6 ms·

Is there evidence that this explanation is more true now than in the past? It's probably worth at least examining whether they have become more capable of actin

by kd0amg 9y ago

Is there evidence that this explanation is more true now than in the past? It's probably worth at least examining whether they have become more capable of acting out that preference.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Sure, how about the massive wave of increasing power and centralization at the heart of where money/wages originate: the finance sector. As well as declining union participation rates
cfmcdonald 9y ago
I don't have quantitative evidence, but I do feel there was a cultural shift in the 1970s-80s in the corporate world. "shareholder value" became the dominant view of what companies were for (rather than say, social value), activities that most corporate leaders would have been ashamed of in the past - extremely high compensation relative to their employees (100x or more), layoffs to cut costs even when profitable, etc. - became acceptable or even sources of pride. I believe it may be related to a broader cultural shift towards individualism (see, e.g. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064362 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064362)
PeterisP 9y ago
"they have become more capable of acting out that preference" is exactly the key point of such discussion - with increased automation, companies need more capital and less labor. This means that the labor (ordinary workers) gets less leverage and capital (owners/managers) get more leverage, i.e., increased ability to ensure that they get a larger share of the pie. The ancient dictator needed his slaves to work to build his pyramids. The feudal lord needed his serfs to work his fields. They needed to ensure that they are kept from rebelling but also can live well enough so that their numbers (and thus the lords' power) increase. The industrial capitalist needs to keep the working class somewhat satisfied (bread and circuses?) - they are absolutely vital to his needs, and if they self-organize and start striking, he loses. However, in the far future when everything is automated, whoever controls the means of production doesn't need the underclass in any way whatsoever. They may care about their community, but letting the underclass to starve or machinegunning them isn't an impossible "solution" anymore. Neither the slaver, nor the feudal lord, nor the industrialist could afford to eliminate everyone who's discontent, even if they physically could do so after crushing a rebellion - they needed their labor. In the future, that won't be the case; the only thing preventing a ruling regime having their robot army slaughter the unneccessariat is if they choose not to do so and choose to share the wealth instead.

by kd0amg 9y ago

Is there evidence that this explanation is more true now than in the past? It's probably worth at least examining whether they have become more capable of acting out that preference.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

Sure, how about the massive wave of increasing power and centralization at the heart of where money/wages originate: the finance sector. As well as declining union participation rates

cfmcdonald 9y ago

I don't have quantitative evidence, but I do feel there was a cultural shift in the 1970s-80s in the corporate world. "shareholder value" became the dominant view of what companies were for (rather than say, social value), activities that most corporate leaders would have been ashamed of in the past - extremely high compensation relative to their employees (100x or more), layoffs to cut costs even when profitable, etc. - became acceptable or even sources of pride. I believe it may be related to a broader cultural shift towards individualism (see, e.g. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064362 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064362)

PeterisP 9y ago

"they have become more capable of acting out that preference" is exactly the key point of such discussion - with increased automation, companies need more capital and less labor. This means that the labor (ordinary workers) gets less leverage and capital (owners/managers) get more leverage, i.e., increased ability to ensure that they get a larger share of the pie. The ancient dictator needed his slaves to work to build his pyramids. The feudal lord needed his serfs to work his fields. They needed to ensure that they are kept from rebelling but also can live well enough so that their numbers (and thus the lords' power) increase. The industrial capitalist needs to keep the working class somewhat satisfied (bread and circuses?) - they are absolutely vital to his needs, and if they self-organize and start striking, he loses. However, in the far future when everything is automated, whoever controls the means of production doesn't need the underclass in any way whatsoever. They may care about their community, but letting the underclass to starve or machinegunning them isn't an impossible "solution" anymore. Neither the slaver, nor the feudal lord, nor the industrialist could afford to eliminate everyone who's discontent, even if they physically could do so after crushing a rebellion - they needed their labor. In the future, that won't be the case; the only thing preventing a ruling regime having their robot army slaughter the unneccessariat is if they choose not to do so and choose to share the wealth instead.