What effect will automation have on the working class?

[Anonymous No.19989410]

[Anonymous No.19989476]

>>19989410
I have like 20 different versions of this chart saved to my computer in different locations. It's the most important economic chart of the last half century and it constantly boggles my mind that people can look at it and not become instantly filled with rage and bloodlust against owners of capital.

Laborers are working for half as much compensation as has historically ever been the case before 1970, and they don't seem to give a fuck about it.

[Anonymous No.19989502]

Automation is a meme. Your living in peak humanity. It's all downhill from here.

[Anonymous No.19989506]

>>19989476
They're not working for half as much. They're working for slightly more actually. And that's how capitalism works. People agree to work for that much. Soon there won't be any jobs left for workers at all.

[Anonymous No.19989564]

>>19989476
How much of that can be contributed to technology though? I do agree with you. I just had my little $1,000 bonus cut working for a billionaire that is currently getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the government (tax payers) in handouts.

[Anonymous No.19989601]

>>19989476
>>19989502
>>19989506
>>19989564
What happened during the 70's?

[Anonymous No.19989640]

>>19989601

[Anonymous No.19989662]

>>19989640
+ off the gold standard

[Anonymous No.19989675]

>>19989640
but the productivity chart went up

[Anonymous No.19989712]

>>19989476
>find one chart correlation that looks neat
What's never said is how the USA's boom in the 40s/50s/60s is due to it destroying the white European civilization for the Jews and rearranging the world economy for their benefit. What you see now is reality catching up to it. Americans are less productive than other countries' laborers. There's no reason they should expect to live in luxury while administering all the people that actually create communities and value.

[Anonymous No.19989744]

>>19989506
>>19989564
They're working for half as much per unit of productivity than they ever have before. Owners of capital (primarily technology, computers, etc which have fueled this increased productivity per $ of wage figure) have pocketed the difference. This relationship would be fine if it had trickled down in the form of cheaper prices for the masses, but we mostly haven't seen that except for retarded gadgets and bigscreen TVs. Things people actually need (food, housing, health insurance) have not been getting cheaper, they in fact have been skyrocketing. A house costs 8x the median salary when historically it's been 4x - again, a halving of purchasing power vs historic trends.

Tech isn't bad and squeezing more productivity and generating more wealth out of a worker's time isn't bad. In fact it's the whole point of the arc of technological progress, really, to do more using less. But if there is not a mechanism to ensure that wealth is enjoyed broadly by everyone, then this all inevitably leads to pitchforks and guillotines.

Scream about gibs and handouts, it doesn't matter to the point at hand. Functioning societies need a strong system of counterbalances against the natural trend of wealth and capital to accumulate unto itself, or else they will destabilize at some point when the elite own everything and the plebs own nothing, because when you own nothing and have no prospects, it also means you have nothing to lose and you may as well revolt.

[Anonymous No.19989832]

>>19989744
Revolt isn't possible anymore. The rich have self sustaining bunkers at hundreds of unknown remote locations guarded by automated killer drones. They can easily cut the food off and resurface in one year.

[Anonymous No.19989949]

Depends on how the government handles it. It can be anything from a dystopia where 1% of the population that owns the robots lives like gods and the rest barely survive in slums around them, to a utopia where everyone is given a basic income that supports a good lifestyle where people can do and work on whatever they like. Generally higher corporate taxes and stronger welfare will move us further to the latter.

[Anonymous No.19990008]

>>19989832
stop derailing a sensible discussion with garbage shitposts. fuck you

[Anonymous No.19990012]

>>19989476
Laborers were never relevant.
Back in rome's day they were called "slaves" and had better working and living conditions, relatively speaking.

[Anonymous No.19990024]

>>19989410
> typical worker
> not average worker
How about you show the charge for average income instead? I'm sure incomes have risen a lot in sectors where productivity has increased a lot (e.g. tech). A "typical worker" who works at a fast food restaurant hasn't gotten a lot more productive over the past 70 years.

[Anonymous No.19990117]

>>19990024
Are you retarded? This is precisely what the chart is showing - that as productivity has increased, people have not been compensated commensurately. It's not saying people haven't become more productive, it's saying that income has decoupled from productivity.

