The future of the work force

[MadImmortalMan]

Here's what's going to happen.


We as a species will over the course of the centuries get to the point where nobody is qualified to do any work, however menial, without spending 55 years and millions of dollars getting degrees and certifications. All of the excess productivity enabled by the technological enhancements will be absorbed by paying for the aforementioned certification process. Once the 55 year old humans are fully certified to begin their productive life doing maintenance on toilet-cleaning droids and the robots that have to fly around sweeping the sand off of solar panels in the Sahara, they will then be able to afford to begin paying for student loans.

[Sheilbh]

Multiply that by a bunch due to technology, globalization, market efficiency, etc., etc., and we live on a planet where the basic need for people working is going to continue to decline. Those who are engaged in work that is not as susceptible to modernization efficiency will do ok, but maybe at the end fo teh day we are looking at a more fundamental change in the value of labor in human production.

Young, cheap labour serving elderly people with capital

[alfred russel]

I am not an economist, so I'm not sure I understand the difference between "incomes becomming greater" and "the crap we buy becomming cheaper".

Neither am I, and I am probably mostly talking out my ass.

But it seems like since the turn of the century (1900ish), we have seen this incredible increase in productivity. And this has resulted in an explosion in the availability of consumer goods at very low relative prices, such that the middle class can afford lots and lots of "stuff".

So the cost of goods that we buy has gone down, meaning our standard of living has certianly gone up because we can all afford washing machines, a few TVs, couple cars, etc., etc. But our relative income has not really changed, and hence our ability to buy things that are not much easier to produce (say houses and things like that) has not really changed much.

This suggests to me that the increased productivity of labor is great, but it isn't really translating into increased markets as a general rule. It probably does when you ahve a lot of untapped markets, so you do (and have) seen  some of that excess production used to open markets that were previously not worthwhile. But at some point, you run out of those markets. At some point, we just have this one planet, and eventually even the chinese and indians get a middle class, and then what?

You can create new markets of course, but even those are finite (if theoretically unknown). At some point, the idea that there MUST BE some match between increased availability of labor due to increased productivity driving down the need for that labor in traditional roles and the oh so happy need for that labor in some other previously unexploited market becomes spurious. It strikes me as kind of ::just so" economic theory, something we want to be true, but fundamentally isn't really true.

If I could magically create a infinite army of cost free robots to do all the manual work everywhere in the world for no cost, I don't buy into the idea that there would be some matching magical power that would create new markets for all that suddenly worthless labor.

Excluding the magical robot possibility, I don't think this is very sound analysis. Productivity has exploded since the beginning of the industrial revolution, but unemployment has probably gone down.

Labor hasn't become cheaper because of industrialization--it has actually become much more expensive. The same goes for real estate, which we haven't figured out how to make much more of cheaply. But we have become dramatically more efficient in terms of manufacturing. The result is that manufactured goods cost less (despite labor / hour costing more), while items heavy in labor and real estate - such as houses - cost a lot.

A lot of the pre industrial / early industrial sources of occupation - domestic work - didn't go away because people didn't want it anymore - it went away because live-in staff became unaffordable as labor costs rose. When we start to get back to those levels of domestic employment, I'll consider that technology may be putting people out of jobs. There is an immense amount of demand for human delivered services that is unmet.

[Neil]

Berkut has convinced me as to the rightness of confiscatory tax schemes.

[Sheilbh]

Sounds like the whole great stagnation idea:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/growth_2

[MadImmortalMan]

The same goes for real estate, which we haven't figured out how to make much more of cheaply.

Now that one seems like there must be some artificial barriers in the way. Or some non-artificial ones which are becoming less relevant. I bet we will see it in the next couple generations. Or decades even.

[crazy canuck]

A lot of the pre industrial / early industrial sources of occupation - domestic work - didn't go away because people didn't want it anymore - it went away because live-in staff became unaffordable as labor costs rose. When we start to get back to those levels of domestic employment, I'll consider that technology may be putting people out of jobs. There is an immense amount of demand for human delivered services that is unmet.

Pre-industrial societies didnt have minimum wages laws and so I suspect you will be waiting a very long time for those days to return.

[alfred russel]

Pre-industrial societies didnt have minimum wages laws and so I suspect you will be waiting a very long time for those days to return.

I suspect I will be as well, but not because of minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage laws barely provide enough to live on--and even pre industrial help got that.

[Sheilbh]

I think that also underestimates the prevalence of domestic service for the middle class and the landed. I mean in the UK right up until the 1910s around a quarter to a third of all employed women were in domestic service and around 10% of the total adult workforce (both genders). It was down on the mid-19th century figures but that's hardly the pre-industrial or early industrial era.

I imagine it was similar in the US, especially when you consider the position of many African-Americans at the time.

Edit: And I believe the number in domestic service increases drastically if you include those who didn't live with the household, which was a sort of service attainable for even the lower-middle class.

Pre-industrial societies didnt have minimum wages laws and so I suspect you will be waiting a very long time for those days to return.

Often room and board was provided, but very minimal wages and awful intrusion.

Edit: Interestingly looking at the old census data around a third of women were working in 1901 which isn't so low that the return of women to the workplace would be as important as people think. I still think the major difference is the type of work and status they have.

[alfred russel]

I think that also underestimates the prevalence of domestic service for the middle class and the landed. I mean in the UK right up until the 1910s around a quarter to a third of all employed women were in domestic service and around 10% of the total adult workforce (both genders). It was down on the mid-19th century figures but that's hardly the pre-industrial or early industrial era.

I imagine it was similar in the US, especially when you consider the position of many African-Americans at the time.

Edit: And I believe the number in domestic service increases drastically if you include those who didn't live with the household, which was a sort of service attainable for even the lower-middle class.

Pre-industrial societies didnt have minimum wages laws and so I suspect you will be waiting a very long time for those days to return.

Often room and board was provided, but very minimal wages and awful intrusion.

Edit: Interestingly looking at the old census data around a third of women were working in 1901 which isn't so low that the return of women to the workplace would be as important as people think. I still think the major difference is the type of work and status they have.

What you wrote doesn't conflict with my understanding, so I don't think I'm underestimating anything.

In terms of pay, McDonald's provides no room and board but high enough wages so that someone can get very basic room and board with minimal wages left over. I don't see a major economic hurdle to overcome.

[fhdz]

Why would I like a guy because he's a liberal?

Because the kind of conservative you're a fan of is considered a liberal now.

[Sheilbh]

What you wrote doesn't conflict with my understanding, so I don't think I'm underestimating anything.

Early 20th century America and Britain is hardly early industrial though. I think service carried on until certain social mores changed, other avenues of employment opened for the (predominately female) workforce and technology enabled a shift away from service. Labour costs were, perhaps, a part of it but I think changes to society and technology were a far larger part.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, people needed servants before the invention of washing machines etc because it was hard long work to get the household chores done.

Those once hard to do tasks are as simple as pushing a button now.

[mongers]

From the sounds of it, the total fucking assholes will inherit the Earth.

You know, maybe the wrong team won the Cold War.

I can see where you're coming from with that, I largely agree with the sentiment. 

[Admiral Yi]

There are a few workers' paradises left in the world that one could probably emigrate to if one wished.