Unions

[michigancat]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

Link?

[CNS]

You will just see the speed of automation increase as labor becomes more expensive. I don’t blame people for attempting to unionize but in these industries especially it will be a fleeting victory.

Of course, but this is a constant.

And it's been happening long enough where we've seen the shift to the labor not disappearing but being used to manage the automation. There are studies that have shown that automation has led to fewer jobs lost than what was though the case would be when we started in this trend 30 years ago. Manufacturing has incorporated automation long before that. Until machines have the capability to think, program, and fix themselves, you still need people to do those things.

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

https://hbr.org/2021/11/automation-doesnt-just-create-or-destroy-jobs-it-transforms-them

The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2025, technology will create at least 12 million more jobs than it destroys, a sign that in the long run, automation will be a net positive for society.

This will transform jobs.  However, it may exacerbate an already existing split in workers.  The jobs that automation creates will most likely require more technical know how.  Isn't this a replay of the coal miners being told to learn to code?

[MakeItRain]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

It’s really more the shifting of labor mentioned I was interested in.  I went down the trail of the article and the study it referenced and it was pretty much as I expected. The type of jobs automation creates won’t be filled by the people it displaces.

Are you just talking about the natural evolution of labor? Model Ts were manufactured very differently than '55 Thunderbirds were even though both were made on assembly lines by Ford. The way we make and sell hamburgers has changed several times the last 70 years, same as how we stock grocery shelves. Chalking up the inevitable change to how products are manufactured and distributed to automation displacing jobs seems naive.

[Justwin]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

Link?

Do you have a link that says otherwise? It's pretty clear that most humans use productivity gains and the ability to produce more per hour to consume more. They do not use those gains to decrease the amount they work. There are exceptions of course, but I would say this is generally true.

[michigancat]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn%u2019t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

Link?

Do you have a link that says otherwise? It's pretty clear that most humans use productivity gains and the ability to produce more per hour to consume more. They do not use those gains to decrease the amount they work. There are exceptions of course, but I would say this is generally true.

I mean that is clearly not the truth everywhere even in modern western cultures. Unless if you count all of Europe taking all of August off as consumption? Do people work as much as they did in early industrial revolution factories?

But like yeah human history has a wide variety of work/consumption balances. I happen to be reading this right now which makes me an expert!

https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity-ebook/dp/B08R2KL3VY/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=dawn+of+everything&qid=1661270720&sr=8-1

[Justwin]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn%u2019t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

Link?

Do you have a link that says otherwise? It's pretty clear that most humans use productivity gains and the ability to produce more per hour to consume more. They do not use those gains to decrease the amount they work. There are exceptions of course, but I would say this is generally true.

I mean that is clearly not the truth everywhere even in modern western cultures. Unless if you count all of Europe taking all of August off as consumption? Do people work as much as they did in early industrial revolution factories?

But like yeah human history has a wide variety of work/consumption balances. I happen to be reading this right now which makes me an expert!

https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity-ebook/dp/B08R2KL3VY/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=dawn+of+everything&qid=1661270720&sr=8-1

GDP per hour worked in Germany and France is 7x what is was in 1950. Do you think workers in those countries are working 1/7 what they did in 1950? It's a similar story in other Western European countries.

GDP per hour worked in the US is 3-4x what it was in 1950. I don't think US workers are working 1/3 to 1/4 as much as they did in 1950.

We may work less than we did in Industrial Revolution factories, but I don't know if that is the case, especially if you look at the per capita amount of work across all people in a country (workers and non-workers). However, I am quite confident that the amount we work today has not been reduced proportionally to productivity gains. Moreover, I am confident that the vast majority of productivity gains have been devoted to increased consumption. Just because some productivity gains have been devoted to working less does not mean workers prefer using productivity gains to work less than using those gains to consume more. The preference is to use the gains to consume more.

[michigancat]

are all consumption increases made by choice?

Is 1950-2022 the best representation of the history of mankind?

Does the EU consume as much as the US?

If not, are their hours worked increasing relative to the US?

[wetwillie]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

It’s really more the shifting of labor mentioned I was interested in.  I went down the trail of the article and the study it referenced and it was pretty much as I expected. The type of jobs automation creates won’t be filled by the people it displaces.

Are you just talking about the natural evolution of labor? Model Ts were manufactured very differently than '55 Thunderbirds were even though both were made on assembly lines by Ford. The way we make and sell hamburgers has changed several times the last 70 years, same as how we stock grocery shelves. Chalking up the inevitable change to how products are manufactured and distributed to automation displacing jobs seems naive.

