It’s not clear that this is really an impact of the IR though, rather than in the expansion of trades that came later:
But overall, the likelihood is declining, according to Ancestry.co.uk, the family history website. It compared census records from 1861 and 1911 with an ICM poll of 2000 people in 2013 and found that just 7 per cent of children end up in the same job as their mother or father compared with nearly 50 per cent in Victorian times. The decline of the “family trade” is one reason behind the generational shift. Another is a widening in the range of jobs on offer, the research concludes. In the manufacturing-driven Victorian economy, the number of recorded vocations was in the hundreds, compared with the thousands of different types of jobs included in the 2011 census.
Trivially, if 95% of jobs are “peasant farmer” then most sons of peasant farmers will end up in the same occupation. The IR offered those sons (and some daughters) the chance to move to the town/city and take on a new career as factory labourer but per that cite it was still 50% in “Victorian times”, most of which period was the aftermath of the IR when new ways of working were largely established.
The second industrial revolution of the 1870s created yet more professions and trades, ditto early twentieth century chemistry advances (for example) and so forth - as time goes on, the more options kids have. This is a good thing! Couple that with widening access to education which allows people who don’t have mathematician parents to open doors and it’s kind of inevitable - but not particularly due to the IR as a primary cause.
Some trades like sailor or cowboy were so itinerant that they weren’t conducive to either marriage or being present in their children’s lives. I doubt there was much family tradition there.
The introduction of the set work schedule at a factory meant that workers couldn’t take naps during the day, like they could if they were on a farm or doing home production. One remedy was for people to drink more caffeinated beverages, especially tea.
I think the point is that since jobs are generally factory or other company jobs, people took what was available. There was no guarantee a job was waiting at the factory for Bob because his dad worked there (but likely true if his dad owned the company). Plus, dad working in the factory instead of a ground floor trade shop in his home, meant that Bob learns no practical hands-on skills from his father, related to the job - assuming there’s any great skills in some factory jobs. The places where you do see multi-generational family employment tends to be company towns, where that’s the major and best-paying job unless someone learns a different skill. And along with general education came educational institutions teaching skills, so someone with an aptitude was likely to excel in whatever skill they did best in. If you did well in math, say, you could become an accountant even if your dad worked the mines.
I question if this was an effect of industrialization rather than imperialism, which was happening around the same time.
Regardless of whether or not an ancient or medieval European had wanted caffeine, it wasn’t available. Sources for naturally occurring caffeine, like coffee, tea, kola nuts, or yerba mate, were all far away from Europe, so most Europeans wouldn’t have had regular access to caffeine.
I think it’s worth noting that farmers and lower class workers in areas where these plants were native, all used them as stimulants going back into ancient times and long before the industrial revolution.
So I feel that Europeans started consuming caffeine for the same reason they started consuming tobacco and sugar. Transoceanic trade and colonization made these products available in European markets.
I was replying to the claim that it’s too bad that children of famous actors, singers, academics, lawyers, doctors, or whatever who follow their parents into the same professions have to suffer the claim that they are nepo-babies. I don’t see that they are suffering at all. Yes, people who call others nepo babies are jerks, but I don’t see that they really decrease the percentage of people who follow their parents into the same professions. I remember what it was like when I was in high school applying to colleges. Most of the fathers of my classmates were farmers, factory workers, or both (like my father). When I decided to apply to some top colleges, planning to get a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and then a master’s degree in it and maybe eventually a Ph.D. in it, some of my classmates’ reactions was to say that I was a snob and a traitor. They thought that the best I could do was go to a second-rate state university. I could then graduate from it if I was lucky. The best I could hope for was to come back to the area I grew in and maybe teach high school. Even today, it’s common for very smart people from poor to lower-middle-class backgrounds to not end up with very well-paying jobs. This is because of the prejudice of people from both those in their own social classes and from higher-level social classes. The notion that we live in a society where anyone can get any job that they are qualified for is wrong.
In the arts and entertainments you need a name just to get in the door. Sure the child of someone famous has to stand or fall on their own, but a modest though unspectacular talent might never get that chance at all.
