Published by RaymondPierreL3

published

RaymondPierreL3's Post

In Reply To: this post

@ChrisMayLA6
I guess it is about terminology. In my mind, I do not equate productivity increases due to improved equipment and processes with ‘workers’ since they have no capital ($) invested in this (unless they are shareholders). If production equipment is old and poorly maintained (due to insufficient investment by the owners in the machinery of production) or if workers are forced to abide by outdated and inefficient processes (due to a capitalist’s unwillingness to update them for various reasons), there is little the workers can do to ‘increase productivity’. Indeed, due to a lack of capital investments in the propertied means of production, the workers are likely to become just as inefficient as the equipment and processes, suffer increasing health problems, etc.

Ergo, a four day week must be accompanied by judicious capital investments to modernise the equipment and processes of production. Only then will productivity gains be realised. IMHO.

Or are we talking at cross-purposes here?


Likes: 0
Boosts: 0
Hashtags:
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us

Comments

Displaying 0 of 1 comments

Emeritus Prof Christopher May

In response to this post

@RaymondPierreL3

I think we're talking at cross purposes - your points are all good, but for me are all about the relationship *between* worker(s) & technology - and in the end that is what economic definitions of productivity really focus on in general terms.

So as you say increases in productivity can be driven by changes in technology, but on the workers' side they can be driven by shifts in organisational practice.

Who invests is of little formal importance, but is highly political!


@ChrisMayLA6
Thank you.

by RaymondPierreL3 ;

Mentions: @RaymondPierreL3@aus.social


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0