Hacker News Reader

Comment by henryfjordan | Hacker News Reader

Productivity has risen 61% since 1979: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/. 40 hour work weeks have been the standard. Wages only rose 17% in that same period. The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%.

A 3-day work week (aka 40% less productivity if you assume a perfectly linear relationship between time working and productivity) would still mean a nice little gain for the capitalist compared to 1979 numbers.

If you've worked, you've contributed to that 44% productivity gain. Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for? Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical?

I get that pragmatically many aspects in life are a power struggle, but "throwing the question back" is really a way of putting the burden of fixing an unfair system back on the victim.

View on HN

Are workers getting more productive, or are tools and technology getting more productive?

It used to take a room full of highly trained engineers using slide-rules, protractors, and graphing paper to design the newest car or plane. Now it's done in AutoCAD. But it's not obvious to me why the employee should collect the difference for the capital investment poured into technology.

In other words, it's not as if humans have evolved since the 1970s to be more productive. Any gains are entirely the consequence of investments in tech and tools and modern managerial techniques.

Modern managerial techniques if anything have regressed the situation.

As for tech and tools, who do you think made those things if not humans?

The human inventors of computers, computer components, productivity improving software (like AutoCAD), robotics, and other systems are very wealthy.

I agree that it isn't obvious who should reap the benefits of productivity gains, but that means it is also not obvious to me that the capitalist should get it compared to the employee.

We created a system that heavily favors the capitalist starting with the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that most of society was subsistence farming. Encouraging capital investment in new machines and factories through laws/policies made sense to help raise society (and thus the workers) out of that situation. We have made enough progress since then that there are now barely any subsistence farmers in the US.

Why should we continue to embrace policies favoring the capitalist? Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists? Maybe they should only get those gains for a few years, or they should get half and half should go to the workers?

"Why should we continue to award 100% of the gains of new technologies to capitalists?"

Because they assume the risk of these ventures. Ever hear the statistics about how 95% of startups fail in the first x years? Meanwhile, the guy clicking around in AutoCAD did nothing to further the rise of productivity. Why should he be gifted the benefits of other's toil simply for breathing?

Entrepreneurs benefit from free toil and public investment all the time. Try starting a business in a poorer country with no good institutions nor infrastructure, inefficient education etc. and it'll become abundantly clear what you are taking for granted.

You literally noted above that 100% of the gains are not going to the capitalists but rather are being split (using your numbers) around 5:2 among capitalists and workers.

But, remember, that’s before considering the impact of healthcare costs (which are majority paid by capitalists and majority benefiting the workers).

Fair enough on my "100%" math, you are correct.

I'm not so sure about the healthcare argument. The link I included above compares productivity to compensation. I'd assume compensation includes the value of benefits like healthcare but I could be wrong. I'd also argue that many of the rising healthcare costs are being rewarded as profit to the capitalists so it might not be as cut-and-dry even if healthcare is a large source of the pay-productivity gap.

The difference between producitivity and wage gap is fully explained by increasing healthcare costs: https://www.ajmc.com/view/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-a...

The difference between productivity and wages is not fully explained by increasing benefits/health care costs, but it is something like over half the difference.

Benefits costs do a better job explaining increasing wage inequality, but again not all of it and doesn’t address what’s happening outside the US

That would be very convenient for capitalists but it is false, though even if it were true for the US it is not true for European countries

Healthcare costs are largely driven by metabolic syndrome: the main cause of diseases of major modern civilizations. Half of Americans are on track to be pre-diabetic or diabetic by 2050.

Why should you need to revolt or organize to get what you've already worked for?

Because you won't get it otherwise. They're not going to give it back or forgo it in future because controlling a greater share of resources gives them more leverage.

Honest question that came to mind with these numbers:

While some fraction has gone to the corporations/shareholders ("capitalists"), what fraction of the productivity gains has turned into cheaper consumer goods, aka (can't point at the data, just many who comment on it) the populace owns a lot more 'stuff' like electronics than they did 43 years ago, aka QOL gains resulting from productivity.

Or is it just silly of me to not assume that ~100% of gained productivity went straight into corporations'/shareholders' pockets?

> The capitalists have been able to bank the other 44%.

Don't forget the massive growth at all levels of government.

Also don't forget that wages are not the right measure - total compensation is. Total compensation is often 150% of wages (things like health insurance, retirement plans, 401k matching contributions, etc.). All those "employer-paid" benefits are actually coming out of your paycheck.

> Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year. Is that ethical?

How is this possible? Wouldn't capitalists willing to take a smaller share (higher wages, better product for lower price) out-compete those that don't? It seems to me that the major advantage of capitalism is protection from this type of situation?

It's mostly false: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik

A ton of capitalist-favoring policies assume a perfect free market (all participants have equal knowledge, transactions are instant, etc). Not a single market like that actually exists in reality. We've created many capitalist policies which allow the exploitation of such imperfect markets.

"Job Stability" being a factor in the labor market is a perfect example. People are afraid to leave a stable job for a less stable one even it pays more because they know it takes time and effort and luck to find another job (aka imperfections in the job market). If your unstable job disappears, that might mean there's no money for food or no health insurance. This puts a huge thumb on the scale in favor of the capitalist. If they can offer "stability" then they can also lower their wages considerably.

We have metrics for these things ("Capitalists are taking a larger and larger share every year"), no need for hyperbole: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik

Reply on news.ycombinator.com