4 ms·

Why would my employer pay me more for using their AI? I am already massively more productive at work using AI. I'm not getting paid more, and I'm not working fe

by kbos87 1y ago

Why would my employer pay me more for using their AI? I am already massively more productive at work using AI. I'm not getting paid more, and I'm not working fewer hours. The road we are headed down is one where all of the economic benefits go straight to the owning class.

MostlyStable 1y ago
For the same reasons that, on average and in general, increases in productivity have lead to increases in wages across history. It's not universal and it's not instantaneous, but the base level assumption should be that increases in productivity will lead to increases in wages in the long run and we should have specific reasons why it won't happen for a given case to believe otherwise.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > For the same reasons that, on average and in general, increases in productivity have lead to increases in wages across history Historically, increased productivity has almost literally never increased wages or benefits without worker uprisings Seriously look into the history of labor and automation
  - MostlyStable 1y ago
    Cool. What worker uprising occurred in the US in 1995? I (and basically every economist) disagree with your interpretation of historical events. https://x.com/LettieriDC/status/1922704140834099370 https://x.com/LettieriDC/status/1922704140834099370
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      Where is worker productivity on that graph exactly?
      - MostlyStable 1y ago
        Why does that matter? According to you, productivity is not what leads to increases in wages. You claimed that wages only ever go up with a worker uprising. I showed that worker wages went up starting in 1995. According to you, there must have been a worker uprising to explain that.
        tobr 1y ago
        I don’t have a strong opinion on the topic, but bluefirebrand did not claim that wages only go up because of worker uprisings.
        MostlyStable 1y ago
        In the long term, the only thing that _can_ increase wages on average and in general is productivity. Productivity increases mean the pie is bigger, and without that, there is no where for increased wages to come _from_. So by saying that producity only results in increased wages in the case of the worker uprising, that is equivalent to saying that wages can only rise from a worker uprising. The only way this isn't true is for some other proposed mechanism for worker wages to go up, and the only other methods would be short time, single increases where all you are doing is taking from someone else (presumably capital I guess?) Sustained rates of increase _require_ increasing productivity. So no, they didn't explicitly state it, what they explicitly said was that productivity only results in increased wages if a worker uprising forces it. But that's the logical requirement of that statement.
        bluefirebrand 1y ago
        > there is no where for increased wages to come _from The pie doesn't have to grow when the pie is already massive, but only 1% of people are taking 90% of the pie
        hollerith 1y ago
        20-22% of the pie in the US.
    - WithinReason 1y ago
      I raise you this chart: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ Change 1979q4–2025q1: Productivity +86.0% Hourly pay +32.0% Productivity has grown 2.7x as much as pay
      - MostlyStable 1y ago
        Luckily for me, I didn't claim (nor do I believe) that workers/wages capture 100% of productivity.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Sub-6% unemployment: https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494 https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate... Capital doesn't pay labor unless it has to. Average wages = f(labor productivity, demand for labor, labor supply) The AGI future is that demand for labor crashes.
      - nradov 1y ago
        US unemployment rate is currently 4.2%. There is no prospect of real AGI any time soon.
        ethbr1 1y ago
        There doesn't have to be to cause a substantial structural unemployment jump. Even AI that's only borderline competent at fuzzy 'file these files into these systems' admin work would wipe out a class of middle income jobs. And given that's basically here today technologically, we're in the digestion and expansion phase.
        nradov 1y ago
