I agree, Gene, but the main change that I see as necessary is unlikely from evolution absent a fierce political struggle. This is the redistribution of the power to consume. Redistribution addresses both parts of the scissors because it increases consumption and, thereby, employment, leading towards equilibrium. However, in a "robotic" society, there may be more workers than available work. This may just be a result of the technology of production. (We have now robots to make robots.) And, neither reducing wages nor reducing the use of labor-saving technologies seem desirable as a way of soaking up excess labor. Those are things that our conceptual framework -- labor and capital employed at equilibrium -- suggests we do, but that may not be the framework that gives us the best solution. Going back to the horse and plow because we can keep more employed seems crazy to me. So, I think we should also consider non-wage methods of distributing the power to consume (such as Social Credit). This would enable us to take advantage of the improved production technology and use the surplus as time spent at leisure, in artistic and creative pursuits, in learning and storytelling, in enjoying nature, etc. Those are things that are part of the free exercise of human nature even though "primitive" people enjoy them far more than we do. This would be a return to a more healthy existence.
Here's a vision of how this might be achieved as a by-product of a reform of our presently parasitic monetary system: http://www.hollings.org/Content/Cook-EconomicDemocracyAndAGuideToThe2008Pres identialElection.pdf . Peter -----Original Message----- From: Eugene Coyle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 5:07 PM To: [email protected]; Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] What job shortage? Peter, I guess we are part way along to something. But along the way, further along, won't the culture change so that our aspirations for stuff and esteem evolve, our disposition of rewards, material and otherwise evolve as well? What steps can we take now to push the evolution along? Is an important one, perhaps an indispensable one, cutting working hours now? Gene Coyle On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Peter Hollings wrote: > If I may, let's shift to a somewhat different perspective in a hypothetical future where most manual tasks are automated via robots, etc. Under current institutional arrangements with capital owning the means of production, there would be a vast reduction in the need for labor and a concomitant reduction in aggregate wages for that resource. We'd have the gap in incomes to purchase potential output that we are currently experiencing. Yet, training these people to be molecular biologists or computer scientists (where there would be demand for labor) would not be an option. How would we best adjust social and economic arrangements to best serve that society? The offshoring of jobs aside, aren't we experiencing the effects of being part way along to that kind of future? > > Peter Hollings > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sean Andrews > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:30 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] What job shortage? > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:44, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But there is a remedy for the glut of workers. Shorter working time. If we adopt a four day week, 20 percent of the work-hours on offer in "standard jobs" disappears. Supply drops, pay rises. Why won't Pen-l discuss this beyond the sneer level? > > Well it only works as a solution if there is a mandated wages and > benefits for those reduced hours. Earlier today, Jim Devine passed > around a story mentioning that, at the moment, the average number of > hours/week is 33. That's already almost equivalent to a four day work > week. BUt most of those people are underemployed and would like to be > working more so that they can actually "reproduce their labor power." > the increase in employment, as the article mentioned, would likely > just be to give those workers more hours rather than hiring a few > other part timers to fill the new demand. Likewise, one of the main > critiques of companies that offer benefits to full timers (like > Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc.) in recent years is precisely that they > would hire more part timers, i.e. more people at 20-30 hours/week, so > that they didn't have to provide benefits. If the wages for a 32 > hour work week are 20% less than that of the 40 hour (and the benefits > are 100% less, i.e. part timers don't get health care) then this is > hardly a workable solution. I've heard it mentioned before so maybe I > am misunderstanding the particularities, but there doesn't seem to be > a clear way this would help the problem unless there is the enormous > external variable of mandated living wages and benefits. > > s > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
