The Evolution of Labour Value in Modern Capitalism

[Sushan]

This topic is about the July 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters by Howard Wolk, John Landry

Adam Smith’s assertion that

the property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is the most sacred and inviolable

provides a powerful lens through which we can examine the evolution of labour value in contemporary capitalism.

Smith’s idea underscores the intrinsic connection between an individual’s labour and the resulting economic value. This principle invites us to explore the changing nature of labour in the context of modern capitalism, where the dynamics of work, ownership, and value creation have undergone significant transformation.

In the U.S., the capitalist economy has fostered unprecedented innovation and economic growth. However, this progress has come with its own set of challenges. The shift from manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy, the rise of automation, and the increasing importance of intellectual property have reshaped how labour is valued. These changes prompt us to question whether the intrinsic value of individual labour, as emphasized by Smith, is still respected and protected in today’s economic systems.

How has the shift from manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy in the U.S. and other capitalist economies affected the valuation of individual labour? In what ways do different economic systems balance the intrinsic value of labour with the demands of modern capitalism?

[Sitonick34]

"In the U.S., the capitalist economy has fostered unprecedented innovation and economic growth. However, this progress has come with its own set of challenges. The shift from manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy, the rise of automation, and the increasing importance of intellectual property have reshaped how labour is valued. These changes prompt us to question whether the intrinsic value of individual labour, as emphasized by Smith, is still respected and protected in today’s economic systems."
I agree with you and I personally feel like we are approaching a dark world if everything will be automated then what will we do?

[LuckyR]

My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

[Good_Egg]

My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

Unfortunately, the development of AI systems that can replace human input on knowledge-based tasks seems to be progressing - if anything faster - than the development of computer-controlled machines that can replace human dexterity.

All the tasks requiring strength and endurance, without sensitivity/dexterity, have been replaced by "dumb" machines a while ago.

But maybe that's only a superficial impression....

Any sci-fi writer can imagine a world in which the machines / robots / AIs can do everything. So that there is no need to employ humans at all. And for such a world to be happy world, the humans there need an economic (or pseudo-economic) system significantly different from the one we had before.

The challenge is that the technological change is gradual...

[LuckyR]

My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

Unfortunately, the development of AI systems that can replace human input on knowledge-based tasks seems to be progressing - if anything faster - than the development of computer-controlled machines that can replace human dexterity.

All the tasks requiring strength and endurance, without sensitivity/dexterity, have been replaced by "dumb" machines a while ago.

But maybe that's only a superficial impression....

Any sci-fi writer can imagine a world in which the machines / robots / AIs can do everything. So that there is no need to employ humans at all. And for such a world to be happy world, the humans there need an economic (or pseudo-economic) system significantly different from the one we had before.

The challenge is that the technological change is gradual...

Well his advice (still valid) was about quality of worklife but mainly compensation. As to job security (from being replaced by machines), two things: first, a lot of the jobs that are going to go away are those that didn't even exist in the 60s (when he gave the advice), specifically those that involve manipulation and/or evaluation of digital data. Secondly, AI is known for having miles wide yet millimeters deep "understanding" of information. Thus if errors from mistakes within the task carries no important downside corporations can let the AI run wild until errors are brought to their attention. OTOH if there are significant consequences to errormaking, there needs to be a human "overseer" to limit legal liability. For example computers have been able to "read" EKGs for decades and X-rays for years, but they need to be "reread" by a cardiologist or radiologist. To be honest, folks in those two fields would gladly give up those (somewhat boring and less lucrative) tasks to do other things.

[Tibbir]

the property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is the most sacred and inviolable

This is one of the most violated sources of wealth in history, slavery has stolen this wealth from workers for millennia,
Many reckon that there are far more slaves around today than ever before because the world's population has over quadrupled in the last century.

As a second point on a related topic, Artificial Intelligence could have replaced my job almost a decade ago except the IT industry has been trying to keep their jobs by slowing AI's progress down as much as possible. Now AI can read and understand English and almost every other language. Computers have access to every news article and science paper on Earth. Within a few years, no employment will be safe from immediate replacement by a network of computers. Ones that require physical movements will be safer and will be with us slightly longer because of the initial capital outlay on the robot factories.

