The concept of "technological unemployment" appears to have peaked in 1936, after which it has been on a steady decline. Meanwhile "Luddites" -- which I take to indicate mainly disparaging mentions of Luddites has been on the rise, slowly and unsteadily throughout the 20th century and into the first decade of the 21st.
I'm working on a long post but in the meanwhile here's a thought: maybe technology "creates more jobs than it destroys" because it isn't really "labor-saving" in the first place. That is to say, machines aren't intrinsically productive but simply mask the uneven exchanges that occur between the industrialized global North and the extractive South.
It would admittedly be difficult to prove such a hypothesis but my question is: what evidence is there for the commonly-assumed believe that machines are "intrinsically productive"? I know, I know, there doesn't need to be any evidence for the assumption because it is "self evident" to the extent that anyone who questions that self-evidence reveals themselves to be a fool, a crank, a crackpot, a Luddite and an enemy of progress.
Pages
- Jobs, Liberty and the Bottom Line
- Time on the Ledger: Social Accounting for the “Goo...
- Intermediate Goods and Duplication
- The Long Term Problem of Full Employment
- The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties...
- Grundrisse: "Capital (like property) rests on prod...
- Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "W...
- McCulloch on Combination Laws
- Submission to the White House Task Force on Middle...
- Thinking Along the Right Lines
- The Problem with "The Problem of Social Cost"
- State and Prospects of Manufactures
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.