7 ms·

I have many problems with this analysis, but I'll name the biggest one: the author focuses on increases in value provided, but doesn't consider the cost (for co

I have many problems with this analysis, but I'll name the biggest one: the author focuses on increases in value provided, but doesn't consider the cost (for consumers) to obtain that value. If we receive the same value for lower cost, that's as good as an increase in productivity: I can earn the same money and afford a better living standard. Moreover, this kind of advance benefits the poor disproportionately (relative to the kind the author addresses).

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
This assumes the poor and middle class don't see a decrease in wages, which just doesn't happen. Wages are a function of supply and demand, and with a larger labor pool, wages go down. A good example is the effect globalization has had on the Midwest[1]. Wages are lower, inequality is higher, and the jobs are being concentrated to cities with a higher cost of living. Historically, a family could live comfortably with a single wage earner in the house. Nowadays that's very tough to do without having an advanced degree. [1] http://www.epi.org/press/globalization-lowered-wages-american-workers/ http://www.epi.org/press/globalization-lowered-wages-america...
- jtraffic 9y ago
  > This assumes the poor and middle class don't see a decrease in wages I disagree. I think it only assumes that relative wages fall less than the relative incremental value of the new tech increases. > Wages are a function of supply and demand Yeah, but my point is that wages in isolation don't tell you much. The difficult-to-measure value accessible with those wages matters too. > A good example is the effect globalization has had on the Midwest[1] Irrelevant. Globalization need not move in lockstep with new technology. I don't want to be reductionist, and perhaps my original comment came across as overconfident. My core assertion is that "it's not that simple," which decreases the value of conclusions based on oversimplified analysis. I think the article is oversimplified.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

This assumes the poor and middle class don't see a decrease in wages, which just doesn't happen. Wages are a function of supply and demand, and with a larger labor pool, wages go down. A good example is the effect globalization has had on the Midwest[1]. Wages are lower, inequality is higher, and the jobs are being concentrated to cities with a higher cost of living. Historically, a family could live comfortably with a single wage earner in the house. Nowadays that's very tough to do without having an advanced degree. [1] http://www.epi.org/press/globalization-lowered-wages-american-workers/ http://www.epi.org/press/globalization-lowered-wages-america...

jtraffic 9y ago
> This assumes the poor and middle class don't see a decrease in wages I disagree. I think it only assumes that relative wages fall less than the relative incremental value of the new tech increases. > Wages are a function of supply and demand Yeah, but my point is that wages in isolation don't tell you much. The difficult-to-measure value accessible with those wages matters too. > A good example is the effect globalization has had on the Midwest[1] Irrelevant. Globalization need not move in lockstep with new technology. I don't want to be reductionist, and perhaps my original comment came across as overconfident. My core assertion is that "it's not that simple," which decreases the value of conclusions based on oversimplified analysis. I think the article is oversimplified.