5 ms·

No. You're forgetting that there is a finite amount of work needed and so orders-of-magnitude fewer people are required. Also, the average real purchasing powe

No. You're forgetting that there is a finite amount of work needed and so orders-of-magnitude fewer people are required. Also, the average real purchasing power in America has been declining for a very long time and cannot afford goods and services except through taking on debt.

saalweachter 2y ago
There are two basic solutions to this problem. 1. Everyone works less (the government mandates a 35, 30, 20... hour workweek), raising the relative value of labor. 2. We collectively do more than the bare minimum needed for survival and comfort (the government raises taxes, spending them on activities like building sports stadiums or moonbases), raising the demand for labor.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Or we could just have the government stop having laws that constrain competition, so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps, and then at lower prices people buy more products and services, increasing the demand for labor and decreasing the cost of living.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    The recent profitflation phenomenon demonstrates pretty conclusively that we can’t rely on lower production costs to result in lower prices without a lot of aggressive trust-busting.
  - SleepilyLimping 2y ago
    > so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps I cannot trust any company with any modicum of success not to immediately exit into the hands of megacorps. I cannot hope that companies have any type of morality/"want to make the world better" anymore.
    - ghiculescu 2y ago
      But you trust governments to have that morality?
      - vkou 2y ago
        You don't need to trust in their morality, you have a direct ability to influence representative democracies. You have no way to influence the governance of corporations.
        ghiculescu 2y ago
        Sure you do. You could buy shares. It won’t give you much influence in isolation, but I challenge you to show more influence over your elected representatives.
        vkou 2y ago
        > Sure you do. You could buy shares. Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't. Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes. Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected. And isn't it weird how the people who do get elected actually tend to be of at least vaguely similar political leanings to their constituents? If money was all it took, we'd have no issue electing hard-conservative anti-abortion fundamentalists in, say Chicago, as long as they had policies that their donors found appealing. (Or, conversely, socially progressive, economically regressive 'liberals' in the deep south.) As it turns out, money in elections can only shift the needle so much, and won't turn black into white. What it can do is pick a winner out of a lineup of similar candidates, where the margins are close enough that a bigger advertising war chest will move the needle... And even then, all of those campaigns are only possible by ground-canvassing volunteers, who are motivated ideologically, not financially.
        ghiculescu 2y ago
  - Epa095 2y ago
    Monopolies are the natural end here, since more money means more ability to invest in machinery to produce (or AI), or just buy up any of the newcomers.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    I think the US should seek both capitalistic and socialistic policies simultaneously, but this would require a revolution that may [not be possible / very difficult] to achieve from within the US political system because its "operating system" is tainted by lobbyists for the billionaires. i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels ii. Increase capital gains tax significantly iii. Tax speculation-derived activities, especially real estate and REITs iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) v. Shrink defense spending by half vi. Enact single-payer healthcare for all eliminating co-insurance and better than Medicare up to UK NHS levels but without the government delivering healthcare directly; there shouldn't be good health insurance for just a few people with good jobs vii. Greatly expand visas for engineers and entrepreneurs viii. Also expand visas and professional certification "homologation" for teachers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, and researchers so they don't have to start over ix. Invest in trade schools: plumbers, electricians, machinists x. Invest in adult education, GED, and pre-college prep courseware xi. Earmark funds and network applied STEM courses and internships for industry-practical training, especially for fabs, robotics, and high-tech manufacturing xii. Invest in childcare and pre-K xiii. Revisit tariff adjustments on a more frequent and selective basis xiv. Entrepreneur incubators should get federal subsidies because they're generating wealth xv. UBI - Everyone gets it without requirements excepted tapering down based on income xvi. Small businesses should have even greater incentives in banking, real estate, state and federal bid contracts, and tax treatment
