5 ms·

How would you determine if increased productivity is due to "labour or capital"? Are people themselves more productive, or are the machines just better? Everyw

by yobbo 4y ago

How would you determine if increased productivity is due to "labour or capital"? Are people themselves more productive, or are the machines just better? Everywhere I have seen, machines are doing almost all work.

therouwboat 4y ago
I think its both, machines are better, but workers need to have a lot more knowledge, when you need to operate cnc-machines and robots.
- yobbo 4y ago
  Try using, and servicing, an old industrial lathe or anything else in a mechanical workshop and see how quickly you can get up to speed. Repeatedly achieving meaningful results, and keeping the workshop functional and clean, was someone's career. It is not "easy" and ideally requires a degree to understand materials and forces, and so on.
djbebs 4y ago
Bingo! All these complaints that productivity growth has been matched by salary growth always seems to ignore that most of the productivity gains have been the result of capital expenditure, not of workers being better at their jobs.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- danaris 4y ago
  And why, exactly, should that matter? The execs of each company didn't personally invent every machine and write every piece of software their employees are now using to be productive. Hell, a lot of it they didn't even particularly choose—so much of the productivity gains comes from basic stuff like "personal computers" and "Microsoft Office". They are benefiting from the labour and expertise of others, and saying that means they deserve to get more money. Why? Why should those gains not be shared equally with the people who are actually doing the work?
  - yobbo 4y ago
    One can argue that neither execs or workers deserve more, but worker's pay is mostly determined by supply and demand, while exec's pay is a governance issue that's the responsibility of the owners.
  - djbebs 4y ago
    Because the ones paying for that increase in productivity should be the ones receiving the benefits from it. That is, the shareholders who own the business and paid for the machines, not the employees who merely operate them.
epups 4y ago
Great. Then let the machines work hard, if they are doing all the work as you say there should be no issue.
jxf 4y ago
Here's a hint: if you transplanted a 15th-century peasant into a different workplace, can they: * produce a financial projection? * run a PCR sequencing? * weld a steel beam? * determine if an electrical installation is up to code? * teach ninth-graders about calculus? If the answer is "no" to any of these, then machines clearly aren't doing "all the work".
- yobbo 4y ago
  One could make an argument by comparing the effect on productivity by either replacing the worker or the machine. When workers are readily available (and machines are designed to make workers replaceable), it doesn't matter what a time-transplanted peasant would do. The required skill level when using older tools and processes (welding and other building processes) is typically higher than with modern tools. This makes workers more replaceable today. Modern tools make productivity less dependent on the skills of workers. It's not a moral argument, just a fact that explains the observed phenomenon.

by yobbo 4y ago

therouwboat 4y ago

I think its both, machines are better, but workers need to have a lot more knowledge, when you need to operate cnc-machines and robots.

yobbo 4y ago
Try using, and servicing, an old industrial lathe or anything else in a mechanical workshop and see how quickly you can get up to speed. Repeatedly achieving meaningful results, and keeping the workshop functional and clean, was someone's career. It is not "easy" and ideally requires a degree to understand materials and forces, and so on.

djbebs 4y ago

Bingo! All these complaints that productivity growth has been matched by salary growth always seems to ignore that most of the productivity gains have been the result of capital expenditure, not of workers being better at their jobs.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
danaris 4y ago
And why, exactly, should that matter? The execs of each company didn't personally invent every machine and write every piece of software their employees are now using to be productive. Hell, a lot of it they didn't even particularly choose—so much of the productivity gains comes from basic stuff like "personal computers" and "Microsoft Office". They are benefiting from the labour and expertise of others, and saying that means they deserve to get more money. Why? Why should those gains not be shared equally with the people who are actually doing the work?
- yobbo 4y ago
  One can argue that neither execs or workers deserve more, but worker's pay is mostly determined by supply and demand, while exec's pay is a governance issue that's the responsibility of the owners.
- djbebs 4y ago
  Because the ones paying for that increase in productivity should be the ones receiving the benefits from it. That is, the shareholders who own the business and paid for the machines, not the employees who merely operate them.

epups 4y ago

Great. Then let the machines work hard, if they are doing all the work as you say there should be no issue.

jxf 4y ago

Here's a hint: if you transplanted a 15th-century peasant into a different workplace, can they: * produce a financial projection? * run a PCR sequencing? * weld a steel beam? * determine if an electrical installation is up to code? * teach ninth-graders about calculus? If the answer is "no" to any of these, then machines clearly aren't doing "all the work".

yobbo 4y ago
One could make an argument by comparing the effect on productivity by either replacing the worker or the machine. When workers are readily available (and machines are designed to make workers replaceable), it doesn't matter what a time-transplanted peasant would do. The required skill level when using older tools and processes (welding and other building processes) is typically higher than with modern tools. This makes workers more replaceable today. Modern tools make productivity less dependent on the skills of workers. It's not a moral argument, just a fact that explains the observed phenomenon.