TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Great Decoupling

66 点作者 nrao123将近 10 年前

8 条评论

bkeroack将近 10 年前
Note that the decoupling correlates closely with the computerization of society&#x2F;business around the mid-1980s.<p>The market for most types of human labor is soft in advanced economies, and getting softer. We don&#x27;t grow the economy by assembling a huge workforce to do&#x2F;build something, we grow it when (relatively) tiny teams build a new tool, create a new market or disrupt an existing industry.<p>One could argue that there are lots of projects out there that could use people to do physical labor. My response to that is that it has become <i>extremely</i> expensive to employ workers in physical jobs in the US, due to declining health of the general population (obesity, etc) and the overhead of things like disability insurance&#x2F;worker&#x27;s compensation. Since the US has essentially no social safety net to speak of, the primary source of welfare ends up being workplace injury-related benefits. This produces a powerful secondary-gain situation that incentivizes injury for those who work physical jobs.<p>I don&#x27;t think people <i>intentionally</i> get hurt of course, but rather when they do sustain an injury it becomes economically advantageous to prolong it as much as possible since the job is hard and their pay for working is so low. Usually it&#x27;s the only way for menial laborers to get a paid vacation, and (sadly) getting permanent disability benefits is like early retirement.<p>I&#x27;m not advocating for getting rid of those benefits, but rather changing the incentives so that working pays more, everybody gets some form of paid vacation, and that there are safety nets&#x2F;alternatives for the poor. We need to recognize that our economy simply needs fewer people working to function (I don&#x27;t know if the basic income is the right solution, but it could be).
评论 #9620856 未加载
评论 #9620885 未加载
评论 #9620665 未加载
评论 #9620939 未加载
评论 #9621498 未加载
评论 #9621182 未加载
评论 #9620759 未加载
评论 #9621587 未加载
digikata将近 10 年前
Personally, I blame spreadsheets. Well, not spreadsheets per se, but their ability to ease quantification of certain money streams above others. They make it easy to optimize profit margin in the short term, and dismiss long-term, difficult to quantify investments. The short term numbers are nice and solid, and the long term risk and investment are fuzzy.<p>In the near past, this focus improved the economy, but now I think we&#x27;re in a stage of overoptimization of short term profits over real value. You can see where real GDP is now beginning to tail off in the charts - it happens later than the salary drop but it&#x27;s there. Company lifetimes are getting shorter (showing misallocation of risk &amp; R&amp;D, and less buffer to weather mistakes &amp; downturns), general numbers of new business starts are lower (suspect this is a side effect of less time &amp; salary for workers).<p>Worker salaries are hit as a big side effect too.. how you do quantify long term value of a worker - it&#x27;s easier to quantify short term worker outputs as shallow primary effects and ignore the longer term secondary effects of retention and experience. Now compare fuzzy secondary effects against the calculation of short term profit projections. You can see how jobs are easily slashed, or moved overseas... even if three to five years down the line you lose some efficiency (it&#x27;s not quantified so it doesn&#x27;t exist in a cost-benefit trade off).
gambiter将近 10 年前
&gt; the professors put forth as potential solutions [...] education, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, immigration, and basic research.<p>Couldn&#x27;t the other solution be less greed on the part of business owners? It seems like the bigger issue is that they just aren&#x27;t paying their people enough.
评论 #9620465 未加载
评论 #9618390 未加载
评论 #9620571 未加载
评论 #9620559 未加载
评论 #9620802 未加载
carsongross将近 10 年前
One interesting thing that happened in 1971 (right when the income divergence occurred, which I view as the major problem) was that Nixon closed the gold window:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nixon_Shock" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nixon_Shock</a><p>Association of course does not prove causation, as a graph of murders and IE usage will demonstrate. But it is suggestive. I wonder if the unlimited leverage that the financial system had access to after the gold window closed allowed them to suck out more and more of the productivity gains.<p>This graph suggests that this might be so:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.yesmagazine.org&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;david-korten&#x2F;images&#x2F;financial-sector-as-percent-of-u.s.-gdp" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.yesmagazine.org&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;david-korten&#x2F;images&#x2F;financi...</a>
评论 #9620735 未加载
paulpauper将近 10 年前
The decoupling is also obvious when comparing advanced degree employment and income versus those with only high school or &#x27;some college&#x27;. It&#x27;s also pronounced between majors, with STEM earning more. these trends have accelerated since 2008.
michaelochurch将近 10 年前
My theory is that we&#x27;re in danger of a global repeat of the Great Depression that hammered North America and, to a lesser extent, Europe in the 1930s.<p>The last one, in the 1920s, was caused by ill-managed prosperity, I would argue. You had sudden gains in agricultural productivity, which led to crashing commodity prices, which eventually led to rural poverty. One might have &quot;expected&quot; farmers to move into the cities and become the new middle class, and some did, but that doesn&#x27;t work out so well when thousands or millions of poor, hungry people are doing the same thing. What was just &quot;rural poverty&quot; (of course, half the country was still rural) in 1925 became more widespread by 1927-28 (noticeable slipping demand for consumer products) and finally was recognized as a Great Depression after it tanked the stock market in 1929-32.<p>We have, in 2015, a <i>lot</i> of ill-managed prosperity. We have a culture in Silicon Valley that <i>glorifies</i> ill-managed prosperity. (What else do you call funding <i>Clinkle</i>?) And the same thing that happened to food prices in 1900-30 (slow at first, accelerating toward the end) is happening to <i>almost all human labor</i> in 1985-2015.<p>It may not end well. Including the damage brought by the war, I&#x27;d argue that most of Europe didn&#x27;t get out of the Depression (manifest somewhat differently over there, especially in the fascist countries) until the late 1950s.
评论 #9621065 未加载
评论 #9621048 未加载
phkahler将近 10 年前
The obvious solution is birth control. It&#x27;s not that there are too few jobs, it&#x27;s that there are too many people. Offer free permanent birth control to any low income person who wants it. This is only a partial fix of course, but one that would help long term.
评论 #9621324 未加载
paulpauper将近 10 年前
Ultimately, I think this whole debate on wages, STEM, wealth inequality, and automation boils down to IQ. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;greyenlightenment.com&#x2F;winner-take-all-nation&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;greyenlightenment.com&#x2F;winner-take-all-nation&#x2F;</a><p>IMHO, people are falling behind because of low IQs and the winner-take-all economy that enriches some, but doesn&#x27;t leave a whole lot for everyone else. Today’s hyper-meritocracy is amplifying the socioeconomic ramifications of individual cognitive differences such that a person with an IQ &gt;110 is much more likely to succeed than someone with an IQ &lt;90, whereas decades ago the disparity wasn&#x27;t so obvious.<p>The solution, on the other hand, -I don&#x27;t know. No one really knows, and that&#x27;s why this is such a big debate. So many people realize that this is one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century. How are we going to develop a compromise or solution that handles automation-related jobs loss and inequality. Some propose a basic income; others want redistribution; others wants more spending on education, and so on...<p>From students fresh out of college and in debt, to people looking for jobs, or people who have been laid-off, we&#x27;re all a part of this debate. Economics is not just for economists - now more than ever we all experience it in our everyday lives.