'The man who wants to take your jobs'

[pardsbane at offthehill.org (Josh Pollak)]

On Mar 23, 2004, at 2:48 PM, John Chambers wrote:
> I've seen another cute parallel that illustrates one of the  problems
> we're facing. Some economists have pointed out that, according to the
> standard definitions of "productivity" that we use today,  the  early
> decades  of  the  1900's  saw  a huge increase in the productivity of
> horses.  That is, the amount of work divided by the number of  horses
> at work went up very rapidly.
>
> Did this benefit the horses?  Well, not exactly ...
>
> This was an intro to the suggestion that what we're starting  to  see
> is  a  similar huge increase of productivity in humans.  That is, the
> ratio of goods produced to human workers is going up  rapidly.   Will
> humans  benefit?   Probably no more than the horses did a centry ago,
> and for the same reason.

Evidence of this happening is already present, read 'Nickel And Dimed: 
On (not) Getting By In America", by Barbara Ehrenreich, 
(http://www.nickelanddimed.net/), where she details how corporations 
demand more and more 'productivity' out of fewer and fewer workers. 
Because we have a glut of workers and fewer jobs, companies can afford 
to physically burn and wear out employees, since they are so easy to 
replace.

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or other Office attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html