Rerum Novarum 19, "each needs the other" as diminishingly relevant

  • Thread starter Thread starter HumbleIOughtToBe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HumbleIOughtToBe

Guest
“… Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body … Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.”
-RERUM NOVARUM 19
Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891) | LEO XIII
Click to expand...
That statement assumes one can not gain capital without large quantities of labor. The very nature of the game today is to make the laborer irrelevant.

Sources from all political sides​



Url: Automation could kill up to 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030| Latest News Videos | Fox News
“Further, we have done too little to help American citizens who have been disproportionately impacted by automation…” -Trade | Senator Mitt Romney
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lots of people around here on the roads during rush hour going to and from work. Maybe it will be irrelevant one day, but not yet.
 
This is not a proposal that it is fully outdated rather when the experts are agreed (on the issue pertaining to automation reducing the need of the laborer), disagreeing is not wise, experts from both political parties (Mitt Romney to Andrew Yang) (Fox News to Vox) are agreed.

Edited to clarify.
 
Last edited:
Mitt Romney and Andrew Yang said that RN 19 was outdated and irrelevant?
 
Last edited:
I disagree. A well paid laborer is the person who purchases the products and services that a business makes profit off of. You take away the purchasing power of the bulk of the people, and sooner or later, you find that it hits those short-sighted companies on their bottom line too. Sure, it will take longer for capital to take the hit, but that supply without demand model cannot last forever.
 
There’s probably another document that would be better for addressing the price we pay for efficiency and the ethical questions involved in all that.

This scope of this paragraph seems more limited.
 
I have been hearing this same sort of rhetoric my whole life. Automation changes the nature and type of labor. I does not eliminate the need for labor. If it moves too fast, then too many are hurt. But mostly, automation requires learning different skills, and usually results in a higher standard of living for all.

But none of that really has to do with Rerum Novarum. Whatever labor is needed, even if it is a lot less for a given industry, will still best work in cooperation with capital.
 
Here are two proposals from this source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dwgjcp/but_whos_going_to_buy_the_product
“No, they’ll pay the robots and the robots will buy stuff. Haven’t you seen Blade Runner 2049?”
Click to expand...
“Capitalists don’t care if automation hurts the buying power of workers because every dollar the worker loses is a dollar some shareholder or executive gains.
Businesses adapt by selling more products to the wealthy, and profits stay high.”
Click to expand...
 
Robots don’t buy anything. You cannot fully automate industry and charge for goods. To whom would you sell?
HumbleIOughtToBe said:
That statement assumes one can not gain capital without large quantities of labor.
Click to expand...
Also where did the word large come from?
 
Neither of these are rational.

Paying AI defeats the purpose of having automation… and the idea is dumb.

A small number of wealthy people are only going to buy in amounts they can utilize themselves. They cannot make up for high demand with high prices.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top