3 ms·

> Now many stores have intelligent inventory tracking that requires little to no work from employees. > Why isn't the benefit of that efficiency passed on to t

> Now many stores have intelligent inventory tracking that requires little to no work from employees. > Why isn't the benefit of that efficiency passed on to those employees who are now more efficient? It is, though, right? It is passed on to the employees who were responsible for the efficiency gains. Those employees who built those innovations — could be employees of retailer, or employees of the companies, say tech companies, for whom the retailer is a customer. I think the parent commenter’s point is still valid that: >>Someone stocking shelves in 2020 is about productive as someone stocking shelves in 1968. I would phrase it slightly differently: “the skill of stocking shelves in 2020 has been as efficient as it has been in 1968”. It’s the skill of creating innovations in inventory tracking , better statistical modeling and predictions/estimates, and probably the advent of tracking all this in digital systems that has multiplied the efficiency at the macro level. Employees who are stocking shelves have not been able to participate in those contributions.

slg 6y ago
That is a reasonable retort, but it ignores that last question I asked. >How is that any different than a software developer receiving a higher salary because they are more efficient due to computers being more powerful? I'll admit software developers might be a bad example for that given question since they are responsible for some downstream efficiency, but the overall point still stands. Why do high skill jobs get to capture the value of their increased efficiency but low skills jobs don't?
- whoisburbansky 6y ago
  It sounds like the argument is that high skill jobs are the reason for the increased efficiency, so they get to keep the surplus value generated?
confidantlake 6y ago
It feels very arbitrary to claim the employees responsible got the gains. Like take Walmart, the biggest beneficiaries by far are the relatives of Sam Walton. Yet they did nothing to build the automated inventory tracking, the statistical modeling, or the digital systems. Or take the programmers who worked on Walmart.com. They didn't invent the transistor, Linux, or Java. They just used them to build a crud app.
- cafed00d 6y ago
  Yes fair enough. This is why every employee should get paid _stock/rsu/whatever_. The rewards of efficiency gains that Walmart, the enterprise makes, should be shared by the people who made it happen. But then again, not many people would prefer to take that risk and instead prefer to get paid a set hourly wage. Of course, it’s a matter of balance — how much guaranteed income vs. risky income does a person want? I don’t know. That’s a really difficult problem to solve through legislation. Ultimately though stocking shelves in 1968 Walmart is about as efficient as stocking shelves in 2020.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    It is much more efficient these days. They use apps to determine when to stock, how much to stock ect. They need many fewer people, and they run much leaner. Like I mentioned in a comment above, who we consider made it happen is arbitrary. Walmart cannot exist without a functioning society. The daughter of Sam Walton never worked at Walmart, yet she gets more of that gain than any other individual. For other products, it is even more arbitrary who gets the benefits. If facebook disappeared, another company would quickly take the role of social media leader. Likely not much would change from a productivity standpoint. Yet whoever happens to get the role of dominant social media ceo makes billions.
  - tacocataco 6y ago
    What if the minimum wage also included x stock per paycheck? Minimum stock options?
- marcusverus 6y ago
  > Or take the programmers who worked on Walmart.com. They didn't invent the transistor, Linux, or Java. They just used them to build a crud app. Likewise, the shelf stockers who work at Walmart didn't invent pasteurization, the tin can, or the grocery cart. They just move the cans around. What does that have to do with the fact that programmers contribute (on an ongoing basis) to improved productivity, while shelf stockers do not?
  - 6y ago

slg 6y ago

That is a reasonable retort, but it ignores that last question I asked. >How is that any different than a software developer receiving a higher salary because they are more efficient due to computers being more powerful? I'll admit software developers might be a bad example for that given question since they are responsible for some downstream efficiency, but the overall point still stands. Why do high skill jobs get to capture the value of their increased efficiency but low skills jobs don't?

whoisburbansky 6y ago
It sounds like the argument is that high skill jobs are the reason for the increased efficiency, so they get to keep the surplus value generated?

confidantlake 6y ago

It feels very arbitrary to claim the employees responsible got the gains. Like take Walmart, the biggest beneficiaries by far are the relatives of Sam Walton. Yet they did nothing to build the automated inventory tracking, the statistical modeling, or the digital systems. Or take the programmers who worked on Walmart.com. They didn't invent the transistor, Linux, or Java. They just used them to build a crud app.

cafed00d 6y ago
Yes fair enough. This is why every employee should get paid _stock/rsu/whatever_. The rewards of efficiency gains that Walmart, the enterprise makes, should be shared by the people who made it happen. But then again, not many people would prefer to take that risk and instead prefer to get paid a set hourly wage. Of course, it’s a matter of balance — how much guaranteed income vs. risky income does a person want? I don’t know. That’s a really difficult problem to solve through legislation. Ultimately though stocking shelves in 1968 Walmart is about as efficient as stocking shelves in 2020.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  It is much more efficient these days. They use apps to determine when to stock, how much to stock ect. They need many fewer people, and they run much leaner. Like I mentioned in a comment above, who we consider made it happen is arbitrary. Walmart cannot exist without a functioning society. The daughter of Sam Walton never worked at Walmart, yet she gets more of that gain than any other individual. For other products, it is even more arbitrary who gets the benefits. If facebook disappeared, another company would quickly take the role of social media leader. Likely not much would change from a productivity standpoint. Yet whoever happens to get the role of dominant social media ceo makes billions.
- tacocataco 6y ago
  What if the minimum wage also included x stock per paycheck? Minimum stock options?
marcusverus 6y ago
> Or take the programmers who worked on Walmart.com. They didn't invent the transistor, Linux, or Java. They just used them to build a crud app. Likewise, the shelf stockers who work at Walmart didn't invent pasteurization, the tin can, or the grocery cart. They just move the cans around. What does that have to do with the fact that programmers contribute (on an ongoing basis) to improved productivity, while shelf stockers do not?
- 6y ago