John wrote in [OPE-L:3277]:
> I, agreeing with Marx, am saying that the advances are both labor saving
> and capital saving. If you are claiming that any of the examples you
> listed differ, I'd like to see some numbers.
The examples I gave in #3271 were of branches of production "where
labor-saving forms of technical change are common." There is plenty of
empirical evidence in the field of industrial organization to support the
proposition that where technical change in means of production are
occurring in most branches of production, they are *most frequently*
labor-saving. I can provide sources at another time if you are interested.
It might be helpful to recall that what I was responding to in #3271 was
your #3269. There you wrote:
> I have no doubt that there is considerable macroeconomic evidence
> for this pattern. However, there is scant evidence on the micro
> level in the period of large scale industry. <snip>
I believe that my posts #3271 and #3275 spoke to the question of whether
there was "scant" evidence on the micro level.
> 1. I work with printers and folks in the mailing industry. I have
> yet to see or hear of anyone selling a machine or a set of machinery
> that does not increase output more than the increase in the investment.
#3275 explained why the mailing industry can be viewed as abnormal.
> To be sure, this is only one small part of the economy.
> Yet, when I asked for examples of these types of investments, only you
> Michael P. , and Paul C. responded.
Now I have as well.
> I do not mean to dismiss Michael's, Paul's or your examples as
> insignificant. But I do think if we are to even suggest that
> investment takes place on the micro level that immediately
> conforms to the "Marx-biased" pattern on the macro level,
> more examples should would be forthcoming.
Now you have them.
In Solidarity,
Jerry