CNS summed up my thoughts a few posts up pretty well, a widening gap between jobs available to unskilled vs skilled workers.

[MakeItRain]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

It’s really more the shifting of labor mentioned I was interested in.  I went down the trail of the article and the study it referenced and it was pretty much as I expected. The type of jobs automation creates won’t be filled by the people it displaces.

Are you just talking about the natural evolution of labor? Model Ts were manufactured very differently than '55 Thunderbirds were even though both were made on assembly lines by Ford. The way we make and sell hamburgers has changed several times the last 70 years, same as how we stock grocery shelves. Chalking up the inevitable change to how products are manufactured and distributed to automation displacing jobs seems naive.

CNS summed up my thoughts a few posts up pretty well, a widening gap between jobs available to unskilled vs skilled workers.

I somehow missed CNS' post until you pointed it out. However, I'd counter with factory jobs and mining jobs aren't unskilled labor, far from it. In fact I can't think of a single union industry that doesn't require training and technical know-how. Are you two referring to the need for higher education for these "new" jobs? Has that been borne out?

[wetwillie]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

It’s really more the shifting of labor mentioned I was interested in.  I went down the trail of the article and the study it referenced and it was pretty much as I expected. The type of jobs automation creates won’t be filled by the people it displaces.

Are you just talking about the natural evolution of labor? Model Ts were manufactured very differently than '55 Thunderbirds were even though both were made on assembly lines by Ford. The way we make and sell hamburgers has changed several times the last 70 years, same as how we stock grocery shelves. Chalking up the inevitable change to how products are manufactured and distributed to automation displacing jobs seems naive.

CNS summed up my thoughts a few posts up pretty well, a widening gap between jobs available to unskilled vs skilled workers.

I somehow missed CNS' post until you pointed it out. However, I'd counter with factory jobs and mining jobs aren't unskilled labor, far from it. In fact I can't think of a single union industry that doesn't require training and technical know-how. Are you two referring to the need for higher education for these "new" jobs? Has that been borne out?

I really was referencing the service industry as the origin of the convo was around Starbucks employees unionizing.  I think many major fast food chains are rapidly moving towards having 1 maybe 2 employees in the entire store and letting automation and kiosks do the heavy lifting. 

[OB_Won]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

It’s really more the shifting of labor mentioned I was interested in.  I went down the trail of the article and the study it referenced and it was pretty much as I expected. The type of jobs automation creates won’t be filled by the people it displaces.

Are you just talking about the natural evolution of labor? Model Ts were manufactured very differently than '55 Thunderbirds were even though both were made on assembly lines by Ford. The way we make and sell hamburgers has changed several times the last 70 years, same as how we stock grocery shelves. Chalking up the inevitable change to how products are manufactured and distributed to automation displacing jobs seems naive.

CNS summed up my thoughts a few posts up pretty well, a widening gap between jobs available to unskilled vs skilled workers.

I somehow missed CNS' post until you pointed it out. However, I'd counter with factory jobs and mining jobs aren't unskilled labor, far from it. In fact I can't think of a single union industry that doesn't require training and technical know-how. Are you two referring to the need for higher education for these "new" jobs? Has that been borne out?

I really was referencing the service industry as the origin of the convo was around Starbucks employees unionizing.  I think many major fast food chains are rapidly moving towards having 1 maybe 2 employees in the entire store and letting automation and kiosks do the heavy lifting.

Agreed. There can only be so many people that used to work as a bank teller, then moved to a call center after RIFs, and now drive uber after their job was outsourced to computers. The learning curve and tribal knowledge is much less steep in the service industries than technology. I.e. it's easier to move "down" than "up", but what happens when all "entry" level jobs start disappearing. With regards to comparing 1950 to 2022 to future, technological change isn't linear.

[Kat Kid]

are all consumption increases made by choice?

Is 1950-2022 the best representation of the history of mankind?

Does the EU consume as much as the US?

If not, are their hours worked increasing relative to the US?

1) no, obviously not
2) no, but most labor statistics start then so that is where we look
3) no
4) no, we are maniacal about hours worked here and are an outlier in OECD with only countries with even crazier work cultures and/or way more poverty like Korea or Mexico

[Kat Kid]

I would be interested in seeing these studies because that doesn’t really make sense to me.

