Subject: Re: kirez korgan
To: technology-AT-world.std.com
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 11:21:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jonathan.Maskit-AT-casbah.acns.nwu.edu


Kirez Korgan, in responind to Michael Current, writes:

> The environmental "toxins" allegedly produced have not been demonstrated to
> be toxins at all.  

Really?  I would certainly be interested in citations for research
supporting this claim which was not paid for by the companies involved in
such production.  Or is it merely the case that this rests on the
assumption that all things are safe until proven otherwise?

> As for the asian women, they eagerly, voluntary seek out
> these jobs because they offer greater benefits than any other work they
> might seek.  They want these jobs, they need these jobs, and for the most
> part they recognize that these jobs are giving them more than they could
> otherwise have had, and thus appreciate these jobs.

A little economic history: following the enclosure acts which destroyed the
traditional lifestyle of much of the British peasantry, they too "eagerly,
voluntarily" sought out factory jobs.  Only someone with a thorough-going
commitment to economic atomistic individualism could so quickly and facilely
make a claim such as the above.  If what one previously had, has been
structually removed, one may well "want" or "need" something to replace it. 
But such wanting and needing should not be presented as a form of
situationless volunatry choice.  It may remain the case that such
individuals would desire these jobs even if traditional options remained
available to them.  But that situation, and that situation only, would
substantiate the claim offered here.

> What every advance in technology does is not "displace" workers, but
> instead boosts overal productivity so that the increased production creates
> even more jobs elsewhere in the economy, where the same workers who were
> "displaced" can then be "reabsorbed", as has been proven.  I can provide
> hard numbers to demonstrate this.  Not only are all those people
> reabsorbed, but even more can be reabsorbed as a result of the greater
> efficiency and hence greater productivity for less labor input.  Technology
> *creates* jobs.

This is one of the truisms of liberal economics: increases in productivity
and economic growth combine to create jobs.  Unfortunately, Korgan's claim
to be able to provide "hard numbers" notwithstanding, there has been, to my
knowledge, no convincing demonstration of such causality.  Everyone agrees
that technological change throws people out of work -- this is economic
displacement.  Automotive technologies displaced horse breeders and
caretakers; desktop publishing displaces traditional typesetters.  If one,
for reasons which are not here clear, does not wish to call this
"displacement", then one could offer other terms: "dislocation",
"unemployment", "obsolescence", etc.  Now, "boosts [in] overall
productivity" in no way assure "increased production".  It is because the
structural imperatives of competition require producers to lower costs
(usually by technical means but also by increasing hours worked per unit of
pay and other such means) that productivity increases.  A capitalist economy
_requires_ economic growth to "reabsorb" the workers displaced.  But such
growth does not necessarily keep pace with displacement.  The post-WWII
economies of France and Germany provide ample evidence for this.  Now for
Korgan's final claim: "Not only are all those people reabsorbed, but even more
can be reabsorbed as a result of the greater efficiency and hence greater 
productivity for less labor input."  This is simply nonsensical.  Greater
efficency and productivity _means_ more output for less input.  That is,
each worker produces _more_ than s/he could with previous means of
production.  What this means is that each increase in productivity entails
_less_ of an ability to absorb displaced workers, not more.  I think part of
the confusion here rests on Korgan's failure to distinguish adequately
between "productivity" (ability to produce) and "production" (actual amount
produced).

> People will always have to work.  This doesn't bother me, I enjoy my work,
> and will gladly continue working even when I don't need to.  I think
> creative, productive endeavor is vital to human happiness and vitality. 
> And it will always be necessary.

Work = "creative, productive endeavor"?  Here are some common examples of
paid work: sewing waistbands in underwear, tightening bolts on car bumpers,
mopping floors, checking ID badges, taking orders for a mail-order company. 
These (and I could come up with many more such examples) hardly strike me as
"creative".  To be sure, most of the ways in which people
have provided for themselves over the millenia -- principally farming -- are
also hard work and are oftentimes not "creative".  But to insist that there
is a necessary connection between work and creativity seems misleading in
the extreme.

>> I think especially of jobs the consist of an entire shift spent in front
>> of a CRT doing word-processing or data entry - feeding the machines in
>> the interest of Capital.
> 
> I wish I could spend that much time at a computer.  Sounds pretty lush. 
> Those who cried about 18 hour jobs with few breaks in freezing, dangerous
> factories are now crying about those who have to spend a whole 8 hour shift
> sitting at a computer.  What's next?  Complaints about having to push a
> button for four hours, and in return having a suave condo and a nice car? 
> The work keeps decreasing in rigor and amount, and the benefits keep
> increasing.... what enables this?  technology, science.

"The work keeps descreasing in rigor and amount, and the benefits keep
increasing...."?  Not all work keeps decreasing in rigor and amount.  Just
because much of the physical labor of production has been moved to other
countries does not mean it is no longer being done.  And don't kid yourself
that controls on working conditions and hours are the same the world over. 
As for data entry clerks being able to afford "a suave condo and a nice
car", I know people who do work like this.  They get around $10/hr.  That
works out to $20,000/year.  Anyone with even one dependent would be
hard-pressed afford either the condo _or_ the car on that salary.  Real
wages in the US are stagnant or falling and have been such for at least the
last ten years.  While the size of the US (and the world's) economy is
undoubtedly increasing, it is not at all clear that the "benefits" of that
growth are being apportioned to those working.  Take a look at statistics on
ditribution of income and wealth in the US for the last 20 years: the
disparities have only increased.  "The benefits keep increasing", true --
but for whom?

> Now, what is meant by the term "interest of capital"?  It seems to me that
> the worker has much greater interest at stake here than anyone else.  It's
> in the interest of the worker to earn a living, and that's why he's there
> at the CRT.

Um, no.  The "interests of capital" is a term with a history of at least 100
years.  The distinction between capital and labor is fundamental to _all_
contemporary economic analyses (and is first found in Karl Marx's
_Capital_).  "Capital" inputs are machines, buildings, etc.; "labor" are
human inputs to production.  In earlier times, "capital" was owned by a
single "capitalist" and it was his interest -- profits -- that were referred
to as the interests of (that particular) capital.  Thus, the "interests of
capital" as a _class_ were profit and production.  Today, when most capital
is owned by shareholders (who are often not individuals but pension funds
and mutual funds), the interests of capital are not so easily pegged to one
social class.  But they remain the same: profit and production.  It is true,
that given structural imperatives which foreclose other means of economic
reproduction, workers do have an interest _in_ capitalism.  But, unless they
are shareholders in the company, they have no "interest of capital".  And,
in so far as they are such owners, their interests as workers -- higher pay,
better working conditions, more of the companies income being directed
towards workers as opposed to profit -- and their interests as owners may be
in conflict.  Of course it is "in the interst of the worker to earn a
living", but that does not necessarily mean that _that_ job at _that_
company in _this_ economy is the best way of serving that interest. 


> to be continued..
> 
> Kirez Korgan

Jonathan Maskit


-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++///////////////////////////////////++++++++++++++++++++++

    //////     "The earth is not the physical center of the universe,
     ////                      but it is the metaphysical center."
     ///
      //                                            --Hegel
      /

Jonathan Maskit
bfultner-AT-casbah.acns.nwu.edu

__________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^||||||||||||||||||||||||||