4 ms·

One of the best arguments against full employment that I have ever encountered was made by the German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, who fought in both of

One of the best arguments against full employment that I have ever encountered was made by the German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, who fought in both of the world wars and died in 1943. His argument was regarding his officers, but it can be readily applied to the population as a whole. >"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief." Keeping diligent idiots out of the economy by paying them to stay at home would be far more economically beneficial than a drive to bring about full employment.

mc32 8y ago
I don't think that's a good analogy. Maybe an army can't make use of every type of person (doubtful, in this context) but doubly doubtful in the economy at large where employers need many different kinds of people. Moreover, who is to say the stupid and diligent, to borrow from your quote, wouldn't do worse harm at home left to their devices? In any event, Japan, in the 80s, was pretty much near full-employment. I don't think many economists or government officials would argue that was "bad". Perhaps industrialists who could not find labor might have thought it was "bad".
- starbeast 8y ago
  Japan throughout the '80s (and still today, though maybe a little less so) has been practicing something fairly close to what I am suggesting, by having a non-job role for the "madogiwa zoku", the window seat tribe. They may not be paid to stay home, but they are paid to stay the hell out of the way of anything that could affect the smooth running of the business.
  - mc32 8y ago
    The window watchers is an intetesting phenomenon, and you have a point in that in a way it’s like keeping useless employees out of the way. However, I would hesitate to say they are actually useless, but rather the labor market in Japan is such that it’s extremely difficult for a good employable person to “hop” jobs. Once hired out of University, which is the main avenue for hiring for the sarariiman, workers have little chance to change jobs. In that atmosphere and culture, it’s nigh impossible to have your window watchers go out and find a job where they could actually be productive. Many of them (most?) are able and productive but the company has moved on to other things, or refocused, realigned, reorganized and these people get trapped.
scarecrowbob 8y ago
I don't agree that this is the best way to categorize folks, but I do think it's a good point: I know at least 3 people teaching public school in situations where literally everyone would be better off if they were allowed to retire now instead of in 5 years. I don't even think it's about keeping idiots out of the economy. I think that there are a lot of harmful incentives like retirement that keep people doing things they don't like, and then they do poorly at them... they aren't idiots because if they were they would just retire. They have an incentive to stick with a dysfunctional position because there isn't an alternative.

mc32 8y ago

I don't think that's a good analogy. Maybe an army can't make use of every type of person (doubtful, in this context) but doubly doubtful in the economy at large where employers need many different kinds of people. Moreover, who is to say the stupid and diligent, to borrow from your quote, wouldn't do worse harm at home left to their devices? In any event, Japan, in the 80s, was pretty much near full-employment. I don't think many economists or government officials would argue that was "bad". Perhaps industrialists who could not find labor might have thought it was "bad".

starbeast 8y ago
Japan throughout the '80s (and still today, though maybe a little less so) has been practicing something fairly close to what I am suggesting, by having a non-job role for the "madogiwa zoku", the window seat tribe. They may not be paid to stay home, but they are paid to stay the hell out of the way of anything that could affect the smooth running of the business.
- mc32 8y ago
  The window watchers is an intetesting phenomenon, and you have a point in that in a way it’s like keeping useless employees out of the way. However, I would hesitate to say they are actually useless, but rather the labor market in Japan is such that it’s extremely difficult for a good employable person to “hop” jobs. Once hired out of University, which is the main avenue for hiring for the sarariiman, workers have little chance to change jobs. In that atmosphere and culture, it’s nigh impossible to have your window watchers go out and find a job where they could actually be productive. Many of them (most?) are able and productive but the company has moved on to other things, or refocused, realigned, reorganized and these people get trapped.

scarecrowbob 8y ago

I don't agree that this is the best way to categorize folks, but I do think it's a good point: I know at least 3 people teaching public school in situations where literally everyone would be better off if they were allowed to retire now instead of in 5 years. I don't even think it's about keeping idiots out of the economy. I think that there are a lot of harmful incentives like retirement that keep people doing things they don't like, and then they do poorly at them... they aren't idiots because if they were they would just retire. They have an incentive to stick with a dysfunctional position because there isn't an alternative.