I actually think the reason we haven't seen shorter work weeks, is that higher productivity & automation favors capital.
It's a little overly simplistic but Labour + Capital = Economic output.
Basically in a higher productivity world the same operation requires more equipment, more materials, more... to keep up with competitors, and automation leaves labour less and less specialized. So really the labour in general is negotiating from a weaker and weaker position over time, meaning they can't reap the benefits of higher productivity by receiving a comparable quality of life in exchange for less time.
The reason food specifically plays a smaller factor in all of this, is not because we are richer, but because of the green revolution, food is comparatively cheaper to produce now than it was 100 years ago, while land in comparatively more expensive to supply to everyone (because there are more people now), and the basic communication tools required to be a functioning participant in our economy are almost infinitely more expensive. So we spend more on shelter and communication, we have to travel further to reach our jobs (because jobs are more centralized and land is more expensive) so more on transportation too, as a ratio of income. But basically pump us full of some of the sweet sweet agrotech, and everyone can be fed now a days.
In order for labour to effectively reap some of the benefits of increased productivity we will need to see1 of 3 things. Massive collective actions (unions), Government Intervention, or labor shortages (which aren't too likely, because of those ever productivity increases). I for one have always hated the idea of Unions, playing to the mean and allowing small underqualified subgroups to negotiate on behalf of other peoples interests has always been ripe territory for abuse.
So I am generally in favor of robust government regulation, high minimum wages, strong worker protections regarding maximum hours and overtime pay. This doesn't come without it's own problems, the very people who need to enact these regulations are often supported the most by those who would be harmed by them. It drives a big incumbency advantage in business, because startups can't always pay the high wages and hire enough people to cover off all of those short hours. and it also requires collective action with other governments to make sure your jurisdiction is not hamstrung. But these problems are the type of things a functioning government would a long view could work on.
Pretty much straight down the fairway socialism, which is a pretty common position nowadays.
The problem with your analysis here is that it only contemplates labour and capital. It does not properly contemplate the benefits to the consumer (which is the same group as labour, ultimately). That is to say, increased efficiency, however it is attained, benefits all consumers by decreasing costs to them.
Less engagement with hopeless libertarians, more plotting around seizing the means of production. Or, perhaps, in a post-industrial economy we should be seizing the means of service, like taking over the nearest Wendy's and bringing the Baconator to the People.
It might be by accident, but I think this is pretty insightful.
Does the means of production in many ways become mostly human capital? The capital requires to create new software is so nominal that it isn't really a barrier. But the human capital required is significant.
From an investor point of view, investing in human capital (maybe your own or your childrens) might be wiser than financial assets - quite a bit harder to seize to pay for all this.
There is a power imbalance in every human relationship. Does that mean no choices are consensual?
In a friendship or romantic partnership, the power shifts back and forth, depending on the circumstances. If one person always has the power, that's not a healthy relationship and can become an abusive one.
In the case of an employer and employee, the employer almost always has the power. Sure, there is the occasional exception of someone with a rare and hard-to-replicate skillset. Those aren't the people we're talking about when it comes to minimum wage.
I can’t stand eggs. Which makes going out for a breakfast annoying when 19 out of 20 breakfast menu items include eggs. So I either order the pancakes or ask for the two egg special - hold the eggs.
Even more annoying, one of my go-to breakfast places recently added eggs to the handful of previously egg—free items on the menu, including the Ukrainian hash (sausage, hashbrowns, peppers, and onions) that I used to order, and jacked up the price on all of those items by $2. Smart business, I suppose, as the markup on eggs is about 600 per cent. But now I have to pay more for eggs that I’m not eating.
I could go on and on about eggs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-14-2021 at 06:34 AM.
I can’t stand eggs. Which makes going out for a breakfast annoying when 19 out of 20 breakfast menu items include eggs. So I either order the pancakes or ask for the two egg special - hold the eggs.
Even more annoying, one of my go-to breakfast places recently added eggs to the handful of previously egg—free items on the menu, including the Ukrainian hash (sausage, hashbrowns, peppers, and onions) that I used to order, and jacked up the price on all of those items by $2. Smart business, I suppose, as the markup on eggs is about 600 per cent. But now I have to pay more for eggs that I’m not eating.
I could go on and on about eggs.
