At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I have to discuss this question in class tomorrow
i think because each colonial region developed it's own economy
oh yeah I'm given this backgrond as well By almost any indicator, the colonial American economy was thriving from an early stage. For example, the amount of land settled was increasing by 5% per year from 1640-1700 and by 4% per year from 1750-1775. Productivity was increasing twelvefold, and imports were rising by a factor of nine. The colonial American living standards were higher than two-thirds of the world's population's living standards today. Contrasting this tremendous growth is a picture of an economy in stasis. From an economic perspective, Americans pursued the same livelihoods in 1640 as in 1775. American society was fundamentally agrarian, and less than 5% of colonial North Americans lived in towns (2500 people or more) in 1775. Philadelphia was the largest city on the eve of the Revolution with 40,000 people, comparable only to England's 7th largest city. The North American economy experienced no significant improvements in technology in this period.
my answer was going to be that wealth wasn't evenly distributed
that's why the american economy was strong during the colonial period and also immigrants that came to America were highly skilled and make good labors
that can go inky, but can u be a little specific?
well wouldn't it be that although there was a higher standard of living the rich got richer and the poor stayed as poor, so the situation was around the same?
i just noticed u posted the background of your essay. Well, many people who were part of the English colonies worked as farms, and they usually live there. I assume they were 90% of them
when u said the rich got richer and the poor stayed poor, why do u think that happened?
The standard of living during the colonial period was harsh and tough for the White Americans, especially the poor. To vote for a president, a person is required to own a property during the colonial period which allowed the rich to get more power and the poor is left with nothing. Also, women weren't allowed to get jobs outside their houses, they couldn't help their poor husbands. Women gave birth to many children around 7 to 8 and the living conditions of a particular american family was poor, parents couldn't afford for their own children. During the colonial period, GDP per capita was less than 3% of today’s rate.
Zale, is this from the 1600s-early 1700s?
umm, i think so
this was during the colonial period
ok, so basically the idea that wealth was disproportionally distributed works?
yeah, as far as i know, the conditions were like this back in the colonial period
so the rich got much richer while te poor just stayed poor?
well, the rich had many rights then the poor. Since voting was only allowed for those who own property, and those who owned farms and lands were the rich people. So what did the poor do, the jobs were all about farming back then
ok, so you have the chesepeake with the slaves and farmers not living much better lives, and basically everyone had a pretty bad life except those few harbor cities where trade let people get rich?
that's pretty much it
I got like 5 more of these that I need to answer: mind offering me a bit of insight?
may i see the questions?