EV on the other hand does have some obvious industrial adversaries.
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.
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.
And the choice was never mechanisation versus no mechanisation… it was whether the transition would include basic labour and quality standards. With regulation, you’d still have got mechanisation and cheaper clothing in the end… just without the fraudulent goods and wage suppression. Framing it as “society versus a few jobs” is exactly the manufacturer’s argument from the 1810s, which is very effective propaganda reaching through centuries.
To drive the point home even clearer
Parliament made frame-breaking a capital offence to protect manufacturer profits. Saying it all worked out eventually doesn’t justify the process, any more than cheap cotton justified the conditions under which it was produced. And frankly, look at modern fast fashion: cheap clothing that falls apart in weeks, produced under appalling conditions overseas. We’re still living with the consequences of the principle that cheapness trumps everything else.
But on quality: I found this an interesting read https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/05/ha...
Making clothing more efficient by employing children in dangerous factories is bad actually (what happened in the original factories and now at fast fashion).
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.
Lots of countries attribute the clothing industry to increasing standard of living and economic prosperity. Like India, Pakistan.
"Something something uplifted from poverty" is much shorter, quippier and cleaner.
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.
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
Take your yearly clothing expenditure and multiply it by 10. And then, just like people 200 years ago, be content with 2 to 4 compete outfits. And then stop buying clothes yearly and go more on 10+ year cycle, where you use your funds to mend clothes instead of replacing them.
Even if you only spend $300 on clothes per year, doing it the old school way means you can spend about $15,000 on 2-4 outfits and save the other $15,000 for mending and cleaning over the next 10 years.
I guarantee you you can find a high quality custom outfit for $5000.