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

It’s really more the shifting of labor mentioned I was interested in.  I went down the trail of the article and the study it referenced and it was pretty much as I expected. The type of jobs automation creates won’t be filled by the people it displaces.

Are you just talking about the natural evolution of labor? Model Ts were manufactured very differently than '55 Thunderbirds were even though both were made on assembly lines by Ford. The way we make and sell hamburgers has changed several times the last 70 years, same as how we stock grocery shelves. Chalking up the inevitable change to how products are manufactured and distributed to automation displacing jobs seems naive.

CNS summed up my thoughts a few posts up pretty well, a widening gap between jobs available to unskilled vs skilled workers.

I somehow missed CNS' post until you pointed it out. However, I'd counter with factory jobs and mining jobs aren't unskilled labor, far from it. In fact I can't think of a single union industry that doesn't require training and technical know-how. Are you two referring to the need for higher education for these "new" jobs? Has that been borne out?

I really was referencing the service industry as the origin of the convo was around Starbucks employees unionizing.  I think many major fast food chains are rapidly moving towards having 1 maybe 2 employees in the entire store and letting automation and kiosks do the heavy lifting.

Agreed. There can only be so many people that used to work as a bank teller, then moved to a call center after RIFs, and now drive uber after their job was outsourced to computers. The learning curve and tribal knowledge is much less steep in the service industries than technology. I.e. it's easier to move "down" than "up", but what happens when all "entry" level jobs start disappearing. With regards to comparing 1950 to 2022 to future, technological change isn't linear.

It can be true at the same time that capitalism will always seek out efficiencies and eliminate jobs and demand more productivity from every worker and also that most jobs won’t be eliminated. In fact it has been true since the Luddites destroyed the looms.

Marx made the same argument— he said the Luddites were wrong to put an artificial limit on productivity to protect jobs. Marx said let capitalists innovate and create the systems then seize the means of production. So don’t kill Amazon and have a bunch of Ray’s Apple Markets. Instead, let Amazon consolidate then seize it.

I may sound like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth here and Marx kind of was too. because his claim was that as capitalism continued to squeeze more and more out of every worker at some point that system would be untenable for the workers and they would overthrow it.  Obviously Marx got plenty wrong as he did not anticipate peasant societies like Russia and China to use Communism to try and industrialize while the rest of industrialized Europe and the US tried to snuff out communism at home before it got too big (or compromised with democratic socialism) but I think his insight here might prove true.

[8manpick]

Hell yeah, seize Amazon, Disney, Facebook, and Google!

[wetwillie]

8man must have apple stock

[Kat Kid]

Hell yeah, seize Amazon, Disney, Facebook, and Google!

That’s right

[wetwillie]

Snowden already told us they seized Google and Facebook

[sys]

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

Link?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270

[michigancat]

pretty much the entire history of mankind demonstrates that humans prefer to use productivity gains to consume more rather than to work less.

Link?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270

That is not even close to the entire history of mankind you silly goose

[Fedor]

Hell yeah, seize Amazon, Disney, Facebook, and Google!

That’s right

So we have peaked as a civilization and are done innovating?

[Justwin]

are all consumption increases made by choice?

Is 1950-2022 the best representation of the history of mankind?

Does the EU consume as much as the US?

If not, are their hours worked increasing relative to the US?

Maybe not 100%, but I would say consumption levels are made by choice.

The years 1950-2022 might not be the best representation for mankind, but we have decent data for that time period. Moreover, almost all productivity gains have occurred since 1800, so when looking at how productivity gains are allocated, the relatively recent past is the best time period to look at. How much do you think productivity increased in the US and Western Europe from 1800-1950? I'd bet productivity was at least 10x in 1950 compared to 1800. That means in France and Germany productivity is at least 70x in 2022 compared to 1800 (likely much more). How many hours do you think people are working a week in those countries on average? Let's say it's just 25 hours per week. In order for half of productivity gains to be allocated to leisure, that means people had to be working 875 hours per week in 1800. There are 168 hours in a week.

The EU may or may not consume as much as the US and their hours worked may or may not be increasing relative to the US. That is immaterial to how they have chosen to allocate productivity gains over the last 200-250 years. Anywhere that has seen substantial productivity gains, those places have largely allocated those gains to increasing consumption. The time before 1800 is really pretty unimportant as there were hardly any productivity gains before then.

[Kat Kid]

are all consumption increases made by choice?

Is 1950-2022 the best representation of the history of mankind?

