7 ms·

I don't think we can halt progress just because it negatively impacts some people. At the same time you are right that it is "not only a force for good" and the

I don't think we can halt progress just because it negatively impacts some people. At the same time you are right that it is "not only a force for good" and there are things that can be done to mitigate that negativity. I think this is an appeal to entrepreneurs do to just that

dukeluke 10y ago
When "progress" continually lowers wages of the lower class and concentrates power to fewer and fewer people, I think the way of doing things needs to be reevaluated.
- ryanworl 10y ago
  Technology provides massive amounts of consumer surplus and deflation. What if we need less money and lower wages are actually fine? Edit: Do the people down-voting this actually think technology doesn't provide consumer surplus and deflation? Or do you have a problem with my question?
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up.
    - ryanworl 10y ago
      That's not what I'm getting at. I'm referring to technology specifically. Cost of living is dictated predominantly by the cost of housing, healthcare, education, and food. Food cost as a % of income has decreased significantly since 1960 according to the USDA [1]. Technology and globalization have impacted food a lot. Education, and housing? Not nearly as much. Healthcare is more complicated, and I'm not an expert, so I'll refrain from speculating there. One might argue globalization has hurt people, but so far, technology seems to be making just about everything it touches cheaper for everyone. [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...
      - dukeluke 10y ago
        The problem is that the benefits of globalization are offset by the centralization of the remaining jobs, and is adding to the inequality seen in America. There are some parts of the country doing fantastic, but a lot of the Midwest is seeing lower wages, fewer jobs, and a lower quality of life.
        kmicklas 10y ago
        That's largely a false narrative.
        dukeluke 10y ago
        What do you mean by this? What did I say that was false?
        kmicklas 10y ago
        You're right that certain parts of the country have been hit hard by automation and globalization but the idea that the hard hit people are the Trump voters is not particularly true.
        dukeluke 10y ago
        From what I've read, you are wrong. Of course there are a lot of factors that go into an election, but here's the site that tells me it's definitely a factor: https://econsnapshot.com/2016/11/14/how-trump-won/amp/ https://econsnapshot.com/2016/11/14/how-trump-won/amp/ In the future, if you could provide a source for your argument, it could give more substantive discussion.
      - mdorazio 10y ago
        Yes, but why is it making things cheaper where it touches? Usually it's because it allows production with fewer people or by people with lower wages than before. Thus things get cheaper because some subset of people lose jobs or wages. That's fine as long as those people are able to find new jobs or supplemental income sources (many do), but I think the point here is that it's not a universal benefit. I have to agree with the parent post here - for some portion of people, technology has led to lower wages while cost of living decreases (food, products, etc.) are offset by increases in things you need to lift yourself up (healthcare, education, housing).
    - koolba 10y ago
      > That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up. Bullshit. Technology brings down the cost of living by making the supply side more efficient. What goes up is the cost of the way you'd like to live as you have more options to choose from. Obviously there's disruptions along the way (ex: automobiles lessen demand for horse breeders) but when capitalism closes a door it opens a window (ex: mechanics).
      - IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
        You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded.
        koolba 10y ago
        > You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. I suggest you go do some basic math on the cost of producing consumer staples like rice, beans, milk, and meat. Technology has brought down the cost of all of them. Similarly, efficiency gains in MPG and durability improvements have lowered the price of owning and maintaining a vehicle. Uber, Lyft, and other ride sharing apps have lowered the price of it even further to remove the capital outlay. > The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. Which is bad because why exactly? Is the purpose of the corporate sector to produce goods and services or to provide a place for people to go? > It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded. Sure it is. That's the definition of makes things more efficient: being able to be produced more cheaply
        tabeth 10y ago
        You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty?
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    I downvoted you. My problem with what you said is that you acknowledged that technology creates surplus, but didn't acknowledge that many of the efficiency gains aren't going to the consumer, but to the owners of the company.
    - ryanworl 10y ago
      Technology creates massive consumer surplus. I'm not sure if you don't know what that means, but it means exactly the opposite of what you said. For example: Apple sells an iPhone for about $750. This phone contains the equivalent of (roughly) $3,000 of disparate technology from the 1990s, including a cell phone, camera, tape recorder, etc. Not only does it contain all of that for less money, all of that is better quality than what was available for that $3,000 back in the 1990s. That is deflation and consumer surplus in action. The consumer can spend a fraction of what they would've in 1990 for a better product. Another example: Apps on the App Store. Everyone expects everything for free because there is so much competition enabled by technology. The marginal cost is roughly zero, so most apps are free. If most of the gains were being kept by the producer, apps would cost a lot of money.
      - dukeluke 10y ago
        My previous post was poorly worded. Technology has automated so many jobs that the oversaturated labor pool means wages are dipping. Cheaper goods don't mean much when you can't afford a house or car. Meanwhile, the investors are reaping the benefits of this efficiency with insane returns, and the CEOs are running off with millions. When we're living in the richest country in the world with a GDP per capita of over $50k, the idea that there are those unemployed or making $8k/yr while others are making millions or billions per year is ridiculous.
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      That's not a good thing to down-vote for, but props for explanation. Down vote for trolls and other destructive posts, not just because you have a problem or disagreement with what's expressed. OP is legitimately trying to contribute to the conversation.
rjkaplan 10y ago
That depends on how you define progress. Just to play devil's advocate: what if you define progress as "that stuff" that will increase the general well-being of the greatest number of people over the next 20 years? With that definition, does technology-powered automation still count as progress?
- eevilspock 10y ago
  It would count as progress if the automated means of production were owned by the labor that is put out of work. Oh wait, that sounds like communism, and we could never ever have a reasonable discussion about that amongst a group of people who thrive off of a system that is the opposite.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    I'm down-voting you, here's why: Instead of claiming that we can't have that discussion, why not try to have that discussion?
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      Okay, I'll bite. How do the workers so recently unemployed by the automated machines gain ownership of those machines in a way that does not entirely remove the incentive for building them?
      - RangerScience 10y ago
        Something of a loaded question, but more, a super hard question. Your question is loaded because it assumes that ownership of such machines is the best solution for those made unemployed by them - I think this is probably flawed, because management is a different skill set than direct contribution. The problem is that the worker's skills have lost value. They need new skills - management skills for owning the machines, or different skills that haven't been automated yet. Or maybe a refinement on their existing skills. My understanding of Japanese factories is that it's commonplace to have one of the fabrication lines done by people - the thinking goes: "If you do not know how to do it better, how can you make machines do it better?". I also remember a story of, I think it was GE, getting their designers, engineers, and assemblers (the people literally putting the pieces together) all together to improve the design. The assemblers noted a particularly difficult step, and in making that step easier, the engineers removed a number of parts. Everything got better. Let's look at the other part of your question - incentives for building the automation. It seems like the R&D incentive comes from the end-user value, so let's skip to that - I want an automated machine for a number of reasons: Quality consistency, up time, wage cost reduction, safety. Eventually, all of these do boil down to "profit", but the routes taken are important. QC means you can sell more and/or charge more; but you could make more and charge less in ways that make more or less profit. I don't think I can answer your question, because I don't know why you think that the incentives for building them would be removed; and in my head, the first blocker for the recently unemployed to own such machines is wanting to run a business. I don't think most people want that.

dukeluke 10y ago

When "progress" continually lowers wages of the lower class and concentrates power to fewer and fewer people, I think the way of doing things needs to be reevaluated.

ryanworl 10y ago
Technology provides massive amounts of consumer surplus and deflation. What if we need less money and lower wages are actually fine? Edit: Do the people down-voting this actually think technology doesn't provide consumer surplus and deflation? Or do you have a problem with my question?
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up.
  - ryanworl 10y ago
    That's not what I'm getting at. I'm referring to technology specifically. Cost of living is dictated predominantly by the cost of housing, healthcare, education, and food. Food cost as a % of income has decreased significantly since 1960 according to the USDA [1]. Technology and globalization have impacted food a lot. Education, and housing? Not nearly as much. Healthcare is more complicated, and I'm not an expert, so I'll refrain from speculating there. One might argue globalization has hurt people, but so far, technology seems to be making just about everything it touches cheaper for everyone. [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...
    - dukeluke 10y ago
      The problem is that the benefits of globalization are offset by the centralization of the remaining jobs, and is adding to the inequality seen in America. There are some parts of the country doing fantastic, but a lot of the Midwest is seeing lower wages, fewer jobs, and a lower quality of life.
      - kmicklas 10y ago
        That's largely a false narrative.
        dukeluke 10y ago
        What do you mean by this? What did I say that was false?
        kmicklas 10y ago
        You're right that certain parts of the country have been hit hard by automation and globalization but the idea that the hard hit people are the Trump voters is not particularly true.
        dukeluke 10y ago
        From what I've read, you are wrong. Of course there are a lot of factors that go into an election, but here's the site that tells me it's definitely a factor: https://econsnapshot.com/2016/11/14/how-trump-won/amp/ https://econsnapshot.com/2016/11/14/how-trump-won/amp/ In the future, if you could provide a source for your argument, it could give more substantive discussion.
    - mdorazio 10y ago
      Yes, but why is it making things cheaper where it touches? Usually it's because it allows production with fewer people or by people with lower wages than before. Thus things get cheaper because some subset of people lose jobs or wages. That's fine as long as those people are able to find new jobs or supplemental income sources (many do), but I think the point here is that it's not a universal benefit. I have to agree with the parent post here - for some portion of people, technology has led to lower wages while cost of living decreases (food, products, etc.) are offset by increases in things you need to lift yourself up (healthcare, education, housing).
  - koolba 10y ago
    > That's easy to say for someone with a good income. For a lot of people wages go down while cost of living goes up. Bullshit. Technology brings down the cost of living by making the supply side more efficient. What goes up is the cost of the way you'd like to live as you have more options to choose from. Obviously there's disruptions along the way (ex: automobiles lessen demand for horse breeders) but when capitalism closes a door it opens a window (ex: mechanics).
    - IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
      You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded.
      - koolba 10y ago
        > You have no idea if you think technology magically brings down prices. Tell that to the 100 million people living in/near poverty in the USA alone. I suggest you go do some basic math on the cost of producing consumer staples like rice, beans, milk, and meat. Technology has brought down the cost of all of them. Similarly, efficiency gains in MPG and durability improvements have lowered the price of owning and maintaining a vehicle. Uber, Lyft, and other ride sharing apps have lowered the price of it even further to remove the capital outlay. > The "efficiency" increases in recent years have more often than not been various ways of cutting labor costs. Which is bad because why exactly? Is the purpose of the corporate sector to produce goods and services or to provide a place for people to go? > It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in a nominal sense if your ability to earn a living is eroded. Sure it is. That's the definition of makes things more efficient: being able to be produced more cheaply
        tabeth 10y ago
        You make fair points, however the cost of living is dictated primarily by: transportation, education, housing and health costs. Has technology made these significantly cheaper for someone in poverty?
- dukeluke 10y ago
