4 ms·

1 worker with a computer in 2000 can do the job of 25 workers in 1970. It does not follow, however, that the 1 worker with 25 times more productivity should be

1 worker with a computer in 2000 can do the job of 25 workers in 1970. It does not follow, however, that the 1 worker with 25 times more productivity should be paid 25 times the salary. That's financial insanity. Unless the government voted to map work week hours to productivity so the 1 workers earns the same but works 25 times less. That's financial insanity mandated by the will of the people (i.e., the world we already live in). ;D

piva00 3y ago
It doesn't need to be a linear correlation, but there should be some correlation between worker productivity (aka produced value per hour of labour) vs wages. It hasn't happened, at all [1]. And that's ridiculous, workers are much more productive while real wages have stagnated when inflation is taken into account. > When it comes to the pace of annual pay increases, the top 1% wage grew 138% since 1979, while wages for the bottom 90% grew 15% > Middle-class wages are stagnant—Middle-wage workers' hourly wage is up 6% since 1979, low-wage workers' wages are down 5%, while those with very high wages saw a 41% increase [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/