4 ms·

I can guarantee that AI will be used as an excuse to lower wages.

by o11c 2y ago

RIMR 2y ago
To be fair, businesses will use any excuse they can find to lower wages.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I also shop around for lower prices. I think many people do, at both work and at home.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Companies will pay as much as the market requires them to, and they will even illegally collude to manipulate that market (eg Steve Jobs) and strive to atomize workers against coordinating for better pay and conditions (while themselves coordinating via C-level social groups, investors and wage & benefits consultancies for market research data and guidance)
- fuzztester 2y ago
  To be unfair, you mean.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    I don't think that's an accurate framing. Businesses and employees are inherently in a relationship where they want pay to go in different directions, because they don't have the same shared interest. Exploitative labor practices are real, but it's not reasonable to argue that all lowering of labor costs is unfair, any more than it would be reasonable to argue that any employee getting his salary increased is unfair.
    - thefaux 2y ago
      At this point in time in most US employment sectors, I believe employers have the upper hand over employees and are squeezing them. Under a different set of laws and courts, the balance could shift the other way. But we have seen a massive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy and from the young to the old over the last 40 years and the labor market in part reflects the inequality that wealth transfer creatwd.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        And the US just voted back in the political party whose goals include increasing inequality, helping employers keep the upper hand, squeezing workers, and accelerating that transfer from the poor to the wealthy. It’s going to get much worse before it even has a chance to get better.
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      >I don't think that's an accurate framing. Maybe not in theory, but it is in practice. Whereas, referring to the rest of your comment, it may sound right in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Related replies by thefaux: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652732 and ryandrake: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652908 also agree with what I said.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Steve jobs emails Eric Schmidt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38769203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38769203 ------ greenyoda on Dec 26, 2023 | next [–] https://nitter.net/TechEmails/status/1443263744906305543 https://nitter.net/TechEmails/status/1443263744906305543 Context: > High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees. > The defendants were high-technology companies Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay, each of which was headquartered in Silicon Valley, in the southern San Francisco Bay Area of California. > The civil suit was filed by five plaintiffs. It accused the tech companies of collusion between 2005 and 2009 to refrain from recruiting each other's employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... oldgradstudent on Dec 26, 2023 | parent | next [–] But why a civil suit? This is a criminal matter. It should not be too hard to prove criminal intent : > A few months later, Schmidt instructed a fellow exec not to discuss the no-call list other than “verbally,” he wrote in an email, “since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?” https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/google-apple-cl https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/google-apple-cl... bryanrasmussen on Dec 26, 2023 | root | parent | next [–] ok well obviously "why not both" would be the rejoinder, but I'm not actually sure I follow the reasoning that this is a criminal law matter? greenyoda on Dec 26, 2023 | root | parent | next [–] There was both a civil suit (brought by five employees) and a criminal complaint brought by the DOJ. The criminal complaint was about a violation of antitrust law: > On September 24, 2010, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., the Department of Justice alleged that Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into a series of bilateral "No Cold Call" Agreements to prevent the recruitment of their employees... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... oldgradstudent on Dec 26, 2023 | root | parent | next [–] Complaint against companies, not against individual actors for some reason. The final judgements in both resulted in meager compensation and achieved zero deterrence. Why haven't Eric Schmidt or Steve Jobs spent a single day in jail or become felons? The DOJ didn't even try. -------
somenameforme 2y ago
Nominal wages are basically never lowered, but real wages can be easily lowered by giving out annual raises that are below inflation. Since 2020 the CPI is up more than 18%. [1] So if you're not earning more than 18% than you were then, you're receiving a lower real wage. This is one of the many reasons inflation is such a horrible system. It makes it really easy to invisibly abuse labor. People are trained not to spit on "gifts", but if you received a 2% raise each of the past 4 years, your real wages would now be down by nearly 10%. [1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
- vkou 2y ago
  That is a reason inflation sucks, but there are many reasons for why alternatives suck even more. Deflation strangles the economy, while basing your monetary supply off the amount of metal you dig out of the ground results in a tag-team of uncontrollable deflation and inflation taking turns. Unless you're planning on doing away with money entirely, it's the best of all possible worlds.
  - logicchains 2y ago
    The American economy was more stable and grew at a higher rate in the 100 years before persistent inflation policies were adopted than in the 100 years after.
    - vkou 2y ago
      It hasn't been 100 years since it left the gold standard, and in the hundred years prior, the country was industrializing and electrifying and experiencing exponential population growth, and picking all the other low-hanging fruit of easy economic gains. But yes, if we focus on a single cherry-picked difference between two dramatically different time periods, we can spin any spherical-cow narrative we want.
- gruez 2y ago
  >but real wages can be easily lowered by giving out annual raises that are below inflation. Since 2020 the CPI is up more than 18%. [1] So if you're not earning more than 18% than you were then, you're receiving a lower real wage. If you looked around on the same st louis fed site, you'll see that real (ie. inflation adjusted) wages has not gone down. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
jasdi 2y ago
I can guarantee the opposite will happen. Just have to read some history. A great example is the Gilded Age and what followed after the peak. Why didn't the grand masters like Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan control where the story went? How did the system prop up an Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair or Teddy Roosevelt? Similarly when interesting characters like that don't emerge eg China or Russia the story goes in very different directions for the people who run Companies. Companies and what they are upto can look very mesmerizing but they really aren't. The British East India Company had more resources and land than the British Govt yet where are they today? Firms (or any large grouping) and what ever they believe, are a part of much larger systems. They are not The System but part of the Ecosystem. People inside and outside the firm forget that all the time. History is full of examples of what happens after that. Another great example is why did Central Banks emerge all around the world? What do you think was happening before when the power to issue Currency was in the hands of individual Banks or Kings? If AI does replace jobs massively we will get UBI type systems just like we got Central Banks whose goal is Ecosystem Stability.
- chii 2y ago
  > If AI does replace jobs massively we will get UBI type systems wishful thinking. A more viable and realistic alternative is to let those who are useless post-ai to die. UBI only works if the production of resources is "free", and i do not foresee such a future until the entire globe is united under one gov't, and we become a type I civilization capable of harvesting all energy on the planet.

