SvennoJ said:
sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:
That would be a capitalist utopia if the bottom of the pyramid can be replaced by machines running on solar power. We'll likely have decrease of luxury before that happens. Meanwhile cheap transportation and cheap labor is what is providing us with the luxury we're accustomed to. From the gadgets made in China, to the Mexican seasonal workers harvesting the food, to the child slave labour mining coltan for smart phones. Plus the imf ruining local economies to unlock more cheap labor for our lifestyle.
It's always easy to say how great a system is when you're the one benefitting from it which includes the poor of the western world. I'm not saying communism is any better, just seems less destructive, yet maybe that's just because it never manage to thrive.
|
Honestly, machines replacing workers is actually good for everyone. It allows companies to reduce costs, which reduce consumer prices (assuming a competitive market), or it allows them to invest in other ways, and allows for more high wage positions that would not otherwise exist. It is a gain for capitalists, bourgoise, proleritat, working-class, upper-class, poor, etc, etc. I work at Walmart currently so that I might reduce my student loan dependancy. I would much rather work to help customers in other ways than to do menial mechanical cashiering, that I do now, which is something a machine can do, for example.
There is not a net loss in the amount of jobs with the introduction of machines, just as there wasn't in the industrial revolution, and there wasn't in the internet age, the jobs just change in their nature. The more monetary wealth that exists, the more opportunities to find the job I, you, or anybody else prefers and enjoys doing. That is the difference between the wealthy countries and the less wealthy ones. There are more opportunities, not fewer.
And for the Mexicans and the Chinese, well life is just better off with these opportunities that exist for them. Chinese persons today, the rich and the poor, are better off than they were under Mao and his strict socialism. Mexicans picking fruit in California are better off in the semi-"Capitalist" United States than they were in the more oppressive markets of Mexico. Hong Kongers (the freest market in the world) are so much better off than the mainland Chinese, and 40 years ago they were in the same financial situation. So I really don't see how communism is better than free-markets (whether or not you want to call it capitalism, is up to you.)
|
I full agree machines benefit society. Although not so sure about the self checkout systems in super markets, they always prove more trouble than they're worth so far. "Put the item on the tray, put it back in the cart, put only one item on the tray at a time, leave the item on the tray, please wait for assistance. Sorry you can't place your bags on the tray, it messes up the scale" Screw that. Walmart wouldn't give you another task anyway, just like the grocery baggers you would simply be looking for another job. Robot cashiers would be frigging cool though :)
Creating jobs in low wage countries can help those countries. It's a double edged sword though. It can also disrupt local economies. For example by flooding the market with left over subsidized food products in return, next to making countries dependent on hiring out its workforce instead of creating a sustainable economy of their own. It's usually the (corrupt) government that benefits most from imf deals, and plenty of dicatators have gotten support from the western world for stable access to cheap resources and labor.
(Mostly) free markets are the best we have atm, better than a closed border policy. The rich and powerful will always skew the system in their favor whenever possible. Yet hungry western consumers are the best option for developing countries right now. The western world got where it is on the back of colonialism, slavery and exploitation of vast resources. Those doors are closing fast.
|
The self-checkout systems have their niche, I only use them when I have a few items, but with advancing computer technology they can become better. As for Walmart, they would require more customer service supervisors and computer technicians the more self-checkouts they use (until artificial intelligence, of course.) They can use their cashiers to work as sales reps and stockers. I do have to admit, at least, at my walmart cashiers have the highest shortage and the more bargaining power, but if a single few cashiers call off for a day, it can affect profitability so much more than if other employees call off, and it makes a lot of sense why Walmart chooses backup services, like self-checkout.
I view your next paragraph as an issue of cronyism/mercantilism/corporatism/fascism, the merger of big business and government. Notice that it is the local government or the U.S government having an integral role in exploiting people. Free-markets, or laissez-faire markets as some call them, whether they will have a socialist (egalitarian) structure or a capitalist (hierarchial) structure would not have this. The nordic countries are probably the most social democratic countries in the world, but they also happen to have some of the freest markets (excluding Norway), for example. This is what contributes to most of their success. Recently I've been reading a lot about left-wing market anarchism, and I've gathered that to a lot of left-winged individuals : anarchists or not, "capitalism" doesn't mean "free-market" economies as it does for right-wingers (right-libertarians mostly.) For these people, capitalism means the mixed-economic system present during Marx's time in which workers were exploited by industrialists. I think that is where a lot of the differences between left and right wing occur, the definition of "capitalism." This is of course talking about propertarians (people who believe in the private ownership of capital) on the left and right only: excluding syndicalists and communists who don't believe in private-property rights.
I don't believe colonialism is the only contribution, though. I talk about it a lot, but look at Hong Kong. It was a British colony that succeeded by not limiting trade through tariffs and regulations. The people in power were the local population. Even today, as an autonomal government in China (one of the least free markets in the world) Hong Kong has great success. This wasn't based on exploitation, but on voluntary interactions, peace, and cooperation.
