Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes it has

    I am not a professional on the topic, however seeing how the industrial revolution was such a big part of history, and how it has grown countries in the word I would defiantly say so. Industrialization doesn't have to be child labor. It will bring jobs to these countries as well as give them a better economy .

  • Yes it has

    I am not a professional on the topic, however seeing how the industrial revolution was such a big part of history, and how it has grown countries in the word I would defiantly say so. Industrialization doesn't have to be child labor. It will bring jobs to these countries as well as give them a better economy .

  • Yes, it has.

    I am not a professional on the topic, however seeing how the industrial revolution was such a big part of history, and how it has grown countries in the word I would defiantly say so. Industrialization doesn't have to be child labor. It will bring jobs to these countries as well as give them a better economy .

  • Yes, it has.

    I am not a professional on the topic, however seeing how the industrial revolution was such a big part of history, and how it has grown countries in the word I would defiantly say so. Industrialization doesn't have to be child labor. It will bring jobs to these countries as well as give them a better economy .

  • Industrialization is the only way out of poverty

    Industrialization can provide a living wage for a family and that enables that family to allow their children to go to school and learn. This creates a sustainable supply of better educated members in society that then raise the standard of living. Where it goes wrong is when governments aren't held accountable for good of their people. There is still a gap but the gap is survivable and sustainable.

  • Yeah defe efes

    Sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads sddads

  • It is, in fact, the ONLY thing that has ever lifted anyone out of poverty

    Prior to the industrial revolution (pre-1700s), the whole world was poor. A farmer in England or the USA was as poor as one in India or South Africa. With the invention of the steam engine and the subsequent industrial revolution (beginning in England), the ability to produce more with fewer people allowed for more specialization and urbanization. It frees up the time of farm labourers to go to school, to study to become something else, and slowly over many generations, the economy diversifies and grows. The places in the world with the most extreme poverty are the same as those with little or no industrial activities.

  • Good for Poverty

    Industrialization gives a chance for uneducated people to have a job and live a proper life, Working in factories is a great way for struggling families to get necessities and it will lessen poverty around the world. The workers may not get the minimum wage, but as industrialization grows, people will soon be payed more.

  • Yes it is

    Good for poverty because it requires a minimum amount of IQ, and education, so if the person is uneducated industrialisation would help him a lot. There are also a lot of positions the people can take so it opens a lot of opportunities for people . That is why industrialisation is good for poverty.

  • Yes, because the statistics speak from themselves: the average income of people has increased drastically since industrialization.

    Industrialization opens a lot of job opportunities. And since the industrial revolution, wages have been standardized (minimum wage). Now, admittedly, not all jobs the industrial world has to offer will stamp out poverty for good, but it does help. Any job is better than no job if needing more money is your primary concern.

  • No it is not good for poverty

    Industrialization makes children work in abusive and unfair environments while making such low money that it could be counted as making nothing at all. Its just a push, a scam to make the poor think that they are getting something in return for their hard work while the higher uppers are getting a ton more

  • No, it isn't.

    Industrialization is not good for poverty. Because of all the machines and technology we have these days, less people are working and more machines are taking the jobs of the people. This results in more poverty. So no, although industrialization has many benefits, it has almost none in regards to poverty.

  • Yes and no in some ways.

    It does give them jobs, and help them like that, but it does not mean it is the best solution for them. Industrialization is not always good for poverty, but it does help in different ways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • No it is not good for poverty

    Industrialization is not good for poverty because of all the machines that are being created, all the people's talents are gone. Because of industrialization poverty is a problem now. Its is a problem because people are being replaced by machines and robots. These machines and robots are taking over and empowering people.

  • Of course not!

    Due to the craze of machines, all talents have been gone to waste. Industrialization increases the poverty percentage of the world, as people are being replaced by robots and scraps of metal. Machines take less time and are much cheaper than paying a human who spent hours manufacturing the object. Of course it's a much more authentic object but it will be expensive. Industrialization has never benefited poverty in any way.

  • Yes and no

    It did lift people out of poverty for a brief period, but more machines meant that manual jobs decreased. And even if there were more jobs, there was a fierce scrambling for places to stay and because of that room got more and more expensive. The conditions were terrible, if you walk the streets you can clearly see that. It was good briefly, but overall, very bad.

  • Yes and no

    It did lift people out of poverty for a brief period, but more machines meant that manual jobs decreased. And even if there were more jobs, there was a fierce scrambling for places to stay and because of that room got more and more expensive. The conditions were terrible, if you walk the streets you can clearly see that. It was good briefly, but overall, very bad.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.