The effect of today’s technology on tomorrow’s jobs
economist.com
economist.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/business/a-part-time-life-...
It documents how scheduling software in the retail and food sectors has allowed corporate chains to optimize the scheduling of low-wage workers, scheduling them for shorter shifts concentrated at peaks hours and sending them off when not needed.
This article doesn't go into great detail about another exploitative practice: the split shift. This means a employee may be required to work a short morning shift and a short evening shift, making it effectively impossible for those prepared to scrape by working a second job to even do that any more.
The net effect is less wages and less benefits for workers. And to whom does the difference accrue?
Technology here acts as a tool further disadvantaging those who are already at a disadvantage. And technology itself doesn't offer an obvious remedy. Collective action among workers might help their cause, but unions in this country struggle to organize. Facebook and Snapchat don't appear to be picking up the slack.
Government regulation would seem to offer a more civil remedy. Simply don't allow employers to squeeze their employees like this. But while I continue to hear occasional media stories and personal narratives about these abuses, I haven't heard reports of any serious proposals to end them.
>"And to whom does the difference accrue"
A portion of the difference will go to those who made the software, A portion to the capitalists who invest in the software, A portion to the business owner who implements the software etc. etc. A portion will be passed onto consumers as price competition.Like the economist article says, it can take time for the market effects to settle out though, maybe not now, maybe not in 5 years, but eventually everyone will be doing it, saving us all 10 cents on a combo (or whatever contrived number)..
I know it sounds pretty drastic but the split shift is primarily used against (yes I say against) the lowest paid workers who need the wages the most. Its not going to drive wages per hour up... Hell in most cases over the last decade the prospect of raising the minimum wage is fought kicking and screaming.
At the lowest levels of the wage scale there isn't really the competition you would need to drive the wages up because no one is going to say "I deserve more for doing this shitty job" at the risk of being unable to feed themselves or their kids. Get real.
Edit: Not making a comment on technology here at all. Just the idea that split shifts will somehow raise the wages for said shifts.
I used to write call center management software in the late 90s and they had split shift for years. The workers loved it. The people with kids could get the middle of the day and late at night shifts. That way they could take their kids to school and pick them up each day. Admittedly it was not something that was forced, but the call center always had the split shift schedules full.
What company is going to pay for all the hassle of having two employees to cover the same shifts they can force one person to do? The hypothetical you propose is not only imaginary, but worse value on the face for the employer, and thus will not happen because it makes no sense from a business perspective.
One could also argue that any number of things, from faith in a higher power, to higher carbohydrate intake, could increase the value of an employee to their employers but that doesn't make it in any way realistic.
It is not unreasonable of me to think that increased employee availability will lead to increased number of hours worked. Whenever it becomes easier for me to get something I want, I usually get more of it (e.g. Netflix); there is no reason to believe labor is different.
This means a employee may be required to work a short morning shift and a short evening shift, making it effectively impossible for those prepared to scrape by working a second job to even do that any more.
And I have reiterated the point. The split shift is not two different shifts. It is one shift at two different points in the day. Where does the increased employee availability come from? The employee in question actually has less availability for another employer (not to mention for themselves given possible commute times, having to work morning & night when they might see family who dont have such a schedule, etc).
Unless you're somehow meaning since they are willing to work more flexible (read: Worse) schedules?
Also your Netflix example rings pretty hollow. They arn't even loosely comparable situations. Any owner/manager who hires more people "because they are available!" is probably 'doin it wrong'. You ideally hire, and pay, only as many people as you need to get the job done.
But for the sake of argument: Imagine if you had to pay the upkeep for Netflix twice per month (hiring two employees for the different parts of the one split shift). Pay your monthly cost, then you go over a limit or want to watch on a second device or whatever, so you then have to pay a second time. Would you be watching things as freely? I'd wager that you wouldn't.
Being able to structure the workday differently, such as a 7am-11am and 1pm-5pm split shift as opposed to a 9am-5pm shift may make the employee available for more productive hours (depending on the employer and requirements). This may make the difference between hiring and not hiring, or between giving 4-6 hours in a single shift and 8 hours in a split.
>"You ideally hire, and pay, only as many people as you need to get the job done."
This is true, but increasing the number of scheduling options may have an impact on how much work can get done (and the value proposition to the employer); and I am addressing marginal cases.
>" Imagine if you had to pay the upkeep for Netflix twice per month (hiring two employees for the different parts of the one split shift). Pay your monthly cost, then you go over a limit or want to watch on a second device or whatever, so you then have to pay a second time. Would you be watching things as freely? I'd wager that you wouldn't."
I think that if Netflix offered me more opportunities to consume content, I would be happy to pay for it.
My policy goal would be to make employees more productive, and increase the demand for labor, so that employers will have to pay higher wages to attract the workers, and the employers can afford to. This also has the impact of making people's work more meaningful, as their labor must be better utilized, instead of wasted on menial tasks.
If you're addressing marginal cases you may not want to initially present it as an absolute that should increase wages or hours worked because it obviously will not in all but extreme fringe cases.
The Netflix example would not be them offering you more, you would simply be paying twice, for the same thing you used to get (comparison being the need to pay the upkeep for two different employees rather than the one you used to use). Your response does not take that into account and it seems to ignore it purposefully.
Your policy goal is lofty. But it has been shown over and over that employers having the ability to pay more does not lead to higher wages for workers. That is actually an idea that runs counter to the idea of profit. It would be nice if that were the case but it simply is not true, and something you say you have no evidence for in a previous post, while there is ample evidence to the contrary.
BTW: I had split shifts before when I was a teenager, and I didnt like it. I told my employer and they greatly limited the number of them we had. We also had "Call" shifts, where you had to be ready to work, and call in an hour ahead of time and see if you were working or not... Made it so you couldnt book any hard plans for that whole shift, but 95% of the time you didnt work it anyways. Overall it was a good job, traded my teen years for subway and clothes (spent all my paychecks like any teen would :P )
Unemployment pay?
Migrant workers, you say? Well, that's an entirely different problem.
Where, exactly, in a world of reduced job opportunities?
> ... side benefits ...... workout midday..., , ...walk in the park ...
For the people in question these pastimes are probably as realistic as having a Rhino shooting in Namibia.
> ... A portion...
You make it seem like a beautiful win-win situation, like a well deserved 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 ... + 0.1 split. The current discussion revolves, among other things, around the question if it's more like 0.99 + 0.01 and if that is like it should be.
With a reasoning like yours, I always wonder if there is indeed some underlying substance to it, or if it's sheer hope and faith in some Austrian god?
Practically, everyone with a pension benefits from profits in the stockmarket; that's how someone is able to pay a nonworking person (a retired senior) $1000s a month in benefits.
A walk in the park is free, reading a book from a library is similarly inexpensive, ok so they wont get to do some expensive pass times, but enjoyable things nonetheless.
I never said it was an even split, but that each of the parties get some. Theres plenty of substance and I'm unaware of any Austrian gods.
You think the is the result of declining labour costs? I'm pretty sure mechanical engineers' wages have not decreased since the 1980s.
To me that situation is a decline in labor prices, despite the low end worker in 2014 making more in absolute terms than the 1980 worker.
A 2nd analogy, If I make 10 widgets an hour and earn $10 an hour in 1980 and then 30 years later make 100 widgets an hour for $25 an hour ($10 plus about $15 inflation, we're not talking inflation here). I would consider that a declining labor cost-- The labor cost per widget went from $1 per widget, to $0.25 ...
So, when I pay less or the same for a greater good, I consider that declining labor costs.
Aside: this illustrates a major flaw in the CPI, you cannot compare a 2013 TV to a 1960s tv to try and say "the price of a TV has deflated by X" ...
