Why did mass-production emerge as the dominant industrial process in the late 19th/ early 20th century? Provide examples to support your argument.
...the U.S. armoury at Springfield, Mass., where significant improvements were made in the design and use of machine tools. The United States in the 19th century was a particularly fertile place for the development of mass production, for chronic labour shortages stimulated the development of machinery that took the place of workers. Also, as a new country, the United States was not burdened with encrusted traditions that dictated the way that things should be done. The accomplishments of American manufacturers were clearly in evidence at London's Great Exhibition of 1851. There, displays of Colt revolvers and other manufactured items convinced British industrialists that there was something to be learned from the young country. In the years that followed, delegations of British engineers and factory managers crossed the Atlantic to see with their own eyes how mass production was done in the United States The years following the Civil War saw sharp advances in mass production that threw onto the market massive numbers of sewing machines, pocket watches, typewriters, bicycles, and other accouterments of an industrial civilization. Toward the end of that century, the greatest of all consumer items emerged, the automobile. Although the first automobiles were built in small quantities using simple production technologies, within a few years sizable numbers of cars were being built in factories equipped with the latest machine tools. As with mass production in general, the key to the volume production of cars was the use of interchangeable parts The great breakthrough in automobile manufacture came with the use of the moving assembly line. Its invention is usually attributed to Henry Ford and his associates, who created the system of overhead lines, conveyers, and chutes that churned out vast numbers of Model-T Fords. But the concept did not originate with Ford, who noted that he took his inspiration from the "disassembly lines" used by meat packers in Cincinnati and Chicago. Other industries may have also supplied inspiration: The production of metal cans and the milling of flour also used continuous-process methods that may have provided models for men who created Ford's assembly line. Ford's previous employment as an operating engineer for an electric utility also may have impressed upon him the importance of systematisation and continuous operation. Ford was not even the first automobile company to build cars on an assembly line. After Walter P. Chrysler became the head of Buick in 1910, some chassis were pushed from operation to operation along tracks made from 2-by-4s. In 1911, another car Company, EMF, produced 100 chassis a day through the use of a line moved by cables that wound on a drum. Still, it was the Ford Motor Company that was first to realize the full potential of a moving assembly line. In the spring of 1913, the firm set up a line for the manufacture of the flywheel component of the Model-T's magneto ignition. A worker performed one simple operation and then slid the subassembly to the next worker. The result was a substantial savings in time: 13 instead of 20 man-minutes per flywheel. The line was subsequently moved continuously by a chain, which in turn reduced the number of man-minutes to 5. The evident savings in time and expense stimulated the conversion of other manufacturing operations to assembly line manufacture: By 1914, complete Model-T chassis were being built on the line. Again, a massive saving of time ensued; before the installation of the assembly line it took nearly 121/2 hours to assemble a chassis. By 1914, it took a bit over 11/2 hours. Much of the savings in production costs were passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices. Initially offered at $850, the price of the cheapest Model-T had fallen to $310 by 1926. With lower prices came vast increases in sales volumes. By this time, Ford had become the dominant automobile manufacturer; more than half the cars on American In 1908, fewer than 6,000 Model-T's were sold; in 1917 sales had climbed to more than 800,000. In 1923, the highest sales level was reached as 2 million Model-T's emerged from the Ford factory. Henry Ford.[online]. While the assembly line was a boon to the Ford Motor Company and the purchaser of Ford cars, it was a decidedly mixed blessing for the men who worked on the line. Assembly-line work was physically taxing, the pace was unrelenting, and the tasks monotonous in the extreme. Limited skills were required, giving workers no outlet for creativity. Even able-bodied workers had trouble meeting the demands of the assembly line, and large numbers quit within months or even weeks of being hired. The costs of hiring and training new workers eroded a fair portion of Ford profits, and in 1914 Ford attempted to solve the problem by paying his workers $5 per day, about twice the average wage of manufacturing workers at the time. After meeting with evident success in car manufacture, assembly-line production spread to a variety of American industries: food products, domestic appliances, cosmetics, electrical goods, and many others. Today, vast numbers of products are manufactured through the use of assembly lines, but much of the actual work is automated, especially hazardous tasks like welding and spray painting. For employees still working on the line, conditions are much better than they were in the days of the Model-T. Even so, assembly-line work continues to be the embodiment of alienating labour, despite the granting of some control to the workers, such as the ability to stop the line when a problem arises. It is important to note, however, that very few of today's workers perform their tasks on an assembly line. In industrialized countries, only about a quarter of the labour force works in the manufacturing sector, and of these, only a small fraction perform their work on an assembly line. The classical view was that mass production was a historical necessity. Smith believed increasing the division of labour was key to increased productivity and specialised labour was more productive because it allowed skills to be perfected and saves time. Marx believed that the specialisation of manual work was important because it led to the introduction of special purpose automatic machinery. Both these views had a drawback, this was that mass production led to increased rigidity of production and Marx believed that it was only activated by growth in demand division of labour limited by the extent of the market. Chandler said that the construction of the US railroads led to the modern corporation. The railroads caused the market to expand rapidly and the market was no longer a limiting factor. The economy was boosted by aggregate demand and elaborated administrative techniques that the railways created. With mass production the world saw the emergence of industrial capitalism and industrial powers, Great Britain and the USA. In the 19th century the USA headed in the direction of mass production due to labour shortage, which in turn gave the employers the motive to encourage the invention of labour saving machines. In the UK a mass market for cheap consumer goods was created as a result of the reorganisation of agriculture that occurred in the 15th century. Unlike in the USA there was an abundance of skilled and unskilled works so producers did not have the motive of finding labour saving devices. Due to this there was limited mass production in the UK, it was mainly in the cotton and food processing industries. France saw the growth of flexible technology and organisational techniques, this came about as the guilds control over production was relaxed and experimentation occurred. (Sabel,C & Zeitlin,J.) An alternative industrial process is Piore and Sabel’s (1984) concept of ‘flexible specialisation’. Piore and Sabel outline a p...