3 ms·
That goes without saying. Anyone who thinks about it for even the least amount of time understands that you can get more labor if you pay a lot for it. "There i
by ijpoijpoihpiuoh 8y ago
That goes without saying. Anyone who thinks about it for even the least amount of time understands that you can get more labor if you pay a lot for it. "There is not enough labor to go around," means, "There is not enough labor to go around at prices such that we could competitively produce our goods and retain a desirable amount of profit," in essentially one hundred percent of cases. Your objection doesn't take anything away from the thesis that automation may be a way to become more competitive by cutting labor costs.
- maerF0x0 8y agoI actually agree that automation is a great way to become profitable. I would suggest your modified statement (not enough labor at profitable prices) is true for every extinct industry. We probably could have produced an extra $1B of hand produced typewriters this year, but no one wants to make them by hand for $1 an hour and no one wants to buy them. Saying there is $3B of produce that could have been produced, ignores the fact that it would have been produced at a loss (after labor costs sufficient to incentivize workers) and there may not of even been a market for the over supply. If there is an actual unmet market need the price curve will move upward meaning employers can pay workers more to fulfill the unmet need. To me this looks like a lack of a market for $3B of produce...
- ijpoijpoihpiuoh 8y agoI don't really understand your reply. "A lack of a market for $3B of produce" is also equivalent to saying, "A lack of market for $3B of produce at the prices required to make production profitable." The claim about automation allowing the meeting of that need simply means that the speaker believes automation will reduce prices enough to make targeting this need profitable.