[achierius]

It was only the best work they could get because they had been forced out of the countryside by cost increases, automation, and centralization of land ownership. They teach about the enclosure of the fields in schools for a reason: what had once been communal property of villages throughout England became the exclusive property of the nobility. By and large, if people had a choice they preferred to remain a peasant: you lived in the countryside, breathed clean air, stayed close to the friends, family, and community you were raised with, were self-sufficient, had space and time to raise a family, worked on your own schedule (at least day-to-day), didn't have to let some 'boss' treat you like a slave, didn't have to fear being 'fired', so on and so forth.

To quote an economist (Branko Milanovic) who's done work on this topic in the context of 19th century Serbia attempting to industrialize their peasant population:

> All contemporary evidence points to the fact that peasants were not at all keen to move to cities and work for a wage. Since there was no landlessness very few people were pushed by poverty to look for city jobs. Political parties which strongly (and understandably) represented peasantry further limited mobility of labor by guaranteeing homestead (3.5 ha of land, house, cattle, and the implements) which could not be alienated, neither in the case of default on a loan nor in the case of overdue taxes.

> This situation was very typical for the late industrializers in South-East Europe. Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia were all overwhelmingly agricultural with small peasant landholdings and no landlessness. All displayed slow or arrested capitalist development and half-hearted urbanization. The reason was simple: farmers had no incentive to move from being self-employed to being hired labor. And who would prefer to switch from being one’s own boss and dependent perhaps only on the elements to become a hired hand, working six days a week all year round, in “satanic mills”?

> ...

> The question is, how do you industrialize under such conditions? Reluctance of peasants, whenever they had their own land, to become industrial workers has been discussed (Gerschenkron, Polanyi). In England they had to be literally chased from land through enclosures; in France, the process was much more overdrawn and took a century; in Germany, Poland and Hungary, large estates owned by nobility and consequent landlessness did the job. In Russia, it was bloody and occurred through forced collectivization.

> ...

> The process whereby agricultural economies industrialized was wrenching. The displacement and unhappiness of the population dragged into industrial centers through either empty stomachs or outright terror was incomparable in its human costs to today’s similar transfer of labor from manufacturing to services (or to unemployment). The transformation in the underlying economic structure is never easy but it seems to me that the one from the fresh air and freedom of own farm to being a cog in a huge soiled machine of industrialization was the most painful.

[BurningFrog]

Being "forced out of" work by automation is how we have progressed during the last 250 years of the Industrial Revolution. It continues today.

Fewer people can produce as much food as before, so the people not needed for food production can start producing other things.

This can of course be a tragedy for the people left without work, but for society at a macro level it is hugely beneficial.

This era in England has a bad reputation, and by our standards it was awful, but by objective measures like average lifespan, population size and technological progress, it was a time of unprecedented progress and material improvement for common people.

Did people lose a sense of community as they left their ancestral villages. Probably, and I don't know how to weigh that against our immense wealth today.

[achierius]

Why do we demand that the price of progress be paid by those people least able to pay? Why is it that the people who work, who produce everything that we rely on to survive, are also the ones who suffer, whose life-plans are upended, whose homes are taken away, whose bodies are mangled -- while the rich, who contribute little other than "management of capital", are fine and dandy?

If someone were to say to you, today, that your career was over, and that the only choice was to go work in a mine -- and moreover, that thanks to the great pressure of unemployed laborers in the same boat as you, safety standards had fallen by the wayside? Would you consider that a "necessary cost" for progress? If not, then what's the bar? When do you consider it acceptable to tell someone, who trained for years and years to do something useful for the community, that due to technological developments on the other side of the continent they need to find a new job, slash their budget, abandon their home, give up plans of having a family?

It's easy to say "they should learn to code" -- wait, but now coding's not the place to be, is it? The rate at which these shifts happen has accelerated, continues to accelerate, and is already well past the ability of people to re-skill mid-career.

We already have enough resources to feed and house every person in the US (and the world, though I admit the logistics there are a bit tougher). If automation actually meant that the broader population -- no, not their hypothetical grandchildren -- would become more prosperous, perhaps it would be something worth celebrating. But as is, growth for the sake of growth, at the cost of suffering that could easily be avoided had we a different economic system, seems hard to justify in my eyes.