|
Edited on Fri Dec-26-03 06:09 PM by happyslug
Such machines still have to be designed, built, maintained and programmed. All of these have to be done by humans (through increase use of Automatic machines will reduce the human input, it will not completely replace it).
Remember a machine (even a robot) will only be purchased and installed if it makes money for the person using the machine. If the cost of the machine to program is extensive than it may still be easier to train a Human to do the job. Thus costs to design, build, install and program the equipment are the limiting factors in producing such robots.
Sooner or later you get to a point of diminishing returns. Over time, as you install more (and better) machines, the improvement in profit produced by such new machines goes down. Sooner or later you get to a point where the installation of a new machine reduces profit instead of increasing profit. This is the Zero Sum point. In the US the Railroads reached this point in 1912 (and have been in declined ever since). The Steel industry reached this point about 1917-1918(except for WWI, WWI and Korea), and has been in declined every since.
The Auto industry appears to have reached that goal in the US about 1970 (while the number of cars has increased since 1970, it appears to be more the product of increase population NOT increase auto usage among the general population).
After these goals were reached, it was cheaper NOT to buy new equipment (except to replace worn out equipment) than to upgrade.
The railroads are the easier to show why, the greatest profit margins were made early on, as the Railroad expanded and connected the ports with the rest of the Country. The Railroads than went to connect river towns, than along rivers than to areas off the rivers. Each expansion cost more than the previous expansion on a per mile basis, and produced less revenues. You have more trade between Boston and New York City than between Boston and the border of Maine and Quebec. The cost to build to Railroad to both places are about the same, but the Boston to New York City Railroad will produce way more revenue than the one to Northern Maine. The Boston to New York City Route gets built first and than Boston to Albany, than Boston to Mansfield, than Boston to Northern Maine. Each one costs about the same to build, but as you go from one to the next to the next the profit generated by the new Railroad goes down.
Sooner or later you cover the Country with Railroads so that if you build another one, the costs to build it exceeds the revenue you get from it. Thus it is never built (or if built quicky abandoned).
This happens in ALL INDUSTRIES. It just easier to show in the railroad industry. The same with Robots, they have improved, but there are programmed and maintenance headaches. Given their programming (and the need to have them to be programmable for different jobs) such robots are NOT cheap. Sooner or later you get to a point where buying a new one is just not profitable.
This is what Karl Marx wrote about, that sooner or later the diminishing returns on profits will lead to a stop in capital improvements. You can not go on improving productivity forever, it is just NOT possible.
My point as to the railroad, the Gasoline Automobile and the Computer in my prior posts was to show that as each of these industry reached that level you had the next great set of improvements in technology. As the railroads peaked, the Gasoline engine came in, as the Gasoline engine peaked, Electronics came in. The problem is today electronics are peaking (In the sense that they may be no more profit in replacing existing Robots/Computers with new Robots/Computers, not in the sense that we have reached the greatest possible speed in electronics) and I see nothing to cause a huge increase in productivity like incurred with the introduction of the Railroad, the Gasoline Engine and the Computer.
Without such a new technology, we are approaching the point that Marx stated a Society starts to fight itself. The upper classes no longer able to have the profit margins they had in the past and thus start to cheat on financial papers (i.e. Enron) and put pressure on people to work longer hours for less pay (i.e. lack of wage increases in the 1990s).
Sooner or later the pressure on workers lead to a revolt. The revolt is the result of people no longer able to afford to keep their families. One observation of Marx is that the revolt will only occur after the "Petit Bourgeois" drop into the Working class. You are seeing that now as programmers and engineers salaries have stop growing and are going down. Mid-level managers have complained of this for over 20 years, the process in continuing. The difference in pay between such highly educated experts (The 21st century Petit Bourgeois) and the average worker is dropping i.e. Programmers, engineers lower level managers are falling from the Upper Middle Class to the Working Class. Another observation of Marx is the Revolt will NOT occur as things go down hill, but as things bottoms out and starts to improve. People so not revolt while they are looking for the next piece of food for themselves or their families, but as things start to improve and thus they have time to think of what had occurred.
Now Marx said when that movement is complete a true Communist revolution will take place. Marx told his fellow Communists that at that point the Communists must be ready to lead the Revolt to the New Socialist paradise.
Here I disagree with Marx, I still see a revolt and the need to direct it, but I do not see such a revolt producing a New Socialist paradise. Now Marx himself says it would take 500 years to achieve Socialism so he and I may not be that far off. Furthermore Marx said the purpose of the Revolt was to remove the Control of Government and Society from the Control of the Upper Middle class. Only once that is done will society to able to advance to a Socialist paradise.
As I said I disagree with Marx on that point, but his observations as when revolution take place have been accurate in the past and I see no reason why such a revolution does not occur unless we get a new invention like the Gasoline Engine or the Computer (OR that The Government sees what is happening and tries to stop the drop in income among the working class).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(639 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
