6 ms·

> At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by share

> At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker. You are wrong, but so very close that it's understandable. What can be done with an hour of labour has gone up so very high. That it is true. But what has increased in value is the infrastructure of that allowed for the force multiplier. The actual value of labour thus goes down because it can be consumed so efficiently. Since it's the infrastructure that provides most of the heavy lifting, the owners of it get the benefit. If you need another analogy it'd be like a sport where players win the games, but it's really about the excellent coach that calls the plays. The players have no leverage even if they win all the games.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> what has increased in value is the infrastructure of that allowed for the force multiplier. The actual value of labour thus goes down because it can be consumed so efficiently The price of unskilled labour is objectively higher today than one hundred years ago, and it's clearly higher in developed countries in comparison with undeveloped ones. This is due to a myriad of factors. But to date, workers have done well by way of increasing productivity. (Others have done better.)
Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
Infrastructure is not sentient. Remember that and the causes of French Revolution my friend. With no one to run the tools or tools workers chained to tools what good are the tools? They decay and many cannot be moved effectively. Thanks to the fact that criminals won the war on drugs - a destitute life on the streets perpetually high on meth or heroin and alcohol appears to remain within reach for the foreseeable future posing an attractive alternative lifestyle for those dispossessed of abusive labor conditions. Funding social welfare programs would rebalance the calculus but that fact is angrily denied by most wealthy people despite the overwhelming consensus amongst researchers and practitioners. Expect the difficulty to staff these expensive tools with impoverished staff to fuel inflation for the foreseeable future. It is not impossible that ever more creative financial engineering may stave off any of the countless imposing financial crises but the rebalance against capital for labor is long overdue even without a financial crisis to fuel discontent. I for one hope that the rebalance can occur peaceably but accept the fact that rich and powerful live in reality distortion fields so are more likely to lash out violently than concede a single of their unearned pennies.
- Jerrrrry 2y ago
  >criminals won the war on drugs - a destitute life on the streets perpetually high on meth or heroin and alcohol appears to remain within reach for the foreseeable future posing an attractive alternative lifestyle for those dispossessed of abusive labor conditions. Funding social welfare programs would rebalance the calculus but that fact is angrily denied by .... reality?
galdosdi 2y ago
You're both wrong -- if you need two different resources as inputs to make something, and either missing makes the process impossible, it doesn't matter what your subjective opinions are when deciding which is more valuable. They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. So how come some input resources are priced a lot more highly than others? How come sometimes, say, labor gets a big cut and capital a small cut, and other times the other way around? Supply and demand. Bargaining power. That's why. Nothing to do whatsoever with the actual value involved in the process. What portion of the value we apportion to the suppliers of each resource is purely a political question based on bargaining power -- who is less willing to withdraw from providing their resources, etc To use your sports analogy, if this magic genius coach can easily find plenty of any old players to execute his strategy with, then I guess he will manage to absorb the lion's share of profits. If it's hard to find players relative to supply/demand, then it doesn't matter if they're dipshits who barely manage to do anything and who just do what the coach says, it doesn't matter if anyone could do what they do. All that matters is the coach needs them and there's not enough of them. You can't have a team without the coach and you can't have a team without the players, regardless of their respective merits. How you divide the spoils among resourceholders all of whom are critical to the process is purely political, based on leverage and negotiation, not based on actual "value" which cannot be computed unless a sports team can exist without players or without a coach and merely be a little, measurably worse.
- Nevermark 2y ago
  > They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. The more tasks that are automated, the more easily a low level worker is replaced. And the less they will get paid. Think warehouses, checkout attendants, gig workers, … The masses of jobs don’t require unique humans. And the more is automated, the less individual worker skills matter. For most jobs. This gives businesses huge economic leverage over their workers. They will pay them the minimum it takes, and since this is an economy wide problem, every drop in wages somewhere makes it easier for wages to be dropped elsewhere while still retaining workers. Finally, any area where many workers manage to hold onto higher wages will have a target painted on it as a prime place for new business value to be made finding a way to commoditize their work with automation. Businesses are rapidly growing the capabilities of their physical and informational automation. Human workers are not getting stronger, faster, or smarter. So they are forced to compete for jobs by getting cheaper.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> what has increased in value is the infrastructure of that allowed for the force multiplier. The actual value of labour thus goes down because it can be consumed so efficiently The price of unskilled labour is objectively higher today than one hundred years ago, and it's clearly higher in developed countries in comparison with undeveloped ones. This is due to a myriad of factors. But to date, workers have done well by way of increasing productivity. (Others have done better.)

Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago

Infrastructure is not sentient. Remember that and the causes of French Revolution my friend. With no one to run the tools or tools workers chained to tools what good are the tools? They decay and many cannot be moved effectively. Thanks to the fact that criminals won the war on drugs - a destitute life on the streets perpetually high on meth or heroin and alcohol appears to remain within reach for the foreseeable future posing an attractive alternative lifestyle for those dispossessed of abusive labor conditions. Funding social welfare programs would rebalance the calculus but that fact is angrily denied by most wealthy people despite the overwhelming consensus amongst researchers and practitioners. Expect the difficulty to staff these expensive tools with impoverished staff to fuel inflation for the foreseeable future. It is not impossible that ever more creative financial engineering may stave off any of the countless imposing financial crises but the rebalance against capital for labor is long overdue even without a financial crisis to fuel discontent. I for one hope that the rebalance can occur peaceably but accept the fact that rich and powerful live in reality distortion fields so are more likely to lash out violently than concede a single of their unearned pennies.

Jerrrrry 2y ago
>criminals won the war on drugs - a destitute life on the streets perpetually high on meth or heroin and alcohol appears to remain within reach for the foreseeable future posing an attractive alternative lifestyle for those dispossessed of abusive labor conditions. Funding social welfare programs would rebalance the calculus but that fact is angrily denied by .... reality?

galdosdi 2y ago

You're both wrong -- if you need two different resources as inputs to make something, and either missing makes the process impossible, it doesn't matter what your subjective opinions are when deciding which is more valuable. They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. So how come some input resources are priced a lot more highly than others? How come sometimes, say, labor gets a big cut and capital a small cut, and other times the other way around? Supply and demand. Bargaining power. That's why. Nothing to do whatsoever with the actual value involved in the process. What portion of the value we apportion to the suppliers of each resource is purely a political question based on bargaining power -- who is less willing to withdraw from providing their resources, etc To use your sports analogy, if this magic genius coach can easily find plenty of any old players to execute his strategy with, then I guess he will manage to absorb the lion's share of profits. If it's hard to find players relative to supply/demand, then it doesn't matter if they're dipshits who barely manage to do anything and who just do what the coach says, it doesn't matter if anyone could do what they do. All that matters is the coach needs them and there's not enough of them. You can't have a team without the coach and you can't have a team without the players, regardless of their respective merits. How you divide the spoils among resourceholders all of whom are critical to the process is purely political, based on leverage and negotiation, not based on actual "value" which cannot be computed unless a sports team can exist without players or without a coach and merely be a little, measurably worse.

Nevermark 2y ago
> They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. The more tasks that are automated, the more easily a low level worker is replaced. And the less they will get paid. Think warehouses, checkout attendants, gig workers, … The masses of jobs don’t require unique humans. And the more is automated, the less individual worker skills matter. For most jobs. This gives businesses huge economic leverage over their workers. They will pay them the minimum it takes, and since this is an economy wide problem, every drop in wages somewhere makes it easier for wages to be dropped elsewhere while still retaining workers. Finally, any area where many workers manage to hold onto higher wages will have a target painted on it as a prime place for new business value to be made finding a way to commoditize their work with automation. Businesses are rapidly growing the capabilities of their physical and informational automation. Human workers are not getting stronger, faster, or smarter. So they are forced to compete for jobs by getting cheaper.