    - quickthrowman 2y ago
      > i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels My gut feeling is that this would increase inflation, but I could be wrong. > iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) I would much rather the US spend $2.2B on corn subsidies so that we have food security in the event of a global catastrophe. I’d prefer eating nothing but corn flour/meal for years than starving to death. > v. Shrink defense spending by half As a (biased) US citizen, I would prefer keeping American Hegemony around, and that doesn’t happen without the massive military overspending the US does.
superturkey650 2y ago
Why do you say there is a finite amount of work needed? There might be, at any one time, a finite amount of work someone is willing to pay x > 0 dollars for, but as x goes to 0 I’d intuitively think the amount of work increases indefinitely.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  This is exactly what happens. Because of automation, the amount of labor needed to do all the work that was done in the 19th century is now a low single digit percentage of the population, and yet the unemployment rate is low. The actual problem is artificial scarcity, not automation. A robot that can build housing cheaper than humans is great. A law that restricts new housing from being built so young people can't afford it is not.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    We need to find more work for people to do and make it easier to start businesses.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Workers are already at an extremely high level of productivity compared to any other time in history. The problem is what they get in exchange for their labour, and that is a question of monetary policy and how inflationary money enters the economy (it's through real estate).
      - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
        Going beyond unionization to ownership, one solution is worker-owned co-ops. Making those easy to start and providing tax benefits for such would be fantastic.
        carlosjobim 2y ago
        Worker owned co-ops have existed for a long time and they don't solve the problem, because they still have to compete on the free market for money that is created out of thin air and distributed through real estate.
NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  This itself is a fallacy derived from the Keynesian crowd. There isn't unlimited demand for labor and never was. In the real world at microeconomic and local levels, labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting and people who are already employed. This number is ultimately countable and finite. There are not infinite jobs available.
  - tremon 2y ago
    Things don't have to be mathematically infinite for them to be practically infinite. > labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting Only for a very limited definition of labor. How many children post job offers for rearing them, for example?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > isn't unlimited demand for labor and never was Correct. But we're nowhere close to it. To the extent labor is a limiting factor on growth, it's in its lack of adequate supply. > In the real world at microeconomic and local levels, labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting and people who are already employed You're describing edge cases, e.g. mining towns and war zones. In enterprises, it's an open secret that most jobs aren't filled by asking for applications. In small businesses, it's quite common for someone to pitch a service or a role. (A lot of "small business" is indistinguishable from freelancing/contracting. For example, the person who told me at a bar that he does yard work, and whom I wound up hiring.)
    - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
      Ah, no. There are absurd numbers of job reqs that don't provide livable wages, lowball workers compared to industry brackets, or require skillsets that are niche or unrealistic.
User23 2y ago
Yes, the minimum wage in Big Macs has absolutely cratered, something like a sevenfold decrease. I haven’t checked the numbers but I expect the price of a house in minimum wage hours has similarly skyrocketed. This is of course because labor has received virtually none of the labor productivity gains since 1965.
bmitc 2y ago
There is a lot of work to be done. Literally everywhere is short staffed: hospitals and other medical groups, construction, retail, restaurants, pharmacies, etc. I don't remember things being like this 20 years ago. Wherever you go, there's huge waits due to staffing issues.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  And yet those places are entirely unwilling, and sometimes literally economically unable, to increase what they are offering to fill those positions. It's not staffing issues. Companies very clearly are willing to overwork their existing staff rather than hire new. There's a store of our local grocery chain that is placed in an extremely high traffic, high income, extremely high wealth portion of the state. It pulls in over $1 million a day in sales. They have complained about "staffing" for years now, all this "nobody wants to work" BS, to the point that they most likely are losing sales to competitors. They offer $20 an hour starting. They could offer $40 an hour and have their pick of great employees and unlock more revenue, but they choose not to do that, because it's better to struggle with an understaffed store than it is to set a precedent of people making actual money for their labor.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    So, your theory is that they could double their payroll because grocery stores are so high-margin that this is no big deal? Or is it that you believe they wouldn't have whiny complainoids even at $40/hour, making it expensive but worth the increased cost? What happens when their competitors need to do the same thing just to stay in business... will everyone somehow magically have the top 5% of the wagie class, and everyone will be be happier, customer, employee, and boss alike? Would the people who do no-show-no-calls stop doing those when for the first time in their lives they can afford to skip a day or two, or would they do this even more? I'm not convinced that there is any merit in this plan.
    - 2y ago
reaperman 2y ago
You guys are talking different things when you each say "worth". You're reasonable in saying the price of most labor may be lower due to the automation, and GP is also reasonable in saying that the productivity of labor may be much higher. Whether either of these things are "correct", time will tell and likely will be nuance and vary by job role, but they're both reasonable.
bloppe 2y ago
The average real purchasing power in America has been increasing since at least 2010: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasi...
- always2slow 2y ago
  This is so weird.. my experience doesn't match with this data at all.
  - galdosdi 2y ago
    Because money doesn't buy happiness, and a lot of the increase in purchasing power is pointless stuff like the fact that you can buy an iPad that's twice as powerful for half the cost, or get YouTube for free instead of paying $50 for cable, while the things that really matter like housing go up in price relative to wages. If you want to feel richer, look on Amazon/AliExpress and try to remember what stuff like that used to cost decades ago. It's not BS, it's very real. It's amazing how cheap random knickknacks are now. But, you're right -- it's a pyrrhic victory because I'd rather own my own home and have a tough time affording a breadmaker and blender than rent forever and easily afford having all the gadgets that I do, and I think most people feel similarly.
    - always2slow 2y ago
      Well mostly I was fixating on the health insurance, and how health insurance's growth rate has slowed, but healthcare costs have gone way up in general and health insurance covers almost nothing anymore while deductibles have also gone up (for me). But again it's about rates, and I guess when I look at Figure 3 again it just seems deceptive.. a personal computer purchase for me includes a GPU and those prices did not decline (the total cost of a gaming PC like tripled over that time period). Overall this just seems like it's cheer-leading industries that are shrink-flating: health insurance that covers nothing, shit tvs, cheap crappy PCs, airline fares (ever shrinking leg room?). Edit: Also probably because I remember when the dollar had WAY more purchasing power, so my baseline is skewed already. But this "increase" in purchasing power is just a return to more normal levels. This data feels more relatable.. slightly less purchasing power since 2019 https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/purchasing-power-constant-dollars.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/purchasing-power-constant...
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Work feeds in to quality of life, quality of life is unbounded. If we had nuclear power plants in every town we could have nearly anything we could imagine.

