Talk:Luddite fallacy

jobless growth

Perhaps nothing was meant by removing the criticism of jobless growth, but I think that Easterly wants the Luddite fallacy to be a direct response to this literature (in fact, he's kinda "name calling"). Should this article discuss how jobless growth and Luddite fallacy research intersects? Also, now that I notice the article at jobless growth, I'm wondering about a merge... On the other hand, that article focuses more on growth out of a recession, while this is talking about growth as development. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, the deletion of the statement was accidental (I have WP:Popups installed and whenever I highlight any text with my mouse, a new window pops up at the top of the screen, further extending the area that is highlighted). I have re-added the statement (although I'm not sure if it's in the best place). The topics of Luddite fallacy and jobless growth do, as you have noted, interesect, but they are distinct (in origin and common use). The term "Luddite fallacy" is mostly affiliated with opposition to technological advancement, which is not the focus of "jobless growth". Again, my apologies for removing the statement. I had no intention of doing so and it certainly belongs in the article. -- Black Falcon 06:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, no apology is necessary. I'm not near the economist to be able to fight over whether jobless growth is ludditism or not. I mentioned it here in case the connection was totally misplaced, just so my wrong-headedness didn't make its way too far on WP mainspace. I (or someone) will better integrate the text soon, I'm sure. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can Luddites be right in some circumstances?

What happens if the new technology is so expensive that it allows only a small number of huge corporations to remain in the industry, so that all the gains from the higher productivity are swallowed up by oligopoly profits? --GCarty (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gains that are "swallowed up by profits" (an odd way of putting it) are still gains. Those profits go to someone, and even if "only a small number of huge corporations" earn those profits, they pay them to their shareholders, either in the form of dividends or in the form of reinvestment in the company. 96.35.175.244 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

It is a truism to say that the Luddite fallacy is "fallacious only at the macroeconomic level." Unemployment is a statistic, that is, an aggregate measurement of a population. To say that unemployment does not go down at the macroeconomic level is to say that it does not go down at the only level at which that statistic is measured. While an individual may be unemployed, "unemployment" as applied to a single individual is neither a statistic nor a concept. It is as meaningless as referring to other aggregate measures in the individual case, such as the pressure of a single molecule, or the death rate of a single person. 96.35.175.244 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this criticism. It's simply saying that the composition of employment may change becasue of labor-saving technology. -AJW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.120.151 (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Too Much of Article Spent Defending Fallacy

Even after some editing I've just done, the majority of the article is still essentially spent supporting the idea that the Luddite Fallacy is not, in fact, a fallacy. I was under the impression that it is the accepted/established view that it is a fallacy, or at least that the large majority of relevant economists view it as a fallacy. If this is anywhere near the case, the article should not give the impression that whether or not there is such a fallacy is something widely disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogburt (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article opens with the statement that the dominant classical belief is that it is a fallacy and describes the argument. It is also the case that the belief is disputed and has come under fire in many more articles and books than those cited in the article- for example economist Jeremy Rifkin's End of work is mentioned but there is no link to that book. Because of the dominance of the prevailing view, it does require some space to describe the counter argument. If undue weight is given to a ideas far outside accepted thinking, then it is proper to make a cautionary statement in the introduction to the counterargument and to instert authoritative citation for the cautionary warning.

If this were a longer article, general practice is to have a section called controversies EG: Global_warming#Views_on_global_warming. Note that whatever your beliefs are on a subject, it is improper to label a statement as dubious because you do not think the argument is convincing. Is this guideline where not followed, the Views on global warming section would have every sentence labelled this way. Regarding this article, I propose that you remove all your insertions of dubious- discuss unless you make the case that the cited author did not make the assertion described in the article. How does that sound? J JMesserly (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested merge with relationship of automation to unemployment

Should this article be merged with the article relationship of automation to unemployment? Both articles seem to cover exactly the same topic? In the discussion page of the mentioned article, is suggested to rename it to "Technological unemployment". Maybe a merge and rename can help you improving the structure of the article J.D. Hooijberg (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Luddite fallacy and technological unemployment are opposite concepts. Unfortunately the article The relationship of automation to unemployment does not give balanced coverage of unemployment but instead argues for the Luddite fallacy. The argument against the Luddite fallacy is the continual shortening of the work week, now averaging 34 hours in the US, down from 60 hours in 1900 and 72 hours in 1850.Phmoreno (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the two articles as opposites, except in that one is more balanced than the other. This article, Luddite fallacy, gives the impression that the Luddites' point of view was as a matter of fact incorrect. However this "incorrectness" seems to me to come merely from a reductionist perspective on the term "employment". While this reduction is useful for everyday needs it seems to me to fail when applied to anything more sophisticated. The purpose of automation, and industrialisation generally is to increase return on capital through replacing employment and skilled work. The new form of employment it led to, and the accompanying land enclosures it required, were disinterested in the employed but solely in the more profitable use and exploitation of capital i.e. with the consolidation of wealth. This process continues to the present, but history is written by the victors, in this case by the new capitalists. It seems to me that the general "benefits" of industrialisation felt by the West have been achieved by creating and exporting poverty; by the exponential increase in resource consumption - sustained exclusively by fossil fuel consumption; and by redefining elementary terminology. The real value and status of new skills is moot in my opinion but these seem not to relate to sustainable production per se but to the servicing needs of the machines themselves which are owned and controlled by others. It was the creation of the Consumer Economy, and in my view of a new form of slavery. I think when assessing these issues we should be conscious that the transformation wrought by the Industrial Revolution is only around 150yrs old and also that the exponential increase of consumption of finite resources it has resulted in and on which it is founded is unsustainable. LookingGlass (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just took some crude steps towards making this neutral

Added some "possible" and "possibly"s. Regardless of how strongly you believe that the Luddite beliefs can be reduced to a "fallacy", to say that it is absolutely a fallacy in all cases takes some liberties, eh?

Original: This is fallacious because labour-saving technologies may increase output per worker and thus the production of goods, causing the costs of goods to decline and demand for goods to increase. As a result, the demand for workers to produce those goods will not decrease. Thus, the "fallacy" of the Luddites lay in their assumption that employers would keep production constant by employing a smaller albeit more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant.

My edit: This is possibly fallacious because labour-saving technologies may increase output per worker and thus the production of goods, possibly causing the costs of goods to decline and demand for goods to increase. As a possible result, the demand for workers to produce those goods will not decrease. Thus, the possible "fallacy" of the Luddites lay in their assumption that employers would keep production constant by employing a smaller albeit more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.20.37 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)