• Graylitic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The idea comes from stagnating wages with comparison to productivity, and the fact that the average Worker works more than before the Industrial Revolution despite this jump in productivity.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s somewhat debated now, with the original numbers being revised way up

      • Graylitic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting! Either way, it’s still a fact that wages have been stagnating as compared to productivity, and working hours have not proportionally lowered. Capitalism is good for development, but after a certain point ceases to dramatically contribute to quality of life.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I do believe productivity has increased quite a bit more than wages, but that makes sense if you think about it. Productivity gains in the last few decades are not due to workers getting more skilled or working harder (which may still be a factor), they’re because of technology, automation, information science, and global trade networks. If my boss upgrades my computer such that I can produce things twice as fast, why should I get paid more?

          • Graylitic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If society’s needs can be met with far less work, then it stands to reason that people don’t need to work as much. Everything is the product of labor.