tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16768201.post6960920456357850289..comments2023-09-13T06:17:38.045-05:00Comments on Try Reason!: Technology, wealth, and the myth of unemploymentAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03560477246248417263noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16768201.post-16115236386699304182008-03-30T00:43:00.000-05:002008-03-30T00:43:00.000-05:00definitely agreedefinitely agreeFiredgloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13142981689385562656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16768201.post-81230864555755119602008-03-27T15:00:00.000-05:002008-03-27T15:00:00.000-05:00Great comments Dave.First, as a disclaimer, I view...Great comments Dave.<BR/><BR/>First, as a disclaimer, I view the posts on my blog to be mostly unfinished thoughts, initial ideas, and rough sketches. I'm usually aware my arguments have much room for improvement. And there may be some typos and poorly worded statements, as you've noted with precision. Thank you!<BR/><BR/>That being said, I still believe the essential economic principle stands. As you state, and I agree, there is often a short time re-adjustment of employment with new technologies. However, statements that new technologies create unemployment <I>long-term</I> is simply false.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03560477246248417263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16768201.post-27932111257041244862008-03-27T14:32:00.000-05:002008-03-27T14:32:00.000-05:00Hey John, after overlooking your proof, i have fou...Hey John, after overlooking your proof, i have found some flaws, or perhaps some misunderstandings.<BR/>first off you state that the customer will pay you $10/ft dug which equals 200$/day at 20ft/day.<BR/>Then you go on to say that you hire someone to dig the same trench for you at $5/ft therefore the equation is revenue - cost = (10x20) - (5x20), however you multiplied your revenue by 2. In other words he is not digging for you, but in addition to and under you. If he did the work for you the profit is split 50/50. <BR/>As you increase your labour you are also multiply the amount of land you dig in the form <BR/>n(10x20) - n(5x20) where n is the number of workers(including urself). your revenue is growing equally proportional to cost. you, the owner's profit is only increasing at the same rate.<BR/><BR/>Then as technology is introduced you first start with one machine and one worker, so the other group of workers (n-1) dont have any job and would be unemployed for a little while, this is called Structural Unemployment, which is found in evolving economies such as in this scenario.<BR/><BR/>the last part deals with how the customer deals with his consumer surplus because of the digging company. If you save a customer 50,000$ so they can afford a better construction crew, then their initial construction crew would lose their contract to work.<BR/><BR/>I understand how you want to disprove the myth of unemployment and technology. furthermore, its understandable that if a machine can take the place of 10 people working, then 9 people are out of a job(assuming 1 person man's the machine). But with the money the company saves they can expand their business. Millions of cellphones are made so there is room to accommodate the people to make them ie. there exits more then one machine to manufacture cellphones. Also it in understood that productivity increases with technology and therefore people can get paid more for their work , like the worker in the digging machine.<BR/>Labour has its own market of supply and demand and with technology taking up people's jobs the increase in supply goes up.<BR/>I belive there are many factors to unemployment, but to keep all other things equal it must be understood that some unemployment must take place for technology. Its definitely a myth is people blame unemployment completely on technological advances. Unemployment from technology does exist, however it is short lived. <BR/><BR/>-DaveFiredgloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13142981689385562656noreply@blogger.com