3 ms·

I know this isn’t directly related to the article, but for what it’s worth Luddites weren’t anti technology at all[0] in fact they were quite adept at using tec

I know this isn’t directly related to the article, but for what it’s worth Luddites weren’t anti technology at all[0] in fact they were quite adept at using technology. It was a labor movement that fought for worker rights in the face of new technologies. [0]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/rethinking-the-luddites-in-the-age-of-ai https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/rethinking-the-l...

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
They were like, "this technology is pretty cool and all, but not so much if it means I'm going to lose my source of income and starve homeless in the streets".
- nostrebored 2y ago
  A specific kind of worker not realizing that something else driving productivity doesn’t mean they won’t be able to still contribute to society and be compensated? Very apropos
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    I mean I get the point and all, but the idea that 'don't worry because the capitalist economy has your back and would never let anyone starve in the streets' doesn't hold up too well, especially at that time.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      Or any time since.
- corimaith 2y ago
  Maybe so, but 50 years, a hundred years from now, do you want to be doing the same things as today? And if it's not us, it's going to the developing world that picks up that mantle anyways. In a few decades you might find yourself in the same situation as former colonial states. Blocking creative destruction has been cited as one of the major factors in why nations fail.
  - cptaj 2y ago
    Ignoring the reasons why this happens is just as bad as ignoring the consequences. The need for security is just as much a force of nature as the need for innovation. Unless you provide a solution for both, the cycle will keep repeating.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    Personally, I won't likely be alive in 50 and definitely not in 100 years. I have to pay mortgage and buy groceries right now or I end up starving and homeless.
  - argiopetech 2y ago
    No, I want to be doing the same things I was doing 30 years ago, and I want the same opportunity for my children. I think it just as likely that social media-induced social discohesion tanks the country as lack of innovation (particularly since a large proportion of innovation seems to be taking us further and further from a world where normal human interaction doesn't involve a screen).
  - keybored 2y ago
    This is a simple and straightforward problem of self-interest. It’s the difference between being able to use ChatGPT in your work and ChatGPT replacing your job and any kind of job you could “re-skill” into. The problem was then and has always been capitalism: the owners own the tech. which means that The House (owners) always wins in the end as we approach more and more automation. Meanwhile we bicker about “doing the same thing [like some old-fashioned has-been]” and “losing the competition to the developing world” as if that is relevant to anything. The tech. was never the focal point of the issue.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Expecting textile workers to embrace poverty because their great grandchildren would have dirt cheap t-shirts from Asia is a big ask.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >Maybe so, but 50 years, a hundred years from now, do you want to be doing the same things as today? First, I want to survive the next working years, without me and my family starving. I could not give less f... what they'd be doing 100 years from now, if that means being unemployable now... Then, to answer your question, in many cases, sure, I want to be doing the same things as today. Even better if we regress in some areas, and we do the same things as 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. I could live in a society without smartphones for example (and without even more addictive and worse replacements)...
dopylitty 2y ago
Another vote for the book linked in the article. It gets into the history of how machines were introduced into the textile industry in England. Wealthy mill owners forced child laborers to run the machines while simultaneously making the artisan workers unable to sustain themselves or their families by producing shoddy low quality items in bulk. As always the problem wasn't necessarily the machines but that they were controlled by wealthy mill owners who reaped all the profits and left the rest of society to starve. England really was patient zero for the toxic economic system still being used in the US.
- sershe 2y ago
  This is at best misdirection. So, let's say England then had robust labor rights. Perhaps there's no child labor and instead, the same workers now use the machines, except most of them are fired and get 6 months of severance. Heck let's make it even better and say new skilled workers are needed for the machines and so the salaries for the remaining minority of workers are doubled. Do you think the fired workers wouldn't have attacked the machines? I think they totally would have. The only labor regime where they wouldn't is where they are maintained in perpetuity even though their labor is useless. Something like Soviet Union with "guaranteed jobs", or NYC construction unions with 5x staffing on the same jobs vs even the European companies... all great examples to emulate for "labor movements"!
sershe 2y ago
I wouldn't expect any better given the source, but this is complete nonsense... what is the logic here? If per-worker productivity increases, there are 3 options: 1) output increases; 2) under pretty much any labor rights some workers are going to lose jobs; 3) some former workers have to be maintained for free. Is this supposed "labor" movement advocating for (3)? Because they are clearly against (2), seeing how they destroy the machines, and they are not considering (1) seeing how they don't plan to just get jobs working on the machines and not trying to compete with machines/go to other industries. If it's (3) it's at best a "now-useless labor" movement. It's like throwing a tantrum because back in the days your parents gave you some cash to clean your room but at present that no longer obtains.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

