> It’s an old fear, widely held since the time of Ned > Ludd, who destroyed two mechanical knitting machines in 19th-century > England and introduced the Luddite movement, humankind’s first organized > protest against technological change.
Ha! No such person. "Ned Ludd" was a legendary figure. "Two" knitting machines? Where does Mr. Porter get his "data"? Someplace the sun doesn't shine? "Lump of Labor! Lump of Labor!" > As J. Bradford Delong, a professor of economics at the University of > California, Berkeley, wrote recently... To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word J. Bradford DeLong writes is a lie, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (Go to > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/business/economy/tech-leaps-job-losses-and-rising-inequality.html > > for useful graphics.) > > > > NY Times, April 16 2014 > > Tech Leaps, Job Losses and Rising Inequality > > by Eduardo Porter > > > [Snip] > > > But a growing pessimism has crept into our understanding of the impact > > of such innovations. It’s an old fear, widely held since the time of Ned > > Ludd, who destroyed two mechanical knitting machines in 19th-century > > England and introduced the Luddite movement, humankind’s first organized > > protest against technological change. > > ======== > > “Thus the injection of surplus noise into public discourse concerning the > crisis is Phase One of the agnotological project… Phase Two materializes > when economists openly struggle with the contradiction between beseeching > the public to place their Trust in the Market and insisting the public > trust the Economists.” [Mirowski, in a slightly different yet relevant > context, “Never Let…” page 300] > > > > > In its current incarnation, though, the fear is actually very new. It > > strikes against bedrock propositions developed over more than half a > > century of economic scholarship. It can be articulated succinctly: What > > if technology has become a substitute for labor, rather than its > complement? > > > > As J. Bradford Delong, a professor of economics at the University of > > California, Berkeley, wrote recently, throughout most of human history > > every new machine that took the job once performed by a person’s hands > > and muscles increased the demand for complementary human skills — like > > those performed by eyes, ears or brains. > > > > But, Mr. Delong pointed out, no law of nature ensures this will always > > be the case. Some jobs — nannies, say, or waiting tables — may always > > require lots of people. But as information technology creeps into > > occupations that have historically relied mostly on brainpower, it > > threatens to leave many fewer good jobs for people to do. > > > > These sorts of ideas still strike most mainstream economists as > > heretical, an uncalled-for departure from a canon that states that > > capital — from land and lathes to computers and cyclotrons — is > > complementary to labor. > > > > It was a canon written by economists like Robert Solow, who won the > > Nobel in economic science for his work on how labor, capital and > > technological progress contribute to economic growth. He proposed more > > than 50 years ago that the share of an economy’s rewards accruing to > > labor and capital would be roughly stable over the long term. > > > > > Where’s Harry Frankfurt when you need him? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
