4 ms·

>No advance in mechanisation has ever resulted in this happening. Can you point to some source of this information? I'm asking because when I look at the data

>No advance in mechanisation has ever resulted in this happening. Can you point to some source of this information? I'm asking because when I look at the data I see that for example industrial revolution was correlated with: 1. Reduced length of a work-day. 2. Increased lifetime expectancy as well as overall quality of life. 3. Elimination of child labor. And all of this happening while general population was growing. I just wonder why this could be different?

dustinmoorenet 9y ago
The 40 hour week was not a gift of tech. It was a hard fought labor struggle. And, if you haven't noticed, we haven't moved that needle again after introducing computers. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
ivanhoe 9y ago
Those benefits came later, and slowly, after a lot of struggle for worker/female/child rights. Initially you had kids working 10h a day in coal mines because of the industrial revolution, steam machines needed the coal to run. Many people lost their jobs. There was of course also many great benefits, like cheaper textile making clothing much more affordable. With time the work force adapted to the new conditions, found new jobs, factories opened, and slowly the benefits outweighed the horrors of the transition.
stult 9y ago
Work day length actually increased dramatically during the early industrial revolution. Early factories frequently required 10-14 hour shifts, seven days per week. It was only the labor movement pushing back that resulted in a shorter work day and week. Even then, it's unlikely that the current work day or week are significantly shorter than they were in pre-industrial Europe. Meaning the labor movement really only brought us back to something resembling a reasonable baseline. Even if pre-industrial agricultural laborers worked longer days or weeks during periods of maximum activity, they did so seasonally, with long periods of relative rest between harvesting and planting seasons. Ultimately it is political conditions, rather than technological, which determine typical working period lengths. For example, despite relatively little difference in technology or economic activity, African-American agricultural workers in the US South shifted to dramatically shorter working periods following abolition. Only the political conditions of slavery enabled slave-owners to compel a longer working day than would normally be tolerated by workers. And while technology can increase the amount of surplus wealth generated, it can't change the distribution of that surplus (at least not on its own). Factory work increased the value per hour produced by laborers but it took labor organization and mass strikes to shorten the work day. It took women's suffrage and widespread moral outrage to stop child labor (which was far harsher in early factories than it ever was in agriculture). It took government intervention via social security and medicare to extend the life-expectancy of average laborers (in the US, though the equivalent programs in other developed countries had similar effects). Basically, employers aren't going to give time off or other benefits just because they want to or just because they can afford to. At least not in any great numbers. They're going to do it because political or market conditions compel it, such as when Henry Ford increased the pay of factory workers dramatically to prevent them from working for his competitors. But market conditions are stacked against the laborers getting greater benefits in this situation. Employers are substituting robots for their labor and so their labor is less in demand and thus demands a lower price (benefits + pay). So with increased mechanization and automation, the average laborer can't demand more benefits in the market while still maintaining wages. Barring political/legal pressure, employers will simply pocket the surplus from this situation rather than charitably donating it to their workers in the form of PTO or other benefits. It isn't necessarily bad that workers get laid off, because that frees them to pursue more remunerative or fulfilling activities. But we can't rely on employers to help workers transition after disruption in the labor market, just as we couldn't rely on employers to set reasonable working days or to not hire child laborers.
travmatt 9y ago
How are you reaching those conclusions? If I recall history correctly 1 & 3 were the products of a generations class warfare and more than one massacre at the hands of industrialists. The labor movement rose in hand with the industrial revolution, but it’d seem a perversion to portray those gains as some inevitable beneficence of increased mechanization.

dustinmoorenet 9y ago

The 40 hour week was not a gift of tech. It was a hard fought labor struggle. And, if you haven't noticed, we haven't moved that needle again after introducing computers. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

ivanhoe 9y ago

Those benefits came later, and slowly, after a lot of struggle for worker/female/child rights. Initially you had kids working 10h a day in coal mines because of the industrial revolution, steam machines needed the coal to run. Many people lost their jobs. There was of course also many great benefits, like cheaper textile making clothing much more affordable. With time the work force adapted to the new conditions, found new jobs, factories opened, and slowly the benefits outweighed the horrors of the transition.

stult 9y ago

Work day length actually increased dramatically during the early industrial revolution. Early factories frequently required 10-14 hour shifts, seven days per week. It was only the labor movement pushing back that resulted in a shorter work day and week. Even then, it's unlikely that the current work day or week are significantly shorter than they were in pre-industrial Europe. Meaning the labor movement really only brought us back to something resembling a reasonable baseline. Even if pre-industrial agricultural laborers worked longer days or weeks during periods of maximum activity, they did so seasonally, with long periods of relative rest between harvesting and planting seasons. Ultimately it is political conditions, rather than technological, which determine typical working period lengths. For example, despite relatively little difference in technology or economic activity, African-American agricultural workers in the US South shifted to dramatically shorter working periods following abolition. Only the political conditions of slavery enabled slave-owners to compel a longer working day than would normally be tolerated by workers. And while technology can increase the amount of surplus wealth generated, it can't change the distribution of that surplus (at least not on its own). Factory work increased the value per hour produced by laborers but it took labor organization and mass strikes to shorten the work day. It took women's suffrage and widespread moral outrage to stop child labor (which was far harsher in early factories than it ever was in agriculture). It took government intervention via social security and medicare to extend the life-expectancy of average laborers (in the US, though the equivalent programs in other developed countries had similar effects). Basically, employers aren't going to give time off or other benefits just because they want to or just because they can afford to. At least not in any great numbers. They're going to do it because political or market conditions compel it, such as when Henry Ford increased the pay of factory workers dramatically to prevent them from working for his competitors. But market conditions are stacked against the laborers getting greater benefits in this situation. Employers are substituting robots for their labor and so their labor is less in demand and thus demands a lower price (benefits + pay). So with increased mechanization and automation, the average laborer can't demand more benefits in the market while still maintaining wages. Barring political/legal pressure, employers will simply pocket the surplus from this situation rather than charitably donating it to their workers in the form of PTO or other benefits. It isn't necessarily bad that workers get laid off, because that frees them to pursue more remunerative or fulfilling activities. But we can't rely on employers to help workers transition after disruption in the labor market, just as we couldn't rely on employers to set reasonable working days or to not hire child laborers.

travmatt 9y ago

How are you reaching those conclusions? If I recall history correctly 1 & 3 were the products of a generations class warfare and more than one massacre at the hands of industrialists. The labor movement rose in hand with the industrial revolution, but it’d seem a perversion to portray those gains as some inevitable beneficence of increased mechanization.