3 ms·
Romans had slaves, so labour was cheap. Industrialization requires expensive labour as demand driver. Wasn't there just an article on HN about that? Edit: Foun
by glitchc 2y ago
Romans had slaves, so labour was cheap. Industrialization requires expensive labour as demand driver. Wasn't there just an article on HN about that?
Edit: Found it: https://rootsofprogress.org/robert-allen-british-industrial-revolution https://rootsofprogress.org/robert-allen-british-industrial-...
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago> Romans had slaves Well, so did the British.
- speedbird 2y agoNot natively
- chomskyole 2y agoWhat do you mean by that?
- chomskyole 2y agoHaven't read the article you linked. Though I wouldn't think that industrialisation would require expensive labour since there could be other benefits driving it, e.g. faster production, less wasteful production, etc. Industrialisation didn't end slavery or it's derivatives either. It just changed to tools of production.
- glitchc 2y agoWell, the article I posted directly tackles your hypothesis and argues, rather persuasively, that high labour costs lead those in power to consider industrialization. Therefore, high cost of labour is an input to industrialization efforts, not an output. The machine only becomes worth pursuing when the total lifecycle cost is lower than the cost of sourcing and consuming human labour.