zlacker

>>vermon+(OP)
This is something that I've always found odd about how the actual value in the economy is tracked. Specifically, how the stock markets continue to rise despite the decline in productivity. If I was told as a shareholder or private owner of a company, that an hour of labor and inputs are making me mess than I was making 20 years ago I would be upset but that doesn't seem to be reflected in the volumes and prices of the stock markets themselves. Why is this case? Is there something I'm missing?

All in all, I hope someone or some firms figure out how to break through the hurdle to automation in industries where it would matter like healthcare. It would be the first step to correct the economy in my opinion.

>>norea-+n8
> Why is this case? Is there something I'm missing?

Labor is a market. It's segmented geographically and by industry, but you can think of it as a single market.

You might be 500% percent as productive as a person with your same abilities was 20 years ago, but so is everyone else. So you're contributing five times as much to your employer's bottom line, but since he's in a demand-constrained market (post-scarcity, pretty much everyone is), he doesn't need 500% percent productivity.

So he hires fewer workers. So the demand for workers goes down. So your skills are worth less.

This trend is going to continue until you have (hyperbole) a single person hitting a single button periodically as the sole employed person in the market. What happens to everyone else? No one knows.

>>debacl+hk
> (hyperbole) a single person hitting a single button periodically as the sole employed person in the market. What happens to everyone else? No one knows.

Well, the owners would be the ones calling the shots to the intelligence systems.

I would gather that the country would look similar as Marshall Brain's Manna. Although, I'd take out the nicer parts about the "Australia Project".