4 ms·

> Because profits go up, but wages are stagnant. Corporations are increasingly cutting benefits, pensions, and treating employees as contractors and outsourcing

> Because profits go up, but wages are stagnant. Corporations are increasingly cutting benefits, pensions, and treating employees as contractors and outsourcing. Millennials today are poorer than their parents were. This is the age we live in, profit maximization over everything else. The rich got richer, but the middle class and poor haven't seen any of these gains. Why should anyone believe that anything would change otherwise? CPI (a measure of living cost--note that living standards increase)-adjusted hourly wages have increased 8% in the past decade. That's not that good, but we're looking at one of the richest countries in the world. But PPP (measure of purchasing power) adjusted GNI per capita in the U.S. has increased by 25% in the past decade. If you look at India (where huge portion of the world lives), PPP adjusted GNI per capita has doubled from 2003-2013. You'll probably retort "that's just numbers", but I live in India ;) Similarly PPP adjusted GNI per capita has increased greatly in most poor countries. > This is the age we live in, profit maximization over everything else. In which age people don't want more money? Corporations are owned by shareholder who are people who want to make more money like everybody. Obviously, they will profit maximize. > If the only jobs available are low paying with terrible conditions, then that's not a society you want to live in. You misunderstood my point; I mean that automation increases real wages thus creating jobs. > Its convenient to hide behind the economic theories Haha, the good ol' economist bashing. Those stupid eCONomists with their statist-tricks who just play around with graphs. /s Kind of ironical when you hear HNers talk about supporting science w.r.t climate change but when it's economics suddenly many are the opposite. I guess people only support science when it confirms their priors. Economics is a real science just like physics, mathematics, etc. Papers are published with statistical rigor and empirical testing. Indeed, economics is complex and counter-intuitive because the world isn't simple.

coralreef 10y ago
Actually my bachelor's is in economics, I'm not against it, nor am I against technology. Economics is a study of the behavior of people, and people aren't numbers, so there is a bit of an art to it (but that's another discussion). What we mean is you can't just use the theory and assume the world will happily follow it. In the US, real wages and purchasing power have been falling: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... Places like China and India have obviously gained the most because their industrialization is just now. Like another comment said, societies aren't just lines on a graph, they can only handle so much change at once. Its important to think about the people being affected, rather than just assume they fall into place.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > In the US, real wages and purchasing power have been falling Where did you get the idea that real wages are falling? Even that graph seems to contradict what you're saying. I used BLS data to compute an 8% increase in hourly wages CPI (cost of living)-adjusted from 2007 to 2017. > Economics is a study of the behavior of people, and people aren't numbers Yes, but that's useless. Atoms aren't numbers but we model them with numbers. You can't do anything with an abstract notion of "person". > What we mean is you can't just use the theory and assume the world will happily follow it. You haven't said why the theory is wrong. You can say the exact same thing about evolution. "You can't just use the theory of evolution and assume the world will happily follow it." > rather than just assume they fall into place. I'm not assuming they fall in place; I'm giving reasons why they will benefit in the long-term. With regards to the original submission, see https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uo9p3/bill_gates_the_robot_that_takes_your_job_should/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uo9p3/bill_g... and https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uoowk/beating_a_dead_humans_are_horses_robots_dont_pay/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uoowk/beatin... .

coralreef 10y ago

Actually my bachelor's is in economics, I'm not against it, nor am I against technology. Economics is a study of the behavior of people, and people aren't numbers, so there is a bit of an art to it (but that's another discussion). What we mean is you can't just use the theory and assume the world will happily follow it. In the US, real wages and purchasing power have been falling: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... Places like China and India have obviously gained the most because their industrialization is just now. Like another comment said, societies aren't just lines on a graph, they can only handle so much change at once. Its important to think about the people being affected, rather than just assume they fall into place.

witty_username 10y ago
> In the US, real wages and purchasing power have been falling Where did you get the idea that real wages are falling? Even that graph seems to contradict what you're saying. I used BLS data to compute an 8% increase in hourly wages CPI (cost of living)-adjusted from 2007 to 2017. > Economics is a study of the behavior of people, and people aren't numbers Yes, but that's useless. Atoms aren't numbers but we model them with numbers. You can't do anything with an abstract notion of "person". > What we mean is you can't just use the theory and assume the world will happily follow it. You haven't said why the theory is wrong. You can say the exact same thing about evolution. "You can't just use the theory of evolution and assume the world will happily follow it." > rather than just assume they fall into place. I'm not assuming they fall in place; I'm giving reasons why they will benefit in the long-term. With regards to the original submission, see https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uo9p3/bill_gates_the_robot_that_takes_your_job_should/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uo9p3/bill_g... and https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uoowk/beating_a_dead_humans_are_horses_robots_dont_pay/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/5uoowk/beatin... .