7 ms·

>4. If I successfully automate it, all of my coworkers lose their jobs. A failure of capitalism when less work and more productivity is a bad thing.

odrekf 7y ago
Why is that a failure? I didn't know every job had to last a lifetime.
- pytester 7y ago
  If capitalism wasn't systemically geared towards creating an underclass of unemployed and desperate part time workers it might not be a failure.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  it's a failure because that condition was one of the reasons that he did not automate his job. A success of capitalism would be if it provided some incentive to automate the job.
  - odrekf 7y ago
    Heh, good point. But still I wouldn't call it a failure, just a defect, or not optimal. The company as a whole probably works just fine.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
f2000 7y ago
Very true. My brother lost his job at Blockbuster when they closed down. Since then he hasn't been able to find a job. When I mentioned to him that unemployment is at a 50 year low and maybe now would be a good time to try again to find a job he was dismissive. He went on to explain to me how due to capitalism he will never work again. Now I can't stop worrying that I'll lose my job and never be able to work again.
- bernierocks 7y ago
  I really have a hard time believing that after your brother lost his job at Blockbuster (10 years ago?) that he will 'never work again'. On top of this, Capitalism is what continues to create new jobs, and ensures, for the post part, that you will be able to find another job if you lose your current one.
- rumanator 7y ago
  Blaming an economic system for one's lack of motivation to search for work sounds like a cheap deflection. Moreover, it's not like Blockbuster was known for hiring skilled workers.
rumanator 7y ago
> A failure of capitalism when less work and more productivity is a bad thing. Do you believe buggy whip manufacturers should be entitled to their old job even today?
- mofosyne 7y ago
  They may not be entitied to a job... but they certainly are entitled to not be screwed below the poverty line through no fault of their own, just because the the owner wanted an extra buck. Hence the universal basic income.
studentik 7y ago
Capitalism is only bad for those who do not share profits coming from better productivity. Government regulation is needed to balance inequality created by capitalism: progressive tax, competition laws, professional unions etc. Workers are also responsible to bargain deals that make them share more benefits and raise their bar. This is everlasting struggle.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Well, as others mention, you capture profits from automation when you automate your own job and don't tell people, so you only make your own life easier. Of course, I'm sure there are people who did that and then lost their job when their boss discovered they didn't do much of anything any more.
beefield 7y ago
If there is one thing that confuses me, that is productivity. You start doing the thing you were doing twice as fast earlier, thus your productivity doubles. Kind of, assuming that the price of your product does not change due to your increased productivity. If the price halves at the same time (e.g due to competitive pressure because you were not the only one to figure how to spend half the time doing same thing) your productivity measured in dollars did not change at all. Weird. You do twice the stuff at same time than before and now I claim your productivity did not change. Makes no sense whatsoever. So did your productivity increase or not? I have no clue. Even further confusion. Your increased(?) productivity just caused that with same amount of money people can by more of your stuff, i.e deflation. Now, why the heck, given the massive increase in productivity(?) during the last century, we have seen inflation, not deflation? Makes no sense to me. It looks to me like we would need to have more words for different kinds of productivity. Because at least I am confused as heck what that word actually means...
- Sebb767 7y ago
  The problem here is that you measure your productivity in revenue instead of something like products per hour. This is not inherently wrong, but then the benchmark is keeping your revenue by not loosing it to your competitor, who is also automating. Also, if your market isn't already saturated, you can even sell more of your product without dropping the price. It really boils down to the fact that selling is what brings money, not producing.
- SiVal 7y ago
  why the heck, given the massive increase in productivity(?) during the last century, we have seen inflation, not deflation? Because the money supply increased even faster than the goods & services supply. Goods and services are traded in an economy, but finding a way to exchange A (ex: shoes) for B (ex: chicken nuggets) is such a chore that economic activity is limited. Money is a solution, like a hub city for air travel: the easiest way to guarantee a route between all pairs of nodes in the network. Trade shoes for money, then trade money for chicken nuggets. You're still trading shoes for nuggets, but now it's much easier, which helps everyone. Everything gets priced in money (say, "dollars"), but if something is mispriced, arbitrage takes place. Buy an underpriced thing for a few dollars, trade it directly for an overpriced thing, then sell the overpriced thing for a lot of dollars. Money for nothin'. But once others catch on, they demand trade terms that give them the profit, changing prices until they can't be arbitraged. So everything gets priced relative to everything else, and all prices can be expressed in "dollars". If the maker of dollars decides to increase the supply by a factor of ten and no change in goods & services takes place, You have ten times as many dollars being offered for the SAME goods and services as before. Arbitrage will quickly push all prices to where the goods and services still have the same value relative to one another but their price relative to the dollar has changed by a factor of ten. Everything is "ten times as expensive" in dollars but not in terms of what people really need: other goods & services. If you make the same number of generic shoes, twice as many generic electronic widgets, and ten times as many dollars, shoes will be traded for ten times as many dollars ("price" goes up 10x), and even widgets go up by 5x, because although productivity made 2x as many widgets, the number of dollars went up 10x.

