Hacker News Reader

Comment by whynotminot | Hacker News Reader

Are you saying wages should be tied only to the difficulty of the work and not the value the labor produces?

No, but if the auger doesn't require any kind of specialized training to use (is mostly just point and click), I'd imagine it would be easier to find someone to do the work for you, versus finding someone to dig an equivalent amount of holes with a shovel.

The value that the work produces is not necessarily a property of the worker.

It may also not be a property of the ceo who bought the auger. If it’s obvious to everyone that augers are the way to go, he didn’t bring any specific insight to the table. Why does he get all the reward?

Who said anyone would ‘get all the reward’?

We’re talking about the resultant profit gain from productivity improvement, and how GP didn’t think the worker necessarily deserved any of the share of the value returned from that increase.

So how does this relate to the notion of any party getting 100% of anything…?

Huh? I don’t think anyone should get 100% of anything. In fact that’s largely the point I’m hoping is self apparent through my line of questioning (that productivity gains should result in bounty for everyone — for the leaders who had the good sense to buy augers, sure, but also the workers using the new tool, and of course the share holders who provided the capital).

The whole point of this article we’re all commenting on is that it shows workers have been the ones left out in the cold since 1971 and that the high-wealth class in this country has been soaking up essentially the entirety of the resulting bounty from productivity increase.

Your questioning a point raised by yourself?

I just don’t see anyone else claiming it or even mentioning it prior to that comment.

Alright I feel like you joined a conversation late and then didn’t want to scroll up the page to see where it started.