Wow, you're even a contrarian when it comes to breakfast!
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
I can’t stand eggs. Which makes going out for a breakfast annoying when 19 out of 20 breakfast menu items include eggs. So I either order the pancakes or ask for the two egg special - hold the eggs.
Even more annoying, one of my go-to breakfast places recently added eggs to the handful of previously egg—free items on the menu, including the Ukrainian hash (sausage, hashbrowns, peppers, and onions) that I used to order, and jacked up the price on all of those items by $2. Smart business, I suppose, as the markup on eggs is about 600 per cent. But now I have to pay more for eggs that I’m not eating.
I could go on and on about eggs.
My wife is allergic to eggs, and you're right that almost every breakfast dish includes them. I don't know how many times she's sent back a breakfast sandwich or breakfast platter ordered "I'm allergic to eggs so no eggs please" back because it had eggs.
I actually think the reason we haven't seen shorter work weeks, is that higher productivity & automation favors capital.
It's a little overly simplistic but Labour + Capital = Economic output.
Basically in a higher productivity world the same operation requires more equipment, more materials, more... to keep up with competitors, and automation leaves labour less and less specialized. So really the labour in general is negotiating from a weaker and weaker position over time, meaning they can't reap the benefits of higher productivity by receiving a comparable quality of life in exchange for less time.
The reason food specifically plays a smaller factor in all of this, is not because we are richer, but because of the green revolution, food is comparatively cheaper to produce now than it was 100 years ago, while land in comparatively more expensive to supply to everyone (because there are more people now), and the basic communication tools required to be a functioning participant in our economy are almost infinitely more expensive. So we spend more on shelter and communication, we have to travel further to reach our jobs (because jobs are more centralized and land is more expensive) so more on transportation too, as a ratio of income. But basically pump us full of some of the sweet sweet agrotech, and everyone can be fed now a days.
In order for labour to effectively reap some of the benefits of increased productivity we will need to see1 of 3 things. Massive collective actions (unions), Government Intervention, or labor shortages (which aren't too likely, because of those ever productivity increases). I for one have always hated the idea of Unions, playing to the mean and allowing small underqualified subgroups to negotiate on behalf of other peoples interests has always been ripe territory for abuse.
So I am generally in favor of robust government regulation, high minimum wages, strong worker protections regarding maximum hours and overtime pay. This doesn't come without it's own problems, the very people who need to enact these regulations are often supported the most by those who would be harmed by them. It drives a big incumbency advantage in business, because startups can't always pay the high wages and hire enough people to cover off all of those short hours. and it also requires collective action with other governments to make sure your jurisdiction is not hamstrung. But these problems are the type of things a functioning government would a long view could work on.
The bolded is kind of an odd take, especially within the context of the rest of your post. I hope you know your history well enough to understand that things like shorter work weeks, higher wages and better worker protections weren’t just gifted to people by benevolent governments and corporations, they were, and continue to be, literally fought and died for.
Curious as to how you consider trained professional negotiators who have access to legal counsel, who also likely have experience dealing with multiple employers and individuals to be under qualified compared to an individual employee whose only negotiating experience is likely their own.
Pretty much straight down the fairway socialism, which is a pretty common position nowadays.
The problem with your analysis here is that it only contemplates labour and capital. It does not properly contemplate the benefits to the consumer (which is the same group as labour, ultimately). That is to say, increased efficiency, however it is attained, benefits all consumers by decreasing costs to them.
It’s been a couple of days so I’m just wondering if you’ve come up with anything that actually substantiates this claim or if you’re just gonna stick with the trickle down argument?
You’ve actually made better arguments for why it doesn’t benefit the consumer. (Customers paying the same price while doing more work for the same product)
My wife is allergic to eggs, and you're right that almost every breakfast dish includes them. I don't know how many times she's sent back a breakfast sandwich or breakfast platter ordered "I'm allergic to eggs so no eggs please" back because it had eggs.
Is there such a thing as egg substitute? Like beyond meat plant based or tofu?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
But they only stock the pre-made omelet ones in Canada. I really want to get the "raw egg" equivalent because my wife loves French toast, but it makes her sick so she doesn't eat it.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
It’s been a couple of days so I’m just wondering if you’ve come up with anything that actually substantiates this claim or if you’re just gonna stick with the trickle down argument?
