Home Economics Solved - Working Hours Fell In The Industrial Revolution

Solved – Working Hours Fell In The Industrial Revolution



It’s a standard tenet of Marxism that working hours increased at the time of the Industrial Revolution. This leads all sorts of moderns to talk about how the happy peasantry was thrown off the land and herded into factories and so on.

If working hours reduced at the time of the Industrial Revolution then of course we’ve room for a rather different story. People flooded into the factories because the lifestyle was better than that notsohappy peasantry.

The starting point to get to the correct answer is to note two things. Firstly, the economic unit among human beings is not the individual, it is the household. Second, households have two forms of work to be performed, inside the household for no pay from Da Man and outside the household for pay from The Man.

So, to work out whether working hours increased at the time of the Industrial Revolution we need to look at both types of working hours, domestic and market, and for the household as a whole.

We can see that they have decreased in modern times, that’s easy. The story of the last century is that both men and women have more leisure now than they did in 1920. Female market working hours have risen, make market, fallen. Both male and female household hours have fallen, female so much as to more than make up for the rise in market. This is washing machines, microwaves, stoves that don;t need blacking, steam irons, takeaway food and so on and on.

But what happened at the time of the Industrial Revolution? Perhaps there was an increase in hours which has then declined more recently?

Well, actually, no, not so much:

RAJAGOPALAN: You talk about the amount of yarn required for very simple items that every single one of us has in our closet. For a pair of jeans, you need six miles or 10 kilometers of yarn. In an Indian charkha, that takes about 13 days. If you go back to the Bronze Age, that takes 37 days to make.

Now, we all own multiple pairs of jeans. One doesn’t think about this at all. One doesn’t think about throwing away a pair of jeans if they’re ripped unintentionally, if you don’t want ripped jeans. We have this abundance of fabric, which I realize is an incredibly new thing in human history. For most of human history, this kind of abundance in fabric has simply not existed.

POSTREL: That 100 hours or 13 days—and the Indian charkha is the fastest pre–Industrial Revolution spinning, especially for cotton. That’s just for the spinning. That doesn’t include cleaning the fiber, preparing it for spinning. It doesn’t include the weaving, dyeing, any kind of finishing.

The spinning of yarn. It was the major household labour of women pre- the Industrial Revolution. Given those numbers that’s hour after hour after weeks of interminable labour. What was that Industrial Revolution in? Textiles of course. More than that, it was spinning that was the start of it all.

The first thing to be mechanised was that female household labour. This freed up more labour hours than anything else that happened at the time. True, it also meant that the average person could have a spare set of skivvies – or as it’s more politely put, stockings for the mill girls.

Working hours declined at the Industrial Revolution. This the concept that people had to be driven into the capitalist factories rather fails……



  1. I’d also argue that the children of farmers, especially old style peasants, could be useful very early indeed. That meant it made sense for women to marry early and pump out plenty of sprogs.

    Thus there were always far more people available than land for them to farm. So unless it was to be used up in war, or sold as slaves, or simply to starve, the surplus population had to earn its keep somewhere else. Working in a factory was less horrible than fighting in a war. Yes, really!!

    Working in factories was also no worse than peasant farming. In fact some ways it could be better. And the change in society gradually meant that it made economic sense not to try for at least ten kids per woman. You could spend your money on the produce of the factories to live better yourself instead.

    Thus we have our present society. Increased productivity means we can support the increased population. At a much higher standard of living. Contraception is also popular, as lazy types tend to spend their money on themselves instead of offspring.

    Of course, since I have a very pleasant lifestyle, I’d be convinced the industrial revolution was a wonderful idea anyway.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

So Let’s Have An Elitist Technocracy Instead!

There's been a certain amount - OK, a lot - of squealing in the US about how democracy is the ultimate value and we...

Recent comments