Does the EU consume as much as the US?

If not, are their hours worked increasing relative to the US?

Maybe not 100%, but I would say consumption levels are made by choice.

The years 1950-2022 might not be the best representation for mankind, but we have decent data for that time period. Moreover, almost all productivity gains have occurred since 1800, so when looking at how productivity gains are allocated, the relatively recent past is the best time period to look at. How much do you think productivity increased in the US and Western Europe from 1800-1950? I'd bet productivity was at least 10x in 1950 compared to 1800. That means in France and Germany productivity is at least 70x in 2022 compared to 1800 (likely much more). How many hours do you think people are working a week in those countries on average? Let's say it's just 25 hours per week. In order for half of productivity gains to be allocated to leisure, that means people had to be working 875 hours per week in 1800. There are 168 hours in a week.

The EU may or may not consume as much as the US and their hours worked may or may not be increasing relative to the US. That is immaterial to how they have chosen to allocate productivity gains over the last 200-250 years. Anywhere that has seen substantial productivity gains, those places have largely allocated those gains to increasing consumption. The time before 1800 is really pretty unimportant as there were hardly any productivity gains before then.

The idea that there weren’t enormous productivity gains before 1800 is insane. I get that available data can skew things but going from hunter gatherers to pyramids seems pretty rough ridin' massive.

How about intercontinental trade?

[wetwillie]

Bubonic plague set us back a bit there bubs

[Justwin]

are all consumption increases made by choice?

Is 1950-2022 the best representation of the history of mankind?

Does the EU consume as much as the US?

If not, are their hours worked increasing relative to the US?

Maybe not 100%, but I would say consumption levels are made by choice.

The years 1950-2022 might not be the best representation for mankind, but we have decent data for that time period. Moreover, almost all productivity gains have occurred since 1800, so when looking at how productivity gains are allocated, the relatively recent past is the best time period to look at. How much do you think productivity increased in the US and Western Europe from 1800-1950? I'd bet productivity was at least 10x in 1950 compared to 1800. That means in France and Germany productivity is at least 70x in 2022 compared to 1800 (likely much more). How many hours do you think people are working a week in those countries on average? Let's say it's just 25 hours per week. In order for half of productivity gains to be allocated to leisure, that means people had to be working 875 hours per week in 1800. There are 168 hours in a week.

The EU may or may not consume as much as the US and their hours worked may or may not be increasing relative to the US. That is immaterial to how they have chosen to allocate productivity gains over the last 200-250 years. Anywhere that has seen substantial productivity gains, those places have largely allocated those gains to increasing consumption. The time before 1800 is really pretty unimportant as there were hardly any productivity gains before then.

The idea that there weren’t enormous productivity gains before 1800 is insane. I get that available data can skew things but going from hunter gatherers to pyramids seems pretty rough ridin' massive.

How about intercontinental trade?

What percent of productivity gains do you think occurred before 1800 and what percent do you think occurred after 1800 even allowing for intercontinental trade?

[Justwin]

https://productivityhub.org/2022/06/06/about-200-years-ago-the-world-started-getting-rich-why/

You can crudely tell the story of our species in three stages. In the first, which lasted for the vast majority of our time on Earth, from the emergence of Homo sapiens over 300,000 years ago to about 12,000 years ago, humans lived largely nomadic lifestyles, subsisting through hunting and foraging for food. In the second, lasting from about 10,000 BC to around 1750 AD, humans adopted agriculture, allowing for a more secure supply of food and leading to the establishment of towns, cities, even empires.

The third period, in which we all live, is characterized by an unprecedented phenomenon: sustained economic growth. Quality of life went from improving very gradually if at all for the vast majority of human history to improving very, very quickly. In the United Kingdom, whose Industrial Revolution kicked off this transformation, GDP per capita grew about 40 percent between 1700 and 1800. It more than doubled between 1800 and 1900. And between 1900 and 2000, it grew more than fourfold.

What today we’d characterize as extreme poverty was until a few centuries ago the condition of almost every human on Earth. In 1820, some 94 percent of humans lived on less than $2 a day. Over the next two centuries, extreme poverty fell dramatically; in 2018, the World Bank estimated that 8.6 percent of people lived on less than $1.90 a day. And the gains were not solely economic. Before 1800, average lifespans didn’t exceed 40 years anywhere in the world. Today, the average human life expectancy is more like 73. Deaths in childhood have plunged, and adult heights have surged as malnutrition decreased.