No matter what, they will still treat the lower class men horribly. Forcing them to work in awful conditions and not raising there pay. So why should the upper classes become even richer and benefit from something like this and have the poor remain in the horrible conditions they're suffering from already. It is just unfair.

Karl Marx (Katharine Yan)

Shifting jobs overseas will only make the factory owners and entrepreneurs wealthier, creating even more of a difference between the bourgeois and proletariat classes. It will spread the misery of the working class to other countries, increasing resentment towards the wealthy. It is unfair that one group will benefit from another's hardships. The bourgeois will become more prosperous if they take advantage of workers overseas that have low wages and bad working conditions. This just shows how unjust the social structure is, with one class thriving and another suffering. If we really want change that will improve the lives of everyone, we need to establish a classless society. Everyone will be equal in this communist society. Similar to how wages will not differ from country to country, some people will not receive more benefits than others once communism has spread throughout the world. There will be no divisions amongst the people that determine the quality of their lives. Shifting jobs overseas is not what is best for all of the people in our society, and it certainly is not justified. 

Herbert Spencer (Kenny Shanos)

I am definitely in favor of moving jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor.  If labor is done overseas, the economy will thrive and get better than it is now.  The cheap cost of labor overseas will bring the cost of the good down when it is sold.  Who wants to pay more for a good when they can pay less?  No one does!  So, a lower good cost would then lead to an economy with more money and one that is thriving and working as it should be.  Also, the natural resources are already overseas so this brings down the cost of the good even more, since it doesn't have to be shipped over the ocean before turning into a product.  With the abundance of resources and cheap labor cost, the economy will flare up.  In addition, the idea of the "survival of the fittest" is used here.  The current factories will be put out of use and only the fittest ones will survive.  These fit factories will be overseas, creating goods at a low, cheap cost.  In terms of the families, the people who are fired from the jobs will get new jobs in another industry or spend more time with their family.  The jobs overseas would be better for the majority of the people and would benefit everyone by creating cheaper goods.  Overall, jobs overseas will allow cheap labor and a cheap product, therefore making this the best possible solution for the economy.

Adam Smith (Sarah Schumacher)

We should definitely spread jobs overseas! For if we do not, how will the Industrial Ideas ever spread? The answer to that question is that they won't. For if others do not become exposed to this new way of life we have all obtained, than they will never learn it. However, we must not forget our old friend laissez-faire, for governments have no right trying to have involvement in the economy. Now if the economy gets too out of hand, the government has every right to step in. The Industrial Revolution must spread, for people around the world deserve and increase in wages. For if people are given an increased wage, they will buy more goods and stimulate the economy. If more people are given more pay, the economy will be in its prime. Let us spread the labor opportunities across the globe, and give everyone an equal chance. This will better everyone.

Women in textile mill (Kyle Sjoberg)

I believe that we should not move jobs over seas. Even though you may think that this will create more job opportunities, it will only make it worse. If there are less people for the jobs in the factories then there would be less production of the goods. If there are less goods produced then the prices will be raised for the few products to be bought by the citizens in the city. I already have a job here. I would not want to change out over seas. I would rather stay here with the bad living conditions then go out and get a new job. If they sent me somewhere else I wouldn't be happy. Maybe I would be hired by a coal miner and he would pay us women less then men. The conditions would be worse then the textile mill and we would be in more danger then in the textile mill. I would want to stay with my family here to provide and support them with the job I currently have.

Karl Marx (Eleanor Fulghum)

Based on the idea of shifting jobs overseas, I cannot see how this will be the best solution for our people. Although it may sound ideal financially to send workers overseas in order take advantage of cheap labor and natural resources, the government is easily gaining a chance to manipulate the people. By sending people overseas, this would easily categorize the people as "have-nots", allowing the "haves" to control all means of production by misusing the proletariat class. Unjustified, this idea may sound beneficial for capitalists, however the socialists would be the people missing out. Taking control of a group like this is nothing but exploiting its people, allowing the entrepreneurs to return to their glory, creating a daunting class system for the rest of society. Even though the financial outcome of this solution is sound, in my mind this is a corrupt system for a government to send its workers overseas for the sake of cheap labor. Already enough are the proletariat people losing opportunities of what should be our classless society. Yet this idea would prove itself nothing but a selfish intent used to satisfy the means of production. Within these times we could learn a tad from my ideas of Communism, as social democracies would better benefit this society. Whoever created this idea of shipping out the people is most likely an entrepreneur, and I myself couldn't be anymore dissatisfied with their ways.

Friedrich Engles (Yash Gokhale)

Sending jobs to workers in other countries is the best solution for the economy. People from other countries are unable to understand the harsh and hazardous conditions of factory work because they do not have the industry that is in Britain. When workers from other countries experience what British workers are experiencing today, they will be able to relate to working classes everywhere. Every day the bourgeois looms over the proletariats of Britain. The working class members are oppressed by their high and mighty employers, but if more people sympathize with the proletariats then they will be able to overcome the bourgeois. Sending jobs to workers overseas will unite the proletariats and so it is the best solution for the economy.      

David Ricardo (Kyle Riggs)

Finally someone has a good plan! Of course it would benefit the economy to send jobs overseas! This would be more profitable for all business owners and entrepreneurs. Cheaper labor costs would mean substantially less expenses for business owners, increasing revenue. How can anyone be against an increase in country revenue? Rich business owners would be great for our economy! They would start more jobs in our country and buy lots of goods. In addition, saving our natural resources would be very beneficial in the long term for us. If a time came when we could no longer use foreign resources, our homeland would still have a surplus of them. All anyone is talking about nowadays, are those stupid workers rights laws. This is the best of both worlds here; the business owners don't have to spend more money, and our workers don't have to deal with crowded factories or mills anymore. Some workers may lose money from the lack of a job, but if they simply worked harder and were smarter with their money, they would be fine.

Adam Smith (Rachel Latham)

I believe that the spread of work overseas will better the lives of everyone. By spreading the industrial revolution to foreign countries we can offer other people a chance at a better quality of life. This includes a increase in wages. By having an increase in wages, this allows the workers to buy more goods which in turn creates a better economy nationwide and worldwide. Also, by sending jobs to different places, it would help lower the prices on goods since more goods can be readily available, which also benefits everyone. Rich people and entrepreneurs are clearly not the only people benefitted by the spread of the industrial revolution. With the spread of industrial jobs, all people have a chance at finding a better quality of life.

Robert Owen

"All they talk about is money cause thats all they know." This quote is evident in nearly everything involving shifting jobs over seas. The act of stealing other resources from our fellow countries is an atrocious act in its self.  EVERYTHING we do is for money. I can guarantee that if we all just worked together we could end poverty. Just think, if everyone worked out of the good of their hearts for others we would have no problems. Imagine, you are a farmer who farms let's say potatoes, I could provide the community with every potato type food and I would be provided with everything I need to survive comfortably. If all humans could just be unselfish we would live in a world of paradise with no poverty and no talks about money or getting food on the table for your family. If we focus on creating this utopia instead of money the human race could reach this utopian state of mind.

Friedrich Engles (Brooke Anderson)

Yes I do believe that shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy. The more people who are working the more efficient things will be made. This will also hopefully be able to lower the prices of the goods. This would give families more money. This would not only better the economy, but it could also better the living conditions of the working class. They could use the extra money to buy better housing to keep the families healthier and alive longer. This would make for more workers in the factories to make more goods and everything would repeat again. So yes, shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy.

Sending jobs overseas

Erik Carlson/ Fredrick Eagles 

Sending jobs into foreign countries is the best way for the workers to unite. They will associate with members of their own social class and will unite against members of the bourgeois. Land borders mean nothing so you can send the jobs where ever you like. After the bourgeois have been over thrown the wages will all be the same and business will not get any advantage in any country. It is almost imperative that this occurs for the workers to unite. 

London Factory Worker (Andres Naranjo)

For the benefits of the people, the best thing is to keep all the jobs in England. If people have to move overseas to get work it would just create chaos. People would fight  to leave England and the few that would stay in England would probably lose their jobs and therefore end up starving on the streets. The people need to stay in England, its for the best of the greater good. If jobs stay in England, there will be no chaos and everything will keep getting better. The Industrial Revolution will stay in England longer and that means that they will still have an advantage over all of the other countries that are trying to catch up to them. Also since families are growing larger now, and people need more money to support them workers need their jobs more than ever. In conclusion, we need to keep jobs in England and not move them overseas.

