3 ms·

Yip, the famous example here being John Maynard Keynes, of Keynesian economics. [1] He predicted a 15 hour work week following productivity gains that we have l

Yip, the famous example here being John Maynard Keynes, of Keynesian economics. [1] He predicted a 15 hour work week following productivity gains that we have long since surpassed. And not only did he think we'd have a 15 hour work week, he felt that it'd be mostly voluntary - with people working that much only to give themselves a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Instead our productivity went way above anything he could imagine, yet there was no radical shift in labor. We just instead started making billionaires by the thousand, and soon enough we can add trillionaires. He underestimated how many people were willing to designate the pursuit of wealth as the meaning of life itself. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

schmichael 11mo ago
Productivity gains are more likely to be used to increase margins (profits and therefore value to shareholders) then it is to reduce work hours. At least since the Industrial Revolution, and probably before, the only advance that has led to shorter work weeks is unions and worker protections. Not technology. Technology may create more surplus (food, goods, etc) but there’s no guarantee what form that surplus will reach workers as, if it does at all.
- goatlover 11mo ago
  Failure of politics and the media then. Majority of voters have been fooled into voting against their economic interests.
- anon7000 11mo ago
  > Productivity gains are more likely to be used to increase margins (profits and therefore value to shareholders) then it is to reduce work hours I mean, that basically just sums up how capitalism works. Profit growth is literally (even legally!) the only thing a company can care about. Everything else, like product quality, pays service to that goal.
  - tirant 11mo ago
    That’s not a good summary of capitalism at all because you omit the part where interests of sellers and buyers align. Which is precisely what has made capitalism successful. Profit growth is based primarily on offering the product that best matches the consumer wish at the lowest price, and production cost possible. That benefits both the buyer and the seller. If the buyer does not care about product quality, then you will not have any company producing quality products. The market is just a reflection of that dinámica. And in the real world we can easily observed that: Many market niches are dominated by quality products (outdoor and safety gear, professional and industrial tools…) while others tend to be dominated by non-quality (low end fashion, toys). And that result is not imposed by profit growth but by the average consumer preference. You can of course disagree with those consumer preferences and don’t buy low quality products, that’s why you most probably also find high products in any market niche. But you cannot blame companies for that. What they sell is just the result of the aggregated buyers preferences and the result of free market decisions.
    - LtWorf 11mo ago
      Armies and pinkertons made capitalism succesfull.
  - timClicks 11mo ago
    Sorry if this is somewhat pedantic, but I believe that only US companies (and possibly only Delaware corporations?) are bound by the requirement to maximize shareholder value and then only by case law rather than statue. Other jurisdictions allow the directors more discretion, or place more weight on the company's constitution/charter.
- bloppe 11mo ago
  Margins require a competitive edge. If productivity gains are spread throughout a competitive industry, margins will not get bigger; prices will go down.
  - LPisGood 11mo ago
    That feels optimistic. This kind of naive free market ideology seems to rarely manifest in lower prices.
    - bloppe 11mo ago
      Then maybe you've never worked in a competitive industry. I have. Margins were very small.
      - LPisGood 11mo ago
        I’ve certainly spent time in the marketplace buying or not buying products.
    - HDThoreaun 11mo ago
      Every competitive industry has tiny margins. High margin business exists because of lack of competition.
      - LPisGood 11mo ago
        I think there are plenty of counter examples.
        HDThoreaun 11mo ago
        Every rule has exceptions. Usually its because of some quirk of the market. The most obvious example is adtech, which is able to sustain massive margins because the consumers get the product for free so see no reason to switch and the advertisers are forced to follow the consumers. Tech in general has high margins but I expect them to fall as the offerings mature. Companies will always try to lock in their users like aws/oracle do but thats just a sign of an uncompetitive market imo.
machomaster 11mo ago
> We just instead started making billionaires by the thousand, and soon enough we can add trillionaires. We just instead started doing Bullshit Jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
thedailymail 11mo ago
In the same essay ("Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," 1930) where he predicted the 15-hour workweek, Keynes wrote about how future generations would view the hoarding of money for money's sake as criminally insane. "There are changes in other spheres too which we must expect to come. When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession – as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life – will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. All kinds of social customs and economic practices, affecting the distribution of wealth and of economic rewards and penalties, which we now maintain at all costs, however distasteful and unjust they may be in themselves, because they are tremendously useful in promoting the accumulation of capital, we shall then be free, at last, to discard."
- somenameforme 11mo ago
  A study [1] I was looking at recently was extremely informative. It's a poll from UCLA given to incoming classes that they've been carrying out since the 60s. In 1967 86% of student felt it was "essential" or "very important" to "[develop] a meaningful philosophy of life", while only 42% felt the same of "being very well off financially." By 2015 those values had essentially flipped, with only 47% viewing a life philosophy as very important, and 82% viewing being financially well off as very important. It's rather unfortunate it only began in 1967, because I think we would see an even more extreme flip if we were able to just go back a decade or two more, and back towards Keynes' time. As productivity and wealth accumulation increased, society seems to have trended in the exact opposite direction he predicted. Or at least there's a contemporary paradox. Because I think many, if not most, younger people hold wealth accumulation with some degree of disdain yet also seek to do the exact same themselves. In any case, in a society where wealth is seen as literally the most important aspect in life, it's not difficult to predict what follows. [1] - https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/50YearTrendsMonograph2016.pdf https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/50YearTrendsMonograph20...
azan_ 11mo ago
> We just instead started making billionaires by the thousand, and soon enough we can add trillionaires. Didn’t we also get standards of living much higher than he would ever imagine? I think blaming everything on billionaires is really misguided and shallow.
- somenameforme 11mo ago
  It depends on how you value things. I'd prefer to have a surplus of time and a scarcity of gizmos, rather than a surplus of gizmos and a scarcity of time. Obviously basic needs being met is very important, but we've moved way beyond that as a goal, while somehow also kind of simultaneously missing it.

