Life of the workers

In this note

Detail

Labour was abundant in Britain. News that jobs existed in a city pulled hundreds of country people in.
But getting hired did not depend on skill alone. It ran through networks of friendship and kin (friends and relatives).
If you had a relative or friend already inside a factory, you got a job fast.
If you knew nobody, you waited weeks, living on the street.
Where the jobless slept while waiting:
under bridges
in Night Refuges — shelters run by private charity
in the Casual Wards — overnight beds run by the Poor Law authorities (the government's poor-relief system)
The chapter's source for this is Will Thorne, who in 1881 walked to the Old Kent Road Gas Works in London looking for work.

Many trades were seasonal — busy for part of the year, dead for the rest.
When the busy season ended, workers were back on the streets.
They then hunted odd jobs, but such jobs were scarce until the middle of the 19th century.

Wages did rise somewhat in the early 19th century. But an average wage figure tells you very little.
Two things break the average:
Prices. During the Napoleonic War prices shot up, so the real value of wages fell sharply — the same money bought much less food.
Days of work. Income depended on how many days a worker actually got work, not on the daily wage rate alone. A good rate over few days is still hunger.
Scale of poverty:
Even at the best of times, about 10% of the urban population was extremely poor.
In a slump (a period of bad trade), it got far worse — in the 1830s unemployment ran between 35% and 75%, varying by region.

Workers did not welcome new machines, because a machine that did the work of many hands meant fewer jobs.
The Spinning Jenny is the chapter's example:
Devised by James Hargreaves in 1764.
One wheel turned many spindles, so one worker could spin several threads at once — cutting the demand for labour.
Britannica records the machine had one hand-powered wheel but eight spindles, so one person made eight strands of yarn at a time; Hargreaves patented it in 1770 [2].
Hargreaves was baptised 8 January 1721 at Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, and died 22 April 1778 at Nottingham [2].
Who attacked it, and why: in the woollen industry, women who lived on hand spinning attacked the Spinning Jenny. Hand spinning was their only income; the machine took it away.
The fight went on for years. In 1790 a magistrate reported colliers' wives "cutting to pieces" the machines.
This anger later took an organised form. The Luddites — bands of English craftsmen — began smashing textile machinery near Nottingham at the end of 1811 and spread in 1812 to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire; they mostly avoided violence against people and often had local support [3].

From the 1840s a building boom in the cities created large numbers of new jobs.
The work included:
widening roads
new railway stations and railway lines
tunnels
drainage and sewers
embanking rivers (building walls along riverbanks)
Result: the number of workers in transport doubled in the 1840s, and doubled again over the next 30 years.

Spinning Jenny — devised by James Hargreaves, 1764; one wheel turns many spindles.
Britannica: Spinning Jenny had one wheel and eight spindles; patented 1770 [2].
Will Thorne, 1881 — walked to the Old Kent Road Gas Works seeking work.
Night Refuges = private charity; Casual Wards = Poor Law authorities.
Napoleonic War period — real value of wages fell sharply because prices rose.
At the best of times, ~10% of the urban population was extremely poor.
1830s slump — unemployment 35%–75% across regions.
1790 magistrate's report — colliers' wives "cut to pieces" spinning machines.
Transport employment doubled in the 1840s, then doubled again over the next 30 years.
Luddite machine-breaking began near Nottingham, late 1811 [3].

Industrialisation did not mean instant prosperity for workers. Abundant labour + seasonality + price rise during the Napoleonic War meant the real condition of workers worsened even as average money wages rose. Useful for arguing that aggregate growth figures hide distribution.
Job access was social, not merit-based. Hiring through kin and friendship networks shows that in an early industrial labour market, social capital decided survival — a point that links to caste- and community-based recruitment (jobbers) in Indian mills.
Technology-versus-livelihood conflict is a recurring theme. Women hand spinners attacking the Spinning Jenny (1764 onwards), the 1790 colliers' wives episode and the organised Luddite attacks from 1811 [3] show resistance was rational, not backward — the machine really did destroy their only income. Compare with Indian handloom weavers' decline.
The state and public works as employer. Relief came only after the 1840s building boom — roads, railways, sewers, embankments — showing that infrastructure investment, not the factory alone, absorbed surplus labour.