Again, I maintain that social arrangements are an inseparable PART of the "basic technology." You can't have a highly computerized technology without a certain level of literacy, etc.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Keith Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > At 07:15 28/07/2010 -0700, Sandwichman wrote: > > (KH) "a new economy based on a new scalable energy technology emerges." > > (S) Technology is not the same as "machines." It is machines + know how + > the institutional arrangement that permit the use of that know how. > Radically transforming work arrangements is one of the necessary > institutional changes to allow "new scalable energy technology" to > "emerge." There is no radical rupture between "base" and > "superstructure." Archaic work (& social) arrangements are blocking > the emergence. > > I don't agree with you. Social arrangements will work themselves out (for > good or for ill) -- they always do -- depending on the basic technology > underlying the economy. But we're not going to find a common basis for > discussion so I think I'll leave it there. > > Keith > . > > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Keith Hudson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> At 06:14 28/07/2010 -0700, Sandwichman wrote: >> >> *So which will it be, cake or death? >> >> So Keith will have the death. Anyone for cake? >> >> Not death, but certainly near-death (deflationary recession) for quite a >> long time while: (a) China and some others catch up with the West in so >> far >> as they are able to -- given declining, more expensive, energy supplies: >> (b) >> a new economy based on a new scalable energy technology emerges. >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England > > > > -- > Sandwichman > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