saalweachter 2y ago

There are two basic solutions to this problem. 1. Everyone works less (the government mandates a 35, 30, 20... hour workweek), raising the relative value of labor. 2. We collectively do more than the bare minimum needed for survival and comfort (the government raises taxes, spending them on activities like building sports stadiums or moonbases), raising the demand for labor.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
Or we could just have the government stop having laws that constrain competition, so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps, and then at lower prices people buy more products and services, increasing the demand for labor and decreasing the cost of living.
- vundercind 2y ago
  The recent profitflation phenomenon demonstrates pretty conclusively that we can’t rely on lower production costs to result in lower prices without a lot of aggressive trust-busting.
- SleepilyLimping 2y ago
  > so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps I cannot trust any company with any modicum of success not to immediately exit into the hands of megacorps. I cannot hope that companies have any type of morality/"want to make the world better" anymore.
  - ghiculescu 2y ago
    But you trust governments to have that morality?
    - vkou 2y ago
      You don't need to trust in their morality, you have a direct ability to influence representative democracies. You have no way to influence the governance of corporations.
      - ghiculescu 2y ago
        Sure you do. You could buy shares. It won’t give you much influence in isolation, but I challenge you to show more influence over your elected representatives.
        vkou 2y ago
        > Sure you do. You could buy shares. Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't. Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes. Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected. And isn't it weird how the people who do get elected actually tend to be of at least vaguely similar political leanings to their constituents? If money was all it took, we'd have no issue electing hard-conservative anti-abortion fundamentalists in, say Chicago, as long as they had policies that their donors found appealing. (Or, conversely, socially progressive, economically regressive 'liberals' in the deep south.) As it turns out, money in elections can only shift the needle so much, and won't turn black into white. What it can do is pick a winner out of a lineup of similar candidates, where the margins are close enough that a bigger advertising war chest will move the needle... And even then, all of those campaigns are only possible by ground-canvassing volunteers, who are motivated ideologically, not financially.
        ghiculescu 2y ago
- Epa095 2y ago
  Monopolies are the natural end here, since more money means more ability to invest in machinery to produce (or AI), or just buy up any of the newcomers.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  I think the US should seek both capitalistic and socialistic policies simultaneously, but this would require a revolution that may [not be possible / very difficult] to achieve from within the US political system because its "operating system" is tainted by lobbyists for the billionaires. i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels ii. Increase capital gains tax significantly iii. Tax speculation-derived activities, especially real estate and REITs iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) v. Shrink defense spending by half vi. Enact single-payer healthcare for all eliminating co-insurance and better than Medicare up to UK NHS levels but without the government delivering healthcare directly; there shouldn't be good health insurance for just a few people with good jobs vii. Greatly expand visas for engineers and entrepreneurs viii. Also expand visas and professional certification "homologation" for teachers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, and researchers so they don't have to start over ix. Invest in trade schools: plumbers, electricians, machinists x. Invest in adult education, GED, and pre-college prep courseware xi. Earmark funds and network applied STEM courses and internships for industry-practical training, especially for fabs, robotics, and high-tech manufacturing xii. Invest in childcare and pre-K xiii. Revisit tariff adjustments on a more frequent and selective basis xiv. Entrepreneur incubators should get federal subsidies because they're generating wealth xv. UBI - Everyone gets it without requirements excepted tapering down based on income xvi. Small businesses should have even greater incentives in banking, real estate, state and federal bid contracts, and tax treatment
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    > i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels My gut feeling is that this would increase inflation, but I could be wrong. > iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) I would much rather the US spend $2.2B on corn subsidies so that we have food security in the event of a global catastrophe. I’d prefer eating nothing but corn flour/meal for years than starving to death. > v. Shrink defense spending by half As a (biased) US citizen, I would prefer keeping American Hegemony around, and that doesn’t happen without the massive military overspending the US does.

superturkey650 2y ago

Why do you say there is a finite amount of work needed? There might be, at any one time, a finite amount of work someone is willing to pay x > 0 dollars for, but as x goes to 0 I’d intuitively think the amount of work increases indefinitely.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
This is exactly what happens. Because of automation, the amount of labor needed to do all the work that was done in the 19th century is now a low single digit percentage of the population, and yet the unemployment rate is low. The actual problem is artificial scarcity, not automation. A robot that can build housing cheaper than humans is great. A law that restricts new housing from being built so young people can't afford it is not.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  We need to find more work for people to do and make it easier to start businesses.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Workers are already at an extremely high level of productivity compared to any other time in history. The problem is what they get in exchange for their labour, and that is a question of monetary policy and how inflationary money enters the economy (it's through real estate).
    - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
      Going beyond unionization to ownership, one solution is worker-owned co-ops. Making those easy to start and providing tax benefits for such would be fantastic.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        Worker owned co-ops have existed for a long time and they don't solve the problem, because they still have to compete on the free market for money that is created out of thin air and distributed through real estate.

NovemberWhiskey 2y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
This itself is a fallacy derived from the Keynesian crowd. There isn't unlimited demand for labor and never was. In the real world at microeconomic and local levels, labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting and people who are already employed. This number is ultimately countable and finite. There are not infinite jobs available.
- tremon 2y ago
  Things don't have to be mathematically infinite for them to be practically infinite. > labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting Only for a very limited definition of labor. How many children post job offers for rearing them, for example?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > isn't unlimited demand for labor and never was Correct. But we're nowhere close to it. To the extent labor is a limiting factor on growth, it's in its lack of adequate supply. > In the real world at microeconomic and local levels, labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting and people who are already employed You're describing edge cases, e.g. mining towns and war zones. In enterprises, it's an open secret that most jobs aren't filled by asking for applications. In small businesses, it's quite common for someone to pitch a service or a role. (A lot of "small business" is indistinguishable from freelancing/contracting. For example, the person who told me at a bar that he does yard work, and whom I wound up hiring.)
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    Ah, no. There are absurd numbers of job reqs that don't provide livable wages, lowball workers compared to industry brackets, or require skillsets that are niche or unrealistic.