Robert Owen (Zack Johnson)

People love to take advantage of those “below them.”  We see it in revolution, politics, and even the school playground.  It is especially true in business.  The wealthy owners will frequently take whatever shortcuts necessary to maximizing their own profits.  In numerous cases, this destroys the lives of those in the way of these profits.  It is for this reason that shifting jobs overseas is not the best solution for our economy.  When presented with this topic, we must consider the people.  Because that is what it comes down to: the people.  Money is simply a construct of our society.  It holds value because we say it holds value.  Thus, the most important thing is to ensure happiness.  Wealth follows.  This happiness is not possible with jobs sent overseas.  Every job sent overseas is a job that is not done in our own country.  This job that is not done in our country is the absence of a paycheck for another individual.  This absence of a paycheck is another month of suffering and another month of spending frugally (which harms the economy).  Some may argue that sending jobs overseas drives the cost of goods down: which it does.  However, this is only beneficial to an extent.  No matter how cheap a good is, there has to be a consumer that desires its purchase on the other end.  With more and more consumers spending frugally on account of unemployment, there are more and more goods not being bought, regardless of the price.  This lack in spending harms our economy.  By keeping the jobs here, we are helping to ensure that a greater amount of individuals have a job and thus a steady income. This helps to promote the development of a happy life, which in turn increases the chances of spending.  Our economy is then improved.  Happiness is priceless.  

Women worker in a textile mill (Elise Warren)

Finally when we have a change in our own economy that is not only increasing population, but food, hygiene, medicine, and inventions as well, the question comes about of shifting our jobs overseas. I thought we had almost everything figured out, but now this proposition. Although I may not be happy with the long hours I work and the conditions that I work in, the thought of putting this same work in some other country around the world makes me thankful for my job right now. I would like to keep this job to keep a steady source of money in my pocket. I have a family I need to provide for, and moving all the jobs away would put me in unemployment, which I cannot afford. After urbanization and the enclosure act moved all of us farmers to the city, then put us into uncomfortable housing and environments, and introduced us to new and dangerous jobs, we finally got settled down. Unfortunately, shifting jobs overseas would only disrupt all of this. We are just now getting the hang of our new lives, and moving us around the world is saddening and disrupting. Our quality of life would drop below what it was even before industrialization, causing rebellions and revolutions, or even a depression. In regards to the economy, although there are resources in other countries that would be nice to use, we have enough here. We should not use another countries resources until we have no other options. As for the cheap labor, isn't labor already cheap enough here? We are working 12 to 16 hour days for the least amount of money as possible. Anywhere else would be just as equal, and we would have to pay to get is shipped back to us. Basically the only thing this would accomplish is putting thousands of people out of work, which will be the ultimate downfall of our economy. Not only will the economy weaken from shifting jobs overseas, but it will effect their happiness of the people and their satisfaction with the government as well. Right now, our economy is so strong, and the people are finally content, so why would we want to throw that all away?

Thomas Malthus (Angelica Mirandou)

I do believe that shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy. By shifting jobs overseas the economy would soar. The population in Britain as of now is too high to support. There are not enough goods to support the entire population, the quality of living in Britain is going to go down. If jobs were shifted overseas that would allow the population to obtain more resources to produce more goods. As more goods are produced the prices of those goods would go down, allowing more of the population to buy them. When people buy the goods the money they spend will help better the economy. The act of simply shifting some of our jobs overseas will start a chain reaction of good things. In the end the main goal of bettering the economy will be reached by shifting jobs overseas. The best possible solution for our economy is to shift jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and natural resources. 

Young Boy Coal Miner (Romina Garakani)

Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources will not be beneficial for  the majority of the citizens. This shift would only benefit the minority of the people. I am a young boy who works in a coal mine. I have no political say in this, but I want my opinion to be out there for people to hear and read. Shifting jobs overseas would increase the unemployment rate. Many people moved to the cities because there was a demand for workers. These people that work these jobs need every last cent they make to pay for their families. The working class does not make enough money and we already live our lives in poverty. If the jobs are shifted overseas, we will all die of starvation because we have no jobs to receive an income. The poverty rate will increase dramatically. It will make our country look bad to other countries. We will leave a bad impression on them. Other countries will not trust us because shifting jobs would not benefit everyone in the country and they would think that the our country is not doing it to benefit the whole, but rather certain individuals. I do not want to lose my job because I want my family to live a life where they are not dying of starvation. I love them to death and I will not allow the shifting of job to overseas be allowed. Why can't we just use the natural resources that we already have? We should be creating even more jobs in our own country. I do not understand why people are trying to do the opposite. 

Thomas Malthus (Michael Kowalski)

Jobs is what drives our economy. But these jobs could be going to better use than being where they are currently located. Suppose we were to outsource this essence of our nation, what would happen? Wondrous things, that is what! Doing so would open so many more doors to business. Having workers work else where and make stuff for our business men would be extremely profitable. Doing so would not only result in large profits but cheaper goods too. having goods cheaper making it far more convenient for the populous to spend more money thus boosting the economy, like an inverted waterfall, and just as beautiful. Also those workers would not be using our resources. Having more resources to preserve allows for us, as a society, to prolong my insightful Malthusian Dilemma (I know I am so modest). This is why we must do this fellow economists. I expect all of you to follow suit and agree.

Jeremy Bentham (Chris Wright)

Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources may sound good but it isn't really best for our economy. If we did this we would take away jobs from the people who are working hard here, trying to provide for themselves. Instead other people across the world would be forced to take their jobs, even if they didn't want to! This would take jobs away from a majority of the people, which i believe isn't the best for the citizens of America. Now American companies will pay workers who aren't America, which will only help the other countries! Also another reason I'm against this is because we are wasting money on foreign resources. those resources from other countries don't magically appear in the US, it takes money to bring the resources to the US. This means wasting fuel to take resources we may already have in the US. We would also be competing against other countries for the resources which may result in feuds between countries, losing ally nations.Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources only help businessmen gain more money so the can hire more people from OTHER countries to help THEMSELVES.

Robert Owen (Ryan Teng)

Why must people always go on and on about money? It is obvious that we should not move our labor overseas, but not because it is for the greater good of the economy. It is because, we, as a people, must focus more on improving our working conditions, so that we can create a society where everyone is happy. If we were to move people over to another land for cheaper labor, then who knows how they will be treated? They could have bad working conditions, live in slums, or die of starvation for all we know! This is not good, and I will not allow for such a thing to happen. Our job is to improve working conditions for workers everywhere, not to ship them off to another foreign land to have them as slaves! We must focus on creating a utopia, not on giving greedy factory owners more cash that they already have. It is our job to create a utopia and we should keep that job here. That, I believe, is what we should do.

alyssa kanis - Herbert Spencer

Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy! The comfort of those foreign to us who would be mass producing our own goods is irrelevant. The misuse of foreign natural resources is irrelevant as well. It is merely not our fault that we have found a productive way too conduct our society. Us as a community on a periodic  basis is always searching for ways too improve all aspects of living and we have found just that! If this system will benefit the sake of ourselves, there is no time to worry about the population overseas. Everything has a purpose, and the people and their resources foreign to our nature is serving us a purpose. They are the weaker resemblance of our nation, and for the United States having the ability to arise over them in power, only shows the knowledge we obtain. With this knowledge it only goes too show how inferior us as a nation can be, the controlling and leading nation. With this we must have the strongest economy, and by creating mass production for either less, will benefit many aspects of the daily load. Although many jobs will be lost here where we stand, we must look at the general good of our people. The majority of us will up rise with this new way of shifting jobs. Health benefits will arise with the decrease in accidents inside of factories as well as the amount of filth inside. Time benefits would also be a advancement in this new system, creating more spare time to fulfill different tasks most wouldn't be able to complete prior.  Those who would still be employed, receive a raise. All in all, taking advantage of what we could possibly have is the best solution for our economy, doing nothing but making it more efficient.