[Anonymous No.19990183]

>>19990024
>>19990117
So to add to that, of course tech workers get paid a ton of money - because they are by and large automating a ton of shit. Even then, they get paid a fraction of value of the productivity that they generate for their overlords, relative to historic trends. This disparity increases in sectors where tech is prevalent, not decreases. I would actually bet that someone like a seasonal fruit picker would not have seen this decoupling effect as strongly because picking apples out of trees by and large is still a manual process untouched by tech.

[Anonymous No.19990238]

>>19989832
You forgot that there is mad max and immortan Joe on the surface. Just a few thousands liters of nitroglycerin (Immortan Joe has chemists), and bye bye bunkers. As for the drones, they are not as efficient as you think they are yet, and plebs can also built robots, if they need to.
They are not as strong as you think they are, and plebs are not as weak as you think they are.

[Anonymous No.19990256]

>>19990024
I've worked for McDonald's for over 20 years. I started at a franchised restaurant and worked my way up to work for corporate.

McDonalds uses about 30% fewer employee hours than they did 20 years ago. Inflation-adjusted sales have gone up at least 20% over that time period.

[Anonymous No.19990268]

>>19989476

Yeah but at least we have more billionaires. That’s what counts.

[Anonymous No.19990287]

>>19989410
White collar works are going to be automized first. That will increase profit margins of the companies a lot more compared to automizing blue collar workers.

[Anonymous No.19990298]

>>19989410
>>19989476
This chart is the realization that more than about 6.9 billion people are not needed in this world.

[Anonymous No.19990375]

>>19990024
>A "typical worker" who works at a fast food restaurant hasn't gotten a lot more productive over the past 70 years
They definitely have. Even in the last 20 years orders weren't being done as quick, and they didn't have to deal with essentially a doubled workload with people ordering fast food from home. You ever go to mcdonalds during a lunch or dinner rush? Those motherfuckers are running around like crazy, and its definitely not a job that I would do for less than $15-20/hr, but they're doing it for half that.

The fact that quite a few major corporations like mcdonalds offer instruction for their employees on how to file for food stamps speaks volumes. This also isn't going into the fact that a lot of our overseas goods are made with what amounts to slavery. Millions of factory workers in Bangladesh, for example (a lot of them children), haven't been paid a wage in 2 months and are literally starving. Yet these corporations who sell the clothes they make here are prancing around preaching racial equality and "BLM". Its a fucking joke, and most of the people at the top of our economy deserve to be in prison.

[Anonymous No.19990388]

>>19989476
Capital apologists will tell you that people have access to more consumption than 50 years ago.
>>19989564
>How much of that can be contributed to technology though?
Most of it is due to technology. But technology itself doesn't create value. It has to be operated by a human to create value. Thus, it's still the human who create the value. The value the human create with technology is only amplified, but technology don't create value on it's own. It's not something new, this phenomenon exist since the begning of the industrial revolution, where each new generation of machine, operated by humans, produced way more than the previous generation.

[Anonymous No.19990452]

>>19990375
>Yet these corporations who sell the clothes they make here are prancing around preaching racial equality and "BLM". Its a fucking joke, and most of the people at the top of our economy deserve to be in prison.
Anti-racism, feminism and gay culture are diversion from class struggle. We are currently at the begining of the biggest economical crisis since 1929, and people are manipulated to get offended by one negro who got killed by a policeman. Same for the corona virus. Deep State did well this year. Top notch cover up.

[Anonymous No.19990548]

>>19990452
Id agree with that, its all a huge smokescreen. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of our society isn't racist, or really cares one way or another but micro race/lgtbqt/etc issues. Yet the 1% minority is given a megaphone and now that's all we hear.

Also to your previous post, I'd say surveillance tech has improved productivity a lot more than direct improvements (ie, exoskeletons so factory workers can lift heavier objects). When my girlfriend worked at a call center doing customer service, she would literally get messages if she went more than 30 seconds without starting a new ticket and marking down that she was going to the washroom. They sent out memos about how "time fraud" is stealing (literally with the cliche bandit clipart wearing a striped shirt and black eye mask). They would get on her if her support calls were taking too long, etc. There used to be a time where someone could take a quick 5 to grab a drink or eat a bag of chips or something, and no one would care. Hell, people used to just get straight up pissed drunk in their offices instead of working, and this was mostly ok unless you overdid it. Now every second of every day is closely monitored and accounted for.