User23 2y ago

Yes, the minimum wage in Big Macs has absolutely cratered, something like a sevenfold decrease. I haven’t checked the numbers but I expect the price of a house in minimum wage hours has similarly skyrocketed. This is of course because labor has received virtually none of the labor productivity gains since 1965.

bmitc 2y ago

There is a lot of work to be done. Literally everywhere is short staffed: hospitals and other medical groups, construction, retail, restaurants, pharmacies, etc. I don't remember things being like this 20 years ago. Wherever you go, there's huge waits due to staffing issues.

mrguyorama 2y ago
And yet those places are entirely unwilling, and sometimes literally economically unable, to increase what they are offering to fill those positions. It's not staffing issues. Companies very clearly are willing to overwork their existing staff rather than hire new. There's a store of our local grocery chain that is placed in an extremely high traffic, high income, extremely high wealth portion of the state. It pulls in over $1 million a day in sales. They have complained about "staffing" for years now, all this "nobody wants to work" BS, to the point that they most likely are losing sales to competitors. They offer $20 an hour starting. They could offer $40 an hour and have their pick of great employees and unlock more revenue, but they choose not to do that, because it's better to struggle with an understaffed store than it is to set a precedent of people making actual money for their labor.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  So, your theory is that they could double their payroll because grocery stores are so high-margin that this is no big deal? Or is it that you believe they wouldn't have whiny complainoids even at $40/hour, making it expensive but worth the increased cost? What happens when their competitors need to do the same thing just to stay in business... will everyone somehow magically have the top 5% of the wagie class, and everyone will be be happier, customer, employee, and boss alike? Would the people who do no-show-no-calls stop doing those when for the first time in their lives they can afford to skip a day or two, or would they do this even more? I'm not convinced that there is any merit in this plan.
  - 2y ago

reaperman 2y ago

You guys are talking different things when you each say "worth". You're reasonable in saying the price of most labor may be lower due to the automation, and GP is also reasonable in saying that the productivity of labor may be much higher. Whether either of these things are "correct", time will tell and likely will be nuance and vary by job role, but they're both reasonable.

bloppe 2y ago

The average real purchasing power in America has been increasing since at least 2010: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasi...

always2slow 2y ago
This is so weird.. my experience doesn't match with this data at all.
- galdosdi 2y ago
  Because money doesn't buy happiness, and a lot of the increase in purchasing power is pointless stuff like the fact that you can buy an iPad that's twice as powerful for half the cost, or get YouTube for free instead of paying $50 for cable, while the things that really matter like housing go up in price relative to wages. If you want to feel richer, look on Amazon/AliExpress and try to remember what stuff like that used to cost decades ago. It's not BS, it's very real. It's amazing how cheap random knickknacks are now. But, you're right -- it's a pyrrhic victory because I'd rather own my own home and have a tough time affording a breadmaker and blender than rent forever and easily afford having all the gadgets that I do, and I think most people feel similarly.
  - always2slow 2y ago
    Well mostly I was fixating on the health insurance, and how health insurance's growth rate has slowed, but healthcare costs have gone way up in general and health insurance covers almost nothing anymore while deductibles have also gone up (for me). But again it's about rates, and I guess when I look at Figure 3 again it just seems deceptive.. a personal computer purchase for me includes a GPU and those prices did not decline (the total cost of a gaming PC like tripled over that time period). Overall this just seems like it's cheer-leading industries that are shrink-flating: health insurance that covers nothing, shit tvs, cheap crappy PCs, airline fares (ever shrinking leg room?). Edit: Also probably because I remember when the dollar had WAY more purchasing power, so my baseline is skewed already. But this "increase" in purchasing power is just a return to more normal levels. This data feels more relatable.. slightly less purchasing power since 2019 https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/purchasing-power-constant-dollars.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/purchasing-power-constant...

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Work feeds in to quality of life, quality of life is unbounded. If we had nuclear power plants in every town we could have nearly anything we could imagine.