Do we really need jobs?

[kramerfan86]

As I said this is not true but as there is no way to prove this absolute certainty in either case we shall simply have to continue the discussion without falling back on this particular part of the argument.

This is true, overall true unemployment/underemployment vs job available are relatively hard things to calculate. Maybe you are right and the rate could potentially be much lower or maybe more people are settling than you think, its really a difficult thing to know for sure.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Technology has not eliminated the need for labor. It has merely reduced the COST of labor. Someone still has to produce the very devices needed to save labor.

What about when the machines are advanced enough to replicate themselves?

It can happen. I'm not saying there'll be a cybernetic takeover, but chances are that with continued advances, they'll be able to even build all the other machines with minimal human input.

Pre-agriculture societies worked about 2-4 hours a day & the rest of their time is devoted to festivals & leisure. Working 8-hours a day at Walmart & then coming home to watch TV now that's lackluster!

I dunno. Life'd be boring back then. Festivals lose their appeal after a while.

I'd much rather have computers, television, books, movies, restaurants, etc. And if it comes on the back of a longer working day, so be it.

But the good news is technology will allow us to have that same short workday with plenty of leisure, but with opportunities vastly expanded. It's the reason why hunter-gatherer societies are called primitive communism vs. communism. There will be similarities, but a large difference because of the presence of modern technology.

 

[Disgustipated]

Most technology is not there. Robots still cannot "walk" worth a damn. So they can't even do the most menial human tasks- like shove mail through a slot.

Speaking of, what are all your thoughts on the post office crisis in the U.S.? I thought about making a new thread on it, but may as well use this one since it is a jobs problem should the post office fail.

I still feel the post office is important, and it's probably best not to let it fail. I'm not sure if we should rely completely on technology. Technology can easily be brought down by hackers in China and whatnot. I think its still important to have an old fashioned mail system. What they need to do is charge much higher rates for junk mail. I'm sick of junk mail advertisements. If they are losing money, then they should raise rates (including the price of a stamp unfortunately).

 

[Cutlass]

The Post Office has to change. But it does not have to go out of business. If Congress gives it more freedom of action, it can be solvent for the foreseeable future. It just needs to size and price to the current market.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Most technology is not there. Robots still cannot "walk" worth a damn. So they can't even do the most menial human tasks- like shove mail through a slot.

Not yet, but that's what our fair scientists are for.

Speaking of, what are all your thoughts on the post office crisis in the U.S.? I thought about making a new thread on it, but may as well use this one since it is a jobs problem should the post office fail.

One could say unemployment is necessary to progress - when cars came along, all those carriage drivers kind of were done for. When the telephone came, telegrams and telegraphs, too, went out of fashion. Computers and cell phones have taken this to the extreme - we often talk to people, even in our OWN HOMES, without seeing them.

Where there's demand, there will be supply. So long as people want old fashioned mail, the post office will survive. Not to make this about healthcare, but it's the same reason private insurance would survive even if it was more expensive than government insurance. It goes for anything, really.

More likely, they'll just force FedEx and whatnot out of business using their monopoly status, because the government is shortsighted and prefers to destroy rather than innovate.

I still feel the post office is important, and it's probably best not to let it fail. I'm not sure if we should rely completely on technology. Technology can easily be brought down by hackers in China and whatnot. I think its still important to have an old fashioned mail system. What they need to do is charge much higher rates for junk mail. I'm sick of junk mail advertisements. If they are losing money, then they should raise rates (including the price of a stamp unfortunately).

Raising prices on junk mail probably would be a start, though remember that it would make about as much sense as using cigarettes as a source of revenue - make the rate high enough and people will stop sending, or just find other sources, removing that revenue stream.

Though yes, you make a point for keeping the post office's traditional capabilities around. Technology is useful, but it has its own drawbacks, too. One being e-vulnerability.

The military should just make sure there's a traditional mail system set up between all major cities. That way, we can send messages even if the thing goes down. If I recall, we COULD use radios to send messages if necessary. So, it doesn't bode well for the post.

 

[GoodGame]

Well, that's the whole point of making any analysis, isn't it? To obtain information in order to make better policy decisions? Those are always political.

Hmm... I suppose that is a fair take on it, although I still feel the OP is over-optimistic about the ability of society to maintain a high standard of production.

What does it mean to state "the economy grows"? What has been and is now supposed to be this "growth"? Is it technical improvement? Qualitative increases in production? Quantitative increases?
If you look carefully, the measures of "growth" do not really care about that. It's all abstracted as "net output" which corresponds to the claimed "value added" of the diverse sectors of an economy. The problem is: how much of that is a measure or real economic output of useful goods and services, and how much is the result of trading just of the sake of "growing the GDP" or making money?

Consider, for example, that comment by Paul Volcker about the so-called "innovation" of financial services, which was supposed to have made them so much more valuable to the economy: "Is that a reflection of your financial innovation, or just a reflection of what you’re paid?"

