Editing Luddite (section)

== Modern usage ==
Nowadays, the term "Luddite" often is used to describe someone who is opposed or resistant to new technologies.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.dictionary.com/browse/luddite| title = Luddite Definition & Meaning| website = Dictionary.com| access-date = 18 June 2020| archive-date = 18 June 2020| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200618154639/https://www.dictionary.com/browse/luddite| url-status = live}}</ref>

In 1956, during a British Parliamentary debate, a [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] spokesman said that "organised workers were by no means wedded to a 'Luddite Philosophy'."{{sfn|Sale|1995|p = 205}} By 2006, the term ''[[neo-Luddism]]'' had emerged to describe opposition to many forms of technology.{{sfn|Jones|2006| page = 20 }} According to a manifesto drawn up by the Second Luddite Congress (April 1996; [[Barnesville, Ohio]]), neo-Luddism is "a leaderless movement of passive resistance to consumerism and the increasingly bizarre and frightening technologies of the [[Computer Age]]".<ref name="Sale1997">{{Cite news |url=https://mondediplo.com/1997/02/20luddites |title=America's New Luddites |last=Sale |first=Kirkpatrick |date=1997-02-01 |work=[[Le Monde diplomatique]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020630215254/http://mondediplo.com/1997/02/20luddites |archive-date=2002-06-30 |language=en}}</ref>

The term "Luddite fallacy" is used by economists about the fear that [[technological unemployment]] inevitably generates [[structural unemployment]] and is consequently [[Macroeconomics|macroeconomically]] injurious. If a technological innovation reduces necessary labour inputs in a given sector, then the industry-wide cost of production falls, which lowers the competitive price and increases the equilibrium supply point that, theoretically, will require an increase in aggregate labour inputs.<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Jerome | first1 = Harry | title = Mechanization in Industry, National Bureau of Economic Research | year = 1934 | url = http://papers.nber.org/books/jero34-1 | pages = 32–35 | access-date = 6 May 2014 | archive-date = 24 February 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170224140043/http://papers.nber.org/books/jero34-1 | url-status = live }}</ref> During the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, the dominant view among economists has been that belief in long-term technological unemployment was indeed a [[fallacy]]. More recently, there has been increased support for the view that the benefits of automation are not equally distributed.<ref name = "sympathy">{{cite news|access-date=14 July 2015|author-link=Paul Krugman|date=2013-06-12|first=Paul|last=Krugman|title=Sympathy for the Luddites|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html?_r=0|work=[[The New York Times]]|archive-date=28 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150628052259/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html?_r=0|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Ford|2009|loc= Chpt 3, 'The Luddite Fallacy'}}</ref><ref name = "Death">{{cite web
  |url= http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/robert-skidelsky-revisits-the-luddites--claim-that-automation-depresses-real-wages
  |title= Death to Machines?
  |publisher= [[Project Syndicate]]
  |author= Lord Skidelsky
  |date= 2013-06-12
  |access-date= 14 July 2015
  |author-link= Robert Skidelsky, Baron Skidelsky
  |archive-date= 14 July 2015
  |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150714220548/http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/robert-skidelsky-revisits-the-luddites--claim-that-automation-depresses-real-wages
  |url-status= live
  }}</ref>