5 ms·

Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives. So yes as governments you do expect exactly that. You also expect to reduce disparity betwee

by x5n1 11y ago

Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives. So yes as governments you do expect exactly that. You also expect to reduce disparity between the rich and poor. Why? Because you don't want people to revolt and create chaos. If unemployment goes up too much and there are no jobs, people will revolt and violence will occur... in which people will probably destroy your peaceful stable life... your factory... and your government. So yes the government has to as its objectives solve these issues. If they don't then people have the right to get rid of such a government, and take all your wealth and means of production.

drodgers 11y ago
The government could achieve full-employment by drafting everyone or paying them to dig ditches then fill them in again, but that would be really wasteful. If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. If the economy can't find full-time roles for some people, then we as a society — though the state — can just give them money to survive (a 'basic income') and let them do whatever they want with their time (including working part time jobs that wouldn't be able to sustain them on their own). It would be a much more productive and enjoyable use of their time than digging ditches :p
- chii 11y ago
  > If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do then those people who cannot be useful will not survive - it's as simple as that. It takes resources to keep someone alive, and that resource must come from somewhere. I'd live for basic income to be viable, but i highly doubt it's viable, given that it amounts to altruism (from those people who own the means of production/automation). We'd have to have free or near-free energy.
  - robryan 11y ago
    What is the difference though between them being paid for unproductive work for the sake of having a job or being paid a basic income?
    - apalmer 11y ago
      but that's the thing... they most likely wont be paid for unproductive work or given a basic income they will simply be let to starve as has ALWAYS been done historically. This is the key point that always perplexes me in these discussions of automation, the belief that somehow a fully automated society is going to lead to large swaths of the population not doing work and somehow being given basic income and being left to chase 'loftier pursuits' instead of 'wage slavery'... its not a logical expectation based on past human history...
      - pitay 11y ago
        One could hope that we aspire higher than killing people or allowing people to dies because they have no use to you. It's psychopathic and values people as nothing expect for their use to you, the same way a rapist doesn't give any value to their victims lives, just what they can get from them. Anyone suggesting that unemployed people don't get paid are on the same boat, because they do not value those lives at all, unless it gets them something.
      - infinite8s 11y ago
        Human history has always been dominated by scarcity. Fully automated production would by definition be a repudiation of all economic theories built upon a foundation of scarcity, so we can't really use them to guide us in devising a solution. The closest humans have ever come is the indiginous potlach societies of Papua New Guinea where scarcity wasn't an issue and people lived fairly idle lives (and substituted physical scarcity with societal scarcity).
  - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
    It's like there are extremists on both side of this conversation. :) To say those people that cannot be useful will not survive is sort of despicable and naive. Someone on the other side made a point about revolts and if we carried this view so far, I guess something like that would happen and make normal economic activity untenable.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. They could fix our crumbling infrastructure, provide child care for working women, in-home care for our elderly, reduce overcrowding by making prisons larger, build community gardens, or a hundred other popular left wing causes. The claim that we couldn't get productive labor by drafting the unemployed is also the claim that there is nothing else useful that the government could do even if the cost is $0. Do any basic income proponents really believe this?
  - vacri 11y ago
    > They could fix our crumbling infrastructure... reduce overcrowding by making prisons larger Unskilled people make crappy engineers and construction workers. > provide child care These days, child care workers need a lot of paperwork and a bit of training. Not to mention that you kind've have to be good with kids; it's not really a job just anyone can do. > in-home care for our elderly And this is in the same bucket. Forcing people into a caring role makes for bad carers. > build community gardens This one could work... but then again, how many gardens can you have, and how many folks would they support the work for? Throw in also that all of these things are not 'free labour'. You still need to manage and train that staff, and you're going to have higher overhead costs because you'll have higher turnover. It's not as simple as just saying "labour = free, so go do something".
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      > build community gardens This one could work... but then again, how many gardens can you have When I hear this, I immediately think of Great Cultural Revolution in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia. Also there the joys of gardening and agricultural work were supposed to cleanse the bourgeois people. And while we are there, let's shoot anyone with eyeglasses for trying to be too intellectual.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Unskilled people make crappy engineers and construction workers. We did this and it worked. I believe some elements of training were provided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps But suppose you are right - there are no unemployed people out there capable of fixing our crumbling infrastructure. Suppose we were to just throw money at the problem via ordinary government spending. How would the work actually get done, i.e. who would do it? Forcing people into a caring role makes for bad carers. No one is forced into anything. You do work and you get money, same as any other job. In any case, the folks who make bad carers can do other things, e.g. pick up trash in the park or work as janitors in government buildings.
dietrichepp 11y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental macroeconomic objective". Surely the purpose of full employment is so the people who are employed can enjoy a certain standard of life.
tomp 11y ago
> Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives Except for kids/students, and retired people. Nothing is preventing us from studying until we're 30 and retiring at 35 - if only the minority of the population can be productive enough (with the help of machines, obviously) to produce enough for the rest.
- apalmer 11y ago
  the thing that is preventing this from happening is starvation. In a capitalist society where 90% do not contribute to production or commerce and the labor is done and capital owned by the 10%... the 90% starves.
gozur88 11y ago
Full employment is not a goal of any particular business, though. "The economy" is just a term to describe the transactions people make over time in their own interest. And any system built on the expectation people will ignore their own interests for the common good is destined to fail.
dinkumthinkum 11y ago
Keep in mind too that the idea of "full employment" doesn't mean 100% employment, it's a technical term. I will just say, your view is a little overly antagonistic. Keep this in mind, if they government created too much artificiality in the market, which seems to be what you are asking for, this would not solve the people's problems. Under your view, the government might as well print countless amounts of currency and just distribute it without any regard to it's value.

