←back to thread

Has the decline of knowledge work begun?

(www.nytimes.com)
388 points pseudolus | 5 comments | 25 Mar 25 17:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
hgs3 ◴[27 Mar 25 16:53 UTC] No.43495502[source]▶
The vast majority of jobs that sustain our standard of living are blue-collar: farmers who grow our food, textile workers who make our clothes, construction workers who build our homes, plumbers, electricians, waste disposal workers, etc. I'd say it's white-collar work that became overinflated this past century, largely as a reaction to the automation and outsourcing of many traditional blue-collar roles.

Now, with white-collar jobs themselves increasingly at risk, it's unclear where people will turn. The economic pie continues to shrink, and I don't see that trend reversing.

It appears to me that our socio-economic model simply doesn't scale with technology. We need to have a constructive conversation about how to adapt.

replies(6): >>43495605 #>>43495639 #>>43496127 #>>43496376 #>>43496444 #>>43497198 #
rthomas6 ◴[27 Mar 25 17:07 UTC] No.43495639[source]▶
The way I see it you only have two real choices:

1. Raise wages to match global increased productivity

2. Democratize ownership

That's it.

replies(6): >>43495707 #>>43495728 #>>43495803 #>>43495996 #>>43496002 #>>43496498 #
bumby ◴[27 Mar 25 17:15 UTC] No.43495707[source]▶
I think you’re casting too narrow of a net here. Other options include an automation tax, UBI etc. (unless you consider those a subset of your items above)
replies(3): >>43495773 #>>43495790 #>>43495995 #
contingencies ◴[27 Mar 25 17:45 UTC] No.43495995[source]▶
Automation tax sounds sketchy. How would that work? All computers have DRM and programming becomes illegal? Unregistered physical automation becomes banned? Man the toolmaker can no longer make tools? What use are a bunch of depersonalized hominids?
replies(2): >>43496138 #>>43496617 #
1. gosub100 ◴[27 Mar 25 18:36 UTC] No.43496617[source]▶
It would boil down to a profitability tax. As an exaggeration: a company with 7 people on the payroll that brings in $10m a year has to pay it. But a company that employs 700 and earns the same does not.
replies(2): >>43496699 #>>43497116 #
2. bumby ◴[27 Mar 25 18:42 UTC] No.43496699[source]▶
Much more succinct description than mine :-)
3. contingencies ◴[27 Mar 25 19:24 UTC] No.43497116[source]▶
I've lived in China and seen the results of "CCP says you have to employ X people". The result is a bunch of people sitting around doing nothing, earning low incomes, and feeling despondent: the so-called "iron rice bowl". The system will be gamed by the managers, the people will merely be pawns.
replies(2): >>43497405 #>>43498009 #
4. gosub100 ◴[27 Mar 25 19:50 UTC] No.43497405[source]▶
That's a valid concern, but not an inevitability. I think if they don't want to pay the tax, they could move their business to a tax loophole state like Wyoming. But they shouldn't be allowed to siphon money out of a city without paying into the city. If doing business in CA gives them access to 30+ million potential customers, they can give CA a cut.
5. maxglute ◴[27 Mar 25 20:49 UTC] No.43498009[source]▶
The alternative is unemployed people sitting around, earning no income, feeling more despondent... and bored. AKA how to get radicalized and doing worse than nothing in todays info enviroment. Did you live in China pre 90s, i.e. when actual "iron rice bowl" positions existed, they were above median income state job with good benefits (relative to income at time), but was about 1/6th of 600m workforce. Closer to all the random gov jobs being created on tax payer dime.