5 ms·

>we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them But, therein lies

>we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them But, therein lies a paradox, right? I mean, when you seek to lower the cost of production through automation, technology, etc. you wind up displacing human workers, reducing labor demand, and putting downward pressure on wages. BTW, I'll add that lower wages are another significant way that companies reduce costs/prices. The net result is that profits increase, which benefits a relative few rich, while the quality of life for many is reduced or stagnant at best. In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. Perhaps the poorest who would otherwise starve are benefited (even if through entitlements or aid which can now go further), and of course that's a very good thing. But, on balance, the world's wealth is accumulating to a very small number of people at an accelerating pace.

kiba 13y ago
In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.
- bsbechtel 13y ago
  You guys are opening up a whole other can of worms getting into labor. We tend to think of labor as a cost of production and something to be minimized. Maybe we need to start thinking of labor as a (actually, the main) party responsible for creating the value the firm produces for society. Anytime value is created, it can go to 4 parties - the consumer (lower prices), the government (taxes), the shareholders (through profits), and the employees (labor wages). Maybe the reason our economy is so screwed up right now is because employees are getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie, not because technology is displacing jobs. If more people are out of work because of technology, great! That means we have more people who can go work on things like curing cancer and colonizing space :-)
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Good points. Of course, I'm going to quibble a little, else I wouldn't be replying! >...our economy is so screwed up right now is because employees are getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie, not because technology is displacing jobs" But, the two are related right? When tech displaces jobs, which it of course has, then there is lower demand for labor and the price of labor (wages) goes down. There are other forces as well, but all primarily stem from a drive to keep costs (and hence prices) down, while keeping profits up. >If more people are out of work because of technology, great! That means we have more people who can go work on things like curing cancer and colonizing space :-)* I know that was half tongue-in-cheek, but would that it worked that way! Alas, what we value economically versus what would benefit us as humans are too infrequently aligned. There will come a day though, when only a tiny fraction of the population will be "neccessary" to create what the world produces. It will be interesting to see how society realigns itself and evolves when so few people need to do traditional (economic) work.
    - kamaal 13y ago
      >>There will come a day though, when only a tiny fraction of the population will be "neccessary" to create what the world produces. It will be interesting to see how society realigns itself and evolves when so few people need to do traditional (economic) work. We are already there, and we seem to be doing just fine. I guess only ~3% of US population today works in farms compared to >70% a century back. The only thing is work keeps changing. People have better things to work on. That has always been the trend since mankind even existed. If the effort required to produce something goes down, prices too go down significantly.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        >We are already there, and we seem to be doing just fine We're not there yet. >The only thing is work keeps changing. People have better things to work on. By definition, as long as we have better things to work on (which are valued by our economy), then we haven't arrived at the point about which I'm speaking. Technology is moving at an accelerated pace. What automation and tech can do is moving up the skill ladder and replacing more jobs than before. In addition, a globalized workforce/economy means we are reaching a scale that is giving us ever-increasing efficiency and per-worker productivity. This is why we are seeing the beginnings of a very stubborn structural unemployment and stagnant wages over the last couple of decades. But, we are just starting. And at some point, a much smaller percentage of what we produce will require humans. When that happens, the "better things to work on" won't fit the current economy's definition of value that is worthy of compensation. That is, it won't go to the production of goods or services for which people are willing to pay.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  I could read that two ways and I'm not sure which you intended. 1.) That no matter how cheap we make things, it does no good if the production of those goods causes some to be so much poorer (even down to zero) that they still cannot afford it. If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement. 2.) That we need to make things cheaper however we can, so that the poorest can afford it. If that was your point, then well, that's the paradox. Some are poor (or poorer) because of the measures taken to produce cheap goods. I think you meant 1.) but wasn't sure.
  - bsbechtel 13y ago
    I meant there is still lots of technology to be developed that can make many goods much cheaper than they are today, and as they become cheaper due to technology, then more people will be able to afford those goods. I wasn't really thinking too deeply on how the cost of labor affects the price of goods, but I tend to have the general attitude that if everyone in a firm (including management and the owners will accept 0 profits) wants to work for free to make their goods the cheapest on the market, then they are free to do so (and there is a reason you don't see this in our society...it doesn't last long). However, I think it's a crime, and a serious problem when shareholders and top management reap billions in profits off the backs of thousands of wage workers who earn $7.25/hr and then rely on government welfare programs to support themselves...that's basically the government subsidizing cheap labor for big corporations.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
brucefancher 13y ago
Wow. Open your eyes. The "poor" today live lives that kings couldn't imagine a few generations ago.
kamaal 13y ago
>>But, therein lies a paradox, right? I mean, when you see..ay that companies reduce costs/prices. There is hardly a paradox. Automation causes small term problems but great long term benefits. I won't go too far in history. But as early 1980's India saw massive protests and Nation wide bandhs to protest introduction of computers(and other automation) in the country. People just could not get themselves to accept that their jobs will be replaced by machines. But that event came to pass anyway. Many problems to people of that era in India, are even unknown to the youngsters in India now. >>The net result is that profits increase, which benefits a relative few rich, while the quality of life for many is reduced or stagnant at best. Again, I completely disagree. If you keep changing the definition of poor frequently then its nearly impossible to eradicate poverty ever. Poverty today is nothing like what it was even a century ago. >> the world's wealth is accumulating to a very small number of people at an accelerating pace. The world's wealth will always accumulate at places, professions and people which benefit from economies of scale. It doesn't matter which system of economics those people are in.

