>John says:
>
>For now, I am willing to focus on the individual examples. As I said
>a few posts ago, in the mailing industry I have NEVER seen a machine
>that does not fall into the category of capital-saving and labor-saving
>except those that replaced living labor in an unmechanized industry.
>That is, once the industry began to mechanize and, hence, more
>mechanization meant the replacement of living and dead labor by the
>newer machines, capital-saving is the rule, not the exception.
>
Paul C:
How about the replacement of the 707 by the 747 jet?
The 747 was more expensive both absolutely and relative to the
wages of its crew, but, the wages of the crew relative
to the passengers carried fell.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html