Tuesday, September 01, 2015

A substituição do trabalho por máquinas, de Marx a Stiglitz

The rule of robots in Stiglitz and Marx, por Branko Milanovic:

It is always instructive to speak to Joe Stiglitz. In a conversation in Paris which we had after his talk at the INET conference, he pointed out that the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor greater than 1 (which is often assumed by Piketty in his “Capital in the 21st century”), combined with technological progress which does not fall like manna from heaven but develops in response to the existing factor prices, would lead to an explosive process that would end only with capital owning the entire net income of a country. How?

Suppose that we have a given r (...) and a given wage (w). Suppose also that at this ratio of factor prices, it is profitable to invest in more capital-intensive processes (that is, they reduce unit cost of output). So capitalists will replace labor by capital and K/L and K/output ratios will both increase. Since elasticity of substitution between K and L is greater than 1, r will only slightly decrease while wage will only slightly increase. Although factor prices, being sticky, will not have budged much they would have moved ever slightly further in making capital intensive processes even more attractive. So there would be another round of increased capital investment, and again K/L and K/output will go up with only minimal effects on prices.


This will continue round after round until the entire output is produced practically only by using capital and perhaps just an infinitesimal quantity of labor. Both r and w will remain almost as they were at the beginning, but instead of (say) 100 machines and 100 workers, we will, at the end, have 100 robots and 1 worker. Almost all output will belong to the owners of capital. (...)


But, (...) I thought of something else. Isn’t this in some ways almost the reverse, and in some ways, very similar, to Marx’s process of increased “organic composition of capital” eventually leading to the euthanasia of a capitalist (to use Keynes’ term in a Marxist framework)? In Marx, the assumption is that more capital intensive processes are always more productive. So capitalists just tend to pile more and more capital and replace labor (very similarly to what we have seen they do in the Stiglitz example). This in Marxist framework means that there are fewer and fewer workers who obviously produce less (absolute) surplus value and this smaller surplus value over an increased mass of capital means that the rate of profit goes down.

The result is identical if we set this Marxist process in a neoclassical framework and assume that the elasticity of substitution is less than 1. Then, simply, r shoots down in every successive round of capital-intensive investments until it practically reaches zero. As Marx writes, every individual capitalist has an interest to invest in more capital-intensive processes in order to undersell other capitalists, but when they all do that, the rate of profits decreases for all. They thus work ultimately to drive themselves “out of business” (more exactly they drive themselves to a zero rate of profit).

What are the similarities and differences between the two outcomes? In both cases, labor will be replaced by capital to an extreme degree, so in both cases, production will be conducted mostly by robots. Employment will be negligible. In Marx, the ultimate equilibrium would be with r at almost zero, and wage (by assumption in Marx) at the subsistence—with of course a huge “reserve army of the unemployed”. In the Stiglitz case, capitalists will end up with an unchanged r and with pocketing the entire net product. In the Stiglitz equilibrium, that sole remaining worker will have a higher wage, but again, no one else would be employed.

Ainda sobre este tema - Revisitando a "quebra tendencial da taxa de lucro"

1 comment:

João Vasco said...

Ele diz que talvez tenha percebido mal a ideia do Stiglitz, e parece-me que percebeu mesmo.

Ele assume que ao automatizar ele está ao mesmo tempo a aumentar o desemprego e a aumentar os salários, mas as duas coisas dificilmente aconteceriam em simultâneo.
Eu percebo que a automação poderia aumentar o salário por aumentar a produtividade marginal do trabalho, mas isso acontece num mundo de desemprego residual, em que os capitalistas estão dispostos a pagar um valor "no máximo" igual à produtividade marginal para apanhar aquele último trabalhador, e como estão a competir por ele, acabam por pagar-lhe isso (aquele que fizer a oferta mais próxima ganha a diferença, o que resulta numa oferta que é virtualmente essa). Mas se estamos a assumir que a automação gera desemprego, esse raciocínio cai pela base. Aí os trabalhadores aceitariam o nível de subsistência, porque é melhor que passar fome, e os empregadores não precisariam de pagar mais porque existiriam sempre trabalhadores disponíveis.
Claro que supostamente a coisa não ficaria por aí: a redução de salários aumentaria a rentabilidade do capital, levando supostamente a mais emprego, e os salários lá subiriam. Mas nesse caso (cuja plausibilidade podemos questionar!) não se tem o tal cenário de só um trabalhador a ganhar balúrdios.
E nem precisamos de fazer todos estes raciocínios: devia ser imediato que tal cenário é absurdo. Se só existe um trabalhador a ganhar balúrdios, todos os outros estão dispostos a trabalhar por menos.

Posto isto, esta questão - o impacto da automação no emprego - merece bastante reflexão, e profunda. A revolução industrial foi uma brincadeira de crianças ao pé do que está aí ao virar da esquina.
E sem a força dos sindicatos (que hoje são uma sombra do passado) para restringir a oferta de trabalho com fins de semana, férias, limites horários semanais, etc. mesmo a revolução industrial manter-se-ia um verdadeiro desastre para todos.
Vamos ver como é que nos vamos safar desta...