3 ms·

Hmm. So let me see if I understand the article. To paraphrase: We in the west are becoming ever richer as a society; material wealth beyond the dreams of our

by Lazare 15y ago

Hmm. So let me see if I understand the article. To paraphrase: We in the west are becoming ever richer as a society; material wealth beyond the dreams of our ancestors lies at our feet. The low skilled have a quality of life that the kings and queens of France would have killed for. Where once 90% of us had to till the soil in order for us to eat, now only a tiny fraction of society truly "needs" to work in order for us all to achieve unprecedented material wealth. Where once the poorest among us starved, now they have iPhones. ...and this is terrible. Look, this may be right, but that's an awfully big jump that needs some explaining. And while we're at it, maybe a little more attention on why it would be possible or desirable for everyone to have a computer science degree would be nice. A lot of people would suggest that we're already in the middle of a massive education bubble, and that with the possible exception of some STEM fields, we have too many people going to university. But the biggest problem is that there is a fundamental disconnect between "we're getting richer and more productive" and "the poor are going to starve to death". The "managed decline" section of the post seems particular confused; it can't seem to decide if we're all getting richer or not. If we can't afford welfare, then we clearly aren't - but it was the process of getting richer that was meant to lead to an employment crisis. The implicit model behind this post appears wildly inconsistent, to put it mildly.

zeteo 15y ago
This is not about materials needs of the low skilled, but about the philosophical needs of the author. It's difficult to be a Marxist when, as you say, minimum wage routinely affords material comforts old royalty could only dream of. But, with a bit of effort, every Don Quixote finds his windmills.
- eli_gottlieb 15y ago
  Who affords comforts on minimum wage? I don't know anyone making that little who can even afford to move away from their parents.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    You know what? I've worked for minimum wage, not so long ago. I could still afford running water, Internet, TV, electric lighting, refrigeration, my own automobile (second-hand ofc), and even a cross-country flight once. Weren't these unbelievable luxuries for the first 5000 years of civilization? What king or queen could have afforded half of them in 3000BC, 2000BC, 1000BC, 1AD, 1000AD, or even in Marx's time?
    - eli_gottlieb 15y ago
      >I've worked for minimum wage, not so long ago. I could still afford running water, Internet, TV, electric lighting, refrigeration, my own automobile (second-hand ofc), and even a cross-country flight once. Where were you living?
celer 15y ago
I don't mean to imply that that I agree with the author. I agree that it is an amazing thing that only a fraction of the population needs to work in order for us all to live. I also agree with you that society will continue to grow richer for the foreseeable future barring massive loss of human life. At the same time, unless something changes rapidly, unemployment will rise as low skill jobs go away. If we keep our current societal structure, or continue to cut benefits for the unemployed, we will end up with a more divided society than ever before. A wealthy elite and a starving mass is, to put it mildly, unstable. It doesn't matter that even the poorest will still have an improving standard of living. The perceived gap will be a problem because while society as a whole is "getting richer and more productive," the majority of those gains are going to the top.
- Lazare 15y ago
  "...unless something changes rapidly, unemployment will rise as low skill jobs go away" You sort of toss this off as if it was fairly obvious - but it's not. There is no historical evidence that this has ever happened (even in very similar circumstances to what we're living through now), nor is there any model or theory for why it might happen in the future. When you make a prediction with no prior empirical or theoretical grounding, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does means you won't be taken very seriously unless you make an argument as to why you're right. Your mistake, I believe, is in thinking that the total number of low skilled jobs is decreasing. There is no evidence that this is taking place, nor a theory for why it might in the future. Many low skill jobs are disappearing, but the same could be said of, well, every moment of the last 200 years. (You also seem to be talking about a society with a "starving mass" where nonetheless the poorest have an improving standard of living. This is very contradictory.)
  - celer 15y ago
    I think that there is very strong evidence that this has been happening for a significant period of time. When I look at the length of time children are expected to be in school, I see a trend of a long rise spiking recently. If a large part of the importance of schooling is job training, that is strong evidence for a decline in low skilled jobs. To look at a model for what is causing this, I point to automation. Scivener is an archaic term today because the job is no longer needed. A Roomba helps replace a maid. The United States manufactures more today than ever before, using fewer jobs. The last log table I saw was printed in 1906. Google Earth is more accurate than most, if not all, surveyors. All because we have technology to do our jobs for us. On the other side, assembly line manufacturing did produce an increase in low skill jobs, Amazon's Mechanical Turk suffers no lack of customers, and some modern day sweatshops engage in gold farming and CAPTCHA breaking. I argue that new technology tends to remove more low skilled jobs than it creates, and that the pace of new technology increases over time. Is this a claim you would disagree with? The starving masses is what I think many people will see themselves as. The lack of truth to this claim is barely relevant, and inequality has always been able to produce anger.

