over the course of the 19th century the average Lancashire operative roughly doubled the number of machines tended
approximately 1⁄4 of the 50-fold increase in cloth output per worker-hour between 1800 and 1900 was due to each weaver simply operating more looms than they had done initially.
A question jumps out to me: did each individual machine and loom require equal effort at the beginning and end of these periods? It could be that more machines were tended because each machine required less tending.
The way they addressed this question was by comparing how much time was spent monitoring the looms versus actively performing tasks. The quote in the article is as follows:
Bessen shows that in the early 19th century, a New England weaver operating a single power loom spent 70-75% of the time watching the loom. By 1900, monitoring without active intervention was reduced to ~20% of the weaver’s time, and actively performing tasks took up 80% of the time. This is because the weaver in 1900 was made to operate 8 power looms.
I don’t have access to the Bessen paper currently, though I’ll probably go ahead and read it anyway.
The quote doesn’t say explicitly, so just to make sure we’re on the same page: I take from this that yes, when more looms were tended, each loom required less attention. Do you agree?
The significant thing is that it was not symmetrical, ie they didn’t replace one machine with two machines that each took half as much attention. Working 8 took 80% of the time, so it looks like the 1900 machines each only took 10%, compared to the earlier single machine which took 30%. This suggests to me that the new machines took ~0.33 the attention the earlier ones did. So the improved machines lead to workers “only” working about three times as hard overall.
A question jumps out to me: did each individual machine and loom require equal effort at the beginning and end of these periods? It could be that more machines were tended because each machine required less tending.
The way they addressed this question was by comparing how much time was spent monitoring the looms versus actively performing tasks. The quote in the article is as follows:
I don’t have access to the Bessen paper currently, though I’ll probably go ahead and read it anyway.
The quote doesn’t say explicitly, so just to make sure we’re on the same page: I take from this that yes, when more looms were tended, each loom required less attention. Do you agree?
I agree.
The significant thing is that it was not symmetrical, ie they didn’t replace one machine with two machines that each took half as much attention. Working 8 took 80% of the time, so it looks like the 1900 machines each only took 10%, compared to the earlier single machine which took 30%. This suggests to me that the new machines took ~0.33 the attention the earlier ones did. So the improved machines lead to workers “only” working about three times as hard overall.