6 ms·

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/

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.
        bluefirebrand 1y ago
        Sure, 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
        MostlyStable 1y ago
        You can get short term or one time increases by taking from somewhere else, but without productivity gains, it's an inherently limited, zero sum game.
        int_19h 1y ago
        It's not short-term or one-time if you're taking away and redistributing the economic rent that those people collect from the rest of us.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > You claimed that wages only ever go up with a worker uprising. I'm not sure you really understood my original post. I never said or meant to imply that wages never grow ever I was talking about how increases in productivity do not lead to proportionally increased wages Look, here's an example. Let's say I'm a worker producing Widgets for $20/hour by hand, and I can produce 10 widgets an hour. The company sells widgets for $10 each In one hour I have produced $100 worth of widgets. The company pays me $20, the company keeps $80 Now the company buys a WidgetMachine. Using the WidgetMachine I can now produce 20 widgets an hour I now produce $200 worth of Widgets per hour. The company still pays me $20, the company has now earned $180 My productivity has doubled, but my wage hasn't So next year inflation is $5. The company increases my income to $25, starts charging a couple of cents more per Widget so they can absorb my wage increase without any change to their bottom line My wage matches inflation, it still "grows" but it is completely divorced from my productivity More importantly, my wage growing to match inflation doesn't help my buying power even remotely. If my wage only goes up to match exactly inflation then all I'm ever doing is treading water. At best all I can do is keep the exact same standard of living and lifestyle Increases in "real wages" should have "real" impact on your life, it should let you have a better life than before
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      I never claimed that workers get 100% of the increase in productivity. I said that increased productivity leads to increased wages. Increased productivity is in fact a _requirement_ for wages to go up (note that I am _not_ claiming that in increase in productivity _must_ result in increase wages. It is necessary, but not always sufficient), or else there is no where for those increases to come from. So when you claim that productivity increases _only_ result in worker wages increasing in the co-occurence of a worker uprising, that is the same thing as claiming that worker uprisings are a requirement. So I showed you an increase in worker wages. If there is not corresponding worker uprising, your original claim is false. And,again, you keep ignoring that the plot I showed is already inflation adjusted. It is a real increase, not a nominal increase.
      - bluefirebrand 1y ago
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

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.
        bluefirebrand 1y ago
        Sure, 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
      - MostlyStable 1y ago
        You can get short term or one time increases by taking from somewhere else, but without productivity gains, it's an inherently limited, zero sum game.
        int_19h 1y ago
        It's not short-term or one-time if you're taking away and redistributing the economic rent that those people collect from the rest of us.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > You claimed that wages only ever go up with a worker uprising. I'm not sure you really understood my original post. I never said or meant to imply that wages never grow ever I was talking about how increases in productivity do not lead to proportionally increased wages Look, here's an example. Let's say I'm a worker producing Widgets for $20/hour by hand, and I can produce 10 widgets an hour. The company sells widgets for $10 each In one hour I have produced $100 worth of widgets. The company pays me $20, the company keeps $80 Now the company buys a WidgetMachine. Using the WidgetMachine I can now produce 20 widgets an hour I now produce $200 worth of Widgets per hour. The company still pays me $20, the company has now earned $180 My productivity has doubled, but my wage hasn't So next year inflation is $5. The company increases my income to $25, starts charging a couple of cents more per Widget so they can absorb my wage increase without any change to their bottom line My wage matches inflation, it still "grows" but it is completely divorced from my productivity More importantly, my wage growing to match inflation doesn't help my buying power even remotely. If my wage only goes up to match exactly inflation then all I'm ever doing is treading water. At best all I can do is keep the exact same standard of living and lifestyle Increases in "real wages" should have "real" impact on your life, it should let you have a better life than before
  - MostlyStable 1y ago
    I never claimed that workers get 100% of the increase in productivity. I said that increased productivity leads to increased wages. Increased productivity is in fact a _requirement_ for wages to go up (note that I am _not_ claiming that in increase in productivity _must_ result in increase wages. It is necessary, but not always sufficient), or else there is no where for those increases to come from. So when you claim that productivity increases _only_ result in worker wages increasing in the co-occurence of a worker uprising, that is the same thing as claiming that worker uprisings are a requirement. So I showed you an increase in worker wages. If there is not corresponding worker uprising, your original claim is false. And,again, you keep ignoring that the plot I showed is already inflation adjusted. It is a real increase, not a nominal increase.
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago

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