3 ms·

This still feels to "tech exogenous to the economy" for me. Society changed faster when we had fuller employment, as automation gets more investment when worker

This still feels to "tech exogenous to the economy" for me. Society changed faster when we had fuller employment, as automation gets more investment when workers are scares, expensive, and unruly. Crazy population growth in the 19th century would prop up aggregate demand even when there wasn't that much individual consumption going on (by modern standards). To avoid stagnation, I see 3 options: - Raise labor costs by collective decision - Reduce working hours per person by collective decision - Do more fiscal policy to boost demand (and avoid cooking ourselves) Ideally, some of each. Otherwise, no one will need us programmers: labor is too damn cheap, especially once the climate refuges start pouring in.

imtringued 5y ago
I fully agree. The real question is whether we can keep this "full employment" culture. If you have "everything" you truly want and you keep working then what exactly are you working for? You're losing time and getting nothing you truly want in return. Really, the only thing you can do is to prepare for the future. People try to prepare by saving money but saving money is a zero sum game. When you save, someone else has to borrow for there to be a net 0 impact to the economy. If people really insisted on working full time 40 hours per week then they would have to spend that time building long lasting projects. Climate change comes to mind. CO2 reductions are basically permanent. Given enough reductions we will never hit 1.5C° of warming. If we do away with the full employment culture then we still need to figure out a way to make supply and demand balance out on an individual level. A reduction in work hours per week is better than nothing but there are always people with high enough demand that it makes sense for them to work more. "you eat less, you work less" and "you eat more, you work more" on an individual level.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  :) nice to read all that > If people really insisted on working full time 40 hours per week then they would have to spend that time building long lasting projects. Climate change comes to mind. CO2 reductions are basically permanent. Given enough reductions we will never hit 1.5C° of warming. In some sense, because the problems are so abstract, it's good to think about extrinsic vs intrinsic rewards. I cannot empathize with the victims of 40 year out ecofashism, but I can nonetheless get a warm fuzzy feeling from whatever I'm doing right now. https://vebaccount.substack.com/p/under-full-employment-your-job-could https://vebaccount.substack.com/p/under-full-employment-your... is relevant. > If we do away with the full employment culture then we still need to figure out a way to make supply and demand balance out on an individual level. A reduction in work hours per week is better than nothing but there are always people with high enough demand that it makes sense for them to work more. "you eat less, you work less" and "you eat more, you work more" on an individual level. Absolutely. The idea that we suffering because "all carrot" won't suffice is, frankly ludicrous. Ironically, an all-carrot labor market would probably make it act in a more simplistic Econ 101 fashion than today. Certainly there won't be an aggregate supply shortfall, as the fearmongers allege.

imtringued 5y ago

I fully agree. The real question is whether we can keep this "full employment" culture. If you have "everything" you truly want and you keep working then what exactly are you working for? You're losing time and getting nothing you truly want in return. Really, the only thing you can do is to prepare for the future. People try to prepare by saving money but saving money is a zero sum game. When you save, someone else has to borrow for there to be a net 0 impact to the economy. If people really insisted on working full time 40 hours per week then they would have to spend that time building long lasting projects. Climate change comes to mind. CO2 reductions are basically permanent. Given enough reductions we will never hit 1.5C° of warming. If we do away with the full employment culture then we still need to figure out a way to make supply and demand balance out on an individual level. A reduction in work hours per week is better than nothing but there are always people with high enough demand that it makes sense for them to work more. "you eat less, you work less" and "you eat more, you work more" on an individual level.

Ericson2314 5y ago
:) nice to read all that > If people really insisted on working full time 40 hours per week then they would have to spend that time building long lasting projects. Climate change comes to mind. CO2 reductions are basically permanent. Given enough reductions we will never hit 1.5C° of warming. In some sense, because the problems are so abstract, it's good to think about extrinsic vs intrinsic rewards. I cannot empathize with the victims of 40 year out ecofashism, but I can nonetheless get a warm fuzzy feeling from whatever I'm doing right now. https://vebaccount.substack.com/p/under-full-employment-your-job-could https://vebaccount.substack.com/p/under-full-employment-your... is relevant. > If we do away with the full employment culture then we still need to figure out a way to make supply and demand balance out on an individual level. A reduction in work hours per week is better than nothing but there are always people with high enough demand that it makes sense for them to work more. "you eat less, you work less" and "you eat more, you work more" on an individual level. Absolutely. The idea that we suffering because "all carrot" won't suffice is, frankly ludicrous. Ironically, an all-carrot labor market would probably make it act in a more simplistic Econ 101 fashion than today. Certainly there won't be an aggregate supply shortfall, as the fearmongers allege.