Ontop of that workers are constantly pressured to be "team players" and work unpaid overtime, essentially turning their time into a ponzi scheme.

[Anonymous No.19990654]

>>19990452
>Anti-racism, feminism and gay culture are diversion from class struggle.
Agree 100% and I steadfastly believe that race and sex inequality (to the extent they exist due to bias/discrimination - I think part of it is due to real bias and part is down to biological differences) is in fact best addressed by ignoring sex and race and attacking economic inequality and flattening wealth disparities.

Much of all discriminatory practice and open prejudice against people-who-aren't-like-you is just a very basic tribal response to a situation where you feel like there is not enough for everyone and you need to protect your ingroup. If you don't address that, then no matter what you do on the 'racial justice' side you're just moving slices of a pie around among a group of people for whom there is simply not enough pie for everyone. It just ends up being an endless fight for scraps waged along tribal lines. Until you do something about the old money, capital-owning wealth-concentrators who are hoovering up exponentially more of all global resources every generation and leaving everyone else impoverished, embittered and disenfranchised, 'racial justice', 'social justice', etc will remain pipe dreams.

[Anonymous No.19990746]

>>19989410
It will be answered that many self-prop systems-governments, corporations, labor unions, etc.-do take care of numerous individuals who are utterly useless to them: old people, people with severe mental or physical disabilities, even criminals serving life sentences. But this is only because the systems in question still need the services of the majority of people in order to function. Humans have been endowed by evolution with feelings of compassion, because hunting-and-gathering bands thrive best when their members show consideration for one another and help one another. As long as self-prop systems still need people, it would be to the systems' disadvantage to offend the compassionate feelings of the useful majority through ruthless treatment of the useless minority. More important than compassion, however, is the self-interest of human individuals: People would bitterly resent any system to which they belonged if they believed that when they grew old, or if they became disabled, they would be thrown on the trash-heap.

But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

[Anonymous No.19990828]

I agree completely with OPs points. The easiest proof is the time you need to pay for housing. Here in Germany we are at a level where a "high" paid engineer needs to pay almost until retirement to be able to buy a normal house in / near a city. This was simply not the case some decades ago. So whats the solution? Start with yourself? Live minimalistic, work fewer, take the social pressure? Or wait for a revolution to take place?

[Anonymous No.19990899]

This thread has a lot of examples of why I really cannot defend the current system on any moral grounds. Best I can do is tell people they owe it to themselves to figure out how it works so they can try and exploit it for their own gain as well.

>>19990548
The advance of surveillance capabilities into something the Stasi would have jizzed their pants over also contributes to the cultural stagnation on top of the economic inequality. How far do you think, say, a Martin Luther King or like character would make it in this day and age before being noticed and attacked with covert means? Honest journalists and other dissidents (telling truths inconvenient to power is enough for that label) will tell you what they face today, if you look.

>>19990746
You ever wonder if a truly superhuman strong AI would look at the species as senile grandparents, or as a nasty pest that was destroying its own biosphere?

[Anonymous No.19990900]

>>19989410
None, they'll invent more degrading service jobs that pay barely above the minimum wage.

[Anonymous No.19990979]

Productivity growth and hourly compensation growth rose together until on August 15 1971 the US terminated the Bretton Woods system to an end. The Bretton Woods system was established in 1944 (around the same time the 3 pillars of the world bank were initiated) it was to keep exchange rates between the United States, Canada, Wester European countries, Australia, and Japan within 1 percent of US gold. This system was put together by the International Monetery Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development which today is part of the World Bank Group. Soviet representatives attended but later declined to ratify the final agreements, saying that the institutions they had created were “branches of Wall Street.” So why did they end this? It had served its purpose and it was time to expand globalization. Beginning to add labor-rich, capital-poor countries to the rich-country trading system, thus holding down wages via factor price equalization. Or cheap labor. Now for the numbers. According to Economic Policy Institute analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis data. From 1979-2017 productivity has gone from 100% to 246.6% while hourly compensation has gone in 1979-2017 from 99% to 114.7%. The median earnings of a full-time worker have not gone above 51,000 dollars (2010 US dollars) since 1971. A house in 1970 was about 20,000 dollars (median of sources I found) while the average yearly income was 10,000 dollars. So that looks like inflation (the hidden tax) has taken down the value of our money by 5 times. With just that point of information I could go on about the price of things today but I'm sure you are fuming by the time you finish this sentence so I will move on to the solution.

