Marx discusses this in the section of vol. I of Capital titled, "The Theory of Compensation as Regards the Workpeople Displaced by Machinery." Obviously, from the perspective of the individual worker the displacement is the loss of his/her job and the machine has "destroyed" it. But from the perspective of the economy as a whole, it is uncertain whether fewer, more or the same number of jobs result from the introduction of a particular piece of machinery. In part, it depends on other factors besides the direct effect of the machine itself.
Economists are fond of talking about ceteris paribus but there is no such thing. Ceteris is never paribus. But just to give you an idea of a few of the factors involved: 1. somebody has to design and build the machines = more jobs in the capital goods sector. 2. increased output from the machine requires increased raw materials = more jobs in the extractive sector. 3. On the other hand, the loss of income by the displaced worker results in a decreased effective demand for the output of industry. I reject the claim that "machines create more jobs than they destroy" in part because there is nothing automatic or certain about the process. Besides, machines neither "create" nor "destroy" jobs, they displace workers and, possibly replace the displaced jobs with other ones. But there is a more important reason to reject the dogma: it implies that "creating jobs" and "saving labor" are the primary objective of machines. I would argue that the main objective of the introduction of machinery is the subordination of the labour process and thereby the workers to the control of capital: the "real subsumption of labor to capital" in Marx's phrase. While we're sitting around debating the creation and destruction of jobs, capital is getting on with the job of social domination, which is the whole point. On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > > You wrote, on another list, what I quote below. I've replied here because > you and Julio have been having a related convseration. > > I want to explore your "displacement" a little more. You have two > ways that machines displace workers. But you don't say, or at least I > can't see where you say, where the individual displaced worker ends up. > There are two possibilities: (a.) the individual gets a different job, or > (b.) the individual gets no job at all. > > The person in possibility (b.) would think, and I would agree, > that a machine (owned by someone else) has destroyed the job. Is the idea > that automation/mechanization/robotization creates more jobs than are > destroyed? > > What am I missing in your analysis? > > Gene > > On Jan 13, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Tom Walker wrote: > > > I know this is hopeless but robots (or machines) DO NOT destroy jobs; > they displace workers. The consequences of that displacement are far more > serious than if robots merely destroyed jobs. The economists' binary > "do/don't destroy jobs" keeps us asking the wrong questions. "If they can > get you asking the wrong questions," Thomas Pynchon wrote in Gravity's > Rainbow, "they don't have to worry about answers." > > > > Machines don't destroy jobs. > > Machines don't destroy jobs. > > Machines don't destroy jobs... > > > > Machines DISPLACE workers. > > > > There are two ways that machines displace workers. One of them is from > one group or kind of workers to another. This is a secondary displacement. > The primary displacement is from human labor to fuel consumption. > Substituting fuel consumption for human labor is only cost effective, > though, when the fuel is artificially cheap. Fuel is made cheap by shifting > to third parties the social and environmental costs of its extraction and > combustion. Fuel is cheap because most of its cost is discounted as > so-called "externalities." > > > > Think of all the work to be done cleaning up after superstorm Sandy. > Machines "created" that work. (Not really.) But machines displaced workers > with higher fuel consumption and the consumption of more fuel resulted in > more carbon dioxide emissions that contributed to rising sea levels and > extreme weather events that caused extensive damage, which will result in a > whole bunch of workers being hired to work repairing that damage. > > > > Note that the corporations who "invested" in those machines and who > reaped profits from the displacement of labor will not be called upon to > pay for the extreme weather event clean up costs. But more importantly, > notice that collectively we would be better off if the machines had merely > destroyed jobs rather than displacing them from productive employment to > disaster relief, repair and restoration. This is why asking whether > machines destroy jobs is asking the wrong question. > > > > > > On 13/01/2013 8:57 PM, Eugene Coyle wrote: > >> Thanks for this Joe. I learned something. I phoned a friend and > learned I can watch this on my computer! And so I did. The URL is > http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138922n > >> . The segment is 13 minutes. > >> > >> The guests, Brynjolfsson and McAfee were good. The first half of their > book is even better. The second half of their book, where they talk about > what is to be done, is terribly weak, bad actually. The