5 ms·

The problem with the ongoing commoditization of work is that it causes it to lose value. As a result the economy becomes more efficient. However the question is

by jcfrei 11y ago

The problem with the ongoing commoditization of work is that it causes it to lose value. As a result the economy becomes more efficient. However the question is who benefits from this increase in efficiency? It certainly isn't the worker, whose labour becomes cheaper every year (there hasn't been an increase in real wages for over a decade now in the US). The consumer certainly benefits from lower prices. However who arguably benefits the most is - as always - the proprietor of the production factors: ie. Amazon, which supplies the jobs, the technology, owns the storage facilities, etc. Now: As a net result over the whole economy, the efficiency gains achieved with these new work contracts are beneficial. However these gains are unequally distributed between the proprietors (ie. Amazon and it's shareholders) and the employees. While incomes for many employees have stagnated for over a decade, the shareholders of Amazon keep getting richer (https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1443533189007&chddm=1817759&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:AMZN&ntsp=0&ei=hpEKVoHeNIHrsgGsxq3oAQ https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...) creating more inequality. This is why we need a universal basic income policy. To allow everyone at the very least dignified living conditions.

ekianjo 11y ago
> However the question is who benefits from this increase in efficiency? Who benefited from Ford making cars more efficiently ? Their employees as well, since they could buy cars on their own at cheaper prices than the then available cars. Productivity gains improve life for EVERYONE, even the poorer ones. There's so many examples I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make here. Improvements in agriculture make food cheaper as well, which makes it possible for even modest household to have 3 smartphones on top of food of the table, and go on vacation more than 0 times a year. Sometimes when I read comments here, I get the bizarre impression that nobody has noticed the massive increase of purchasing power that society got in the past 100 years. I must be living in a bubble.
- verbin217 11y ago
  Expectations went up too. In proportion to the increase in efficiency. So people's perceptions of their own lives decrease in value. That's just how people work. You can say whatever you want about these absolutes. No one cares and you noted it yourself.
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  That is textbook trickle down economics which we have had for several decades, and look where it got us. We have some of the worst income inequality in the world, if not the worst. http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    Inequality is bullshit. Inequality even starts at birth, what are you going to do about that? the only remedy to inequality as a whole is a Communist Paradise, and God we know that people do not like the idea of everyone being as equally poor as everyone else. Inequality, again, does not matter as long as everyone gets richer, including the poorer ones. Which has been the case. Mass starvations have stopped around the world for like 30 years if you have not noticed, and the only remaining ones are usually due to political or conflict issues. The whole world is getting richer, and that is a Greater Good than worrying about the 1% getting richer faster.
    - TheBeardKing 11y ago
      There are a multitude of things you can do to reduce inequality at birth, from prenatal care to childcare. Statistics show that inequality certainly matters when correlated among other first world countries with social problems such as crime, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, health, etc etc. If you're open to new ideas, I suggest you watch this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        > There are a multitude of things you can do to reduce inequality at birth The most egalitarian folks actually dream of a society where it would be forbidden to have your own children (since it's actually VERY unfair to pass your genes down to the next generation... Smart people get smart kids, that's furthering the gap of inequalities) and let the sacrosanct government take care of human race reproduction and ensure it's genetically fair. I'm not too excited by the idea.
shostack 11y ago
>"However these gains are unequally distributed between the proprietors (ie. Amazon and it's shareholders) and the employees. While incomes for many employees have stagnated for over a decade, the shareholders of Amazon keep getting richer (https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&... https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...) creating more inequality." Do you own any shares in a fund that tracks the S&P 500? Congrats, you too are an Amazon shareholder getting richer at the expense of said employees.

by jcfrei 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago

> However the question is who benefits from this increase in efficiency? Who benefited from Ford making cars more efficiently ? Their employees as well, since they could buy cars on their own at cheaper prices than the then available cars. Productivity gains improve life for EVERYONE, even the poorer ones. There's so many examples I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make here. Improvements in agriculture make food cheaper as well, which makes it possible for even modest household to have 3 smartphones on top of food of the table, and go on vacation more than 0 times a year. Sometimes when I read comments here, I get the bizarre impression that nobody has noticed the massive increase of purchasing power that society got in the past 100 years. I must be living in a bubble.

verbin217 11y ago
Expectations went up too. In proportion to the increase in efficiency. So people's perceptions of their own lives decrease in value. That's just how people work. You can say whatever you want about these absolutes. No one cares and you noted it yourself.
LesZedCB 11y ago
That is textbook trickle down economics which we have had for several decades, and look where it got us. We have some of the worst income inequality in the world, if not the worst. http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/ http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Inequality is bullshit. Inequality even starts at birth, what are you going to do about that? the only remedy to inequality as a whole is a Communist Paradise, and God we know that people do not like the idea of everyone being as equally poor as everyone else. Inequality, again, does not matter as long as everyone gets richer, including the poorer ones. Which has been the case. Mass starvations have stopped around the world for like 30 years if you have not noticed, and the only remaining ones are usually due to political or conflict issues. The whole world is getting richer, and that is a Greater Good than worrying about the 1% getting richer faster.
  - TheBeardKing 11y ago
    There are a multitude of things you can do to reduce inequality at birth, from prenatal care to childcare. Statistics show that inequality certainly matters when correlated among other first world countries with social problems such as crime, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, health, etc etc. If you're open to new ideas, I suggest you watch this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      > There are a multitude of things you can do to reduce inequality at birth The most egalitarian folks actually dream of a society where it would be forbidden to have your own children (since it's actually VERY unfair to pass your genes down to the next generation... Smart people get smart kids, that's furthering the gap of inequalities) and let the sacrosanct government take care of human race reproduction and ensure it's genetically fair. I'm not too excited by the idea.

shostack 11y ago

>"However these gains are unequally distributed between the proprietors (ie. Amazon and it's shareholders) and the employees. While incomes for many employees have stagnated for over a decade, the shareholders of Amazon keep getting richer (https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&... https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...) creating more inequality." Do you own any shares in a fund that tracks the S&P 500? Congrats, you too are an Amazon shareholder getting richer at the expense of said employees.