Andrew Ure, in The Philosophy of the Manufacturers, dissects the \u201cnew class\u201d created in society by the advancements of technology in the Industrial Revolution. Ure was a professor at the University of Glasgow and wrote this article to illustrate his views on the Industrial Revolution and what he believes is helpful to the manufactures. Ure is in favor of these technological advancements, since it benefitted not only the workers and manufacturers, in regards of wealth, wages, and health. He acknowledges the fears and criticism this advancement has caused, such as the fear of losing value to their work, becoming jobless, or creating more wealth for only the \u201crich capitalists\u201d. Ure argues that the workers would in fact become relieved from tediously and arduously working by hand. The effort put into working, would be dramatically reduced and this leads to better quality of life. Workers wouldn\u2019t need to be fatigued and over worked. He makes the point that the workers are working hard every day for little pay, whereas the workers with machinery could achieve the same outcome with less fatigue for the same pay. The work also required a lot of time; the production of goods took time. With machinery, although expensive, came to be more lucrative because more goods were produced. More production leads to more money not only for the \u201ccapitalists,\u201d but also the workers. This, in Ure\u2019s opinion, is what makes the \u201cimprovement in manufactures\u2026 philanthropic\u201d. Consequently, the overall welfare of the workers is improved. For example, Ure demonstrates how producing silk with the help of a spinning wheel could be applied in the context of people using machines to perform their work. When the spinning needle was invented during the Medieval era, people came to use them. It was one of the earlier forms of machinery, and the machines could be compared to the spinning needle. Ure also makes the claim of how this advancement would create more jobs and work. Unskilled individuals could now have a chance to earn wages. This opened the door for a new demographic in the workplace as well, where women and children could now work to earn wages. Knowledge and skills are no longer needed in the workforce, since the machinery can do the tasks with minimal human effort. Albeit the introduction of machinery has procured many advantageous outcomes, Ure describes the division created. The division is between the skilled artisans or workers and the newly added unskilled workers. With machines, skill is no longer needed, and artisans, \u201cby the infirmity of human nature\u2026the more skillful the workmen, the more self-willed and intractable he is apt to become.\u201d Ure shows how the artisans would be angry with this technological advancement because they are reduced in their worth. These skillful artisans would no longer have the jobs they once had, unless they conform to the machinery now being used. Ure claims that as machinery improves it will \u201csupersede human labor altogether, or to dimmish its cost, by substituting the industry of women and children for that of men.\u201d Interestingly, this issue is still relevant in today\u2019s society, where technology is still advancing, just as it was in the early 1800s<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andrew Ure, in The Philosophy of the Manufacturers, dissects the \u201cnew class\u201d created in society by the advancements of technology in the Industrial Revolution. Ure was a professor at the University of Glasgow and wrote this article to illustrate his Continue reading