7 ms·

>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring

>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.

refurb 5y ago
I mean, the US and other countries have reached “full employment” on several occasions - a level of unemployment where effectively everyone who wants a job had one (the unemployed who do exist are the small fraction you cant eliminate as people are in between jobs or seek other opportunities - employment “friction”).
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  The main issue with that notion is that the statistics simply favor excluding a lot of people from being counted as employed or unemployed. There's a rather large third group of simply not working that is problematic in the sense that these people still need taking care off financially (healthcare, housing, education, etc.). A lot of people that are not technically unemployed are also not working fall into a few groups: those that are dependent on others to work; those that are too young or too old to work; and those that have simply given up on the whole notion of working because they are no longer able to physically or mentally (or both). And there is of course a big problem with poverty even among those that work. So unemployment figures look great. Poverty figures, not so much. IMHO basic income would be a fair and simple way to ensure we get rid of poverty that should not break capitalism.
- assbuttbuttass 5y ago
  "full employment" is a misleading term. Unemployment only counts people who have been actively looking for a job in the last 4 weeks, and so excludes many chronically unemployed. In addition underemployment is not counted at all: in today's "gig economy" many people can't find full time employment and have to work multiple part time jobs. "Full employment" absolutely builds in the reserve army of labor power into the definition.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  This is the labor force participation rate for men in the US from 1948 to now from the US bureau of labor statistics https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 Was 86% or above before 1950, never above 70% over the past 5 years. The trend has been downward the whole time.
  - refurb 5y ago
    You realize the labor participation rate accounts for the retired? A stat that might change with the aging workforce?
    - VictorPath 5y ago
      According to the department of labor's bureau of labor statistics, it is the opposite of what you said. From 2000 to 2020, the labor participation for men from 20 to 44 has fallen. Labor participation for men 45 to 54 varies from flat to down. The labor participation rate for men 55 and older has risen. Working age men are less employed than they were, retirement age men are more employed than they were. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-particip...
utxutcfic 5y ago
cloutchaser 5y ago
If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my home country the government introduced rules where to have government benefits you have to work a little, painting your community, cutting grass in public places etc. People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate, and tie unemployment benefits to it? Yet that is precisely what Stalin just argued for there. A government can create full employment by creating jobs and forcing people to work. Why don't modern socialists support that?
- zokier 5y ago
  If you need to work to get money, it is no more benefit, it is employment. And with employment should come all the benefits of employment, meaning vacation days, insurances, proper wage (>minimum wage), etc.
  - Sankozi 5y ago
    "you have to work a little" It can easily be benefit for example if you work 1/8 time for 1/2 of pay.
- mantas 5y ago
  ... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.
  - refurb 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism
mytailorisrich 5y ago
In every system you need some slack otherwise the slightest hiccup brings everything to a halt. Here the point is not to have an underclass of long-term, exploitable unemployed but to have some slack, ie. a minimum number of people available to ensure the system runs smoothly without shortages and hindrance to business growth and change. Low unemployment is good and desirable but shortages are not.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  The question at hand concerns who pays the price when that slack runs out.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > you need some slack The slack can be heirs forgoing the size of their profits, by boosting wages where needed, as opposed to slack in the wages if the people doing all the work and creating all the wealth.
- mcv 5y ago
  I think the goal of no unemployment is a false one. The real goal has to be no poverty. Employment is only important because it provides people with an income that saves them from poverty (or at least should; too many jobs still pay poverty wages). If a society had a basic income for everybody, the unemployed wouldn't be poor, and would still be available for work if the demand for extra labour was high enough. Although ultimately, I do think that eventually automation should lead to less people having to work. Or perhaps preferably: people having to work less; we should also get rid of the 40+ hour work week, so we can divide the available work more equally, while also making sure everybody has enough time to enjoy the fruits of their labour. And part-time work also provides the needed slack in the system without condemning anyone to poverty.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Unemployment may bring to mind an image of someone banging on a door crying for a job to support their children, but these are the minority of cases. Ideally, we would have a bigger safety net so that this would never happen. There will sprays be a certain percentage of people where work is not a good option due to physical or mental disabilities. It is society’s role to help these people, and the wealthier society becomes, the easier this should be.
dW4XWxH5Rxsh5rC 5y ago
>Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism In what part of his works does Adam Smith says something like that?

