7 ms·

For me, "The amount of jobs" is not the only factor, the quality of the job matters as well. That paragraph suggests that the productivity gain benefits worker

by crc32 12y ago

For me, "The amount of jobs" is not the only factor, the quality of the job matters as well. That paragraph suggests that the productivity gain benefits workers (labour) as well as the owners, (of capital) because it creates jobs. But each of those jobs could be a low paid, low quality job; as is suggested by the following: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazon-insider-feature-treatment-employees-work http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazo... http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_sick_brutality_and_secret_history_of_ruthlessly_intimidating_workers/ http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_... Yes there may be more (or the same) number of jobs; as suggested by the paragraph. But each of those jobs could be lower paid and lower quality in terms of job satisfaction. So it may still be the case that a greater share of the productivity gain accrues to capital; instead of labour. Rather than freeing us; our existing societal structures may mean that technology instead helps to create a story of inequality - a hollowing out of today's society with "barristers and baristas and no-one in the middle". Whether that society is a moral one; or even a functional one, is a separate question I suppose!

ghshephard 12y ago
What I liked about the article on the Kiva Robots at OAK4, is that it emphasized is that the part of the work that's being optimized is the grunt work of moving stuff back and worth - the (relatively) more sophisticated work of identifying the item, verifying the quality, and confirm it's the right element for the order, is done by humans. While it might not be very high on the feeding chain, it's at least a little higher than it was before - and that's a good thing. I'm all for humans being automated out of the low-order activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#mediaviewer/File:Ilia_Efimovich_Repin_(1844-1930)_-_Volga_Boatmen_(1870-1873).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#medi...
- crc32 12y ago
  This is a positive interpretation of the scenario that may well be valid. Perhaps the question of whether job satisfaction at Amazon has improved or not is a little subjective. I love your linked picture. I think that with it you imply that in the past, technological progress has been linked with higher standards of living for most. I'd agree with that, but I am wary of extrapolating that trend into the future; or maybe just concious that significant social turmoil came along with that progress. Perhaps the situation is not so different, but we are merely doomed to repeat the mistakes of the industrial revolution; during the robotics/knowledge revolution!
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Hasn't the average global standard of living more or less skyrocketed since 1950, even as the population has more than doubled? The only substantial, technology related decline in standard of living over that period is of relatively well off Americans, primarily the blue collar middle class (and it's messy to actually try to compare across time periods like that, there are things that cost very little today that didn't exist 30 years ago).
get 12y ago
I think the amount one gets paid is equal to the amount of value one creates for others. After all it's an auction, right? If somebody offers you to pay $8/h you will not work for $7/h. And if your work would create an additional $9 for someone, they would happily offer you $8. Minimum wage jobs are an exception to this rule. Because the amount paid is higher then it would be in a free market. We could look at how we can increase the amount paid for minimum wage jobs. But I find it more fascinating to think about how we can make people create more value. So they do not need to compete for minimum wage jobs.
- throwaway_xl5 12y ago
  The employer will want to pay the least they can to get the job done. This means you will likely get paid an amount less than the value you create for others. There are a lot of cases where you may choose to work for 7/h even though 8/h is on offer elsewhere such as a shorter commute, better hours, or nicer work environment.
  - get 12y ago
    This means you will likely get paid an amount less than the value you create for others You are usually not creating more value then you get paid. Just because an author needs somebody to proof read his million-dollar-bestseller, the proofreader did not create millions of dollars. Just because a picker at Amazon picks stuff that makes Amazon tens of thousands in profit, he did not create that value. To create value means to create value that otherwise would not exist.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      You create some value, otherwise the company would not hire you. Of course the picker is not responsible for all the revenue accrued by the products s/he picks, just a part of it.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Why would an employee work for less than the value they are creating? Seems like irrationally altruistic behavior on their part, or, alternatively, a marketplace in which the employers are not competing for employees (which has been known to happen in Silicon Valley). In general, though - employees who are making less than the value they are creating, will simply be hired by another employer who can profit on that gap. This process repeats itself until the employee has reached the level at which they are making roughly what their value contribution is. e.g. If you have a lawyer who bills out at $500K/year, and is only making $50K/year at Law Firm #1, they will quickly go to a law firm #2 that will hire them for $100K a year, and which will then profit $400K/year from their activity. That lawyer will likely find another job soon at Law Firm #3, where they will make $150K/year, and so on.
justingood 12y ago
It's implied that the jobs might be of lower quality, for sure. However, this seems in contrast to their recent 'pay to quit' scheme: http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/articles/pages/pay-to-quit-bonuses.aspx http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/articles/page...