odrekf 7y ago

Why is that a failure? I didn't know every job had to last a lifetime.

pytester 7y ago
If capitalism wasn't systemically geared towards creating an underclass of unemployed and desperate part time workers it might not be a failure.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
it's a failure because that condition was one of the reasons that he did not automate his job. A success of capitalism would be if it provided some incentive to automate the job.
- odrekf 7y ago
  Heh, good point. But still I wouldn't call it a failure, just a defect, or not optimal. The company as a whole probably works just fine.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

f2000 7y ago

Very true. My brother lost his job at Blockbuster when they closed down. Since then he hasn't been able to find a job. When I mentioned to him that unemployment is at a 50 year low and maybe now would be a good time to try again to find a job he was dismissive. He went on to explain to me how due to capitalism he will never work again. Now I can't stop worrying that I'll lose my job and never be able to work again.

bernierocks 7y ago
I really have a hard time believing that after your brother lost his job at Blockbuster (10 years ago?) that he will 'never work again'. On top of this, Capitalism is what continues to create new jobs, and ensures, for the post part, that you will be able to find another job if you lose your current one.
rumanator 7y ago
Blaming an economic system for one's lack of motivation to search for work sounds like a cheap deflection. Moreover, it's not like Blockbuster was known for hiring skilled workers.

rumanator 7y ago

> A failure of capitalism when less work and more productivity is a bad thing. Do you believe buggy whip manufacturers should be entitled to their old job even today?

mofosyne 7y ago
They may not be entitied to a job... but they certainly are entitled to not be screwed below the poverty line through no fault of their own, just because the the owner wanted an extra buck. Hence the universal basic income.

studentik 7y ago

Capitalism is only bad for those who do not share profits coming from better productivity. Government regulation is needed to balance inequality created by capitalism: progressive tax, competition laws, professional unions etc. Workers are also responsible to bargain deals that make them share more benefits and raise their bar. This is everlasting struggle.

perl4ever 7y ago
Well, as others mention, you capture profits from automation when you automate your own job and don't tell people, so you only make your own life easier. Of course, I'm sure there are people who did that and then lost their job when their boss discovered they didn't do much of anything any more.

beefield 7y ago

If there is one thing that confuses me, that is productivity. You start doing the thing you were doing twice as fast earlier, thus your productivity doubles. Kind of, assuming that the price of your product does not change due to your increased productivity. If the price halves at the same time (e.g due to competitive pressure because you were not the only one to figure how to spend half the time doing same thing) your productivity measured in dollars did not change at all. Weird. You do twice the stuff at same time than before and now I claim your productivity did not change. Makes no sense whatsoever. So did your productivity increase or not? I have no clue. Even further confusion. Your increased(?) productivity just caused that with same amount of money people can by more of your stuff, i.e deflation. Now, why the heck, given the massive increase in productivity(?) during the last century, we have seen inflation, not deflation? Makes no sense to me. It looks to me like we would need to have more words for different kinds of productivity. Because at least I am confused as heck what that word actually means...

Sebb767 7y ago
The problem here is that you measure your productivity in revenue instead of something like products per hour. This is not inherently wrong, but then the benchmark is keeping your revenue by not loosing it to your competitor, who is also automating. Also, if your market isn't already saturated, you can even sell more of your product without dropping the price. It really boils down to the fact that selling is what brings money, not producing.
SiVal 7y ago
why the heck, given the massive increase in productivity(?) during the last century, we have seen inflation, not deflation? Because the money supply increased even faster than the goods & services supply. Goods and services are traded in an economy, but finding a way to exchange A (ex: shoes) for B (ex: chicken nuggets) is such a chore that economic activity is limited. Money is a solution, like a hub city for air travel: the easiest way to guarantee a route between all pairs of nodes in the network. Trade shoes for money, then trade money for chicken nuggets. You're still trading shoes for nuggets, but now it's much easier, which helps everyone. Everything gets priced in money (say, "dollars"), but if something is mispriced, arbitrage takes place. Buy an underpriced thing for a few dollars, trade it directly for an overpriced thing, then sell the overpriced thing for a lot of dollars. Money for nothin'. But once others catch on, they demand trade terms that give them the profit, changing prices until they can't be arbitraged. So everything gets priced relative to everything else, and all prices can be expressed in "dollars". If the maker of dollars decides to increase the supply by a factor of ten and no change in goods & services takes place, You have ten times as many dollars being offered for the SAME goods and services as before. Arbitrage will quickly push all prices to where the goods and services still have the same value relative to one another but their price relative to the dollar has changed by a factor of ten. Everything is "ten times as expensive" in dollars but not in terms of what people really need: other goods & services. If you make the same number of generic shoes, twice as many generic electronic widgets, and ten times as many dollars, shoes will be traded for ten times as many dollars ("price" goes up 10x), and even widgets go up by 5x, because although productivity made 2x as many widgets, the number of dollars went up 10x.