Languish.org

Interesting piece, cribbed from Psychology Today.  Thoughts from the Languish flash mob of Free Marketeers, Bolsheviks, Euroweenies, lawyers and HR people who say they're not in HR?

QuoteThe End of Jobs As We Have Known Them
The rise of contingent and contract work will change the workplace

You can't pick up a newspaper these days, or watch a news media broadcast that is not mentioning the problem of unemployment and job loss in the economy. For most observers, the problem is often oversimplified as a result of the recession, and we only need policies to return those jobs. The reality is that we are witnessing the end of jobs as we have known them.

Mike Dorning, in his article in Bloomberg Businessweek cites U.S. employment data that is frightening. The portion of all men holding any kind of job in the U.S. is 63.5%, the lowest figure since 1948. Among prime working-age men between 25 and 54, 81% hold jobs. In comparison in 1969, 95% of men in the prime working years had a job. The temporary placement company in the U.S., Adecco, predicts that the rate of growth in contingent workers will be 3-4 times the growth rate of traditional jobs and will soon comprise at least 30% or more of the global workforce.

Sara Horowitz, founder and CEO of Freelancers Union, argues that the jobless future is already here. She points out that many people are already combining part-time work just to get by. In an article in Atlantic magazine, Horowitz says that as of 2005, a full 30% of the workforce has participated in this "freelance economy," and entrepreneurial activity has reached an all time high in 2010. Dana Shaw, former senior Vice-President for Staffing Industry Analysts, reported that in the Fortune 100 companies, contingent workers make up 20-30% of the workforce, but predicts it will soon be 50%. Statistics Canada reported that by 2009, 52% of all temporary jobs were contract jobs, 25% of them were professionals. The permanent full time jobs that were jettisoned during the recession are not likely to return. McKinsey &Co. reported that 65% of U.S. corporations have restructured their workforce and have no plans to return to pre-recession employment, but rather are opting for contingent and contract work when the need for expansion takes place.

Marshall Brain, writing in his informative blog, cites the explosive growth in the use of robotics–not on the assembly line but in ordinary retail businesses, including McDonalds, Home Depot, and others. Brain cites the principle of Moore's Law–that CPU power in microprocessor chips doubles every 18 to 24 months–to support his argument that a massive number of jobs will be replaced by technology and never return. He forecasts that almost all construction, manufacturing, transportation, wholesale, retail, and hotel and restaurant jobs will be lost to automation by the year 2050. This would create unemployment levels of up to 50%.

Besides the negative impact of increased unemployment, the expansion of temporary work has other downsides. One of the biggest hurdles that will have to be overcome for contingent work to be dominant is the predominant attitude in organizations that contract workers are less important or less competent, and less committed than "permanent" workers. Contingent work also is accompanied by a lack of benefits such as health, life and disability insurance. Some experts would argue that the growth of contingent and contract jobs contributes to the growing problem of income gap between the wealthy and the rest of society, as contract workers tend to be paid less and earn less than permanent workers. People who don't earn as much money or have less economic security tend to spend less as consumers, which has a general negative impact on the economy.  A second argument, which is reflected in an OECD report, is that contingent and part-time work produces more stress for these workers, who may be continually fearful of loss of employment. This in turn, has potential health cost implications for the organizations.

Many economists argue that the current economic problem is lack of consumer demand—the lack of money to spend on stuff. But with the increasing decline of the middle class who spends most of that money, the problem won't be solved any time soon. So while politicians and business leaders chant for more jobs, the real issue is economic inequality to support sustained growth. It's not likely that the 45 million people at the poverty level in the U.S. will drive its economy to new prosperity.

Is there an upside to the movement toward contingent and contract work?

Daniel Pink, author of Free Agent Nation, prepared us for this scenario in 2001. Pink described the emergence of "Supertemps,"—top managers and professionals, trained at the top schools, who have chosen to pursue contract work over regular employment.

While the recession and global economic conditions may be a reason for contingent workers, increasingly more people are choosing contract work for the following reasons:

    The desire for better life-work balance;
    The opportunity to create and manage their careers;
    The opportunity to learn and master new skills continually.

Derek Sankey, reporting for the Calgary Herald, cites a Strategic Council survey, which shows 62% of Baby Boomers making more than $80,000/yr. chose contract work versus 37% who chose full time regular employment. New types of talent brokers such as Your Encore, an online network of retired and veteran scientists and engineers, or Innocentive, which offers crowdsourcing services to companies with innovation challenges, connects free agents with project-based work in the virtual marketplace or Guru.com and Freelancer.com which provides opportunities to buy and sell professional contract work.

