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