Not that their loss is fueling cheap cars in my opinion, it seems the op doesn't believe that advances in technology can make things cheaper outside of labor costs I guess? I'd think that computers got on the whole much cheaper (and smaller/faster) due to the changes in the technology rather than the cost of actually assembling the hardware. But I guess I could be wrong and it could all be due to cheaper labor?
Edit: I also love the idea that a walk in the park/reading a book in the middle of the day/etc is somehow comparable to needing to find two different daycare slots for a child, not being able to plan or effectively work for a second source of income, or spend time with family/kids (since you're working morning and night). Seems like a fair trade off of time to me!
In India, We have a motor cycle called Bajaj Discover which gives amazing mileage. The innovation in mechanical engineering is very small, bulk of the innovation is timing of the spark plug firing controlled by a micro controller combined a engine design which functions per that intelligent design.
These sort of things were impossible even 20 years back, given the size, price and many other factors.
For ~200 years, before which there were far less technology shifts and less market capitalism in general.
And just because something has been true for ~200 years doesn't mean it will continue being true.
A race to the bottom is never as much fun as it sounds.
Reality, as anyone who is related to a farmer knows, farming is very hard work and a factory job is generally better.
They were upgrading, not getting downsized.
Also modern prosperity only came after labor riots where lots of people suffered intensely and died in strike violence. Obviously a lot more violence is on the way, which I think sucks. Unfortunately that seems to be the only way things actually get fixed.
History shows some really awful stuff has been done in the name of "gotta do whatcha gotta do to feed the family". So... go ahead, push a couple tens of millions of desperate people into a corner, what could possibly go wrong? I mean, its not like the US populace is extremely heavily armed, or has a cultural predisposition to consider violence as entertainment, or has what boils down to a martyr as a religious symbol...
"It's like a Jungle sometimes. It makes me wonder how I keep from going under."
That is until we reach a sweet Sci-Fi robots doing all the work scenario! :)
That would be awesome if food, water, housing, entertainment, clothing, and health care were free. Those are only available now to people still in the rapidly shrinking money based economic system.
A more likely outcome than doing what they want to do, is death or revolution (or both, historically they usually work as a team)
I don't think shift workers are much better off, as it currently stands, as a result of cost-saving tech. We'll have to see what happens, I guess.
Wallmart employees get around 10USD an hour.
You are thinking about this as a student or someone without too many obligations.
The reality is that you need to work those other hours when you get 10USD and hour.
Here in Germany we don't have one and there are people working for wages as low as 3€ per hour[1]. That is 4.07$.
[1] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
Note that I'm not coming down on either side of the automation vs job-preservation debate as a whole, I'm just asking what justification people have for only penalising businesses which recruit people for pre-existing menial tasks.
The things you discuss were possible to do before technology, technology just made it easier to do.
Ethics is therefore still important (and perhaps the enforcement of them via laws).
Nuclear technology makes cheap energy. It also makes gigantic bombs.
The libertarian in me says that workers who do not like their split-shift conditions should just quit them. En masse, this would force those employers to raise wages in order to attract people willing to put up with that kind of crap, equalizing things again.
Of course, this would require extending unemployment benefits to people who quit jobs. (There is no logical reason why this isn't already the case. I can simply stop showing up for work and make it so that I get unemployment benefits, but that is far more wasteful and is basically a trade of self-esteem for security.)
The thing is, if you ignore labor-saving techniques and keep labor for its own sake, that's quite a nihilistic existence if you think about it. I could take that to an extreme and demand that I get paid to manually move the bits around which generate the computing screen I'm looking at. It might take me over a year just to post this message, but hey, at least I'm getting paid and not forced to look for work that is better suited to me, right?
If you want to see a real-world example of money burned simply to keep jobs alive, look no further than this article about how the US Military spent its money last year https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ec86786aae30 . Read the story about the M1 Abrams tank. Then see how you feel.
