Nobody is arguing that the industrial revolution didn't suck for a quite a lot of people. But consider this? Why did people go into the cities if those sucked so bad? Because life in the country side could suck pretty bad too. It doesn't matter if you have people willing to give you some help if they've got something to spare, if nobody has anything to spare. For example, because some lord need more cash and instituted a new tax. The economic history of peasants in england before around 1346 could be described as more and more of them getting pushed into inheritable debt-slavery/serfdom. The next ten years would massively improve the economic position of the lower classes, but it did that by way mass death, so people actually had to pay a good wage.
Incidentally, that shift in power away from the landed classes is one of the factors that enabled, if not the industrial revolution itself, then its predecessor the industrious revolution.
The honest answer is, we don't know. There's only ever been one, and so we can't really compare different cases to see what really mattered (unlike with agriculture, cities or writing, which were independently invented in a bunch of places so we can at least make some comparisons). We can point at a bunch of factors, but it's super hard to weigh them, especially because they all interact, and a set together might be critical but useless if even one part is missing.
But I'll point at a few things for your consideration. Number one is that the people there don't know that a concept like the industrial revolution exists, much less what it means. They might be near a tipping point where things get exciting really fast, if they just put in a little more money on incremental improvements and stuff. But if they don't know that, in most cases a small improvement wouldn't be worth that much.
There's a difference between hierarchy and a power structure. A power structure is solidified. Grug is boss because he's strong and charismatic, and remains that way only so long as nobody is more so (with some advantage for the incumbent). It's pretty meritocratic that way. And if he's just strong, people can easily just go to the next group. You're probably related to them too.
Agriculture lets you accumulate power over years, hand it to your heirs, and use that power to get more power. You don't need to be strong or charismatic anymore to get a bunch of people to fight for you (though of course it helps). You just need to give them food. And then those people you pay can take the food of other people, so you're making a profit and everyone does what you say. And unlike previously, the people you take the food from can't just leave, because then they'd starve. They have to stay and make more food for you to take (and also eat).
Incidentally, the in-between case of pastoralism has much more fluid power structures, but it still has them because animals do still accumulate, and that can be passed on. But just being able to leave and go somewhere else does put a limit on how tyrannical you can be to them (which applies both internally and for the longest time to external powers too).
Which goes to show why freedom of movement is one of the most important rights to guard against tyranny. Because it can only get so bad if you can just leave (note that not being able to leave can both be because your not allowed or because you can't afford it).
