The interesting thing here I’m struggling with is distinguishing between the intellectual work (aka to instruct, guide, or design, question. Which is commoditised by AI, or if not commoditised then diluted in terms of human input) vs the physical work (aka to do the doing. Which is commoditised by robotics). And we need to be considering both in how our society and communications function. Which I’m not sure we are… any place to go dig and consider on this Ryan?
This is the big question isn't it? I think a lot of people are trying to struggle with how to conceptualize labor in the age of AI. In some ways a similar problem was presented with the shift from industrial manufacturing to the information economy. Now we are further along that trajectory and having to deal with the elimination of human labor altogether. That's something that models of the labor process and how it fits with an understanding of capitalist production are trying to grapple with. I don't have any references off the top of my head but I'll take a look.
Yup. It seems to be the thing we need to wrap our heads around - I’m also wondering if part of this is that for the first time we also have to separate the a physical human into two different economic units. One who contributes to production (drives inventory values), and one who is just a consumption unit (drives cash flow) and potentially we have arrived at a situation where they are not necessarily linked as a single sum entity (both politically and monetarily). Does my head on a bit…
Yes I should have said that underpinning this whole system is the reliance on unpaid labor of women and caregivers who drive the social reproduction of the labor force. Great point.
I doubt that I can articulate this very well. But here it goes anyway...
Senator Elizabeth Warren in her prior life as an academic wrote a book with her daughter titled "The Two Income Trap."
Simply, care work creates much value when viewed obliquely. Think "system dynamics" instead of one dimension. The value accrues to the family and does have economic rewards although economic rewards are not the only rewards.
The gaps that arguably need to be closed are any assumptions that in modernity that gender norms control which spouse is a breadwinner. But, again, if the high paying STEM interests and the lower paying social worker interests fall along traditional lines in the family, then it would be smarter not to truncate the earnings potential in favor of a gender ideology espoused by academics.
For validation, see the Amish. They don't outsource care to an overt economic trade with a vendor. But to counter the criticism that the Amish adherence to traditional gender roles might be considered immoral, consider that without modern technology that certain traditional Amish gender roles appear to follow some practical considerations. I suspect their lifestyle, at least from an economic perspective, would be better classified as common sense partnership style labor division and less patriarchy.
A Good summary of the inherent contradictions of the 2 frameworks. Job sizing exercises in govt agencies i ve been involved with centre on valuing wages according to ‘responsibility level’ which usually reflect the size of the budget you manage. Skill in interpersonal relationships was not valued because the system did not even attempt to measure the skills and training involved.
Very nice article. Commodifying labor has made us pay the least to the most essential jobs (As COVID showed us which jobs can't be stopped) and the most to the least essential jobs.
And btw, I have a personal question I wanted to ask you, (about labor), that I left in your inbox. When you have time, please check it out.
Tax concepts are informative here. Income is taxed when it is recognized as opposed to realized. While Marxists may have a point that labor creates value, I suggest that it only creates "realized" value that will only be recognized when the "aggregate" transaction closes.
Tax is practice. Economic theory is...theory.
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they aren't."
For example: in the individual domain, labor may win while wages are being paid even though the capitalist that was paying labor's wages goes bust. Whatever value labor produced with the commodity did not overcome the cost of its creation. Labor did not bear that risk.
There are lines of business where capital is merely incidental. This has been known in practice (tax policy, again) for many decades. Yet the "theory" that there must either be equity owners (capitalists) or government owners (socialists) is still practiced even in these domains. Both forms of equity must be handsomely fed to the detriment of the check-writers.
Some contemporary economists are arguing that all equity capital has become (mostly) incidental and debt capital is (mostly) freely available as long as certain obvious conditions exist within developed economies. So, for check-writers to pay a price to amortize equity capital is foolish even though it happens. That goes for both capitalist equity capital or socialist equity capital.
I suggest that within capital incidental lines of business, all "equity" that does not remain with the check-writers should flow to a democratized (read: not a professional class) salesforce of individuals recruiting check-writers to the platform. Workers can capture their share if they show up for that. They will remain subject to what is being described as a pay-equity gap if they don't. The cost would be nominal compared to paying a cost to fund a professional sales force whose primary function is to get consumers to buy without asking the question "how are you going to f*ck me?" That takes talent! The load that would be taken by the democratized sales force would amount to simple "lubrication."
Therefore, capitalism, socialism, etc. appear to be interventions. Just as a pharmaceutical is a medical intervention.
Simple rule: Don't take the intervention if you are not sick.
Conclusion: There is a pay-equity issue because those suffering the short end of the stick are letting it exist.
