Which of the following was an effect of the industrialization of cities in the early 1800s?
[a] planned housing for workers, [b] decreased poverty rates,[c] the formation of labor unions,[d] weaker social class divisions

The correct answer is C. The formation of labor unions

Explanation:

The industrialization refers to the process that implied a change from the agrarian society based on agriculture to an industrial one that is based on the manufacture of products and trade. This process began in the 18th century and continued during the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution that meant the development of technology for industry and other necessary sources to abandon the agrarian society and create a new society based on industry. Due to this, during the 18th and 19th century thousands of farmers left the countryside and move to the city to work in the new emerging factories, however, the conditions in the first factories were not the best due to the number of working hours, low payments, no guarantees, and difficult conditions, due to this, workers started creating labor unions to improve working conditions and achieve goals together, which had not happened before industrialization. Thus, one of the effects of industrialization was the formation of labor unions.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

gpd hope this

~blake