All of the examples that you provided were based on subjective value judgments. Who cares about that?I gave you a couple of timelines, and there is more, to show that this was common and not limited to just one.
I'm basing everything from an objective standard, you're the one bringing subjective opinions in here.So is a lot of what you're arguing.
No. You think that just because something is inevented that only a few years later everyone should have it? Why do you ignore the central problem of economics: scarcity?You're really missing the point.
The dollar has lost 98% of its value since the beginning of this century. I certainly would use the words A LOT.Sure it was, or more than now. Not sure I would use the words A LOT.
So we're poorer than we were 30 years ago? Interesting.And people less able to afford even them. The product becomes cheaper, and in some ways less quality, and people lose the way to make a good living. great stuff that.
If you want to join one that's fine, but there's a reason that so many are not part of a union even though they could conceivably be in one.It speaks to the need for unions.
Your own post showed that the laws did not work. The laws were violated anyway. We needed to become richer before child labor ended. There are countries around the world that have outlawed it but still have it, and guess what, it's because they're poor!I wouldn't go so either or in my thinking, but as presenting prosperity as the single answer, you're wrong. People fought to end tham and it took laws, regulations, and not just propserity.
Yes, thanks to prosperity, children and all of us live much better lives.Sure. But today they are neither working or starving. Wouldn't you say that is better yet?