Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I may be wrong, but I think every job creates wealth overall (or it would not exist), and that software engineering has been making some jobs more efficient and others not necessary, and then the wealth which formerly had to be employed where those jobs were inefficient, or had to exist at all, is then employed elsewhere.

If you are the person who lost their job, you get all the downside.

Overall, over the whole of the economy, the entire population, and a reasonable period of time, this increasing efficiency is a core driver of the annual overall increase in wealth we know as economic growth.

When an economy is growing, there is in general demand for workers, and so pay and conditions are encouraged; when an economy is shrinking, there is less demand than supply, and pay and conditions are discouraged.



> Overall, over the whole of the economy, the entire population, and a reasonable period of time, this increasing efficiency is a core driver of the annual overall increase in wealth we know as economic growth.

This is only true while wealth inequality is decreasing, which it is not.


> This is only true while wealth inequality is decreasing, which it is not.

If everyone is becoming better off, but at different rates such that there is increase in inequality, then everyone experiences economic growth.

Thought experiment.

We have two people, one with 1000 wealth one with 100.

We have 10% growth per year.

So we see;

1000 -> 1100 -> 1210 -> 1331 100 -> 110 -> 121 -> 133.1

Difference in wealth;

900 -> 990 -> 1089 -> 1198

The ratio of wealth remains 10:1, but the absolute difference becomes larger and larger.

I do not know, and I would like to know, how numbers for wealth inequality are being computed.


Do you see in your example that the working class becomes exponentially more disadvantaged over time? Both in relative and absolute terms.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: