Baking bread has gone from an everyday job employing a significant fraction of the workforce to more of an artistic job that only a few people do. Bakers don’t really compete with mass produced bimbos, instead they offer a premium product for people who are willing to pay more.
I think it’s always like that when technologies get replaced. There are still people offering horse-drawn carriage rides, but it’s a specialty service now instead of a common job. Same with many of the things you find on Etsy.
Jobs being replaced by automation wouldn’t be a bad thing if the benefits were shared with the whole population and there were a social safety net for people whose jobs were eliminated. Unfortunately, the benefits always go to the people at the top. Some theorists have proposed economic systems where there are no people at the top, or where things are shared much more fairly. It’s a sad fact that those systems seem incompatible with human nature as it stands. Country-sized experimentation with anarchism or communism still leads to people at the top who take a lot more than they give. Those systems seem to work fine in small communities where everyone knows each-other. But, not when they are implemented in countries containing millions of people.
The most effective systems right now seem to be mixed socialist / capitalist systems where unions are strong and willing to call major strikes and shut the country down. You still get “haves” and “have nots”, but the “have nots” still get a voice and aren’t completely trampled by the rich.
It is a grammar thing. You can have a lot less of a non-count noun, like sand. But you have to have fewer of countable nouns, like loaves of bread, or bakers of bread
This is a contested grammar rule that was based on one persons opinion in the late 1700s.
There are plently of examples in history and modern usage where less and fewer are used interchangably. It is not a fixed part of english grammar as much as an “internet gotcha” that is commonly repeated.
You can use “less” when it’s a non-discrete plurality, such as water or sand (ignoring the technical fact that these can now be observed as discrete components below the macroscopic level) or money (the made-up kind, not necessarily the physical representations thereof). It’s vastly more messy to have 1.78 bakers, and their families get really upset about it, so it’s safer just to use “fewer.”
End users aren’t the customer.
Baking bread has gone from an everyday job employing a significant fraction of the workforce to more of an artistic job that only a few people do. Bakers don’t really compete with mass produced bimbos, instead they offer a premium product for people who are willing to pay more.
I think it’s always like that when technologies get replaced. There are still people offering horse-drawn carriage rides, but it’s a specialty service now instead of a common job. Same with many of the things you find on Etsy.
Jobs being replaced by automation wouldn’t be a bad thing if the benefits were shared with the whole population and there were a social safety net for people whose jobs were eliminated. Unfortunately, the benefits always go to the people at the top. Some theorists have proposed economic systems where there are no people at the top, or where things are shared much more fairly. It’s a sad fact that those systems seem incompatible with human nature as it stands. Country-sized experimentation with anarchism or communism still leads to people at the top who take a lot more than they give. Those systems seem to work fine in small communities where everyone knows each-other. But, not when they are implemented in countries containing millions of people.
The most effective systems right now seem to be mixed socialist / capitalist systems where unions are strong and willing to call major strikes and shut the country down. You still get “haves” and “have nots”, but the “have nots” still get a voice and aren’t completely trampled by the rich.
There is no one human nature, humans have a lot of different natures.
But greed seems to be pretty universal.
Greed is not inevitable.
Eh, I’d say 20% human nature, 80% propaganda.
Tried multiple times, failed every time. That’s more than just propaganda.
Yup, and there are a lot less bakers around now that machines do most of it.
No, I think there are fewer bakers.
They’re also smaller
I don’t trust small bakers…
You don’t have a quarter, do ya? All I want is one more oatmeal pie
How can a 50 year old (66 by now) look that young? Witchcraft or technoheresy!
Is this a grammer thing? I’m fairly certain I can use “a lot less”.
Hmm nvm, I don’t recognize the meme.
It is a grammar thing. You can have a lot less of a non-count noun, like sand. But you have to have fewer of countable nouns, like loaves of bread, or bakers of bread
Ahhh I see, thank you
This is a contested grammar rule that was based on one persons opinion in the late 1700s.
There are plently of examples in history and modern usage where less and fewer are used interchangably. It is not a fixed part of english grammar as much as an “internet gotcha” that is commonly repeated.
Looks better though. I know it looks better because I grew up with the rule, but it does look better.
Personally I disagree. “Fewer” is more verbose than “less,” so it just looks cumbersome to me in many instances.
It also irks me a bit, because I know at least some of the instances I see are likely based on the above misunderstanding, not taste.
Non-countable? I think some vampires might disagree.
I also thought Thor relevant but I can’t find anything to support that.
Whether something is a. Punt or non-count noun is more convention than actual ability to be counted
I know, but if I let reality impinge on my comments, it would get a lot harder to make stupid jokes.
You can use “less” when it’s a non-discrete plurality, such as water or sand (ignoring the technical fact that these can now be observed as discrete components below the macroscopic level) or money (the made-up kind, not necessarily the physical representations thereof). It’s vastly more messy to have 1.78 bakers, and their families get really upset about it, so it’s safer just to use “fewer.”
To be fair, knowing what the first mass production machines looked like, some families definitely got back .78 of their baker.
Jk tho, thanks for the correction.