The safest people from AI replacement are the personal service industries, such as the sex trade, live music, and farm labourers, because robots cost more. Note, that AI will very soon be able to produce better music and erotic movies online than we can. How the owners of the AI networks and robot owners distribute the wealth is up to them but I doubt it will be equitably.

So expect a move to getting your only income from your wit and charm through your online advert revenue. When computers are already better at it than any human... possibly not.

The outlook looks bleak for paid work... But then they have been saying that since slavery was invented.

We know things will change and change will continue to accelerate. Only deliberately killing the internet can slow that down.

The internet already knows almost all of human knowledge and AI runs it.
So

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 1st, 2024, 2:44 am
My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

AI beats all of us there too.

[adela2024]

the property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is the most sacred and inviolable

[Tibbir]

I do not understand how anyone's labour can be considered their own when it is God's. There is nothing that does not belong to God. Assuming you accept the concept of ownership at all.

If you do not understand or dispute the concept of God, I refer you to one of his principal attributes, his omnipresence, meaning the whole of existence and use that concept instead. You may dispute whether the whole of existence is intelligent but to my mind that is easily proven. The other synonym is love, where loving in the sense of being cooperative and helpful is another meaning I would accept for God, Two separate aspects of the God I believe in.

Property is a human invention that implies ownership when we own nothing. We are merely stewards of existence and should treat it with respect,
which no one does well and most do not even try to do.

Looking at it differently, this figment of our culture's imagination, property, is mainly inherited.

Most of the work done to establish the wealth my life relies on is in ancient institutions, such as the National Health Service and the Bank of England two national institutions from the nation where I reside, the United Kingdom, that make my life infinitely richer than anything I do. The House I live in, the majority of my wealth, was built by a previous generation.

I think, my generation is the first in history where technological advances were enough that many technologies came and went within one lifetime: cassette recorders; video cassettes; even DVDs and CDs are on the wane. So there are some things I own because of the labour of my peers, but they are few and far between.

Even considering that most of my wealth is inherited, without the scientific advances of previous generations, none of those technologies would have been possible.

My labour is owned by those I serve. not me.

I have serious issues with that quote:

he property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is the most sacred and inviolable

At its most concise one ends up with:

The property of a man's labour is most sacred and inviolable.

Which property? Its sweatiness, its fastidiousness, the word property has at least two meanings that could apply
I am taking the latter as the figment of our culture's imagination, ownership, which I understand the quote referred to.

The most sacred thing is God. Both, the whole of existence and love are more sacred than the ownership of a man's labour. So it is certainly not the most sacred.

As mentioned before, a person's labour is owned by his owner. The Roman Empire, The British Empire and the USA were all based on slavery.
A slave's labour is not his own, but his owner's. So that ownership is very easily violated so the second clause is just wrong.

I am afraid I find that quote nonsense on so many levels.

[Sushan]

"In the U.S., the capitalist economy has fostered unprecedented innovation and economic growth. However, this progress has come with its own set of challenges. The shift from manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy, the rise of automation, and the increasing importance of intellectual property have reshaped how labour is valued. These changes prompt us to question whether the intrinsic value of individual labour, as emphasized by Smith, is still respected and protected in today’s economic systems."
I agree with you and I personally feel like we are approaching a dark world if everything will be automated then what will we do?

You are correct that we are entering an era of increased automation, and it is natural to be concerned about what this means for our roles in society. However, while automation will change the way we work, it does not necessarily mean that there will be nothing left for us to do. We may need to adjust by focusing more on innovation, imagination, and tasks that require a human touch—which machines cannot mimic. It may also result in more time for personal development, learning, and better quality of life. The key will be how we choose to respond to these changes, embracing new opportunities rather than simply fearing the challenges.

[Sushan]

My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

That's an interesting viewpoint! Knowledge is undoubtedly powerful, and being paid for what you know can help you stand out as an expert in your field. But I also believe there is a balance—what you do with that knowledge, how you use it, and the results you produce can be of equal importance. It's the combination of knowing and doing that often leads to real success.

[Sushan]

My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

Unfortunately, the development of AI systems that can replace human input on knowledge-based tasks seems to be progressing - if anything faster - than the development of computer-controlled machines that can replace human dexterity.