London Male Factory Worker (Ben Acker)

Absolutely not. While shifting jobs overseas to take "advantage" of cheap labor sources and natural resources may save money for business owners, it will only succeed in destroying our economy. By stripping us of our farms/homes, the government forced farmers like me to migrate into cities for employment. We have hit rock bottom, and now they want to take our jobs all over again. Now, we work nearly 12 hours a day for minimal pay, and all the money our factory owners save from our salaries is put towards themselves. NOT towards improving our wages or our working conditions. Still, their greed grows. They wish to move jobs overseas, believing it is the "best solution for our economy". I say to them, HOW? By moving our source of income to other countries, that money will begin circulating in another country's economy. We will slowly dwindle away the money we have earned, and we will no longer be able to purchase products from local businesses. The money we used to pay will cease to circulate, effectively killing our economy. Plus, we already have an abundance of natural resources at our disposal. That is one of the factors that kick-started our Industrial Revolution anyways! So just try to convince me, try to twist my thoughts to believe that giving away my livelihood will help our country!

Adam Duvall/David Ricardo

Shifting jobs overseas in order to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is smart and more profitable.  The bourgeoisie could be making a huge step forward as far as expanding business and although they do not make up the majority of the people, it is making life easier.  As a business owner you need to make decisions that are profitable like firing when necessary or lower wages whatever it may be, in this case moving jobs overseas fits under that category.  Some may believe that it will take away the jobs of the majority but really were not.  Somebody has to work in the factories and either way someone will be receiving money as long as the job needed is complete.  Like I said the only way to get out of poverty is through hard work and reducing the size of families and this situation works for both.  More people are going to have work and by expanding the factory locations, more people are being spread out which clears out cities that have become filthy and over populated due to urbanization.  So shirting jobs overseas is not only smart for business owners but also the majority population which is creating the "greatest happiness for the greatest number".

Sending jobs overseas

Erik Carlson/ Fredrick Eagles 

Sending jobs into foreign countries is the best way for the workers to unite. They will associate with members of their own social class and will unite against members of the bourgeois. Land borders mean nothing so you can send the jobs where ever you like. After the bourgeois have been over thrown the wages will all be the same and business will not get any advantage in any country. It is almost imperative that this occurs for the workers to unite. 

Jeremy Bentham (Meran Topalian)

The idea of shifting jobs overseas where labor is cheap and natural resources are abundant is truly a disaster waiting to happen. Before I argue, just think of all the questions that would arise from this truly horrifying possibility? If we just give jobs overseas, how will the workers and the people of America, "The Land of Opportunity", give any opportunity of a successful lifestyle? Exactly, it won't! No cheap labor is labor, just look at the word in front of it! The idea of forcing the men, women, and especially children overseas working hard because it is cheap is a really disturbing picture. One that no one should find acceptable! Everyone in America would be in a complete revolt because Americans, their fellow Americans, are too cheap to pay them what they deserve! Again as Americans, we are greedy for what we don't have! We want to shift jobs overseas to steal these other countries national resources. You don't suppose that by us just taking other countries resources that they will look at us with a look of gratitude. No! They want exactly what we want, and if we are always wanting we will never have countries to have our backs! We want a country built upon hard work, and hard work that must be compensated for equally and fairly! This is exactly why shifting jobs overseas would bring nothing but digging ourselves into an economic depression!

Jeremy Bentham (Will Campbell)

How one can even consider shifting jobs overseas in order to improve the economy is truly appalling. How is it not blatantly obvious that doing so would certainly not improve our economy? It's more likely to drive it further into the ground before it could POSSIBLY ever improve it! The only good reasons to send jobs overseas would be to take advantage of the cheap labor in other countries and the abundant natural resources there. Now sure, that sounds all fine and dandy, but just stop and think about it for a second. We're shifting jobs overseas because we are maliciously choosing to force men, women, and children of other countries to do our jobs for us just because we can pay them less to work more; that's absolutely terrible! By shifting jobs overseas, we are making the lives of countless foreign people harder just because we're too selfish to pay our workers what they really deserve. Also, by having them work for us, their own country is now left with less workers to make their own products; either that, or the foreign workers will be forced to work double time, which would be even worse for them. Another important reason why shifting jobs overseas would be a horrible idea is because, not only are we taking advantage of other countries' laborers, we're also taking advantage of their resources. We're so focused on getting more natural resources for ourselves, we're not even considering that other countries may want the same thing! By shifting jobs overseas, we would just be stealing resources from other countries, as well as their work force! Lastly is the obvious flaw in all of this: if jobs are shifted overseas, that means our own people will be left without jobs. That, in and of itself, is horrible considering how greatly it would decrease the standard of living for countless families. Also, though, to stay on the prompt at hand, if Americans don't have jobs, they cannot buy/invest in things. If Americans can't buy/invest in things, guess where our economy's going to go? Down the toilet! So really it's quite obvious (as it has been from the beginning) why shifting jobs overseas would be a inconceivable idea: malicious abuse of foreign peoples, hoarding of foreign resources for ourselves, and a plummet in the number of Americans with jobs. Not only would shifting jobs overseas be poor for our economy, but for the world's economy.

Male London Factory Worker (Brian Gemma)

Shifting jobs overseas is not the best solution for many reasons. First off, it doesn't benefit the majority of the people. Too many people would be out of jobs, and so many people would have to move overseas and many things could go wrong. If people do not have jobs they may not be able to feed their families, and they could be homeless or starving. Being a factory may not be the best job, it isn't even close, but it puts food on the table. As long as my family is healthy, the job is worth it. If a large sum of people will be without jobs it is not the best decision. The people that really need to benefit from moving overseas, like the factory workers and miners, will not be the ones who are really benefiting.  It is other people who are benefiting. The best thing for the majority would be to improve the working conditions, or the amount of pay, but clearly those things are not going to come. Getting all of the people overseas could lead to trouble as well. There are so many miners and factory workers, it would take a lot to get all of them overseas, and if they all did not go they would be left without jobs. Shifting jobs overseas is not the best possible solution.

Ian Macdonald (Young boy coal miner)

This decision only appeals to the actual business owners, and does not help the greater people, therefore is against utilitarianism. I may not love being a coal miner, but it really is all I have, and the only thing I have left or else me and my mother die. Taking the jobs out of the country would mean I would be unemployed. Also, many others would be unemployed. Part of the American dream is to be able to find new jobs and be able to thrive in this country. With jobs moving out of the country the only people thriving are those owning the business and gaining more profit by cheaply creating goods. These cheaper products help out the countries we have making the products, yet the majority of citizens here are left to wither away without jobs. I do not think that moving the jobs away from the country is what is best for the majority, and it is an extremely selfish doing on the business owners' part. With so many people willing to work right in our own backyard, it is foolish to move work. If their income was decreased for the general welfare of the people in their own country, that should be something that the owners are willing to face. This country must work together with its own people if we expect to survive. We cannot be so selfish.

Quarter 2 - Assignment #2 11/18/13 Post by 11/20; Comment twice by 11/22

Using the lens of your assigned person, respond to the following prompt.  You will obviously need to suspend accurate time and place to respond.

Prompt: Shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor sources and natural resources is the best possible solution for our economy.

Sarah Schumacher: Utopian Dreamer

I understand that it is in human nature to be competitive and to always want more. However, I always love to imagine a world where it wasn't like that. This place is a world where friends do things for you simply because they love you, and want to see your life improve. Have any of you ever done that? I don't know if I have ever done something for someone else without expecting something in return. I would love to see this place. Here, in my world, there are no cheating politicians, no mortgages or bills to be paid, no one is trying to be  better than others, and you simply have no one to compete with. All of us have different abilities, but we respect that about each other, and offer our goods and services to others free of charge. I know this is impossible. However, just imagine it for one second, before you try and completely shut it down. It sounds ok doesn't it? No one wants to be better than you, and we all care for each other. We care for each other because we all share one connection- we are all human beings.

