Given that it took 50 years of constant strikes and close to 1,000 killed to get people acclimatized to salaried work I'd say the sharing economy is doing a marvelous job so far.
Given that it took 50 years of constant strikes and close to 1,000 killed to get people acclimatized to salaried work I'd say the sharing economy is doing a marvelous job so far.
Most people would say it took 50 years of constant strikes to force owners/employers to _change working conditions_ enough so people people in waged work (most of those people striking weren't 'salaried') had sufficient dignity and basic needs being met, resulting in some degree of social calm.
But you're suggesting they were striking simply because waged work was unfamiliar to them, and eventually they got 'acclimatized' (I think you mean 'acclimated'?), got used to it, and stopped striking? Rather than because their strikes actually succeeded in changing conditions?
What worked was more like the IBEW - lineman mortality was 50% until industrial safety education and practices became a thing. My Dad was a telephone lineman ( and then moved to inside work ) - he was serious about this.
I think you have to realize that in absolute terms, industrial work was still much more rewarding than farm work. That a few Henry Frick figures existed ( and Carnegie disavowed Frick eventually ) does not mean that the "exploited" did not participate in their exploitation.
I wish there was a better literature about labor. So much - from both sides - is propaganda. The "evil Capitalist" meme is tired.