Ah, Social Climber. There's another one of those words like Hunter/Gatherer, Makework, and now Social Climber. I would call them viral in the system's program of cooperation between groups.
REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:04 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION; Sandwichman Subject: Re: [Futurework] Professional Ethics (of economists) At 18:30 25/09/2011, Sandwichman wrote: (S) Except, Keith, "all previous theories of labour" were essentially a controversy about the proposition that jobs could "disappear" because of technology. What you seem to be saying is not that all previous theories are invalid but that the theory that prevailed for two centuries over competing theories is now invalid. You're probably right. I'm not an expert in different theories of labour. In my own thinking I tend to concentrate on what I like to think are more basic matters of human ability, etc and then to set them more directly in the modern context (bearing in mind recent cultural trends) rather than 'compare and contrast' between theories. All too often, after one has concentrated hard in understanding precisely what a writer means by this or that definition of a term, then the meaning drifts (S) I would partially agree but amend that to say that the currently still prevailing theory has always been only valid "in theory" but never entirely in practice. The "rub" is transaction costs. Economic theory is predicated on assuming they don't exist, for simplicity sake, even though economists know and readily admit that they do. So, what is the simplest example of a transaction cost? Learning. People don't automatically know anything. They have to learn everything that they know. Demand for commodities doesn't automatically rise because people have more disposable income or prices fall. Precisely! And this is essentially why the whole notion of QE is wrong. People have to learn about which new things they might want to buy with their added wealth. But, usually, it is quite clear what next to buy according to the fashion of one's social status, or the one above if one is a social climber. Keith On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Keith Hudson < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: At 21:02 24/09/2011, Sandwichman wrote: ----> (S) Yes, I would like to expand on that but it'll be more than a tad. I'm researching/writing something fairly comprehensive 'as we speak'. The issue, as I see it has to do with what is commonly referred to as "market failure" and the moral hazard that can result from attempts to correct such inefficiencies and inequities through government intervention. Or put it this way, the invisible hand of the market doesn't necessarily lead to an beneficent result but attempts by the state to fix the problems are not fool-proof (or, more to the point, game-proof) either. As someone who has made his livelihood in several different ways -- sometimes beneficially, sometimes disastrously -- I would say that one can vary rarely game the market. Governmental cliques can for a while (and also those who have bribed them) but even then the market will finally have its say. Usually rudely and suddenly. As for gaming the state, well, millions are doing so in England right now. Just to take one example: under the last Labour government (1997-2010) the number of those on Incapacity Benefit rose from 1.5 million to 2.5 million. The present Coalition government is now setting about medically re-assessing all those who have longer than three or four years to retirement age. During pilot projects in Burnley and Aberdeen, 30% of existing claimants were found to be fit to work immediately, a further 39% were found to be fit to work with extra help. The remaining 31% were found to be unable to work, and will carry on getting unconditional support. (S) If you can game the state as readily as you can game the market, what's the solution? Well, maybe "solution" is taking things a bit too far, too fast. Before we start talking about solutions, it's important to get a grasp of how the question has been wrongly framed by focusing on the "incidentals": sparks from locomotives that start fires in woods or rabbits that overrun the neighboring squire's country estate. The founding instance of "market failure" occurs not in those incidental, which might be of concern to the gentry but in work, unemployment and working conditions. I'll just mention in passing that Marx analyzed these so-called market failures as contradictions. But leaving Marx aside, the pioneers of neoclassical analysis ALSO analyzed the same so-called contradictions as market failures. Nothing incidental about them. To glide from work, unemployment and the hours of labor to ravaging rabbits and locomotive sparks (I'm not kidding!) is to adopt an Aesopian evasiveness that requires some explanation. Ever ask an Englishwoman if she would like a cup of tea? Better ask three times. It is rude to say yes the first time. (what say you, Keith?). I don't know about cups of tea but I've always found that Englishwomen respond with alacrity. (S) These Cambridge neoclassical economists, having once broached the idea that the conventional employers' perspective on work was unsatisfactory, were reluctant to press the issue. Instead, they figured they could examine the theoretical issues by talking about sparks and coneys (rabbits); lighthouse, chimney-smoke and laundry.-- just as sex education can be winsomely bowdlerized as "the birds and bees." But I digress. Sydney J. Chapman's 1909 theory of the hours of labor blasted a gaping chasm right into the heart of the classical notion of the market as a "system of natural liberty" channeling self-interest into social utility. Chapman didn't supply the solution to the problem but he identified the problem. Pigou and the Pigovian then tradition went off on a tangent, changed the subject and eventually lost the thread of the argument. I think all previous theories of labour are now invalid due to increasing automation and specialization. Whereas in pre-industrial times the two previous 'systems' needed close on 100% participation we're nearer to 50% already (IMO) with the other 50% either on no-work or make-work. This is already a major problem in the advanced countries for both the production market and the welfare state. The production market will be able to adjust by means of increasingly versatile customization but I can't see how the welfare state can unless by increased taxation and/or work sharing (at least not with our present atrociously poor educational system for the majority). Keith Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/ -- Sandwichman Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2012/08/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
