Harry,
I read and follow what you write. And like the writings of George. But I just don't understand your jumps of logic. As here, We are going to need shoes whether or not there is automation. In the paragraph above, there is the assumption that people are unable to buy the shoes made by automation. But then we must ask why is the automated plant operating if there's no one to buy its products? This is not a binary situation. People will be able to buy shoes. Lots of shoes, maybe not. But some shoes. Would they buy more if they had jobs? Yes. As income levels fall the shoe mfg automated plant sees that shoe sales are falling and then they cut back on output. And down the line cutbacks take place and a new equilibrium is reached. Shoes are produced. The plant is operating at 60 percent output. Unempl is at 25 percent. And this becomes stable. I think what you don't take into account is leads and lags. The economy is dynamic and is constantly adjusting and re-adjusting to new information. Considering the enormous improvement in the power to produce even with modest automation, how come we have involuntary unemployment and wages for those at the bottom which verge on subsistence levels? How come we don't have everything that we need or, for that matter, everything we want? What is your answer to this? The introduction of the perils of automation is simply a red herring designed - as is contrived worries about outsourcing and imports - to keep us from carefully examining the real situation. Don't agree with this, above. One of the two assumptions of classical political economy is that, "People's desires are unlimited." As they satisfy their basic desires, so they go to others. No matter how many desires they satisfy, always new desires open up in front of them asking to be satisfied. If this assumption is credible, there cannot be unemployment. No matter if we all work 24 hours a day, we can't satisfy unsatisfiable desires What does this mean? What kind of background logic or theory leads to this outcome? Arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 3:01 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; 'Keith Hudson' Subject: Re: [Futurework] A Robot Stole My Job: Automation in the Recession | Singularity Hub Perhaps the silliness of this is summed up by this paragraph. "We previously <http://singularityhub.com/2009/12/15/martin-ford-asks-will-automation-lead- to-economic-collapse/> reviewed Martin Ford's book The Lights in the Tunnel, which argues that as the economy becomes fully automated, consumers won't have capital to keep consuming and the whole global economy will grind to a halt." We are going to need shoes whether or not there is automation. In the paragraph above, there is the assumption that people are unable to buy the shoes made by automation. But then we must ask why is the automated plant operating if there's no one to buy its products? In another post, I mentioned the automated plant (I think it was in RUR) that was producing like crazy even though the products were not removed. Eventually, it disappeared under a mountain of products. Well, that was fiction. Just imagine the enormous increase in automation provided by the invention of the hammer and saw. Suddenly, it was possible to make a table in an hour instead of the week. However, the table would not be made if it had not been a consumer for it. In similar fashion, if there was no consumers with "capital" someone would have to turn off the automated plant. But, the desire for shoes would continue and someone would satisfy it - perhaps on a cobblers last. By far the greatest part of production is getting the product from the factory to the consumer. I'm not sure how that could be automated. Perhaps we buy a motherboard from China for five dollars and get it from the dock to the consumer at the Denver Wal-Mart who pays $80. Most of the cost goes to Americans. The history of mankind's production has been a continual improvement in the quality of production at ever lowering costs. Inevitably, this means that fewer people are needed to produce larger amounts of better things. This is good. It's the reason why we have a 20 hour workweek and pay that exceeds $200 an hour. Also, it's the reason why we have such a tremendous service economy which makes life so much more pleasant for all of us. What's that? We don't have the 20 hour workweek and pay that exceeds $200 an hour? Considering the enormous improvement in the power to produce even with modest automation, how come we have involuntary unemployment and wages for those at the bottom which verge on subsistence levels? How come we don't have everything that we need or, for that matter, everything we want? The introduction of the perils of automation is simply a red herring designed - as is contrived worries about outsourcing and imports - to keep us from carefully examining the real situation. One of the two assumptions of classical political economy is that, "People's desires are unlimited." As they satisfy their basic desires, so they go to others. No matter how many desires they satisfy, always new desires open up in front of them asking to be satisfied. If this assumption is credible, there cannot be unemployment. No matter if we all work 24 hours a day, we can't satisfy unsatisfiable desires. Henry George summed it up very well when he asked, "Why are people looking for jobs? Why aren't jobs looking for people?" However, in the absence of any such pertinent questions, we must be satisfied with the somewhat idle conjectures of people who want to get something into print. Harry ****************************** Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 (818) 352-4141 ****************************** From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:51 AM To: 'Keith Hudson'; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] A Robot Stole My Job: Automation in the Recession | Singularity Hub What I find interesting about the comments is how reflective they are... Where are the right wing attack hounds that seem to be present in virtually every other comment forum... M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 7:19 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] A Robot Stole My Job: Automation in the Recession | Singularity Hub At 10:03 22/12/2010 -0500, Robert wrote: Some may find this interesting - particularly the comments. http://singularityhub.com/2010/12/15/a-robot-stole-my-job-automation-in-the- recession/ An excellent article, plumb in the middle of this list's interests. At the end of it one can be left in little doubt that our present governmental, corporate and social structures, as they have developed over the last 300 years or so, are fast becoming inadequate and we are in effect writing-off chunks of our population as simply not required any longer. Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2010/12/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
