October 11, 2026
By Stephen Stofka
Last week I explored the burden that we pass to succeeding generations. I discussed slavery and the underlying racial bias that is a continuing burden in America. This week I want to explore our changing perceptions of error, our changing values and sensibilities.
Child Labor
My grandfather grew up in a farming community near the end of the 19th century. As a six year old he was expected to work. In Chapter 8 of his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith discusses a contemporary analysis of the economics of child labor. In America, where there was a shortage of labor, he noted that “Labor is so well rewarded that a numerous family of children…is a source of opulence and prosperity to the parents.”
In England, Smith observed that there was an oversupply of labor. Many convicted for petty crimes were banished to Australia as a method of reducing the supply of workers (Hughes, 1987). Large families in Scotland, where wages were low and poverty was acute, struggled to feed and clothe their children. Smith cited the example of one woman with twenty children who was unable to provide her children with the minimum sustenance. The result? Only two survived.
Smith’s analysis? In an environment where laborers must compete fiercely with each other, the level of wages depends more on the character of the employers rather than the skills of workers or seasonal changes in demand for labor. His recommendation? Governments should regulate wages so that parents could provide the basic support for their families. However, he noted how difficult it was to enforce such regulations.
My father was born in New York City and went to a public school when he was five years old. What happened in the decades between my grandfather’s childhood and my father’s childhood? Did people become more enlightened? Did parents realize that education was far more important to a child? People don’t make fundamental changes in their attitudes and sensibilities in the course of three decades. Rather, it was the circumstances that changed. Parents altered their calculations because calculations respond to changing circumstances. Sensibilities within a culture are more rigid because a culture forms by building institutions that resist change.
At the turn that century, the introduction of machinery in agriculture increased labor productivity. In 1890, 43% of workers were employed in agriculture and 42% of people lived on farms. By the 1930s, when my father started school, only 25% of people lived on farms and the percent of people working in agriculture was halved to 21% (Source).
Smith noted that even in a good environment half of all children died by the age of ten. The prevalence of so many dying children, particularly in the working classes, fostered an attitude of reluctant acceptance of personal tragedy. Parents grieved and moved on. That was in 1776, the year the American colonies declared their independence from the British empire. By 1900, in America, that figure was halved (Source – pdf). Public health measures like cleaner drinking water, sanitation and food handling were largely responsible.
Industrialization increased the likelihood of child injury. In factories, children worked around presses and cutting machines that lacked safety guards. In textile mills, they worked closely with gears, belts and moving parts that crushed or amputated their fingers. The mechanization of work in coal mines and on farms exposed children to similar dangers. Some states enacted legislation prohibiting the employment of young children. New York State passed its Factory Act in 1886. In 1916 and 1918, Congress passed two bills restricting child labor but the Supreme Court ruled both as unconstitutional federal regulation of production and commerce (Source). It wasn’t until 1938 that a federal child labor restriction included in the Fair Labor Standards Act withstood Supreme Court scrutiny and became established law.
Did parents and government officials suddenly become concerned about the welfare of their children? Of course not. They had always been concerned. But the changing nature of work and the increased productivity of human labor allowed people to act on their concerns.
Women’s Autonomy
For generations, people thought that a women’s temperament and brain made them ill suited for mathematics and finance. The marketplace was highly competitive and required a tough disposition more suitable for a man’s character. A woman’s place was the support and nurturing of children. She created an environment in the home that protected children, sheltering them from the harsh realities of the marketplace.
In the densely crowded cities of urbanizing America, those “harsh realities” permeated every household. The high child mortality emphasized a woman’s role as caretaker. Children younger than five were particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases like diphtheria, pneumonia, whooping cough and tuberculosis, to name only a few. Children got sick. Mom took care of them. In a large family, older children took on some of that responsibility of caring for their younger siblings. Today, most children are vaccinated to train their immune systems to recognize the viruses and bacteria responsible for those diseases.
Housekeeping was an arduous task. There were no appliances. A British series The 1900 House aired in 1999 and featured a modern day family living in a home stripped of all modern conveniences. Life was particularly difficult for the women who were responsible for food preparation, household and personal care. Bathing was particularly hard on the skin. A bar of soap was made from animal fat, lye and water and contained few, if any, softening ingredients. Want to make your own 19th century soap? Here’s a link (Source).
For centuries, women had been like serfs in the feudal system. They belonged to the home, and in the case of married women, to their husbands. During the 19th century, states gradually permitted women to own a home, but none did when America was founded (Source). In the spring of 1776, John Adams convened with others in Philadelphia as the colonies prepared to declare independence from Britain. His wife, Abigail Adams, wrote him a letter, encouraging him to “remember the ladies” as he and others prepared to form the laws for a new union of colonies. Despite her entreaties, the founders of the new nation did not remember the ladies (Source). Under the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution, women had neither the right to own a home or vote.
Have sensibilities regarding women’s autonomy changed since that time 250 years ago? The process was gradual and sometimes driven by a change in circumstances but I believe so. Today, most of us denounce or reprove the patriarchal attitudes and moral sensibilities of the founding generation with respect to women’s autonomy. Even when circumstances were essentially the same as in 1776, the states began passing property acts that enabled married women to own a home. That gradual change indicates a movement of underlying sensibilities rather than an adaptive calculation to meet changing circumstances.
Conclusion
Sensibilities change gradually. Calculations produce more rapid shifts in the rules and norms of a society. We often confuse the two when candidates run for office. A candidate may present their values and policy proposals as an enduring feature of who they are. They hope to align their image with the sensibilities and identities of the majority of voters in their district. In actuality, that political package may be mostly calculation. Some candidates are better at camouflaging their intent. Others are not. I think that many voters were lukewarm to Kamala Harris in the 2024 Presidential campaign because her policy stances seemed more driven by convenient calculation rather than a heartfelt conviction.
A Peek at Next Week
This week I’ve discussed how one generation regards the values and policies of a previous generation as an error. Next week, I want to look at that same phenomenon except that it occurs within the same generation. In other words, people growing up at the same time in history have fundamentally different views of what is right and wrong in some areas. There will be some controversial subjects I will explore, so save your overripe tomatoes for next week’s article. Hope to see you then!
////////////////
Photo by Michaela St on Unsplash
