Fresh paint on old tale.
There is a lot of true in what you say. But, part of the problem is the level of efficiency. Where you needed before a chain of managers doing the dirty job and creating inefficiencies. An algorithm does not sleep, does not care that you have kids or you are sick, does not have compassion or gets angry.
The root cause is the owner. Algorithms help, thou.
Life certainly isn't amazing for people in society at large. There are people on the other side of the code we're producing. Something us engineers love to forget about.
What is he referring to exactly though when he says it's better?
Infant mortality is at an all time low (among nearly every other quality of life metric): https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
Also, society looked very different back then. Women´s work force participation alone renders any comparison between the two ages rather difficult to make to begin with so assuming right off the bat that the 1950s were better (while disregarding all the advancements in medicine, etc.) is unfair at best.
note: I understand that you said "possibly" but this is a claim that I hear rather often and I don´t know how people can actually make that comparison so easily.
Look at the Vietnamese immigrant story in the United States after the Vietnam war.
https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/12/news/economy/thuan-pham-ref...
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/former-vietnamese-refu...
> Vietnamese overall have higher incomes compared to the total foreign- and native-born populations. In 2017, households headed by a Vietnamese immigrant had a median income of approximately $63,200, compared to $56,700 and $60,800 for all immigrant and U.S.-born households, respectively.
Further, in 2017, some 11 percent of Vietnamese families were living in poverty, a lower rate than for immigrant families overall (14 percent).
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/vietnamese-immigrant...
Perhaps we should ask why there are so many “overworked and simply miserable” Asians compared to “native” born people who are more content to be underworked and living on the public dole, relatively speaking. The ability to work very hard and ultimately create a better life is at the heart of the immigrant experience. Rather than viewing that scene as a dystopia, we should view it as inspiring. Anyone with a work ethic and could also one day own a fancy car. It happens literally every day and at least in the US, the data supports it. Look at the success of the Vietnamese in the US compared to the success of other demographics. To top it off, in the US at least, most Vietnamese arrived with nothing, not even more than a few words of English and they turned it into a success story — and they did it without whining about politics or “inequality;” they just worked their asses off without complaint. They look “overworked, tired, and simply miserable,” because they are — but they understand that nobody owes them anything; if they are to be successful, they have to earn it with their own sweat and sacrifice.
Some see misery, others see possibility. These guys on scooters don’t see themselves as victims like the more “enlightened” among us would suggest they are.
Income disparity is natural. Regulation to prevent people from exploiting the system into higher income is good, but we'll never be able to make it so that the delivery driver and the corporate executive have the same standard of living, unless that standard is consuming gruel in a formless concrete cube somewhere.
For starters, how about, instead of 60% of the working age population working 40 hours to make ends meet, (with the other 40% mooching off them, through welfare, family members supporting eachother, etc), how about 80% of the population working 30 hours a week?
It would create the same amount of wealth, but would distribute it a little differently.
My suspicion is that those remaining 40% are significantly less employable, and you can't just swap them in like a fungible good. I suspect also that as technical skills become more valuable - and our education system remains stagnant - that 40% number will grow.
i'd implore you to compare regular people welfare spending to corporate welfare spending if this is the view you hold
Just allow the situation to resolve itself?
I'd sooner see investment in apprenticeship programs and other efforts to reduce the "mooching" as you called it, than somehow thinking that having me work ten hours less a week is going to provide anything for anyone. How does me doing less work enable that? There's not a fixed supply of "work that can be done", by any stretch.
It's because I'm not trying to increase the amount of crap we produce. I simply postulate that we could get the same work done, by a better distribution of labour. Whether or not we need to produce more is another question entirely.
> than somehow thinking that having me work ten hours less a week is going to provide anything for anyone.
Take three people in your position, and you'll create a job for a fourth. And, after all, in our society, job creation is some holy grail that we need to bend over backwards on laws, regulations, and smart business sense for. Instead of compromising on those things, why not compromise on 'normal' working hours, instead?
It says the "working age population" which is everybody over 16, was 243 million in 2013, while the labor force was 156 million, leaving 87 million or about 36%.
Of those 87 million, - 9 million were probably in high school - 21 million were in college - 40 million were over 65 - 2+ million were incarcerated - ~20 million were disabled and cannot work (estimated 8% of the population)
That adds up to 92 million; obviously some of those older and younger people are in fact working.
See: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul...
and
https://disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/user-up...
You'll also find a lot of the remaining employed people to be significantly under-employed, compared to people doing 40+ hours/week.
[1] 40% of undergraduate students, and 76% of graduate students have >30 hours of work/week. [2][3]
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/at-univ...
[3] So, instead of subtracting 20 million from the unemployed bucket, we need to subtract ~10 million from the employed bucket, and ~10 million from the unemployed bucket. Repeat this process for high school students, persons with disabilities (Some of whom do, in fact, work), and seniors, and you will get to something more resembling a 6:4 ratio.
And the 20 million disabled people figure is not the total number of disabled people; it's the fraction that don't work multiplied by the fraction who are disabled multiplied by the workforce number. The second reference is where I got the fractions.
You moved the post from "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary to "everybody should have the same salary". The question is if delivery drivers should have a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life.
Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary?
Why would that be? That’s a fallacy. We have the ability to produce far more than everyone would need to live a pretty abundant life.
I agree. Not my comment. I was just quoting.
Seems almost more depressing than the current dystopia to believe that we should keep it going for even longer just to ensure everyone gets an equal chance to consume their pile of fried meat.
