7 ms·

My tinfoil hat theory is that this is being caused by the increasing concentration of wealth. Which is being enabled by increasing levels of automation and effi

My tinfoil hat theory is that this is being caused by the increasing concentration of wealth. Which is being enabled by increasing levels of automation and efficiency.

mattmanser 8y ago
I think the more likely truth is it's been enabled by weakening unions, mass immigration and globalisation.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  which are for the most part driven by the increase of wealth concentration. I think there are many symptoms but the main issue is not enough money left for those not in the 1%.
llukas 8y ago
> Which is being enabled by increasing levels of tax evasion. FTFY. Automation and efficiency is a good thing.
- collyw 8y ago
  Not for the unskilled workers out of a job.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    In the short term yes, but in the long term it will benefit them too. If there is less work to be done in the world, then everyone will work less on average. I firmly believe that one of two things will eventually happen: • We will find new industries which replace the old jobs. Companies in these industries will by necessity find ways to fill positions, either by paying enough that (even) more people can afford college, or by providing on-the-job training, etc. • Society will reach a point where it no longer makes sense for so much of the population to be in the workforce. We will need some form of Universal Basic Income to allow people who choose not to work to still live. The amount of money distributed would be set according to the number of workers needed—we'd raise the UBI when there's too many workers, and lower the UBI when there's too few.
    - lmm 8y ago
      Who's gonna make UBI happen? Where's the motivation for offering true UBI rather than precarious subsidies to "jobseekers"?
      - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        The huge mass of voters who can't get jobs?
        crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        At 1$/vote , those masses will be swayed by the social and "news and commentary" media at whomever pays to focus their ire. And that very news media can also sway people that 'their vote doesnt count'. I remember when Fox News was running "ObamaCare is Evil Socialism", at the same time talking how the ACA was helping people. Or how they were railing about "illegals" while at the same time discussing Southern farmers' plight because there weren't enough immigrants to work on crops.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        hindsightbias 8y ago
        I don't know why media companies aren't into school privatization. They could bus the kids on work trips and put their channel on the bus TV. Might have to get some changes in the child labor laws.
        lmm 8y ago
        Do voters who can't get jobs currently vote for benefit expansion? My impression was no.
    - elicash 8y ago
      > We will find new industries which replace the old jobs Reading the book Janesville, I'm very pessimistic on the effects of programs aimed at retraining people for new careers once jobs in a town are lost. I'm convinced for the next generation that it's a net benefit, yes, but that many people who lose their job never really recover and the people who try to switch industries end up on average the worst off. We should be honest about the role we play. Even if it's a net positive, it's not a net positive for every person. For many people it can be devastating. (This actually bolsters your second point and helps make the case for a strong safety net.)
  - abakker 8y ago
    Or, critically as another comment a few days ago put it, "automation crowds out those who are just starting their careers, more than those who have already started". Automation can easily prevent you from entering the workplace and moving from low-skill to high skill through experience.
    - pytester 8y ago
      The outsourcing boom did this, not automation. Dogsbody type work is routinely offshored rather than being given to local juniors. Every company I've worked at in the last 3 years bar one has had a component of their workforce doing this kind of work - in the philippines or india.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - abakker 8y ago
