[agitator]

I'm struggling to understand how productivity has anything to do with salary.

Productivity increases are inevitable for everything as automation keeps improving. Salaries go up with demand for skills. If its more difficult to hire for a critical role (a skilled job or competitive), or the role generates a lot of value for a company, salaries go up. Simple economics.

Low skill jobs and physical labor jobs actually require less and less skills as automation improves. In this situation wages would go down. But I do think it's a good idea to have a wage floor to account for the inflation and increases in cost of living. A social limit to what we all collectively feel is a minimum amount of money one of us should make to survive in the society we are building. I think universal healthcare and a UBI would solve a lot of this. Especially as its only going to get worse for people at the bottom.

[Supermancho]

> productivity has anything to do with salary.

It's not complicated and it's clearly a weak strawman. Productivity (almost universally) is tied to profit via efficiency. This is known to be astronomical at scale, which is what drives automation.

> Low skill jobs and physical labor jobs actually require less and less skills as automation improves.

I'm not sure there's anything to suggest this. Regulations (primarily about safety, information containment, etc) continue to be additive. There's a certain amount of sophistication necessary just to survive in most urban areas.

[dmatech]

Productivity is a function of both labor and capital. The owners of a factory might invest in machines that are 10x more efficient, but if they're no more difficult to operate, then the labor won't be any more scarce (and therefore won't command a higher wage). In fact, it might actually reduce demand for labor, because companies won't need as many people to maintain the same level of output.

[pessimizer]

> Salaries go up with demand for skills.

Said while business owners are screaming about a labor shortage.

[Auracle]

I’ve seen plenty of places suddenly offering $15 an hour or more, so clearly the market is responding somewhat. I’m sure most businesses were waiting to see the unemployment benefits end first though.

[Jensson]

And said labor shortage is how competition for workers and wages go up, what is strange about this?

[MisterBastahrd]

In the 1930s, a store clerk in a large city could afford to support a family in a home they would eventually own on their single income.

Today, a couple with that same job would likely be in public housing and would be scraping by.

[zsmi]

The 30s was the great depression. And 1933 was pretty bad. $0.5/hr is a typical wage. [1]

In Chicago in 1933 a 4 bdrm apartment was listed for $35/month. [2]

So basically, rent was eating half your salary even then. But then again, you had a 4 bdrm apartment and not a closet.

Probably would've been tough to buy a house on that though.

And of course, there is this:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/place/article/Problems-H...

“the two great problems it ignored before — housing and traffic.”, Herb Caen, 1948

Some things never change.

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/41815102 [2] https://blog.rentconfident.com/2635/classified-history-housi...

[anchpop]

To the extent that that's true, it's in large part because their income is now absorbed by land rents, which were much lower in the 30s. There's an obvious contradiction in the american dream: home ownership is the goal, so homes should be a good investment. If homes are a good investment, that means the price of homes goes up. If the price of homes goes up, they get less affordable for everyone who doesn't already have one. Look at what happens when you don't institute regulation designed to guarantee that homes continue to be a depreciating asset: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9V_0VBWEAE1ixe?format=jpg&name=...

[maerF0x0]

In the 1930s many homes only had icebox "refrigerators" that worked by putting Ice in the top to cool whatever was below.

IMO productivity has been absorbed by getting more for your money in hidden inflation . Eg: today when you buy a phone (and internet access) you get a free encyclopedia (wikipedia), movie theater (youtube), camera, Video recorder, note pad and pen (app), alarm clock, calendar, ... get my drift?

Same with a "home" which is now far more advanced and sq ft per person.

That's where all the productivity gains have gone, the basics of today are more complex than the "complex" things of the past

[Dylan16807]

The fridge of today is cheaper than ice deliveries.

A phone is amazing for what it is, but you can't just pile on more features and use that as an excuse for lower pay. Phones don't cost a budget-breaking amount.

Home size makes sense as an increased cost, but most of the reasons that make it hard to afford living space are really bad reasons.

[WarChortle]

Quarter after quarter companies are posting record profits. You aren't getting anything for free. You paid for all of that in one way or another. Wikipedia you might not have, its kept alive by donations. The others are paid for by either sitting through ads or having your data harvested and sold. Just because you aren't handing over money doesn't mean there is no cost associated with it.

This is a terrible argument that try's to gloss over the actual problem. Wages have been stagnant for decades while inflation is still a thing. The middle class is dying and its not because they have bigger homes and better tech. Corporate America is strangling the middle class then cries for bailouts when they hit even the tiniest speed bump(and gets it without much issue). While helping the average American becomes a massive issue.

[maxlybbert]

Both my parents were raised in houses that were largely built by their parents. They both have memories of using oil lamps and outhouses for a while due to no electricity and no indoor plumbing while that building was taking place. And the final homes were tiny by modern standards.

That was 1940s and 1950s. I’m often amused by the “manual labor used to pay well enough to buy a house” argument since the houses available at the time were much different than those available now.

[maerF0x0]

All the replies are missing my basic point. Everything built today is far more complex than what was built before. If a car is twice as hard to make then I can be twice as productive, but still only produce 1 car (with twice as many features, say).

Or I can make a single phone, but with N times as many features.

The productivity gain has been absorbed by complexity in the things we produce.

[thatcat]

Those aren't economically relevant productivity gains. You're basically required to have a phone to participate in society, that's more of a monthly tax unless you use it to generate income. Same with housing, it costs much more than the minor changes that have been made in design saves per month.