All the tasks requiring strength and endurance, without sensitivity/dexterity, have been replaced by "dumb" machines a while ago.

But maybe that's only a superficial impression....

Any sci-fi writer can imagine a world in which the machines / robots / AIs can do everything. So that there is no need to employ humans at all. And for such a world to be happy world, the humans there need an economic (or pseudo-economic) system significantly different from the one we had before.

The challenge is that the technological change is gradual...

You've noted a significant challenge associated with the rapid progress of AI and automation. As machines become more capable of performing both physical and knowledge-based work, it's reasonable to wonder where this leaves humans. While it is true that this shift in technology pushes us to reevaluate our economic systems and the role of human labour, I believe it also allows us to focus more on the things that computers cannot fully imitate. The transition may be gradual and complex, but it does not have to result in a gloomy future. With the correct approach, we may create a society in which technology enhances rather than diminishes human life.

[Sushan]

My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

Unfortunately, the development of AI systems that can replace human input on knowledge-based tasks seems to be progressing - if anything faster - than the development of computer-controlled machines that can replace human dexterity.

All the tasks requiring strength and endurance, without sensitivity/dexterity, have been replaced by "dumb" machines a while ago.

But maybe that's only a superficial impression....

Any sci-fi writer can imagine a world in which the machines / robots / AIs can do everything. So that there is no need to employ humans at all. And for such a world to be happy world, the humans there need an economic (or pseudo-economic) system significantly different from the one we had before.

The challenge is that the technological change is gradual...

Well his advice (still valid) was about quality of worklife but mainly compensation. As to job security (from being replaced by machines), two things: first, a lot of the jobs that are going to go away are those that didn't even exist in the 60s (when he gave the advice), specifically those that involve manipulation and/or evaluation of digital data. Secondly, AI is known for having miles wide yet millimeters deep "understanding" of information. Thus if errors from mistakes within the task carries no important downside corporations can let the AI run wild until errors are brought to their attention. OTOH if there are significant consequences to errormaking, there needs to be a human "overseer" to limit legal liability. For example computers have been able to "read" EKGs for decades and X-rays for years, but they need to be "reread" by a cardiologist or radiologist. To be honest, folks in those two fields would gladly give up those (somewhat boring and less lucrative) tasks to do other things.

I completely agree with the comments you have made. The repetitive jobs that require more physical effort than intellectual involvement are the first to be replaced by AI. However, since AI evolves at a rapid pace, it is not unreasonable to expect that jobs requiring greater cognitive skills will someday be within AI's reach. While there is no reason to feel anxious, it is wise to stay cautious and keep a watch on these developments.

Furthermore, as AI gets more integrated into various industries, our legal frameworks—which were originally developed with humans in mind—will need to be changed. This includes thinking about accountability, responsibility, and ethics in the usage of AI. As we move forward, adapting our laws to reflect these changes will be crucial in managing the impact of AI on society.

[Sushan]

the property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is the most sacred and inviolable

This is one of the most violated sources of wealth in history, slavery has stolen this wealth from workers for millennia,
Many reckon that there are far more slaves around today than ever before because the world's population has over quadrupled in the last century.

As a second point on a related topic, Artificial Intelligence could have replaced my job almost a decade ago except the IT industry has been trying to keep their jobs by slowing AI's progress down as much as possible. Now AI can read and understand English and almost every other language. Computers have access to every news article and science paper on Earth. Within a few years, no employment will be safe from immediate replacement by a network of computers. Ones that require physical movements will be safer and will be with us slightly longer because of the initial capital outlay on the robot factories.

The safest people from AI replacement are the personal service industries, such as the sex trade, live music, and farm labourers, because robots cost more. Note, that AI will very soon be able to produce better music and erotic movies online than we can. How the owners of the AI networks and robot owners distribute the wealth is up to them but I doubt it will be equitably.

So expect a move to getting your only income from your wit and charm through your online advert revenue. When computers are already better at it than any human... possibly not.

The outlook looks bleak for paid work... But then they have been saying that since slavery was invented.

We know things will change and change will continue to accelerate. Only deliberately killing the internet can slow that down.

