What causes unemployment?

[The Minsky Moment]

I agree, but that doesn't really address my argument, which is a somewhat specualtive, futurist one.

It could happen - Keynes wrote an essay about this, which I know you read from another discussion.  But you need to consider that at least in the West the level of affluence has already passed that at which Keynes imagined a transformation of social attitudes towards leisure.

What has happened instead is a cultural and economic response that has generated new demands for new kinds of services and goods to replace those that can now be produced more efficiently through machinery.  So for example, modern household conveniences have had the effect of significantly reducing middle class demand for household servants, but now that demand is channelled to other kinds of services like personal trainers, yoga instructors and dog walkers.   Scanners and computerized logistics systems have reduced the relative quantity of labor power in grocery markets, but now instead of the servants or the wife making the coffee with sugar, people go to Starbucks for latte.  Armies of people are deployed doing all sorts of IT related tasks that never existed before. 

In theory at some point satiation of needs can be reached, but historically what seemed like reasonable predictions of future satiation have always failed to pan out.  Human beings appear to be endlessly creative in creating new wants and needs, notwithstanding the tut-tutting of the Frankfurt School.   As long as that continues, and I can think of no reason it won't, your futurist scenario won't come to be.

[alfred russel]

I agree, but that doesn't really address my argument, which is a somewhat specualtive, futurist one.

It could happen - Keynes wrote an essay about this, which I know you read from another discussion.  But you need to consider that at least in the West the level of affluence has already passed that at which Keynes imagined a transformation of social attitudes towards leisure.

What has happened instead is a cultural and economic response that has generated new demands for new kinds of services and goods to replace those that can now be produced more efficiently through machinery.  So for example, modern household conveniences have had the effect of significantly reducing middle class demand for household servants, but now that demand is channelled to other kinds of services like personal trainers, yoga instructors and dog walkers.   Scanners and computerized logistics systems have reduced the relative quantity of labor power in grocery markets, but now instead of the servants or the wife making the coffee with sugar, people go to Starbucks for latte.  Armies of people are deployed doing all sorts of IT related tasks that never existed before. 

In theory at some point satiation of needs can be reached, but historically what seemed like reasonable predictions of future satiation have always failed to pan out.  Human beings appear to be endlessly creative in creating new wants and needs, notwithstanding the tut-tutting of the Frankfurt School.   As long as that continues, and I can think of no reason it won't, your futurist scenario won't come to be.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.

[crazy canuck]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.

People are not retiring as early as they used to.  In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.

Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased.  For many people that increase is unpaid.  Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.

If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.

[DGuller]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.

People are not retiring as early as they used to.  In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.

Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased.  For many people that increase is unpaid.  Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.

If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.

[dps]

You're right about retirement (though I'm not sure if your reasons for the changes are right) and about the communications thing, but I'm almost certain that the length of the work day is not increasing, at least in the US.

[crazy canuck]

You're right about retirement (though I'm not sure if your reasons for the changes are right) and about the communications thing, but I'm almost certain that the length of the work day is not increasing, at least in the US.

I didnt give any reasons for it.  I simply told you how the law has adjusted to that reality.

Why are you certain that people in the US are not working extra unpaid time?

[Warspite]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it is a worthwhile perspective that time out of the workforce has increased dramatically since the 1950s visions of a future with very little work. We spend much longer in school, and much longer in retirement. Our workday may not have been reduced to 4 hours, but some of those efficiencies that were envisioned have been captured as leisure time as well.

People are not retiring as early as they used to.  In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.

Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased.  For many people that increase is unpaid.  Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.

If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.

The internet, however, has increased leisure time at work, surely.

I mean, this place keeps going through working hours.

[DGuller]

  I never post while I'm working.

[Razgovory]

I never post while I'm working.

What do you do all day then?

[DGuller]

I never post while I'm working.

What do you do all day then?

You sound just like my boss.

[alfred russel]

People are not retiring as early as they used to.  In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.

Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased.  For many people that increase is unpaid.  Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.

If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.

But I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm driving at:

say in the 1930s, the retirement age may have been 65 in the US, but life expectancy was less than that. The average person never retired and started work at 18. That is 70% of life working.

Today the life expectancy is roughly 80. If the average person starts work at 20 and retires at 68, that is just 60% of life working.

[garbon]

I think a lot of office workers are still way overpaid.

Well I know one who is.  ZING!

For what I do - likely. However, I do it well, so there you go.

[DGuller]

People are not retiring as early as they used to.  In response many jurisdictions are removing the ability of employers to terminate people at the "usual retirement age" without fear of human rights litigation - ie so called mandatory retirement provisions are a thing of the past.

Also, the number of hours in a day spent working as increased.  For many people that increase is unpaid.  Add to that the fact that communications technology has made a large segment of the population effectively at work long after they leave their actual place of work.

If anything I see a decrease in leisure time.

But I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm driving at:

say in the 1930s, the retirement age may have been 65 in the US, but life expectancy was less than that. The average person never retired and started work at 18. That is 70% of life working.

Today the life expectancy is roughly 80. If the average person starts work at 20 and retires at 68, that is just 60% of life working.

  With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.

[Ideologue]

The internet, however, has increased leisure time at work, surely.

I mean, this place keeps going through working hours.

I'm pretty sure Toronto, for example, ain't on the Greenwich Mean.

[alfred russel]

  With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.

I realize that isn't all that accurate, but no one on this forum is going to sort through life expectancy and other tables to perform a rigorous analysis. It illustrates the point I was trying to make.