refurb 5y ago

I mean, the US and other countries have reached “full employment” on several occasions - a level of unemployment where effectively everyone who wants a job had one (the unemployed who do exist are the small fraction you cant eliminate as people are in between jobs or seek other opportunities - employment “friction”).

jillesvangurp 5y ago
The main issue with that notion is that the statistics simply favor excluding a lot of people from being counted as employed or unemployed. There's a rather large third group of simply not working that is problematic in the sense that these people still need taking care off financially (healthcare, housing, education, etc.). A lot of people that are not technically unemployed are also not working fall into a few groups: those that are dependent on others to work; those that are too young or too old to work; and those that have simply given up on the whole notion of working because they are no longer able to physically or mentally (or both). And there is of course a big problem with poverty even among those that work. So unemployment figures look great. Poverty figures, not so much. IMHO basic income would be a fair and simple way to ensure we get rid of poverty that should not break capitalism.
assbuttbuttass 5y ago
"full employment" is a misleading term. Unemployment only counts people who have been actively looking for a job in the last 4 weeks, and so excludes many chronically unemployed. In addition underemployment is not counted at all: in today's "gig economy" many people can't find full time employment and have to work multiple part time jobs. "Full employment" absolutely builds in the reserve army of labor power into the definition.
VictorPath 5y ago
This is the labor force participation rate for men in the US from 1948 to now from the US bureau of labor statistics https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 Was 86% or above before 1950, never above 70% over the past 5 years. The trend has been downward the whole time.
- refurb 5y ago
  You realize the labor participation rate accounts for the retired? A stat that might change with the aging workforce?
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    According to the department of labor's bureau of labor statistics, it is the opposite of what you said. From 2000 to 2020, the labor participation for men from 20 to 44 has fallen. Labor participation for men 45 to 54 varies from flat to down. The labor participation rate for men 55 and older has risen. Working age men are less employed than they were, retirement age men are more employed than they were. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-particip...

utxutcfic 5y ago

cloutchaser 5y ago

If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my home country the government introduced rules where to have government benefits you have to work a little, painting your community, cutting grass in public places etc. People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate, and tie unemployment benefits to it? Yet that is precisely what Stalin just argued for there. A government can create full employment by creating jobs and forcing people to work. Why don't modern socialists support that?

zokier 5y ago
If you need to work to get money, it is no more benefit, it is employment. And with employment should come all the benefits of employment, meaning vacation days, insurances, proper wage (>minimum wage), etc.
- Sankozi 5y ago
  "you have to work a little" It can easily be benefit for example if you work 1/8 time for 1/2 of pay.
mantas 5y ago
... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.
- refurb 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism

mytailorisrich 5y ago

In every system you need some slack otherwise the slightest hiccup brings everything to a halt. Here the point is not to have an underclass of long-term, exploitable unemployed but to have some slack, ie. a minimum number of people available to ensure the system runs smoothly without shortages and hindrance to business growth and change. Low unemployment is good and desirable but shortages are not.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
The question at hand concerns who pays the price when that slack runs out.
VictorPath 5y ago
> you need some slack The slack can be heirs forgoing the size of their profits, by boosting wages where needed, as opposed to slack in the wages if the people doing all the work and creating all the wealth.
mcv 5y ago
I think the goal of no unemployment is a false one. The real goal has to be no poverty. Employment is only important because it provides people with an income that saves them from poverty (or at least should; too many jobs still pay poverty wages). If a society had a basic income for everybody, the unemployed wouldn't be poor, and would still be available for work if the demand for extra labour was high enough. Although ultimately, I do think that eventually automation should lead to less people having to work. Or perhaps preferably: people having to work less; we should also get rid of the 40+ hour work week, so we can divide the available work more equally, while also making sure everybody has enough time to enjoy the fruits of their labour. And part-time work also provides the needed slack in the system without condemning anyone to poverty.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Unemployment may bring to mind an image of someone banging on a door crying for a job to support their children, but these are the minority of cases. Ideally, we would have a bigger safety net so that this would never happen. There will sprays be a certain percentage of people where work is not a good option due to physical or mental disabilities. It is society’s role to help these people, and the wealthier society becomes, the easier this should be.

dW4XWxH5Rxsh5rC 5y ago

>Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism In what part of his works does Adam Smith says something like that?