3 ms·
> Ultimately, diminishing returns with respect to human labor–what some of us would call falling inflation-adjusted wages of non-elite workers–tends to bring ec
by danmaz74 11y ago
> Ultimately, diminishing returns with respect to human labor–what some of us would call falling inflation-adjusted wages of non-elite workers–tends to bring economies down.
The article doesn't show at all that there are diminishing returns from human labor. What we have, instead, is that even if technology is making labor ever more productive, these gains in productivity are going more and more towards companies and investors (mostly thanks to the competition from Chinese laborers) instead of (western) non-elite workers. Just look at the big fat profits of most big companies.
The article is thought provoking, but as it usually happens when trying to find a simple explanation to complex phenomena, it doesn't stand to deeper scrutiny.
- danbruc 11y ago[...] these gains in productivity are going more and more towards companies and investors (mostly thanks to the competition from Chinese laborers) instead of (western) non-elite workers. This seems illogic to me - if you have to compete with cheap labour you have to cut your costs in one way or another, pay less to your work force, make them more efficient, accept smaller profits or what have you. Putting more money - in absolute terms - into the pockets of the capitalists only makes it harder for you to remain competitive. Therefore I could at best see that capitalists receive a larger share of the cake in relative terms but not in absolute terms due to competition with cheap labour.
- danmaz74 11y agoIt's not the "capitalists" that have to compete with cheap labour, it's the labourers. Big brands can move their production where cheap labour is, keep their prices up, and pocket higher profits. This won't work forever, but it works for now.
- tamana 11y agoYou are making arbitrary choices as to which people get the credit for productivity that is generated by machines not people.