LogFAQs > #907277906

s0nicfan posted...

Prove to me that the productivity of a janitor, or a coal miner, or a truck driver, or a gas station attendant, has increased meaningfully in the last 40 years. If the same guy is doing 10x the work using some sort of autonomous mop then you've got a case. Yes, you would expect wages to grow with productivity. Why do you assume every job on the market has gotten noticeably more productive? Where's the evidence for that?

Why are you cherry picking any particular trade or industry? It's not a chart of whether janitors get paid more now than they used to, it's a chart of how much the average laborer makes now vs then. And on that metric, it is very clear that labor productivity has increased much more on average than their gains in wages have.

What about these numbers implies I assume 'every job on the market has gotten noticeably more productive'? Don't straw man me.

s0nicfan posted...

If your argument is that the current economic model is a failure because of happiness then sure. That's different than whether or not the current economic model has objectively made people's quality of life better, whether they find joy in that or not. People are also unhappy when they're in bread lines.

I'm not making an argument, exactly, you're the one saying that these issues don't matter because we can 'do more with our paycheck' and I am just questioning whether or not that is true. Put another way, the fact that it is easier for me to spend all day playing WoW doesn't necessarily mean I can 'do more' in a meaningful way with my paycheck now than I used to be able to.

That's not to dismiss the added comfort technology can bring to our lives, but to discount the increasing burden that things like housing, healthcare, and education place on people is also unfair.It's not simply about 'happiness' as I don't believe the diseases of despair I'm referring to, like suicide and drug and alcohol abuse, are driven primarily by simple unhappiness.

People are unhappy in breadlines, but that is a non-sequitur.

s0nicfan posted...

Assuming a closed system. In a global economy, if the top 1% is bringing in more total "money" into the country, then the amount of money available for distribution is larger, meaning more is available for welfare programs. A trillion dollar economy giving away 1% to welfare is still worth more than a billion dollar economy giving away 50% to the people on the receiving end.

Right, that's why I said to the extent you view a robust welfare state as dragging the 1% down. I don't view it that way, but many people seem to and easily conflate social safety nets with 'socialism' (granted that is becoming less true as there are more actual socialists around)
---

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.