The growth of contingent and contract work is also related to how work is viewed conceptually. The fast-moving, technologically dynamic global economy has forced leaders to think about work in modular, every shifting ways. Organizations that can adapt, change and innovate quickly have an advantage today. Contingent and contract workers can facilitate this change.

Josh Bersin, President and CEO of Bersin & Associates, a talent management company, wrote a insightful article on the issue, arguing, "jobs are turning into roles, roles are becoming more specialized and the new currency of value is expertise, not simply experience." Our traditional vision of a job is history. It was a functional role defined by a set of skills, or competencies that carried out a specific function, and along with it came a title and career path that was clearly defined. Job descriptions were written and people were hired to them and the HR function was created to manage the process. Bersin has coined the term "the borderless workplace," which means workers work seamlessly inside and outside organizations, adapting to change in world conditions.

Penelope Trunk, writing in her popular blog on the workplace, contends that we will see the end of what we conceive of as "office life," within a short time and that employers will increasingly view all their employees as "consultants" to facilitate flexible hours and project based work; and we will see the end of the traditional career path and organizational hierarchies.

Douglas Rushkoff, author of Life Inc: How the World Became a Corporation and How To Take It Back, was interviewed by CNN.com. He proposed the notion that jobs are obsolete. He argues that it's not a bad thing that technology is replacing jobs. Part of the public discourse has focused on employment as the solution to economic growth, but countries have in fact focused on productivity through technology not human labor, Rushkoff contends. The U.S. and Canada is productive enough to provide everyone sufficient shelter, food, education and health care without increased employment. The problem is the proceeds of productivity–economic wealth–are not equitably distributed. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that there is enough food produced in the world to provide the entire world's population with 2,720 calories per day. Yet every 6 seconds a child dies from malnutrition.

So is the problem that we don't have enough "stuff" for everyone or that we don't have enough ways for people to work and prove they deserve the stuff?

Let's remember that the concept of jobs is a relatively new idea. People may have always worked, but until the advent of corporate business in the Renaissance, most people worked for themselves. The advent of the Industrial Age made most jobs as menial and unskilled as possible. As technology in factories was used to increase production and use less labor, so too has digital technology supplanted jobs. One of the biggest problems we face today is how to create full employment while pursuing technology that is intended to replace it.

Most work today is knowledge work, not making stuff. Knowledge work is a creative activity. Part of the issue of resolving the job-work issue is accepting basic human rights about essential stuff–food, shelter and health–and focusing work on the value we create that makes life meaningful, purposeful and fun.

One thing is for sure, the problem of unemployment and our view of work and jobs is undergoing a revolution, not just a minor hiccup or temporary recession.

And a follow-up piece on it, some overlap but has some other interesting tidbits--

QuoteThe End of Careers As We Know Them
Lifelong and full time careers are disappearing
Published on July 11, 2013 by Ray Williams

Technology, for the most part, has not allowed us to retire to a life of leisure as predicted decades ago. In my Financial Post article, "In the Future, No One is Going To Pay You Just to Show Up," the current reality is that we may see many people resigned to an extensive period of unemployment or temporary work.

In my article in the Financial Post, I reference a report in Bloomberg Businessweek by Mike Dorning who cites U.S. employment data that is frightening. The portion of all men holding any kind of job in the United States is 63.5%, the lowest figure since 1948. And the lowest level of unemployment is among young men.

Middle-income jobs are disappearing for a wide range of jobs. For example, the number of financial counselors and loan officers ages 25 to 34 has dropped 40 percent since 2007, outpacing the 30 percent drop in total jobs for the profession, according to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the investment business we are seeing the replacement of financial analysts with quantitative analytic systems, and floor traders with trading algorithms. Mutual funds and traditional portfolio managers now compete against ETFs (exchange-traded funds), many of which offer completely automated strategies.

Even the professions are not spared by the impact of economic restructuring.

The number of hours logged by first-year and mid-level legal associates -- a productivity measure of young lawyers -- fell 12 percent from 2007 at some of New York's largest law firms, says Jeff Grossman, national managing director of Wells Fargo Private Bank's Legal Specialty.  Architecture graduates ages 25 to 29 had the highest unemployment of the 57 degree programs surveyed by the Education Department in 2009.

What about the medical profession? CABG rates are continuing to fall, says cardiologist Jack Tu, co-author of the ICES report and team leader of the Canadian Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Team (CCORT). "Anecdotally, a lot of surgeons are concerned they don't have the [procedure] volume to meet their targets for [government] funding [as a cardiac centre]," says Tu, a senior scientist at ICES and Canada Research Chair in Health Services Research. Volumes will definitely continue to fall, resulting, eventually, in a surplus of cardiac surgeons, says Tu. "We need to stop training so many. They're not going to have a lot of work."

