A few gems from the article: > Really it was a political fight over who was going to use the spoils of profits from machinery. Ok, take the counter-factual at

A few gems from the article: > Really it was a political fight over who was going to use the spoils of profits from machinery. Ok, take the counter-factual at its face and ask the question: if the Luddites got their way and they (the weavers, etc.) shared in the spoils of automation, what exactly would their contribution have been? If all of the weaving is automated then what the heck does a weaver do? Own shares in the company? Do they just get promoted to vice president by virtue of having formerly been employed as a weaver? How will their input be more valuable compared to that of a more qualified person hired for the role? > Adam Smith is arguing if we all behave with high degree of self interest, that will actually improve the economy in the long run. This was the first beginnings of the real embrace of free-market capitalism. Said as though this is either wrong or detrimental when free market economies have time and again proven that they lift more people out of poverty than any other type of economy. > [The Luddites] tried to bargain with the factory owners [arguing for minimum prices, a textile tax to support workers pensions, or phased introduction of new machines] Excellent, price fixing, that has always worked perfectly in the past and never had any unintended and severe consequences. Which workers exactly are the beneficiaries of this textile tax, the people replaced by automation? Does the tax end after they are employed in a different career or after they die of old age? How slow would progress have been if we put legal limits on the deployment of new technology? Would anyone even bother to invent new methods if they couldn't use them? > producing crappier goods God forbid that poor people should be able to afford a second pair of pants. > I think there is one big difference: a lot of the jobs that are going to be outsourced are actually not working class at all. They are healthily middle-to-upper class, and often white collar. Hmm, hang on a second... > The truth is that the Luddites were the skilled, middle-class workers of their time. You need to pick one, working class or middle class. > So the real conversation for anyone seriously trying to grapple with this is how to share the profits. Not by redistribution. Automation reduces cost of production and increases volume which means both that the company makes more profit but also that the goods and services can be sold at a lower price which benefits everyone. The massive difference this time is that this is software that anyone can, or will soon be able to, run. Everyone will eventually profit from this automation both through increased access to these services as well as through the ability to use this automation in your own business endeavors. If the author truly wants more people to be able to live like the weavers described as: > had a fair amount of control to work from home. You controlled your own schedule. Some led fairly leisurely lives; working only four days a week was enough to make a pretty good living. Then they should be advocating for universal access to this new technology because it will enable exactly that for those who seek it.