Will our technological advances...

[drain.you]

Whilst sat in a sociology lesson recently discussing Marxism, I stumbled upon the following thoughts.
The industrial revolution changed the world forever, we got new means of production and many people lost their jobs and had to learn to use new machinery and such.
But the way we are progressing, surely one day there will be machinery/AI robots which do not require people to work them. Robots will totally replace the people who perform manual labour jobs which will effectively wipe out the working class as we know it.

What will happen then? Will it create more unemployment and poverty as a result?
Will the former working class adapt into middle class lifestyles?
Imagine if working class population would become middle class, this would be a step towards equality and communism perhaps though not as Marx predicted it.

I know this is a bit farfetched and may require a stretch of the imagination but what do you guys think?

[BOZG]

Yes, we absolutely strive towards that society, where works becomes something of an interest or hobby, rather than a necessity of surviving. We should strive to progress to the point that all labour is mechanised. The freer we become of manual labour, the freer we become to participate, to create and to live. Under such conditions though, the wants of life would be different than to what we hope to acheive today though, if someone chose to adapt to a modern middle class or upper class lifestyle, than the technological, economic and social conditions would be absolutely acheivable.


Imagine if working class population would become middle class, this would be a step towards equality and communism perhaps though not as Marx predicted it.

I don't see hiw this is in anyway counterposed to Marx's theories. He absolutely believed that the productive forces under socialism could be raised to a level where mankind could progress beyond all belief.

[drain.you]

I don't see hiw this is in anyway counterposed to Marx's theories. He absolutely believed that the productive forces under socialism could be raised to a level where mankind could progress beyond all belief.

I thought Marx believed that only revolution could change society into the next stage. If its going to happen gradually as a part of technological advancement then its not really revolution as such, is it? Either way, its definately a step in the right direction if marx predicted it like this or not.

[Luís Henrique]

But the way we are progressing, surely one day there will be machinery/AI robots which do not require people to work them. Robots will totally replace the people who perform manual labour jobs which will effectively wipe out the working class as we know it.

Why would a capitalist buy a robot, if he can just rent a worker?

How would robots buy the things capitalist factories produce?

Robots cannot produce surplus value; a completely robotised economy can no longer be a capitalist economy. Thence, no matter how fervently capitalists fantasise about getting rid of those pesky proletarians, it is really impossible.

Luís Henrique

[drain.you]

A capitalist would buy a robot rather than pay a worker because in the long run it would be of more economic benefit.

-Pros of Using a Robot if cheap enough (which they will be eventually)-
The capitalist will not need to pay for the following;
A Wage for the robot
Sick Pay
A canteen or other refreshments
Healthcare
etc

One day robots will be able to do everything a human can, and if you follow the news of such developments in robotics and AI you should be able to understand its not hundreds of years away. Though currently that kind of technology is not cheap, one day it will be and it will be cheaper than buying labour from a human.
I dont understand how you say a robot cannot produce surplus value. I mean, it will work at a set rate say, 100 products an hour or something without fail. And money saved on other things will allow capitalists to gain even more profits.

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:27 PM
Though currently that kind of technology is not cheap, one day it will be and it will be cheaper than buying labour from a human.
I dont understand how you say a robot cannot produce surplus value.

I think what Luís Henrique meant by robots not producing surplus value is this - It is only through the human worker getting a wage and in turn buying products with those wages that produces profit for the capitalist. If you have robots do all the work and take away the need for wages for humans, humans will have no money to buy goods, therefore no way to allow capitalists to realize their profit. Products merely produced is not surplus value. They need to be sold, and at a price more than it cost to produce them, in order to make surplus value(profit).

[enigma2517]

If the robots only eliminated the manual jobs, couldn't all people get the remaining jobs.

I'm sure there is a good explanation, I just don't know what it is.

[Red Powers]

Capitalists only make a profit (surplus Value) by exploiting workers. That is they pay the cost of production of labor power even though labor power creates much more value than this in the course of a day. Competition forces capitalists to introduce machinery (and that's all robots are) to make the workers more productive. But as capitalists lay off more workers and introduce more machinery two things happen. 1) demand for the goods decreases and 2) the rate of profit falls as the proportion of constant capital (the machines) rises as against the variable capital (the labor power). This situation is what will bring on the revolution. The socialized means of production will have outgrown the relations of production. In other words capitalism creates a situation where the forces of production are held back by the necessity to produce profit. In fact my guess is that we are at this point (and have been for a while) but few people recognize it.

