3 ms·

Strange that we're talking about a shortage of workers to unlock productivity then, and not a shortage of box-stacking machines or forklifts.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Obviously someone needs to operate the forklift. But the point is the productivity gains aren't coming from the person driving the forklift, they are coming from the capital investment in the forklift. Because if the forklift wasn't there, the person driving it would instead be stacking boxes by hand. If the driver was going to capture all of the upside of the productivity gains of the forklift, the business would never invest in a forklift in the first place.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pseudo0 5y ago
  Most capital investments do require a more skilled workforce to get the expected return on investment. In your example, a box stacker requires virtually no training, while a forklift operator has to take a training course and be skilled enough to operate the vehicle without costing the employer thousands or millions in liability claims. And no one is arguing that the employee should capture 100%, just more than roughly 0%.
  - Leherenn 5y ago
    > Most capital investments do require a more skilled workforce to get the expected return on investment. Does it? I have no idea whether this is true or not, but there have been plenty of counter examples throughout history. The spinning and carding machines during the industrial revolution, automated checkouts, ... Even in your example, the next step in an automated warehouse where the employee is just there to make sure everything is working correctly.
    - chii 5y ago
      > employee is just there to make sure everything is working correctly this employee is going to require more skill than the original box stacking employee. The savings to the company is in the form of a lower number of employees, making the total cost lower. AKA, one maintenance engineer, replacing 10 manual stacking employees. In this case, productivity per employee grows, and it required capital investment, both in the form of machines from the business, but also from society in the form of education (presumably, the maintenance engineer needs to understand how the machines work to make sure it works correctly). The business doesn't really pay the education cost directly.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  They're not coming from the capital investment in the forklift. They're coming from the design of the entire logistics and marketing chain, which - for now - happens to use forklifts in one part of the process. That part of the process could just as easily use robots. Or - potentially - genetically modified chimpanzees. Value is contextual. If productivity is dropping instead of increasing, one possible reason is because the friction in value chains is increasing and both intelligence and efficiency are decreasing. Another is because returns are being measured in the wrong ways, and the contextual element is being disguised or lost by current accounting practices. These systemic issues are more plausible causes than any suggestion that front line workers are all somehow becoming less good at their jobs.

oh_sigh 5y ago

Obviously someone needs to operate the forklift. But the point is the productivity gains aren't coming from the person driving the forklift, they are coming from the capital investment in the forklift. Because if the forklift wasn't there, the person driving it would instead be stacking boxes by hand. If the driver was going to capture all of the upside of the productivity gains of the forklift, the business would never invest in a forklift in the first place.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pseudo0 5y ago
Most capital investments do require a more skilled workforce to get the expected return on investment. In your example, a box stacker requires virtually no training, while a forklift operator has to take a training course and be skilled enough to operate the vehicle without costing the employer thousands or millions in liability claims. And no one is arguing that the employee should capture 100%, just more than roughly 0%.
- Leherenn 5y ago
  > Most capital investments do require a more skilled workforce to get the expected return on investment. Does it? I have no idea whether this is true or not, but there have been plenty of counter examples throughout history. The spinning and carding machines during the industrial revolution, automated checkouts, ... Even in your example, the next step in an automated warehouse where the employee is just there to make sure everything is working correctly.
  - chii 5y ago
    > employee is just there to make sure everything is working correctly this employee is going to require more skill than the original box stacking employee. The savings to the company is in the form of a lower number of employees, making the total cost lower. AKA, one maintenance engineer, replacing 10 manual stacking employees. In this case, productivity per employee grows, and it required capital investment, both in the form of machines from the business, but also from society in the form of education (presumably, the maintenance engineer needs to understand how the machines work to make sure it works correctly). The business doesn't really pay the education cost directly.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
They're not coming from the capital investment in the forklift. They're coming from the design of the entire logistics and marketing chain, which - for now - happens to use forklifts in one part of the process. That part of the process could just as easily use robots. Or - potentially - genetically modified chimpanzees. Value is contextual. If productivity is dropping instead of increasing, one possible reason is because the friction in value chains is increasing and both intelligence and efficiency are decreasing. Another is because returns are being measured in the wrong ways, and the contextual element is being disguised or lost by current accounting practices. These systemic issues are more plausible causes than any suggestion that front line workers are all somehow becoming less good at their jobs.