kiba 13y ago

In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.

bsbechtel 13y ago
You guys are opening up a whole other can of worms getting into labor. We tend to think of labor as a cost of production and something to be minimized. Maybe we need to start thinking of labor as a (actually, the main) party responsible for creating the value the firm produces for society. Anytime value is created, it can go to 4 parties - the consumer (lower prices), the government (taxes), the shareholders (through profits), and the employees (labor wages). Maybe the reason our economy is so screwed up right now is because employees are getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie, not because technology is displacing jobs. If more people are out of work because of technology, great! That means we have more people who can go work on things like curing cancer and colonizing space :-)
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Good points. Of course, I'm going to quibble a little, else I wouldn't be replying! >...our economy is so screwed up right now is because employees are getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie, not because technology is displacing jobs" But, the two are related right? When tech displaces jobs, which it of course has, then there is lower demand for labor and the price of labor (wages) goes down. There are other forces as well, but all primarily stem from a drive to keep costs (and hence prices) down, while keeping profits up. >If more people are out of work because of technology, great! That means we have more people who can go work on things like curing cancer and colonizing space :-)* I know that was half tongue-in-cheek, but would that it worked that way! Alas, what we value economically versus what would benefit us as humans are too infrequently aligned. There will come a day though, when only a tiny fraction of the population will be "neccessary" to create what the world produces. It will be interesting to see how society realigns itself and evolves when so few people need to do traditional (economic) work.
  - kamaal 13y ago
    >>There will come a day though, when only a tiny fraction of the population will be "neccessary" to create what the world produces. It will be interesting to see how society realigns itself and evolves when so few people need to do traditional (economic) work. We are already there, and we seem to be doing just fine. I guess only ~3% of US population today works in farms compared to >70% a century back. The only thing is work keeps changing. People have better things to work on. That has always been the trend since mankind even existed. If the effort required to produce something goes down, prices too go down significantly.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      >We are already there, and we seem to be doing just fine We're not there yet. >The only thing is work keeps changing. People have better things to work on. By definition, as long as we have better things to work on (which are valued by our economy), then we haven't arrived at the point about which I'm speaking. Technology is moving at an accelerated pace. What automation and tech can do is moving up the skill ladder and replacing more jobs than before. In addition, a globalized workforce/economy means we are reaching a scale that is giving us ever-increasing efficiency and per-worker productivity. This is why we are seeing the beginnings of a very stubborn structural unemployment and stagnant wages over the last couple of decades. But, we are just starting. And at some point, a much smaller percentage of what we produce will require humans. When that happens, the "better things to work on" won't fit the current economy's definition of value that is worthy of compensation. That is, it won't go to the production of goods or services for which people are willing to pay.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
unclebucknasty 13y ago
I could read that two ways and I'm not sure which you intended. 1.) That no matter how cheap we make things, it does no good if the production of those goods causes some to be so much poorer (even down to zero) that they still cannot afford it. If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement. 2.) That we need to make things cheaper however we can, so that the poorest can afford it. If that was your point, then well, that's the paradox. Some are poor (or poorer) because of the measures taken to produce cheap goods. I think you meant 1.) but wasn't sure.
- bsbechtel 13y ago
  I meant there is still lots of technology to be developed that can make many goods much cheaper than they are today, and as they become cheaper due to technology, then more people will be able to afford those goods. I wasn't really thinking too deeply on how the cost of labor affects the price of goods, but I tend to have the general attitude that if everyone in a firm (including management and the owners will accept 0 profits) wants to work for free to make their goods the cheapest on the market, then they are free to do so (and there is a reason you don't see this in our society...it doesn't last long). However, I think it's a crime, and a serious problem when shareholders and top management reap billions in profits off the backs of thousands of wage workers who earn $7.25/hr and then rely on government welfare programs to support themselves...that's basically the government subsidizing cheap labor for big corporations.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

brucefancher 13y ago

Wow. Open your eyes. The "poor" today live lives that kings couldn't imagine a few generations ago.

kamaal 13y ago

>>But, therein lies a paradox, right? I mean, when you see..ay that companies reduce costs/prices. There is hardly a paradox. Automation causes small term problems but great long term benefits. I won't go too far in history. But as early 1980's India saw massive protests and Nation wide bandhs to protest introduction of computers(and other automation) in the country. People just could not get themselves to accept that their jobs will be replaced by machines. But that event came to pass anyway. Many problems to people of that era in India, are even unknown to the youngsters in India now. >>The net result is that profits increase, which benefits a relative few rich, while the quality of life for many is reduced or stagnant at best. Again, I completely disagree. If you keep changing the definition of poor frequently then its nearly impossible to eradicate poverty ever. Poverty today is nothing like what it was even a century ago. >> the world's wealth is accumulating to a very small number of people at an accelerating pace. The world's wealth will always accumulate at places, professions and people which benefit from economies of scale. It doesn't matter which system of economics those people are in.