What you have pointed to is one of Marx's basic insights. The introduction of labor saving technologies under capitalism just leads to more unemployment and more intense labor for those who still have jobs.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Assuming technology continues to advance under capitalism (and there's always the posibility that capitalism limits development to a certain degree - that is, it may stop being profitable for technology to advance, demanding the relationships of production change for progress to continue), it's still necessary that somebody build the machines, collect the raw materials to build the machines, transport the machines, etc.
Certainly, the employed proletariat may shrink (along with a shrinking bourgeoisie) - but an unemployed proletarian is a proletarian none the less. Just as Marx theorized, the dispossessed will grow until . . . well, I'm reminded of a certain song by The Apostles (In the dark allies of a northern city / an angry mob advances with no pity /upon the burning building of authority / the dispossessed are now in the majority / you can hear them shouting all around / we'll burn your palaces to the ground . . .).

[drain.you]

Capitalists dont only get money back from the workers. What about the rest of the population? Do they not have the need to buy consumer goods created by manual labour?
And if working class is forced to take on middle class work, ie; not manual labour but say office work and such, then they will have more money to spend on consumer goods which would benefit the capitalists anyway.
The thing about making machines, collecting resources to build them, etc, I would have thought the machines would take over these jobs too after they have been introduced into society initially.
Reckon they unemployed are more likely to revolt than the exploited?

[tunes]

If capitalists could eliminate the need to employ humans, meaning paying less and keeping more for themselves, they have and would do so. The objective is to prolong the need for any type of manual work on their part. If the intervention of complete machinery was in fact profitable and eliminated the need for wages, but still maintained ownership of production, it would not fundamentally change our condition. Even if the type of work changed, people would still have long, intense hours at subsistence pay. If the capitalists decided to stop employing humans altogether - an unlikely situation(they assume it will go along well with everyone) - it wouldn't last long. People revolt when they get hungry and owners don't give them food.

[Luís Henrique]

The capitalist will not need to pay for the following;
A Wage for the robot
Sick Pay
A canteen or other refreshments
Healthcare
etc

On the other hand, when the robot breaks, it is the capitalist's property that gets damaged. When the worker "breaks", this is the worker's problem.


I dont understand how you say a robot cannot produce surplus value. I mean, it will work at a set rate say, 100 products an hour or something without fail. And money saved on other things will allow capitalists to gain even more profits.

Because it will be sold by its value, and, through its "work", it will only transfer its own value to the product, without creating new value. Only live work creates new value.

Unless, of course:


One day robots will be able to do everything a human can

If in everything you include reproducing and buying gadgets, I don't see how they would be different from workers. In which case the capitalists would either retroceed into being slaveholders or start paying them wages (which is known to be far more profitable).

I also suppose that if they will be able to do everything a human can, they will eventually revolt.

Luís Henrique

[Hate Is Art]

In the industrialized west the work class is no longer how it used to be, we no longer line factorys for 18 hours a day sewing or welding etc

The working class has changed to become suited to develops in technology in order to carry on the sale of their labour to the capitilist class.

Further developments into technology would mean further changes, who would produce and service these robots? Who would install them?

We'd need lot's of things a robot might not be able to produce.

So the working class will change, there will always be a working class as long as there is capitilism.

xx

[red team]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 13 2005, 04:20 PM


Further developments into technology would mean further changes, who would produce and service these robots? Who would install them?

We'd need lot's of things a robot might not be able to produce.

So the working class will change, there will always be a working class as long as there is capitilism.

xx


In the industrialized west the work class is no longer how it used to be, we no longer line factorys for 18 hours a day sewing or welding etc

The working class has changed to become suited to develops in technology in order to carry on the sale of their labour to the capitilist class.


