5 ms·

The vast majority of jobs that sustain our standard of living are blue-collar: farmers who grow our food, textile workers who make our clothes, construction wor

by hgs3 2y ago

The vast majority of jobs that sustain our standard of living are blue-collar: farmers who grow our food, textile workers who make our clothes, construction workers who build our homes, plumbers, electricians, waste disposal workers, etc. I'd say it's white-collar work that became overinflated this past century, largely as a reaction to the automation and outsourcing of many traditional blue-collar roles. Now, with white-collar jobs themselves increasingly at risk, it's unclear where people will turn. The economic pie continues to shrink, and I don't see that trend reversing. It appears to me that our socio-economic model simply doesn't scale with technology. We need to have a constructive conversation about how to adapt.

libertine 2y ago
> It appears to me that our socio-economic model simply doesn't scale with technology. We need to have a constructive conversation about how to adapt. This doesn't add up with the number of billionaires and the growth over the last decades - it just seems that there's a bottleneck and the value captured from technology isn't trickling down. Of course, you can claim that such "billionaires" and that part of that "value" is the result of speculation, but since billionaires can use that speculation to buy money and acquire more assets, then for sure there's some value there that isn't getting to the vast majority of the people.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  My 2c is that most normal people are incapable of capturing this kind of value simply because they aren't educated enough on how to use a computer to do these things. ChatGPT is the first time in a while that a new technology is easy enough to use and integrate that the productivity gains could be captured by the lowest-skilled workers. Uber/Lyft are the antithesis of this: their apps do very simple things but at scale and with an eye towards confusing their drivers. It's not unthinkable that a co-op version of these apps could exist, but the folks with the skills to build them get snapped up by big tech pretty quick. IMO if we want to share the wealth, the ONLY way to do it is by upskilling workers and simplifying technology.
  - sssilver 2y ago
    The problem with building Uber and Lyft isn’t the process of writing the software — that’s been done many times over. The hard part of course is investing the money in marketing and support to match the user recognition and experience that Uber and Lyft, subsidized by VC wallets, can provide to their customers.
  - libertine 2y ago
    One of the things you have to take into account is that a lot of these tech companies grew in the gaps of regulation, while legacy companies were forced to abide by standards and regulations; for a lot of tech companies, they broke the markets and thrived in the infrastructure paid for by taxpayers. Uber, Airbnb are good examples of this. When regulation caught up with them, the damage was done for better or worse. To this day, some regulators still struggle to keep up due to the lack of resources, and the tech does achieve this... and now you have tech oligarchs dismantling the government bodies responsible for regulation. So I don't think it's just a matter of people upskilling to generate more value, because people pay taxes for the work they do - they can't afford the lawyers and structures to avoid this. The people who have the luck and the opportunities to generate this kind of value are already doing it, or will do it, or don't want to do it. So while I agree with you, and people should have access to the opportunities to upskill and to generate value, I also think there's a massive gap in income and taxes in a lot of democratic countries. These things can go, and should go, together.
  - criddell 2y ago
    > a co-op version of these apps could exist There are a bunch of white-label ride share apps. When Austin banned Uber and Lyft in 2016 it took about a day before new services popped up to replace them.
rthomas6 2y ago
The way I see it you only have two real choices: 1. Raise wages to match global increased productivity 2. Democratize ownership That's it.
- bumby 2y ago
  I think you’re casting too narrow of a net here. Other options include an automation tax, UBI etc. (unless you consider those a subset of your items above)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - conductr 2y ago
    > unless you consider those a subset of your items above It is the same just with extra steps which put politicians and such in control of it all. Which is why something like these really are the only viable tactics to the overarching strategy. Politicians won't allow change that excludes them from power
  - contingencies 2y ago
    Automation tax sounds sketchy. How would that work? All computers have DRM and programming becomes illegal? Unregistered physical automation becomes banned? Man the toolmaker can no longer make tools? What use are a bunch of depersonalized hominids?
    - bumby 2y ago
      It’s been talked about for years, but my lay understanding is that tax is levied on automation that displaces human production. This circumvents the issue where we have a system based on income tax, but a lower ratio of income to production. So if a factory used to employ 100 people, who were paid a salary, that salary was taxed generating income for societal benefit like roads and hospitals. But if automation comes in and produces the same with just 10 people, the money from income taxes for societal benefit is reduced by 90%. The net effect is that society may have less money for the collective benefit even as production gets more efficient. An automation tax would make up the difference. It’s not altogether different than the “mileage” tax for electric vehicles to displace the gasoline taxes that fund roads. It’s a different tax scheme because the fundamental premise has changed (road use is proportional to gasoline consumption/tax needs are proportional to human salary). Taxes are systems of convention so we don’t need to pretend they must adhere to some immutable physical law. To your question about how it could be implemented, I’m sure there’s lots of nuance. But to illustrate it off the top of my head, industries may have baseline rates of per-capita production and if they implement automation to exceed that substantially, that excess production would be taxed. So a craftsman woodworker who makes five items a week wouldn’t be affected, but a cabinet factory making 300 per capita items per week would.
vishnugupta 2y ago
To add four year degree is a very recent phenomena. For most of the people it was an exception. The norm was to become an apprentice after or during high school and then go on to become a master tradesman. We might just be seeing a reversion to the norm.
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
The whole AI thing is just a symptom, I think. The real causes are: 1. The boomer political class that is perfectly fine with spending more and more money but unwilling to pay for it, mortgaging everything the previous generations built. Basically sucking all the value out of it for themselves so that their children and grandchildren will have nothing. 2. A big symptom is that tax rates on the richest have been going down for the last 50 years, and are now ridiculously low. 3. The thing that makes that work: unnaturally low interest rates, for the last several decades. 4. A complete unwillingness to use antitrust to break up the largest companies. I don't see how this is going to turn around, because the propaganda is now so good they have convinced the poor that all of this is somehow good for them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thucydides 2y ago
What do you mean when you say the economic pie continues to shrink? Since 1960 American GDP has more than tripled in real terms (constant dollars): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA

