The displacement trap
The article discusses the historical context of technological displacement and its impact on labor. It highlights examples from the past, such as the Luddite movement and companies like Cadbury and John Lewis, which thrived by investing in their workforce rather than minimizing labor costs. The author argues that long-term productivity gains often come from building trust and capabilities rather than aggressive cost-cutting measures.
- ▪The Luddite movement is often misinterpreted as merely resisting progress, but it highlights the expansion of skilled labor following technological advancements.
- ▪Cadbury's decision to create a 'factory in a garden' led to a thriving community and a strong brand, contrary to the cost-cutting trends of their time.
- ▪John Lewis Partnership's employee ownership model has proven resilient through economic downturns, emphasizing the value of investing in workforce trust.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
The argument that a powerful new technology will eliminate human work is older than industrial capitalism. The argument has been wrong every time. The question worth asking is why it has been wrong, and what the answer suggests about the present moment. The Luddites and the long game The Luddite movement of 1811–1816 is remembered, unfairly, as a parable about resisting progress. What’s more interesting is what happened after the displacement panic subsided. Mechanized textile production did not eliminate textile workers. It dramatically expanded the market for textiles, which in turn dramatically expanded the demand for skilled labor to operate, maintain, and improve the new machinery. Productivity per worker rose; total employment rose alongside it.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Asymptotes.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Asymptotes