Lazonick piece in > Alternet was. I think, not very good. > >> > >> Gene > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jan 13, 2013, at 7:24 PM, Joe Polito wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee were the guests > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Ken Ellis > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> In this article, author Lazonick does not address the fact that > automation can only proceed so far before human labor disappears > altogether, but he does have a thought provoking perspective. KE > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.alternet.org/economy/robots-dont-destroy-jobs-rapacious-corporate-executives-do?paging=off > >>> > >>> > >>> AlterNet / By William Lazonick > >>> Robots Don't Destroy Jobs; Rapacious Corporate Executives Do > >>> > >>> Worrying about automation distracts us from the real problem: misuse > of corporate profits. > >>> > >>> December 31, 2012 > >>> > >>> Americans are understandably upset about profits without prosperity. > Corporate executives seem to be the big winners, while the middle class is > declining and young people face a bleak economic future. How did this > happen? It's easy to blame technology, especially the automation that > supposedly displaces workers. But that's not the real story. The fact is > that automation creates jobs. It's the misuse of corporate profits that are > destroying them. > >>> > >>> There was a time when high corporate profits meant bright employment > prospects for most members of the US labor force. That relation between > profits and prosperity was strongest in the immediate post-World War II > decades when US corporations led the world in manufacturing, provided > workers with career-long employment security, and reinvested profits in > productive capabilities in the United States. For the past three decades, > however, the pursuit of corporate profits has been at the expense of > prosperity for an ever-growing proportion of the American population. > >>> > >>> This disconnect between profits and prosperity began in the 1980s with > permanent plant closings that cost production workers their middle-class > jobs. It increased in the 1990s as major US corporations scrapped the > career-with-one-company norm that had prevailed for salaried employees, and > it became common even for college-educated people with a couple of decades > of work experience to find themselves on the wrong end of the pink slip. > Then in the 2000s, as US corporations accelerated the globalization of > production activities, the jobs of all members of the US labor force, no > matter what their level of educational attainment, became vulnerable to > competition from qualified people in lower wage areas of the world. > >>> > >>> Profits without prosperity is now starting to get attention in the > mainstream press. In his New York Times op-ed, “Robots and Robber Barons” > (Dec. 9, 2012), Paul Krugman seeks to explain why, with corporate profits > up, labor compensation is down. As part of the ongoing digital revolution, > he argues, robots are throwing American workers out of their jobs. In > addition, he claims that corporations are making high profits through price > gouging, and are not sharing these gains with their employees. > >>> > >>> Krugman is on to something important that needs to become part of the > national policy debate. But he is off target in blaming a combination of > automation and monopolistic practices for the disconnect between profits > and prosperity. > >>> > >>> Automation is not the problem. As part of a process that could > reconnect profits and prosperity, the US economy needs more, not less, > corporate investment in automation. A company that successfully invests in > automation creates far more, and typically better, jobs than those it > destroys. Indeed, the study of industrial history reveals that when a > nation’s leading companies fail to make sufficient investments in > automation its economy runs into trouble. > >>> > >>> As Krugman himself notes, the argument that automation is bad for > workers’ employment and incomes dates back almost two centuries to the > British economist, David Ricardo, who was writing during the world’s first > industrial revolution. By definition, automation displaces the need for > workers to perform the tasks that have been automated. If, however, > automation only destroyed jobs, advanced economies such as those of > Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States would not > have risen to positions of world industrial leadership with strong middle > classes. > >>> > >>> Some of these new jobs are created in the industries that produce > automated equipment. By far Japan is the world leader in both the > production and use of robotics. An original source of Japan’s competitive > advantage in this capital-goods sector was the willingness and ability of > production workers to cooperate with engineers in automating tasks they > performed on the shop floor Under Japan’s system of “lifetime employment,” > these production workers did not fear that the introduction of robots would > result in loss of employment, while their involvement in the automation > process gave them experience that, post-automation, could be put to > productive