5 ms·

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 yo

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.
- alfnor 2y ago
  But isn't it more profitable to replace a high-cost job like a data analyst or logistics expert than 10-20 low-cost jobs like warehouse workers? Like the cost of the machines and the maintenance probably will end up costing more than humans.
  - seec 2y ago
    Except replacing the data analyst is very difficult, especially since he probably brings to the table a good amount of human intuition is involved (thinking). You cannot replace it straight with an AI or automated process because we just don't have the tech yet and you cannot replace it easily with any other human because it requires not only a particular education but also very specific skills that are not ubiquitous. That human has more leverage and this is why he is getting paid more. It's very logical but I don't think it is fair to the other humans at the bottom, because while they are much easier to replace, they are still very necessary.
- skjoldr 2y ago
  > Human workers are not getting smarter. Everyone is walking around with devices that connect them to nearly the total sum of human knowledge. Not acting on that to get out of an easily replaceable job is a skill issue. Also, the education systems currently aren't the best. Automation and IT hasn't penetrated them as much as is feasible.
  - dpig_ 2y ago
    > skill issue "To each according to his ability. Everyone else suck shit."
    - skjoldr 2y ago
      Being unable to learn is a matter of either unwillingness or disability. Nowadays it's easier to learn than ever, and the real rates of intellectual disabilities/neurodiversity hadn't gone up that much. Such conditions are just easier to diagnose nowadays. Thus yes, if you won't learn, and you can't prove that it's an organic problem, enjoy a job that sucks. Blaming capitalism for that is meaningless.

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.

alfnor 2y ago
But isn't it more profitable to replace a high-cost job like a data analyst or logistics expert than 10-20 low-cost jobs like warehouse workers? Like the cost of the machines and the maintenance probably will end up costing more than humans.
- seec 2y ago
  Except replacing the data analyst is very difficult, especially since he probably brings to the table a good amount of human intuition is involved (thinking). You cannot replace it straight with an AI or automated process because we just don't have the tech yet and you cannot replace it easily with any other human because it requires not only a particular education but also very specific skills that are not ubiquitous. That human has more leverage and this is why he is getting paid more. It's very logical but I don't think it is fair to the other humans at the bottom, because while they are much easier to replace, they are still very necessary.
skjoldr 2y ago
> Human workers are not getting smarter. Everyone is walking around with devices that connect them to nearly the total sum of human knowledge. Not acting on that to get out of an easily replaceable job is a skill issue. Also, the education systems currently aren't the best. Automation and IT hasn't penetrated them as much as is feasible.
- dpig_ 2y ago
  > skill issue "To each according to his ability. Everyone else suck shit."
  - skjoldr 2y ago
    Being unable to learn is a matter of either unwillingness or disability. Nowadays it's easier to learn than ever, and the real rates of intellectual disabilities/neurodiversity hadn't gone up that much. Such conditions are just easier to diagnose nowadays. Thus yes, if you won't learn, and you can't prove that it's an organic problem, enjoy a job that sucks. Blaming capitalism for that is meaningless.