        Perhaps someday, but so far that remains entirely speculative. The data doesn't show any structural unemployment jump.
        ben_w 1y ago
        All three initials of "[A]rtificial [G]eneral [I]ntelligence" have multiple meanings. For the sake of employment, consider what happens if we can show that some model is equal-or-better than an IQ 85 human on all tasks for which you can actually get paid, while on hardware such that it is at least real-time and costs no more than whatever minimum wage is where you are. At this point, 16% of the population are never, ever, worth paying for. I think current models and cheapest hardware aren't quite that combination of generality and cost — but the best models can do it, and hardware of fixed performance is still getting cheaper.
        1y ago
  - zozbot234 1y ago
    You could easily rephrase that as "Historically, worker uprisings have almost literally never increased wages or benefits, absent increased productivity" and it would be a lot closer to the truth of how automation impacts wages.
- DrillShopper 1y ago
  > For the same reasons that, on average and in general, increases in productivity have lead to increases in wages across history. Not in the last 40 years in real income terms: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ This trend is likely to accelerate (productivity skyrocketing, wages stagnant)
- bdangubic 1y ago
  you are confusing increases in profits with increases in wages :)
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Why would my employer pay me more for using their AI? We’re on HN. AI makes it easier for you to disrupt your employer.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  * Unless your employer happens to have engineered a monopoly
mjr00 1y ago
Why would your employer pay you more for using Python/Java/JavaScript? You're massively more productive when using those languages instead of C for many common development tasks. Did the introduction of Python drastically reduce software developer salaries?
- ethbr1 1y ago
  {Total demand for software} is oddly not being mentioned by most people in this thread. First approximation, there are two AI coding futures: 1. AI coding increases software development productivity, decreasing the cost of software, stimulating more demand for the now more efficient development. 2. AI coding increases software development productivity such that the existing labor pool is too large for demand. I'd hazard (1) in the short term and (2) in the long term.
charcircuit 1y ago
You need to switch jobs in order to get paid at market rate. Companies have found that they do not need to keep up with the market rate to retain employees.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  It varies by company. I know of at least one major company that continually benchmarks market rates and uses those as default raises. Unsurprisingly, they have an average tenure of 10+ years...
jstummbillig 1y ago
Owning what? Your employer (likely) owns little of value in a world of cheap AI software generation. Open Source models are already the thing that you can use to code with, and will obviously get better. We have to believe some really weird stuff for this vision to be coherent, for example a nvidia-everything-world, where they are not only the sole provider of hardware but also control access to all relevant models, and all software products that any (non-tech) business needs to use AI. If by "owning class" you actually mean "all people with agency" then, yeah, I agree.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > Your employer (likely) owns little of value in a world of cheap AI software generation. That applies to you, not to your employer - in your hands, "cheap AI software generation" is, well... cheap. On the other hand, your employer owns patents, copyrights, distribution channels, politicians and connections - those become more valuable as the coding skills get cheaper. The "owning class" are those who own most of the high value items enumerated above.
  - jstummbillig 1y ago
    I don't know who you are describing, but it's certainly nothing close to the median employer.
    - bigbadfeline 1y ago
      The median employer isn't in the software business either, so "cheap coding" has little direct effect on them and it doesn't help the agency-rocking small fish in any way. However, as customers, the median employers are highly dependent upon precisely the type of employer I described, not upon "people with agency".

