[dmurray]

Well, we can also say that we expect air traffic controllers generate at least their $132k/ year in value. Crossing guards seem to have a similar role and in theory could be generating the same value, but at the margin they're probably not - you'd expect hiring another one would be worth some significant fraction of the $132k to railway companies, but they're not competing to hire more of them.

So if AI enables every unskilled worker to produce $132k of value instead of $33k, who gets the $99k surplus? Marxist economics teaches us that in a capitalist society, without additional state intervention, the employer gets all of it. Too bad for the worker.

The good news, though, is that most labour economists wouldn't go as far as Marx. In modern societies the working man seems to get at least some benefit from productivity gains that don't come directly from him working harder. And even if you do believe Marx, note the caveat about "without state intervention". The modern state has many tools to intervene and is not afraid to use them: taxes, minimum wage laws, mandating bullshit jobs. In this scenario, doubling minimum wage wouldn't hurt economic productivity - the workers are all producing $132k of value, so not a single one will be laid off if they need to be paid $66k each.

Of course, there are some coordination problems to solve...

[bumby]

>we can also say that we expect air traffic controllers generate at least their $132k/ year in value

This is an important distinction that the author misses. People are paid according to their value to the economy, not their value to society. So, even if the jobs were similar in expertise, the crossing guard would likely not make as much because the ATC provides more to the economy.

*FWIW, I'm not saying this is moral or fair, it's just is the way the economic cookie crumbles.

[firstplacelast]

Disagree. People are paid based on value-extraction, not value-generation. They are correlated, but are vastly different metrics.

[bumby]

Care to elaborate on the details of the distinction? I think I get the gist, but I’m not sure how much it matters in practice (given the above comment about leverage).

E.g., a hedge fund manager is paid handsomely for if they extract value, but that same extraction is value generation for their clients. It feels like two sides of the same zero sum coin.

[pydry]

Nobody is paid according to their value. They are paid according to their leverage.

PhDs provide an immense amount of value but have very little leverage.

Workers who unionize and use their power effectively have more leverage than those who do not.

Land owners contribute precisely 0 value but hold leverage in the form of a legal title.

[bumby]

I would agree, but your statement makes it sound as if they are disjointed. You need to have both.

(I would also push back a bit that a PhD adds immense value. Many that do get paid well via IP and start-ups, but that’s a better interface with the economy. There are many in my experience that add little more than a credential)

[pydry]

>You need to have both.

For employment the most it does is set a ceiling on wages. Pushing up your ceiling doesn't necessarily push up your wages.

>I would also push back a bit that a PhD adds immense value.

Of course, that's a common opinion. Blue sky research is vastly underrated in the west. This is partly why the Chinese are overtaking us.

[bumby]

>Blue sky research

I’m not discounting fundamental research in the way you may be implying. I’m just saying it has little economic value until it has an application. By definition, it doesn't have an economically marketable use, so it can't have economic value.

I also don’t think China is overtaking the US on a research front. They publish a lot (although I would question how much 'blue sky' vs. derivative), but that’s a bad metric for a lot of reasons.

[pydry]

>it has little economic value until it has an application

That's a bit like saying that employees create very little value until a product is sold. Realized value != created value.

It is precisely the lack of competition on this front (research) for decades and the abstract nature of the value created that has led it to be so badly undervalued.

[mschuster91]

> In modern societies the working man seems to get at least some benefit from productivity gains that don't come directly from him working harder. And even if you do believe Marx, note the caveat about "without state intervention". The modern state has many tools to intervene and is not afraid to use them: taxes, minimum wage laws, mandating bullshit jobs.

That may have been the case 30, 40 years ago in the US. In reality, the minimum wage in almost the entire US (unchanged since 2009, to add!) is not enough to afford to have a family [1]. Companies and the ultra rich aren't taxed shit - when you have people like Warren Buffett calling to tax him and his ilk more [2], it's obvious that the situation is clearly out of control.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AP0LZ/

[golergka]

Why would you expect a person to be able to afford a family on minimum wage? Why would you even want that?

If you raised a minimum wage to that level, you would eliminate a lot of low-level jobs completely, and leave people who don't aspire or need this non-trivial level of achievement without jobs.

[mschuster91]

> Why would you expect a person to be able to afford a family on minimum wage? Why would you even want that?

Society needs children to survive - someone has to pay the pensions after all, at least in common "societal contract" systems, otherwise people will have to literally work until they die.

For that in turn, society needs at least a replacement fertility rate, and usually there is a close negative correlation between wealth and amount of children (i.e. the wealthier people get, the less children they have), so it makes sense to strengthen the ability particularly of the lower classes to have children.

[golergka]

> Society needs children to survive

This is true. However, what society definetly doesn't need is

> the ability particularly of the lower classes to have children

That's how you breed poverty and other systemic problems that you later have to deal with. People should only have children when they can afford to invest into real care for them. If a person earns a low wage, he shouldn't be able to afford children because he shouldn't have them.

[mschuster91]

> If a person earns a low wage, he shouldn't be able to afford children because he shouldn't have them.

The right to found a family is enshrined in Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights [1] and Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2].

I agree it's a bit of a stretch, but at least the UDHR definition explicitly states that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State"... for me, that clearly implies economic protection, i.e. a society has to make sure that people can actually exercise that right - because how useful is a theoretical right to something (be it to found a family, or to have the right to due process and fair treatment before the courts, or whatever else), when large swaths of the population cannot exercise that right, or have access to it effectively denied by circumstances outside of their but inside the government's control?

[1] https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

[2] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...