The majority of jobs are not in technology. Can you imagine why? Because the Capitalist do not think the same way as technicians and engineers do. They do not go for the latest gee whiz bang computer or robot simply because its faster, more capable, has more potential, etc... To them these are capital assets nothing more. That is these are things that assist in generating a bigger bottom line. If it could be done with a somewhat slower, less capable machine thats less expensive thats all the better. Furthermore, you fail to see the significance of technology especially computer technology. A software program that has been finished is reproducable in both its effects and in its orignal content. That is if I run a program on a computer once I can do it again for as many times as I want to without any additional work needing to be added to the program. Also if I created a program once, I can reproduce the original work as many times as I want as long as I have a medium to hold it. What is the effect overall given what I've said above is true? Companies fire whole departments once their I.T. projects are completed or reduce it to a skeleton crew thats only needed for the occasional maintenance jobs. Why keep computer programmers around if their work and the effects of their work can be reproduced by any semi-competent manager clicking on the mouse to run a program? To illustrate my point there are companies around today that run computer programs written in the 1970's These programs are written in computer languages which are consider obsolete by today's technical standards, but does it matter? And I'm not talking about small corner store operations either these are big banks that are still using these programs. Its just a matter of cost/benefit analysis to businesses. Why bother hiring a new team of programmers to make another program when the existing one will do?

Ditto with robots, once installed (and seriously how many installation jobs can their be) they can for all practical purposes run forever with simply a skeleton crew of technicians doing the occasional maintenance and repairs.

By that time its not going to be a matter of Socialism or Barbarism because there will be so many unemployed, redundant, angry people seeking to take out their anger on their former employers the bosses will seek to eliminate as many of these people that has been cut off from the production/consumption cycle as possible through war and genocide. Its going to be a matter of Socialism or Capitalist instigated genocide.


Red Team

[ComradeRed]

Wait, if we had robots with A.I. who do the jobs of the workers (current workers), why would that create more class? Wouldn't it destroy class as a whole?

If the robots were genuinely intelligent, they could create more intelligent robots (ad inifinitum), and repair each other (akin to doctors -- humans repairing other humans).

There would be no "class" of "elite programmers".Though I would speculate there would be some way which robotic implants could be used on humans to prolong life (perhaps indefinately?); though this is probably more science fiction than anything.

This would be somewhat like Marx predicted. The rate of profits would fall...strangely it is similiar to how he envisioned it...at least in volume 3.

Just be sure to leave out programming feelings and whatnot.

[redstar2000]

One of the important (maybe even the most important) axioms of historical materialism is that changes in the means of production must necessarily generate changes in class society.

Drain.you's question is, consequently, a very good one.


But the way we are progressing, surely one day there will be machinery/AI robots which do not require people to work them. Robots will totally replace the people who perform manual labour jobs which will effectively wipe out the working class as we know it.

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has thus far been an intractable problem...inspite of many promises otherwise. The largest, fastest supercomputer in the world is probably no more intelligent than a mouse...and has no sense of "self-awareness" at all. It may successfully defeat the world's greatest chess player...but that's only because it's running a program written by a collective of highly intelligent humans.

Robots that can do routine tasks are built and sold commercially now. I see no reason why that process won't continue. Jobs that can be done by a "mindless machine" will be...as soon as the cost of that machine falls below the cheapest available human labor.

So yes, the working class will look increasingly different as this century passes.

What's really hard to anticipate is how things will change in this regard.

Will there be a massive "reserve army of the unemployed" kept under control only by "high tech" fascism?

Will the working class all become "cubicle drones"...still performing mindless routine tasks but at a terminal rather than an assembly line?

Will the ruling class just decide to "get rid of" (exterminate) the huge numbers of "unnecessary workers"...keeping alive only those suitable for "personal servant" status?

Will there be an enormous popular backlash against robotic labor...like the resentment felt against immigrants now, only more so?

Science-fiction writers have played with these and related scenarios since I was a youth...and now we could be on the edge of seeing some of these scenarios actually emerge.

But which ones?

I think we need another decade or two to get a better idea of how all this is going to "play out".

----------------------

Note: it was Marx's contention that only human labor power could generate surplus value. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he was wrong about that.

We'll see.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeRed]

This thought just occurred to me. Constant capital only transfers its value, so if that continues (say, robots alone making goods) the value will fall unless the value of money falls correspondingly.

The value expressed via a given quantity of money wouldn't change in theory. That means purchasing power remains constant.

Worse, if this is true, capitalism could flourish indefinately.