[Anonymous No.19991005]

>>19990008
Dumb nigger retard I started the thread and the post was perfectly sensible. You're the nigger faggot who can't make any contributions. Never post again nigger

[Anonymous No.19991524]

>>19990979
I'm tuned in. Tell me more.

[Anonymous No.19991621]

>>19989410
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[Anonymous No.19991779]

>>19990117
Do you know the difference between the words "typical" and "average"? I don't think you do. And you clearly don't understand why the difference between the two words matter here.
Productivity has FAR FROM increased at the same pace across all sectors. Therefor, it makes sense that compensation hasn't increased evenly across all sectors/ jobs. And a lot of the brainlet tier jobs that "typical workers" have haven't changed significantly over the past 70 years.
Also, the value of a lot of manual labor has decreased because machines do it better/ cheaper.

[Anonymous No.19991782]

>>19991524
here is the rest you can just read it in the description https://www.bitchute.com/video/lSaKoijh6YDd/

[Anonymous No.19991855]

>>19990117
Do you know the difference between the words "typical" and "average"? I don't think you do. And you clearly don't understand why the difference between the two words matter here.
Productivity has FAR FROM increased at the same pace across all sectors/ jobs. Therefor, it makes sense that compensation hasn't increased evenly across all sectors/ jobs.

Btw. I'm not American. Even low productivity minimum wageslaves make $18/ hour in my country. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, all I'm saying is that it makes sense why wages haven't increased much for low productivity jobs in the US. You have tons of unskilled labor supply and very little wage control/ unions.

[Anonymous No.19991920]

>>19991782
Fug, you're a MAGApede? Big let down dude.

[Anonymous No.19992106]

>>19991920
chill out we all want to kill niggers, not my vid tho

[Anonymous No.19992987]

>>19990746
All this assumption, as well as the cyber punk dystopia, rely on the fact that Capitalism will still exist in half a century. However, that's not sure at all. Projecting the future from a current Capitalist point of view would be like asking a 14th century intellectual what life would be in the 20th century. I bet most would completely fail in their projections.
Also, relatively to your pic (related), Kaczinsky got it wrong. He reversed cause and effects (classic). Indeed, it's not technology which created Capitalism, but Capitalism which created technology. Some proof: the greeks invented the steam machine, but since their whole mode of production was based on slavery, they didn't do anything with this steam machine. However, in the 19th century, when primitive accumulation of Capital was already done, and most humans were already wage workers, the steam machine did wonders for productivity and Capital accumulation. Savers and Lords didn't give a shit about a steam machine. Capitalist, on the other hand got crazy when it was rediscovered.

[Anonymous No.19993023]

(Slavers and Lords).

[Anonymous No.19993047]

>>19989476
Fuck off antisemite

[Anonymous No.19993055]

>>19989564
Feminism is to blame for much of it. Immigration for another large portion (on top of automation and outsourcing).

[Anonymous No.19993399]

It's always funny to me that /biz/ is one of the more anti-corporate/anti-capitalist boards on 4chan. It's like the more you know about something, the more problems you see and the more you hate it.

[Anonymous No.19993547]

>>19993399
Same. Had some discussion on /lit, and some of them are rabid Capitalists. It's because they just don't know how it works, and speak rubbish like "The enterprising capitalist sees the world as an Open World Survival Crafting videogame and turns barren land into structured society." (Anon from /lit).

[Anonymous No.19993702]

>>19989476
nixon made a trade deal with china which started undercutting american manufacturing
manufacturing started to leave to the 3rd world
women entering the workforce
lots of importing browns
becoming service economy
abortions
recipe for JUST, but you can probably just thank nixon really

[Anonymous No.19993754]

>>19993702
>recipe for JUST, but you can probably just thank nixon really
Nixon, Xoni, Noxi, whatever. If the owners of Capital required it, it would have happened anyway. Political economy is only the expression of Capital requirements. Capital don't serve political economy, but political economy serves the Capital.

