3 ms·

That might be because governments keep talking about going back to growth after the austerity measures. If there is no growth and unemployment stays at the curr

by iaskwhy 13y ago

That might be because governments keep talking about going back to growth after the austerity measures. If there is no growth and unemployment stays at the current levels, things eventually need to change. And it's not only a governments' thing, with a large part of the population without any money, consumption will suffer a lot so companies will feel it deeply. It's going to take some time though as nowadays the middle class doesn't like the idea of more social welfare since there's currently a direct connection to heavier taxes.

sbarre 13y ago
I realize this is slightly off-topic, but reducing consumption is not a bad thing. We can all collectively live on a lot less than we currently do (stuff-wise, not necessarily money-wise). I keep hoping that a positive side effect of this economic shift will the reduction of accumulation of unessential crap..
- iaskwhy 13y ago
  I tend to agree but if the consequence is less money for the companies to hire people then extending social welfare needs to cover for the lack of jobs available. I can imagine a lot of positive side effects if this happens.
- el_zorro 13y ago
  I think that the fruits of all these contemporary advancements won't be really seen until the global population starts dropping. Right now, automating generally puts someone out of a job and forces them into one that is more or less made up just so that they can have a job[1]. With a declining population, automation will pick up whatever slack worker 'scarcity' creates. It's interesting to think about how that world would look like. Imagining a constant rate of production, this means that cheaper goods will be spread around fewer people. I imagine that this would drive a push away from mid-level jobs, probably into highly educated roles that innovate or maintain complex autonomous systems. [1] http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

by iaskwhy 13y ago

sbarre 13y ago

I realize this is slightly off-topic, but reducing consumption is not a bad thing. We can all collectively live on a lot less than we currently do (stuff-wise, not necessarily money-wise). I keep hoping that a positive side effect of this economic shift will the reduction of accumulation of unessential crap..

iaskwhy 13y ago
I tend to agree but if the consequence is less money for the companies to hire people then extending social welfare needs to cover for the lack of jobs available. I can imagine a lot of positive side effects if this happens.
el_zorro 13y ago
I think that the fruits of all these contemporary advancements won't be really seen until the global population starts dropping. Right now, automating generally puts someone out of a job and forces them into one that is more or less made up just so that they can have a job[1]. With a declining population, automation will pick up whatever slack worker 'scarcity' creates. It's interesting to think about how that world would look like. Imagining a constant rate of production, this means that cheaper goods will be spread around fewer people. I imagine that this would drive a push away from mid-level jobs, probably into highly educated roles that innovate or maintain complex autonomous systems. [1] http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/