3 ms·

Unfortunately this article is just mumbojumbo; and the author appears not to have consulted any expert on this. The claim actually relates to (1) inequality an

Unfortunately this article is just mumbojumbo; and the author appears not to have consulted any expert on this. The claim actually relates to (1) inequality and (2) historical automation occurring mostly in the 70s, 80s -- that, for example, replaced car workers with "robots". It is the same automation which replaced domestic workers with washing machines. The problems with "statistical categories" referenced such as, "men without high-school degrees", is that they change size. > “The real earnings of men without a high-school degree are now 15% lower than they were in 1980.” This appears bad. But in 1980 10% of the population had degrees, that is now >50%. So this is a dramatic increase in wealth for everyone. The poor are less poor, and there are fewer of them. The category "poor" is now labelled differently, and has a different population size. The article then goes on to rehash the same speculative hysteria on self-driving cars, AI, and so on. It is a perfect writeup of "common economic fallacies" and ai pseudoscience.

lowbloodsugar 5y ago
>But in 1980 10% of the population had degrees, that is now >50%. So this is a dramatic increase in wealth for everyone. The poor are less poor, and there are fewer of them. You aren't providing any data about the other 40% of the population who now have degrees. We only know that the bottom 10% got worse. Do you have any data to claim that the 40% had a "dramatic" increase in wealth? Got some data for the claim "dramatic increase in wealth for everyone"?
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The bottom 10% didn't get worse. No one got worse. Everyone is wealthier. What happened is that the category "men w/o degrees" comprises a different percentile of society. If you did everything by percentiles, rather than statistical categories, it would be obvious. Every percentile is wealthier. The data is widely available: https://ourworldindata.org/ https://ourworldindata.org/ . The general increase in wealth is extraordinary and unprecedented in human history for all of society. Dispoable income, since 1980, has increased 400% , https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/disposable-personal-income https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/disposable-person... . One imagines that the reasons articles like this trade in made-up statistical categories is that any straightforward analysis would reveal this; as it is overwhelming.
  - lowbloodsugar 5y ago
    Your first site looks credible, but you don't link to data. Your second site provides data about the combined disposable income of the entire population, which I don't think anyone is arguing about. Do you have any data that supports your claim that inflation adjusted disposable income has increased for everyone?

lowbloodsugar 5y ago

>But in 1980 10% of the population had degrees, that is now >50%. So this is a dramatic increase in wealth for everyone. The poor are less poor, and there are fewer of them. You aren't providing any data about the other 40% of the population who now have degrees. We only know that the bottom 10% got worse. Do you have any data to claim that the 40% had a "dramatic" increase in wealth? Got some data for the claim "dramatic increase in wealth for everyone"?

mjburgess 5y ago
The bottom 10% didn't get worse. No one got worse. Everyone is wealthier. What happened is that the category "men w/o degrees" comprises a different percentile of society. If you did everything by percentiles, rather than statistical categories, it would be obvious. Every percentile is wealthier. The data is widely available: https://ourworldindata.org/ https://ourworldindata.org/ . The general increase in wealth is extraordinary and unprecedented in human history for all of society. Dispoable income, since 1980, has increased 400% , https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/disposable-personal-income https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/disposable-person... . One imagines that the reasons articles like this trade in made-up statistical categories is that any straightforward analysis would reveal this; as it is overwhelming.
- lowbloodsugar 5y ago
  Your first site looks credible, but you don't link to data. Your second site provides data about the combined disposable income of the entire population, which I don't think anyone is arguing about. Do you have any data that supports your claim that inflation adjusted disposable income has increased for everyone?