by kbos87 1y ago

MostlyStable 1y ago

For the same reasons that, on average and in general, increases in productivity have lead to increases in wages across history. It's not universal and it's not instantaneous, but the base level assumption should be that increases in productivity will lead to increases in wages in the long run and we should have specific reasons why it won't happen for a given case to believe otherwise.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
> For the same reasons that, on average and in general, increases in productivity have lead to increases in wages across history Historically, increased productivity has almost literally never increased wages or benefits without worker uprisings Seriously look into the history of labor and automation
- MostlyStable 1y ago
  Cool. What worker uprising occurred in the US in 1995? I (and basically every economist) disagree with your interpretation of historical events. https://x.com/LettieriDC/status/1922704140834099370 https://x.com/LettieriDC/status/1922704140834099370
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    Where is worker productivity on that graph exactly?
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      Why does that matter? According to you, productivity is not what leads to increases in wages. You claimed that wages only ever go up with a worker uprising. I showed that worker wages went up starting in 1995. According to you, there must have been a worker uprising to explain that.
      - tobr 1y ago
        I don’t have a strong opinion on the topic, but bluefirebrand did not claim that wages only go up because of worker uprisings.
        MostlyStable 1y ago
        In the long term, the only thing that _can_ increase wages on average and in general is productivity. Productivity increases mean the pie is bigger, and without that, there is no where for increased wages to come _from_. So by saying that producity only results in increased wages in the case of the worker uprising, that is equivalent to saying that wages can only rise from a worker uprising. The only way this isn't true is for some other proposed mechanism for worker wages to go up, and the only other methods would be short time, single increases where all you are doing is taking from someone else (presumably capital I guess?) Sustained rates of increase _require_ increasing productivity. So no, they didn't explicitly state it, what they explicitly said was that productivity only results in increased wages if a worker uprising forces it. But that's the logical requirement of that statement.
        bluefirebrand 1y ago
        > there is no where for increased wages to come _from The pie doesn't have to grow when the pie is already massive, but only 1% of people are taking 90% of the pie
        hollerith 1y ago
        20-22% of the pie in the US.
  - WithinReason 1y ago
    I raise you this chart: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ Change 1979q4–2025q1: Productivity +86.0% Hourly pay +32.0% Productivity has grown 2.7x as much as pay
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      Luckily for me, I didn't claim (nor do I believe) that workers/wages capture 100% of productivity.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Sub-6% unemployment: https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494 https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate... Capital doesn't pay labor unless it has to. Average wages = f(labor productivity, demand for labor, labor supply) The AGI future is that demand for labor crashes.
    - nradov 1y ago
      US unemployment rate is currently 4.2%. There is no prospect of real AGI any time soon.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        There doesn't have to be to cause a substantial structural unemployment jump. Even AI that's only borderline competent at fuzzy 'file these files into these systems' admin work would wipe out a class of middle income jobs. And given that's basically here today technologically, we're in the digestion and expansion phase.
        nradov 1y ago
        Perhaps someday, but so far that remains entirely speculative. The data doesn't show any structural unemployment jump.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        All three initials of "[A]rtificial [G]eneral [I]ntelligence" have multiple meanings. For the sake of employment, consider what happens if we can show that some model is equal-or-better than an IQ 85 human on all tasks for which you can actually get paid, while on hardware such that it is at least real-time and costs no more than whatever minimum wage is where you are. At this point, 16% of the population are never, ever, worth paying for. I think current models and cheapest hardware aren't quite that combination of generality and cost — but the best models can do it, and hardware of fixed performance is still getting cheaper.
        1y ago
- zozbot234 1y ago
  You could easily rephrase that as "Historically, worker uprisings have almost literally never increased wages or benefits, absent increased productivity" and it would be a lot closer to the truth of how automation impacts wages.
DrillShopper 1y ago
> For the same reasons that, on average and in general, increases in productivity have lead to increases in wages across history. Not in the last 40 years in real income terms: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ This trend is likely to accelerate (productivity skyrocketing, wages stagnant)
bdangubic 1y ago
you are confusing increases in profits with increases in wages :)

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Why would my employer pay me more for using their AI? We’re on HN. AI makes it easier for you to disrupt your employer.

ethbr1 1y ago
* Unless your employer happens to have engineered a monopoly

mjr00 1y ago

Why would your employer pay you more for using Python/Java/JavaScript? You're massively more productive when using those languages instead of C for many common development tasks. Did the introduction of Python drastically reduce software developer salaries?

ethbr1 1y ago
{Total demand for software} is oddly not being mentioned by most people in this thread. First approximation, there are two AI coding futures: 1. AI coding increases software development productivity, decreasing the cost of software, stimulating more demand for the now more efficient development. 2. AI coding increases software development productivity such that the existing labor pool is too large for demand. I'd hazard (1) in the short term and (2) in the long term.

charcircuit 1y ago

You need to switch jobs in order to get paid at market rate. Companies have found that they do not need to keep up with the market rate to retain employees.

ethbr1 1y ago
It varies by company. I know of at least one major company that continually benchmarks market rates and uses those as default raises. Unsurprisingly, they have an average tenure of 10+ years...

jstummbillig 1y ago

Owning what? Your employer (likely) owns little of value in a world of cheap AI software generation. Open Source models are already the thing that you can use to code with, and will obviously get better. We have to believe some really weird stuff for this vision to be coherent, for example a nvidia-everything-world, where they are not only the sole provider of hardware but also control access to all relevant models, and all software products that any (non-tech) business needs to use AI. If by "owning class" you actually mean "all people with agency" then, yeah, I agree.

bigbadfeline 1y ago
> Your employer (likely) owns little of value in a world of cheap AI software generation. That applies to you, not to your employer - in your hands, "cheap AI software generation" is, well... cheap. On the other hand, your employer owns patents, copyrights, distribution channels, politicians and connections - those become more valuable as the coding skills get cheaper. The "owning class" are those who own most of the high value items enumerated above.
- jstummbillig 1y ago
  I don't know who you are describing, but it's certainly nothing close to the median employer.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    The median employer isn't in the software business either, so "cheap coding" has little direct effect on them and it doesn't help the agency-rocking small fish in any way. However, as customers, the median employers are highly dependent upon precisely the type of employer I described, not upon "people with agency".