3 ms·
I do not agree with the following: > But those profits will not be shared. Human productivity has exploded in the last 120 years, yet we are working longer hou
by ManuelKiessling 2y ago
I do not agree with the following:
> But those profits will not be shared. Human productivity has exploded in the last 120 years, yet we are working longer hours for less pay.
I am, however, criticizing this in isolation — that is, my goal is not to invalidate (nor validate, for that matter) the rest of your text; only this specific point.
So, I do not agree. We are clearly working a lot less hours than 120 or even 60 years ago, and we are getting a lot more back for it.
The problem I have with this is that the framing is often wrong — whether some number on a paycheck goes up or down is completely irrelevant at the end of the day.
The only relevant question boils down to this: how many hours of hardship do I have to put in, in order to get X?
And X can be many different things. Like, say, a steak, or a refill at the gas station, or a bread.
Now, I do not have very good data at hand right here and right now, but if my memory and my gut feeling serves me right, the difference is significant, often even dramatic.
For example, for one kilogram of beef, the average German worker needs to toil about 36 minutes nowadays.
In 1970, it was twice as much time that needed to be worked before the same amount of beef could be afforded.
In the seventies, Germans needed to work 145 hours to be able to afford a washing machine.
Today, it’s less than 20 hours!
And that’s not even taking into account the amount of „more progress“ we can afford today, with less toil.
While one can imagine that in 1970, I could theoretically have something resembling a smartphone or a lane- and distance-keeping car getting produced for me (by NASA, probably), I can’t even begin to imagine how many hours, if not millennia, I would have needed to work in order to receive a paycheck that would have paid for it.
We get SO much more for our monthly paycheck today, and so many more people do (billions actually), it’s not even funny.
- chairmansteve 2y agoYou are right, but the average person is less happy than in 1970.
- CaptainFever 2y agoSource?
- chairmansteve 2y agohttps://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the-sad-state-of-happiness-in-the-united-states-and-the-role-of-digital-media/ https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the-sad-state-of-happi...
- j7ake 2y agoAverage meaning not gay, not ethnic minority, and not living in China or Soviet Union?
- kranke155 2y agoA lot of people actually liked the Soviet Union, post-Stalin.
- chairmansteve 2y agoYes. Good point. I do mean that. The average American white person is less happy.
- jaredhallen 2y agoWe get more material goods, to be sure. But do we get more satisfaction out of our lives? More happiness? More joy?
- musicale 2y agoWage increases have been lagging productivity increases for about 60 years.[1] For the past 35 years or so, automation seems to have driven wage inequality, and AI is headed down the same path.[2,3] [1] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ [2] https://news.mit.edu/2020/study-inks-automation-inequality-0506 https://news.mit.edu/2020/study-inks-automation-inequality-0... [3] https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/19/1049378/ai-inequality-problem/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/19/1049378/ai-inequ...
- CaptainFever 2y agoNote that the famous EPI graph in your first source appears to be controversial with mainstream economists: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/12kk79k/what_is_causing_the_widening_gap_between/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/12kk79k/what_... (However, there seems to be other sources that say the same thing, despite criticism of EPI's graph. So I'm not sure. It seems to be consensus that it has been stagnating or not keeping up with productivity for low skilled workers, though? But I can't find much about wage or compensation compared to productivity for high skilled workers [e.g. programmers, AI engineers]). Furthermore, your comment focused on wages, where your parent comment specifically claimed that wages were less important than "how much work it takes to buy something similar, like steak, compared to the past". It misses the point. Finally, I admit I haven't seen the latter two sources, but in my layman's opinion, inequality isn't necessarily bad if all needs are met.
- musicale 2y ago> where your parent comment specifically claimed that wages were less important than "how much work it takes to buy something similar, like steak, compared to the past". It misses the point The story is better on the consumer goods side (vs. housing, health care, higher education...) Consumers would probably be in much worse shape without cheap goods from the likes of Walmart, Ikea, Amazon, etc. > inequality isn't necessarily bad if all needs are met. The interesting progress of automation is that it's moving up in terms of job salary, while a smaller number of new jobs is created at the top and at the bottom.
- musicale 2y ago> We get SO much more for our monthly paycheck today Many goods are cheaper, and electronics are vastly better, but housing, health care, and higher education costs have outpaced inflation for decades.
- thrance 2y agoYou are ignoring the poorest half the planet, how long does a Bengladeshi woman has to work to buy a washing machine? How many of them even will ever own one? And who made the washing machine you own? Was it made in your country? Or in China?