use in other parts of the business organization. > >>> > >>> Increasingly, moreover, in the age of nanotechnology, automation > performs productive functions that no human being could ever have possibly > done. Rather than destroy jobs, these automated processes make it possible > for companies to produce all kinds of sophisticated goods and services. > These products are the hallmark of an advanced economy, and open up all > kinds of new employment opportunities in companies and countries in which > these goods and services are produced. > >>> > >>> Automation entails huge upfront investments. Companies that invest in > automation have to build organizations to ensure steady supplies of > high-quality materials, improve and maintain machinery, and capture > sufficiently large market shares to achieve economies of scale. These > investments in the development and utilization of automated facilities > create lots of high-value-added jobs, especially for companies that, > because of their investments, can grow large by producing higher quality, > lower costs products than the competition. > >>> > >>> To repeat, automation is not the problem. The three-decades long > erosion of middle-class jobs in the United States is the result of, as > stated earlier, permanent plant closings, layoffs of older employees, and > the globalization of employment – none of which have been the result of > automation. In the process, many US industrial corporations have become > very profitable (for now, but by no means forever). The question that needs > to be asked is why US corporations are failing to reinvest these profits in > new products and processes that can create large numbers of new high > value-added employment opportunities in the United States. > >>> > >>> The problem lies in the ideology that corporations should be governed > to“maximize shareholder value,” which became prevalent in boardrooms and > business schools in the 1980s, and has become totally dominant since. In > the name of shareholder value over the decade 2001-2010, the 500 > corporations in the S&P 500 Index (representing about 75 percent of US > stock-market capitalization) expended not only 40 percent of their profits > on cash dividends – the normal mode of rewarding shareholders – but also > another 54 percent on stock buybacks, the purpose of which is to give a > manipulative boost to a company’s own stock price. Large established > companies did hardly any buybacks in the early 1980s. Over the past decade, > buybacks by S&P 500 companies totaled about $3 trillion, which has left > scant corporate resources for investment in innovation and high-value-added > job creation. > >>> > >>> When companies do massive buybacks to boost their own stock prices, > the big winners are the very same top executives who make these > resource-allocation decisions. Why? Because the largest single component of > top executive pay is the income from exercising stock options – which > become more lucrative when the stock price goes up, even if for just a > short period of time during which the options can be exercised and the > acquired stock sold. > >>> > >>> Many corporate executives justify buybacks by arguing that they > represent the best corporate investments available. How about investments > in innovation and job creation? Or how about corporate support for > government investments in the national knowledge base, which typically > provides the foundation for enterprise innovation and profits? If top > executives have been the big winners of this financialized buybacks-options > game, then the big losers have been erstwhile members of the US middle > class as well as tens of millions of younger Americans who will never have > the opportunity of entering the middle class. > >>> > >>> List-Unsubscribe: > >>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe%20swt> > >>> > >>> List-Post: > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> > >>> List-Owner: > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> > >>> List-Archive: > >>> <http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/swt> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Obama's vision of America: > >>> "everybody's got a shot, everybody's treated with respect and dignity > in which the -- the divides of -- of race and faith, gender, sexual > orientation, ... are not the determining factors, in terms of whether > people succeed ... it's how hard you work and are you trustworthy and are > you responsible and you -- do you look after your family and ... do you > love people and love this country? " > >>> > >>> Romney's" > >>> 47 percent of Americans ... believe that they are victims, ... who > believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to > you-name-it ... My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never > convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for > their lives. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected] > ?subject=unsubscribe%20swt> > >> > >> List-Post: > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > >> List-Owner: > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > >> List-Archive: > >> <http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/swt> > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
