3 ms·
Was there a big industry push back against looms, tractors, computers, or the internet?
by givemeethekeys 7mo ago
Was there a big industry push back against looms, tractors, computers, or the internet?
- miltonlost 7mo ago[flagged]
- ua709 7mo agoI was going to cite that too but it's not exactly industry pushback, it's labor pushback. EV on the other hand does have some obvious industrial adversaries.
- miltonlost 7mo agoAt that time, the laborers WERE the industry?
- ua709 7mo agoI don't understand the question. (maybe the question mark is a mistake?) Assuming it's a statement, my guess is the rapacious capitalists would disagree with that claim.
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoPersonally, I enjoy not spending 15% of my salary on clothing and textiles.
- filleduchaos 7mo agoOf course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal. Perhaps in a couple of centuries when a tube of nutrient slurry is the standard meal, people will be equally proud of not spending 15% of their salary on food...if salaries even exist by then.
- autoexec 7mo agoNot even just piss-poor quality, much of our clothing is actually poisoning us with PFAS and microplastics.
- filleduchaos 7mo agoIn that sense it's rather similar to triumphantly holding up Big Macs as evidence of the modern food industry being awesome actually. Is it relatively cheaper to fill your stomach than at most other points in history? Sure, but at what cost? There is a debate to be had about whether being stuffed with unhealthy levels of fat/salt/sugar is worth the low price and accessibility, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that someone opposed to the existence of McDonald's and the like just "hates efficiency" or wants to "gatekeep" food.
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoAnyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago. In fact, it will be even higher quality than people had access to since we have much more advanced materials and techniques than existed back then. But, almost no one does that. Maybe you consider it brainwashing, but I consider it people just making a rational economic choice. And yes, I can see a world where, if tasteless nutrient slurry was essentially free and perfect nutrition for the body, then people would gladly consume that for most meals, and maybe splurge every now and then on an "old school" meal. I don't really see a problem with that.
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago> Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago You really can't. That price/quality point basically does not exist anymore What's worse is that we have "designer brands" that charge the higher price point but are the exact same low quality as the lower price point stuff. Actual midrange quality just plain does not exist
- 7mo ago
- sph 7mo agoThank god for those Pakistani children sewing them for you, huh?
- IncreasePosts 7mo agoYou realize that you can buy clothes that weren't sewn by Pakistani children right? And it still costs less than $8000/yr?
- orangecat 7mo agoTrying to prevent goods and services from being produced more efficiently is bad actually.
- dijit 7mo agoComment section isn’t nuanced enough to have this conversation and I am on a phone, but that is the way that the industry slandered the luddites as the parent claims. The truth was that the machines produced worse quality goods and were less safe, not that people couldn’t skill up to use them and not that there wasn’t enough demand to keep everyone employed. It was quality and safety. You should look into the issue further, because I had your opinion too until I soberly looked at what the luddites really were arguing for, it wasn’t the end of looms, it was quality standards and fair advertising to consumers.
- simianwords 7mo agoThe mainstream conclusion is that the luddites were speaking for their own economic safety mainly along with other things.
- dijit 7mo agoEvery party in the dispute was acting out of economic self-interest: the manufacturers wanted cheaper labour and higher margins, Parliament wanted industrial growth. Only the workers are getting framed as though self-interest invalidates their position. The Luddites’ arguments about quality standards and consumer fraud were correct on the merits regardless of their motivation for raising them.
- simianwords 7mo agoEveryone's interests should not be viewed as the same. More affordable clothes is more important for society than a few people's jobs.
- 7mo ago
- throwaway5752 7mo agoThere used to be a social contract, but now there are so many people that it's a problem that there is no work for the displaced. The leverage between the very small number of people with vast amounts of capital and a large number of people with very little capital or leverage - this is a societal dynamic that has existed before in the world. There is historical precedent for this, and it's probably worth paying very close attention to what comes next if you are a very wealthy person pushing against all forms of wealth redistribution.
- bluGill 7mo agoTractors didn't get it because about the time they became useful for most farmers WWII was pushing the need for less men on the farm so they could go to war. There were tractors before then, but the previous ones had big negatives if you were not a much larger farm than most were then.