12 ms·

It's interesting to argue the opposite, that the power past empires had over people and their labour devalued productivity improvements, that Industrialisation

It's interesting to argue the opposite, that the power past empires had over people and their labour devalued productivity improvements, that Industrialisation required a social context in which the expense of labour justified the capital investment and risk of mechanisation.

adamsea 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand. And tbh I'm not sure I originally expressed myself well. But I think we all agree that laws against child labor are good, that laws requiring a weekend are good, and that basic safety laws in dangerous environments like meatpacking plants are good. And we'd all agree that those things fall somewhere on the spectrum of "human rights". And, if someone doesn't agree then that's an entirely conversation that needs to be had. But for those of us that do, well, all those things came from organized labor. So --- organized labor, imperfect as it is, like all human institutions, has been and is one of the ways in which people have fought for their rights over time. Period.
- monkeycantype 6y ago
  Sorry for the confusion, clearly from the way I express myself, I am a software developer and not an economist, and I use this forum to experiment with how to communicate and think about topics on which I am not expert, but care about. I was meaning to respond to the idea in the conversation that I read as "the gains in human rights and labor standards, had only been possible because of productivity improvements" I think it's worth considering instead whether investment in 'productivity' has been undermined by poor human rights. Could the roman empire have mechanised, industrialised, but that the cruelty and oppression that was fundamental made it uneconomical, when the capital cost was compared to the cheap labor cost of buying slaves. I have a friend who debates with me about the problems that flow from the high cost of labor and environmental standards, and I argue back that the greater problem is the low cost of labor, the low enforcement of human rights and environmental standards, because these de-incentivise the upfront 'activation energy ' investment in any efforts that would make our civilisation more sustainable and equitable.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Thanks for explaining. I think I understand better. Interesting. At the same time I don't think we should instrumentalize human rights -- human rights are important because their human rights, not because of their potential to increase productivity. And I'm not saying you're saying anything like that at all -- moreso, I'm responding to the logical implications of the discussion : ). The importance and value is of human rights is unrelated to their positive or negative impact on productivity. Some people might like to throw in a "what if" at this point about limited resources, etc. And sometimes in life (like in medical triage situations) people have to make difficult or terrible decisions, but if we believe in human life having an inherent value then that shouldn't be the basis or starting point of our moral reasoning.

adamsea 6y ago

I'm not sure I understand. And tbh I'm not sure I originally expressed myself well. But I think we all agree that laws against child labor are good, that laws requiring a weekend are good, and that basic safety laws in dangerous environments like meatpacking plants are good. And we'd all agree that those things fall somewhere on the spectrum of "human rights". And, if someone doesn't agree then that's an entirely conversation that needs to be had. But for those of us that do, well, all those things came from organized labor. So --- organized labor, imperfect as it is, like all human institutions, has been and is one of the ways in which people have fought for their rights over time. Period.

monkeycantype 6y ago
Sorry for the confusion, clearly from the way I express myself, I am a software developer and not an economist, and I use this forum to experiment with how to communicate and think about topics on which I am not expert, but care about. I was meaning to respond to the idea in the conversation that I read as "the gains in human rights and labor standards, had only been possible because of productivity improvements" I think it's worth considering instead whether investment in 'productivity' has been undermined by poor human rights. Could the roman empire have mechanised, industrialised, but that the cruelty and oppression that was fundamental made it uneconomical, when the capital cost was compared to the cheap labor cost of buying slaves. I have a friend who debates with me about the problems that flow from the high cost of labor and environmental standards, and I argue back that the greater problem is the low cost of labor, the low enforcement of human rights and environmental standards, because these de-incentivise the upfront 'activation energy ' investment in any efforts that would make our civilisation more sustainable and equitable.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Thanks for explaining. I think I understand better. Interesting. At the same time I don't think we should instrumentalize human rights -- human rights are important because their human rights, not because of their potential to increase productivity. And I'm not saying you're saying anything like that at all -- moreso, I'm responding to the logical implications of the discussion : ). The importance and value is of human rights is unrelated to their positive or negative impact on productivity. Some people might like to throw in a "what if" at this point about limited resources, etc. And sometimes in life (like in medical triage situations) people have to make difficult or terrible decisions, but if we believe in human life having an inherent value then that shouldn't be the basis or starting point of our moral reasoning.