| ▲ | simianwords 8 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
how come productivity increase actually led to increase in quality in almost all cases? internet/digitasion for doctors for example. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | chris_money202 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think this is only true if the # of doctors available per patient stays the same. If productivity increases, you can have fewer doctors available while providing the same quality of care. So, quality doesn't necessarily increase in all cases. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ang_cire 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> how come productivity increase actually led to increase in quality in almost all cases? It doesn't, this is just plain false. Most productivity gains happen by cutting value-add complexity or material quality. See IKEA chairs versus Shaker ones, or lycra clothes versus silk. > internet/digitasion for doctors for example. I see the misconception. The internet was not created to serve productivity, it was a communication medium. That it can be used to increase productivity is orthogonal to its existence or purpose, and whether it has been used to actually increase quality of something is entirely dependent of the specifics of what you're discussing. For instance, in gaming right now there's a huge discussion going on about whether digital distribution has actually trapped us with crappier goods which we can't resell or transfer. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||