Class Continuation

Eleanor Fulghum

Based on the discussion held in class today, I personally developed my own opinion on both the matter of putting a cost on a human life and the example in which Christians were killed for entertainment. To begin with, the case that focused itself on placing a price on human life seems not only unrealistic, but inhumane. The gift of life may as well be measured in such forms of happiness and an individual's willpower for success, yet within this context, a numerical value should remain nonexistent. Within society we go about placing numbers on things to grant them worth or meaning. Yet if one was to go about placing the cost of a soul, it becomes a matter of morality. The granted ability of human nature for us to produce life is one in which can never be bought, sold, or taken away. In fact, the beauty of life itself includes that life may take freeform, yet it should not ever be represented by certain statistics representing that person's "value". For a person's life to be exchanged for a superficial measure is not only criminal, but a stab at mankind himself, as nature's gift should remain priceless. During the second half of our discussion, the issue in which Christians were sacrificed for entertainment also strikes me morally astray. Although one can say that this sacrifice entertained the majority of the Roman people, the minority's weight deserves too an equal chance to be heard. Going along with my previous argument, numerical values can not be matched with human desires, meaning that no matter what statistics support the fact that the Romans enjoyed Christian persecution, humans were still following through acts representing treason to mankind. The comparison of the a majority to a minority of people shouldn't be amplified to a degree of numbers, but should more so fit the individual desires of a human being. Although such actions such as preserving the life of a Christian may dissatisfy the Romans, it is of personal willpower for people to decide their fate. The idea in which humans would think to put a cost on a life or think of it as a sacrifice is appalling, as the intentions of man should remain disconnected from these superficial statistics that we are being fooled into believing measure us as people.

Continuation of today's class discussion...

We were discussing the effects of cost-benefit analysis applied to issues of morality.  Our basis for discussion stems from Jeremy Bentham's principle of utilitarianism.  Two issues discussed were from Professor Sandel's lecture - 1. dollar value on human life with the Ford Pinto and 2. Throwing Christians to the Lions in the coliseum.

Jeremy Bentham (Meran Topalian)

The revolution was a long project, one that had many positive outcomes. The revolution was a spark for everyone, not just for the people in Britain, but for almost everyone in the world. As we look at it new inventions and new ideas spark for a more prosperous lifestyle. However, with the help from complex machines we lose jobs to those who were the ones always making the goods. But, in reality, the food surplus went up and so did the population. When you have more food, you have more people not starving. Also, brought to the table during the revolution was the unknown idea of medicine. With the anesthetic, people don't feel pain during an operation. However, medicine was costly and wasn't that the hands of all. So, it is untrue to say that the revolution was a positive outcome for "everyone" but a positive outcome for most; the revolution must be done!

Adam Smith (Julian Wu)

I believe this Industrial Revolution definitely impacted all of Europe's citizens in a positive way. The first thing I would like to mention is Laissez-faire. Laissez-faire directly translates to "let do" and encourages less government management and more individual management. This Industrial Revolution helped so many business owners set their own regulations and start their own businesses. These owners will actually enjoy their job instead of having the government put them into a job they dislike. Also, customers will be satisfied with these owners. This benefits all Europe's citizens because customers will be more satisfied with the owners. Competition will emerge too, which will set a standard price of the products depending on the demands on the general public. This directly relates to the idea of supply and demand. By having these new machines, such as the steam engine, goods can be mass produced. However, these machines need laborers to run them! This provides many job opportunities to the working class in the city. These goods will be quick and efficient, benefiting everyone who wants to buy these products. This is why the Industrial Revolution clearly impacted all of Europe's citizens in a positive way.

Women worker in textile mill (Kyle Sjoberg)

At my job there is so many ways to get hurt very easy. It is awesome we play a role in the society but it is just way too dangerous. Once my neighbor was working at a factory and she fainted from the hard work. Her hand was cut off from the machine and she still works. Conditions in the factory are terrible with the chance of getting hurt. We also have the chance of getting stuck in the factory while there is a fire. With the few narrow exists they give us creates a huge fire hazard for us women. If there was a fire it would be most likely that most of us women would not make it out. Also there are little girls that work in the factory. Some are 10 year old who work the same amount as us older women do. These new machines are very dangerous if you are not careful at all.

Adam Smith (Sarah Schumacher)

Well of course the Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of us! It brought higher wages, more jobs, healthier people, a significant growth in population, and most importantly it changed the world! Now, take out the disease ridden cities and unhappy people, and focus on the ones who are grateful to have a wage to feed their family with! That is the product of the Revolution. Without these workers the Revolution would not have occurred! Secondly, laissez-faire was incorporated in the Revolution (thank God, am I right)? Leave it to the people to deal with the economy, for they are the ones who are directly affected! Thirdly, the free market strategy benefits everyone. Goods are sold at lower prices, leading to a growth in sales, which overall leads to a growing and stable economy. So, in conclusion the Revolution was for us all. For the people, the entrepreneurs, members of governmental authority, and even philosophers like me.

David Ricardo (Kyle Riggs)

       The Industrial Revolution in Europe cannot please everyone. This Industrial Revolution had an instant and lastly effect on all of Europe. It changed not only Europe, but the world. The revolution had a positive effect on many people, but not necessary all people. Some working class families were too large, and this caused them to have very bad living conditions. All people could have been positively impacted if they had embraced the Revolution and worked to make their life better. The simplest way to do this was to limit family size, and work harder. Business men must focus on the big picture. They can not afford to treat all of their workers kindly, they must work to enlarge their company. The Revolution brought many changes, larger for the better, but it also made a small number of people suffer. Factory work was an improvement over farming for many reasons, but it hurt large families who's members were all forced to work because of the cost of living.

Robert Owen (Zack Johnson)

A mother holds her newborn in her arms.  His eyes are closed and he lies curled in a peaceful ball.  The love by his mother seems to soak into his soul and plaster a content smile permanently on his face.  Most people could agree that in this moment the child is truly innocent.  His closed eyes have seen nothing of the world and his brain contains nothing but warm feelings associated with proximity to his mother.  Yet as this child grows up, this innocence is slowly shattered.  With each horrid experience that he is forced to endure, another piece of the protective shell that he once lived under disappears.  Soon, this shell is completely obliterated.  Society is completely to blame.  Had this child’s surroundings been one of complete happiness and acceptance, this shell would not have burst.  Instead, the child is forced to live in a world of harshness and cruelty. The shell stands no chance.  The industrial revolution possessed the ability to change this environment.  The boom in the economy helped parents find stable jobs.  The new innovations improved the quality of life and work for thousands.  Indeed, with these advances, a select few were able to preserve the shell of innocence for those living under their command.  For instance, I created a compound where people could live and work in harmony while enjoying a good quality of life and a good education.  However, the rest fell prey to the greed of the powerful.  The creators of many of the factories were solely driven by a desire for profit.  To maximize these profits, they forced their workers to work ridiculous hours under atrocious conditions.  The workers were given no education and very little pay.  Almost daily, weavers would lose their fingers to the loom.  All of these factors contributed to the acceleration of the obliteration of the shell of innocence as well as any happiness they had before going to work.  Thus, even though it helped some, it is impossible to say that Europe’s Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens.  

Adam Smith (Rachel Latham)

The industrial revolution certainly helped all citizens. By using laissez-faire economics, we have helped Europe become a better place. Under laissez-faire economics, the government does not interfere with business, rather it leaves it to the people. This allows the economy to blossom and grow freely. I believe that by having a free market, it helps everyone in Europe. By operating under a free market, it allows goods to be sold at lower prices, which in turn makes it more affordable for everyone, hence benefiting everyone living in Europe. This also benefits the economy. By having a stronger and growing economy, it allows entrepreneurs to expand their ventures, or invest in new ventures. In turn, investing in new ventures also helped the economy grow even more. The industrial revolution was beneficial to all citizens, not just the wealthy business owners.

Herbert Spencer (Kenny Shanos)

Yes.  I do agree that the Industrial Revolution positively affected all of its people.  I believe that technology especially helped the people of the revolution.  With new and more advanced technology people can now get places faster.  Also, goods can travel much more efficiently and quicker.  People in turn can buy items at a lower cost due to the factories that produce so many great items. In addition to factories,  railroads were made.  I liked the science behind the railroads because they were made out of iron.  The production of iron in turn increased and more people were needed.  This was great for the people as a group because they work together in the factory to create one product.  I believe that the group as a whole is more important than each individual.  Therefore, the industrial revolution affected people in a very positive way.  From the unison of work by the people to the great achievements that people were able to accomplish, the industrial revolution had a positive impact on all of its people.

