News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

What causes unemployment?

Started by HisMajestyBOB, October 05, 2011, 03:28:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
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.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 07, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
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.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

crazy canuck

Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
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

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
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.
:yes:

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

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
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

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
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.
" SIR – I must commend you on some of your recent obituaries. I was delighted to read of the deaths of Foday Sankoh (August 9th), and Uday and Qusay Hussein (July 26th). Do you take requests? "

OVO JE SRBIJA
BUDALO, OVO JE POSTA

DGuller

 :huh: I never post while I'm working.

Razgovory

I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

DGuller


alfred russel

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
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.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

garbon

Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2011, 10:29:38 AM
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. :)
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

DGuller

Quote from: alfred russel on October 07, 2011, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
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.
:bleeding:  With all due respect, AR, this post is full of life expectancy math fail, for a couple of reasons.

Ideologue

Quote from: WarspiteThe 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.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

alfred russel

Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
:bleeding:  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.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014