[ue_]

The Marxian response, although unpopular, is the rate of exploitation has increased. For Marx, technological development leads to more constant capital versus moving capital (i.e more machinery and tools of production) being employed which means that there is a drop in demand for labour-power; while the total value inputs and outputs are identical, only the composition of the value has changed. The falling demand for labour-power means that labour has less of a negotiating place at the table which can lead to real wages decreasing.

(Edit: Why are my comments receiving instant downvotes within less than a minute of posting? Who exactly is doing this, without explanation, and more importantly why?)

[alexasmyths]

I don't think what you said is controversial, it's sound.

Marx's observations were mostly sound, and I think, not inconsistent with Adam Smith. It's his solutions that were crazy-balls.

Ultimately, all things being equal, tech that makes companies more efficient will drop employment and wages. 'All things' are never equal though :).

We should consider the fact that while modern countries are going anywhere fast - 100's of millions of people are coming out of abject poverty. That's often overlooked.

[ue_]

>100's of millions of people are coming out of abject poverty. That's often overlooked.

I very much agree. People on my side of the political spectrum often dismiss how much good capitalism has done to people, especially those in improvished countries, though it's important to note that even despite these improvements, Marx campaigned for Socialism - not beacuse the improvements were useless, but because there is more to a mode of production than lifting people out of poverty - we must also question the social, psychological and moral aspects of the way in which people live; while nobody disagrees that the standard of living has increased, whether the quality of life is the best that it can be, or that it should be, is a very hot topic and the Frankfurt School in particular hads taken it upon itself to examine this.

I made a comment[0] yesterday relating my problems with capitalism, and partly they are the reason I am a Socialist; perhaps we may find some agreement in the diagnoses of the problems but not the solutions, being as "crazy-ball" as you put them.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592

[mbillie1]

Because it's HN, where opinions other than "hooray libertarian technocracy" are frowned upon.

[dang]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13110004

[ue_]

I know what you mean, but I wasn't even espousing an opinion here; I was offering the view of a particular school of economics which has found a recent resurgance in academia from names like Anwar Shaikh and Richard Wolff. I simply can't think what would mean that someone comes along, reads my comment, for whatever reason disagrees with the fact (not the view, as there is very little view in my comment) and then clicks the downvote button.

I'm sure I've read that dang has said that downvotes shouldn't be used to mark opinions you disagree with - yet here we are. I would really appreciate explanations, surely this is not above those people who have 500 karma - like I am, they are entrusted with extra powers over the content on the website; perhaps if they behave in such a way antithetical to the idea of Hacker News (that of sharing strangely interesting ideas and perspectives) perhaps they should not have that ability.

[dang]

> dang has said that downvotes shouldn't be used to mark opinions you disagree with

I didn't say that. People think this, mainly because they hear it from other people who think this, but it has never been the policy on HN.

[Helloworldboy]

too bad Marxian policies stifle innovation by providing no incentive to pursue it.