Karl Marx (Braden Fleming)

The Industrial Revolution does absolutely not have a positive impact on all its citizens. Sure, it has benefitted members of the upper classes but has only taken a large toll out of the lower class. As I have said many times prior, Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Meaning that Industrial Revolution has been controlling the members of the lower class and that us upperclassmen are only taking advantage of them to do our laboring jobs. Although it has brought a lot of good machines to the society, which for the most part is good, however is it worth pulling the peasants off the land they live and farm on. Many of them did not like that at all. We simply stripped them of their land and forced them to move to an unfamiliar city and live that kind of life. It is unfair for them! Us upperclassmen may have benefitted greatly, off the hard work and success of the lower class men. The rich became richer, where as the poor remained poor. This is why the industrial revolution did not have a positive impact on all of its citizens.

Herbert Spencer (Olivia Harrington)

I have said it once, and I will say it again, society is the progression small, alike groups, emerging into large and more complex groups. This is how I recognized society. Some people may not have believed me, but I was confident that this was a good perception. My theory of society was proven true during the Industrial Revolution. With a thriving industry, I believe that the Industrial Revolution had a positive impact on all citizens within Britain. While the industry was growing and increasing, there were specialized professions that were incorporated within it. In search of an occupation, citizens moved and upgraded from small farmlands and towns, to industrial areas. This transfer led to the emerge of immense cities. Industrial areas were usually cities, but these areas were also always near a body of water. The Industrial Revolution also had a positive impact on the medicines and methods of hygiene throughout the society. Through these inventions, our economy has become stronger. More medicines and better hygiene also lead to longer lives. All of these things have made life a lot easier and even made people more successful, so I believe that the European Industrial Revolution had a positive impact on it's citizens.

Thomas Malthus (Eva Lindquist)

      This Industrial Revolution is not a good thing. The problems it solves cause further trouble. For instance, people are living longer. Normally, I would not be against that, but I find the growing numbers of the masses worrisome. Everywhere, I see the effects of overpopulation: crowding, hunger, misery. We cannot grow food fast enough to keep up with this trend. This supposedly glorious Revolution, with all of its miraculous new devices and ideas, will solve war, disease, famine- anything that moderates population growth. In the old days, we needed bigger families, because we knew at least a few of us would not live. Now, with our technological advances, having so many children to care for is a liability to everyone. An Industrial Revolution solves many problems, yes; it produces positive results, yes; but it may end up causing us to self-destruct from too many people living too long.

Thomas Malthus (Angelica Mirandou)

Europe's industrial revolution did not have a positive impact on all its citizens. Yes, there were positives that came out of the industrial revolution, but the negatives out weighed them. As the industrial revolution continued people began to live in crowded areas, families starved, and because everyone lived and worked in close proximity disease spread like wild fire. All of these factor were brought up through the industrial revolution and they caused death. The main problem surrounding these causes was the rapid increase in the population. In An Essay on the Principle of Population written by yours truly I explain how the increase in population didn't match the increase on food and supplies. With this problem at hand the industrial revolution didn't help much, but created more problems. I didn't write this essay on only what I saw, but I researched for many years. As I wrote my essay I watched the beginning of the industrial revolution unfold and tried to see what it would bring to the people in Europe. This industrial revolution did not have a positive impact on all of Europe's citizens.

Robert Owens (Max Moss)

Hello, my name is Robert Owens mostly known for my idea of a socialist utopia. As for the Industrial Revolution, I believe that it left many citizens form the industrial working class in very poor conditions. These men, women, and children who put up with terrible working conditions. When they came home to their small tenants, they had to put up with atrocious conditions yet again. Most of these workers would have disease spread easily because of the cramped living conditions. The world would be better off if the government stopped forcing peasants off of their farming land. When push comes to shove, these workers were being paid hardly more then what they were making out in the fields. Also, they wouldn't be over worked or disease ridden. They would have vast amounts of space and land. In my "Utopia" I promised to the people that they would receive adequate food, working hours, and living quarters, none of this was provided during the Industrial Revolution.

Friedrich Engles (Yash Gokhale)

As I have said for many years and still stand by today, “from the first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization.” It was not enough for all people to earn a fair and equal pay through doing their part in the agricultural society. It was not enough for men to earn their living through honest physical labor. No it was not enough. Now the clever and conniving few have brought industry and machines into the equation. An equation that now has the poor working to make the rich richer. What is it that the workers get in return for making their employer rich? At the end of the day they are given a boot to the behind, money not enough to feed a hound, and disease that will pass to the family waiting at home. And this is just the men. The children, lungs filled with coal, come hacking to their doorsteps. The mothers, having to see their children in such pain, cry after a long, cramped day at the textile factory. This is the image of a family which has been impacted by the industrial revolution; the image is not positive.

Karl Marx (Eleanor Fulghum)

I could not be more dissatisfied with the tyranny in which they call an Industrial Revolution in Britain! What enrages me most is the fact that I see people carrying about, so thrilled to be a part of this revolution, because it is "positive". This revolution is anything but positive! The citizens, oh the poor souls, are missing the point. Yes, I understand that in such times we could benefit from a couple more machines here and there, yet the mentality behind this revolution is blinding. What the people seem to be ignorant to is the fact that the government is still exploiting its people! Without the ability to allow people their individual roles in society through the power of choice, individual talents are ceasing. By working ruthlessly for a factory operating the same old, same old machines, the government is secretly holding back the broad talent among its people, manipulating their "go with the flow" type attitudes. By forcing citizens to be held in a factory is obviously limiting the precious power of the people. Yet don't be fooled my friends, the government knows of this lethal weapon, and they are far beyond aware of this mighty control within their possession. Within the palm of their hands is the laboring of the people, as they misuse the power being put into this revolution. Believe not their innocent pleas, because the government is entrapping you, and beware...

-Karl Marx

Friedrich Engles (Brooke Anderson)

Hello I am Friedrich Engles. What defines the impact of being positive? Yes sure more people are working and are making more money that they were before, but where they live is sure not positive. The tenements they live in are over crowed and dirty. Workers are attracting disease that may not have ever even been around before they Industrial Revolution. Children are becoming deprived of their childhood and being forced to work in these factories to help provide for their families. Yes there are positive outcomes, as in being employed, however they are many more negative effects. Once there enough places for people to live in then I believe there will be something positive from it. However at the moment it is just hurting more people. There are a few positive things for the citizens of the Industrial Revolution, however there are much more worse.

Robert Owen (Ryan Teng)

Hello! My name is Robert Owen, social reformer and creator of "Owen's Utopia" in New Lanark, Scotland. The Industrial Revolution, in my eyes, left very poor conditions for the working class. Many people who worked in mills were very tightly packed together and very sick, so disease spread quickly. The workers got low wages, were overworked, and were very unhappy, so I decided to do something about it. I built a "utopia" where everyone would live in good living and working conditions. I promised many people better homes, less working hours, and even gave education to the kids. A visitor to my Utopia once said to me "I have never seen so much order, good government, tranquility, and rational happiness prevail." which touched my heart, because it showed that I was closer to reaching my goal. I wanted to prove  to other business owners that low pay and terrible living conditions were unnecessary and harsh, as they could still turn a profit even when they gave their workers a decent pay and good housing. I had many people come and visit my utopia to study my business, however, after a time, my mill slowly went on the decline and it was slowly forgotten. I still believe that many people can make a profit and provide good services to their workers. I just hope that people will  take my example and never let such horrible working conditions arise again.

