The machine only outputs the value you put into it, since it’s constant capital. 5G worth of raw materials produces 5G worth of transformed material. 10G produces 10G, etc. You can make your machines faster and more efficient but they will still output exactly what you put into them, hence the rate of profit falls because 5G for 1 item suddenly turns into 3G, then 2G, then 1G as technology progresses. But the machine will still output 3G of transformed material for 3G of raw material (constant capital).
The human worker on the other hand is paid the same for producing more. Hence if it costs 10G to produce one item, you might reasonably think “oh then if I double production, I will be paying 20G per item produced!” but no, it costs you only 19G – the human is still paid 1G whether he produces one item, two items, or three items. Therein lies profit, the value created by human labour which we call surplus value.
The machine only outputs the value you put into it, since it’s constant capital. 5G worth of raw materials produces 5G worth of transformed material. 10G produces 10G, etc. You can make your machines faster and more efficient but they will still output exactly what you put into them
the machine will still output 3G of transformed material for 3G of raw material
But if this is the case, then what good are machines at all? If they only output the same value that went into them, then wouldn’t that make them entirely superfluous? I can understand that human labor is always required in addition to any machine, but surely machines still do increase the value of the material input? And more so the more efficient you make that machine, otherwise what would it even mean to make it more efficient?
its a simplified example, where the boss of the worker can barely break even and depends on the surplus he gets from waged labor to make a profit, machines let the worker make more product in less time, which means, for less wage and gives him more surplus
in the case the machinery would let the worker make 100 chairs for 1g instead of 2, then the exchange value for 100 chairs would go from 950g to 901g and the time to produce them would go from 50 days to just 1
EDIT: if the change of machinery is sudden then the boss can get away with still selling 2 chairs for 19g and have 49g as surplus a DAY, until market pressures take his surplus away
if the worker was eliminated you could cut time shorter and shorter but not reduce cost through wage labor, and in a saturated market competition would barely let you break even
The machine increases the exploitation of the worker by reducing the amount of labor hours it takes to make a thing.
For a simple example suppose holes in the ground have a value, if a capitalist pays a worker to dig holes and the worker can dig 1 hole an hour with a shovel but 2 with an excavator then while paying for the same 1 hour of work the worker will create twice the value for the capitalist.
But really the distinction is mostly semantic and it doesn’t matter much whether Marx was right and the machines create no value or some other economists were right and it takes machines/tools as well as labor to create value hardly matter because either way the capitalist brings nothing to the table.
They’re good for us as consumers as they make things cheaper and they’re good for socialism as they reduce the amount of labor needed overall. As for the price (price being different than value), it lags behind a little bit. When the machine turns 5G of materials into 5G of product, the price may still be 7G for a time. But eventually it stabilises towards its actual exchange value. It’ll go down to 6G, then 5G as capitalists try to find an angle to sell more of their products. Then a better machine needs only 4G of material to make one item and the cycle repeats.
This assumes the machine does everything with 0 human labor which even today doesn’t exist, even automated machines need someone to calibrate them the first time around. The worker is paid 1G per day no matter how much he produces so less expensive machines that process 4G of raw materials instead of 5G are still interesting. 5 products in a day at 5G means you pay 26G (5x5 + 1 in salary). 5 products at 4G means expenses of 21G, 4G suddenly appeared as profit because the worker is still only being paid 1G for his day of work.
I forgot to mention wear and tear on the machine in my earlier explanation (fuel, repairs, depreciation and cost of acquiring the machine etc). It’s in the panel (the 10G in constant capital) on top of the cost of raw materials.
With this wear and tear, the machine passes on a little bit of its own value to the item it produces. Because it was created by human labor, it transfers its own pre-existing value into the commodities it outputs – transferring implies that it’s lost from the machine and gained into the item.
Human labor, however, can generate more value than it consumes - the 1G paid to the worker to socially reproduce and come back to work the next day, with which he produces 2 or more chairs.
Is it because you can’t underpay a machine?
The machine only outputs the value you put into it, since it’s constant capital. 5G worth of raw materials produces 5G worth of transformed material. 10G produces 10G, etc. You can make your machines faster and more efficient but they will still output exactly what you put into them, hence the rate of profit falls because 5G for 1 item suddenly turns into 3G, then 2G, then 1G as technology progresses. But the machine will still output 3G of transformed material for 3G of raw material (constant capital).
The human worker on the other hand is paid the same for producing more. Hence if it costs 10G to produce one item, you might reasonably think “oh then if I double production, I will be paying 20G per item produced!” but no, it costs you only 19G – the human is still paid 1G whether he produces one item, two items, or three items. Therein lies profit, the value created by human labour which we call surplus value.
But if this is the case, then what good are machines at all? If they only output the same value that went into them, then wouldn’t that make them entirely superfluous? I can understand that human labor is always required in addition to any machine, but surely machines still do increase the value of the material input? And more so the more efficient you make that machine, otherwise what would it even mean to make it more efficient?
its a simplified example, where the boss of the worker can barely break even and depends on the surplus he gets from waged labor to make a profit, machines let the worker make more product in less time, which means, for less wage and gives him more surplus
in the case the machinery would let the worker make 100 chairs for 1g instead of 2, then the exchange value for 100 chairs would go from 950g to 901g and the time to produce them would go from 50 days to just 1
EDIT: if the change of machinery is sudden then the boss can get away with still selling 2 chairs for 19g and have 49g as surplus a DAY, until market pressures take his surplus away
if the worker was eliminated you could cut time shorter and shorter but not reduce cost through wage labor, and in a saturated market competition would barely let you break even
The machine increases the exploitation of the worker by reducing the amount of labor hours it takes to make a thing.
For a simple example suppose holes in the ground have a value, if a capitalist pays a worker to dig holes and the worker can dig 1 hole an hour with a shovel but 2 with an excavator then while paying for the same 1 hour of work the worker will create twice the value for the capitalist.
But really the distinction is mostly semantic and it doesn’t matter much whether Marx was right and the machines create no value or some other economists were right and it takes machines/tools as well as labor to create value hardly matter because either way the capitalist brings nothing to the table.
They’re good for us as consumers as they make things cheaper and they’re good for socialism as they reduce the amount of labor needed overall. As for the price (price being different than value), it lags behind a little bit. When the machine turns 5G of materials into 5G of product, the price may still be 7G for a time. But eventually it stabilises towards its actual exchange value. It’ll go down to 6G, then 5G as capitalists try to find an angle to sell more of their products. Then a better machine needs only 4G of material to make one item and the cycle repeats.
This assumes the machine does everything with 0 human labor which even today doesn’t exist, even automated machines need someone to calibrate them the first time around. The worker is paid 1G per day no matter how much he produces so less expensive machines that process 4G of raw materials instead of 5G are still interesting. 5 products in a day at 5G means you pay 26G (5x5 + 1 in salary). 5 products at 4G means expenses of 21G, 4G suddenly appeared as profit because the worker is still only being paid 1G for his day of work.
I don’t see how this could be the case, if a machine can perform the same type and amount of labour as a human what’s the difference?
I forgot to mention wear and tear on the machine in my earlier explanation (fuel, repairs, depreciation and cost of acquiring the machine etc). It’s in the panel (the 10G in constant capital) on top of the cost of raw materials.
With this wear and tear, the machine passes on a little bit of its own value to the item it produces. Because it was created by human labor, it transfers its own pre-existing value into the commodities it outputs – transferring implies that it’s lost from the machine and gained into the item.
Human labor, however, can generate more value than it consumes - the 1G paid to the worker to socially reproduce and come back to work the next day, with which he produces 2 or more chairs.