Earlier quoted context omitted.
This corresponds with the increasing share of the economy consumed by the government. > the hourly wage This is a misleading statistic. The actual statistic is "total employee compensation", which includes the benefits packages, the (so-called) employer contribution to SS, 401k employer contributions, etc. The TEC is often worth up to 150% of the wages.
FRED shows Federal outlays as a percent of GDP broadly leveling off and declining. 2008 GFC and COVID being transient exceptions https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S Meanwhile here's employee compensation* over GDP (both seasonally adjusted) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1XO2h Any chance you can share the sources for your assertions? * includes benefits as per https://www.bea.gov/resources/methodolog…
Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
101–110 of 144 posts
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a good comment, I would also add how much our perception of technology lifting conditions is conflated with the increased ability of governments to steer the economy to smooth things over.
All of those problems had nothing to do with technology and everything to do with economic mismanagement. And the commies were the worst at it. The US never had famines even at the worst of the great depression.
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare the median house in 1950 with one today.
Have people's standards for what a house constitutes gone up, or are affordable options that people would be very willing to buy less available now?
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
2026 - 200 = 1826 Yeah no. It's only since 1950 that conditions improved for everyone. Before then everything from sewage, to coal smoke, to chronically low wages made life worse for everyone involved. The most miserable people to live in history were the British working class in the mid/late 19th century.
> The most miserable people to live in history were the British working class in the mid/late 19th century. I find this topic very interesting, do you have any reading you could recomment on this?
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Labour conditions in the capitalist west 200 years ago were some of the worst in history, so it's easy to make yourself look good in comparison.
Now compare that against: 1. working conditions before 200 years ago 2. working conditions under feudalism and communism 3. explain why ships laden with scores of millions of people came to the US, and went back empty
200 years is nothing. It's nothing, unless that is, we try to think about what the mess we're currently making will look like 200 years from now. Then 200 years from now is a terrifying prospect. It has to be sustainable. If it isn't sustainable it's a joke.
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
2026 - 200 = 1826 Yeah no. It's only since 1950 that conditions improved for everyone. Before then everything from sewage, to coal smoke, to chronically low wages made life worse for everyone involved. The most miserable people to live in history were the British working class in the mid/late 19th century.
Early in the Industrial Revolution people voluntarily moved from the countryside to the cities despite all that, so apparently a lot of them thought it was an improvement. Some of the cities were proud of the soot, since it showed that they were participating in Progress. You can see some of this repeating in China. Migrant workers move to the cities because, while what they can earn is low, it is a lot higher than s…
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Upper middle class” has nothing to do with it. In 1950, the median household could buy a house with 2 years of income. That is, 50% of households could do this. Today, the median house costs $400k. Only the top 12-14% of households make 200k per year. So proportionally, the % of households that have the same buying power as a median 1950s household has shrunk roughly 4x.
Those do not measure the same thing.
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inflation is an increase in the cost of living. It can be caused by deficit spending. It can also be caused by supply shocks. For example, if you restrict building new housing, the price of housing will increase, both rents and house prices. If you tariff imports, a basket including those goods will rise in price to the degree those imports are not substituable. If you start a war in the Middle East, oil prices will…
Sigh. It is always the result of deficit spending. Bob earns $20 every day. He buys 5 eggs $2/ea and 5 apples $2/ea every day. Now, due to supply shocks, egg prices double. He still has only $20, and so he now buys fewer eggs and fewer apples. What happens when he buys fewer apples? The price of apples goes down, due to the Law of Supply and Demand. There is no inflation. What happens when this economy is flooded wit…
It delivers plenty of things we don't care for, though. History provides the most lurid examples, but we have modern ones too. In the US, Clinton balanced the budget and the macroeconomic consequences broke something very important (audience participation: what was it? Hint: we call them "dual deficits" for a reason). We quickly took our finger off the stove, though, so it was only a lesson for the observant. Germany on the other hand kept its debt brake in place, which mechanically suppressed investment (macro 101 quiz time again: why?) with staggering consequences, leading to one of the most underinvested economies in Europe and almost completely shutting them out of the digital revolution, in which I privately suspect they'd have otherwise participated fabulously. In any case, had Clinton installed a debt brake, that would have been us. HackerNews, YCombinator, and all the ZIRP babies around these parts would have been among the most affected. The Magnificent 7 would not have all been in the US.
So no, deficits aren't the root of all evil and the appropriate deficit is considerably north of 0. That said, it's south of where we have it. Interest rates are the gauge. Is money being pushed in (low rates) or pulled in (high rates)? We are transitioning from the former regime to the latter regime, partly due to imperial retreat, partly due to crisis-level spending in a time of no crisis which is wildly irresponsible. The US is clearly headed for a debt crisis. But the answer is belt-tightening and either gentle-repression-over-time like we did after WWII (fat chance) or an inflation spike followed by a rate hike (probably several) until the bond market is happy again. It's going to be bumpy, but not as bumpy as the hard money counterfactual.
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
>4) In spite of that, the median American household needed only 2x their salary to buy the median house. That number is 5x today, and after taxes the ratios are 2.2x then vs 6x today, when two adults are often working rather than one. Sources for these numbers? Also, housing is only a fraction of your costs.
Median income of household was $3300 table A https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-00... Median house $7300 https://better.com/content/how-much-home-prices-have-risen-s... Today ratio is 5.1 https://housingalmanac.com/affordability
You can get a 500sqft in podunk small town for quite cheap.
They weren't living in modern glass skyscrapers.
Re: Most tech revolutions made work worse for employees
#110The central premise of this post is basically not true: working conditions and wages have pretty consistently improved over the past 200 years. The cases where it didn't were generally offset by the rest of society benefiting from increased automation and productivity. Where the current revolution will lead remains unclear, but if the past is any indication things will probably continue to improve for most people.
> pretty consistently improved I can accept the premise that condiitions have improved, but not that it was consistent. It seems to me that it was anything but; more like extremely spiky. great depression, postwar economic miracle. Massive labor movements rose and fell, general strikes... Plus most countries have had several wars + revolutions in the last 200 years, including two world wars. Not all of those are to d…
Certainly, many people still lack access to those things. But also, the median person essentially lives better than the monarchs did 400 years ago when it comes to some of the more important things in life.
Sometimes, whether or not your power distance from your employer is high is less relevant than all the other important stuff in your life.