Thomas Malthus (Michael Kowalski)

Fellow economist, I greet you with the open arms of God. I am Reverend Robert (Thomas) Malthus. Industrialization is touchy subject, and some of you just cant understand its drawbacks and faults. Some of you, such as David Ricardo, are just completely wrong and do not have half of a brain to even conceive this. But that is why God sent me here, to inform you on how the economy functions. This Industrialization is not solely a good thing. People may tend to forget but with this mistake one must not think himself more incompetent than Mr. Ricardo, for you still have hope. What happens with an Industrial Revolution? More people; that's what. And now the next jump, what do you need with more people? There is the catch. A society needs hygiene, food, and the space to put the people. The rate of which these former things increase to not even begin to compare to the rate at which the citizens populate. A one point the population will reach a climax, a maxim where the means to support these people simply are not sufficient enough. Therefore you have catastrophe, suffering and death until the population can be steadily supported. That is your lesson to day my pupils and go forth and worship the Creator.

Herbert Spencer (Alyssa Kanis)

I have told you so! Earlier I have perceived society to be progression of small homogeneous groups evolving into large complex groups over a certain period of time.  At last my theory has been proven to be true through this glorious Industrial Revolution! Having the industry rise due too specific demand of jobs, this sudden migration has supported all of my previous hypotheses. Now just look! Individual freedom is of importance, and by willingly having producers open handedly give out job opportunity due too our boom in productions, has created a blossoming difference in our social structure for the better. All of us now given the same opportunity, it is just now whether or not one has the ability too take it. Strong grow in power and influence over the weak, and this has definitely been reflected through this new systematical era. Due too this new reform of society,  our societal group as a whole no matter where stood in the structure, has created a stronger economy through simplistic advances in hygiene and medicine. Thus the population increase, creating our statistics to blow through the roof in numbers. although as said before the individual freedom is of importance, The group is of upmost importance, and by strengthening the power of the people for the people, I see this Industrial Revolution being just what we need for more efficient and successful living. Life is now being lived through easier solutions, therefore Europe's Industrial Revolution is making a positive impact on all citizens in a positive way.

Male London Factory Worker (Ben Acker)

You there. Yes, you. Move a little closer. Have you come to hear the story of this ragged man, whose life was broken by the Industrial Revolution? Have you come to listen to the ways that its "advances" led to the death of my family, and broken my spirit? They say that this revolution would benefit us all. They told us that our lives would be forever greater because of the things they were doing. All that has become of it is my life is forever worse. Before these horrid advancements, I lived with my family on our farm outside of Cambridge. Back then, we had never heard of "bosses", or "wages". The only things of the sort we knew were that my children would follow what I told them to make our next harvest as plentiful as possible. Next, we would get our "wages" by selling our crops to buyers around the community. This lifestyle left us free and independent, able to do as we pleased when we were able. Then, the enclosures came. Rich landowners, who believed they could boost our profits, collaborated with Parliament to take our lands by law. After this, they were able to unify crop production over multiple fields. Now, what did this mean for small, land-owning farmers like me? We were forced to migrate from the areas we once lived to cities in search of new employment. The conditions were much different there. No longer could we traverse the land as we pleased, only having ourselves to worry about. It was all work, work, work, from sunrise to sunset. My wife was crushed by a water frame in the mill she worked for, and my children were poisoned by the foul air of the coal mines. What exactly do I have left to live for? They told us that this revolution would help us live better lives, and though these changes may have given me more money than growing my own food and products, is it really worth it to be locked up, lost, and alone?

London factory worker ( Andres ).

Saying that the Industrial Revolution effected all citizens in a positive way is untrue and inaccurate. I belong to the middle-lower class of England and I can surely tell you that the way we people live our lives is chaos ever  since the revolution begun. We use to have our own space to grow crops on farms, we use to wake up well and have great breakfasts, we use to be happy. Ever since this started, we have been removed from the rural areas, and have been put in tenements, little overcrowded apartments where there is no flowing air and no clean water supply. Further more, we have to wake up at six in the morning to go work in a lousy factory where we are paid just under the minimum wage. Not only that but we work like crazy people! We have to work from sun up to sun down. Is this a good way of life? Do you really find this acceptable? We, the lower class demand answers! Without us after all the factories would run out of business, The factory owners need us so we are definitely important. So, do you still think that the Industrial Revolution effected all citizens in a positive way?

David Ricardo (Adam Duvall)

The industrial revolution was a huge turning point for Europe because life was becoming easier for so many but was it really benefiting everyone?  Many believe that this was the way for the poor to create a better and easier life but it makes the working class live beyond their means.  The children work, but in a way a family who has a large amount of children are making it harder on themselves.  Wages that are too low to support a family is an often complaint but what is the accomplishment when the businesses are breaking even?  To be honest the only way to improve upon the situation of the poor is through hard work and reducing the size of their families.  Working in the factories with a steady income far beats working from sun up to sun down on a farm that isn't always guaranteed for success. The technology boom is great and all, but the working class is asking too much as far as wages and lifestyle goes which makes for an unhappy society.  The complaint that jobs aren't as easy to come by after a period of time because is unreasonable because the machines are only making more efficient work which leads to less clientele.  Businesses who are aiming to be successful in this change of technology can't worry about the wage or workers situation because the revolution is set for great accomplishments, while along the way not everyone can be pleased.

Karl Marx (Katharine Yan)

The Industrial Revolution has only helped the wealthy, the factory owners of the upper class. The poor have become poorer as a result of this industrialization. Small, family-owned businesses are now competing with huge factories. Artisans who continue to construct things by hand are doomed in a society that now relies on machines that can do the work ten times faster. These people certainly are not benefiting from the industrial revolution. The poor are forced to migrate to largely populated cities to earn low wages, working hours upon hours in terrible factory conditions doing repetitive tasks. They are treated like machines themselves, expected to do their part in the manufacturing process and get paid little for it. There is a widening gap between the upper and lower classes, in terms of their wealth. The poor are suffering, and eventually they will form labor unions and rebel against wealthy factory owners, leading to a complete overthrow of capitalism. We need to bridge the gap between the poor and the wealthy, creating a system in which everyone is equal, and everything is owned by the people. There should be no private property, and all goods and profits should be distributed equally. Only then can both the poor and the wealthy receive equal benefits. The Industrial Revolution is only positively impacting the wealthy factory owners, not the working class or artisans who have been replaced by machines.

A Young Boy Coal Miner (Romina Garakani)

My name is Sam. I am seven years old. I am a coal miner. I am just like my father and we even work together. We are trapped in the mines for twelve hours everyday. My older sister even works in the mine. She carries baskets of dug coal, which is too heavy for her too carry. These heavy baskets have caused deformities in many other women. I, along with my father and sister, each make two pennies a day. My family survives on 6 pennies. It is not enough money for us and usually my mother skips meals. We are so desperate to survive. Everyday my father, sister, and I come home, tired and in miserable moods. I feel so bad for my dear mother. The only time we are together, no one talks because we are in pain from our jobs. My heart breaks when I realize that my sister will not live a life like a real woman. One day, her body will become deformed just like all the other young woman working in the coal mines. She may not marry and she may not have children. She doesn't deserve that. Everyday when we step foot into the coal mine, we risk our lives. At any moment, something could fall on us and kill us. We cannot breathe correctly for twelve hours of every day. Our lungs are weakening and are not functioning properly. The inventions created in this Revolution include advanced medicine to lengthen the span of our lives. Unfortunately, as people's lives our increasing, my family's is decreasing. We would never in a million years be able to buy these medicines because we have no money. We don't even have enough money to feed my family. This Industrial Revolution has made my life miserable. Everyone around me is making money like it's growing off the trees and I am living a life of poverty with my people.

London Factory Worker (Brian Gemma)

Nothing is ever perfect for all people. There are always circumstances for different kinds of people. Some may like the situation, and others may not. It's a part of life. Saying that the Industrial Revolution effected all citizens in a positive way is definitely a false statement. Yes, there were more jobs for people but that is not always a good thing. Some people may need to stay home and take care of the house. Me, being a factory worker, I am used to working for long periods of time. What bothers me the most, is the children who are being worked. They get worked and worked, until they are completely exhausted. The children are so young as well. I do not mind the enormous workload for an adult, but seeing a kid worked so hard really changes my perspective. Children should not be working. They should be getting educated, or even just doing children activities. I see people being worked way too hard every day, but this is not the same. To say that all people were positively effected by the Industrial Revolution is just not true.

