5 ms·

> What do we do w/ 40% permanent unemployment? This assumes that somehow people cannot be re-trained to do other things, if those jobs really all disappear, wh

> What do we do w/ 40% permanent unemployment? This assumes that somehow people cannot be re-trained to do other things, if those jobs really all disappear, which they probably wont. There's always more work to do, things to improve, people to help. It will be like that forever. The question is, who allocates labor? Perhaps the kind of market system we have has run its course, perhaps this time it's over. I predict that the market will recover, just like it always has, but feel free to disagree.

pbourke 6y ago
> I predict that the market will recover, just like it always has, but feel free to disagree. What are the public policies that will help the market recover? (assuming that you mean the “job market” or “market economy” in general, and not the stock market which is another topic) Are those policies pursued or likely to be pursued in the next few years? It seems politically untenable in the US to break from the “socialism for large business/the wealthy, free market for everyone else” slate of policies. And this is with either political party. Whenever there has been epochal change and recovery in the US economy during the 20th century there have been substantial policy changes: the New Deal in the ‘30s. The Military-Scientific spending in the 40s-60s.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  The market recovers on its own, because it reflects the wants and needs of the population. The most important thing the government can do is to maintain the stability of the currency as well as law and order. Whenever there has been a government response to market crisis, it is hailed as "the solution" in retrospect by the powers that be. The alternative history where the intervention never took place doesn't play out and can't be judged on its merits.
  - pbourke 6y ago
    > The market recovers on its own, because it reflects the wants and needs of the population. What does a successful recovery look like? There are a large number of market-distorting policies in effect today. I'm talking about both policies that predate the crisis and those that went into effect during the response (these are mainly monetary - the fiscal ones seem temporary at this point). > The most important thing the government can do is to maintain the stability of the currency as well as law and order. To get to this point, the government would need to undo interventions that are currently in place throughout the economy. If the government were to "do nothing" (really, "change nothing") starting today, then this would in no way be some kind of "free market" like you're implying should exist. Do you think that the government should undo interventions across the economy? Or apply new ones? Or leave the existing alone? I'm genuinely curious
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > Do you think that the government should undo interventions across the economy? It can't undo them, so that point is moot. The government shouldn't have been injecting so much liquidity that wasn't really needed for all these years - but now is certainly not the time to remove that liquidity. The big question is, is the dollar going to collapse under that weight? If so, then there's nothing that can be done now that makes a difference, so we might as well stay course for the time being.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Pollyanna thinking. We'll have what, 30M unemployed people? Who mostly can't be retrained to be engineers, even if we needed that many engineers which we don't. No, we're entering a post-scarcity economy. Never mind Marxism or Socialism or Capitalism - when Labor has nothing left of value to offer, where do they go? What leverage do they have? "It'll be like that forever" flies in the face of history. When weaving machines came in 1760, the weavers didn't just get reeducated or reallocated - they starved and died, along with their families. I always feel sad at the oft-repeated theme "We'll just get everybody working again!". In the 1950's, lots of philosophers and writers imagined a future of robots lifting the yoke of labor from our shoulders, freeing us for lives of leisure. Now that it's happening, all I hear is schemes to make people work again. The old Puritan ethic - if you're not working, your a waste of breath.
- throwanem 6y ago
  Seems pretty pollyannaish to think we're heading into post-scarcity anything, for anyone. Where is that idea even coming from? Or is "post-scarcity" just a nice way of saying "massive social stratification built on the exploitation of an effectively permanent underclass"?
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > Who mostly can't be retrained to be engineers, even if we needed that many engineers... I didn't say they will become engineers. A low-class worker will stay in low-class work, but there will still be demand for it. Even if the market doesn't demand it, the government is there as a buyer of last resort. Again, there's always something to do. There's always something to improve, to build or to repair. Where do you think work came from before capitalism? The argument for capitalism is that it's generally more efficient than government at allocating resources and creating wealth. If that fails, we can still fall back to something else. > Never mind Marxism or Socialism or Capitalism - when Labor has nothing left of value to offer, where do they go? What leverage do they have? They can riot. > When weaving machines came in 1760, the weavers didn't just get reeducated or reallocated - they starved and died, along with their families. If this was a historical fact and not a figment of your imagination, it would be repeated at every opportunity where "the dangers of automation" were discussed.