by x5n1 11y ago

drodgers 11y ago

The government could achieve full-employment by drafting everyone or paying them to dig ditches then fill them in again, but that would be really wasteful. If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. If the economy can't find full-time roles for some people, then we as a society — though the state — can just give them money to survive (a 'basic income') and let them do whatever they want with their time (including working part time jobs that wouldn't be able to sustain them on their own). It would be a much more productive and enjoyable use of their time than digging ditches :p

chii 11y ago
> If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do then those people who cannot be useful will not survive - it's as simple as that. It takes resources to keep someone alive, and that resource must come from somewhere. I'd live for basic income to be viable, but i highly doubt it's viable, given that it amounts to altruism (from those people who own the means of production/automation). We'd have to have free or near-free energy.
- robryan 11y ago
  What is the difference though between them being paid for unproductive work for the sake of having a job or being paid a basic income?
  - apalmer 11y ago
    but that's the thing... they most likely wont be paid for unproductive work or given a basic income they will simply be let to starve as has ALWAYS been done historically. This is the key point that always perplexes me in these discussions of automation, the belief that somehow a fully automated society is going to lead to large swaths of the population not doing work and somehow being given basic income and being left to chase 'loftier pursuits' instead of 'wage slavery'... its not a logical expectation based on past human history...
    - pitay 11y ago
      One could hope that we aspire higher than killing people or allowing people to dies because they have no use to you. It's psychopathic and values people as nothing expect for their use to you, the same way a rapist doesn't give any value to their victims lives, just what they can get from them. Anyone suggesting that unemployed people don't get paid are on the same boat, because they do not value those lives at all, unless it gets them something.
    - infinite8s 11y ago
      Human history has always been dominated by scarcity. Fully automated production would by definition be a repudiation of all economic theories built upon a foundation of scarcity, so we can't really use them to guide us in devising a solution. The closest humans have ever come is the indiginous potlach societies of Papua New Guinea where scarcity wasn't an issue and people lived fairly idle lives (and substituted physical scarcity with societal scarcity).
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  It's like there are extremists on both side of this conversation. :) To say those people that cannot be useful will not survive is sort of despicable and naive. Someone on the other side made a point about revolts and if we carried this view so far, I guess something like that would happen and make normal economic activity untenable.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
If there's actually nothing useful for some people to do (they can't find a job that supports them) then we should stop thinking of employment as a requirement for survival. They could fix our crumbling infrastructure, provide child care for working women, in-home care for our elderly, reduce overcrowding by making prisons larger, build community gardens, or a hundred other popular left wing causes. The claim that we couldn't get productive labor by drafting the unemployed is also the claim that there is nothing else useful that the government could do even if the cost is $0. Do any basic income proponents really believe this?
- vacri 11y ago
  > They could fix our crumbling infrastructure... reduce overcrowding by making prisons larger Unskilled people make crappy engineers and construction workers. > provide child care These days, child care workers need a lot of paperwork and a bit of training. Not to mention that you kind've have to be good with kids; it's not really a job just anyone can do. > in-home care for our elderly And this is in the same bucket. Forcing people into a caring role makes for bad carers. > build community gardens This one could work... but then again, how many gardens can you have, and how many folks would they support the work for? Throw in also that all of these things are not 'free labour'. You still need to manage and train that staff, and you're going to have higher overhead costs because you'll have higher turnover. It's not as simple as just saying "labour = free, so go do something".
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    > build community gardens This one could work... but then again, how many gardens can you have When I hear this, I immediately think of Great Cultural Revolution in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia. Also there the joys of gardening and agricultural work were supposed to cleanse the bourgeois people. And while we are there, let's shoot anyone with eyeglasses for trying to be too intellectual.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Unskilled people make crappy engineers and construction workers. We did this and it worked. I believe some elements of training were provided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps But suppose you are right - there are no unemployed people out there capable of fixing our crumbling infrastructure. Suppose we were to just throw money at the problem via ordinary government spending. How would the work actually get done, i.e. who would do it? Forcing people into a caring role makes for bad carers. No one is forced into anything. You do work and you get money, same as any other job. In any case, the folks who make bad carers can do other things, e.g. pick up trash in the park or work as janitors in government buildings.

dietrichepp 11y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental macroeconomic objective". Surely the purpose of full employment is so the people who are employed can enjoy a certain standard of life.

tomp 11y ago

> Full employment is one of the fundamental macroeconomic objectives Except for kids/students, and retired people. Nothing is preventing us from studying until we're 30 and retiring at 35 - if only the minority of the population can be productive enough (with the help of machines, obviously) to produce enough for the rest.

apalmer 11y ago
the thing that is preventing this from happening is starvation. In a capitalist society where 90% do not contribute to production or commerce and the labor is done and capital owned by the 10%... the 90% starves.

gozur88 11y ago

Full employment is not a goal of any particular business, though. "The economy" is just a term to describe the transactions people make over time in their own interest. And any system built on the expectation people will ignore their own interests for the common good is destined to fail.

dinkumthinkum 11y ago

Keep in mind too that the idea of "full employment" doesn't mean 100% employment, it's a technical term. I will just say, your view is a little overly antagonistic. Keep this in mind, if they government created too much artificiality in the market, which seems to be what you are asking for, this would not solve the people's problems. Under your view, the government might as well print countless amounts of currency and just distribute it without any regard to it's value.