Jeremy Bentham (Will Campbell)

Hello, I am Jeremy Bentham. I am an economist and philosopher. During the Industrial Revolution in Europe, I strongly advocated utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that society's goal should be to provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. So basically, I believe that laws should be judged on their "utility," or how many people it pleases and how much more happiness it provides than pain. It is because of these ideals that I hold dear that I believe that Europe's Industrial Revolution did not have a positive impact on all of the citizens of Europe. Many of the citizens of Europe were those that were farmers and workers; those people that worked the day away in the factories to make their money. Those that were farmers became workers because the government felt it was alright if they just stripped farmers of their land in order to force them into their factories and big cities. I highly doubt that law pleased the farmers very much, meaning it did not align with utilitarianism or my personal ideals and beliefs. Also, those farmers, now workers, were forced to work in very harsh and even dangerous conditions; conditions that threatened many workers' lives. I hoped to change society; to create one where the workers were actually put into consideration during a time in which they were so vital, where they could have an influence on what their work hours and conditions were like. I hoped to change the Industrial Revolution, because it certainly did not have a positive impact on the citizens of Europe.

Women worker in a textile mill in London (Elise Warren)

Everyday I live in fear. Fear of getting my hand cut off, like I see everyday. Or the fear of the factory catching on fire and being trapped inside, and watching us all die. I see kids, at such a young age, sitting and working 10 hours days when they should be getting educated. Instead, they stay to provide for their family. We all sit and work all day just waiting for an accident to happen. Anyone that says that the European industrial revolution positively influenced all European citizens is sadly mistaken. The world has become a more dangerous place, and why did we need the change anyways? Yes, I'm glad that women finally have a role in society, but does our job really need to be this hazardous? And why did the children need to get involved when they're just kids? I am thinking about returning home and becoming a housewife again. That is what many of my friends are doing, and they seem happy to be in the safety and comfort of their homes again. After all, we are only home for about two to four hours a day when we are not sleeping. Someone needs to run the house, and the industrial revolution has stopped me from doing that. Some may think that's good and it is nice to be out of the house, but not me. I want to be caring for my family, and living free of fear, but living in the shadow of death for the sake of cotton everyday just isn't cutting it.

Jeremy Bentham (Chris Wright)

Europe's Industrial revolution most definitely did not positively impact all Europeans. First off factory owners would have children working which some weren't strong or smart enough to understand what they were doing ,due to lack of education. They had children as young as 6 years old who would get hurt or might die in these factories and they wouldn't care. They would just replace them. The reason children were working in factories was because these jobs didn't pay enough for the parents, so the children had to help provide. This brings me to another reason the Industrial Revolution didn't positively affect everyone, there were the super rich and the dirt poor. Since farm land was taken away for citizens they had to work in factories, which didn't pay well. The owner's, who were making large amounts of money, weren't paying their workers enough. This also meant that there were large amounts of poor people compared to the rich. So tell me. How is a time when people aren't getting enough money and children getting hurt or killed a positive affect on Europeans?

Young boy coal miner (Ian Macdonald)

I am 9 years old and work in a coal mine. I work 10 hours per day. Ten hours is what it takes to not be able to breathe after work. You spend 2 hours just trying to cough out the anthracite and coal dust so you stop wheezing. We never have time for school, and the older you get, the more dangerous the jobs. My father died when I was 2, his lungs gave out because he couldn't take so many years of poor air quality. Last week, my brother was transporting mules down the mine shafts on his own alone, and a boulder fell on his legs. He was trapped in the dirty water on the ground and couldn't get up. He drowned alone with nobody there to help. Some boys go to school after work, but we are all so tired that education is useless. We are destined to the mine shafts until we die. My family had no choice. We owned a farm but because of the industrial revolution, our farm was no longer as important. A new large farm was made 10 miles away that everyone could buy from for cheaper. My mother had to have my brother and I work in the coal mines. Life was fine beforehand, now I need to worry about living through the day. The world has become dangerous.

Quarter 2 - Assignment #1: Assigned 11/11; Post by 11/13; Comment twice by 11/15

As a reminder, below is a list of the characters that were assigned in class last week. If you were absent and did not receive a name for the upcoming assignments, it is your responsibility to email me to get your character's name before beginning this assignments. Due dates will apply to everyone.

1. Jeremy Bentham

2. Herbert Spencer

3. Friedrich Engels

4. Thomas Malthus

5. Robert Owen

6. Karl Marx

7. David Riccardo

8. Adam Smith

9. Factory Worker (London)

10. Woman worker in a textile mill (London)

11. Young boy coal miner

Prompt: React to the following statement in no less 10 sentences.  

Europe's Industrial Revolution positively impacted all of its citizens in a positive way.

Marie Antoinette (Rachel Latham)

The Haitian Revolution was neither a good or bad event. I believe that their independence from France, was not very beneficial to them, in conjunction with the fact that many armies sailed to Haiti in order to keep the colony under France's control. However, I found myself laughing at the French army being defeated yet again. First they were being defeated by Austria, but now they are being defeated by one of their own colonies? It's truly hilarious. At least they cannot blame the loss of this war on me. However, I find their actions after declaring independence admirable; abolishing slavery was quite the radical thought for some countries during that time period. I applaud Haiti's aspirations for equality and truly hope that they find success as a new, independent country.

Napoleon (Brooke Anderson)

The Haitian Revolution is not a good thing. With all of the riots and revolts happening down there we are not getting the sugar we need. We bought Haiti so that we could get more money from the profits they make off of sugar. However, now the people are not doing their job. Why do they think they can just revolt? They are needed to help keep out country making money. Do they nor understand that what they do affects everyone in the country of France?  I would do anything to make sure that this doesn't happen again. The Revolution ended in the abolition of slavery, however they will not be independent. I will make sure of that.

Louis 18 (Kyle Sjoberg)

This is insane like always! More revolutions have spread through out the entire world. Revolution has been spreading through Europe and now South America. Haiti just recently revolted. I don't really care about Haiti, but they definitely should not have won the revolution. Soldiers should have swept out the rebels and stopped the madness. I could do a better job ruling Haiti. They need to calm down and work it out. Even though the "won" independence, I don't think they will survive very long. They need a good leader who could lead them to success. Like me for example, I could easily govern them. Too bad I have too much work dealing with France. My advice to them is to get a good ruler and figure out how they can make Haiti a better place.

King George III (Michael Kowalski)

Greetings my loyal and, for some of you, disloyal subjects. I realize that this revolution in Haiti has sparked some conflict. TRIANGLE! I must assure all of you that this was just only a fluke. How could a slave colony with only the ability to farm, fight back against Napoleon the Dreaded. They only way this could have happened is that they had the power of their pagan gods with them. MONKEY FLAVORED ICE CREAM! The rest of the Council and I will not allow this to happen again in anywhere else. So all you "revolutionaries" out there, please come to your senses. Donde esta el banyo? I swear to all of you that return that I will not give you a long and painful death of hanging from the London Bridge. (Evil Laughter)

Robespierre (Sarah Schumacher)

Revolution has spread! Hurray! Let the spirit of Revolution spread throughout the world. Revolution is the only way to make a change, diplomacy does nothing! Revolt! Congratulations to the Haitians, continue to revolt. For change will be in your future, just like the French! We support your Revolution and are excited to see your outcome. Fight with fiery and passion in your heart, but always keep practicality and logic in your mind! VIVE LA REVOLUTION! LET ALL CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS BE STOPPED! REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY! Be strong in the tough times, for they will soon come. You will be oppressed, but fight back! VIVE LA REVOLUTION! VIVE LA REVOLUTION! VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

Olympe de Gouges (Angelica Mirandou)

There is always a cause for revolution and in Haiti's case it was slavery. I support Haiti and their decision to revolt for independence. Every person should have the same rights male or female including slaves. Growing up I never saw people own slaves and looking back on it I don't see why anyone would need salves. I believe that the reason why people do not support their independence is because they are worried what will happen to the triangular trade. Haiti has large sugar plantations and that's how they make a living and trade for what they need. Without the trade Haiti would be lost and would have to ask for help from other countries. By Haiti becoming independent France loses another colony, but France will not lose its trade, the main reason why Haiti was under France's control. Haiti declaring independence from France was a good decision for them because they can still trade, but now they're under their own rule. For France on the other hand they lose a little bit of control in the world around them. Man and women should have equal rights even if those men and women are or were slaves.

