Forced.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

> which was accompanied by an increase in widespread disease outbreaks and malnutrition.

And yet average lifespans went up, because what came before was even worse.

And then the world gained the germ theory of disease and penicillin and they went up even more.

> In countries like England, this had an immediate disastrous impact on health and lifespans relative to fairly stable trend under feudalism.

You can clearly see the start of the industrial revolution on this life expectancy chart, and the consequences:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Li...

> Likewise, having been dispossessed of lands they were previously free to exist and work on for many generations, many adult and child were, in effect, kidnapped, as the only other choice was starvation and death.

Dispossessed of the lands? The peasants didn't own the land. They were serfs who genuinely didn't have a choice because the alternative was to be executed or left to "starvation and death."

Industrialization was the first time they actually had a choice. There were still agricultural workers -- somebody was growing the food -- but now you could go into the city, which generally paid better. Or paid at all, contrary to historical norms. And you had a choice of what you did. Working long hours in a factory wasn't as easy as working for a grocer, but it paid better, and people chose it willingly.

This was the thing that truly ended slavery in the first world -- before if you were a slave or a serf and you ran off, you would be left to die alone in the wilderness. Now you could run off to the city and get a job in a factory, and live, and make money. The old system was defunct because the plantation owners were never going to keep people there by force once escape meant profit rather than death.

> unless you somehow think the formation of the Labour Party in England was unrelated to these developments.

This was obviously the period during which unions entered the scene, but notice that unions have significantly declined in the US since then and "labor laws" like the minimum wage haven't kept up with inflation, and yet minimum wage jobs are uncommon because employers still have to compete for labor even in the absence of unions or labor laws.

The place where this falls down is when they don't, i.e. when you have a monopoly or a company town which is the only employer for some occupation or region. Which is a legitimate problem if you have a regulatory environment that allows that to happen, but the solution to it isn't "labor laws" or unions, because a monopoly is a problem for more than just workers. You have to bust them up and prevent them from forming.

At which point the rest of that stuff is just inefficient ways to mitigate the consequences a problem that should be solved properly instead.