4 ms·

> 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 automat

> 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.
galdosdi 2y ago
> Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. But there's no objective way to measure valuable other than what the output is and what happens if the resource is removed. That's circular reasoning. You want to believe that doing something easy can't possibly be as valuable, but, it sure can, it's all a matter of supply and demand. We've all seen boomtown situations, especially if we read history or follow current events, where suddenly an undersupply of warm bodies relative to the opportunities makes for high wages relatively speaking for anyone just willing to move to the boomtown area.
- seec 2y ago
  There would be an objective way but it wouldn't be politically accepted. Because then there wouldn't be so much difference in compensation for work and it doesn't do rich people or politicians any good. After all, if everyone is closer in net worth, many of the problems politicians are supposed to solve just go away. In any case, objectively the ones who get a shit ton of money just for owning a stock or just leading (making choices, good or bad) are overcompensated compared to the rest. Supply and demand don't work for this type of stuff because demand (for better paid jobs/position) is basically infinite while supply is artificially constrained: we are making sure that only one in a hundred or one in a thousand can get the position, regardless of actual worker competence. One might be perfectly good enough for the job but if all the positions are taken, he will have to settle for a lower position. The fact is that the difference between lower levels of pay and higher ones is way too large and this inequality has increased 10-50-fold in the last 50 years. Clearly the system is broken.

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.

galdosdi 2y ago

> Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. But there's no objective way to measure valuable other than what the output is and what happens if the resource is removed. That's circular reasoning. You want to believe that doing something easy can't possibly be as valuable, but, it sure can, it's all a matter of supply and demand. We've all seen boomtown situations, especially if we read history or follow current events, where suddenly an undersupply of warm bodies relative to the opportunities makes for high wages relatively speaking for anyone just willing to move to the boomtown area.

seec 2y ago
There would be an objective way but it wouldn't be politically accepted. Because then there wouldn't be so much difference in compensation for work and it doesn't do rich people or politicians any good. After all, if everyone is closer in net worth, many of the problems politicians are supposed to solve just go away. In any case, objectively the ones who get a shit ton of money just for owning a stock or just leading (making choices, good or bad) are overcompensated compared to the rest. Supply and demand don't work for this type of stuff because demand (for better paid jobs/position) is basically infinite while supply is artificially constrained: we are making sure that only one in a hundred or one in a thousand can get the position, regardless of actual worker competence. One might be perfectly good enough for the job but if all the positions are taken, he will have to settle for a lower position. The fact is that the difference between lower levels of pay and higher ones is way too large and this inequality has increased 10-50-fold in the last 50 years. Clearly the system is broken.