3 ms·

Minimum wage is fine but it does not solve the actual problem of technology decreasing the value of each worker in most of those fields. A better solution woul

Minimum wage is fine but it does not solve the actual problem of technology decreasing the value of each worker in most of those fields. A better solution would be UBI since it actually deals with the issue that MW is claiming to solve (but doesn't)

dredmorbius 11y ago
Technology, by increasing per-worker productivity, should increase labour value. (Mind: I said "labour value", not "labour compensation". There's a difference.) Technology that decreases value of workers isn't technology, at least in the economic term (Solow) which sees it as an increase in productivity not accounted for by capital or labour directly (the Solow Residual). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow_residual https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow_residual
- YokoZar 11y ago
  There is certainly technology that substitutes many cheap (low-skill) workers for a few individually more expensive ones. The value to the business of the labor would increase, and on average "labor value" would be higher, but it would be different people's labor having more value. At the same time, all else equal this would reduce the relative demand for the low-skilled worker, leading to a fall in the competitive wage they could get. So, yes, "technology" should increase productivity and thus mean "labor value", but individuals can definitely lose out.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Note what you just referenced. You're replacing low cost labour for high cost labour, but increasing the value of that labour. Cost is what you give up for something. Value is what you get for it. Price is what you pay on the market. They're three distinct concepts. Much economic confusion results from it. (And yes, there are some who describe "value" as "market value", which I refer to as price. See though "economic value.)
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Depends on you definition of labour. The workers labour is playing a decreasing role in productivity so their value is decreasing compared to the growing value of technology. In other words technology and humans are in competition with each other too and ultimately technology will win most jobs.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>It does not solve the actual problem of technology decreasing the value of each worker in most of those fields. Technology doesn't reduce the value of workers, it just shifts the nature of work required. Austerity and outsourcing reduce the overall level of demand for workers. Technology is promoted as the scapegoat for austerity and trade deals because of the desire to shape public opinion such that anti-austerians / trade reformers (hard to dismiss) are seen as luddites (easy to dismiss).
- ThomPete 11y ago
  The luddite fallacy is a fallacy in itself. It's only easy to dismiss because you choose to ignore the very reality you live in. Jobs are moving two ways. For a smaller and smaller part of the population wages are going up, for the rest it's going down. This is in big parts because technology has pushed the need for people to do jobs out. When automated cars become a reality not only uber drivers but truck drivers (the most common job in the US) is going to be out of jobs. Where are they going to go when most of those jobs are going to be obsolete? You must be able to point to something now. Not just claim that we are going to find someting for them to do. They don't have the time to get re-educated to learn any of the skills that are required for the jobs that are left. The problem with all you techno-optimists is that you don't understand that technology is a competitor not just and aid to humans and that it progresses exponentially not just linearly. The horses didn't find new jobs after the car replaced them. Technology is increasingly competing not just with our muscle but with our brains. So yes technology actually decreases the value of the worker by making them less and less useful for the production output. What it doesn't do is reduce the value of the work needed to get done but this will now be back in the hands of those who own the capital. Reality speaks for itself. Structural unemployement is increasing, the actual wages one can make doing any one jobs is for most decreasing and for those it's increasing the amount of people who can actually do it is decreasing.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >Reality speaks for itself. If you were listening to reality instead projecting you wouldn't be hyperventilating over a product which is currently vaporware (driverless cars). >The horses didn't find new jobs after the car replaced them. Horse riders did. The London Cabbie organisation predates cars. >The problem with all you techno-optimists Uh... you're the techno optimist... not me. I still think human labor has value that can't be replicated.

dredmorbius 11y ago

Technology, by increasing per-worker productivity, should increase labour value. (Mind: I said "labour value", not "labour compensation". There's a difference.) Technology that decreases value of workers isn't technology, at least in the economic term (Solow) which sees it as an increase in productivity not accounted for by capital or labour directly (the Solow Residual). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow_residual https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow_residual

YokoZar 11y ago
There is certainly technology that substitutes many cheap (low-skill) workers for a few individually more expensive ones. The value to the business of the labor would increase, and on average "labor value" would be higher, but it would be different people's labor having more value. At the same time, all else equal this would reduce the relative demand for the low-skilled worker, leading to a fall in the competitive wage they could get. So, yes, "technology" should increase productivity and thus mean "labor value", but individuals can definitely lose out.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Note what you just referenced. You're replacing low cost labour for high cost labour, but increasing the value of that labour. Cost is what you give up for something. Value is what you get for it. Price is what you pay on the market. They're three distinct concepts. Much economic confusion results from it. (And yes, there are some who describe "value" as "market value", which I refer to as price. See though "economic value.)
ThomPete 11y ago
Depends on you definition of labour. The workers labour is playing a decreasing role in productivity so their value is decreasing compared to the growing value of technology. In other words technology and humans are in competition with each other too and ultimately technology will win most jobs.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>It does not solve the actual problem of technology decreasing the value of each worker in most of those fields. Technology doesn't reduce the value of workers, it just shifts the nature of work required. Austerity and outsourcing reduce the overall level of demand for workers. Technology is promoted as the scapegoat for austerity and trade deals because of the desire to shape public opinion such that anti-austerians / trade reformers (hard to dismiss) are seen as luddites (easy to dismiss).

ThomPete 11y ago
The luddite fallacy is a fallacy in itself. It's only easy to dismiss because you choose to ignore the very reality you live in. Jobs are moving two ways. For a smaller and smaller part of the population wages are going up, for the rest it's going down. This is in big parts because technology has pushed the need for people to do jobs out. When automated cars become a reality not only uber drivers but truck drivers (the most common job in the US) is going to be out of jobs. Where are they going to go when most of those jobs are going to be obsolete? You must be able to point to something now. Not just claim that we are going to find someting for them to do. They don't have the time to get re-educated to learn any of the skills that are required for the jobs that are left. The problem with all you techno-optimists is that you don't understand that technology is a competitor not just and aid to humans and that it progresses exponentially not just linearly. The horses didn't find new jobs after the car replaced them. Technology is increasingly competing not just with our muscle but with our brains. So yes technology actually decreases the value of the worker by making them less and less useful for the production output. What it doesn't do is reduce the value of the work needed to get done but this will now be back in the hands of those who own the capital. Reality speaks for itself. Structural unemployement is increasing, the actual wages one can make doing any one jobs is for most decreasing and for those it's increasing the amount of people who can actually do it is decreasing.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Reality speaks for itself. If you were listening to reality instead projecting you wouldn't be hyperventilating over a product which is currently vaporware (driverless cars). >The horses didn't find new jobs after the car replaced them. Horse riders did. The London Cabbie organisation predates cars. >The problem with all you techno-optimists Uh... you're the techno optimist... not me. I still think human labor has value that can't be replicated.