this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
294 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

6599 readers
336 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In 1987, economist and Nobel laureate Robert Solow made a stark observation about the stalling evolution of the Information Age: Following the advent of transistors, microprocessors, integrated circuits, and memory chips of the 1960s, economists and companies expected these new technologies to disrupt workplaces and result in a surge of productivity. Instead, productivity growth slowed, dropping from 2.9% from 1948 to 1973, to 1.1% after 1973.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 14 hours ago

Speaking of unearthing an old tradition, history sure seems to suggest that a guillotine works marvels at changing one's tune rather quickly, one way or the other.

[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

No impact on employment? People have been getting laid off and people in college can't get their first job out of college in their field. tf are you on about?

[–] Juice@midwest.social 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Wow machines don't create new value, where have I heard this before?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 8 points 1 day ago

But it did give them an excuse to fire people and keep wages lower.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 89 points 1 day ago (2 children)

a paradox from 40 years ago

In 1987

Oh god I'm old

The year 2050 is closer to today than the year 2000

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago

the 80s was 25 years ago paradox

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Economists: "We can't be wrong. The results are obviously a paradox. Yeah, that's the answer."

I guess it takes years of study and experience to just double down over and over again instead of admitting the "miracle" tech you're hyping accomplishes a fraction of what you're trying to make it do. Very illuminating to us plebs that wouldn't know better.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That’s reductive. I’m no economist but it goes like this: there are models that predicts the effects of certain industry changes. The invention of certain technologies at a certain time had effects that didn’t match the prediction and they don’t know why. Someday somebody will figure it out and the model will be better. In the mean time, the model continues to work just fine with other stuff.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The invention of certain technologies at a certain time had effects that didn’t match the prediction and they don’t know why. Someday somebody will figure it out and the model will be better.

Also known as "being wrong". Being wrong is fine. It's great even. It means that there's more to discover and improve. Calling it a "paradox" is a pathetic, self-serving attempt to save face when presented with evidence that makes them look bad. Instead of saying "We don't know, but we're working on it," they pass it off as unsolvable.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Paradox was a word chosen by the journalist for clicks.

Not knowing enough is not the same as being wrong. They are different things.

You’re angry at journalism, not social science.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe. Until they start calling this out for the farce it is, I'm gonna blame them as much as the journalists pushing the hype.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

You'd be helped by learning something about social science rather than rail against it ignorantly. You could then make constructive critiques to improve everything.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago

I'm angry at social science. Just not about this specifically.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yet wages stagnate while profits rise. Productivity is being generated somewhere.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It is enshittification and state intervention. Also theres like 8 different kinds of productivity, but as leftists i believe we are most concerned with the productivity of living labor.

Like the other commenter said, its theft.

Corporations are locked in a death spiral of declining rate of profit.

  1. Covid made workers more productive by letting them work at home, which allowed us to regenerate our energies and take care of things in our lives, rather than obsessing over and shopping for new outfits and spending an hour in the car every day commuting.

  2. Covid killed so many people, particularly older people, that it reduced the unemployed population by 12-15%. Lower unemployment is deeply connected to higher wages, as is higher unemployment to lower wages. Many workers were able to get promotions or find better jobs/leave dead end industries. This raised wages while productivity increased further. (This point is interesting given your name, Marx abandoned his formulation of the lumpen by the time he wrote Capital, but his analysis of the lumpen in the 18th Brumaire still has some relevant lessons.)

  3. Increase in wages leads to increases in prices. Not because the money supply has become tighter or because theres a significantly higher demand for eggs; but because businesses increase prices when wages increase. Despite the war in Ukraine causing some cost increases, at least 50% of inflation was driven by corporations arbitrarily increasing costs to goose their bottom line. Well, it isn't arbitrary. Capitalism compels corporations to compete with each other.

  4. Bosses didn't like their employees having a better standard of living (see note) so they ordered people back to work. Labor productivity returns to baseline.

  5. When political and economic pressures forced companies to stop raising prices, they started shrinking packages in order to cut costs and add value to their bottom line. Again, competition forces everyone to do this in different ways.

  6. When political and economic pressures forced companies to stop raising prices, the American business community elected Trump to do another tax break. DOGE gutted federal services and created the concrete basis for demolishing the USAmerican social and natural welfare state. This created a basis for reduced corporate taxes introduced in the Big Beautiful Bill, which will goose profitability in the short term.

  7. Long term, the plan is for Ai to replace workers; eliminating intellectual workers and forcing a more competitive market and/or higher qualification hurdles for decent paying tech jobs, and lowering wages across the whole sector. This is necessary because tech skills are going to be really valuable of the AI grift actually works, and we can't be paying workers the value of their labor. Over years it will increase unemployment as lower paying jobs are also automated away. That is, if AI actually works the way the grifters claim, which in my opinion is mathematically impossible.

However the economic effects of building all this tech infrastructure, like data centers and chip factories, will have varied impacts across various sectors. While there's lots of uncertainty in the economy, my experience with the 2007 financial crash was that all these housing construction companies and related services started going under about 6-12 months prior to the second, larger crash, that included all the big banks and insurance companies.

There's also an element of unemployment/reserve army related to people in prison. ICE raids drive down wages in industries that rely on immigrant labor; while putting stress on small farms to find workers. Small farms go under, get bought by big farmers and landlords, goosing the monopolization tendency of capitalism. And incarcerated people who are compelled to work are a part of the national productive apparatus, and drive down wages even further across all sectors.

Note from point 4, a quote from Karl Marx :

To the capitalist, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury

[–] Juice@midwest.social 2 points 23 hours ago

Exactly 666 words lol

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 16 points 1 day ago

Profits aren't always productivity-related. It's theft.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And yet the layoffs continue...

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 day ago

AI is a nice scape goat for justifying firings.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 21 points 1 day ago

Yet another thing that we saw happening in the 70s and 80s, even talked about it, and yet kept going full speed into the abyss.