To the people at the top, the job market is a statistic. They can't feel empathy on an issue they're so disconnected from, so they just think it's not their problem, or there isn't much they can do about it. Technological innovation is supposed to mean society can produce more with less work, so in theory everyone's lives could end up better off over time where we could all work less and get more, but in practice, I see more meaningless work created and wealth continues to consolidate at the top.
> so in theory everyone's lives could end up better off over time
they did. The innovation that happened in the past 100 years meant that almost everyone (in the west at least, and in a lot of developing nations too) has the access to transport, clean water, electricity, information/communications etc.
And because everyone has it, people such as yourself see it as a baseline, and forget that it is benefits being received that they didnt invest in personally. This is what the tide that lift all boats are - and because everybody is lifted, those who complain about lack of the trickle down sees the high-flyers benefiting enormously while their own benefits aren't "visible".
I think its more complicated. Has life improved for everyone in the last 100 years? Absolutely. Has life improved for everyone in the last 20 years? Debatable. Baseline needs like housing has only gotten worse. Its easy to compare with 1925. Is it better than 1995, 2005 or 2015?
Thanks. That indeed is a more nuanced take on things. For many 'middle' class people the quality of life has actually worsened during the past 2 to3 decades in most 'developed' nations.
While purchasing power of goods has gone up dramatically, the growth in house prices have far outstripped wage growth in the last 50 years. Since housing is people’s largest expense, people don’t feel better off even if they can afford nicer gadgets or to go out to eat more.
For some (even many) measures, over a long period of centuries, on average, yes the world is probably going up. For other measures perhaps not. And at a small time frame very plausibly not.
Example: housing. Yes compared to 100 years ago the houses are almost certainly safer and better equipped. On the other hand, now I will likely never get to own one because cost of living is insane, and will be subject to financial stress for N years.
I don't think it's a valid argument to dismiss all criticism of modern life just because statistically I would've died at age 2 in 10000 BC.
>To the people at the top, the job market is a statistic. They can't feel empathy on an issue they're so disconnected from, so they just think it's not their problem, or there isn't much they can do about it.
Who are the "people at the top" you speak of? Are they just an amorphous blob of executives and politicians?
>Technological innovation is supposed to mean society can produce more with less work, so in theory everyone's lives could end up better off over time where we could all work less and get more, but in practice, I see more meaningless work created and wealth continues to consolidate at the top.
Yes, if you're willing to accept pre-industrial revolution levels of living standards, you can probably get away with hours of work per week with modern technology, but people want iPhones and 5G internet, so they can complain on HN.
> Who are the "people at the top" you speak of? Are they just an amorphous blob of executives and politicians?
I don't think you're asking a serious question.
What kind of answer would you accept? It's not like you're going to change your mind if they say that e.g. the Cyvorefrx family from Palm Beach is one of the people on the top, right?
Nor is this question an effecive rhetorical device to convince onlookers: they'll rightfully ignore it just like people ignord "Who are these Guantanamo Bay torturers you speak of? Are they just an amorphous blob of guards and soldiers?"
It's not a serious question because the preceding statement wasn't serious either. It's just a vague anti-elite statement.
At the very least, it's not the CEO's job to keep unemployment rate low. That's the job of politicians and central bankers. To blame unemployment on "people at the top" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how society is structured. To take your Guantanamo Bay example, it's like blaming it on terror on "the military industrial complex". Is it vaguely directionally correct? Yeah. Is it a cogent statement? No.
But CEOs do influence politicians and central bankers. Heck you have people like Elon openly trying to influence elections in many countries using his money and fame.
"The people richer than me" is typically the meaning here. You here this complaint often even from people in the top 1% of the richest country on earth.
> Technological innovation is supposed to mean society can produce more with less work, so in theory everyone's lives could end up better off over time where we could all work less and get more, but in practice, I see more meaningless work created and wealth continues to consolidate at the top.
I applaud this optimistic interpretation and wish it were true. Where I differ from your opinion is; "Technological innovation is supposed to mean society can produce more ..."
Unfortunately this is not the case, as technological advancement is usually driven by attempting to reduce costs. And labor is often the highest cost a company incurs.