On the other hand, capitalism loses its market of workers unless a suitable job replacement comes up. Say, a reserve army of "Dilberts".

Capitalism will face some interesting problems. On the one hand it could very well lead to the creation of socialism (who knows!), on the other it could cause the immortality of capitalism as we know it.

But it is something to ponder...

[drain.you]

Suprised to see this thread re-emerge.
First of all, thanks for the praise, comrade Redstar2000

Drain.you's question is, consequently, a very good one.

I believe that one day, probably not in the 2000s, robots will completely taek over work. They will harvest and process resources such as food, metals and such. They will be able to repair each other and build new models of themselves. Money will be wiped out as there is no need for it, once robots have the ability to create/repair each other and fund this then everything they create for humans will effectively be free. They will construct tvs and all new technology after man creates it and we dont need shops to sell things, we can just go online select what we want and robots will bring it to our door by mail service (also worked by robots).
Humans can relax, work on social problems instead of economics. They will still work as artists, musicians, scientists, actors and such but no manual labour and no crappy sales assistant jobs or office work lol.
Humans will turn to space travel and start colonising elsewhere.
Effectively, robots will save us from war over economic factors. They will save us from destroying ourselves as they will help us spread across the universe.
Of course this will happen in the longterm future, i don't except to see it in my life time but thats how I believe things will be.

[Vanguard1917]

But the way we are progressing, surely one day there will be machinery/AI robots which do not require people to work them. Robots will totally replace the people who perform manual labour jobs which will effectively wipe out the working class as we know it.

I think this remains to be the stuff of science fiction. I don't see this kind of technological advance happening any time soon - especially not in current conditions of capitalist economic stagnation.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I deffinetly think by the time that all work essential to survival is automized, there would have already been wokers revolutions. Think about it, that has to be 300+ years away. As RedStar said, the technology now is nowhere near that level. It would also work out for us because any third world countries still around could "skip" industrialization (it would seem like skipping because we could produce everything quickly and effortlessly).

[bky1701]

It WILL "destroy the working class", but not in a bad why. Do you think all the people replaced by AI will just sit idle all day? No, they will move up to the level of the middle class. However, it's foreseeable the middle and high classes would also move up.

Doing away with manual labor is a good thing for the working class, as it frees them from BEING manual labor, and opens up the ability for them to turn the working class into the middle class.

Less needs for work is always a good thing for the workers in the long run.

[ComradeRed]

Why would classes magically "move up"? This is not in the interest of the bourgeoisie, they would create alternative jobs for the proletariat so the bourgeois will keep getting a profit.

It seems like there would be some sort of struggle when overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie...

[JC1]

Mechinization of Manufactiure will precipitate the fall of capitalism.

This is becuase the mechinization of labour will displace enough jobs to create a crisis of overproduction. This is becuase Capitalists cant pay a machine wages, and as the capitalist class sack's more and more worker's, less surplus value is relizable, becuase everyone's unemployed and cant afford to buy commodity's.

[drain.you]

they would create alternative jobs for the proletariat so the bourgeois will keep getting a profit.
Like I said, I predict robots will help get rid of economy and things will be produced and fairly distributed as there will be no cost in making things anymore, therefore the class system, a system based on economics, will not exist. Everyone will become equal. The bourgeois won't need to suppress the prolatariat as they don't need anyone but robots to work for them, everyone will become the upperclass, it will be a high standard of living for everyone.
You're right, it is ages and ages away from now but to me, it gives me hope, one way or another we will get ton communism, whether through revolution (which seems to set up an unstable society from what has been seen) or technological advancement.

[1984]

As long as there's a middle-class who can afford to buy commodities and stupid ("brainwashed" is a better term) enough keep the bourgeois' profit constant, there will be capitalism.

Suppose robotics and mechanization utterly disposes the needs of an hard-working class and perform all kinds of "unqualified" services, like security or cleaning, then, if enough new jobs that could employ the proletariat aren't created, then social disaster will surely happen, with over 90% of the population unemployed and starving to death.

The ruling class doesn't give a DAMN about the poor - there will be no "magical upgrade" of the working class to the middle-class. Sorry but this sound way too "utopic socialism" to me.

