*So which will it be, cake or death? So Keith will have the death. Anyone for cake?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Keith Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > At 18:41 27/07/2010 -0700, Sandwichman wrote: > > July 27, 2010 > Shouldn't High Unemployment = Less Work To Do? > > -- by Dave Johnson > > Superb diagnosis but poor with its three main suggestions. See below: > > This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) > at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. > > Simple question: have we reached a point where machines and computers > leave us with less work to do? If so it can mean a lot of people are > left without jobs and incomes, losing their homes and health, while > the rest have our wages dragged ever downward. Or we can make some > changes in who gets what for what, and every one of us ends up better > off. > > Cake or death? Which will it be? (*explained below) > > Somewhere around one in five of us is un- or under-employed while at > the same time so many of the rest of us, still employed are stressed, > tired, doing the work of those laid off. With too few employed many > stores, restaurants, hotels and many other businesses are falling > behind. As Bob Herbert puts it today, "Simply stated, more and more > families are facing utter economic devastation: completely out of > money, with their jobs, savings and retirement funds gone, and nowhere > to turn for the next dollar." The government has stepped in with > stimulus to pick up some of the slack in demand but that can’t go on > forever and we need to find long-term solutions. > > Is it structural? > > There are signs that the jobs crisis may now be structural, or built > into the system. This means that the usual solutions are not going to > "restart the engine" and trigger a return to an economy that had where > almost everyone can find a job, (even if it is a menial, boring > time-suck). > > Our unemployment emergency may really be about less work to do. Hale > "Bonddad" Stewart writing at 538.com, Labor Force Realignment and > Jobless Recoveries concludes, (click through for gazillions of charts > and full explanation) > > The "jobless recovery" is in fact a realignment of the US labor > force. Fewer and fewer employees are needed to produce durable goods. > As this situation has progressed, the durable goods workforce has > decreased as well. This does not mean the US manufacturing base is in > decline. If this were the case, we would see a drop in both > manufacturing output and productivity. Instead both of those metrics > have increased smartly over the last two decades, indicating that > instead of being in decline, US manufacturing is simply doing more > with less. > > So it may be that machines and computers are doing more of the work > that people used to have to do. > > Robert Reich sees signs of structural unemployment as well, writing in > The Great Decoupling of Corporate Profits From Jobs, > > ... big U.S. businesses are investing their cash in labor-saving > technologies. This boosts their productivity, but not their payrolls. > [. . .] The reality is this: Big American companies may never rehire > large numbers of workers. And they won’t even begin to think about > hiring until they know American consumers will buy their products. The > problem is, American consumers won’t start buying against until they > know they have reliable paychecks. > > So what do we do? > > Maybe we need some changes in who gets what for what. Right now we > have an economy that is structured to send most of its benefits to a > few at the top, while the rest of us -- the help -- sink ever downward > into less and less security. People with power and wealth benefit when > they figure out how to cause other people to receive lower pay -- or > just lose their jobs. Eliminating jobs brings bonuses to the > eliminators -- a perverse incentive if ever there was one. If someone > can figure out how to cut your pay and benefits or just get rid of you > (“eliminate your position”) they get to pocket what you were making, > and you get nothing (and conservatives say you're lazy). If you don't > own the company you're out of luck. > > In the past this perverse incentive was mitigated by people banding > together in governments and/or unions and forcing the wealthy and > powerful to share. But modern marketing science has been successful at > making people believe that government and unions are bad for them. > This was also mitigated by the ongoing need to find people to do the > jobs that needed to get done. But with continual improvements in > technology this need is reduced. We're living the result. > > Also, this perverse incentive structure assumes an infinite pool of > customers to sell to, ignoring that the transaction of benefiting from > eliminating a job also eliminates a customer. But modern business has > become so efficient at job elimination that this comes into play. Who > will be able to buy theTVs that the employee-eliminating factory > makes, if all the employees are eliminated and have no income? > > These are structural problems that we can change. Let me just > brainstorm a few possibilities for structural changes into the mix > here: > > # Today when they replace a worker with a machine, the few at the top > get another chunk of income, the worker gets nothing. But suppose a > worker got to keep some of the economic benefit from getting laid off! > Suppose that if your company replaces you with with a machine you get, > say, 15% of the cost-savings as ongoing income. Heck, getting laid off > would be a good thing, like winning a prize. After you get laid off a > few times you only have to work part time. Get laid off enough times, > you can retire. > > No young person* wants a part-time job. Besides pay, he wants to belong to a > group, have a role in it and spend most of his time with it. (*I've written > "young" person because he's the crux of the modern problem -- the swelling > number of people who will never have a job in today's increasingly automated > set-up.) > > # Suppose we just shorten the workweek? What if we change from a > 40-hour workweek to a 30-hour workweek? Economist Dean Baker has been > offering ideas for workweek reductions for some time: > > The other obvious way to provide a quick boost to the economy is > by giving employers tax incentives for shortening their standard > workweek or work year. This can take different forms. An employer who > currently provides no paid vacation can offer all her workers three > weeks a year of paid vacation, approximately a 6% reduction in work > time. > > Very few people in interesting and/or well-paid jobs will consent to share > it permanently. And they don't want a short working week either. > > # Suppose the corporations and wealthy were taxed at the rate they > were taxed before all the deficits and income inequality started, and > the government just sent everyone a check, which served as a base > income? Then everyone's wages would be higher because desperate people > wouldn't be fighting over the few jobs. So then the better those at > the top do, the better all of us do. > > None of the very very rich pay a penny in tax in most advanced countries > already. Most of the very rich pay far less tax than they should. > Corporations and the wealthy always find ways of relocating themselves to > avoid or minimise tax. The only way to stop this would be a totalitarian > world government able to pry into every minute detail of a person's income > and activities. As even "ordinary" nation-state governments can't keep their > own financial houses in order then preventing tax avoidance is impossible. > > These are just a few ideas for restructuring the economy in ways the > help all of us instead of just a few at the top. Please add your ideas > in the comments. > > We have a choice. We can continue with the system we have, and most of > us -- the help -- will just get poorer and poorer while a few at the > top take home more and more. Or we can change who gets what for what, > and everyone comes out ahead. > > Money doesn't just pile up doing nothing. It either gets lost in foolish > speculation and goes into others' pockets, or it's spent on goods and > services (by which others are given an income) or it's invested sensibly > (also producing jobs), or it goes to a public charity, or it goes to > children who in turn do any of those four things. Money constantly recycles, > either within minutes or over several lifetimes. If you want to recycle > money quicker -- which, of course, is highly desirable these days -- then > incentives must be given to those who have the money. Preventing them > getting it or keeping it in any way they like means that governments would > have to be a great deal cleverer or a great deal more totalitarian than they > presently are or ever have been. In actual practice governments which try to > do these things destroy themselves with inevitable internal corruption. > > Keith > > > *So which will it be, cake or death? > > <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" > value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BNjcuZ-LiSY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1";></param><param > name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param > name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed > src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BNjcuZ-LiSY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"; > type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" > allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> > > > > -- > Sandwichman > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