Any economy in the world has always been, in part, about gaming the system, whatever it was, instead of producing useful goods. But the real risk, now, of this escape towards imaginary property/virtual goods is that it will become the vast majority of the economy! Then "the economy" becomes only a mechanism of social control - for keeping people busy and obedient to some estabelished hierarchy.

I was thinking that the economy would develop brand new industries (good and services) through new technology and science, which is something I don't believe the OP considers. The OP emphasis is on technology streamlining production, displacing labor in the process, and not creating additional capital opportunities. Which basically I call BS on, which is what I meant by "economy growing". Basically, I'm optimistic that new sectors of the economy would form.

For instance, the internet (a new technology) bubbled when it tried to move all brick-and- mortar transactions online in the 1990s, but the internet still ended up creating new economic growth (e.g. Facebook, Youtube and other social media which is basically a entertainment/marketing/marketing research bonaza), not just the reduction of labor (e.g. the elimination of some brick and mortar stores by successful online retailers like Amazon.com).

The real added value of Facebook, Youtube, etc... might be arguable, but it is more than just pencil whipping the GDP.There are actual consumers of the service, and there are ways to draw some profit from providing the service.

Points taken that the economy is partly about "gaming the system" and not classical "bringing goods to market", but I don't think the OP was about that, and I wasn't suggesting it either. Those manipulations can exist regardless of technology, automation, etc.. My points were growing the economy through the real added value of new technologies.

Yeah, and on the long run we're all dead. So what?

Mostly my criticism is that there are material inputs that I'm not optimistic that human society will be able to maintain to sustain current population growth rates, or even current population levels. So I'm skeptical of some of the proposals (e.g. human right to food and other goods regardless of labor) made in the OP. Maybe the OP proposals could work at some level of technology and a decreased overall population level, but I'm skeptical that a smooth transition to such a socialism, at current pop growth rates. The OP can say that we have record production of food this year, but if it is uncertain how much longer that is sustainable, therefore the conclusions of "lets move to socialistic technocracy" do not compute to me.

 

[GoodGame]

How so? What could lead you to believe we are dismantling our welfare state?

Since the 1990s when the Repubs pushed then President Clinton to do such.

Wikipedia under "Welfare"

Spoiler :

In 1996, under the Bill Clinton administration, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which gave control of the welfare system back to the states. Because welfare is no longer under the control of the federal government, there are basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. Still, most states offer basic assistance, such as health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[20] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[24] Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[23] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[20][23][25] The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care.[25] The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.[23]

Following these changes, millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[25] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[20] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[25] The reforms were "widely applauded"[26] after "bitter protest."[20] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."[27] However, critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls during the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, was due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient. The late 1990s were also considered an unusually strong economic time, and critics voiced their concern about what would happen in an economic downturn.[20]

 

[Narz]

I dunno. Life'd be boring back then. Festivals lose their appeal after a while.

I'd much rather have computers, television, books, movies, restaurants, etc. And if it comes on the back of a longer working day, so be it.

I dunno, I've watched a lot of episodes of Tribe & in general the people seem fairly happy. TV, books, movies & restaurants are mostly trying to make up for the social stimulation now missing in everyday life. A large part of the Internet is this too.

But the good news is technology will allow us to have that same short workday with plenty of leisure

But people have been saying this for decades now, maybe centuries.

 

[Verbose]

As I said this is not true but as there is no way to prove this absolute certainty in either case we shall simply have to continue the discussion without falling back on this particular part of the argument.

As far as I can tell, your position about all this at its root seems to be that "jobs" are simply a matter of people working. OK.

Trying to approach this from another angle: If so, there isn't really a "labour market", is there? The mechanisms of supply and demand don't really apply?

Would be willing to comment on how you view the assertion that this, after all, is a "market", and if so the applicability of the mechanism of supply and demand?

Becuase the other side seems to simply be saying "the demand is too low, and the supply is too high right now". Especially since our labour markets are based on the premise that the supply should always be at last a little higher than the demand, meaning employers have a choice. Today they have more choice than in a loong time however.

(That generally "employable" people in the market like yourself, with the right kinds of skills, can have a choice of the jobs around doesn't really change that.)

 

[NYHunter]

I don't have the source for this but I have read articles explaining that the postal service has actually not had a huge reduction in the amount of mail it handles because while the sending of mail such as personal letters has dropped it was made up for in the increase amount of shipments it handles due to the growth of online shopping. Which pulls in more revenue than letters do do.

As for the actual topic at hand. Yes we do need jobs. Maybe we can support more unemployed than we used to, but we do indeed need jobs. I generally have a very libertarian approach to the economy and fiscal policy. But a national jobs program, that would provide a minimum wage part time community based job to anyone 18+ willing to work sounds like a good idea. The goal would be to build up experience and eventually transfer enrollees to private sector work.

 

[Tani Coyote]

TV, books, movies & restaurants are mostly trying to make up for the social stimulation now missing in everyday life. A large part of the Internet is this too.

Does it matter that we do things differently, and, arguably, more efficiently?