by Lazare 15y ago

zeteo 15y ago

This is not about materials needs of the low skilled, but about the philosophical needs of the author. It's difficult to be a Marxist when, as you say, minimum wage routinely affords material comforts old royalty could only dream of. But, with a bit of effort, every Don Quixote finds his windmills.

eli_gottlieb 15y ago
Who affords comforts on minimum wage? I don't know anyone making that little who can even afford to move away from their parents.
- zeteo 15y ago
  You know what? I've worked for minimum wage, not so long ago. I could still afford running water, Internet, TV, electric lighting, refrigeration, my own automobile (second-hand ofc), and even a cross-country flight once. Weren't these unbelievable luxuries for the first 5000 years of civilization? What king or queen could have afforded half of them in 3000BC, 2000BC, 1000BC, 1AD, 1000AD, or even in Marx's time?
  - eli_gottlieb 15y ago
    >I've worked for minimum wage, not so long ago. I could still afford running water, Internet, TV, electric lighting, refrigeration, my own automobile (second-hand ofc), and even a cross-country flight once. Where were you living?

celer 15y ago

I don't mean to imply that that I agree with the author. I agree that it is an amazing thing that only a fraction of the population needs to work in order for us all to live. I also agree with you that society will continue to grow richer for the foreseeable future barring massive loss of human life. At the same time, unless something changes rapidly, unemployment will rise as low skill jobs go away. If we keep our current societal structure, or continue to cut benefits for the unemployed, we will end up with a more divided society than ever before. A wealthy elite and a starving mass is, to put it mildly, unstable. It doesn't matter that even the poorest will still have an improving standard of living. The perceived gap will be a problem because while society as a whole is "getting richer and more productive," the majority of those gains are going to the top.

Lazare 15y ago
"...unless something changes rapidly, unemployment will rise as low skill jobs go away" You sort of toss this off as if it was fairly obvious - but it's not. There is no historical evidence that this has ever happened (even in very similar circumstances to what we're living through now), nor is there any model or theory for why it might happen in the future. When you make a prediction with no prior empirical or theoretical grounding, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does means you won't be taken very seriously unless you make an argument as to why you're right. Your mistake, I believe, is in thinking that the total number of low skilled jobs is decreasing. There is no evidence that this is taking place, nor a theory for why it might in the future. Many low skill jobs are disappearing, but the same could be said of, well, every moment of the last 200 years. (You also seem to be talking about a society with a "starving mass" where nonetheless the poorest have an improving standard of living. This is very contradictory.)
- celer 15y ago
  I think that there is very strong evidence that this has been happening for a significant period of time. When I look at the length of time children are expected to be in school, I see a trend of a long rise spiking recently. If a large part of the importance of schooling is job training, that is strong evidence for a decline in low skilled jobs. To look at a model for what is causing this, I point to automation. Scivener is an archaic term today because the job is no longer needed. A Roomba helps replace a maid. The United States manufactures more today than ever before, using fewer jobs. The last log table I saw was printed in 1906. Google Earth is more accurate than most, if not all, surveyors. All because we have technology to do our jobs for us. On the other side, assembly line manufacturing did produce an increase in low skill jobs, Amazon's Mechanical Turk suffers no lack of customers, and some modern day sweatshops engage in gold farming and CAPTCHA breaking. I argue that new technology tends to remove more low skilled jobs than it creates, and that the pace of new technology increases over time. Is this a claim you would disagree with? The starving masses is what I think many people will see themselves as. The lack of truth to this claim is barely relevant, and inequality has always been able to produce anger.