5 ms·

Last I checked, I and many other people are still working from home. Just because our jobs don't have to occur outside the home doesn't mean that we're not stil

Last I checked, I and many other people are still working from home. Just because our jobs don't have to occur outside the home doesn't mean that we're not still making improvements that lead to greater productivity. There is no issue with people using the tools. The issue is with workplaces where multiple people need to work together. People with jobs where they use the tools but don't need to be around others or very many others are generally still working. Also, not all productivity improvements are from tools that still need to be used by workers. A lot is from automation. Anyways, my point is that tons of people who are not at the top of the businesses experiencing increased productivity are reaping the rewards of productivity improvements. It's a falsehood to think that only those making the investments are reaping the benefits. It only looks that way if you myopically don't look beyond the firm whose productivity improved.

pmiller2 7y ago
> Anyways, my point is that tons of people who are not at the top of the businesses experiencing increased productivity are reaping the rewards of productivity improvements. It's a falsehood to think that only those making the investments are reaping the benefits. It only looks that way if you myopically don't look beyond the firm whose productivity improved. Your point literally misses the point. From the perspective of improving the lot of ordinary workers, "beyond the firm whose productivity improved" doesn't matter. What matters is peoples' paychecks. Before the mid 70's, when overall productivity went up, wages went up. That is no longer the case. It wouldn't be a problem if things like housing (both home prices and rents), education, medical insurance, and healthcare services (which is still important even for those with health insurance due to out of pocket maximums and deductibles). Notice how all of these are basic essentials of life, some of which are essential enough to form the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I also want to stress that people today have to fund their own retirement, because there are no more company pensions. Things that have gone up at or below the rate of inflation since the mid 70s are, by and large, not essentials: cars, computers, airline tickets, phone service, TVs, and clothes. [0] Granted, clothes, and sometimes cars are essential, but the savings there don't come close to making up the shortfall in the other things. > Also, not all productivity improvements are from tools that still need to be used by workers. A lot is from automation. If anything, I would guess that automation has harmed workers by eliminating good jobs, rather than benefiting people overall. Yeah, we have free stock trades now, but who cares? I'm open to being convinced otherwise on the automation point, but I have a hard time seeing how people like my mom and dad, neither of whom went to college, could make it into the middle class today if you waved a magic wand and made them 25 again. --- [0]: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2017/05/10-things-that-are-cheaper-today.html https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strate...
- malandrew 7y ago
  Before the 1970s, when overall productivity went up, the individual contributors has a much bigger contribution to the productivity improvements. Even with the improved tooling, you still needed people with the skills to take advantage of the improved tooling, so workers back then still had the ability to claim a portion of the increased productivity. As the tooling and automation got better, the skills contributed by the worker have been responsible for less and less of the productivity gains to the point where the worker is contributing almost none of the productivity gains. From the perspective of improving the lot of ordinary workers, "beyond the firm whose productivity improved" does matter. You can still make it to the middle class life today, but you do so by taking those jobs that help improve productivity like being a software engineer. I'm middle class myself. I got there by contributing to productivity gains. Make no mistake, even prior to the 1970s, there were plenty of jobs that would not have gotten someone into the middle class life. Those jobs that didn't get you a middle life back then have a lot in common with those that won't get you a middle class life today in terms of the amount of skills and effort required.

pmiller2 7y ago

> Anyways, my point is that tons of people who are not at the top of the businesses experiencing increased productivity are reaping the rewards of productivity improvements. It's a falsehood to think that only those making the investments are reaping the benefits. It only looks that way if you myopically don't look beyond the firm whose productivity improved. Your point literally misses the point. From the perspective of improving the lot of ordinary workers, "beyond the firm whose productivity improved" doesn't matter. What matters is peoples' paychecks. Before the mid 70's, when overall productivity went up, wages went up. That is no longer the case. It wouldn't be a problem if things like housing (both home prices and rents), education, medical insurance, and healthcare services (which is still important even for those with health insurance due to out of pocket maximums and deductibles). Notice how all of these are basic essentials of life, some of which are essential enough to form the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I also want to stress that people today have to fund their own retirement, because there are no more company pensions. Things that have gone up at or below the rate of inflation since the mid 70s are, by and large, not essentials: cars, computers, airline tickets, phone service, TVs, and clothes. [0] Granted, clothes, and sometimes cars are essential, but the savings there don't come close to making up the shortfall in the other things. > Also, not all productivity improvements are from tools that still need to be used by workers. A lot is from automation. If anything, I would guess that automation has harmed workers by eliminating good jobs, rather than benefiting people overall. Yeah, we have free stock trades now, but who cares? I'm open to being convinced otherwise on the automation point, but I have a hard time seeing how people like my mom and dad, neither of whom went to college, could make it into the middle class today if you waved a magic wand and made them 25 again. --- [0]: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2017/05/10-things-that-are-cheaper-today.html https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strate...

malandrew 7y ago
Before the 1970s, when overall productivity went up, the individual contributors has a much bigger contribution to the productivity improvements. Even with the improved tooling, you still needed people with the skills to take advantage of the improved tooling, so workers back then still had the ability to claim a portion of the increased productivity. As the tooling and automation got better, the skills contributed by the worker have been responsible for less and less of the productivity gains to the point where the worker is contributing almost none of the productivity gains. From the perspective of improving the lot of ordinary workers, "beyond the firm whose productivity improved" does matter. You can still make it to the middle class life today, but you do so by taking those jobs that help improve productivity like being a software engineer. I'm middle class myself. I got there by contributing to productivity gains. Make no mistake, even prior to the 1970s, there were plenty of jobs that would not have gotten someone into the middle class life. Those jobs that didn't get you a middle life back then have a lot in common with those that won't get you a middle class life today in terms of the amount of skills and effort required.