Do we really need jobs?

[Tani Coyote]

How is the government going to support a majority of the population on welfare? Is it just going to be printed?

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.

 

[azzaman333]

We don't necessarily need jobs, but we do need to be stimulated.

 

[Verbose]

How is the government going to support a majority of the population on welfare? Is it just going to be printed?

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

 

[Hehehe]

I have given this matter quite some thought since in I will be the one building the robots in the future.

First of all, it is clear that robots reduce employment as less people are needed to build and maintain them than they replace. However, the total wealth of nations (the actual goods produced) stays the same or even increases, so there is plenty to go around. The problem is getting the "corporate fat cats" to cough up the money (that sounds such a hippie thing to say, I know)

One idea is to try to create more jobs by educating people to build and maintain these systems and build more of them. The problem with this approach is that not everyone can be employed this way, and it requires starting capital to build factories. Also whatever they produce is going to increase supply and thus undermine profits (possibly making whatever they're doing unprofitable). Also one could try to create new jobs in the service industry.

The second option, providing sufficient standard of living for the unemployed, also has it's problems. It costs, and the taxes for corporate fat cats can't be raised indefinitely (it'll hurt the manufacturing industry), and it would obviously be better to have these people doing something. Worst case scenario is that it would create a new permanent class of unemployed poor people (which, I admit, is kinda like what we have now)

The solution will probably be a combination of the two. So, I suppose what it comes down to is fair and efficient redistribution of wealth. Luckily, Finland is in an excellent position it this matter: free quality education for the masses and good welfare benefits for the unemployed.

PS. I suppose my text is more of a collection of ideas rather than a coherent essay, but essay requires too much time

 

[Gustave5436]

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

There's also things like digging and filling in holes, or creating a vast, over-funded police state. That second option is particularly likely, imo. Nineteen-eighty four is a brilliant example of a long-term sustainable form of capitalism. It avoids the problem of technologically rendering class oppression obsolete by deliberately creating a state of total stagnation. No social change, no problem; at least, from the antisocial point of view of the oppressors.

 

[crabapple]

This is one of the reasons we need to start job sharing ( shorter work day for all, more jobs for more people)

 

[Cutlass]

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

What do you think Congress has been doing this whole year? All of this "deficit reduction" crap has been about preserving welfare for the wealthy by eliminating welfare for the needy. You keep unemployment permanently high, and eventually the unemployment benefits won't get renewed. And food stamps will be cut. And all the other programs as well. You cannot make the size cuts they are talking about without gutting social spending. And that's welfare. They won't cut corporate subsidies, because that would "cost jobs." They won't raise taxes on the rich, because that would "cost jobs". The only alternative left is to make the poor poorer.

 

[GoodGame]

I thought the article was actually a decent analysis, but I'd say it gave into political ideology in the end.

Good points made:

1. Technology increases productivity or decreases costs, resulting in decreased manpower demands.

2. The main humane response to this is to increase education levels of the workforce (in effect promote people up the corporate ladder).

3. However #1 comes back to severely reduce the amount of re-positioning of the workforce up the corporate ladder. Again because no position in the corporate structure is really immune to automation. (CEO, are you afraid you may be replaced by software soon?)

The ultimate result:

We're living in an economy where productivity is no longer the goal, employment is. That's because, on a very fundamental level, we have pretty much everything we need. America is productive enough that it could probably shelter, feed, educate, and even provide health care for its entire population with just a fraction of us actually working.

This is a good point, but I think it is flawed to take this as a declaration of a "techno-socialism", the way the author reasons. I think that trend exists and may continue to grow some, but realistically the economy can continue to grow into new areas that didn't previously exist. The economy needs to grow by continuing to take risks on new discoveries, new technology, etc.. If the market stagnates, then intervention is needed, but that's not grounds for a new socialism.

I'd also disagree with the author's optimism about food production, etc... I'm skeptical that food production and population growth will continue. All we need is an energy (fossil fuels mainly) crash to cause a crash of everything else dependent (food, population, civilization,...).

 

[suiraclaw]

Shorter workdays for all is a much more obvious solution. I'd rather have everyone work a little bit, than have a few work a lot.

