The question should be, what can be done better, faster and cheaper by a machine than by a human? Human labour will continue to be used simply because they can do quite complicated physical tasks effectively, quickly and cheaply.

I do want to go that far because what I've written is true. The handloom weavers did go out of business, outcompeted by factories and machines, and a lot of them did end up in the workhouse.

> They believed that industrialization would lead to workers getting paid less and having a lower quality of life because the artisanal trade would be replaced by easily-replaceable uneducated workers.

And they were right. It was, and it did.

> Industrialization lead to a massive increase in salary and the quality of life for your average Englishman (as hard to believe as that is)

It's not hard to believe, it's just wrong. Who is "the average Englishman" and who suddenly got a massive increase in salary? Why on earth would you give a factory worker a huge salary, you would want to pay him as little as possible.

The self-employed artisan was obviously in a better position than the proletarian in a factory.

The name "Luddite" is a byword for a backward person. But the thing about the Luddites is that they were right. They were handloom weavers who were worried that they were going to be replaced by machines, and they were replaced by machines. A lot of them ended up in the workhouse.

A pity she didn't live long enough to get it back. That would have been like a more prosaic Fet-Mats.