The bourgeois then, to keep themselves fat, will continue to "panis-et-circenses" both the middle-class and what's left of the working class to protect themselves from popular angst. Raging minorities will simply be crushed. If they can mantain the middle-class consuming for them, they'll be OK. From my point of view, this is what's happening right now, only with less severity than above - some of the poorest still have jobs that allows them to live out miserable, but still commodity-consuming, lives.

But hopefully, that won't be enough - if the services provided by the middle-classes cannot be accessed by enough people (the unemployed masses won't be able to afford them), then the middle-class itself will fall (it is already "shrinking", isn't it?), and there won't be enough consumption to keep the capitalist system stable anymore. That's when revolution will be best suited.

Sure, it is impossible to predict the future... but I'd just like to add my view about the middle-class. Ericsson used to employ 3000, high-level specialists/engineers/technicians in their central in São Bernardo do Campo (Brazil). Now, after the communication crisis that took place a few years ago, they're good with only 800 or less.

[drain.you]

with over 90% of the population unemployed and starving to death.
Currency won't exist if robots are doing our jobs because the robots will, as i have already said, gather resources and process resources, this includes food , power, construction and creating new robots. Money will not exist because there is no one to pay and things will not cost money because they have been created for free.
Robots will provide enough food for everyone and it will be equally shared.
Robots will provide enough power for everyone and it will be equally shared.
Robots will provide housing and furniture and it will be equally shared.

The magical upgrade will happen because things will not cost any money, robots will push the cost of production down to zero and everyone can have the products for free. The working class we have now will get the same as what the upperclass do. I'm not saying the upperclass will be brought down and get less, I'm saying everyone will have the lifestyle of the upperclass.

Imagine.

[red team]

The magical upgrade will happen because things will not cost any money, robots will push the cost of production down to zero and everyone can have the products for free.


From someone who does not understand what profit is. Without profit all Capitalist businesses dies, but profit isn't dependent on the production cost of a good or service. If there was a glut in a particular good or service because it could be cheaply produced its value decline. This means the Capitalist makes less profit in an economy of abundance. Just like if there was abundant jobs for everybody the bosses would make less because of higher labor costs because every worker would demand a bigger share of the generated surplus. If there was abundant goods for everybody the suppliers (big businesses) would have to introduce artificial scarcity like destroying the products to maintain their profits. Profits are tied to monetary supply and demand not production costs.


Red Team

[ComradeRed]

What I am wondering is what material conditions would allow the bourgeoisie to do this act?

Recently in The Economist, Japan is investing in Robot production because no one wants to take the lower end jobs. That could very well be, tbut Japan doesn't have immigrants like Europe or America. Hmm...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:13 AM
Mechinization of Manufactiure will precipitate the fall of capitalism.

This is becuase the mechinization of labour will displace enough jobs to create a crisis of overproduction. This is becuase Capitalists cant pay a machine wages, and as the capitalist class sack's more and more worker's, less surplus value is relizable, becuase everyone's unemployed and cant afford to buy commodity's.
Overproduction is not really the problem; massive overproduction in capitalist enterprises has existed since the dawn of capitalism. Social trends simply cannot be measured exactly for an extended length of time.

What we can expect however is a complete stagnation in the one area of capitalist economics that is used to create surplus value once the competitive free market drives the rate of profit for a specific item under the rate of the fixed capital cost of production for that item;

Labour (or "variable capital").

Mechanical production facilities will always require a certain amout of variable capital that cannot be "cut", "laid off" or outright "sacked".

Besides, I always assumed we were after the destruction of all classes, including our "precious working class".

[red team]

Overproduction is not really the problem; massive overproduction in capitalist enterprises has existed since the dawn of capitalism. Social trends simply cannot be measured exactly for an extended length of time.


Machines do not create value. Underpaying the worker the full value of his work through wages and realizing the difference through the market place as profit creates value. If this is false then Marxism is false and we might as well not waste our time. Machines cannot create value because you can't underpay a machine. You can't pay a machine at all and have it buy back your product.

As far as the overproduction problem for Capitalism goes. Historically this has been "solved" by violent competition (war) so as to destroy as much capital and commodities of the rival side as possible. Note, why the postwar boom particularly in North America?

