Factory Workers Dbq

The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century led to the rapid industrialization of many cities in England and the rest of the United Kingdom. This rapid industrialization led to many new machines that increased efficiency and created a lesser need for workers. The workers of Leeds, England feared the repercussions of such a lesser need for workers, so they petitioned to their factory owners and managers, pleading them to lessen the use of machines. The factory owners replied claiming that everyone would benefit from their machines. Even though both of the two groups backed up their position with good reasoning and facts, the factory workers’ arguments were more solid in their defense, both presenting numbers and very real truths in their evidence

against the heightened installation of machinery throughout Leeds’ textile industry.
The workers of Leeds saw the use of machinery in the textile industry as a negative impact on their community due to the great repercussions that they foresaw occurring. The machines made work in factories more efficient, leading to more output from factories. So, when there is an increased output of a product, a smaller number of men can make the same amount of product that once required a larger number of men in the same length of time. Therefore, manufacturers will increase their personal profit by firing people that are no longer needed, thus reducing the amount of people that need to be paid. To show the impact that these lost jobs caused, the workers showed numbers proving the negativity of machines. They show that the scribbling machine takes the work of twenty men in twenty four hours, and they say factories allow eight men to work at a machine each day. When one does the math, that shows that twelve men will lose their jobs to every machine. With this information, they concluded that due to all the machines in Leeds alone, the number of unemployed is equivalent to 2000. When they took into consideration that there are double the number of machines outside of Leeds than there are in Leeds, they deduced that the number would roughly be around 4000. These numbers alone strengthen the workers’ point on how factories should limit machine usage, making their argument hard for the business owners to combat against.
As more and more workers spoke out about the negative usage of machinery, business owners responded with their side of the situation, mainly founded in the progress of their companies. They try to explain to the workers that they are working in a competitive market in which businesses and manufacturers must keep prices low to gain the most consumers. Low prices are important because a consumer is more likely to buy something that costs less money, and with competition, businesses can close if they do not have low enough prices. Another important reason that they bring up is that they are competing in foreign markets that have companies that pay less taxes and lower wages than they do in Leeds. A good example of machines improving industries that these business owners give is the cotton industry. The cotton industry introduced machines and increased profit greatly, and they rely completely on imports for production. They said that if the cotton industry could greatly increase their profits, then the wool industry, that did not rely on imports, would be even more successful. They also claim that workers should appreciate the machinery because in cuts manual labor by nearly a third, and that if machinery was taken away, workers would revolt. Though the business owners presented valid points that can be backed up, it is still clear that the factory workers clearly presented a better argument that more people could sympathize with, thus strengthening their argument even further.
With all of the evidence given from both sides, it is blatantly obvious that the workers presented the better of the two arguments.

They presented the numbers of people immediately unemployed due to machines, which already are extremely high, let alone the idea the children that will grow up without jobs. They estimated that each of the workers left without a job had a son who would have been placed into an apprenticeship for the same type of work as their father. With the lack of jobs, there would also be a lack of apprenticeships, drastically increasing the number of lost jobs. With their children locked out of prospective jobs, the factory worker fear that their children will not be able to learn a decent way to work, and, when left idle, resort to criminal activity. They also state that they cannot train for another skill set because they need to care for their families. In this effort, factory workers are pleading their former employers to limit the use of machines so that they can provide for their families and secure the future of their children. However, the business responded only with personal gain in mind. The claim that everyone would benefit from the use of machines was not true for the workers for a long time. The business owner's personal interest clouded their judgements with views of vast wealth, but they missed the idea that there was likely starving children paying for their greed. The factory workers argument was based mainly in fact, whereas the business owners argument was based on mere speculation on the success of their industry. The workers represented the greatest number of people, and if the greater of the two did not benefit from machinery, repercussions would have been greater if they began to suffer. Therefore, their argument is more important and supported than that of their former

employers.
All the evidence presented, the workers with their unemployment numbers, and the business owners with their speculation, clearly show that the workers position is more valid when it comes to the argument on the usage of machines. They not only had their own lives in mind, but the lives of future generations, whereas the business owners had their immediate gain in mind under the illusion that it was care for all of the workers. Yet they both had solid positions and defenses to their beliefs, the factory workers presentation of numbers and just the right amount of emotion led to them being the group thats position was better backed up against that of the business owners and their industrialization of the textile industry of 18th century Leeds, England.