9 ms·

Not one word about automation? We're frequently automating away jobs, in a way that makes capital more productive and shifts the balance of power from wo

Not one word about automation? We're frequently automating away jobs, in a way that makes capital more productive and shifts the balance of power from worker to capital. It is unclear that the gains in productivity we might cause are good for those who are in the lowest hungs of the ladder. This is what worries me.

Symmetry 9y ago
In the end all the material progress our civilization has experienced since the Industrial Revolution has been due to increased productivity. Wages for workers can never go higher than worker productivity without the business employing them going out of business. Historically workers have received half of the returns to productive capital and that doesn't seem to be changing. However, recently the return to rents on land have gone up drastically and so capital's overall share of national income has gone up. But that's not a problem that can be solved by making workers less productive.
- fwip 9y ago
  Wages for workers can increase faster than productivity if the business has a large fraction of fixed or non-labor costs. Also, hasn't the productivity->wage ratio decreased in the past few decades? I've seen charts that seem to indicate that, but I suppose the timeframe could be cherry-picked or otherwise misleading. e.g: http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/ http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-di...
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    > hasn't the productivity->wage ratio decreased in the past few decades? We have been in a productivity crisis in the past few decades. AFAIK, nobody knows if it's because we are measuring everything wrong, because people are reluctant to adopt more productive habits, or because modern engineering completely failed on that front. But whatever is the cause, expect to see lots of noise and complex behavior on anything that touches productivity.
handelaar 9y ago
Jobs which machines can do instead of people are by definition jobs which are beneath people. "Making capital more productive" is in your frame of reference neutral, not bad. And no, it doesn't "shift power from worker to capital" unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be done with a machine instead. Don't confuse hard work for wages with job satisfaction -- you'd be doing one of those jobs yourself if you thought them as noble as this.
- tbabb 9y ago
  > unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be done with a machine instead This is an extremely entitled comment. Most people do not have the choice to work on whatever they want. For most people, it is more like "do 'that kind of job' or be unemployed". If those were your options, you'd take the job of truckdriver or miner or real estate agent. Do you really think all those peoples' livelihoods are beneath human?
  - bdhess 9y ago
    Can’t speak for parent, but agree with some of what they said. And no, I don’t think those people’s livelihoods ought to be beneath human. I assume that most people who have those kinds of jobs don’t want those jobs. Rather they need them given the way we’ve structured our society. Those without skills valued by the marked are essentially forced to exchange long hours of menial labor for their survival. Isn’t that more sad? I think this is why so many folks on HN like the idea of the universal basic income.
    - tbabb 9y ago
      > most people who have those kinds of jobs don’t want those jobs Why do you assume that?
      - euvitudo 9y ago
        Agree with your sentiment. Three cases: 1. I know a bus driver for the local school district that doesn't necessarily like his job, but he does it. He looks forward to retiring with a pension. 2. My father wasn't necessarily passionate about his drafting job, but still worked that job as a means to an end--support his family and pay for and enjoy his hobbies. He now enjoys his retirement and travels the world with his wife. 3. A brother-in-law works at his local hardware store. He doesn't specifically like it but it helps him buy his man-toys and care for his family and horses. I really don't know what each of their dream job is, but it's obvious to me they have different goals than I. Honestly it was a bit of a shock to me to realize that people work jobs that aren't what they're passionate about, and it doesn't bother them. It's a means to an end. It made me realize that a lot of us (myself included--as a software type) are (too?) emotionally involved in our jobs. We've basically turned our hobby into our job; the means has become the end, really, to the point that we can't fathom someone working a job they aren't passionate about. My opinion (and my experience with others) is that people want to work so they can sustain their desired lifestyle; it often doesn't matter the job they have so long as it helps them reach their goals. In fact I've known some folks who pursued software (degree-based or otherwise) simply to achieve their goals and support their (non-software or whatever) hobbies.
criddell 9y ago
If we don't automate jobs away that can be automated, aren't we just engaging in a form of the broken-windows fallacy? I mean we could put people back in elevators to operate the buttons or do like Oregon and not allow drivers to pump their own gas, but should we?

Symmetry 9y ago

In the end all the material progress our civilization has experienced since the Industrial Revolution has been due to increased productivity. Wages for workers can never go higher than worker productivity without the business employing them going out of business. Historically workers have received half of the returns to productive capital and that doesn't seem to be changing. However, recently the return to rents on land have gone up drastically and so capital's overall share of national income has gone up. But that's not a problem that can be solved by making workers less productive.

fwip 9y ago
Wages for workers can increase faster than productivity if the business has a large fraction of fixed or non-labor costs. Also, hasn't the productivity->wage ratio decreased in the past few decades? I've seen charts that seem to indicate that, but I suppose the timeframe could be cherry-picked or otherwise misleading. e.g: http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/ http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-di...
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > hasn't the productivity->wage ratio decreased in the past few decades? We have been in a productivity crisis in the past few decades. AFAIK, nobody knows if it's because we are measuring everything wrong, because people are reluctant to adopt more productive habits, or because modern engineering completely failed on that front. But whatever is the cause, expect to see lots of noise and complex behavior on anything that touches productivity.

handelaar 9y ago

Jobs which machines can do instead of people are by definition jobs which are beneath people. "Making capital more productive" is in your frame of reference neutral, not bad. And no, it doesn't "shift power from worker to capital" unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be done with a machine instead. Don't confuse hard work for wages with job satisfaction -- you'd be doing one of those jobs yourself if you thought them as noble as this.

tbabb 9y ago
> unless you actually think anybody wants the kind of job which is so tiresome it can be done with a machine instead This is an extremely entitled comment. Most people do not have the choice to work on whatever they want. For most people, it is more like "do 'that kind of job' or be unemployed". If those were your options, you'd take the job of truckdriver or miner or real estate agent. Do you really think all those peoples' livelihoods are beneath human?
- bdhess 9y ago
  Can’t speak for parent, but agree with some of what they said. And no, I don’t think those people’s livelihoods ought to be beneath human. I assume that most people who have those kinds of jobs don’t want those jobs. Rather they need them given the way we’ve structured our society. Those without skills valued by the marked are essentially forced to exchange long hours of menial labor for their survival. Isn’t that more sad? I think this is why so many folks on HN like the idea of the universal basic income.
  - tbabb 9y ago
    > most people who have those kinds of jobs don’t want those jobs Why do you assume that?
    - euvitudo 9y ago
      Agree with your sentiment. Three cases: 1. I know a bus driver for the local school district that doesn't necessarily like his job, but he does it. He looks forward to retiring with a pension. 2. My father wasn't necessarily passionate about his drafting job, but still worked that job as a means to an end--support his family and pay for and enjoy his hobbies. He now enjoys his retirement and travels the world with his wife. 3. A brother-in-law works at his local hardware store. He doesn't specifically like it but it helps him buy his man-toys and care for his family and horses. I really don't know what each of their dream job is, but it's obvious to me they have different goals than I. Honestly it was a bit of a shock to me to realize that people work jobs that aren't what they're passionate about, and it doesn't bother them. It's a means to an end. It made me realize that a lot of us (myself included--as a software type) are (too?) emotionally involved in our jobs. We've basically turned our hobby into our job; the means has become the end, really, to the point that we can't fathom someone working a job they aren't passionate about. My opinion (and my experience with others) is that people want to work so they can sustain their desired lifestyle; it often doesn't matter the job they have so long as it helps them reach their goals. In fact I've known some folks who pursued software (degree-based or otherwise) simply to achieve their goals and support their (non-software or whatever) hobbies.

criddell 9y ago

If we don't automate jobs away that can be automated, aren't we just engaging in a form of the broken-windows fallacy? I mean we could put people back in elevators to operate the buttons or do like Oregon and not allow drivers to pump their own gas, but should we?