I'd argue that the focus should be on fostering policy and technologies that allow independent creation of wealth. Policy-wise, empowering self-organization of local communities. How can a community with high unemployment act in their own self-benefit? How can we shape policy so that they can grow their own food, build their own houses, and generally not be utterly dependent on "the system" for their survival? Technology-wise, let's look at things like 3D printing and solar.
Automating away 50% of the workforce won't happen in a vacuum. It will come with major changes to the political, economic, and social systems.
Maybe we decide to let tech do everything while we go fishing (the oft-cited technology utopia that never seems to happen). Maybe we switch to a fixed-income economic model, where it's fine if people decide not to work. Maybe we decide not to automate some components (gasp!). Or use all that extra manpower to philosophize, make art... or war.
To say "it's going to be a big problem if 50% of the workforce is made redundant, we better start educating people now!" is exactly what you would expect from an (or 'the') economist. Economic rules are based on people's desires, and people desires may also be revolutionized if most of what they do is done by computers.
Why in the world would you not do this? There will always be a market for "hand crafted", but at a societal level we should never demand human time for things we could have done without that time expense, given equivalent quality.
Also a human provider of "fun" isn't necessarily having any fun at all, even if the consumers are.
The category list on your local pornographic website begs to differ. The public have an infinite variety of tastes, the question is, do the markets have the imagination to serve them?
EDIT: realised this doesn't really address your point, but it's still relevant so I'll leave it here.
Maybe I'll be really lucky once I'm ageism'd out of computers and I can become a waiter. But even on the internet not too many people are into mostly naked fat middle aged dudes, so figure the usual couple orders of magnitude off for meatspace and the odds of millions of guys like me getting jobs seems rather low.
Another problem is the public can have any tastes, but the 1% is mostly elderly white dudes, and when they finally accumulate all the money instead of merely most of it like now, they have fairly conventional stereotypical tastes which ruins my chances of getting money from them.
This goes beyond simple pleasure... Independence and interdependence also have value.
Historically, virtually 100% of the population was employed in food production. We've automated well past the 50% point by now. What happened to the surplussed workers?
(Of the things you listed, I'd actually say "use the extra manpower to philosophize, make art, and make war" is a decent description of what happened.)
They found other jobs. When one industry needs few workers, another always takes up the slack. I've heard this principle stated in different ways in different places over the years.
But is it a iron law of nature, or just a thing that goes on until it doesn't?
If it will eventually stop (and I think this is likely), how would you tell when it is going to stop? Would you notice if it is already happening? What does the current situation resemble?
I have posed this question before ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6853359 ) No definitive answer yet.
Of course it's not a law of nature. I don't understand the way of thinking that leads to considering this (or Moore's law, to bring up another particularly common example) as a law. Inductive reasoning, "it has always been like this, thus it always will be" is not science. One needs to understand casual relationships that give rise to the supposed "law" before asserting that future will look like the past.
I don't think that looking at particular industries being automated is very helpful. I'd like to propose a different model: let's put available jobs in a continuum from low-skill to high-skill (in creativity/cognitive load) jobs. In this model we see how technology continues to automate-away lower-skill jobs, climbing up the hill of difficulty.
In the past, surplussed workers could find other jobs, because the way we automated things was also low-skill; therefore for every lost trade, new ones were created in its place. But the same technological progress that allows us to automate more and more difficult jobs is upgrading the process of automation. There are less and less low-skill jobs produced per low-skill job automated, and the moment we reach the point when this ratio (automated/new) is > 1, surplussed workers will be increasingly unable to get themselves employed. (Mind you, this is not inductive reasoning, there is a good casual model underneath explaining why this is happening, but I think it's obvious enough that I don't need to elaborate on it now).
There's one type of jobs that are, and I believe will be for some time, exempt from the "march of progress" - jobs that require human element. Those are jobs like receptionists in hotels, doctors, psychologists - who we can connect with on emotional/trust based level. I'd personally bet that those jobs are safer than, say, tech sector, which will get automated away eventually if the progress continues.
