5 ms·

Especially since it's going against everything we did since the invention of the steam engine lol Like yes in a perfect world time saved would go back to worke

Especially since it's going against everything we did since the invention of the steam engine lol Like yes in a perfect world time saved would go back to workers, it doesn't though. A machine could do in a minute what a knitter would do in a day, it doesn't mean knitters got a 7 minute work week

melvinmelih 4y ago
> A machine could do in a minute what a knitter would do in a day, it doesn't mean knitters got a 7 minute work week That’s why the capitalist class owns the means of production (the owner makes their profit in 7 minutes now).
throwaway4aday 4y ago
But it does mean that the people who were formerly knitters now have more material wealth than a lot of the upperclass people of their day. In order to buy a pair of shoes, that knitter would have had to work months if not a full year to save enough money. Now even some of the poorest people among us only need to spend a fraction of their weekly income to buy a new pair of very serviceable shoes that are probably much better made and more comfortable than the cheapest pair a local cobbler could have made by hand. I believe that means in a very real sense that the time saved has gone back to workers. We all already share in that collective productivity increase.
- api 4y ago
  … which for many is all eaten up by runaway inflation in certain key constrained areas like housing. This is why in the US there are hordes of homeless people with smart phones and why the poor generally have no problem having houses full of appliances and giant TVs. Gadgets have indeed gotten radically cheaper. The things that are hard to make cheaper for structural or physical reasons like housing, health care, tuition, and child care tend to inflate so as to eat the surplus. Housing is the worst culprit in many markets.
  - e_i_pi_2 4y ago
    Not sure about other countries, but the US also made this worse by encouraging people to use housing as an investment and retirement vehicle, so you have a lot of people who really don't want housing to get cheaper because it means their retirement savings or investment will be worth less.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    That's a very different and much more recent development, two interconnected ones actually. Housing is now an investment for money that should be able to be used in more productive pursuits. Part of the reason for that is the inflationary economy compels you to invest your money in something that will provide a consistent return. Those two things have very little to do with industrial efficiency.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lm28469 4y ago
  Well that only works if your life's goal is to accumulate things, imho we're way past that in the west, for a good 50 years
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    The implication here is that if you simply want to meet your basic needs you can do so with relatively little work compared to the past. The good thing about consumption is that it motivates innovation in manufacturing which we all continue to benefit from. Barring any major upset, I think we're still on track for an abundant future.
Aulig 4y ago
It means the consumer got a cheaper product and the person who invented, built and operated the machine got a share of the profit.
luckylion 4y ago
> Especially since it's going against everything we did since the invention of the steam engine Much earlier. Special skills and inventions giving you business, military or social advantages have been a thing since special skills and inventions have been a thing.

melvinmelih 4y ago

> A machine could do in a minute what a knitter would do in a day, it doesn't mean knitters got a 7 minute work week That’s why the capitalist class owns the means of production (the owner makes their profit in 7 minutes now).

throwaway4aday 4y ago

But it does mean that the people who were formerly knitters now have more material wealth than a lot of the upperclass people of their day. In order to buy a pair of shoes, that knitter would have had to work months if not a full year to save enough money. Now even some of the poorest people among us only need to spend a fraction of their weekly income to buy a new pair of very serviceable shoes that are probably much better made and more comfortable than the cheapest pair a local cobbler could have made by hand. I believe that means in a very real sense that the time saved has gone back to workers. We all already share in that collective productivity increase.

api 4y ago
… which for many is all eaten up by runaway inflation in certain key constrained areas like housing. This is why in the US there are hordes of homeless people with smart phones and why the poor generally have no problem having houses full of appliances and giant TVs. Gadgets have indeed gotten radically cheaper. The things that are hard to make cheaper for structural or physical reasons like housing, health care, tuition, and child care tend to inflate so as to eat the surplus. Housing is the worst culprit in many markets.
- e_i_pi_2 4y ago
  Not sure about other countries, but the US also made this worse by encouraging people to use housing as an investment and retirement vehicle, so you have a lot of people who really don't want housing to get cheaper because it means their retirement savings or investment will be worth less.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  That's a very different and much more recent development, two interconnected ones actually. Housing is now an investment for money that should be able to be used in more productive pursuits. Part of the reason for that is the inflationary economy compels you to invest your money in something that will provide a consistent return. Those two things have very little to do with industrial efficiency.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 4y ago
Well that only works if your life's goal is to accumulate things, imho we're way past that in the west, for a good 50 years
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  The implication here is that if you simply want to meet your basic needs you can do so with relatively little work compared to the past. The good thing about consumption is that it motivates innovation in manufacturing which we all continue to benefit from. Barring any major upset, I think we're still on track for an abundant future.

Aulig 4y ago

It means the consumer got a cheaper product and the person who invented, built and operated the machine got a share of the profit.

luckylion 4y ago

> Especially since it's going against everything we did since the invention of the steam engine Much earlier. Special skills and inventions giving you business, military or social advantages have been a thing since special skills and inventions have been a thing.