I can guarantee that AI will be used as an excuse to lower wages.

by o11c 2y ago

I can guarantee that AI will be used as an excuse to lower wages.

RIMR 2y ago

To be fair, businesses will use any excuse they can find to lower wages.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
I also shop around for lower prices. I think many people do, at both work and at home.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Companies will pay as much as the market requires them to, and they will even illegally collude to manipulate that market (eg Steve Jobs) and strive to atomize workers against coordinating for better pay and conditions (while themselves coordinating via C-level social groups, investors and wage & benefits consultancies for market research data and guidance)
fuzztester 2y ago
To be unfair, you mean.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I don't think that's an accurate framing. Businesses and employees are inherently in a relationship where they want pay to go in different directions, because they don't have the same shared interest. Exploitative labor practices are real, but it's not reasonable to argue that all lowering of labor costs is unfair, any more than it would be reasonable to argue that any employee getting his salary increased is unfair.
  - thefaux 2y ago
    At this point in time in most US employment sectors, I believe employers have the upper hand over employees and are squeezing them. Under a different set of laws and courts, the balance could shift the other way. But we have seen a massive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy and from the young to the old over the last 40 years and the labor market in part reflects the inequality that wealth transfer creatwd.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      And the US just voted back in the political party whose goals include increasing inequality, helping employers keep the upper hand, squeezing workers, and accelerating that transfer from the poor to the wealthy. It’s going to get much worse before it even has a chance to get better.
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    >I don't think that's an accurate framing. Maybe not in theory, but it is in practice. Whereas, referring to the rest of your comment, it may sound right in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Related replies by thefaux: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652732 and ryandrake: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652908 also agree with what I said.
fuzztester 2y ago
Steve jobs emails Eric Schmidt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38769203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38769203 ------ greenyoda on Dec 26, 2023 | next [–] https://nitter.net/TechEmails/status/1443263744906305543 https://nitter.net/TechEmails/status/1443263744906305543 Context: > High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees. > The defendants were high-technology companies Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay, each of which was headquartered in Silicon Valley, in the southern San Francisco Bay Area of California. > The civil suit was filed by five plaintiffs. It accused the tech companies of collusion between 2005 and 2009 to refrain from recruiting each other's employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... oldgradstudent on Dec 26, 2023 | parent | next [–] But why a civil suit? This is a criminal matter. It should not be too hard to prove criminal intent : > A few months later, Schmidt instructed a fellow exec not to discuss the no-call list other than “verbally,” he wrote in an email, “since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?” https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/google-apple-cl https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/google-apple-cl... bryanrasmussen on Dec 26, 2023 | root | parent | next [–] ok well obviously "why not both" would be the rejoinder, but I'm not actually sure I follow the reasoning that this is a criminal law matter? greenyoda on Dec 26, 2023 | root | parent | next [–] There was both a civil suit (brought by five employees) and a criminal complaint brought by the DOJ. The criminal complaint was about a violation of antitrust law: > On September 24, 2010, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., the Department of Justice alleged that Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into a series of bilateral "No Cold Call" Agreements to prevent the recruitment of their employees... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... oldgradstudent on Dec 26, 2023 | root | parent | next [–] Complaint against companies, not against individual actors for some reason. The final judgements in both resulted in meager compensation and achieved zero deterrence. Why haven't Eric Schmidt or Steve Jobs spent a single day in jail or become felons? The DOJ didn't even try. -------

