4 ms·
When a machine replaces the work of a man, the value that work generates goes to the owner of the machine instead. I don't see why this would lead to less work
by rndmize 13y ago
When a machine replaces the work of a man, the value that work generates goes to the owner of the machine instead. I don't see why this would lead to less work for anyone, as the man the machine replaced still has to work to make money - until you have a universal income, or a high minimum wage, increasing automation does nothing to create less toil for the average worker.
In fact, you could argue that it's the opposite - by devaluing/automating the work that man did, you make it harder for him to make money, as whatever expertise he might have had is now worth less, leaving him to continue doing the same work for less money (as long as that might be possible) or moving to a new field and likely starting from the bottom.
- StandardFuture 13y agoWhat if it's not a machine replacing the man but another man who will do the same work for less?
- moocowduckquack 13y agoThere is the argument that eventually automation could make universal social support so economically viable that it is politically hard to avoid.
- rbanffy 13y agoThe biggest problem is still how do we get there from here. I don't expect all the power structures that profit from inequality to go silently.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoI know. There's a big phase change in the middle there and it don't look pretty.
- makomk 13y agoArguably it's obvious, but an optimistic vision of a future of happy idleness sells a lot better than a dystopia of near-total unemployment. What's more, the owners of newspapers and TV channels have good reason to portray machines as beneficial to everyone - after all, it's their income from the many other industries they're invested in that's being improved in.
- legolandbridge 13y agoWhen a machine replaces the work of a man, that man (who had the ingenuity to create a machine, say a fishnet, and take a risk) can make his products to you a lot cheaper than it otherwise would be if he had to hire tons of laborers. That is where you benefit. When the price of a car becomes reachable all of a sudden, or a tv, or plumbing, or common items like socks are $5 and not $100. The standard of living should rise through automation and increase productivity. Instead everyone is fighting for higher wages, higher protection, weaker currencies... and ever-rising prices across the board.
- aspensmonster 13y agoAnd what happens when enough work becomes mechanized or automated and enough people are out of jobs that it doesn't matter how low the resulting price of the product is? I call this the Wal-Mart effect. The idea is that you don't have to pay higher wages, or provide better benefits, or otherwise ensure that the increases in productivity track with increasing real wages. Because everyone can just shop at Wal-Mart! Ever-decreasing prices are not a panacea.