Pope Pius VI (Julian Wu)

Hi, my name is Pope Pius VI. In my opinion, this Haitian Revolution is not necessary at all. What did this revolution accomplish? Yes, it did help "free" slaves and win Haiti their independence. However, is the results worth it? The "free" slaves are still being treated differently. In addition to that, the economy of Haiti will decrease significantly. These slaves who are free will no longer want to work in the fields. Therefore, these sugar plantations will have no more workers, resulting in a horrible crisis. Although my dislike for Napoleon is strong, I would have to side with his idea of reconquering Haiti. This Toussaint L'Ouverture will not only harm himself in this revolution but also Haiti. Everything before the revolution is so much better than after the revolution. Revolution will only change things for the worse.

Marquis de Lafayette (Ben Acker)

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" - Eldridge Cleaver. In these dangerous times, many rulers and people of power have overlooked these words of wisdom. They have believed that to get whatever they want, others must suffer. This is, to them, the way of life. Take taxation for example. Does anyone enjoy being taxed? Do citizens hope for the day they can give away their hard-earned money to who-knows-where? Of course not. But there must be someone who will pay for federal services, like the mail, or police, or zoos. Our kings, queens, and dictators, even our "higher" classes believe that they can stick all the taxation on the ones below them, so they don't have to experience these horrors. They don't need to hand away their money, because others will do it for them. So what happens when these solely-taxed people don't accept the fact they must be the only ones taxed? What happens when a lower end of society just gets fed up with what others think they can get away with? REVOLUTION. It has been popping up everywhere. From the Americas, to France, to other countries in Europe, and now Haiti. For years, our economy has profited off of Haiti's sugarcane production. Their natives, enslaved by our generals and officials, toiled day and night to keep our economy running. Finally, they reached that point when they just won't harvest that next stalk, when they won't accept the fact that they have to harvest this sugarcane for foreigners. And so rebellion ensued. Now, may their independence last forever! This imprisonment under Napoleon upon the island of Haiti has gone on for too long. No longer will the natives be enslaved and forced to work for our government's benefit. Vive la Revolution!

Marquis de Lafayette (Romina Garakani)

I believe that the Latin American and the other areas have the complete right to gain their independence. I encourage their results because they deserve to be free. I have taken part in both the American and French Revolution, now it is time for the Latin American Revolution. The social and ethnic caused a great problem through out the people.When Spain was attacked by Napoleon, it showed how weak the country was. It wasn't right for them to control so many areas when, in fact, they cannot control theirs. Out of all the people to win freedom were slaves in Haiti. They were a leader and an example of success to all the others. They were slaves!!!!! They weren't creoles, mulattoes, or mestizos! It amazes me how much dedication they had to receive their independence. They are a role model to all the other people that are considered higher class than them. Their revolt then led to revolts in Mexico, Central America, and South Americas. Along with these was the independence that Brazil received. The entire Latin American area gained their freedom. They deserved it after such a long period of time. They couldn't be controlled by a country that was weaker than themselves.

(Toussaint L'Ouveture)

Revolution, whenever I hear that word a small fire is lit inside of me. The Haitian Revolution was one of those times in my life where I felt alive! Back when the island was known as St. Domingo I was apart of many small uprisings like getting rid of the whipping of slaves. After winning this lets other slaves like myself learn that we can revolt, and be successful. At this time in history I had begun to gain prominent political power. Also, the Spanish had been fighting with the French leaving them weak and vulnerable. I and many others believed that this was the perfect time to revolutionize what is now present day by abolishing slavery. Everything had been going great, we had even established an autonomic constitution. Then in around 1803 Napoleon was unhappy with us so he sent troops to gain back control in Haiti. They even captured me and brought me to where I am today, rotting away in some prison. I am a hero not some criminal!

Danton (Katharine Yan)

Way to go Haiti! It's so nice to have inspired other colonies to follow in the footsteps of France. If there is any injustice or inequality in a society, the people should not be afraid to rise up and revolt. In Haiti, African slaves were overworked and treated unfairly. There is no better reason than oppression and denied freedom for a revolution to occur. I highly praise Toussaint L'Ouverture for taking the lead in this revolutionary struggle. If it were not for his actions, slavery might not have been abolished in Haiti. By bravely resisting Napoleon's control, this colony was able to win independence and later become a republic. See what happens when people take action? They bring about change and reforms that shape a better government and society. No one should be forced to submit to authority, especially a dictatorial leader, if they are not guaranteed their rights. No social classes should be inferior to other classes and be denied rights that they deserve. The success story of Haiti exemplifies that in the process of achieving freedom, there may be losses and setbacks along the way, but it is all worth it in the end.

Napoleon (Yash Gokhale)

Some traditions are not to be tampered with. Some things are better off the way they are. If it's not dysfunctional, then why attempt to fix it? If the ownership of a lower human being has worked for so long, then why is it suddenly so important to change this. It does not make sense to destroy a castle that has held up for hundreds of years just to try and build something new that may not stand the test of time. These revolutionaries in Haiti are fools, changing something that is engraved in the hearts and minds of people is a dangerous thing that will cause hysteria. People are comfortable when they are certain of their future. When traditions are broken people panic because they are uncertain of what is to come. This Haitian revolution breaks the tradition of slavery and will therefore cause chaos among those who rely on what has been understood for hundreds of years.

Clemens Von Metternich (Kenny Shanos)

The Hatian Revolution, in my eyes, was both good and bad for Haiti.  Haiti was a country with slaves that wanted to revolt for freedom and equality.  This part of the revolution was good because the slaves were being treated unfairly.  Even in a orderly, secure society people still need to be treated with respect.  This does not mean that everyone has to be equal, just respected and treated without torture and cruelty.  After slavery was abolished, Napoleon wanted to reconquer Haiti.  France ended up surrendering, which was very good for Haiti.  This then led to Haiti becoming an independent country with a republic government.  This was not that great for Haiti.  A republic government leads to chaos and disorder because so many people have equal authority and power.  I think that Haiti made the wrong choice to have a republic because there is not as much efficient order and security as if there was just a monarch.  Order and security keep the level of chaos down and this lets the monarch make the best decision for his people.  It was great that Haiti abolished slavery and became a free nation, but not so good that a republic was put into place.

Danton (Meran Topalian)

I love whenever one brings up the word Revolution. It makes me think of almost a mass body of people coming together to achieve something they have always wanted. With enough support a positive revolution can lead to an expected reality. Being the President of the Committee of Public Safety I strongly am for the process of a Revolution, especially a Revolution that is to get rid of a greedy Monarchy. I understand the flaws and imperfections of a Revolution such as death, but in reality the lives lost are the energy to keep getting closer to the goal. When looking at the actions/events of the Haitian Revolution it completely 100% backs up my views on Revolution. Indeed Haiti abolished slavery within their country and also won their independence. However, their leader Toussaint L'Ouverture was captured which basically kept on stimulation their fight for what they wanted and in this case it was abolition and independence. As I stated before, there must be sacrifice to achieve an ultimate goal. Haiti, in this case, didn't give up their fight of independence until they held it firm in their hands together as a united country!

Jose de San Martin (Olivia Harrington)

Revolution after revolution, the world was slowly progressing each and every day. I took part in the Argentine Revolution, and I also successfully defeated the Spanish in Chile and Peru. Another revolution during my time was the Haitian Revolution. I believe that this revolution was good for South America. The reason for this revolution was because slavery was eliminated, which I completely agree with. Slavery should not have been legal because this goes against freedom and equality among the people. Isn't this what we all wanted? Isn't freedom and equality a good slogan to have? Everyone should be treated equal, but just because of their skin color, they are not. I believe that it is very unfair. Luckily, because the the Haitian Revolution, slavery was eliminated. The Haitian Revolution was said to be a very successful slave rebellion. The yellow fever, in France, cause France to become weaker, and Haiti took advantage of this. After this, Haiti gained their independence in 1804. Overall, this revolution was a major success and I agree and support the result of it.