I agree that cheap labour isn’t great for the majority. Another thing I kept thinking to myself is how labor is too cheap in India. For example when I saw people farming without a tractor using a cow instead. Why revolt instead of asking for a higher salary or quit? Conditions in India seem to be improving pretty rapidly.
The phenomenon you observed as far more to do with the tiny plot sizes in most of rural India than it had to do with the cost of labor.
Many/most farmers have farms sized such that they are, if not as bad as mere subsistence, unable to justify the efficiency gains of mechanization. This is not true in other parts of India, like the western states of Punjab and Haryana, where farms are larger and just about every farmer has a tractor. There are some cooperatives where multiple smallholders coordinate to share larger machines like combine harvesters which none but the very largest farmers can justify purchasing for personal use.
Optimal economic policy (in terms of total yield and efficiency) is heavily in favor of consolidating plots to allow economies of scale. This is politically untenable in much of India, hence your observation. However, it isn’t a universal state of affairs, and many other fruits of industrialization are better adopted.
You can revolt in a sort of Soviet Revolution, just as you can organize a strike asking for a salary raise. However, merely asking individually for a higher salary or threatening to quit is only effective if there is a labor shortage or if you possess specific expertise. If you can be replaced within a day, you’re screwed. There is something Molochian about the low-wage trap. I can imagine a society with one god-emperor employer and the rest of the population collectively locked in a societal low-wage trap. Only cooperation can overcome this, but it is hard to do that in a soft way, not hurting anyone. A change can only appear net negative to the upper class. And also, maybe the god-emperor employer solution, or merely an oligarchy of god-emperors employers to keep competition in play, is the more effective model on a macro scale (thinkers close to the rationalist community, like Hanson, are highly critical of the Western liberal-democratic system and display some fascination with the macro-efficiency of more hierarchical and less egalitarian societies). There is probably a tradeof micro/macro. But micro scale definitely matters. There is no sense in a very effective and successful society where the vast majority individually suffers.
I agree that cheap labour isn’t great for the majority. Another thing I kept thinking to myself is how labor is too cheap in India. For example when I saw people farming without a tractor using a cow instead. Why revolt instead of asking for a higher salary or quit? Conditions in India seem to be improving pretty rapidly.
The phenomenon you observed as far more to do with the tiny plot sizes in most of rural India than it had to do with the cost of labor.
Many/most farmers have farms sized such that they are, if not as bad as mere subsistence, unable to justify the efficiency gains of mechanization. This is not true in other parts of India, like the western states of Punjab and Haryana, where farms are larger and just about every farmer has a tractor. There are some cooperatives where multiple smallholders coordinate to share larger machines like combine harvesters which none but the very largest farmers can justify purchasing for personal use.
Optimal economic policy (in terms of total yield and efficiency) is heavily in favor of consolidating plots to allow economies of scale. This is politically untenable in much of India, hence your observation. However, it isn’t a universal state of affairs, and many other fruits of industrialization are better adopted.
You can revolt in a sort of Soviet Revolution, just as you can organize a strike asking for a salary raise. However, merely asking individually for a higher salary or threatening to quit is only effective if there is a labor shortage or if you possess specific expertise. If you can be replaced within a day, you’re screwed. There is something Molochian about the low-wage trap. I can imagine a society with one god-emperor employer and the rest of the population collectively locked in a societal low-wage trap. Only cooperation can overcome this, but it is hard to do that in a soft way, not hurting anyone. A change can only appear net negative to the upper class. And also, maybe the god-emperor employer solution, or merely an oligarchy of god-emperors employers to keep competition in play, is the more effective model on a macro scale (thinkers close to the rationalist community, like Hanson, are highly critical of the Western liberal-democratic system and display some fascination with the macro-efficiency of more hierarchical and less egalitarian societies). There is probably a tradeof micro/macro. But micro scale definitely matters. There is no sense in a very effective and successful society where the vast majority individually suffers.