[dijit]

Everyone bringing this up is missing the point entirely.

I thought people would be able to “get” it on their own so I didn’t bother replying but you’re the fourth person, so let me help you understand.

Britain had 1/3rd of the fucking planet, including an active workforce and their accumulated generational assets.

The US had: barely arable farmland, the trials and tribulations of european settlers are well documented.

Yet wages went up more in one of these, and not the one that was controlling 1/3rd of the planet.

[wqaatwt]

> the trials and tribulations of european settlers

Yet it was already the richest place per capita in the 1700s. At least in the Northeast the average British colonist was earned more money, was healthier, lived significantly longer and was even actually taller than the average person who remained in Britain.

All because they had more land per capita.

> active workforce and their accumulated generational assets

Yes, its just that per capita (across the entire empire) that workforce wasn’t very productive.

[eru]

Wages were higher in the North American colonies even before their insubordination.

[r_hoods_ghost]

Yes, the poor European settlers out there raping and a pillaging, burning and a looting,destroying cultures and entire people's to build their shiny palace on the hill. Remove the beam from your eye septic

[dijit]

I'm discussing wealth distribution, not defending genocide. If you can't tell the difference, that's your problem.