[groundhogday3]

Just because productivity has doubled in 40 years doesn't mean that people have been twice as productive.

Also salaries and wages aren't dependent on how hard you work. It is how much value you bring to a company (and how easily you can be replaced).

About 15 years ago .NET programmers were getting much higher rates than they are today in the UK (at least in London). The last time I looked node, go, AWS and other things were much more highly paid.

[_jal]

The fact remains that the bargain has changed over the last 40 years, with the bulk of the benefits of technological change not reaching workers. Now it is becoming common for even well-paid jobs to move to an assumption of no annual raise.

And employers currently whining about lack of employee loyalty just make me laugh.

Fact remains, here we are. Employers do not hesitate to take ground when they have the advantage, which is usually. Use yours while you have it.

[groundhogday3]

> The fact remains that the bargain has changed over the last 40 years, with the bulk of the benefits of technological change not reaching workers. Now it is becoming common for even well-paid jobs to move to an assumption of no annual raise.

Tell me why should technological change benefit workers?

> Fact remains, here we are. Employers do not hesitate to take ground when they have the advantage, which is usually. Use yours while you have it.

Sure. I run my own business and I am a consultant \ freelancer. I am my own employer.

[lloydgrossman]

>Tell me why should technological change benefit workers?

Technological benefits make individual workers more productive, allowing them to be exploited for more profit. If you don't understand the economics or incentive of the situation, there's no reasoning you out of a box you didn't reason yourself into.

[groundhogday3]

> Technological benefits make individual workers more productive, allowing them to be exploited for more profit.

It also makes harder jobs easier and in some cases allows someone unskilled to perform a job that a only a more highly skilled person could do. Thus someone is easier to replace and thus cheaper.

> If you don't understand the economics or incentive of the situation, there's no reasoning you out of a box you didn't reason yourself into.

I understand it fine. Technological advances is a double edged sword with regards to Labour. It may create whole new industries while destroying old ones.

[babypuncher]

You are talking about people like they are commodities. That is your problem.

[_jal]

> Tell me why should technological change benefit workers?

Tell me why should the prior arrangement where there was what many feel was a more equitable arrangement not continue?

> I am my own employer.

Congrats. I was self-employed for over a decade, too. And none of this has anything to do with equitable employment arrangements.

[chickenpotpie]

> Tell me why should technological change benefit workers?

Because who else is technology for? What’s the point of having technology if it doesn’t benefit 99% of the population? What you’re describing is the plot to Elysium.

[chickenpotpie]

You’re missing the point: the world is producing twice as much now and employees are only getting 50% more. So business owners and shareholders are getting a disproportionate benefit of technological advancement. You might say: why do employees deserve to make more money because productivity went up when they’re not working any harder? Well why do business owners deserve to make more when they’re not working any harder either?

[dannyw]

And in a labour shortage, the value that someone brings to the company increases :)

Demand a doubling of pay to match productivity increases. The power is in our collective hands.

[groundhogday3]

> And in a labour shortage, the value that someone brings to the company increases :)

Sure. However that won't last forever. It will drive companies to innovate away your job. I go for a McDonalds breakfast after my bike ride on a Saturday and the checkout staff are basically non-existent now. They instead have self service touch screens.

> Demand a doubling of pay to match productivity increases. The power is in our collective hands.

Why? The productivity increases might be for other reasons. Automation (many jobs have effectively been automated away), outsourcing to other countries.

Also I am not a socialist so don't include me in that nonsense thankyou.

[micromacrofoot]

If jobs being automated or outsourced away explained it then you'd expect to see a similarly dramatic reduction in workers... but instead people are employed at a similar rate, are more productive, and are being paid less... so who's benefiting from automating and outsourcing exactly?

[lotsofpulp]

> It will drive companies to innovate away your job.

This drive exists all the time, just like people like to save money when they go shopping.

[wyre]

> drive companies to innovate away your job

Good. We need less bullshit jobs.

>Why?

Because workers have the right to negotiate wages and asking for increased pay is a very fair negotiation during a labor shortage caused by low wages.

>I am not a socialist.

It’s very easy to tell by your complete lack of support of worker’s rights.

[Rompect]

> Just because productivity has doubled in 40 years doesn't mean that people have been twice as productive.

???

[groundhogday3]

Depends what they mean by Productivity. Other things can be productive other than Labour. Also it still doesn't mean you should be paid twice as much.

If I can hire 3 unskilled workers for less than the price of a skilled worker that is twice as productive as a single unskilled worker. I would just hire 3 unskilled people.

[zymhan]

Your comment is a total non-sequitur, you don't connect any of these points to substantiate your claim.

[rpowers]

You could bring a TON of value to a company and get paid peanuts. Let's not assume a just world here.