[jkhdigital]

A person who services horse-drawn buggies would probably have made a nice living in 1880, not so much in 1980. There is no reason to believe that “the same job” should yield the same standard of living across time.

[bitexploder]

What is the comparative quality of life like or those two examples?

[Hermitian909]

Adjusting the time frame a bit:

Many people I know from my parent's generations bought their home in the 70s while working low-skill jobs like retail. They describe that period of life as fun and generally enjoyable. Many started families during that time.

Conversely everyone I grew up with who slotted into low skilled labor living in those small apartments self-describes as miserable. They describe the long hours necessary to to maintain what they consider a basic existence as soul-crushing.

[jkhdigital]

This is a normal, expected phenomenon in an economy characterized by continuous technological advancement. Low-value jobs eventually disappear as technology makes them obsolete, and as this process unfolds the people who are employed in those jobs will experience a declining standard of living.

[code_duck]

Owning any single family home (presumably with a yard) seems clearly more attractive than living in a public housing apartment complex.

[cperciva]

I'd rather have an apartment with Internet access than a house without.

[InvertedRhodium]

Not me. Internet can be installed quickly and cheaply, but we're yet to discover a way to do the same for land.

[cperciva]

Internet can be installed quickly and cheaply

Not in the 1930s.

[code_duck]

So you mean that you would rather live now than in the 1930s?

[syshum]

That was not the question. One of the things people never factor in is all the government regulations around housing.

A single family home from the 1930's would be illegal to build today because building codes have been expanded some for good reason, others less so.

As such it make is hard to do a apples to apple comparison

This is a good video where an economic professor explains some of that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5s6aZCPSg

[varnaud]

From the wikipedia article:

>The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is an American conservative libertarian economic think tank.

>FEE, founded in 1946, is considered the oldest free-market think tank in the United States. An early aim was to roll back policies of the New Deal. FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies.

Points of the video:

- Mainstream media sells entertaining truth that are mostly negative

- People think gun violence is getting worse every single year over a span of 25 years, but it only got worse for 8 of those years! There is a 50% decrease from the 90s.

- Conveniently remove suicide from the gun violence data and ignore the current up trend in homicide

- We shouldn't look at wages, but look at total compensation and it's up by 45% for the median worker since 1979!

- We have more household that are rich according to this data despite what the media says

- You don't need a cellphone, just cancel it if you're poor, also don't get medical treatment that didn't exist in the 70s if you want to have the same cost of living than your grand parents

- Let's compare the average middle class American 100 years ago to one today and you'll see how much better you have it now! Especially if you are a racial minority (he don't mention this last part)

- omg, look at how much hours of work was required 100 years ago to purchase these products (stamp, bread, movie ticket, gas, coffee, eggs, butter, milk)

- only movie ticket are more expensive today, but we get much nicer movie like the Marvel movies! (But remember to cancel your 10$ Netflix subscription if you can't afford it) (a previous point he made)

- back in the days, it took 4 years to raise money to buy a car, but only 2.5 years now!

- He mention that the minimum wage worker has to pay more for housing today, but it's because they are much more technologically advanced!

- house 100 years ago: no electricity, no running water, no indoor toilet, no AC

- Houses like that are now illegal to buy!

- Thus, the minimum wage worker can't buy house like that anymore! (he also can't buy a modern house, but nevermind that)

- So poor people today have a better living standard than the middle class had 100 years ago and in a 100 years the next generation will be even better off with private jets and yachts to travel around!

- There is less child labor in the world, less wars and stuff!

- So in summary, be humble! Appreciate, be thankful for the fact that the world has become a better place. (i.e. stop complaining about society because the iphone exists type of arguments)

Yikes.

[jkhdigital]

Thanks for the tl;dr! The one-word refutation was a nice touch. Very persuasive and compelling argument.

[syshum]

>> FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security and minimum wages, among other American social and economic policies.

AS do I, in a sane world, with a sane court none of those would be constitutional as they are completely outside the scope of the powers granted to the federal government. FDR had to literally extort the court to get them stop striking them down

>>Yikes.

Good rebuttal to all the points, you have convinced me that everything is terrible and we all should embrace socialism as our one true economic model /s

[danans]

The answer to that question seems obvious: it depends.

First, the 1930s aren't a great point of comparison (with Great Depression occurring then). The 1950s are a better comparison.

Second, yes the broader advance of science and technology has lifted many boats simultaneously - we've all benefited from the advance of communications, medications, travel opportunities, etc (with some notable setbacks for those forced to pay the environmental costs of some of those advances).

It's unquestionably better to be a non-white person in the US today than it was in the 1950s, even with all the systemic issues that still disproprortionately hinder them today.

But by many other criteria, quality of life is worse:

- Affordability of educational opportunities (i.e. the housing/school/childcare cost inflationary nexus, university fees)

- Housing insecurity (many families pushed dislocated by rapidly rising rents).

- Level of education/qualification required to achieve middle class comforts like housing security and good education for your kids (it'smuch higher). As others have noted, IPads and PlaysStations are not indicators of middle class comfort - paid vacation is.

- Increasing despair/hopelessness/alienation/failure due to winner-take-all dynamics, with effects like the drug/opioid epidemics, mental illnesses, homelessness, high concentrations of violent crime in disadvantaged populations (despite overall lower crime than in the 1970s-1990s).

- The spillover effects of all the above on those who are generally better off.

[bobsmooth]

Tvs and ipads don't replace owning your ownw home.