▲ 126 points
back
138 comments
The central premise of this post is basically not true: working conditions and wages have pretty consistently improved over the past 200 years. The cases where it didn't were generally offset by the rest of society benefiting from increased automation and productivity. Where the current revolution will lead remains unclear, but if the past is any indication things will probably continue to improve for most people.
> pretty consistently improved
I can accept the premise that condiitions have improved, but not that it was consistent. It seems to me that it was anything but; more like extremely spiky. great depression, postwar economic miracle. Massive labor movements rose and fell, general strikes... Plus most countries have had several wars + revolutions in the last 200 years, including two world wars. Not all of those are to do with technology, but I also dont think technology wasnt indirectly responsible for the conditions that created some of them
The problem with these discussions is that it’s hard to control for the horrendously lower living standards of pre-industrial life where things like antibiotics and flushing toilets weren’t around.
Certainly, many people still lack access to those things. But also, the median person essentially lives better than the monarchs did 400 years ago when it comes to some of the more important things in life.
Sometimes, whether or not your power distance from your employer is high is less relevant than all the other important stuff in your life.
not only inconsistent over time, but also inconsistently distributed over people. rich people got richer (at least lately) and the less rich didn't get much richer (if at all)
Such a good comment, I would also add how much our perception of technology lifting conditions is conflated with the increased ability of governments to steer the economy to smooth things over.
The US Department of Labor measures wages, and adjusted for inflation the hourly wage is below what it was in 1973. It is even lower if you are only counting non-management roles then and now. Wages have not gotten better over the past half century they have gotten worse.
Workers now work more hours pee year to try to catch up to what they made back then, so working conditions are worse now as well.
Can you provide datasets?
Show me on one of these graphs:
Income up after inflation:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0252881600A
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Hours down:
> The US Department of Labor measures wages, and adjusted for inflation the hourly wage is below what it was in 1973.
This is just blatantly untrue according to your source.
Hourly wages have been consistently growing since the 90s, after the big retraction in the 70s/80s. They exceeded 1973 in 2019 and are higher now.
This corresponds with the increasing share of the economy consumed by the government.
> the hourly wage
This is a misleading statistic. The actual statistic is "total employee compensation", which includes the benefits packages, the (so-called) employer contribution to SS, 401k employer contributions, etc.
The TEC is often worth up to 150% of the wages.
I think you're conflating productivity growth with distribution. Technology increased wealth, but whether workers shared in those gains depended heavily on bargaining power and institutions.
Everything changed with floating currency. Inflation became a tool for centralization of ownership.
You're missing the trees for the forest. The Industrial Revolution was terrible for the people who were working during it. Their jobs got eliminated and they only sorta sometimes were able to retrain for the new jobs, and the working conditions in those new jobs were atrocious, exactly because they were new enough that we didn't yet have safety regulations for them.
It was only their children who eventually saw any improvement in working/living conditions, and it was only because of all the absolutely awful things that happened to their parents. Safety regulations are written in blood. It only looks like consistent improvement if you zoom out to a level that obscures intra-generation experiences. At the level of the actual human beings subjected to the turbulence, it was awful.
I’ve seen a similar thing with globalization. Macro scale, it’s great. Much number go up.
Zoom in, though, and it also impoverished my hometown and many others like it. A whole generation saw their job prospects gutted, and had no realistic options for a career shift because it’s really hard to get an entry level position when you’re middle aged; doubly so when there’s a glut of middle aged people looking for jobs.
And waving away the pain those people experience with an appeal to large scale, intergenerational, historical trends is simply heartless.
Awful compared to what though? To our modern perspectives yes, but for subsistence farmers working in the fields 16 hours a day and rarely far away from starvation, life in a factory might not seem so bad. After all, wages were far worse before the factories and wage growth was almost non-existent.
Exactly. Workplaces became safer and more equitable to the laborers despite technological advances, not because of them.
Although that's true, is 200 years ago really the baseline we want to use for judging working conditions?
Two hundred years ago meant widespread child labor, harsh factory conditions, little worker protection, and slavery or serfdom. Add to it the onset of Industrial Revolution.
Modern studies indicate people in the dark ages worked 6 hours a day: Ironically a better baseline!
I don't believe that "6 hours a day" is an answer any historian would give when asked how much workers in any period in history worked.