You’ve actually made better arguments for why it doesn’t benefit the consumer. (Customers paying the same price while doing more work for the same product)
You have been provided with numerous examples, but I will list some here again:
- communications
- data processing and computer power
- air travel
- land travel
- everything you touch in a grocery store
- distribution and manufacturing of medicine and healthcare products
- healthcare services
- accounting
- taxation and tax collecting
- recycling
- power generation
- education
- distribution of literature and reading materials
- monitoring of health outcomes
You have been provided with numerous examples, but I will list some here again:
- communications
- data processing and computer power
- air travel
- land travel
- everything you touch in a grocery store
- distribution and manufacturing of medicine and healthcare products
- healthcare services
- accounting
- taxation and tax collecting
- recycling
- power generation
- education
- distribution of literature and reading materials
- monitoring of health outcomes
I could be here all day.
You could be here all day, or all weekend for that matter, or you could provide a verifiable example of automation directly leading to a price drop and be done with it. No one is doubting the plausibility of your claim, what’s in question is whether or not it actually happens.
Even the numbers in that article don’t give very much credibility to your argument.
140 workers making $5/day is $700, meaning the labour cost per vehicle at 1000 vehicles/day is $0.70/vehicle compared to $7/vehicle for 100 vehicles/day pre-automation. Yet your position is that this $6.30/vehicle in savings led to vehicle prices falling from the introductory rate of $850/car to $260/car.
I think you should take into consideration a number of other socioeconomic changes from that era which likely factored into why the price drop was a sensible business decision, as opposed to a direct result of automation. Workers in general were starting to earn more money which lead to a larger market. You make a lot more money if you can sell 1000 units at a $50 profit each than you do selling 10 units at a $500 profit each because too few people can afford them at that price point.
If you’re so certain of yours and BoLevi’s trickledown inspired argument that automation leads to price decreases, one would think that given how much labour automation has accelerated in the past decade you wouldn’t have to go back over a century for an example that still doesn’t make a winning argument.
Automation is intended to lower costs for the business, not the consumer.
Even the numbers in that article don’t give very much credibility to your argument.
140 workers making $5/day is $700, meaning the labour cost per vehicle at 1000 vehicles/day is $0.70/vehicle compared to $7/vehicle for 100 vehicles/day pre-automation. Yet your position is that this $6.30/vehicle in savings led to vehicle prices falling from the introductory rate of $850/car to $260/car.
I think you should take into consideration a number of other socioeconomic changes from that era which likely factored into why the price drop was a sensible business decision, as opposed to a direct result of automation. Workers in general were starting to earn more money which lead to a larger market. You make a lot more money if you can sell 1000 units at a $50 profit each than you do selling 10 units at a $500 profit each because too few people can afford them at that price point.
If you’re so certain of yours and BoLevi’s trickledown inspired argument that automation leads to price decreases, one would think that given how much labour automation has accelerated in the past decade you wouldn’t have to go back over a century for an example that still doesn’t make a winning argument.
Automation is intended to lower costs for the business, not the consumer.
Give me just one example you say,
I give you one example after spending 10 seconds of googling
That example is too old give me another one.
Why would I continue this?
In your last sentence you agreed with my position anyway.
Automation creates a surplus.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I give you one example after spending 10 seconds of googling
That example is too old give me another one.
I think I made it pretty clear why the data and facts brought up in your example didn’t provide much to support your position.
Quote:
Why would I continue this?
It’s up to you, I’m just trying to give you an opportunity to prove your point.
Quote:
In your last sentence you agreed with my position anyway.
I did no such thing.
Quote:
Automation creates a surplus.
That’s a very different statement from automation lowers the price for consumers, which is what BoLevi has been stating. There is nothing to support that the surplus is more likely to result in lower prices for consumers as opposed to increased profits for the business. You’re both just applying the trickledown economics technique of arguing plausibility as a certainty, which is surprising since unless I’m mistaken you don’t buy into trickledown economics.
Automation creates productivity increases, which creates a surplus. Over the last 100 years or so productivity has increased many-fold, yet corporate profits as a percentage of the economy have remained in the same range. That implies that virtually all of the created surplus accrues to a mix of labour and consumers, as different companies compete away the productivity enhancements.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