[Anonymous No.19993769]

>>19993754
politicians serve themselves

[Anonymous No.19993814]

>>19993055
I told my old boss that women employees are like typewriters. Once you manage to put your dick in it, it usually stops working.

[Anonymous No.19993852]

>>19989476
it's called importing cheap labour

[Anonymous No.19993947]

>>19991005

you turned a discussion about
>What effect will automation have on the working class?

towards a schizo fantasy about rich people creating the apocalypse with the help of killer robots. youre the nigger for polluting the discussion with shit like that.

[Anonymous No.19994042]

I think I read somewhere that economists speculated that with increase in technology (think industrial age and present) would increase efficiencies in products to the point where workers could work less and still retain the same income. So hypothetically, instead of working 40-50 hours a week making 1500, they would work 25-35 hours making 1500. The idea was more recreation as people can choose to specialize in other things altogether, like a market would.
In hindsight, it never did, too much competition and not greed, but abuse, in the system between nations.

[Anonymous No.19994051]

>>19991621
>https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
this

>>19989410
honestly and unironically, bitcoin fixes this.

[Anonymous No.19994133]

>>19991524
taking the US currency off the gold standard & onto a fiat system where the government can finance whatever it wants with inflation & not direct taxation has been a disaster for the american people.

if you need more rage check out
wtfhappenedin1971 dot com

fix the worlds money & you fix more than you think. money is the base layer of society, the fastest decentralized information disseminator.

[Anonymous No.19994269]

>>19994133
Without FIAT, growth would be slower. Also, without fictious credit (FIAT), the system would probably already have collapsed. The system is only maintained artificially alive with fictious credit. The rate of profit is too low nowadays for Capitalism to function.

[Anonymous No.19994395]

>>19992987
The greeks found out gaseous water has a higher volume than liquid water, and used it as propellant, this is very different from using the effect to power an high pressure steam engine
Also they didnt have the metallurgic abilities to create steam boilers and pistons in a quality that would have made it efficient
Waterpower is also pretty old, easier to use and also pretty powerfull, the romans used it to grind grain and it got used in mines relatively early too, its most major disatvantage to a steam engine is that you need a river with enough height difference so you cant do it everywhere - that was not so much of a problem with the small population back then
Also an automated loom is a hightech piece of technology that has to be developed itself

[Anonymous No.19994486]

>>19989744
Don't live in a fucking city then, moron. Housing outside of city limits is still cheap as shit. Remember, you have to be 18+ to post on this board. Not even reading the rest of your crap.

[Anonymous No.19994967]

>>19994269
growth these days is hyper fast then crashes, google 'the business cycle'. in a non-fiat system, the growth would be smoother and more sustainable, _actual_ growth.
There can still be credit & debt in a sound money system, but nowhere the level as we do now.

>The rate of profit is too low nowadays for Capitalism to function.
we wouldnt have gotten to this point where every 'unicorn' makes negative profit and companies take on debt to buy back their shares if we had a fixed money system. Capitalism has functioned for hundreds of years on a gold standard, fiat currency as a concept is only 50 years old

[Anonymous No.19995622]

>>19989601
Nixon took us off the last vestige of a gold standard in 1971

[Anonymous No.19995944]

>>19994395
The thing is, and i didn't emphasize on this, is that if you develop automation in a slavery based mode of production, you decrease the value of the slaves. Thus, you decrease your own assets, the slaves.
Whereas, in Capitalsm, if you develop automation, you decrease the value of your workers, but you don't give a shit, because 1/you don't own them, 2/ if you decrease their value, well, less wages, and even more profit.

[Anonymous No.19996015]

>>19994967
>growth these days is hyper fast then crashes, google 'the business cycle
I know about these. Without fiat, they would still happen, but be less violent.
>the growth would be smoother and more sustainable, _actual_ growth.
That's the point i was trying to make. It is possible that we have reached a point, independently of the FIAT system or fictious credit, where the rate of profit is so low, that Capital cannot renew itself. Thus, even if FIAT money didn't exist, we would have to invent it, in order to renew Capital artificially, through debt and money printing.