4 ms·
The luddites were right. Everything is worse because they did not win, which is obvious if you spend a second thinking about what them not winning means: more c
by krageon 4y ago
The luddites were right. Everything is worse because they did not win, which is obvious if you spend a second thinking about what them not winning means: more concentrated wealth, more disenfranchised workers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- eurasiantiger 4y agoYet the public narrative centers around perceived anti-technologism and implied anti-comfortism, wholly ignoring the societal underpinnings of the issue: an increase in power and income inequality amounting to disenfranchisement.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoWho wrote and popularized that narrative? The industrialists with printing presses.
- quickthrower2 4y agoTax is supposed to deal with this to some extent but the rich have the resources to avoid it!
- Jochim 4y agoWe've also steadily lowered tax rates over the last 50 years. Many countries are at historically low tax burdens despite rising inequality and no evidence of this improving economic growth.
- cdogl 4y agoIt’s difficult for me to see how 2022 is worse than 1816 all things considered.
- Moissanite 4y agoEverything is worse than it could have been now, not directly compared to 200 years ago. I find it very hard to believe you didn't understand the suggestion.
- abduhl 4y ago>> Everything is worse than it could have been now Prove it.
- aziaziazi 4y agoDurability, quality and reparability. Most fabrics build today are so fragile and needs to be replaced soon, despite the advance in material and weaving. Most highly qualified workers loves what they do and would stand for keeping they’re output quality up. On the contrary interchangeable cheap workers have no real incentive to that. The factory’s manager is left alone in charge to balance quality versus cheapness, and the last comes with obsolescence (planned or not), which is good for business.
- colinmhayes 4y ago> Most fabrics build today are so fragile and needs to be replaced soon Because that's what people want. You can get high quality clothes for much cheaper than you could in 1816, but people prefer disposable clothes so they can change their look more often. This is just producers responding to demand.
- aziaziazi 4y ago“People want so producers responds” is a nice but candide eco theory, 2022 looks more like “producers pay for marketing that makes people want” oh and by the way, who’s really paying for the marketing at the end ?
- chopin 4y agoProperly sourcing high quality stuff is incredibly difficult for consumers. Price is not a good discriminator, unfortunately. This is a problem everywhere but for clothes in particular.