I don't know...how much of the increase of productivity is a result of the workers themselves intrinsically increasing their productivity, versus some outside party increasing it through research and capital investment?

Let's say I own a lawn care business, and you gladly accept work raking lawns for $10/hr@8 hr days, and you can rake 2 acres per day(or, $40 per acre). If I decide to plunk down a bunch of money and buy a turbine leaf blower, and you can now do the same job on 6 acres per day, except using the leaf blower for 6 acres is much less physically exhausting than raking 2 acres of leaves, how much money should I as the business owner owe to you for my own investment into increasing your productivity?

Capital is usually what makes human labor more productive; we aren't getting smarter, faster, or stronger.

For example, if you work in IT you benefit from massive capital investments that researched, developed, and deployed every bit of technology you use, from 18th century research on electricity (and probably earlier research) to every component in your PC to C to the Internet to AI, to the technology used in the global supply chain that makes it all (to much, much more) ... Should you be paid as if you were utilizing no capital, and you were working in a cave by firelight with carbonized wood on the wall?

Almost all of anyone's productivity, I expect, is due to capital investment that they didn't make.

Yet the benefits primarily go to the rich, who also didn't make that capital investment

When viewed through the eyes of capitalism , the answer is 0.

When viewed through the eyes of the jewish religion for example, which says you need to give 1/7 or 1/10 of your income to the poor. So this number is now 3x.

It all depends on what moral system you view things through, and a moral system that encourage sharing of wealth seems like a good thing.

Out of curiosity, how much do you the business owner believe you owe your worker for walking and carrying a leaf blower an additional 4 acres per day?

That was covered in the part where I talked about it being overall less physically demanding than manual raking

Yes, sort of. When someone gets workers comp, they get a reduced salary.. and that injury may also reduce their ability to work in the future.

So by reducing injuries, those employees receive higher pay (because they get their normal salary instead of the lesser workers comp pay), and they are able to work more years.

So in other words, no. No to the direct question asked, however, you do have some good points.

> they are able to work more years

It's clever actually, taking attention from the question which was (total pay / time worked) to (pay rate * time worked). Most wouldn't notice, I'm sure, and it makes things look favourable - especially since your question was about the average worker, not the injured worker, i.e. the exceptional one.

That is not higher pay, which is generally considered a rate($X/hrs workes). They are simply working more in your scenario

It is higher pay to any worker that would have been injured without it. Once they reach that point in time when an injury would have occurred, they are then receiving more pay than they would have if the injury occurred.

We shouldn't stop the comparison of pay at the moment a person is injured. These are people, they don't stop existing the moment they aren't useful to a company. And an injury does effectively reduce their pay by preventing them from working, or forcing them to change careers.

This is a safety device, and no productivity improvements have been shown yet. So you wouldn't expect an outright increase in hourly wages. But an increase in working years without injury is a benefit to workers, and does increase their lifetime earnings.

That’s fucked up: “You weren’t completely maimed, so you get to make your regular crap wage instead of making even less while also rotting in a wheel chair.” Like, are you joking or do you really think that “not being disabled” counts as an increase in pay? It is Ford’s job to make sure no one gets hurt. Period. That it happens less is not some kind of reward or pay bump.

The regular wages being too low high are a completely different topic. If you think they are too low then just get a different job.

If you think the wage is fair then you will appreciate the lower fatigue and reduced risk of injuries.

The risk is already priced in the insurance so by reducing risk you effectively increase the income spent on insurance.

Ford assembly workers don't make crap wages.

but they do get injured. And these workers are at quite a risk of being injured, which will reduce their pay and shorten their working life.. reducing their lifetime earnings. That's the reality of working in manufacturing today. To pretend otherwise is a fantasy.

So a device that reduces injuries, will enable them to work more years, and increase their lifetime earnings.

The downvotes are ill-informed, maybe its the tone. Yes more productivity should decrease labor demand ATBE, but labor economics literature typically emphasizes that standards of living can only increase in the long run if productivity increases. That implies real income gains generally.

But that discussion is irrelevant to this article — the point is that exoskeletons are cool.

We would expect the opposite to happen, no?

oe would think that, more productivity here for the same or lower pay of what will most likely happen

More productivity per man hour means less man hours needed. This actually lowers demand for labor.

E: lowers the price. Supply increases, demand stays the same.

We have 250 years of data from fast productivity increases since the industrial revolution started.

The empirical experience is very clearly the opposite!

I'm talking about the exact job in isolation. Obviously other opportunities arise and people will find work.

Looking to the past, we can look at how industrialization has greatly reduced the amount of human labor in agriculture.

What do they call it when a market increases demand for a resource in response to increased efficiency of exploitation?

Jevan's Paradox

So will the workers get shorter days, or more paid time off? :)

Presumably some would have full time off.

they haven't for the past two decades, can't imagine why they would start now

They're UAW. They're more than adequately compensated.

Should employees get paycuts if inflation spikes?

They effectively are, aren't they? They get paid the same but it buys less stuff.

Maybe inflation was a bad example, but my point is that expecting all productivity gains to translate into pay raises is ridiculous. To start with, the exoskeleton is a huge capital expense, which the employee is not paying.

To avoid redundancy:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15668017

A business is built on all of the technology and knowledge available in the world, and exists to add value to society. An employee doesn’t deserve some sort of “productivity benefit” because they are utilizing the same technologies as everyone else.

If you want profit in excess of what the market will pay for your skills then you need to take risk yourself - start a business and make as much profit (or loss) as you are capable of.

There is a section of society that advocates for making laws that artificially pay people more than they are worth by forcing business owners to pay above market wages. This will make employees artificially more expensive and encourage alternative mechanisms to reduce labor costs (automation / outsourcing).

In the best situation, there would be no minimum wage. Society could choose to top-up wages with whatever benefit they want (basic income perhaps) and let the market freely determine wages. The more you warp the free market, the more unintended consequences you have.

A few thoughts:

I understand the theories, but the real world doesn't operate that way; the market isn't free. Income depends to a significant degree on the ability to write the rules of the marketplace and labor law in your favor, and the resources to utilize those rules and laws (e.g., money and lawyers); workers don't have such influence and resources. Consider Uber and its non-employee employees, for example. It also depends to a great degree on who you know and who your parents were.

Also, I'll point out that a backup offensive lineman in the NFL, junior attorneys and investment bankers in NY, and many similarly situated people in Silicon Valley make more than the U.S. military officer in command of the entire Asia-Pacific region, many Nobel Prize winners, many doctors saving lives right now, not to mention social workers, teachers, diplomats, almost all scientists in academia, etc.

People are paid based on supply and demand for whatever they offer (with supply and demand being determined by everything I discussed above).

Starting a business isn't the only way to participate or take risks in the market. You also can try to sell your skills to another employer.

You will never make above what the market will offer for your skills. To make money in excess of what you can earn for your skills, you must have equity in the entity. Switching jobs is getting more for your skills, but is still participating in the market for labor.

Working for the government - say as a soldier or social worker - doesn’t mean you deserve more than an investment banker. Your choice was to work for that industry. Perceived impact on society does not translate into wealth. Free markets determine pricing. A soldier earns whatever a politician says he or she does.

Any employee of Uber can leave at any time. No one is forcing them into that economic situation. Plenty of examples of people who grow up poor become rich despite not having well connected parents.

What changes to the system are you advocating for exactly?

So will the workers be getting raises for the increase in productivity? ....now that would just make too much sense wouldnt it?