by crc32 12y ago

ghshephard 12y ago

What I liked about the article on the Kiva Robots at OAK4, is that it emphasized is that the part of the work that's being optimized is the grunt work of moving stuff back and worth - the (relatively) more sophisticated work of identifying the item, verifying the quality, and confirm it's the right element for the order, is done by humans. While it might not be very high on the feeding chain, it's at least a little higher than it was before - and that's a good thing. I'm all for humans being automated out of the low-order activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#mediaviewer/File:Ilia_Efimovich_Repin_(1844-1930)_-_Volga_Boatmen_(1870-1873).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#medi...

crc32 12y ago
This is a positive interpretation of the scenario that may well be valid. Perhaps the question of whether job satisfaction at Amazon has improved or not is a little subjective. I love your linked picture. I think that with it you imply that in the past, technological progress has been linked with higher standards of living for most. I'd agree with that, but I am wary of extrapolating that trend into the future; or maybe just concious that significant social turmoil came along with that progress. Perhaps the situation is not so different, but we are merely doomed to repeat the mistakes of the industrial revolution; during the robotics/knowledge revolution!
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Hasn't the average global standard of living more or less skyrocketed since 1950, even as the population has more than doubled? The only substantial, technology related decline in standard of living over that period is of relatively well off Americans, primarily the blue collar middle class (and it's messy to actually try to compare across time periods like that, there are things that cost very little today that didn't exist 30 years ago).

get 12y ago

I think the amount one gets paid is equal to the amount of value one creates for others. After all it's an auction, right? If somebody offers you to pay $8/h you will not work for $7/h. And if your work would create an additional $9 for someone, they would happily offer you $8. Minimum wage jobs are an exception to this rule. Because the amount paid is higher then it would be in a free market. We could look at how we can increase the amount paid for minimum wage jobs. But I find it more fascinating to think about how we can make people create more value. So they do not need to compete for minimum wage jobs.

throwaway_xl5 12y ago
The employer will want to pay the least they can to get the job done. This means you will likely get paid an amount less than the value you create for others. There are a lot of cases where you may choose to work for 7/h even though 8/h is on offer elsewhere such as a shorter commute, better hours, or nicer work environment.
- get 12y ago
  This means you will likely get paid an amount less than the value you create for others You are usually not creating more value then you get paid. Just because an author needs somebody to proof read his million-dollar-bestseller, the proofreader did not create millions of dollars. Just because a picker at Amazon picks stuff that makes Amazon tens of thousands in profit, he did not create that value. To create value means to create value that otherwise would not exist.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You create some value, otherwise the company would not hire you. Of course the picker is not responsible for all the revenue accrued by the products s/he picks, just a part of it.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Why would an employee work for less than the value they are creating? Seems like irrationally altruistic behavior on their part, or, alternatively, a marketplace in which the employers are not competing for employees (which has been known to happen in Silicon Valley). In general, though - employees who are making less than the value they are creating, will simply be hired by another employer who can profit on that gap. This process repeats itself until the employee has reached the level at which they are making roughly what their value contribution is. e.g. If you have a lawyer who bills out at $500K/year, and is only making $50K/year at Law Firm #1, they will quickly go to a law firm #2 that will hire them for $100K a year, and which will then profit $400K/year from their activity. That lawyer will likely find another job soon at Law Firm #3, where they will make $150K/year, and so on.

justingood 12y ago

It's implied that the jobs might be of lower quality, for sure. However, this seems in contrast to their recent 'pay to quit' scheme: http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/articles/pages/pay-to-quit-bonuses.aspx http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/articles/page...