They even have to suffer those claims if they decide not to follow in their mother’s footsteps as a film director and instead run for mayor of a major American city.
Are they “nepo-babies” because they work for/ with their parents, or because they do that with inferior quality? I suppose it’s easy to accuse someone of just having that job because of their parents, but many cases that’s literally true.
I suppose that’s the flipside of the benefit of having and open society where you aren’t limited by the career of your parents. A man who never got beyond middle school education and became a hard laborer has a son or daughter that can attend college and become a doctor or engineer or banker. A single mother who works two jobs cleaning houses has a son who gets a football scholarship and is able to pay for her to retire.
Akio Morita was born in Nagoya.[1]Morita’s family was involved in sake, miso and soy sauce production in the village of Kosugaya
(currently a part of Tokoname City) on the western coast of Chita Peninsula in Aichi Prefecture since 1665. He was the oldest of four siblings and his father Kyuzaemon trained him as a child to take over the family business. Akio, however, found his true calling in mathematics and physics, and in 1944 he graduated from Osaka Imperial University with a degree in physics.
He may have made passable sake for the local folks, perhaps even good sake, but the world is much better off because he didn’t have to take over his father’s profession.
Both my parents grew up on farms, and my father’ family were poor dirt farmers with little to their names.
Both of my parents left farming, went to the big city to attend college and I grew up in a middle class environment.
In the industry I was in before, there were a number of small to medium businesses (up to several hundred employees) that were in their second generation. Very few of them were doing as well as had been done by the founders.
I didn’t go into the exact same job as my father, but similar. My father retired early in his 50’s after being a state trooper for 30 years, I retired before 40 after 20 years in the Air Force. I learned from him to work a crappy government job and retire early. The working part sucked, but being able to not work and be grandpa daycare now is great.
Apropos of seeing something about the Dundee working women who cost Chruchill his seat in the 1922 election there are a couple of other impacts worth noting:
One is unions and working class power. When all the workers are in one place, working in one factory, the option for work-to-rule, go-slows and flat out strikes is on the table in a way that it wasn’t under the putting-out system.
The other is women’s liberation. It’s often seen as a movement led by middle- and upper-class women, but the fact that the IR created match-girls, pit girls, factory girls in their tens of thousands meant that working class women now had independent earnings (until marriage, at least), the same opportunities to organise and the same power as male workers. They of course faced added levels of prejudice, not least from their male peers but they had sufficient economic clout - in some places they were the majority of workers - to lead strikes (e.g. the Match Girls strike, Batley Weavers strike) successfully. This of course would tie in with demands for the vote, and with ultimately an organised workforce of Dundee women heckling Churchill mercilessly and voting him out, as per Churchill’s own view:
“The great extensions of the franchise fundamentally altered the political character of Dundee … and great numbers of very poor women and mill girls, streamed to the poll during the last two hours of the voting”
Yes, I was just as much replying to the question in the original post. Typically a man learned at his father’s side for farming or tradesman. The factory system basically separated work and family in a different way - kids did not usually wander through the factory (unless they worked there, another whole topic) to see how dad did his job and learn to do it themselves.
I don’t think someone following their parents’ lead in a job is really considered a nepo-baby unless they demostrate a significant lack of talent versus the job they are given. The very concept of nepotism was preference for hiring family members regardless of qualification.
As for greater class mobility - certainly that’s an obvious impact of the IR, not an overlooked one, but also many people harbour jealousy and resentment for anyone who is better or aspires to be, particularly their peers trying the move up the ladder. “Who do you think you are?” is a human trait from time immemorial.
Do you know if bimodal sleep has been referenced in history outside of Europe (and colonies). I was thinking I read once there were no much references in Asia (and various other parts of the world), but am uncertain if I’m misremembering or even if I actually read that.
While the railroad opened up new markets for many producers, it destroyed others. In the late 19th century, wheat farmers in East Texas were being undercut by cheaper wheat coming all the way from Illinois. Even with the expense of transporting the grain hundreds of miles, it was cheaper for Texans to buy Illinois wheat than it was locally grown.