On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Although that is indeed the standard view, I don't believe it is > demonstrated. Machinery does reduce the amount of labor time the capitalist > has to pay for but it does so at least in part by shifting social and > environmental costs off the employer's balance sheet. What is uncertain is > whether the direct labor costs of production are lowered more or less than > the collateral damage of the externalized environmental and social costs. > I'm beginning to suspect that there is no global saving of labor, only a * > shifting* of labor costs. > Interesting idea, but I am not convinced that this is a well-posed, falsifiable statement. Aren't you assuming that different types of costs (labor, environmental) are somehow commensurable i.e. that it is possible do an objective accounting of the costs and savings of a given technology so that we can then check to see if we have a negative or positive balance? -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