by hgs3 2y ago

libertine 2y ago

> It appears to me that our socio-economic model simply doesn't scale with technology. We need to have a constructive conversation about how to adapt. This doesn't add up with the number of billionaires and the growth over the last decades - it just seems that there's a bottleneck and the value captured from technology isn't trickling down. Of course, you can claim that such "billionaires" and that part of that "value" is the result of speculation, but since billionaires can use that speculation to buy money and acquire more assets, then for sure there's some value there that isn't getting to the vast majority of the people.

SR2Z 2y ago
My 2c is that most normal people are incapable of capturing this kind of value simply because they aren't educated enough on how to use a computer to do these things. ChatGPT is the first time in a while that a new technology is easy enough to use and integrate that the productivity gains could be captured by the lowest-skilled workers. Uber/Lyft are the antithesis of this: their apps do very simple things but at scale and with an eye towards confusing their drivers. It's not unthinkable that a co-op version of these apps could exist, but the folks with the skills to build them get snapped up by big tech pretty quick. IMO if we want to share the wealth, the ONLY way to do it is by upskilling workers and simplifying technology.
- sssilver 2y ago
  The problem with building Uber and Lyft isn’t the process of writing the software — that’s been done many times over. The hard part of course is investing the money in marketing and support to match the user recognition and experience that Uber and Lyft, subsidized by VC wallets, can provide to their customers.
- libertine 2y ago
  One of the things you have to take into account is that a lot of these tech companies grew in the gaps of regulation, while legacy companies were forced to abide by standards and regulations; for a lot of tech companies, they broke the markets and thrived in the infrastructure paid for by taxpayers. Uber, Airbnb are good examples of this. When regulation caught up with them, the damage was done for better or worse. To this day, some regulators still struggle to keep up due to the lack of resources, and the tech does achieve this... and now you have tech oligarchs dismantling the government bodies responsible for regulation. So I don't think it's just a matter of people upskilling to generate more value, because people pay taxes for the work they do - they can't afford the lawyers and structures to avoid this. The people who have the luck and the opportunities to generate this kind of value are already doing it, or will do it, or don't want to do it. So while I agree with you, and people should have access to the opportunities to upskill and to generate value, I also think there's a massive gap in income and taxes in a lot of democratic countries. These things can go, and should go, together.
- criddell 2y ago
  > a co-op version of these apps could exist There are a bunch of white-label ride share apps. When Austin banned Uber and Lyft in 2016 it took about a day before new services popped up to replace them.

rthomas6 2y ago

The way I see it you only have two real choices: 1. Raise wages to match global increased productivity 2. Democratize ownership That's it.

bumby 2y ago
I think you’re casting too narrow of a net here. Other options include an automation tax, UBI etc. (unless you consider those a subset of your items above)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- conductr 2y ago
  > unless you consider those a subset of your items above It is the same just with extra steps which put politicians and such in control of it all. Which is why something like these really are the only viable tactics to the overarching strategy. Politicians won't allow change that excludes them from power
- contingencies 2y ago
  Automation tax sounds sketchy. How would that work? All computers have DRM and programming becomes illegal? Unregistered physical automation becomes banned? Man the toolmaker can no longer make tools? What use are a bunch of depersonalized hominids?
  - bumby 2y ago
    It’s been talked about for years, but my lay understanding is that tax is levied on automation that displaces human production. This circumvents the issue where we have a system based on income tax, but a lower ratio of income to production. So if a factory used to employ 100 people, who were paid a salary, that salary was taxed generating income for societal benefit like roads and hospitals. But if automation comes in and produces the same with just 10 people, the money from income taxes for societal benefit is reduced by 90%. The net effect is that society may have less money for the collective benefit even as production gets more efficient. An automation tax would make up the difference. It’s not altogether different than the “mileage” tax for electric vehicles to displace the gasoline taxes that fund roads. It’s a different tax scheme because the fundamental premise has changed (road use is proportional to gasoline consumption/tax needs are proportional to human salary). Taxes are systems of convention so we don’t need to pretend they must adhere to some immutable physical law. To your question about how it could be implemented, I’m sure there’s lots of nuance. But to illustrate it off the top of my head, industries may have baseline rates of per-capita production and if they implement automation to exceed that substantially, that excess production would be taxed. So a craftsman woodworker who makes five items a week wouldn’t be affected, but a cabinet factory making 300 per capita items per week would.

vishnugupta 2y ago

To add four year degree is a very recent phenomena. For most of the people it was an exception. The norm was to become an apprentice after or during high school and then go on to become a master tradesman. We might just be seeing a reversion to the norm.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

The whole AI thing is just a symptom, I think. The real causes are: 1. The boomer political class that is perfectly fine with spending more and more money but unwilling to pay for it, mortgaging everything the previous generations built. Basically sucking all the value out of it for themselves so that their children and grandchildren will have nothing. 2. A big symptom is that tax rates on the richest have been going down for the last 50 years, and are now ridiculously low. 3. The thing that makes that work: unnaturally low interest rates, for the last several decades. 4. A complete unwillingness to use antitrust to break up the largest companies. I don't see how this is going to turn around, because the propaganda is now so good they have convinced the poor that all of this is somehow good for them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thucydides 2y ago

What do you mean when you say the economic pie continues to shrink? Since 1960 American GDP has more than tripled in real terms (constant dollars): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA