5 ms·
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
by 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 agoCool. 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 agoWhere is worker productivity on that graph exactly?
- MostlyStable 1y agoWhy 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 agoI 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 agoIn 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 ago20-22% of the pie in the US.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoSure, whatever. The point was not in the exact number The point is that there is an answer to "Where could increased wages come from if we don't increase productivity" We don't have to increase productivity to pay some of the population less and other parts of the population more
- WithinReason 1y agoI 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 agoLuckily for me, I didn't claim (nor do I believe) that workers/wages capture 100% of productivity.
- ethbr1 1y agoSub-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 agoUS unemployment rate is currently 4.2%. There is no prospect of real AGI any time soon.
- ethbr1 1y agoThere 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 agoPerhaps someday, but so far that remains entirely speculative. The data doesn't show any structural unemployment jump.
- ben_w 1y agoAll 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 agoYou 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 agoyou are confusing increases in profits with increases in wages :)