Technology and new jobs

[Snitza]

Is it suffice to say that with the introduction of new types of machines and technology, new jobs are created with them?

I thought the marxist view was that machines took jobs away from workers, and made them compete with the machines...

But a friend pointed out that with new technology comes new positions for people, thus creating more jobs.

??????????

[Bolshevist]

you could also use the new efficiency of the machines to cut down on the workday (but not the salary of the worker). Here in Norway we are fighting for a 6 hour workday, but noone seems to be interested. :(

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:31 PM
Is it suffice to say that with the introduction of new types of machines and technology, new jobs are created with them?

I thought the marxist view was that machines took jobs away from workers, and made them compete with the machines...

But a friend pointed out that with new technology comes new positions for people, thus creating more jobs.

??????????
There is not a finite number of jobs in the economy. As long as there is unused labor-power, jobs will be created somewhere; this has been true since the beginning of civilization. What types of jobs is another story.

[redstar2000]

I thought the marxist view was that machines took jobs away from workers, and made them compete with the machines...

But a friend pointed out that with new technology comes new positions for people, thus creating more jobs.

Both things happen, of course.

For any worker to "have a shot" at one of those "new tech" jobs, the bare minimum qualification is previous experience in a related field. Usually, some kind of specialized training is required.

Consider the fate of an assembly line drudge in the "rust belt" who loses his/her (unionized, high paying) job because the plant is moved to Malaysia. One option is to find another assembly-line job...but the pool of those jobs is shrinking (unless s/he wants to move to Malaysia).

The only option usually available is one in the new "service sector"...e.g., McDonald's, Wal-Mart, etc. Shit work at shit pay.

The "new tech" alternative is unavailable...not only from geographical considerations but because the experienced worker has no background in the new technology at all.

Out-of-work assembly-line workers don't become software engineers.

"New tech" jobs (and there aren't nearly as many as some imply) go to young workers who have trained themselves for those positions...and who, three or four decades from now, will find themselves in the same shit!

Because there will then be "even newer" technology.

The drive to "lower labor costs" seems to be inherent in the whole way capitalism functions.

Consider "check-out clerks" at the grocery -- certainly a low-skilled and low paying job. Even they are going to be replaced with "self-check-out" areas in major supermarkets; I've already seen one put in place near me. Instead of four individual check-out clerks, there is one employee and four automated check-out stations. You run your purchases over the scanner, pay with your plastic card, bag what you bought yourself...and that's it.

It's "the wave of the future".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

Is it suffice to say that with the introduction of new types of machines and technology, new jobs are created with them?


My understanding of the situation was this: mechanisation (i.e. the introduction of machinery into the manufacturing process) does not necessarily lower the "number of jobs" available... But it DOES lower the skill level required by most of the workers. Consider the contrast between the artisan and the factory worker in industrial Britain, for example.

The artisan was incredibly talented, but could make very few "goods" in a given period of time compared with the factory owner - who, after reading Adam Smith, employed workers performing specialised tasks. And then along came the mechs. Sewing, for example, could be completed faster by a machine than a human. No-one needed to know how to sew - just how to operate the machine!

Goods were produced far more quickly; and much cheaper. Quality inevitably decreased and uniformity was imposed on goods - but that didn't matter much. "Supply" of goods could be increased dramatically; this precipitated the Industrial Revolution.



Here in Norway we are fighting for a 6 hour workday, but noone seems to be interested.


6 hours a day? You lazy buggers! :P Eight hours a day is fine!



The drive to "lower labor costs" seems to be inherent in the whole way capitalism functions.

Consider "check-out clerks" at the grocery -- certainly a low-skilled and low paying job. Even they are going to be replaced with "self-check-out" areas in major supermarkets; I've already seen one put in place near me. Instead of four individual check-out clerks, there is one employee and four automated check-out stations. You run your purchases over the scanner, pay with your plastic card, bag what you bought yourself...and that's it.

It's "the wave of the future".


Obviously... <_<

The system you describe would be super. Ask any businessman (if you can bear it) what their highest cost is - labour, always labour. So the effect of removing half of it? Lower prices. In a Communist system - less labour required, which is also wonderful news.

Capitalism cannot survive without a "mostly employed" populace - there must be people around to purchase their goods, after all.

[DaCuBaN]

6 hours a day? You lazy buggers&#33; Eight hours a day is fine&#33;


*slaps CotR*

we campaign for six, we might just get to keep eight <_< :lol:


Capitalism cannot survive without a "mostly employed" populace - there must be people around to purchase their goods, after all

One of the fundamental ideals in communism is that every person contributes to society in whatever way they can - meaning everyone must be employed in one way or another.

How does this fit into mechanisation?

Watch the animated series called &#39;The Animatrix&#39; - it proposes in places some interesting social questions.

[The Children of the Revolution]

*slaps CotR*


You&#39;ve really go to stop doing that, comrade&#33; Violence solves nothing&#33; :P



One of the fundamental ideals in communism is that every person contributes to society in whatever way they can - meaning everyone must be employed in one way or another.

How does this fit into mechanisation?


Quite easily, actually. Mechanisation is primarily aimed at reducing costs - in a capitalist society. Communism may decide to focus more heavily on "consumer satisfaction" rather than solely profits... And besides, what if machines do reduce the necessary labour in society? There is no competition between workers - so everyone can contribute easily enough. All that happens is that the work day decreases; you may even get a four hour day&#33; Lazy Commmies... :lol:

[redstar2000]

The system you describe would be super. Ask any businessman (if you can bear it) what their highest cost is - labour, always labour. So the effect of removing half of it? Lower prices.

I&#39;ve heard this view expressed literally hundreds of times...but I don&#39;t see any "lower prices".

Ok, I&#39;ve seen a few. Small color dummyvision sets, cd players, etc. are cheaper than they used to be.

But the prices at that grocery store I mentioned haven&#39;t gone down at all&#33;

In fact, here&#39;s a "personal stat". In 1994, a week&#39;s supply of groceries cost me about &#036;40. Ten years later, it&#39;s about &#036;50-60. Inspite of all the "labor-saving" strategies, it&#39;s still about the same (allowing for inflation).

I think the error is the assumption that if a capitalist can lower his labor costs, he will then likewise lower his retail price in order to capture a greater market share.

But when you stop and think about it, why should he do that? If he lowers his labor costs by a certain amount, he can do nothing and watch his profits increase nevertheless. Only if he has serious nearby competition does he have to worry about lowering his prices to keep the market share that he has now.

Grocery supermarkets are "neighborhood sensitive"...no one but an idiot is going to drive across town to save 10 cents or even &#036;1.00. Usually, there are no more than two supermarkets in a neighborhood and often only one. (There might be a small number of "convenience stores" but their prices are always very high.)

So the owners of the store near me who have installed this automated check-out system have no real need to lower prices at all...except on the crap that no one wants to buy anyway ("Valuable Savings on Farm-Fresh Broccoli&#33;").

Ugh&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Subversive Rob]

6 hours a day? You lazy buggers&#33; Eight hours a day is fine&#33;

Eight hours a day? Six?I&#39;m fighting for the four or five hour work day, which is fairly realistic according to people like Andre Gorz.

In the "good old days" capitalist probably would have to lower his price if new methods were discovered. However, dueto the monopoly element of capital this is rendered irrelevant.

If labour produces value however then increasing mechanisation necessarily involvesan increased exploitation of the existing workforce.

Fnally mechanisation is good for the capitalist because it:

1. Adds a further division of labour and simplifies tasks. Thus the worker has even less power.

2. It will also add to the reserve labour army.

These two factors will increase competition within the working class. This is of course damaging to unity, something that the working class needs. If the working class remain in competition it is difficult for class consciousness to develop.


One of the fundamental ideals in communism is that every person contributes to society in whatever way they can - meaning everyone must be employed in one way or another.

How does this fit into mechanisation?


They will be employed less hours and will have more fulfilling tasks. A high level of technology is a prerequisite for modern communism for two reasons:

1. With a reducing working day the state and its specialised function can be complete devolved and consequently dissolved.

2. It will providethe necessary level of production in order to satifisy distribution ("each according to his needs")

[The Children of the Revolution]

But the prices at that grocery store I mentioned haven&#39;t gone down at all&#33;


RedStar, good post - but I was posting from an "idealist" point of view. I&#39;m well aware that the "ideal" does not always translate into "reality"&#33;

[cubist]

it depends how you look at it

the indusrial revolution of course replaced workers with machines but required workers to work the machine this will never change how ever the amount of workers need to operate the machines decreases when ever the technology improoves,

if you look at it asif the workers refuse to operate the machines then the cogs of capitalism are haulted, however the more and more technology improoves the less important the workers become in such environments,

look at the tranistiion in the UK from the primary to tertiary industry control i believe i can&#39;t remember to be precise which way round it goes maybe someone with there head screwed on could tell me, where we used to farm and machine all the shite we consumed most people now work at computers and operate in consumer servcies