4 ms·

Would that we ask if it is a net benefit for society that so much wealth extraction from labor has occurred the last 40 years.

ethbr1 2y ago
We shouldn't right wrongs by deliberately capping economic efficiency, especially in sectors that are foundational to the rest of the economy (e.g. maritime trade and energy).
- skhunted 2y ago
  Indeed. And we shouldn’t ask if it is in society’s best interest only when the discussion is about benefits for labor.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    We shouldn't. Dockworkers should allow automation, and those jobs that remain should capture a fair share of the increased productivity in increased wages.
    - thecrash 2y ago
      The difficulty is that owners don't just voluntarily hand out "fair shares" to workers who agree to play nice. The only reason workers get paid at all is because if they stopped getting paid, they would stop working. Once enough automation is introduced, the owners really have no incentive to pay a fair share to anybody whose labor they no longer need. So any promises to "share the wealth" that comes from automation ring hollow.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        That is and isn't how things work in reality. Once business adds additional automation, (a) the business made additional investment in the automation, (b) the remaining jobs tend to be higher-skill, (c) (after recouping cost of automation) the business now has better margins and can afford to pay the remaining employees more, (d) because of (b) and (c), they usually do pay their remaining employees more as a way to retain now even more critical labor. Businesses rarely automate the hardest / highest-skill parts of the job first. Why would they? There are lower-hanging fruit.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        I don’t think is true. “Higher skill” is nebulous, but lots of automation quick reduces higher paid positions, such as software that allows people to be more productive or technology that obviates many other devices (smartphones). But the pace of automation is slower for high touch work, such as nursing home work, cleaning, cooking, and other jobs that typically pay the least. Of course, there is a need for very specialized work that could pay more, such R&D in cutting edge computing, medicines, chemistry, etc, but the chances of achieving that level of expertise does not seem realistic for the majority of the population.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        You're looking at it in terms of capability, instead of ROI. CFO/COOs typically aren't investing in the highest-capability automation, because that's the most capital-expensive automation. It's far cheaper and easier to buy another crane or loader, driven by a person, than a fully autonomous system. So given the two options, they'll usually pick the former (because it has quicker ROI). There are some exceptions, if a large proportion of the work is high-skilled, e.g. pharmacy, but with dockworkers we're probably talking about the lowest-skilled jobs being eliminated first.

ethbr1 2y ago

We shouldn't right wrongs by deliberately capping economic efficiency, especially in sectors that are foundational to the rest of the economy (e.g. maritime trade and energy).

skhunted 2y ago
Indeed. And we shouldn’t ask if it is in society’s best interest only when the discussion is about benefits for labor.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  We shouldn't. Dockworkers should allow automation, and those jobs that remain should capture a fair share of the increased productivity in increased wages.
  - thecrash 2y ago
    The difficulty is that owners don't just voluntarily hand out "fair shares" to workers who agree to play nice. The only reason workers get paid at all is because if they stopped getting paid, they would stop working. Once enough automation is introduced, the owners really have no incentive to pay a fair share to anybody whose labor they no longer need. So any promises to "share the wealth" that comes from automation ring hollow.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      That is and isn't how things work in reality. Once business adds additional automation, (a) the business made additional investment in the automation, (b) the remaining jobs tend to be higher-skill, (c) (after recouping cost of automation) the business now has better margins and can afford to pay the remaining employees more, (d) because of (b) and (c), they usually do pay their remaining employees more as a way to retain now even more critical labor. Businesses rarely automate the hardest / highest-skill parts of the job first. Why would they? There are lower-hanging fruit.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        I don’t think is true. “Higher skill” is nebulous, but lots of automation quick reduces higher paid positions, such as software that allows people to be more productive or technology that obviates many other devices (smartphones). But the pace of automation is slower for high touch work, such as nursing home work, cleaning, cooking, and other jobs that typically pay the least. Of course, there is a need for very specialized work that could pay more, such R&D in cutting edge computing, medicines, chemistry, etc, but the chances of achieving that level of expertise does not seem realistic for the majority of the population.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        You're looking at it in terms of capability, instead of ROI. CFO/COOs typically aren't investing in the highest-capability automation, because that's the most capital-expensive automation. It's far cheaper and easier to buy another crane or loader, driven by a person, than a fully autonomous system. So given the two options, they'll usually pick the former (because it has quicker ROI). There are some exceptions, if a large proportion of the work is high-skilled, e.g. pharmacy, but with dockworkers we're probably talking about the lowest-skilled jobs being eliminated first.