        Automation is just "Outsourcing to a computer" Seen that way, many outsourcing companies are just a halfway house to stuff that isn't quite fully automatable yet, but which might become so soon.
        pytester 8y ago
        IME the work broke down into three groups: 1) QA - the tech industry bleats about its automation putting people out of work and then creates millions of jobs mindlessly clicking buttons. shrug 2) Lean startup - creating jobs that are designed to be automated but giving them to Indians to do manually first to test if the idea has legs and the job is even worth doing. This type of work isn't going anywhere even if the individual jobs get automated (as they were designed to be). 3) Semi-skilled work - reading contracts and picking out relevant terms. So far most attempts at solving this problem have been a riotous joke.
- ensiferum 8y ago
  Depends how the wealth is distributed. Currently what happens that let's say a factory installs a new machine that does the work of 10 employees. Instead the workers work amount being reduced (the total monthly labor is now 1600h less) and everyone working less the factory will downsize the work force appropriately, the 10 employees will be terminated and the benefit and value added by this new machinery goes to the owners of the factory. In the short term (as long as there's still more people working than there are those whose jobs are being cut) this benefits the economy (even if the wealth distribution is not great), but what happens then the jobs displaced exceed the remaining jobs? After all the money is supposed to go around. Your time and wealth is the income for someone else. When there's enough people without purchasing power the whole thing will eventually collapse.
slededit 8y ago
US worker productivity growth has been extremely limited over the last 15 years. Simply put the economy isn’t that efficient relative to population growth. What has happened is massive growth in drug prices, housing, and other non-productive areas of the economy. Rent seeking is rampant.
- peteey 8y ago
  Agreed, and the increased prices are for existing drugs. We are not seeing an increase in cost due to innovation. Price increases are caused by companies charging more year after year for the same pill.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    These companies are granted monopoly status on a compact with the Citizens and US government. If they break this compact, I see no reason to protect their patent. Eminent domain is a thing. Lets use it.
- onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
  I have a hypothesis that productivity growth is tied to the capital / income ratio. That is: if the percentage of income that goes to capital vs labor increases, the productivity of the laborers rises at a slower rate. But I obviously can't substantiate that.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Rent seeking is rampant, and capitalism is unwilling and/or unable to figure out how to productively employ more and more people. e.g. decisions to buyback stocks instead of investing in anything of fundamental value, including productivity improvements.
spinach 8y ago
Which is being driven by the concentration of powerful computers, where the likes of Google, Facebook, etc, rise to the top quickly and have a lot of power, while using the data of it's users. Even though the users provide data for them, such as big data for AI, they see no return. Can we really solve the problem of lower income jobs without recognizing that people provide useful data and content for these companies without seeing anything in return?
cirgue 8y ago
That's not super tinfoily, it's pretty much what undergraduate economics implies should happen with increased wealth disparity in a city (the wealth disparity part, not necessarily the automation part).
purplezooey 8y ago
The only tinfoil part is the last sentence. It's being enabled by decades of policy dominated by the benefactors of such wealth.
- jtolmar 8y ago
  Automation replaces the need for labor with a need for capital. That's labor in the form of whatever has been automated (by definition of automation), and capital in the form of machines, software, or whatever - it's capital if you can buy it and keep it. This increases the power of capital over labor. Because the top 0.1% are all capitalists, not laborers, this increases wealth concentration. This isn't inherent to automation, but it is how we've structured our society to respond to automation.

