So many companies cut their workforce as much as 10-15% citing that those jobs can be fully automated by the use of AI but I am still waiting to see any meaningful price cuts of their products from the said companies, etc.

Otherwise this will mean that they are doing this just to increase their profit margins and please their shareholders and don’t care about their customers or workforce.

  • weeeeum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Nope. Worker productivity has increased many fold over the last 50 years, meaning each person can produce many times more goods.

    Wages have been stagnant and cost of living is through the roof, despite all of this increased efficiency, productivity, fewer workers and much cheaper operating costs.

    We’re fucked lol

    • alehc@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Genuine question. Why hasn’t free market forced the prices to drop? If company X makes Y twice as cheaply, it could drop its prices like 20% and having way more customers and way higher profits. Why hasn’t this ever happened?

      • weeeeum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Good question. I personally think it’s because of conglomerates and large companies. Nestle has so many brands that it’d be a full time job to avoid their products. They are unfathomably huge, and so are many other food companies. They know how to play ball with each other, people have to eat, and they will pay anything.

        Additionally supermarket chains likely play into it, same concept. Walmarts, targets etc killed off many small business and local grocery stores, they can also charge whatever they want. In fact the dollar store would go to tiny towns, compete and murder the local grocery with low prices, and monopolize the towns food needs with processed crap, these are called food deserts.

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Nestle has so many brands that it’d be a full time job to avoid their products.

          Not quite. I actually checked a couple years back and there was only 1 product that I bought from them: bagged Starbucks coffee. I just had to switch to a local coffee roaster to fix that.

          That being said, I tend to make the majority of my food from scratch, but that’s actually not that hard if you know what you’re doing. Plus I don’t eat snacks, which also helps.

  • azimir@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The core thing the rich left out when they invented “Trickle Down Economics” was that it’s not money that trickles down onto us.

    Same goes for efficiency or productivity improvements. Those haven’t done to the US workers since Nixon, and definitely not since Regan.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah economics is about “how do I maximize profit and never reduce prices.” Then they just lie about how supply and demand works or how productivity increases and mergers will help prices go down. Prices only ever go up.

    NO COMPANY WILL WILLINGLY GIVE UP MORE PROFIT.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      The way supply and demand works is the thing that forces companies to give up profit is a competing company willing to take a little less profit (and hence undercut prices).

      It doesn’t work if there’s no competition, or insufficient competition.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you were to follow Adam Smith to the letter, it will Eventually® get cheaper: lower production cost leads to increased supply, and unemployment leads to decreased demand. Both forcing the prices down.

    In practice, though, there are at least two problems with this reasoning:

    • The hand of the market has Parkinson’s. Sure, it might “eventually” put things in place, but before that the hand will keep shaking things up and down, while people still need to live.
    • Smithsonian supply and demand assumes an infinitely competitive free market. There’s none - and specially not in this current situation, where you got oligopolies everywhere, and plenty services+goods have huge natural costs of entry.

    In those situations I’d simply ditch Smith and look at Marx instead.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Capital. It’s the biggest and best for a reason.

        If that’s too daunting, read Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value, Price, and Profit. Both combined are far shorter than 1 volume of Capital.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Once the labor force is truly laid off en masses as AI gets better, then competition will force prices lower, dramatically reducing margin for profits. It’s the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, you just have to wait a few years for the full effects.

    10-15% cuts are nothing compared to what may come.