> It's the same argument behind the Luddite handloom weavers who burned mills and factory machinery. It leads to labor arguments... The Luddite labor unrest ar

> It's the same argument behind the Luddite handloom weavers who burned mills and factory machinery. It leads to labor arguments... The Luddite labor unrest arose from a very real decrease in living standards for many, many people which lasted for decades. Rural/semi-rural artisans lost out to factories staffed by smaller numbers of children who could be paid far less than adults. Many had no choice but to move to cities to fight for whatever jobs they could, and the squalid conditions and extreme labor surplus inspired communist thought. So yes, this in many ways is the same argument, but I think it would be unwise to dismiss the 'labor arguments,' because while the industrial revolution in Britain did eventually raise everyone's living standards, it took about a century and the social unrest during that time (in Britain and other industrializing nations) provoked far-reaching, unintended consequences. If you are interested in this subject, The Technology Trap by Frey has an interesting comparison between the first and second industrial revolutions and the ongoing labor shifts in the modern era.