pbourke 6y ago

> I predict that the market will recover, just like it always has, but feel free to disagree. What are the public policies that will help the market recover? (assuming that you mean the “job market” or “market economy” in general, and not the stock market which is another topic) Are those policies pursued or likely to be pursued in the next few years? It seems politically untenable in the US to break from the “socialism for large business/the wealthy, free market for everyone else” slate of policies. And this is with either political party. Whenever there has been epochal change and recovery in the US economy during the 20th century there have been substantial policy changes: the New Deal in the ‘30s. The Military-Scientific spending in the 40s-60s.

gridlockd 6y ago
The market recovers on its own, because it reflects the wants and needs of the population. The most important thing the government can do is to maintain the stability of the currency as well as law and order. Whenever there has been a government response to market crisis, it is hailed as "the solution" in retrospect by the powers that be. The alternative history where the intervention never took place doesn't play out and can't be judged on its merits.
- pbourke 6y ago
  > The market recovers on its own, because it reflects the wants and needs of the population. What does a successful recovery look like? There are a large number of market-distorting policies in effect today. I'm talking about both policies that predate the crisis and those that went into effect during the response (these are mainly monetary - the fiscal ones seem temporary at this point). > The most important thing the government can do is to maintain the stability of the currency as well as law and order. To get to this point, the government would need to undo interventions that are currently in place throughout the economy. If the government were to "do nothing" (really, "change nothing") starting today, then this would in no way be some kind of "free market" like you're implying should exist. Do you think that the government should undo interventions across the economy? Or apply new ones? Or leave the existing alone? I'm genuinely curious
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > Do you think that the government should undo interventions across the economy? It can't undo them, so that point is moot. The government shouldn't have been injecting so much liquidity that wasn't really needed for all these years - but now is certainly not the time to remove that liquidity. The big question is, is the dollar going to collapse under that weight? If so, then there's nothing that can be done now that makes a difference, so we might as well stay course for the time being.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Pollyanna thinking. We'll have what, 30M unemployed people? Who mostly can't be retrained to be engineers, even if we needed that many engineers which we don't. No, we're entering a post-scarcity economy. Never mind Marxism or Socialism or Capitalism - when Labor has nothing left of value to offer, where do they go? What leverage do they have? "It'll be like that forever" flies in the face of history. When weaving machines came in 1760, the weavers didn't just get reeducated or reallocated - they starved and died, along with their families. I always feel sad at the oft-repeated theme "We'll just get everybody working again!". In the 1950's, lots of philosophers and writers imagined a future of robots lifting the yoke of labor from our shoulders, freeing us for lives of leisure. Now that it's happening, all I hear is schemes to make people work again. The old Puritan ethic - if you're not working, your a waste of breath.

throwanem 6y ago
Seems pretty pollyannaish to think we're heading into post-scarcity anything, for anyone. Where is that idea even coming from? Or is "post-scarcity" just a nice way of saying "massive social stratification built on the exploitation of an effectively permanent underclass"?
gridlockd 6y ago
> Who mostly can't be retrained to be engineers, even if we needed that many engineers... I didn't say they will become engineers. A low-class worker will stay in low-class work, but there will still be demand for it. Even if the market doesn't demand it, the government is there as a buyer of last resort. Again, there's always something to do. There's always something to improve, to build or to repair. Where do you think work came from before capitalism? The argument for capitalism is that it's generally more efficient than government at allocating resources and creating wealth. If that fails, we can still fall back to something else. > Never mind Marxism or Socialism or Capitalism - when Labor has nothing left of value to offer, where do they go? What leverage do they have? They can riot. > When weaving machines came in 1760, the weavers didn't just get reeducated or reallocated - they starved and died, along with their families. If this was a historical fact and not a figment of your imagination, it would be repeated at every opportunity where "the dangers of automation" were discussed.