Gene Coyle: >> > Technological progress destroys, doesn't create jobs.
Doug wrote: >> It can destroy jobs or create them. Railroads, cars, telephones, airplanes, >> and computers all created far more jobs than they destroyed. I think that the focus on "jobs" is wrong (just as it was in the debate over the NAFTA years ago). It's absolutely true that technological change creates jobs and destroys them. Under the right conditions (see below), job destruction may be totally in sync with job creation, so that employment rises with the labor force (without an increase in "discouraged workers"). But the key point is that there's nothing in a pure capitalist economy that guarantees that the costs of the transitions of workers from the destroyed jobs to the created ones are less than the benefits. In fact, the fact that most of the transition costs are dumped on workers creates an incentive to for capitalists to introduce new technology; if they had to pay the full cost to society of introducing new technology, they'd hold off much more often. That is, one of the reasons for capitalism's much-praised technical "dynamism" is that the capitalists don't pay the full cost of the implementation of new technologies. The transition from old industries and occupations (rendered obsolete) to new ones (created by new technology) can be very costly, involving the need for workers to move to new geographical areas and new skill categories. They may find it necessary to sell their houses or leave their communities and families. Movement across international boundaries may be excessively expensive or even impossible (unlike for capital). Some workers end up structurally unemployed, i.e., not having the right skills or location for the jobs that are available (like some of my distant relatives in West Virginia). Others end up taking jobs that pay much less -- or that have much lower _quality_ (from the worker's point of view). In fact, their having relatively high wages in the first place is one factor encouraging their employers to introduce new, labor-power-saving, technical change. What are the "right conditions" mentioned above? In the aggregate, the total availability of jobs under capitalism grows according to the formula the growth rate of labor-power demand = the rate of growth of the demand for real GDP _minus_ the rate of growth of average labor productivity (real GDP produced per unit of labor-power). The growth of demand does not have to be led by consumers (though that is the most reliable private-sector basis for aggregate demand). It might be led by accumulation (fixed investment), government purchases (including government investment), and even net exports. The balance between the supply and demand (so that demand rises with the labor force) might be maintained by increased military spending. If need be, they could bring back conscription. Even without that kind of prop, if the supply of labor-power is growing faster than the demand for it, "market forces" can solve the problem. You don't have to believe in the free-market myths found in Ekon textbooks to see this: in this situation, as Marx pointed out, average real wages will sag or stagnate relative to labor productivity growth (sag or stag?), boosting profits and encouraging accumulation. This boosts the demand for labor-power. But this returns us to my first points: it's the _transition costs_ and the _quality_ of jobs that count. Sandwichman wrote: > This [Doug's comment above] is about half right. Some tech progress > creates the potential for > new markets for new commodities. But demand for those new commodities > is not intrinsic, it has to be learned and often massively subsidized > with public works spending (e.g., on paved roads, airports). It is the > effective demand for the new products that creates jobs, not the > technology itself. In my experience, the way US politics works is that massive subsidization of private-sector capitalist operations is the norm, not the exception. (The exception would be subsidization of working-class operations, unless workers fight hard.) Maybe it works differently in other countries... > Also, the debate about technology creating/destroying jobs is > distorted by reification of what technology is. Technology consists of > both the skills and the tools -- things and social contexts. The > social is primary. ... > > The most elemental technologies of capitalism consisted of imposing > new social arrangements -- increasing the hours of work to accomodate > factory production and then limiting the hours of work to accomodate > expanded reproduction and intensification of the work process. Wasn't the limiting of hours largely the result of working-class struggles? it seems to me that it was only _after the fact_ that capitalists discovered that it could be beneficial to them if they played their cards right. > Ultimately technology is about saving time (wealth is disposable > time... "and nothing more!"). The things Doug mentioned, railroads, > cars, telephones, airplanes, and computers are all supposed to save > their customers time. Whether or not they actually do so is a question > that needs to be asked but rarely is. This question is asked a lot. For example, students of domestic labor processes ask if new house-cleaning machinery really saves labor-time or if it really simply creates the excuse for unnecessary increases in standards of household cleanliness. More importantly, it's true that "ultimately" or "objectively," technological change is "about" saving time, along with effort (which seems just as important to me). But under capitalism, it's not labor-time or effort as much as the labor-power hired that gets the attention, at least in the private sector. That is, technological change is "about" cutting labor-power costs (and "constant capital" costs, too, if it can be pulled off). An employer doesn't care if a new technology uses more worker time or effort -- as long as it decreases costs to the employer. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
