Does progress necessary mean a social welfare state?

Comparing the articles "The Victorian Age" and “The Age of Reform", they both are based on The Industrial Revolution and its effects on people's lives.

First, in the article about “Victorian Age”, the main criticisms made to the Industrial Revolution and the substitution of machines with hand labor, refer to the bad condition of working class, describing it with certain facts. For instance, the article talks about the suffering of children in mines and factories, because of the exploitation of them by the wealthiest capitalists. In addition, the extremely low salary, their work’ schedule consists in about fourteen hours a day, or even more, and the insanity conditions of the places where they live in. So the article criticizes the abuse that employers have with the working class.

On the other hand, in article called “The Age of Reform”, the main criticisms made to the Industrial Revolution, are related to the need of new laws that regulate the employment of women and children in factories and mines and finish the exploitation and abuse against working class.

Then, the similarities that both articles have are related to the positive social change this revolution brings. For example, during the Victorian period a lot of workers migrate to industrial towns, what means in some way: the opening to a new world for all the rural population. At the same time, during the Age of Reform, the railroads started a new era that change the English life style and landscape. Therefore, people can have access to the places they have never visited before, because they live in enclosed communities.

In short, if we see progress as a whole it always brings inequality, because unfortunately everything is a matter of power and consequently: a matter of money.