3 ms·

> As Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management told MIT Technology Review, “Productivity is at record levels, innovation has never

> As Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management told MIT Technology Review, “Productivity is at record levels, innovation has never been faster, and yet at the same time, we have a falling median income and we have fewer jobs. People are falling behind because technology is advancing so fast and our skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.” This may have been true five years ago, but now? The real median income has been going up since 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...). Jobs have been increasing since at least 2009, i.e last recession (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?jt http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?jt). I don't think Brynjolfsson's thesis-- that technology destroys jobs-- is holding up (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-...).

taurath 10y ago
It destroys jobs, and (maybe) creates them elsewhere. This can be devastating to individuals who's jobs are destroyed, and we don't exactly do much to help those left behind who cannot re-skill, move into new jobs etc. Think of a 55 year old factory worker who's job is outsourced. They may have been damn good at that job, but the industry is now gone, replaced with another. They're far enough away from retirement that they need to find something else. Maybe they have commitments like a very elderly parent, ties to a community etc that make it hard or impossible to leave where they are. Those 2 stats don't tell the whole story: Median income can increase simply because the top earners earn a heck of a lot more, while the lesser earners are still earning less. This graph on the page you linked tells that story: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca...) More jobs do not mean jobs that pay as well as previous ones do. They could all be low pay service sector employees to chauffeur the rich people around, or deliver burritos to them at 2AM. We need to look closer at the devastation that an industry leaving a town can have when there are no ready replacements - its been going on for decades but all people seem to care about are "number of jobs" in most cases.
- tshadley 10y ago
  I'm primarily concerned with the facts at the moment; I think once those are known, it becomes easier to understand the big picture. > This graph on the page you linked tells that story: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca...) That graph is misleading because it leaves out benefits and other compensation; a more accurate picture is the graph here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivit... > It destroys jobs, and (maybe) creates them elsewhere. This can be devastating to individuals who's jobs are destroyed, and we don't exactly do much to help those left behind who cannot re-skill, move into new jobs etc. Think of a 55 year old factory worker who's job is outsourced. They may have been damn good at that job, but the industry is now gone, replaced with another. They're far enough away from retirement that they need to find something else. Maybe they have commitments like a very elderly parent, ties to a community etc that make it hard or impossible to leave where they are. This is true, but it is also less severe and less frequent than at any other time in American history. Jobs and wages are increasing over the last five years (since the recession) on the whole, not decreasing. On the whole, Americans are better off than probably at any other time in history. So it is not likely that Americans laid off or outsourced made the most significant impact in this political election, there just aren't enough of them relative to the rest.

taurath 10y ago

It destroys jobs, and (maybe) creates them elsewhere. This can be devastating to individuals who's jobs are destroyed, and we don't exactly do much to help those left behind who cannot re-skill, move into new jobs etc. Think of a 55 year old factory worker who's job is outsourced. They may have been damn good at that job, but the industry is now gone, replaced with another. They're far enough away from retirement that they need to find something else. Maybe they have commitments like a very elderly parent, ties to a community etc that make it hard or impossible to leave where they are. Those 2 stats don't tell the whole story: Median income can increase simply because the top earners earn a heck of a lot more, while the lesser earners are still earning less. This graph on the page you linked tells that story: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca...) More jobs do not mean jobs that pay as well as previous ones do. They could all be low pay service sector employees to chauffeur the rich people around, or deliver burritos to them at 2AM. We need to look closer at the devastation that an industry leaving a town can have when there are no ready replacements - its been going on for decades but all people seem to care about are "number of jobs" in most cases.

tshadley 10y ago
I'm primarily concerned with the facts at the moment; I think once those are known, it becomes easier to understand the big picture. > This graph on the page you linked tells that story: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_ca...) That graph is misleading because it leaves out benefits and other compensation; a more accurate picture is the graph here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivit... > It destroys jobs, and (maybe) creates them elsewhere. This can be devastating to individuals who's jobs are destroyed, and we don't exactly do much to help those left behind who cannot re-skill, move into new jobs etc. Think of a 55 year old factory worker who's job is outsourced. They may have been damn good at that job, but the industry is now gone, replaced with another. They're far enough away from retirement that they need to find something else. Maybe they have commitments like a very elderly parent, ties to a community etc that make it hard or impossible to leave where they are. This is true, but it is also less severe and less frequent than at any other time in American history. Jobs and wages are increasing over the last five years (since the recession) on the whole, not decreasing. On the whole, Americans are better off than probably at any other time in history. So it is not likely that Americans laid off or outsourced made the most significant impact in this political election, there just aren't enough of them relative to the rest.