3 ms·

> we need a hyper-productive world where someone working a few hours a year generates enough wealth to secure a comfortable lifestyle up there with the best of

> we need a hyper-productive world where someone working a few hours a year generates enough wealth to secure a comfortable lifestyle up there with the best of them. This is naive, productivity increases had decoupled from compensation a long time ago. See https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. I think more likely than not, AI will further stratify our society.

IncreasePosts 10mo ago
But humans aren't more productive for the most part. What had made people more productive is, for the most part, mechanization, computerization, and other tech tree improvements. Even though everyone didn't get rich from the industrial revolution, ultimately people led easier lives, more stuff, and less work.
- N_Lens 10mo ago
  I read that a peasant in the middle ages typically worked less and had much more leisure than a worker in the 21st century.
  - andsoitis 10mo ago
    Peasants in the Middle Ages did hard, agrarian labor, had poor sanitation, high child mortality, and limited horizons. While nobles had wealth and comfort, the era was generally harsh, with most lacking modern amenities and facing short, physically demanding lives.
  - parineum 10mo ago
    You've read that they had more days off but that's only because they couldn't work in the winter. Instead, they hoped the food stores would last and the kids wouldn't die so they could help work the land next year.
  - matusp 10mo ago
    You can achieve medieval peasent level of life quality by not working at all these days.
oceanplexian 10mo ago
Why then, outside of Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the UAE (All of which are tiny countries, and at least two of them are Petrostates), does the United States have the world's highest median income with a population of over 342 million people? The typical American is insanely wealthy by global standards.
- noitpmeder 10mo ago
  But it's not like AI did any of that...
  - creato 10mo ago
    Past innovation did though.
  - grafmax 10mo ago
    Right we had a functioning labor movement to thank for productivity gains being distributed to the working class. When that got undermined beginning late seventies early 80s with offshoring we see wealth just flowing to the top without significantly benefiting the working class.
- N_Lens 10mo ago
  Wealth inequality is worse now than the era of robber barons & gilded age.
  - ETH_start 10mo ago
    The 1870-1900 period experienced the greatest expansion of U.S. industry, and the fastest rise in both U.S. wages and U.S. life expectancy, in history.
  - hcurtiss 10mo ago
    Who cares? If higher wealth inequality produces a higher standard of living for the majority (note, median not mean), I’m all for it. Policy should not be driven by envy.
ETH_start 10mo ago
When statistical artifacts are controlled for, it shows that there's been almost no gap between productivity and compensation growth: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stag... The EPI is also not a credible source, given who funds it.
andsoitis 10mo ago
> for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. The millions of people who use NVDA’s products do not get value from it? Isn’t it making their lives richer?
- 331c8c71 10mo ago
  If your employer gets you a nvda card or openai subscription, it doesn't automatically mean you are getting richer, agreed? And the richness of life it's another philosophical discussion altogether...
roenxi 10mo ago
I don't know why you think that graph is contradicting me, if wages and productivity aren't linked having people do make-work is even more stupid! They're already doing work that they aren't even being compensated for, fighting to preserve that when the work doesn't need to be done is legitimately crazy. It'd be fighting for the right to do work that isn't being compensated for and isn't useful. One of the rare situations that is even worse than just straight paying people to not do anything. I'm seeing a scenario where we have such high individual productivity that everyone can live a very comfortable life. If in practice the way it is working is a couple of people do all the work and the benefits are divvied up among everyone else then that hardly undermines the vision. Although if we're talking the optimum way of organising society, y'know, re-linking wages and productivity is a probably a good path. This scheme of not rewarding productive people has seen the US make a transition from growth hub of the world to being out-competed by nominal Communists. They aren't exactly distinguishing themselves with that strategy.

IncreasePosts 10mo ago

But humans aren't more productive for the most part. What had made people more productive is, for the most part, mechanization, computerization, and other tech tree improvements. Even though everyone didn't get rich from the industrial revolution, ultimately people led easier lives, more stuff, and less work.

N_Lens 10mo ago
I read that a peasant in the middle ages typically worked less and had much more leisure than a worker in the 21st century.
- andsoitis 10mo ago
  Peasants in the Middle Ages did hard, agrarian labor, had poor sanitation, high child mortality, and limited horizons. While nobles had wealth and comfort, the era was generally harsh, with most lacking modern amenities and facing short, physically demanding lives.
- parineum 10mo ago
  You've read that they had more days off but that's only because they couldn't work in the winter. Instead, they hoped the food stores would last and the kids wouldn't die so they could help work the land next year.
- matusp 10mo ago
  You can achieve medieval peasent level of life quality by not working at all these days.

oceanplexian 10mo ago

Why then, outside of Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the UAE (All of which are tiny countries, and at least two of them are Petrostates), does the United States have the world's highest median income with a population of over 342 million people? The typical American is insanely wealthy by global standards.

noitpmeder 10mo ago
But it's not like AI did any of that...
- creato 10mo ago
  Past innovation did though.
- grafmax 10mo ago
  Right we had a functioning labor movement to thank for productivity gains being distributed to the working class. When that got undermined beginning late seventies early 80s with offshoring we see wealth just flowing to the top without significantly benefiting the working class.
N_Lens 10mo ago
Wealth inequality is worse now than the era of robber barons & gilded age.
- ETH_start 10mo ago
  The 1870-1900 period experienced the greatest expansion of U.S. industry, and the fastest rise in both U.S. wages and U.S. life expectancy, in history.
- hcurtiss 10mo ago
  Who cares? If higher wealth inequality produces a higher standard of living for the majority (note, median not mean), I’m all for it. Policy should not be driven by envy.

ETH_start 10mo ago

When statistical artifacts are controlled for, it shows that there's been almost no gap between productivity and compensation growth: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stagnation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sources-of-real-wage-stag... The EPI is also not a credible source, given who funds it.

andsoitis 10mo ago

> for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. The millions of people who use NVDA’s products do not get value from it? Isn’t it making their lives richer?

331c8c71 10mo ago
If your employer gets you a nvda card or openai subscription, it doesn't automatically mean you are getting richer, agreed? And the richness of life it's another philosophical discussion altogether...

roenxi 10mo ago

I don't know why you think that graph is contradicting me, if wages and productivity aren't linked having people do make-work is even more stupid! They're already doing work that they aren't even being compensated for, fighting to preserve that when the work doesn't need to be done is legitimately crazy. It'd be fighting for the right to do work that isn't being compensated for and isn't useful. One of the rare situations that is even worse than just straight paying people to not do anything. I'm seeing a scenario where we have such high individual productivity that everyone can live a very comfortable life. If in practice the way it is working is a couple of people do all the work and the benefits are divvied up among everyone else then that hardly undermines the vision. Although if we're talking the optimum way of organising society, y'know, re-linking wages and productivity is a probably a good path. This scheme of not rewarding productive people has seen the US make a transition from growth hub of the world to being out-competed by nominal Communists. They aren't exactly distinguishing themselves with that strategy.