The interesting thing here I’m struggling with is distinguishing between the intellectual work (aka to instruct, guide, or design, question. Which is commoditised by AI, or if not commoditised then diluted in terms of human input) vs the physical work (aka to do the doing. Which is commoditised by robotics). And we need to be considering both in how our society and communications function. Which I’m not sure we are… any place to go dig and consider on this Ryan?
This is the big question isn't it? I think a lot of people are trying to struggle with how to conceptualize labor in the age of AI. In some ways a similar problem was presented with the shift from industrial manufacturing to the information economy. Now we are further along that trajectory and having to deal with the elimination of human labor altogether. That's something that models of the labor process and how it fits with an understanding of capitalist production are trying to grapple with. I don't have any references off the top of my head but I'll take a look.
Yup. It seems to be the thing we need to wrap our heads around - I’m also wondering if part of this is that for the first time we also have to separate the a physical human into two different economic units. One who contributes to production (drives inventory values), and one who is just a consumption unit (drives cash flow) and potentially we have arrived at a situation where they are not necessarily linked as a single sum entity (both politically and monetarily). Does my head on a bit…
The market could not operate without the free labour of women
Care has little or no value in the labour market.
Yes I should have said that underpinning this whole system is the reliance on unpaid labor of women and caregivers who drive the social reproduction of the labor force. Great point.
I doubt that I can articulate this very well. But here it goes anyway...
Senator Elizabeth Warren in her prior life as an academic wrote a book with her daughter titled "The Two Income Trap."
Simply, care work creates much value when viewed obliquely. Think "system dynamics" instead of one dimension. The value accrues to the family and does have economic rewards although economic rewards are not the only rewards.
The gaps that arguably need to be closed are any assumptions that in modernity that gender norms control which spouse is a breadwinner. But, again, if the high paying STEM interests and the lower paying social worker interests fall along traditional lines in the family, then it would be smarter not to truncate the earnings potential in favor of a gender ideology espoused by academics.
For validation, see the Amish. They don't outsource care to an overt economic trade with a vendor. But to counter the criticism that the Amish adherence to traditional gender roles might be considered immoral, consider that without modern technology that certain traditional Amish gender roles appear to follow some practical considerations. I suspect their lifestyle, at least from an economic perspective, would be better classified as common sense partnership style labor division and less patriarchy.
Hi 'Simp'! Yeah, I thought Covid showed us which roles/jobs are the most valuable people to society. Wasn't investment or merchant bankers.....
Whoops: edit out 'people' after 'valuable'
A Good summary of the inherent contradictions of the 2 frameworks. Job sizing exercises in govt agencies i ve been involved with centre on valuing wages according to ‘responsibility level’ which usually reflect the size of the budget you manage. Skill in interpersonal relationships was not valued because the system did not even attempt to measure the skills and training involved.
Very nice article. Commodifying labor has made us pay the least to the most essential jobs (As COVID showed us which jobs can't be stopped) and the most to the least essential jobs.
And btw, I have a personal question I wanted to ask you, (about labor), that I left in your inbox. When you have time, please check it out.
Labour surely?
Tax concepts are informative here. Income is taxed when it is recognized as opposed to realized. While Marxists may have a point that labor creates value, I suggest that it only creates "realized" value that will only be recognized when the "aggregate" transaction closes.
Tax is practice. Economic theory is...theory.
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they aren't."
For example: in the individual domain, labor may win while wages are being paid even though the capitalist that was paying labor's wages goes bust. Whatever value labor produced with the commodity did not overcome the cost of its creation. Labor did not bear that risk.
There are lines of business where capital is merely incidental. This has been known in practice (tax policy, again) for many decades. Yet the "theory" that there must either be equity owners (capitalists) or government owners (socialists) is still practiced even in these domains. Both forms of equity must be handsomely fed to the detriment of the check-writers.
Some contemporary economists are arguing that all equity capital has become (mostly) incidental and debt capital is (mostly) freely available as long as certain obvious conditions exist within developed economies. So, for check-writers to pay a price to amortize equity capital is foolish even though it happens. That goes for both capitalist equity capital or socialist equity capital.
I suggest that within capital incidental lines of business, all "equity" that does not remain with the check-writers should flow to a democratized (read: not a professional class) salesforce of individuals recruiting check-writers to the platform. Workers can capture their share if they show up for that. They will remain subject to what is being described as a pay-equity gap if they don't. The cost would be nominal compared to paying a cost to fund a professional sales force whose primary function is to get consumers to buy without asking the question "how are you going to f*ck me?" That takes talent! The load that would be taken by the democratized sales force would amount to simple "lubrication."
Therefore, capitalism, socialism, etc. appear to be interventions. Just as a pharmaceutical is a medical intervention.
Simple rule: Don't take the intervention if you are not sick.
Conclusion: There is a pay-equity issue because those suffering the short end of the stick are letting it exist.