Also, its true you can't sack the technicians responsible for machine maintenance and upgrades, but what is 100,000 line workers versus 500 technicians in terms of their purchasing power?


Red Team

[Vinny Rafarino]

If this is false then Marxism is false and we might as well not waste our time.

Don't worry friend, I don't.

If I wanted to re-hash obsolete economical theory I would drink mint juleps with some absurd Mises drones on an Atlanta porch.

Squeal like a pig for me boy! I said sqeal!


Machines do not create value

Says who? Marx?


Underpaying the worker the full value of his work through wages and realizing the difference through the market place as profit creates value.

Not exactly.


Historically this has been "solved" by violent competition (war)

Perhaps on Pluto it has been "solved" but right here on planet Earth it continues to happen every day, just as it always has.


Note, why the postwar boom particularly in North America?

War is good for business; what's new about that?



Also, its true you can't sack the technicians responsible for machine maintenance and upgrades,

Who said you could?

[red team]

Run a computer simulation:

1st class Wage Workers

2nd class Businesses

rule #1: Businesses can only survive by gaining profit by having revenue greater than expenses
including expenses like wages. If it runs on a loss for more than 10 turns it dies.
(this simulates investors taking money out of the company because of loss of
confidence)

rule #2: Workers can only get money by working for businesses. They also live by paying other
businesses like landlords and supermarkets. If a worker cannot pay for essential
expenses he/she dies.

Here I'll give you a head start:

Source Code written in C++

header file #1: business.h

struct ExpenseInfo
{
double Wages;
double Utilities;
double Materials
int Workers;
double WagePerWorker;
};

class Business
{
private:
double Profit;
ExpensesInfo Expenses;
RevenueInfo Revenue;

public:
Business();
Business(int Workers, double WagePerWorker);

void Sell(double SalesPrice);
void PayWages();
};

Header file #2: worker.h

class Worker
{
private:
double Rent;
double Food;
double Disposable;
double Income;

public:
Worker();

void Work(double WagePerUnitTime, double Time);
void PayForFood();
void PayForRent();
void PayForSomethingElseWithDisposable();
};

Complete the rest of the program.
Run the simulation. The economy dies.

[red team]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 9 2006, 07:01 AM




Don't worry friend, I don't.

If I wanted to re-hash obsolete economical theory I would drink mint juleps with some absurd Mises drones on an Atlanta porch.

Squeal like a pig for me boy! I said sqeal!


If you insists, "squeal", "squeal"



Says who? Marx?


Yes, labor theory of value uness its false.



Not exactly.


More demand from consumers = increase in price, more profits
Less demand from consumers = decrease in price, less profits

Anything else?



Perhaps on Pluto it has been "solved" but right here on planet Earth it continues to happen every day, just as it always has.


Perhaps I didn't make it clear to you.

Pre-world war II, lots of infrastructure --> global depression
Pose-world war II, shattered cities except America --> economic boom



Who said you could?


Not my point, read my post
Wages of technical workers not enough to cover expenses of production unless you scale down production in either case you still lose profits because you've invested in Capital machinery without the corresponding payoff.


Red Team

[Vinny Rafarino]

Here I'll give you a head start:

A head start to what? Your "proof" would not even hold up in a 100 level economics class.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news here son, but it's utter garbage.

I will however give you one valuable lesson here; Marxist economics is no more applicable to capitalist free market economics then "A Vampire in Brooklyn" was to the comedic film genre.


Yes, labor theory of value uness its false.


See above; replace "Marxist economics" with "LTV".


Anything else?

More then you could possibly imagine.


Perhaps I didn't make it clear to you.


Concerning yourself with making things "clear" to me will not aid your confusion in this matter.


Not my point, read my post

I most certainly read your post; I simply found a very small portion of it worthy of a comment.



Wages of technical workers [are] not enough to cover expenses of production unless you scale down production in either case you still lose profits because you've invested in Capital machinery without the corresponding payoff.


Much too simple to be applicable to any model of capitalist economics; much too simple and much to wrong.

P.S.

Capitalists "loose" profits every day; it's a fact of capitalist economics.

Not only is it expected but it's factored into every model business cycle.

[red team]

:rolleyes:

[red team]

More demand from consumers = increase in price, more profits
Less demand from consumers = decrease in price, less profits

Anything else?



