Hey, wait a minute! My reply to Doug was redundant. Gene had already
raised the points I was trying to make. Doug's quote from Gene was out
of context and thus his "reply" to that decontextualized snippet was
gratuitous. Sorry, Gene.

On 5/8/08, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/8/08, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  >  On May 7, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Eugene Coyle wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > > Technological progress destroys, doesn't create jobs.
>  > >
>  >
>  >  It can destroy jobs or create them. Railroads, cars, telephones, 
> airplanes,
>  > and computers all created far more jobs than they destroyed.
>
>
> This 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.
>
>  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. You can have tech progress by finding new ways to
>  use existing tools but you can't have it by using new tools in the old
>  way.
>
>  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.
>
>  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.
>
>  When technologies actually create jobs does that mean they are
>  "make-work" projects? If so, do proponents of technological progress
>  thereby commit the make-work (closely allied to the lump-of-labor)
>  fallacy?
>
>  --
>
> Sandwichman
>


-- 
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to