Really, I don't see a problem except maybe rising obesity rates from the sedentary lifestyle.

But people have been saying this for decades now, maybe centuries.

How is this relevant? Things take time.

If a caveman said one day we'd have planes, sure, he'd be considered crazy by his time, but he'd have the last laugh from beyond the grave, now wouldn't he?

Progress' march - technologically, socially, economically, politically - has had trips and falls, but overall, has continued steady all throughout our thousands of years. It is irrelevant how long it takes, unless one is entirely focused on one's lifetime.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Even if we don't need jobs for our economy, we'd still need them for sociological reasons so that people feel like they contribute to society.
A society with a bored populace with too much downtime and a lack of discipline, self respect and a sense of purpose will not end well.

 

[Disgustipated]

A society with a bored populace with too much downtime and a lack of discipline, self respect and a sense of purpose will not end well.

This is my concern as well. While we would all like a perfect Star Trek: TNG society, I can't see it happening. In that society people only work to better themselves, but they don't actually have to work (from my impressions of the show). Most people would not work given the chance. But I fear we'd have a problem we face in the poor areas of the U.S. today with the welfare state. Kids with too much time on their hands will get into trouble. They will feel society owes them something, so they will take it.

The "projects" I described in the OP would most likely be a horrible crime area. It's something I didn't mention in the OP. But I figure it's better than letting them all be homeless. The only solution to that would be to give them $30,000 a year in addition to free housing. But that almost feels like we are paying them to not be violent. It's almost like reverse extortion.

 

[REDY]

Theme

 

[Narz]

Does it matter that we do things differently, and, arguably, more efficiently?

Really, I don't see a problem except maybe rising obesity rates from the sedentary lifestyle.

Meh, to each their own. I think there are a lot of problems with modern society. A lot of advantages too but the latter doesn't necessarily cancel out the former.

How is this relevant?

It's relevant because it hasn't happened & doesn't appear to be happening. People have talked since recorded history about technology making our lives more leisurely but people are as stressed as ever.

Things take time.

If a caveman said one day we'd have planes, sure, he'd be considered crazy by his time, but he'd have the last laugh from beyond the grave, now wouldn't he?

Progress' march - technologically, socially, economically, politically - has had trips and falls, but overall, has continued steady all throughout our thousands of years. It is irrelevant how long it takes, unless one is entirely focused on one's lifetime.

You could use that argument to say eventually anything will exist : time machines, mind-reading devices, immortality serum, the ability to morph into floor tiles like the T-1000, anything.

 

[jtb1127]

For a long time, profits will still be collected even as workers are laid off. We will merely have to raise taxes on the wealthy with each new innovation. Really, the wealthy pay for the masses either way - either by hiring them or via welfare.

Eventually, the wealthy are phased out entirely as everything becomes automated. They only have their accumulated wealth and no further income, as no one but the other wealthy is collecting income to spend. The economic model as we know it collapses...

...and in all likelihood, the wealthy lose most of that wealth to mass action, as the masses aren't content with eating dirt while those at the top have so much more for no reason at all.

What happens when the wealthy become unemployed?

Typically it employs people, and not just in the armed services.

The government can employ the majority of our our population?

Printing money doesn't create wealth.

Really? It doesn't? I always thought the government could just print money and give it to people and stuff.

Spoiler :

 

[Disgustipated]

Theme

well that was just weird. I don't know what to say about that.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What about when the machines are advanced enough to replicate themselves?

Exactly, what about it? That's speculation of the future, not the present. For the present, that doesn't exist, so labor still requires humans.

 

[brennan]

The idea that people are not getting jobs because they are not willing to settle for less is entirely disingenuous. What happens if you apply for a job you are overqualified for is that they don't even interview you because they get plenty of applications from people with the right qualifications/experience and they do not assume that these people will leave in a few months when they find something better.

It is an employers market right now and recruiters are so deluged with applications that they are looking for the slightest excuse to turn applicants down. Having done a higher paid or more responsible job before is an indication that you do not want this job. So they won't give it to you.

If every vacancy in the UK was filled overnight, unemployment in the UK would still be well over 2 million. It really is not as simple as 'go and get a job' - if it was that easy then my job wouldn't exist!

Someone posted recently that theoretically there are eough jobs for everyone. In reality for several decades now the level of employment has fallen to not much more than half of the labour force in the UK, millions are unemployed and ten times more are in education, economically inactive for various reasons or just doing part time work. I daresay most well developed countries are in the same situation.

In my opinion the OP is spot on and we need to revise our expectations of how work is done. Increasing the number of jobs by decreasing the length of the working week is an idea i've mooted before.

 

[Tahuti]

The idea that people are not getting jobs because they are not willing to settle for less is entirely disingenuous. What happens if you apply for a job you are overqualified for is that they don't even interview you because they get plenty of applications from people with the right qualifications/experience and they do not assume that these people will leave in a few months when they find something better.

Considering this, policy makers may want to try changing labor regulations so job-hop preventions like the example you have given will cease being lucrative.