schmichael 11mo ago

Productivity gains are more likely to be used to increase margins (profits and therefore value to shareholders) then it is to reduce work hours. At least since the Industrial Revolution, and probably before, the only advance that has led to shorter work weeks is unions and worker protections. Not technology. Technology may create more surplus (food, goods, etc) but there’s no guarantee what form that surplus will reach workers as, if it does at all.

goatlover 11mo ago
Failure of politics and the media then. Majority of voters have been fooled into voting against their economic interests.
anon7000 11mo ago
> Productivity gains are more likely to be used to increase margins (profits and therefore value to shareholders) then it is to reduce work hours I mean, that basically just sums up how capitalism works. Profit growth is literally (even legally!) the only thing a company can care about. Everything else, like product quality, pays service to that goal.
- tirant 11mo ago
  That’s not a good summary of capitalism at all because you omit the part where interests of sellers and buyers align. Which is precisely what has made capitalism successful. Profit growth is based primarily on offering the product that best matches the consumer wish at the lowest price, and production cost possible. That benefits both the buyer and the seller. If the buyer does not care about product quality, then you will not have any company producing quality products. The market is just a reflection of that dinámica. And in the real world we can easily observed that: Many market niches are dominated by quality products (outdoor and safety gear, professional and industrial tools…) while others tend to be dominated by non-quality (low end fashion, toys). And that result is not imposed by profit growth but by the average consumer preference. You can of course disagree with those consumer preferences and don’t buy low quality products, that’s why you most probably also find high products in any market niche. But you cannot blame companies for that. What they sell is just the result of the aggregated buyers preferences and the result of free market decisions.
  - LtWorf 11mo ago
    Armies and pinkertons made capitalism succesfull.
- timClicks 11mo ago
  Sorry if this is somewhat pedantic, but I believe that only US companies (and possibly only Delaware corporations?) are bound by the requirement to maximize shareholder value and then only by case law rather than statue. Other jurisdictions allow the directors more discretion, or place more weight on the company's constitution/charter.
bloppe 11mo ago
Margins require a competitive edge. If productivity gains are spread throughout a competitive industry, margins will not get bigger; prices will go down.
- LPisGood 11mo ago
  That feels optimistic. This kind of naive free market ideology seems to rarely manifest in lower prices.
  - bloppe 11mo ago
    Then maybe you've never worked in a competitive industry. I have. Margins were very small.
    - LPisGood 11mo ago
      I’ve certainly spent time in the marketplace buying or not buying products.
  - HDThoreaun 11mo ago
    Every competitive industry has tiny margins. High margin business exists because of lack of competition.
    - LPisGood 11mo ago
      I think there are plenty of counter examples.
      - HDThoreaun 11mo ago
        Every rule has exceptions. Usually its because of some quirk of the market. The most obvious example is adtech, which is able to sustain massive margins because the consumers get the product for free so see no reason to switch and the advertisers are forced to follow the consumers. Tech in general has high margins but I expect them to fall as the offerings mature. Companies will always try to lock in their users like aws/oracle do but thats just a sign of an uncompetitive market imo.

machomaster 11mo ago

> We just instead started making billionaires by the thousand, and soon enough we can add trillionaires. We just instead started doing Bullshit Jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

thedailymail 11mo ago

In the same essay ("Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," 1930) where he predicted the 15-hour workweek, Keynes wrote about how future generations would view the hoarding of money for money's sake as criminally insane. "There are changes in other spheres too which we must expect to come. When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession – as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life – will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. All kinds of social customs and economic practices, affecting the distribution of wealth and of economic rewards and penalties, which we now maintain at all costs, however distasteful and unjust they may be in themselves, because they are tremendously useful in promoting the accumulation of capital, we shall then be free, at last, to discard."

somenameforme 11mo ago
A study [1] I was looking at recently was extremely informative. It's a poll from UCLA given to incoming classes that they've been carrying out since the 60s. In 1967 86% of student felt it was "essential" or "very important" to "[develop] a meaningful philosophy of life", while only 42% felt the same of "being very well off financially." By 2015 those values had essentially flipped, with only 47% viewing a life philosophy as very important, and 82% viewing being financially well off as very important. It's rather unfortunate it only began in 1967, because I think we would see an even more extreme flip if we were able to just go back a decade or two more, and back towards Keynes' time. As productivity and wealth accumulation increased, society seems to have trended in the exact opposite direction he predicted. Or at least there's a contemporary paradox. Because I think many, if not most, younger people hold wealth accumulation with some degree of disdain yet also seek to do the exact same themselves. In any case, in a society where wealth is seen as literally the most important aspect in life, it's not difficult to predict what follows. [1] - https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/50YearTrendsMonograph2016.pdf https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/50YearTrendsMonograph20...

azan_ 11mo ago

> We just instead started making billionaires by the thousand, and soon enough we can add trillionaires. Didn’t we also get standards of living much higher than he would ever imagine? I think blaming everything on billionaires is really misguided and shallow.

somenameforme 11mo ago
It depends on how you value things. I'd prefer to have a surplus of time and a scarcity of gizmos, rather than a surplus of gizmos and a scarcity of time. Obviously basic needs being met is very important, but we've moved way beyond that as a goal, while somehow also kind of simultaneously missing it.