The internet already knows almost all of human knowledge and AI runs it.
So

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 1st, 2024, 2:44 am
My dad's advice (when I was a small child) is still valid: don't get paid for what you do, get paid for what you know.

AI beats all of us there too.

I completely agree with your points on slavery and economic disparities. The history of slavery is indeed one of the most extreme examples of wealth being unjustly extracted from workers. Unfortunately, the underlying issues of exploitation and inequality have persisted throughout history, and they aren’t solely linked to AI or any single technological advancement. As long as there is human greed, disparities in wealth and power will continue, regardless of the tools or technologies in play. Additionally, the fear of job loss due to technological progress is not new. Every major technological shift, from the Industrial Revolution to the rise of computers, has triggered anxiety about job security. However, AI's rapid growth has intensified these concerns, making them more pressing than ever before.

That said, I respectfully disagree with the idea that jobs requiring physical strength will outlast those requiring cognitive abilities. AI still has a long way to go before it can truly match the complexity of the human brain. On the other hand, training AI to perform physical tasks is a simpler challenge. With companies recognizing the long-term savings of reducing their workforce, they are likely to invest the necessary capital in AI-driven automation of physical tasks as well. In short, both types of jobs could be at risk, and the impact will vary depending on the industry and the pace of technological development.

[Sushan]

the property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is the most sacred and inviolable

Sorry, but it appears like your response was cut off midway. Could you please repost the entire response? When you do, I'll delete this incomplete version. Thank you.

[Sushan]

I do not understand how anyone's labour can be considered their own when it is God's. There is nothing that does not belong to God. Assuming you accept the concept of ownership at all.

If you do not understand or dispute the concept of God, I refer you to one of his principal attributes, his omnipresence, meaning the whole of existence and use that concept instead. You may dispute whether the whole of existence is intelligent but to my mind that is easily proven. The other synonym is love, where loving in the sense of being cooperative and helpful is another meaning I would accept for God, Two separate aspects of the God I believe in.

Property is a human invention that implies ownership when we own nothing. We are merely stewards of existence and should treat it with respect,
which no one does well and most do not even try to do.

Looking at it differently, this figment of our culture's imagination, property, is mainly inherited.

Most of the work done to establish the wealth my life relies on is in ancient institutions, such as the National Health Service and the Bank of England two national institutions from the nation where I reside, the United Kingdom, that make my life infinitely richer than anything I do. The House I live in, the majority of my wealth, was built by a previous generation.

I think, my generation is the first in history where technological advances were enough that many technologies came and went within one lifetime: cassette recorders; video cassettes; even DVDs and CDs are on the wane. So there are some things I own because of the labour of my peers, but they are few and far between.

Even considering that most of my wealth is inherited, without the scientific advances of previous generations, none of those technologies would have been possible.

My labour is owned by those I serve. not me.

I have serious issues with that quote:

he property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is the most sacred and inviolable

At its most concise one ends up with:

The property of a man's labour is most sacred and inviolable.

Which property? Its sweatiness, its fastidiousness, the word property has at least two meanings that could apply
I am taking the latter as the figment of our culture's imagination, ownership, which I understand the quote referred to.

The most sacred thing is God. Both, the whole of existence and love are more sacred than the ownership of a man's labour. So it is certainly not the most sacred.

As mentioned before, a person's labour is owned by his owner. The Roman Empire, The British Empire and the USA were all based on slavery.
A slave's labour is not his own, but his owner's. So that ownership is very easily violated so the second clause is just wrong.

I am afraid I find that quote nonsense on so many levels.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I noticed a few points in your response that seem contradictory and could use some clarification.

Firstly, you mention that all labour and property belong to God, which suggests that individual ownership is an illusion since everything is ultimately God's. However, you also discuss how a slave's labour is owned by their owner, implying that ownership can indeed be human and not divine. This appears to contradict your earlier assertion that nothing truly belongs to anyone but God.

Moreover, the concept of God owning everything while simultaneously humans—or even entire societies—lay claim to ownership (such as in the case of slavery) raises a significant question about the nature of ownership itself. If we accept that God owns everything (It's worth noting that beliefs about God or divine ownership are deeply personal and can vary widely.), then human claims to ownership, whether over property or labour, would seem to be fundamentally flawed or even meaningless.