Employment Obligation?

[luiz]

The problem is that nowadays, technology can render whole kinds of jobs obsolete while substituting them with more complex jobs most workers are unqualified to do.

Now, since this all short-term, this will not create permanent unemployment as the economy will adjust itself to the new reality. This time, the adjustment may be harder then ever. At one point, automatisation may put so many workers out of work on a short-term that automatisation itself may no longer financially interesting and businesses have to backpedal.

Alternatively, it may also be possible that there will be two economies acting in parallel though hardly having any interaction: One automatised economy and a manual one.

How is what is happening now any harder than than illiterate agricultural workers moving from the fields to cities to work in factories? It was very disruptive when it happened, much more than modern automation today, and still massive unemployment didn't result.

 

[Tahuti]

How is what is happening now any harder than than illiterate agricultural workers moving from the fields to cities to work in factories? It was very disruptive when it happened, much more than modern automation today, and still massive unemployment didn't result.

Because the massive short-term unemployment will lead to economic contraction and will force mankind to get used to new, lowered living-standards. Not necessarily a negative thing, though it will be uneasy for many.

 

[luiz]

Because the massive short-term unemployment will lead to economic contraction and will force mankind to get used to new, lowered living-standards. Not necessarily a negative thing, though it will be uneasy for many.

That won't happen. Automation today is not even at the fastest pace ever registered, the post-war has that distinction. And there was no contraction, quite the opposite. Automation leads to economic expansion.

 

[aelf]

Structural employment doesn't exist in the minds of free market fundamentalists. Too bad the minds of free market fundamentalists are smaller than reality.

 

[Borachio]

Wait. Don't you mean structural unemployment?

I'm not sure what structural employment is, tbh.

 

[luiz]

Structural employment doesn't exist in the minds of free market fundamentalists. Too bad the minds of free market fundamentalists are smaller than reality.

Yes let's get our economic advice from Marxists, after all their predictions all came true and the countries they ruled were models of progress.

If they read idiotic quacks like Zizek even better.

Aelf, you clearly know what you're talking about. I respect your economic input as much as I respect your philosophical input.

 

[Tahuti]

That won't happen. Automation today is not even at the fastest pace ever registered, the post-war has that distinction. And there was no contraction, quite the opposite. Automation leads to economic expansion.

The only one benefiting from the economic expansion would be the top 20% or so. If you remove them from the equation, things do not look as pretty.

Wait. Don't you mean structural unemployment?

I'm not sure what structural employment is, tbh.

Usually, structural unemployment is caused by a physical distance between employment opportunities and the unemployment. Most government assistance programmes are however not designed to the end of relocating workers, which is understandable. We need to think in terms of local economies once more.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree with Judge Judy, that employers have no obligation to provide employment.

But I also agree with Bakunin, that the worker has no obligation not to put the employer's head on a pike.

So you might say I'm something of a centrist.

 

[Borachio]

Usually, structural unemployment is caused by a physical distance between employment opportunities and the unemployment. Most government assistance programmes are however not designed to the end of relocating workers, which is understandable. We need to think in terms of local economies once more.

At the risk of seeming unnecessarily pedantic, it wasn't structural unemployment that I was asking about, but structural employment (incidentally almost certainly a typo on aelf's part - so this and my previous post are totally a waste of time; but never mind that - who comes on CFC to do anything but waste time?).

But in any case, thanks for your information! What I thought I knew as structural unemployment actually turns out to be frictional unemployment.

 

[Narz]

I agree with the idea that businesses should not be obligated to employ someone. Rather, self-employment should become the norm once more.

Would be a much better world. However it's very hard to compete with the big boys. It's not like times past where you could just grow tomatoes or make crafts & set up a shop. Tomatoes from Holland & "crafts" from China will pwn you.

 

[Narz]

I agree with Judge Judy, that employers have no obligation to provide employment.

But I also agree with Bakunin, that the worker has no obligation not to put the employer's head on a pike.

So you might say I'm something of a centrist.

So you support workplace rampages after being fired?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Okay so I got bored a few days ago and decided to watch some Judge Judy. I forget the exact details of the case, but I remember Judge Judy going on a rant about how in "her America" a company is under no obligation to provide employment opportunities to anyone and should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason they see fit. She went on to say something about how she thinks the problem with the US today is that people feel entitled to a job.

From a German POV - that is kina hilarious. USA a hive of job entitlement. That sounds like Japan a hive of Christianity. To us the USA is just the arch-type of a hire and fire system. The mother of denying any such entitlement any right.
Well it is the old individualist song of liberalism. Yawn

 

[Willem]

It's not like times past where you could just grow tomatoes or make crafts & set up a shop. Tomatoes from Holland & "crafts" from China will pwn you.

Not to mention that not everyone is cut out to be their own boss. I tried it myself for a time and I sucked at it. I just don't have the knack for selling myself. And since when was self-employment the norm? Up until the Industrial Revolution, everyone worked for the lords/land owners, then after that they worked for the industrialists. Self employment has never been the standard method for work. We probably have more self-employed people now than at any time in history.

 

[Narz]

We probably have more self-employed people now than at any time in history.

As a percentage of the population? I doubt it.

 

[Willem]

As a percentage of the population? I doubt it.

Certainly more than existed in the middle ages and the early industrial era. I suspect it would be difficult to get any actual numbers.

 

[Narz]

Really? Back there the butcher, baker & candlestick maker all had their own shops. Nowadays they'd be Walmart greeters or office rats.

 

[Souron]

I think automation is a perfectly acceptable reason to fire someone. If you don't do it, someone else will, and they'll out-compete you.

 

[Willem]

Really? Back there the butcher, baker & candlestick maker all had their own shops.

But the majority of people would have been working on the Lord's land, not been living in the cities. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that human society started becoming urbanized. And then they would have been working for the industrialists. Also, that candlestick maker was no doubt a member of a guild, not a private businessman. The same was probably true for the butcher and baker as well. Private enterprise is a fairly new thing, it didn't really start happening until the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Narz]

How do guilds work?

 

[NetGear]

Automation wouldn't be such a problem if all people benefitted equally. Instead, work shrinks and some jerk wants to hoard it all for himself to justify his full employment. At some point we're all gonna have to work less. And that could be a good thing for everyones quality of life. But its gonna be hard to convince people to transition into it.