When you make the low skilled unemployed, you can fill the prisons with them. Even hire some mid skilled folks to keep an eye on them.
What you do with an excess of mid to high skill level people is a mystery, we have no historical record to copy. You can put some in prison, but the prisons are already full and expensive, so need a new path. SSDI is getting too expensive.
We seem to be trying, "Let them eat cake". Hmm I wonder via historical analogy what could possibly go wrong with that?
Until we realize that automated machine gun turrets are better at the job.
> We seem to be trying, "Let them eat cake". Hmm I wonder via historical analogy what could possibly go wrong with that?
Well, it's going to be a bloody mess if we let this trend continue the way it is going now.
Note that we, the "high-skill job sector" people, won't be shielded from the effects in any way. Our jobs might be safe for a long time, but there might come a point soon, when all our low-skill family members and friends are suddenly without a job and are depending on us for food and shelter. So we can't turn our backs on the issue; the worst-case scenario will hit us hard anyway.
Or maybe not. Not to drop the docs but my current employer depends on median joe 6 pack sending us a couple bucks a month and our revenues have dropped more or less in tandem with median joe 6 pack's permanently declining household income.
(edited to add, its hilarious reading the financial press doing everything they can to come up with an explanation for our declining revenue other than "Americans are becoming poorer". It must be the internet. Oh wait we actually make money off how we use it, um it must be fuel prices. Err whoops we don't actually use fuel. Well, it must be bad astrological symbols or something. Anything other than admitting failure of the economic system, J6P has less money = we have less revenue)
If you think about the likely effects of the 1% having all the money and everyone else having to barter or do without, some fields like some financial sectors wouldn't have much impact, whereas providers of entertainment, food, and medical care for J6P would be utterly annihilated. Doesn't matter how highly skilled the last employed IT worker was before he got downsized along with everyone else.
No. But it often seems to pass for economics.
No need to even invent anything. Take, for example, the personal help industry: it is pretty much non-existant in most developed world right now -- yet, it has until very recently been a source of employment for millions of people, and in other places (e.g. India or Hong Kong) still very much is. The problem is not with jobs, it's with people imagining that the way the world was for the last 50 years is anything representative of its natural state.
What might go away to some extent are wage jobs -- i.e. jobs where wages are exchanged for labor at a fixed rate, and employees have no equity stake. Such jobs are an artifact of a modern industrial society, and if our society changes enough, I can imagine them being replaced with something else (there were no such jobs before industrial revolution, and even now in developing countries you won't see as many, e.g., fast food employees -- most of the things that are currently being done by wage employees can be done by self-employed people. There is definitely a lot of momentum going on in that direction, primarily driven by regulation. You can also imagine an increase in popular support for things like basic income.
What is interesting is the market demand differences. When farmers invented tools to multiply their output, the demand for food changed very little. Soon, a small group of people were able to fill the needs of the world. When software developers invented tools to multiply their output, people wanted even more software to be written. We're still trying to catch up to the demand, even though we're producing more software than ever.
Software Development is a more 'high skilled' beast just because it can't be "dumbed down" in the same way. I mean yeah you could say 'you write some code' but that doesn't explain anything. Explaining how to program takes a bit more effort on the part of the teacher and the student. You really can't make a 5 year old understand programming (growing) code with a couple minutes of conversation in the same way you can have them understand 'farming' vegetables by telling them to plant a seed and water it enough (but not to much) each day. I know I'm super oversimplifying but that to me has always been sort of the crux behind why people tend to thing farming is a low skill occupation.
I'm not disagreeing just sort of pointing out where I think the idea of farming as a low skill job comes from.
I'm too young, but older farmers have suggested to me that it was television portraying farmers in a not so intelligent light that brought on that reputation. Wikipedia hints at this as well: 'Starting with The Real McCoys, a 1957 ABC program, US television had undergone a "rural revolution", a shift towards situation comedies featuring "naïve but noble 'rubes' from deep in the American heartland"'[1].