  I downvoted you. My problem with what you said is that you acknowledged that technology creates surplus, but didn't acknowledge that many of the efficiency gains aren't going to the consumer, but to the owners of the company.
  - ryanworl 10y ago
    Technology creates massive consumer surplus. I'm not sure if you don't know what that means, but it means exactly the opposite of what you said. For example: Apple sells an iPhone for about $750. This phone contains the equivalent of (roughly) $3,000 of disparate technology from the 1990s, including a cell phone, camera, tape recorder, etc. Not only does it contain all of that for less money, all of that is better quality than what was available for that $3,000 back in the 1990s. That is deflation and consumer surplus in action. The consumer can spend a fraction of what they would've in 1990 for a better product. Another example: Apps on the App Store. Everyone expects everything for free because there is so much competition enabled by technology. The marginal cost is roughly zero, so most apps are free. If most of the gains were being kept by the producer, apps would cost a lot of money.
    - dukeluke 10y ago
      My previous post was poorly worded. Technology has automated so many jobs that the oversaturated labor pool means wages are dipping. Cheaper goods don't mean much when you can't afford a house or car. Meanwhile, the investors are reaping the benefits of this efficiency with insane returns, and the CEOs are running off with millions. When we're living in the richest country in the world with a GDP per capita of over $50k, the idea that there are those unemployed or making $8k/yr while others are making millions or billions per year is ridiculous.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    That's not a good thing to down-vote for, but props for explanation. Down vote for trolls and other destructive posts, not just because you have a problem or disagreement with what's expressed. OP is legitimately trying to contribute to the conversation.

rjkaplan 10y ago

That depends on how you define progress. Just to play devil's advocate: what if you define progress as "that stuff" that will increase the general well-being of the greatest number of people over the next 20 years? With that definition, does technology-powered automation still count as progress?

eevilspock 10y ago
It would count as progress if the automated means of production were owned by the labor that is put out of work. Oh wait, that sounds like communism, and we could never ever have a reasonable discussion about that amongst a group of people who thrive off of a system that is the opposite.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I'm down-voting you, here's why: Instead of claiming that we can't have that discussion, why not try to have that discussion?
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Okay, I'll bite. How do the workers so recently unemployed by the automated machines gain ownership of those machines in a way that does not entirely remove the incentive for building them?
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      Something of a loaded question, but more, a super hard question. Your question is loaded because it assumes that ownership of such machines is the best solution for those made unemployed by them - I think this is probably flawed, because management is a different skill set than direct contribution. The problem is that the worker's skills have lost value. They need new skills - management skills for owning the machines, or different skills that haven't been automated yet. Or maybe a refinement on their existing skills. My understanding of Japanese factories is that it's commonplace to have one of the fabrication lines done by people - the thinking goes: "If you do not know how to do it better, how can you make machines do it better?". I also remember a story of, I think it was GE, getting their designers, engineers, and assemblers (the people literally putting the pieces together) all together to improve the design. The assemblers noted a particularly difficult step, and in making that step easier, the engineers removed a number of parts. Everything got better. Let's look at the other part of your question - incentives for building the automation. It seems like the R&D incentive comes from the end-user value, so let's skip to that - I want an automated machine for a number of reasons: Quality consistency, up time, wage cost reduction, safety. Eventually, all of these do boil down to "profit", but the routes taken are important. QC means you can sell more and/or charge more; but you could make more and charge less in ways that make more or less profit. I don't think I can answer your question, because I don't know why you think that the incentives for building them would be removed; and in my head, the first blocker for the recently unemployed to own such machines is wanting to run a business. I don't think most people want that.