I mean that companies are now many times more profitable than before, and that is a direct result of the massive productivity increases in the workforce, which is due to the technology. It didn't just happen because companies are suddenly "better" somehow.PartyOf5 wrote:Where did you get that from? You must be having a different conversation in your head because it's not related to what I posted.GrumpyCatFace wrote:... So companies are just magically more profitable with fewer employees? No.PartyOf5 wrote:I'll agree with you that there is not a 1:1 relationship. The productivity metric may measure revenue/employee in a very general way for a company as a whole, but it does not tell you how valuable any individual employee is or how much that employee contributed to the revenue.
And all of that change has done little or nothing for the actual employees that have managed to adapt to it.
My point is that old jobs have been replaced by new ones. Yours appears to be that we've had a 99% reduction in employment due to productivity increases.[/quote]GrumpyCatFace wrote: Because even a mid-level office drone is operating at the equivalent of hundreds of his kind just a short time ago. Where do you suppose all the money went that paid that staff?A generation ago, that would have been an army of researchers, graphic artists, phone operators, and mathematicians.PartyOf5 wrote: The money went to pay for all the database administrators, website developers, and other IT jobs that didn't exist a generation ago.
My point is that the jobs have NOT been replaced. You're simply seeing a single employee do the work of 10-20 before.
If Americas workforce suddenly became 10x smarter, produced 10x more, and worked in place of 10 other people, then wouldn't you say that they deserved at least 10x more in wages?
