5 ms·

> Did the rich simply start to get significantly better than the rest around 1980? Instant evolution? Or perhap the economy is becoming "winner take all". The m

by darawk 8y ago

> Did the rich simply start to get significantly better than the rest around 1980? Instant evolution? Or perhap the economy is becoming "winner take all". The more you control the more you CAN control. For example, the big tech co's have huge patent portfolios in which to sue any upstarts from entering their turf. Their big competitors have their own giant portfolios to defend against each other's patent claims via counter-suits. Thus, smallbies are essentially locked out, forced into niches. The argument is not quite "winner take all" but as the article said "winner take most". We have increasingly become a knowledge economy. Technology has created a multiplier effect, where the productivity of the top decile or so of performers is magnified significantly by software and other things, making them have even more of an edge over the bottom 90%.

tabtab 8y ago
But average IT worker wages have also more or less stagnated. By some accounts we have done somewhat better than the rest, but most the expansion is on the wealthy end. Therefore, it's not just the ability to automate.
- username90 8y ago
  When work is automated the productivity comes from owning the automation, not doing it. Meaning that the top 0.1% who owns all the automation are taking most of the gains. This is only possible thanks to the top 10% selling all their automation work to the top 0.1% for cheap.
  - tabtab 8y ago
    Okay, but most owners own out of luck or family, not because they are special. Or, they did one thing special at the right time, which then allowed them to start accumulating ownership in a snowballing fashion. Most of Microsoft's well-known products were purchased from/as start-ups or small co's.
ABCLAW 8y ago
This isn't a competition between 10% of the workers and 90% of the workers. There isn't a fixed amount of money allocated to 'labour'. It's a competition between the capital/investment cycle of the economy and the labour/consumption cycle. In this case it boils down to leverage in employment negotiations. Those 10% crackerjack hyperworkers you're theorizing exist would be even BETTER off if they were recouping a larger amount of the margin they were producing.
- darawk 8y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. My point is simply that those 10% are better able to capture the value they create, whereas the bottom 90% are not. I'm not making any assumptions about a fixed-size pie.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    The point is, those 10% aren't better able to capture the value they create. They're just in a more favourable position from the perspective of the labour market. It doesn't mean that the fact that they are 'knowledge workers' is giving them magical new tools to outperform everyone else. It just means they're in demand because the market is vomiting money at tech companies, so tech companies are sucking up every developer resource they can find in their sprint for growth. You can make developer bucks working as a blue collar worker on an oil rig, or as a normal dude on a fishing rig. These people aren't making cash because they're 'knowledge workers'. They're just supplying labour to a field with solid demand.

by darawk 8y ago

tabtab 8y ago

But average IT worker wages have also more or less stagnated. By some accounts we have done somewhat better than the rest, but most the expansion is on the wealthy end. Therefore, it's not just the ability to automate.

username90 8y ago
When work is automated the productivity comes from owning the automation, not doing it. Meaning that the top 0.1% who owns all the automation are taking most of the gains. This is only possible thanks to the top 10% selling all their automation work to the top 0.1% for cheap.
- tabtab 8y ago
  Okay, but most owners own out of luck or family, not because they are special. Or, they did one thing special at the right time, which then allowed them to start accumulating ownership in a snowballing fashion. Most of Microsoft's well-known products were purchased from/as start-ups or small co's.

ABCLAW 8y ago

This isn't a competition between 10% of the workers and 90% of the workers. There isn't a fixed amount of money allocated to 'labour'. It's a competition between the capital/investment cycle of the economy and the labour/consumption cycle. In this case it boils down to leverage in employment negotiations. Those 10% crackerjack hyperworkers you're theorizing exist would be even BETTER off if they were recouping a larger amount of the margin they were producing.

darawk 8y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. My point is simply that those 10% are better able to capture the value they create, whereas the bottom 90% are not. I'm not making any assumptions about a fixed-size pie.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  The point is, those 10% aren't better able to capture the value they create. They're just in a more favourable position from the perspective of the labour market. It doesn't mean that the fact that they are 'knowledge workers' is giving them magical new tools to outperform everyone else. It just means they're in demand because the market is vomiting money at tech companies, so tech companies are sucking up every developer resource they can find in their sprint for growth. You can make developer bucks working as a blue collar worker on an oil rig, or as a normal dude on a fishing rig. These people aren't making cash because they're 'knowledge workers'. They're just supplying labour to a field with solid demand.