If you go with what’s intuitively obvious (one would think), then yes, of course scarcity of labor forces the fruits of economic expansion across the population, simply because the industrialists were forced to pay more for the human engines of that expansion.

What’s not fully understood yet is how what happened in the 1800’s will map to the 2020’s. It seems obvious to me that pre-Industrial Revolution, an increase in demand led to an increase in wage which was more balanced across the population. The Industrial Revolution led to an aggregation of those engines of production into units (we call those units corporations) due to the capital needed to require the industrial machines; thus the profits started to aggregate at the top as well. The balance of profits remained RELATIVELY well balanced (not as well as before, but acceptably) though the industrial period, until we hit the automation period that started in the 1960s, exacerbated by the Information Revolution which took off in earnest in the 1980’s. This led to a further aggregation of profits at the upper management level, since it required fewer workers to produce the same units of production, and then globalization exacerbated the problems even further.

I don’t know where all this goes. What I do know is that any individual making a decision on what training to get (be it a trade, or be it a university) better pick one that requires physical hands on the customer, in order to be safe from automation and outsourcing. I don’t think we’re going to see robots fixing our plumbing anytime soon, but white collar jobs are on their way out.

Written by

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store