• ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Depends on the country, but that was not my point. Overall employment has not suffered at the hands of technology; it improved efficiency, yes, and resulted in some occupations needing fewer (or no) people, however people found work in other areas.

        • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          You seem to be missing the Luddites point, which is that the benefits of industrialization all went to oligarchs and shareholders while the displaced workers suffered economically as the value of their skills evaporated.

          The problem is Capitalism, having a machine do the work should liberate people from toil rather than income.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Those aren’t skills. Driving a truck is a skill, and there’s no shortage of demand for truck drivers today.

        • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          The industrialization of industry under Capitalism benefits Capitalists, not Workers.

          The luddites would never have been a thing if the rewards of automation were distributed among those whose labor they devalued.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Industry consolidation and outsourcing reduces the local labor demand by setting monopsony rates for workers.

      This consolidation is often facilitated by legal enclosures, environmental degradation, and state subsidies/contracts for political insiders.

      So you end up with working people who lose access to primitive accumulation, while big industrial owners are able to undercut skilled tradesmen with below cost merchandise in a recessionary economy.

      • ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It would not have been ethical with increasing populations and no means to scale up effectively to meet their needs. Individuals, sure, but not overall; technology has replaced people in specific situations, people who then went on to get employment in other areas.

        • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          So those workers who were made redundant got severance pay and training for the new jobs they were assigned to, right?

          No? They got thrown out on their asses with no means to provide for themselves and their families?

          Geeze, sounds like the Luddites were right.

          • ABCDE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Looking at the bigger picture… layoffs happen all the time for many reasons. Overall, technology has not increased unemployment.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              layoffs happen all the time for many reasons

              Layoffs are the result of primitive capital being monopolized through enclosure and the local labor force being corralled into industries that generate more goods than the deflated economy can absorb.

              There’s no layoffs for yeomen farmers and independent craftsman. You only experience the phenomenon when land barons control the property and dictate how many people they wish to employ.