More then you could possibly imagine.



Seeing that we're on the topic of technological advances heres a scenario:

You got a shiny new robotic controlled automotive factory churning out 100 vehicles per day.
What used to be a whole layer of 50,000 assembly line workers you've replaced with 500 technicians some of which work part-time. Wages of technician worker $20 / hour. Wages of 100,000 line workers which you got rid of $15 / hour. They find other work in the low-end service sector (average wage : $6/hour).

Who do you think the company sells their vehicles to?
Answer: Consumers.
Question: Where do consumers come from? :o

:lol: Oh, please elaborate professor! :lol:

By the way, I've taken an introductory economic course and aced it. From what I can tell all it involves is memorizing some arcane formulas and regurgitating them at exam time presented with some arbitrarily contrived scenarios. Further courses involve much of the same with more arcane formulas and more contrived scenarios so I didn't bother with them. Besides, much of what goes for economics nowadays can be more categorized as risk and debt management and we all know you need a lot of fancy mathematical footwork to hide your debts and gamble on the stock market. Conclusion: You don't learn anything about the real world in economics class.

Oh yeah, I've also taken multi-variable calculus and linear algebra courses so don't think you can impress me with arcane formulas without explaining them to me.


Red Team

[1984]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 9 2006, 11:02 PM
By the way, I've taken an introductory economic course and aced it. From what I can tell all it involves is memorizing some arcane formulas and regurgitating them at exam time presented with some arbitrarily contrived scenarios. Further courses involve much of the same with more arcane formulas and more contrived scenarios so I didn't bother with them. Besides, much of what goes for economics nowadays can be more categorized as risk and debt management and we all know you need a lot of fancy mathematical footwork to hide your debts and gamble on the stock market. Conclusion: You don't learn anything about the real world in economics class.
I've always though that economy is the science that makes no sense.

:blink:

I'm YET to take my obligatory course on economics.

*sight*

At least I'm done with probability.

[Vinny Rafarino]

By the way, I've taken an introductory economic course and aced it.

No surprise there; you seem to be very "into" 100 level economic theory.

Just wait until your 400s, or better yet post graduate economics.



Oh yeah, I've also taken multi-variable calculus and linear algebra courses

Perhaps we can send you a little medal for your efferts. Maybe a little cake or something...



Conclusion: You don't learn anything about the real world in economics class.


You're on the right track now.

All you need to do is apply it to your posts.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Comrade RAF - Comrade Red Team is obviously very knowledgeable and knows what he's talking about. But I have a question for his theory:

There must be a way bigger difference than $5 between the salary of a technician and the line worker. The line worker must inevitably get way less than that - maybe $10 an hour. But even if he gets $15, thats roughly $30000 a year - how can he afford to buy the shiny new car he produces with that money? And as for them then leaving and being paid $6 an hour - that would make them homeless.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Comrade RAF - Comrade Red Team is obviously very knowledgeable and knows what he's talking about.

I believe you meant to say he knows that he is talking...and talking...and talking.


Perhaps in a few years he will cease to "just talk" and begin talking about applications that can really be imposed in our current society.

He seems adamant....that's a start at least.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10 2006, 05:02 PM
Perhaps in a few years he will cease to "just talk" and begin talking about applications that can really be imposed in our current society.


Perhaps you will also attack peoples arguments rather than avoiding them by attempting to undermine their intelligence by responding only to the bottom three lines.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dark Exodus+Jan 10 2006, 06:21 PM--> (Dark Exodus @ Jan 10 2006, 06:21 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 10 2006, 05:02 PM
Perhaps in a few years he will cease to "just talk" and begin talking about applications that can really be imposed in our current society.


Perhaps you will also attack peoples arguments rather than avoiding them by attempting to undermine their intelligence by responding only to the bottom three lines. [/b]
Actually it's just the bottom two lines. Get it right.