 

[downtown]

I don't think our rise in unemployed is coming primarily from automation. There are still jobs out there...I hired 42 people last month, and I found a new job myself (I was hiring blue collar guys without degrees), but in my country, we have a fairly substantial skills gap. That requires worker retraining.

I don't think we're going to robot ourselves into 20% unemployment. We might because our consumer market has shriveled up though.

 

[Kozmos]

If everyone worked for shorter hours, they'd have more hours to be productive in other ways or simply party. Though one gets tired of partying real soon, especially as you get older.

 

[Integral]

DT is correct.

(Wow, that was so much simpler than the 1500 word post I was writing on this.)

 

[Cutlass]

I'd rather you wrote the 1500 words.

 

[Integral]

I'd rather you wrote the 1500 words.

After class. A draft is sitting on my desktop, it isn't going anywhere.

 

[Tahuti]

If everyone worked for shorter hours, they'd have more hours to be productive in other ways or simply party. Though one gets tired of partying real soon, especially as you get older.

This is one of the reasons we need to start job sharing ( shorter work day for all, more jobs for more people)

Job sharing never works. It won't create extra jobs or anything. It only highers the costs for employers to hire workers, so if anything, it might actually lead to unemployment as well as inflation.

Often, there is enough work, the problem is that people usually aren't trained properly for the jobs that are available. Sticky wages aside, that's usually the main cause of persistent unemployment.

 

[amadeus]

It's OK, guys! We had The Recovery Plan!

 

[Leoreth]

How is the government going to support a majority of the population on welfare? Is it just going to be printed?

Printing money doesn't create wealth.

For the automation argument, can it really be such an issue? I mean, how many jobs that were recently lost actually came from the manufacturing sector?

The US were focusing on the service sector already, with one of the reasons being that it's automation-proof.

 

[Verbose]

There's also things like digging and filling in holes, or creating a vast, over-funded police state. That second option is particularly likely, imo. Nineteen-eighty four is a brilliant example of a long-term sustainable form of capitalism. It avoids the problem of technologically rendering class oppression obsolete by deliberately creating a state of total stagnation. No social change, no problem; at least, from the antisocial point of view of the oppressors.

Well, sure... If you have a completely incompetent government and rubbish political system.

Otherwise they might actually be employed to produce valuable services, like health care and education. There are things that might in fact improve life and provide society as whole with surplus means and opportunities to improve levels of education, innovation, technological and other development etc.

Somehow when Americans talk about "jobs" I always get the feeling they might be thinking about the automotive industry, or steelworks, which isn't what they will be working with in the future, if they're lucky.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, sure... If you have a completely incompetent government and rubbish political system.

Otherwise they might actually be employed to produce valuable services, like health care and education. There are things that might in fact improve life and provide society as whole with surplus means and opportunities to improve levels of education, innovation, technological and other development etc.

Somehow when Americans talk about "jobs" I always get the feeling they might be thinking about the automotive industry, or steelworks, which isn't what they will be working with in the future, if they're lucky.

Why " if they're lucky?" It is entirely possible for a high wage high regulation nation to be profitable in those industries. One of the main long term problems with the US economy is that the lowest quarter or so of socioeconomic backgrounds has a low probability of getting a decent education. And the middle is increasingly being squeezed on that as well. So what we need is high productivity jobs that do not require a lot of education. Because remedial education for 50million people isn't a very practical option.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

This guy doesn't have a clue about economics, although he occassionally says intelligent things that he seems to miss himself.

* 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.

* The more people are working, the more productive the economy. I'm sure everyone knows some people who have useless functions, but the overwhelming majority of workers are doing usefull work. The more productive the economy, the more propserous it is, and, generally, the more everyone benefits from that prosperity. (Though this benefit is not necessarily distributed equally.)

* It is going to be a long time before we are in a post-scarcity economy, as this oped suggests. Humans are still needed to perform most tasks that require survival of our civilization. Until you build an army of robots who could build anything from nanofabricators, and obviate humans from working, there will always be a need for employment.

* If we were truly in a post-scarcity economy, no one would care about recessions because we would all be living leisurely lives serviced by robots while exploring exotic places and mindstates.