They were like, "this technology is pretty cool and all, but not so much if it means I'm going to lose my source of income and starve homeless in the streets".

nostrebored 2y ago
A specific kind of worker not realizing that something else driving productivity doesn’t mean they won’t be able to still contribute to society and be compensated? Very apropos
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  I mean I get the point and all, but the idea that 'don't worry because the capitalist economy has your back and would never let anyone starve in the streets' doesn't hold up too well, especially at that time.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    Or any time since.
corimaith 2y ago
Maybe so, but 50 years, a hundred years from now, do you want to be doing the same things as today? And if it's not us, it's going to the developing world that picks up that mantle anyways. In a few decades you might find yourself in the same situation as former colonial states. Blocking creative destruction has been cited as one of the major factors in why nations fail.
- cptaj 2y ago
  Ignoring the reasons why this happens is just as bad as ignoring the consequences. The need for security is just as much a force of nature as the need for innovation. Unless you provide a solution for both, the cycle will keep repeating.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Personally, I won't likely be alive in 50 and definitely not in 100 years. I have to pay mortgage and buy groceries right now or I end up starving and homeless.
- argiopetech 2y ago
  No, I want to be doing the same things I was doing 30 years ago, and I want the same opportunity for my children. I think it just as likely that social media-induced social discohesion tanks the country as lack of innovation (particularly since a large proportion of innovation seems to be taking us further and further from a world where normal human interaction doesn't involve a screen).
- keybored 2y ago
  This is a simple and straightforward problem of self-interest. It’s the difference between being able to use ChatGPT in your work and ChatGPT replacing your job and any kind of job you could “re-skill” into. The problem was then and has always been capitalism: the owners own the tech. which means that The House (owners) always wins in the end as we approach more and more automation. Meanwhile we bicker about “doing the same thing [like some old-fashioned has-been]” and “losing the competition to the developing world” as if that is relevant to anything. The tech. was never the focal point of the issue.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Expecting textile workers to embrace poverty because their great grandchildren would have dirt cheap t-shirts from Asia is a big ask.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >Maybe so, but 50 years, a hundred years from now, do you want to be doing the same things as today? First, I want to survive the next working years, without me and my family starving. I could not give less f... what they'd be doing 100 years from now, if that means being unemployable now... Then, to answer your question, in many cases, sure, I want to be doing the same things as today. Even better if we regress in some areas, and we do the same things as 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. I could live in a society without smartphones for example (and without even more addictive and worse replacements)...

dopylitty 2y ago

Another vote for the book linked in the article. It gets into the history of how machines were introduced into the textile industry in England. Wealthy mill owners forced child laborers to run the machines while simultaneously making the artisan workers unable to sustain themselves or their families by producing shoddy low quality items in bulk. As always the problem wasn't necessarily the machines but that they were controlled by wealthy mill owners who reaped all the profits and left the rest of society to starve. England really was patient zero for the toxic economic system still being used in the US.

sershe 2y ago
This is at best misdirection. So, let's say England then had robust labor rights. Perhaps there's no child labor and instead, the same workers now use the machines, except most of them are fired and get 6 months of severance. Heck let's make it even better and say new skilled workers are needed for the machines and so the salaries for the remaining minority of workers are doubled. Do you think the fired workers wouldn't have attacked the machines? I think they totally would have. The only labor regime where they wouldn't is where they are maintained in perpetuity even though their labor is useless. Something like Soviet Union with "guaranteed jobs", or NYC construction unions with 5x staffing on the same jobs vs even the European companies... all great examples to emulate for "labor movements"!

sershe 2y ago

I wouldn't expect any better given the source, but this is complete nonsense... what is the logic here? If per-worker productivity increases, there are 3 options: 1) output increases; 2) under pretty much any labor rights some workers are going to lose jobs; 3) some former workers have to be maintained for free. Is this supposed "labor" movement advocating for (3)? Because they are clearly against (2), seeing how they destroy the machines, and they are not considering (1) seeing how they don't plan to just get jobs working on the machines and not trying to compete with machines/go to other industries. If it's (3) it's at best a "now-useless labor" movement. It's like throwing a tantrum because back in the days your parents gave you some cash to clean your room but at present that no longer obtains.