There have been indications that there were approximately 150 days per year which were most active for medieval farmers, but if I had a time machine I wouldn't stay there very long if my desire was to experience good working conditions.
> working conditions and wages have pretty consistently improved over the past 200 years
Really depends on the group of people you are including. In the US the middle class has been eviscerated to the point where raising a family on a single income is not a realistic goal for most people.
>to the point where raising a family on a single income is not a realistic goal for most people.
Was this ever true? During the 1950s, (the perceived heyday of American middle class wealth) the female labor force participation rate was 35%[1], which was close half of the male labor force participation rate.
The reason the 'middle class' is smaller is because more families have become "upper middle class". All the data shows this.
You can argue that housing is too much or that inflation hasn't benefited the right things, but to say that the middle class is shrining just doesn't match reality.
> working conditions and wages have pretty consistently improved over the past 200 years
They've improved, but not consistently on human timescales.
Being a worker in the pre-labor-movement industrial revolution was by all accounts horrendous. Things have, so far, trended better over time but they can be bad for whole generations and also past results do not guarantee future results.
> The cases where it didn't were generally offset by the rest of society benefiting from increased automation and productivity.
I don't think we can sweep the worst parts of it under the rug because the bad impacts are only happening to "the poors". And anyway when it comes to the current tech revolution, it is likely that almost all of us are going to be "the poors".
> Being a worker in the pre-labor-movement industrial revolution was by all accounts horrendous.
Average height and life expectancy improved steadily in the US throughout the 19th century.
The pre-Revolutionary Americans tended to live short and backbreaking lives.
Take a tour through Fort Williams. There is a collection of clothing from the Revolutionary War. The baby clothes look like doll clothes, and the adult clothes look like they were for boys. Then look at the clothing in the Gettysburg museums. The people were taller then, but still about the size of boys.
2026 - 200 = 1826
Yeah no. It's only since 1950 that conditions improved for everyone. Before then everything from sewage, to coal smoke, to chronically low wages made life worse for everyone involved. The most miserable people to live in history were the British working class in the mid/late 19th century.
Labour conditions in the capitalist west 200 years ago were some of the worst in history, so it's easy to make yourself look good in comparison.
This feels wrong. Did the vacuum make cleaning worse for employees? What about sewing machines? Modern looms?
It is probably a safe case that most tech revolutions reduced the number of needed employees for most things. But even then, it would be great if this would provide evidence of that!
Notably, it isn't like people strongly missed this work! Yes, there are fewer secretaries. But there aren't none, and the ones that were responsible for being a scribe to bad bosses almost certainly don't miss that work.
The claim of the article is that expectations increase at a faster rate than the work becomes easier.
It probably feels that way to someone who got comfortable doing their job the old way wishes the world could go back to when they had it all comfortably figured out.
If this does happen, it’s a second order effect from reducing the barrier to entry. Now that anyone can make some code with enough prompts, it’s no longer impressive to be able to make simple apps. You have to bring something different and better to the table. Good developers still do this on top of what AI can do by itself, but I also think there were a lot of relatively easy programming jobs where you didn’t have to be particularly good at anything. You had to know how to follow the rules, get easy tickets from the tracker, make enough changes that you could call it done, and then go on through the dog and pony show of getting the PR approved and getting those story points to count for your standup report. Repeat 5 days per week.
Every mid-size and larger company I worked for had a collection of developers like this: Not really trustworthy or skilled enough to handle big tickets, but you could assign all the loose ends and easy tickets to them. They’d get done eventually while the other devs could focus on bigger efforts.
Now, it’s hard to justify having a lot of those easy ticket solver developers around. An experienced developer can take 10 easy tickets, use their codebase knowledge to write targeted prompts with Opus or Fable, quickly review the code, and have all the easy work done in an afternoon. Then back to the hard tickets.
If you were one of those developers coasting on the easy work, this revolution probably feels like it increased expectations unfairly. If you were one of those devs doing the hard work, you have another tool to use but you’re still grinding away at the hard problems with an extra tool to make some of the parts easier.