... so long as that abundant life is location independent.
What is "fair"?
One variety of "fair" is "getting a reasonable cut of the profit made from their actions", where "reasonable" is based on what the market will bear - i.e. if your labour is undercut by someone else, then it's a race to the bottom. This is what guilds and then trade unions originally evolved to deal with.
Another variety of "fair" that seems to be gaining mindshare is the idea that you deserve a "living wage" for literally any full-time job, which is a new idea unsubstantiated by economic reality. It belies the fact that there are jobs that do have some demand, but simply aren't worth enough to the people who'd pay for them that they can supply a "living wage". And what's living? Is mung beans, rice, and a shared room in a house "living" enough or does everyone need their full maximized-carbon-footprint atomized solo lifestyle in order to "live"?
Implicit in most discussions, but frequently left unstated, is the idea that a wage-earner should be able to support several dependents. Obviously how many makes a huge difference in what kind of pay is needed.
That is the straw man fallacy. You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice.
The question is if delivery drivers should have a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life.
Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life?
> Another variety of "fair" that seems to be gaining mindshare is the idea that you deserve a "living wage" for literally any full-time job, which is a new idea unsubstantiated by economic reality.
I mean this one, that is why I said: " that allows them to have a decent life.".
> unsubstantiated by economic reality
The opposite is true. More equal societies have higher economic output. Reducing poverty reduces crime, reduces health care costs, etc. Even better makes people's lives better. So, it is a positive feedback loop.
Only because it was not defined what was meant by "fair". I'm not going to agree to some premise only to be hoist up by it later. Maybe I don't agree people deserve a "fair" salary by your standards, maybe I do by other standards.
> Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life?
What's a decent life? Is there something indecent about having beans, rice, and a roof? Isn't it better than what many people have had, historically? It's not what I want, I doubt it's what they want, but is it _unfair_? Why?
> More equal societies have higher economic output.
No. Societies which have higher economic output are more capable of artificially subsidizing "equality" by redistributing income. You cannot take poverty, spread it around, and make richness. You can take richness and spread it around and help abate poverty, but only to a certain extent.
My argument, for which I provide some links, is that you need to redistribute that wealth so everybody profits form it for that wealth to be sustainable:
"Economic growth provides the basis for overcoming poverty and lifting living standards. But for growth to be sustained and inclusive, its benefits must reach all people."
* https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyon... * https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-grow...
But, maybe we have different values and that is the root cause of our disagreement. I think that giving everybody enough to cover their needs is the goal of society. To remove poverty is a goal to achieve. Higher economic output is not a goal, but a means to achieve the goal of humans well being. Improving the economy is a means for humans to live better.
Pretty much all answers I've heard to this question will have to define the salary in relation to myriad cost inputs (housing, healthcare, transportation, food).
The fact that the answer to this question is almost universally defined in terms of cost of life necessities means that the current salary could be fair if the cost inputs were cheaper. It also means that any salary that would be fair given current costs would suddenly become unfair again if the cost of those inputs grew proportionately (inflation).
This suggests to me that we're better off focusing not on policies that raise salary but instead putting our efforts towards lowering the costs of only those cost inputs we deem as necessary inputs for living circumstances that are considered fair.
Solving the cost of only basic necessities once permanently solves the fairness problem. Trying to solve the fairness problem by raising wages with no policies to protect against inflation of basic necessities means that you will only ever solve the fairness problem temporarily.
Perhaps they'll be able to save up enough money for something and quit sooner than they could now.
But perhaps the ideal should be a liveable wage and liveable job conditions.
Throughout history, raising the standard for those at the bottom usually makes the richest richer, but I'd argue that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
People can only get richer if there is productivity. Simply transferring wealth is not a panacea if it doesn't measurably result in productivity.
Has it? It's easy to recall the times it has because they make it to the history books, but there's been peaceful periods of reduction in income inequality too. Simply in the US, in the period right after WW2 income inequality fell in what is known as "The Great Compression"[1].
This was also an era of incredible progress and development of the US— everything from big developments around social issues (civil rights movement), huge cultural evolution (counterculture), big development in science and technology (moon landings, nuclear power, etc).
When people don't have to worry about wether they can afford rent the next month, they can worry less about losing their job to immigrants, they can afford to quit a bad job to find a better one, open their own business, etc. In general not things you measure as economic standard of living, as the money you make and things you own, but that translate as less time spent stressed and more time spent being productive both economically and just culturally.
The thought that to make things better for the poor we need to make them better for the rich too is awful close to trickle-down economics, which have proven again and again to be very much an unsound theory.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Not all labor is equal. As a somewhat specialized software engineer, my labor is generally valued over capital.
What makes no sense is to expect all labor to be valued over capital since much of the labor is not the labor you need and you need to apply your capital to get the labor you do need.
This doesn't have to be Russian oligarchs in charge of your bread rations. We just need worker co-ops, aka democracy in the workplace. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation for a working example of an alternative.
Say you're an experienced developer. Maybe it would be OK if you only made twice as much as the lowest paid individual at your company? Maybe it would be OK if the CEO only made three times as much as you?
1. No more excessive corporate tax breaks.
2. No more offshore tax havens.
3. Equal footing for co-ops (subsidies, startup loans, etc.)
4. Teach alternatives to capitalism in schools, or least to think about capitalism more critically (this one's a stretch, it's already like a religion).
Other than that, I think it needs to come from the bottom. If worker co-ops really are better places to work then the word will get out once there's more of them.