3 ms·
> But then, less is produced That is obviously not true because of two things: 1. Machines take over and do work and create goods 2. Humans are more producti
by jeena 7y ago
> But then, less is produced
That is obviously not true because of two things:
1. Machines take over and do work and create goods
2. Humans are more productive than they were before
Here is a handy graph which I found googling https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-graphical-representation-showing-the-relationship-between-human-productivity-machine_fig2_228835037 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-graphical-representati...
- southerndrift 7y agoMachines only compensate for humans to a certain extend because they are already used as much as possible. If humans work less then there is not the same output because there are no hidden opportunities where machines can do more work. I stick with my original point: If humans work less then there is less output. We are more productive now, but that surplus is used to put a supercomputer into the hand of every person and new clothes to wear every other month. If people wouldn't buy that, then the increase in productivity could lead to less working hours. Btw, as far as I understand your graph, it is not telling that we are more productive but that farms are more productive if they are bigger. As far as I know, Western workers are just more productive because they assemble pre-made parts and the final value of the product is ascribed to them when in reality, they just profit from wage differences. That's not sustainable. If that wage difference is ever closed then people will even get less for the same amount of work.