C. Odisio,
The problem is that saying S/V would rise is essentially tautological and virtually meaningless. The concept of surplus value is defined so that S/V rises in this condition and that is that. It means nothing. It means nothing because "S" is a farcical concept implying inherent labor value which does not exist and a baseline "reproduction" rate which also does not exist or is basically meaningless.
In fact, greater technology is *exactly* like having a fatter wallet to rob since technology, although filtered through exploitative capitalist ownership, has obviously had real, positive effects on the lives of working people. The industrial working class provides better for itself on a per-hour basis than it ever has, and that's obvious. Real wage rates may be constant by some measures but the products wages buy are almost uniformly better and cheaper to make in both man-hours and hard capital expenditures. The ridiculous pseudo-algebra of the LTV is completely unnecessary to show that workers are exploited, ill-defines what exploitation is and predicts crises that have not happened should occur for reasons that are not valid.
The LTV creates an aggrandized conceptual framework around some very simple ideas. It basically suggests that a capitalist economy at classical equilibrium will suffer deflation due to lack of demand. That is a useful observation, so long as one keeps in mind that the presence of an economy at classical equilibrium has yet to be recorded in human history, so far as I know. There really is no reason even to think that anything like equilibrium exists in an economy at all.
Advancing technology is, in my view, the natural state of economic affairs and capitalism chokes off that advancement and constrains it. Advancing technology is not a capitalist ploy to exploit more. Capitalists do all they can to limit and frustrate technological advancement so they can control it. That is why some blithe statement about increasing "S" misses the point entirely.
peace