somenameforme 2y ago

Nominal wages are basically never lowered, but real wages can be easily lowered by giving out annual raises that are below inflation. Since 2020 the CPI is up more than 18%. [1] So if you're not earning more than 18% than you were then, you're receiving a lower real wage. This is one of the many reasons inflation is such a horrible system. It makes it really easy to invisibly abuse labor. People are trained not to spit on "gifts", but if you received a 2% raise each of the past 4 years, your real wages would now be down by nearly 10%. [1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL

vkou 2y ago
That is a reason inflation sucks, but there are many reasons for why alternatives suck even more. Deflation strangles the economy, while basing your monetary supply off the amount of metal you dig out of the ground results in a tag-team of uncontrollable deflation and inflation taking turns. Unless you're planning on doing away with money entirely, it's the best of all possible worlds.
- logicchains 2y ago
  The American economy was more stable and grew at a higher rate in the 100 years before persistent inflation policies were adopted than in the 100 years after.
  - vkou 2y ago
    It hasn't been 100 years since it left the gold standard, and in the hundred years prior, the country was industrializing and electrifying and experiencing exponential population growth, and picking all the other low-hanging fruit of easy economic gains. But yes, if we focus on a single cherry-picked difference between two dramatically different time periods, we can spin any spherical-cow narrative we want.
gruez 2y ago
>but real wages can be easily lowered by giving out annual raises that are below inflation. Since 2020 the CPI is up more than 18%. [1] So if you're not earning more than 18% than you were then, you're receiving a lower real wage. If you looked around on the same st louis fed site, you'll see that real (ie. inflation adjusted) wages has not gone down. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

jasdi 2y ago

I can guarantee the opposite will happen. Just have to read some history. A great example is the Gilded Age and what followed after the peak. Why didn't the grand masters like Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan control where the story went? How did the system prop up an Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair or Teddy Roosevelt? Similarly when interesting characters like that don't emerge eg China or Russia the story goes in very different directions for the people who run Companies. Companies and what they are upto can look very mesmerizing but they really aren't. The British East India Company had more resources and land than the British Govt yet where are they today? Firms (or any large grouping) and what ever they believe, are a part of much larger systems. They are not The System but part of the Ecosystem. People inside and outside the firm forget that all the time. History is full of examples of what happens after that. Another great example is why did Central Banks emerge all around the world? What do you think was happening before when the power to issue Currency was in the hands of individual Banks or Kings? If AI does replace jobs massively we will get UBI type systems just like we got Central Banks whose goal is Ecosystem Stability.

chii 2y ago
> If AI does replace jobs massively we will get UBI type systems wishful thinking. A more viable and realistic alternative is to let those who are useless post-ai to die. UBI only works if the production of resources is "free", and i do not foresee such a future until the entire globe is united under one gov't, and we become a type I civilization capable of harvesting all energy on the planet.