My tinfoil hat theory is that this is being caused by the increasing concentration of wealth. Which is being enabled by increasing levels of automation and efficiency.

mattmanser 8y ago

I think the more likely truth is it's been enabled by weakening unions, mass immigration and globalisation.

wonderwonder 8y ago
which are for the most part driven by the increase of wealth concentration. I think there are many symptoms but the main issue is not enough money left for those not in the 1%.

llukas 8y ago

> Which is being enabled by increasing levels of tax evasion. FTFY. Automation and efficiency is a good thing.

collyw 8y ago
Not for the unskilled workers out of a job.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  In the short term yes, but in the long term it will benefit them too. If there is less work to be done in the world, then everyone will work less on average. I firmly believe that one of two things will eventually happen: • We will find new industries which replace the old jobs. Companies in these industries will by necessity find ways to fill positions, either by paying enough that (even) more people can afford college, or by providing on-the-job training, etc. • Society will reach a point where it no longer makes sense for so much of the population to be in the workforce. We will need some form of Universal Basic Income to allow people who choose not to work to still live. The amount of money distributed would be set according to the number of workers needed—we'd raise the UBI when there's too many workers, and lower the UBI when there's too few.
  - lmm 8y ago
    Who's gonna make UBI happen? Where's the motivation for offering true UBI rather than precarious subsidies to "jobseekers"?
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      The huge mass of voters who can't get jobs?
      - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        At 1$/vote , those masses will be swayed by the social and "news and commentary" media at whomever pays to focus their ire. And that very news media can also sway people that 'their vote doesnt count'. I remember when Fox News was running "ObamaCare is Evil Socialism", at the same time talking how the ACA was helping people. Or how they were railing about "illegals" while at the same time discussing Southern farmers' plight because there weren't enough immigrants to work on crops.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        hindsightbias 8y ago
        I don't know why media companies aren't into school privatization. They could bus the kids on work trips and put their channel on the bus TV. Might have to get some changes in the child labor laws.
      - lmm 8y ago
        Do voters who can't get jobs currently vote for benefit expansion? My impression was no.
  - elicash 8y ago
    > We will find new industries which replace the old jobs Reading the book Janesville, I'm very pessimistic on the effects of programs aimed at retraining people for new careers once jobs in a town are lost. I'm convinced for the next generation that it's a net benefit, yes, but that many people who lose their job never really recover and the people who try to switch industries end up on average the worst off. We should be honest about the role we play. Even if it's a net positive, it's not a net positive for every person. For many people it can be devastating. (This actually bolsters your second point and helps make the case for a strong safety net.)
- abakker 8y ago
  Or, critically as another comment a few days ago put it, "automation crowds out those who are just starting their careers, more than those who have already started". Automation can easily prevent you from entering the workplace and moving from low-skill to high skill through experience.
  - pytester 8y ago
    The outsourcing boom did this, not automation. Dogsbody type work is routinely offshored rather than being given to local juniors. Every company I've worked at in the last 3 years bar one has had a component of their workforce doing this kind of work - in the philippines or india.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - abakker 8y ago
      Automation is just "Outsourcing to a computer" Seen that way, many outsourcing companies are just a halfway house to stuff that isn't quite fully automatable yet, but which might become so soon.
      - pytester 8y ago
        IME the work broke down into three groups: 1) QA - the tech industry bleats about its automation putting people out of work and then creates millions of jobs mindlessly clicking buttons. shrug 2) Lean startup - creating jobs that are designed to be automated but giving them to Indians to do manually first to test if the idea has legs and the job is even worth doing. This type of work isn't going anywhere even if the individual jobs get automated (as they were designed to be). 3) Semi-skilled work - reading contracts and picking out relevant terms. So far most attempts at solving this problem have been a riotous joke.
ensiferum 8y ago
Depends how the wealth is distributed. Currently what happens that let's say a factory installs a new machine that does the work of 10 employees. Instead the workers work amount being reduced (the total monthly labor is now 1600h less) and everyone working less the factory will downsize the work force appropriately, the 10 employees will be terminated and the benefit and value added by this new machinery goes to the owners of the factory. In the short term (as long as there's still more people working than there are those whose jobs are being cut) this benefits the economy (even if the wealth distribution is not great), but what happens then the jobs displaced exceed the remaining jobs? After all the money is supposed to go around. Your time and wealth is the income for someone else. When there's enough people without purchasing power the whole thing will eventually collapse.

slededit 8y ago

US worker productivity growth has been extremely limited over the last 15 years. Simply put the economy isn’t that efficient relative to population growth. What has happened is massive growth in drug prices, housing, and other non-productive areas of the economy. Rent seeking is rampant.

peteey 8y ago
Agreed, and the increased prices are for existing drugs. We are not seeing an increase in cost due to innovation. Price increases are caused by companies charging more year after year for the same pill.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  These companies are granted monopoly status on a compact with the Citizens and US government. If they break this compact, I see no reason to protect their patent. Eminent domain is a thing. Lets use it.
onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
I have a hypothesis that productivity growth is tied to the capital / income ratio. That is: if the percentage of income that goes to capital vs labor increases, the productivity of the laborers rises at a slower rate. But I obviously can't substantiate that.
dv_dt 8y ago
Rent seeking is rampant, and capitalism is unwilling and/or unable to figure out how to productively employ more and more people. e.g. decisions to buyback stocks instead of investing in anything of fundamental value, including productivity improvements.

spinach 8y ago

Which is being driven by the concentration of powerful computers, where the likes of Google, Facebook, etc, rise to the top quickly and have a lot of power, while using the data of it's users. Even though the users provide data for them, such as big data for AI, they see no return. Can we really solve the problem of lower income jobs without recognizing that people provide useful data and content for these companies without seeing anything in return?

cirgue 8y ago

That's not super tinfoily, it's pretty much what undergraduate economics implies should happen with increased wealth disparity in a city (the wealth disparity part, not necessarily the automation part).

purplezooey 8y ago

The only tinfoil part is the last sentence. It's being enabled by decades of policy dominated by the benefactors of such wealth.

jtolmar 8y ago
Automation replaces the need for labor with a need for capital. That's labor in the form of whatever has been automated (by definition of automation), and capital in the form of machines, software, or whatever - it's capital if you can buy it and keep it. This increases the power of capital over labor. Because the top 0.1% are all capitalists, not laborers, this increases wealth concentration. This isn't inherent to automation, but it is how we've structured our society to respond to automation.