My interest was not so much in the provenance of "Rifkin's theory"--though
the quotation from Bertrand Russell was fascinating and instructive. I doubt
that Rifkin would claim to be the first to argue that the net effect of
technological innovation is a reduction in the number of available jobs.
Neither do I put much confidence into Rifkin's proposed amelioration of the
system by bringing volunteerism into the marketplace.
My main interest was simply to ascertain if most of the thoughtful people on
this list believe that technology is gradually reducing the number of jobs
available within the current economic framework. The question is important
because the mainstream media are propounding the opposite view, that new
technology will bring more and better jobs within a marketplace economy. One
finds even well-meaning, compassionate journalists like David Crane,
economics editor of the Toronto Star, vigorously promoting this optimistic
scenario. (As Rifkin notes, that was the predominant view in the 1920's and
earlier.) Needless to say, many ordinary people are taken in by these
hopeful arguments. When I was talking to a bank teller about on-line banking
further decimating her profession beyond what the ATM has already brought,
she responded that surely lots of good new jobs would be created by the new
technology. Since all these people are voters, I think it important to
counter the optimistic delusion that the current economic structure will
heal itself.
Another point: when we talk about dealing with structural unemployment
created by technological advance, I think we need to make clear whether we
are discussing short term palliative measures within the present economic
framework and long term visions of what our human world could and should be
like.
In the long term I agree with the points made by several people that the
only secure foundation for a comfortable life in the future has to be based
on (a) population reduction and (b) an adequate basic income granted to
everyone. The late great Isaac Asimov believed that one billion was about
the optimum population for our planet as it would enable everyone to live in
great comfort without endangering the environment.
At any rate, I seem to have the answer to my question: virtually all the
thoughtful people on this list agree that technology reduces the number of
jobs available in the present economic structure. The one exception is
Douglas Wilson, who is certainly a thoughtful person.
I believe that I understand the concept of the assignment problem well
enough though I could not necessarily do the math. However, I remain
convinced that there are presently more people wanting jobs than there are
jobs available. Hence I do not think that even the most perfect solution of
the assignment problem would produce full employment. This is especially
true when you add in other factors like geographic limitations imposed by a
spouse already having a job. A difficult to place person might require a
one-in-a-million matching when he is restricted to a geographic region
holding considerably less than one million jobs. And there are people who
are not going to be tolerated for very long by any employer I have ever met.
For instance, some people with substance abuse problems whose attendance is
extremely sporadic as is their performance when they are on the job.
This is not to say that Douglas Wilson's thoughts on the assignment problem
are without merit. It could be an important palliative measure while the
present economic order endures and it would be invaluable once we have
achieved a world where people are looking for work because they want a task
that fits their measure and not because they need the money. By the way, if
you solve it in the near future (before I reach retirement age) let me know
as I have been seriously underemployed for the past 12 years!
Regards,
Victor Milne
FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website
at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/
LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE
at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