The introduction of mechanical looms (is this what you mean by "modern"?) was famously terrible for workers. Weaving went from a high-skill, safe task to a dangerous, low-skill one and was largely responsible for the rise of factories. The original Luddites were weavers.
for some lines of jobs the tooling progress might be objectively worth a lot, but then there's the less mechanical side of things, maybe teamwork, craft went down after power tools became common
something less positive i noticed, in offices, is that technology is not there to help you, management get sold something shiny to replace the old and dusty, the supplier assembles a bad team, implement crappy network, install new web stuff that is sluggish and requires new machines, and employees are left holding the bag. the new tech is often way more limited than the old junk (feature dropped, bad ergonomics for prolonged work, no more scripting options), the integrations are lacking, the people are not trained .. it's often a slow mess full of redundant steps and missed opportunities.
Labour saving devices do not save any labour for the employees, their workday is just as long.
This seems obviously wrong as there are many counter examples. Employees in Ford's plants for instance saw huge wage increases and an additional day off. Mining mechanization made mines far less deadly and greatly reduced the human exertion required. I'd much rather harvest corn in an air conditioned combine vs. with an ox.
Even during the early industrial revolution, notorious for poor working conditions, people overlook why there was such high demand for those shitty jobs. The reason is because people were literally starving in the countryside. A family's survival was dependent on a good harvest.
During the early industrial revolution people were not starving in the countryside because of poor harvests. They were starving in the countryside because the UK at that time siezed land that was previously held in common and granted it to the nobility through the enclosure acts. Now to survive as a peasant you could not subsist off of common land, you had to pay rent to a lord and work their land, and as agricultural productivity increased through mechanization and improved farming techniques the lords only needed so many people to work. A subsistence farmer would become unable to afford rising rents, as they did not benefit from mechanization due to not having the capital to buy machines.
Becuase they would quit and work anywhere else after a few days.
In 1913 Ford had to hire over 52,000 workers just to maintain an active factory workforce of 14,000.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-stor...
> The reason is because people were literally starving in the countryside.
Because their land was stolen during enclosure.
> Employees in Ford's plants for instance saw huge wage increases and an additional day off
I think there was something else going on that might explain that.
Corey Doctorow talks about the role of technology in society as not pre-determined, and I think this is mostly right. Trends are not inevitable.
At the same time, technology makes it easier to do one thing or another. And I think that’s the right framing for new technologies like AI: what does it make it easier to do? (It might be easier to answer that question by teasing apart the different technologies lumped together as “AI”.)
idk I'm pretty glad to not be in the coal mines
A comment by Norbert Wiener on translation machines (published 1993 but written somewhat earlier in "Invention: The Care and Feeding of Ideas"):
"Thus the effect of the machine of this sort in intellectual work may be to decrease the number of first class brains needed but to increase, and greatly increase, the demands made on these brains."
This one is different. It makes the quality of consumption worse too.
This reminds me of watching JIRA go downhill over 10 years as it incorporated new technnology.
I used to be a scrum master who helped manage the team JIRA ticket board. When running into the inevitable problem during a meeting, I would sarcastically make a comment about "JIRA's monthly downgrade". By the time I stopped using JIRA in early 2025, it had become noticeably slower and had a bunch of UI clutter that made it difficult to do basic tasks.
I checked the homepage for Atlassian, which owns JIRA, and it has a headline saying: "Unleash your teams and their agents"
There was a time when life was much simpler. We would all walk a few miles down to the 'station then have breakfast and read the 'paper while the steam smoke hung thick in the air
Then we all had to move to cars. The fire man, stations, engineers, and conductors all lost their jobs, and the commute got 10 times more intense. Now we had to drive our own cars, follow road rules, maintain our cars, and find parking
Marx actually has a bit about this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm...
The most interesting point here is relating machine speed to intensity. Plenty of tech folks are both working longer hours and overseeing more responsibilities thanks to AI. There are other factors at play though (interest rates and AI-addiction, for two).
To a casual reader of this thread - look at comments, this is what ideology is.
I personally think a good balance between tech and employees was the late 1980s.
You still had to hire people to do work and tech was good enough to help them out. As tech advanced, people started trusting what the systems said even if blatantly wrong and people started loosing work.
Agent Smith was right when he was explaining The Matrix. Human civilization peaked in the 90's.
Correct
I'm sure forcing workers to use the chatbot that drives people to suicide is going to go great yeah.
I just tried to check if one of my 8BitDo controller buttons can be remapped to guide button and now I want to kill myself too. It’s hard for me to accept that this shit is taking peoples jobs.