There is a plenty of work to be done: take, e.g., personal help industry as an example of a field that used to be huge until very recently everywhere, is still huge around the world, but is so far a source of fairly little employment in US/Europe.
That's not a proof. That is the "surely" argument https://medium.com/science-and-technology/83dacb1fe14c
It's possible that this is the case, but I'm very sceptical of it. It produces some absurd results eventually: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-gro...
Another trusim from economics: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop"
I've seen that link btw. For some reason people in physics are particularly susceptible to thinking that they can understand economics better than economists do. They are quite wrong about that :)
> Search Costs
> Reach
> Transparency
These all equate to leverage, or options on leverage.
The key takeaway: you better be the one doing the leverage. If you are on the wrong side (and you will be if you are not increasingly using technology to increase your personal leverage), things are not likely to be stable, predicatble, or really all that comfortable.
SW is going to "eat the world" by providing leverage in a pocket. It might need a piece of HW and in IP connection, but the point is not the form of the device; but what it embodies: the opportunity to leverage...time, space, information, people. Not to mention data and the usefulness of data from the perspective of rhetoric (ie, appearing informed...even if authority is not explicitly yours...allows you to make claims...through the illusion/reality of perceived expertise).
Anyways, these are fun times. Embrace the potential. Keep an eye on your back. And you will do fine. Do the opposite...ignore the potential, fail to keep your wits about you, and don't look over your shoulder...and other things will happen.
Part of this is not being complacent; these powers will be used (potentially) for evil as well as good. And like the historical example of the cold-war...sometimes revolutionary prosperity is not actually all that fun to live through. So we should all keep that in mind, too.
Reality is that today economy is central planned in order to protect the money from the people at the top at the expense of the one of normal people, who had seen taxes increase and life much more expensive as a result.
Don't get me wrong, I have friends that are rich, but the reality is that lots of people at the top got money speculating on bad assets or bubbles.
When it was time for correction,(2008) the governments entered in order to protect those speculators from losses, and bought those bad assets making miserable the general economy.
The problem is not solved, protecting malinvestors only makes them more confident to do it again.
I wonder if we're really that close to the end of jobs, or if we are just suffering from a lack of imagination.
However, you work with what you've got. If our best model for the future involves the progressive automation of all human labour - it makes sense to at least theorize (if not plan) for that eventuality.
If the situation turns out to not be dire - great - but you plan for the worst, as the axiom goes.
Maybe, but I personally believe that people saying that we don't have to worry about that suffer from the lack of imagination - the very same kind as the one that leads some to say things like "we can't / won't be able to do that". If there's one thing last 100 years of progress have proved, it is that we can do pretty much everything as long as we care about it strongly enough.
Some people warn against believing in power of technology too much; I say people believe in it too little.
Interestingly even this is the opposite of what we're seeing. It may be more expensive (cost), worse (quality), and less efficient (time and materials) but:
I like to brew my own beer instead of buying it. I like to build my own cabinet instead of shopping at Ikea. I like to take a day off to raise my child instead of sending them to daycare. To fix my car, make my own lamp, walk the dog, etc.
I just went to an open air museum where perfectly right-minded people were looming their own textiles (for free!). I recently met a regional queen in Indonesia who wove her own, as well, because it was cultural, not because her family needed the money.
This is the whole topic of this article. The economy is broken wrt. progress and needs to be fixed. Two pillars of our economic system - scarcity and endless growth - are both being destroyed as we speak.
Clearly "endless" is not possible, that's like saying "give me infinite apples" ... Most people aren't concerned with endless, but with "practically endless"
The limits of endless growth come from physical limits, which we're no where close to hitting. Expansion across the universe could give us something on the order of 10^29 times expansion (universe ~10^53kg, Earth ~10^24 kg)... In my human scale that's practically "endless".
Also, digital goods consumption have nearly no marginal physical cost, so they can expand without much change in the physical consumption.
1) The existence of the middle class
2) The general public gets to participate in commodity markets. Not the trading commodity market, but the consumer markets. No more buying food, medical care, housing, clothing, no longer participants in the system. The monetary economy is for other people, the rich, not everyone or even the majority.
As for the latter -- people have been participating in monetary economy long before industrial revolution, and will be participating whichever way the society evolves -- it is just simply more convenient than barter. If someone can produce beer himself cheaper than it is available on the market, why would he not sell it and earn some money? And if he cannot make it cheaper, why would he not buy it instead (or not drink it at all if he is too poor, or steal money & buy beer, or...) -- the point is that whatever he does, making it himself is never a good idea unless he enjoys it as a (somewhat expensive) hobby.
You still need to enter the right questions and numbers and then act on the result, but I see quite some slack in that field that could be optimized away once the right product shows up.
>Yet however well people are taught, their abilities will remain unequal, and in a world which is increasingly polarised economically, many will find their job prospects dimmed and wages squeezed. The best way of helping them is not, as many on the left seem to think, to push up minimum wages. Jacking up the floor too far would accelerate the shift from human workers to computers. Better to top up low wages with public money so that anyone who works has a reasonable income, through a bold expansion of the tax credits that countries such as America and Britain use.
For basic income advocates, I would also like to point out that this policy is much closer to basic income than increasing the minimum wage.
One single unitary basic income system from which all benefit to the same degree, whether you are now poor, rich, lazy or driven should be our goal.
I have to disagree, as my goal is simply for everyone's life to be constantly (but not necessarily monotonically) improving. I am not too choosy about the means by which this is achieved (excepting immoral means such as slavery).
>"It is, but then again why compromise? Actual basic income schemes proposed by various economists are better than either propping up the minimum wage or using "public money" to pay workers enough to live."
This is a great point, as one problem with the minimum wage (MW) is that it is not a transparent policy, as no one knows its true costs. If a basic income or other system were a line item on the governmental budget, the voters might understand its (direct) costs, and weigh the benefits against those. Democracy requires transparency, as citizens must be able to learn what their votes have done, and will do.
Yet another problem of MWs is that their opaqueness makes it easy for firms with low labor costs to lobby for increases in the MW to destroy their competition; while high labor cost companies lobby to keep the MW constant, and increase the money supply (to deflate the MW).
No explanation why this is anything other than a very convenient coincidence, which is too bad. I'm not convinced its other than a coincidence. I would feel better if there was some kind of reasoning behind it. Anything.
You may as well argue that drinking large amounts of tea was followed by an industrial revolution in .uk therefore the best economic plan for Africa would be to airdrop bags of tea, if it worked before, what could possibly go wrong tomorrow?
Better paying jobs only started to appear a generation later, and only become really common at the XX century.
Ludwig Siegele, the anchor (Economist writers are allowed bylines for special reports) has covered quite a bit of ground. Some of the stuff may be familiar to HN readers, but I can almost guarantee it will be very useful and revealing to most other (non-tech) readers. Which is why I'll take the risk of posting links to all the stories in the report:
The 'Cambrian Explosion' in web entrepreneurship - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593580-cheap-...
Lean methodology - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593580-cheap-...
How venture capital is adapting - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593585-ventur...
The role of accelerators, including YC - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593592-bigges...
Rocket Internet's approach towards farming startups - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593586-how-bu...
Global startup ecosystems - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593582-what-e...
The 'dark side' of starting up - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593591-are-st...
Hardware startups and Shenzhen - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593590-why-so...
The growth of platforms - http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593583-prolif...
That was arguably the most unambiguous and accurate prediction on the cover of a magazine, ever.
I remember the lady next to me on an airplane telling me she was just getting heavily into a house flipping business. I happened to have that issue of the Economist with me to read on the plane. I showed her the cover and said "But what about this?"
(I wonder what happened to her business...)
So, yes, it pays to read The Economist closely.