[red team]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10 2006, 04:53 PM
There must be a way bigger difference than $5 between the salary of a technician and the line worker. The line worker must inevitably get way less than that - maybe $10 an hour. But even if he gets $15, thats roughly $30000 a year - how can he afford to buy the shiny new car he produces with that money? And as for them then leaving and being paid $6 an hour - that would make them homeless.
Sorry, but that was just a sample. I really don't know the wage differential between technical workers and assembly line workers in American auto plants, but I would assume it is bigger than what I have stated in my sample. However, I know that pay for most factory workers have been scaled down, especially in auto plants because of the competition from more profitable foreign corporations like Toyota. Delphi the GM parts supplier have production workers wages set at $12.50/hour. For new employees wages could be even lower -- http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnew..._10003987.shtml (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003987.shtml), so trends points to things getting worse. As far as jobs former factory workers can look forward to after mass firings, service sector work is really the only thing left unless they get re-training for commerce related fields. But guess what the government is doing with public education? They're purposely starving it of funds, so anybody without the money to get into educational institutions in the first place, won't have much of a chance to get in at all. Furthermore, the commerce field is highly competitive in itself. This makes sense as managers and accountants for businesses always have to be less than the number of manual workers involve in direct production so few would actually find jobs even if retrained. The US Department of Labor minimum wage is set at $5.15/hour U.S. is about right for most service sector jobs, so $6/hour is actually overstating it -- http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm.


Red Team

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:30 AM
What I am wondering is what material conditions would allow the bourgeoisie to do this act?

Recently in The Economist, Japan is investing in Robot production because no one wants to take the lower end jobs. That could very well be, tbut Japan doesn't have immigrants like Europe or America. Hmm...
To heavily robotize production, they'd have to invest a lot of capital in production equipment. That's only attractive when the rate of return on fixed capital investment in industry is high.

Which it isn't right now - that's part of why financial speculation is so attractive - and the overall tendency, of course, is for the rate of profit to fall. In the auto industry particularly there's a lot of productive "overcapacity" relative to the world market.

But it's not excluded that the rate of profit could temporarily rise, especially if crushing defeats are inflicted on the working class, enabling wages and social programs to be slashed much further even than they have been already, even greater speedup to be imposed, etc.

Or if enough overcapacity was destroyed in another world war, or something like that.

Anyway, if one way or another the ruling class gets out of its current structural economic difficulties and opens the way to another long-term economic boom like the post-WWII boom, that might create the conditions for large-scale robotization of production.

I don't think that would destroy the working class as the thread title suggests; but I reckon it would have some significant implications.

As I was just saying, though, it would not be easy for the ruling class to create those conditions, though; and major class battles lie between where they are now and where they need to be.

***

Comrade Y, workers on auto assembly lines can make over $20 an hour at some plants in the U.S. Often with lots of overtime at premium rates, so that can add up to a lot more than $30,000 a year (before taxes, anyway).

That is a problem for the ruling class as a whole: every employer wants to pay their own workers as little as possible; but they want other employers to pay more so the market will be large enough.

[red_che]

It might be hypothetical, but I don't think that society can reach that stage wherein all work would be done by the robots, while man only sits in its back and let this thing (robot) do it all for them.

Capitalists can't replace entirely all workers with robots. If they do so, it would be costly and no one can consume the commodities produced by these robots since everybody, except the bourgeoisie, don't have money anymore because they lost their jobs.

And for sure, it won't simply happen because humans were not that dumb to let these robots replace them. A social revolution could already have occurred, or better yet, Capitalism had already been overthrown.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:32 AM
Comrade Y, workers on auto assembly lines can make over $20 an hour at some plants in the U.S. Often with lots of overtime at premium rates, so that can add up to a lot more than $30,000 a year (before taxes, anyway).

That is a problem for the ruling class as a whole: every employer wants to pay their own workers as little as possible; but they want other employers to pay more so the market will be large enough.
Yes thats what I said in my post - isn't $30 000 not a small amount? I'm not very good on exchange rates, but I think thats about £20 000. Now subtract taxes from that - its down to a very small amount. Here in England, £14 000 a year is very small. Thats the price of a decent car. So the worker cannot afford to buy what he produces, because he also has a family to feed, a mortgage to pay etc.

Yes, I agree with you on your second paragraph. But surely if there are two factories both with wprkers making shiny new cars and be8ing paid a small amount neither of the factory workers will be able to buy what they produce? Because the car is for the middle and upper-class whom earn over
£50 000 a year.

But yes, comrade Red_che said, this entire robotization of the economy is either impossible or way too far in the future. There will definitely be a revolution before then.