4 ms·
The productive outpute of a worker has increased. This doesn't mean that the worker has become more productive. This means that the combination of the worker an
by anm89 4y ago
The productive outpute of a worker has increased. This doesn't mean that the worker has become more productive. This means that the combination of the worker and the tools they are using (ie capital) are more productive. If the only thing that has changed in this equation is that capital is purchasing better tools to make their workers output more than it isn't particularly surprising that workers aren't seeing those productivity gains in their wages.
- justahuman74 4y agoDiscussing worker productivity somewhat misses the point, the worker doesn't care about company productivity at all, they care about being able to provide for themselves. It's quite plain that corporate profits went up and cost-of-living went up, but wages did not. There's no avoiding the working being disatisfied with this circumstance.
- anm89 4y agoI'm not making a moral argument. I'm making an economics argument. It's like asking why a ball fell off of a table and saying gravity and the person who pushed it somewhat misses the point because I wanted the ball to be on the table.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoWorkers historically have gained access to those productivity gains through organizing against owners however the US is highly atomized already
- janef0421 4y agoIncreasing productivity via capital investment typically requires workers gain skills to use this capital. Also, the source of that productivity gains caused by capital investment is the labour of workers producing those capital goods, not the investment of currency.