Technical innovation increases the productivity of labor in industry. If production shouldn’t be wasteful, there needs to be a reduction in workers. Where do all these workers go if there’s no unemployment? In a capitalist economy the workers are left to die on the streets but in a socialist economy they need to get a job again, right? Does the state take the burden of cost of reeducating these workers to enter another field and factor this into calculations when introducing new technology?
Unemployment, as it exists under capitalism, is used to create the “reserve army of labour”
Basically, if there are people who are able to work, but unable to find work, the capitalists can lower the wages of all workers, as there will always be someone else ready to take the job.
This doesn’t exist under socialism, as a socialist country has no need to squeeze their workers for every bit of labour.
I’m also not really sure what this has to do with innovation though. It’s hard for me to imagine how innovative people can be when they’re constantly worried about being kicked out onto the streets, or not being able to afford food. Seems like living better would be overall better for innovation. People are naturally creative and curious. We like to try new things for the fun of it. Innovation, despite what capitalists will tell you, absolutely does not need worker exploitation.
I read innovation as technological innovation. Under capitalism when the supermarket introduces self-checkouts in the front and forklift trucks in the back, they don’t need as many cashier’s and shelf-stockers. So implementing new technology creates unemployment, i.e. is one of the causes of the reserve army of labour.
Ah, that could be it. I’m bad at answering people’s questions, I assume too much.
I wouldn’t go that far! Yours is a good answer and if the OP meant something else by innovation than technology, you’re right to question it. And even if they did mean that, your right to challenge the idea that innovation is good if it leads to such consequences.
It’s hard, isn’t it, the assumptions thing. It’s kind of automatic. Especially with writing online and on Lemmygrad. We tend to use an informal style as it’s appropriate for a forum like this. But that clashes with the theoretical content that were often taking about on here.
Then there’s the potential to come off as rude by telling someone their question isn’t tight enough. At the same time as giving the question a generous interpretation and answering it.
In formal essays, it’s common to tell the reader how you interpreted the question. But that can come off a bit strange online because it implies a criticism of the question, which then does the thing above but kind of passive aggressively this time.
We’re bound to talk past each other sometimes, or answer a question that wasn’t asked, etc, as these kinds of things slips in through the various quirks of the online.
Simple: let people work less
move them into other industries to develop those ones and shorten the workday, retire workers.
China’s retirement age for industrial workers is very low (55 for women, 60 for men)
