----------
>From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Easing Transition to Cybereconomy
>Date: Sat, Jun 26, 1999, 7:55 PM
>
> Thomas Lunde wrote:
>>
>> >> Thomas:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> The only human jobs for the semi- to unskilled will be as a
>> >> Courier driver delivering parcels or pizza delivry guy/girl
>> >> and even both of those "jobs" could be automated. It's time
>> >> to own up that we need a new way to distribute income other
>> >> than working - the production of goods and services are
>> >> still there and need consumers to exist
> [snip]
>
> I have not been following this thread closely, but I do wonder
> whether there is any intrinsic limit to Capitalism's capacity to
> "make work". For the high IQ people, there is computer programming
> and advertising (two Susyphean labors!), etc.
> For the less skilled, there are all the
> "service" jobs -- waiters and waitresses (and Starbucks crews...),
> etc. If *none* of the up-scale cook their own food, and none of
> the service sector people cook their own food either
> (because they are too busy working...), that's a
> lot of "service sector" jobs. Then there are the housecleaning
> services, the services that offer to do *anything* (walk the dog,
> stand in line for whatever *you* otherwise would have to
> stand in line for, organize your closets, etc.).
>
> The monetarization of the human life world is far from
> completed.
>
> And let's not forget about war, which uses up lots of
> human and other resources....
>
> I'm not saying I'm sure capitalism *will* be able to
> sustain full employment. I'm only speculating that it
> *might* be able to come up with enough ultimately useless but
> "economically necessary" activity to be able to
> maintain a wage-work driven society of scarcity where, otherwise
> there might be enough for everybody with very little work.
>
> \brad mccormick
Thomas:
Interesting report over 2 articles in The Guardian, 25/06/99. Here's both:
But it is also true that demand for,
and not supply of, labour is in the
driving seat. Without an adequate
level of ~ demand in the economy, there is nothing for the most
flexible jobs market to respond to.
Out of these two lengthy articles, this tidbit caught my eye in response to
your musings. Job's are only created when there is a demand for something
that requires labour. No demand, no job. It doesn't matter what your
brilliance is, your previous history or whether you are a pizza driver.
Now, between the automation of production in manufacturing and the
saturation of the service industry over the last 30 years, James Galbraith
claims 80% employed in service industry jobs, the seemingly obvious truth is
that there is not enough demand. Short of deciding to build pyramids by
hand or a religion springing up that demands stone statues with big ears
such as Easter Island, we have worked ourselves into leisure. The problem
is redistribution of wealth - not jobs. The jobs are being done and the
surplus is in labour. So the trick is capture the funds, not from income
tax - that base is declining because fewer people are working and most of
them for less than they should get, but from some sort tax on the production
end. Especially, it should be on technology that replaces labour. This tax
would not raise the current price of goods but would capture industries
newly found profits and redistribute those profits back to labour which has
been obsoleted.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