Sara Horowitz, founder and CEO of Freelancers Union, argues that the jobless future is here. Many people are already combining part-time work just to get by, she notes. In an article in Atlantic magazine, Horowitz writes that as of 2005, 30% of the workforce has participated in this "freelance economy," and entrepreneurial activity has reached an all time high in 2010.

Some people—mostly Baby Boomers—still define a careers working in the same role/job or career field for their entire life or the majority of it. With the speed of technological change and the prospect of long-term economic problems, that's just not realistic anymore than thinking the knowledge and skills acquired in college have a long shelf life.

What will the future of careers look like? The reality is that life in general, and working lives in particular, are getting longer and not shorter. No one can rely on any organization, even governments, to provide secure work for you for 3 or 4 decades. In the near future, it will not be uncommon for people to work well into their 70's and 80's, and retirement will be a distant memory.

Some career experts offer some startling predictions and advice.

In my Psychology Today article, "The End of Jobs As We Have Known Them," I argue that the jobless future is already here.  Futurist Jeremy Rifkin contends we are entirely a new phase in history, once characterized by a steady and inevitable decline of jobs. He says the world of work is being polarized into 2 forces: One, an information elite that controls the global economy; and the other, a growing number of displaced workers.

Penelope Trunk, Co-Founder of Brazen Careerist, suggests the younger generation should skip college because it's a waste of time and resources, and no longer guarantees a long career, let alone employment. She also recommends internships, starting your own company and not presenting yourself in a linear way on a resume. Trunk argues "a fundamental shift is taking place, where the path to getting a job is massively circumventing college credentials. At the same time, the American public is fed up with the insane debts that colleges are expecting new grads to take on."

Organizational structural changes have altered the nature of careers and jobs . Organizations have become "flatter" with fewer management levels as more work has become knowledge work. Project work and teamwork have also changed the nature of jobs.

Careers that once were viewed as progressions "up" a ladder are now often multidirectional and lateral. DeFillip and Arthur (1994) define these changes as the creation of the "boundaryless career," where the career path is defined by the individual's soft and hard skills, not by their formal education or experience.

Today, people need to gain "employability" rather than "secure employment." To survive in a multi-career employees need to have multiple intelligences, resilience and employability—essentially survival tools. Jobs now are defined by expertise, multiple skills, not just uniform experience. Employees who continue to practice their skills repetitively without improvement or flexibility run the risk of making themselves obsolete. In that sense, static job mastery is a liability both for the individual and the organization. Your value as an employee is no longer "I am good at my job," but "how much demand is there for my skills?"  Just look at what happened to specialized computer programmers, who have no other IT skills.

Part of the wrenching dilemma of what will happen to careers lies in answering the question—What is work for? A means to an end—pay the bills? Self-actualization? Status and social position? To sustain a desirable lifestyle? And connected to that inquiry is the question of what purposes do business serve? To provide financial profit for the owners and shareholders? Increasingly that narrow view is no longer embraced, as evidenced by the publc's concerns about employee welfare, the welfare of our communities and the environment.

In his Harvard Business Review article, "Create a Meaningful Life through Meaningful Work," author Umair Haque writes, "Maybe the real depression we've got to contend with isn't merely one of how much economic output we're generating – but what we're putting out there and why. Call it a depression of human potential, a tale of human insignificance being willfully squandered."

Recent studies from research at McKinsey conclude that providing meaningful work to employees was the most important contributing factor to a high level of engagement. In her book, The Progress Principle, author Teresa Amabile reports that of all the events that can deeply engage people in their work, the single most important factor was meaningful work.  According to Ms. Amabile "Beyond affecting the well-being of employees, research shows that the 'inner work life' affects the bottom line."           

So do we begin to define work and careers as "inner work," as well as "outer work?" Where life challenges, self-fulfillment, meaning and social network occupy equal importance. Yet, when you're unemployed, these considerations seem frivolous.

Whose responsibility is it for an individual's career? In the past, particularly in North America, it has been the individual's. Today, we see more progressive organizations are sharing that responsibility, in an effort to retain talent and keep job satisfaction high.

As we go through this huge redefinition of what constitutes a career, both future and current workers would be advised to consider the following advice:

Take responsibility for managing your own career. Don't wait until you're fired, laid off, burned out or fed up to revitalize your career. Manage your career on an ongoing basis, particularly through the good times. This includes becoming your own benefits manager;
Realize that the old social contract—employee work in return from employer loyalty and job security-- is dead. Even if you work for someone else, think of yourself as an entrepreneur;
Become comfortable with change. It's likely you'll be in several careers during your lifetime, sometimes as a result of changes outside your control;
Establish and develop a strong social network. Connecting with people on an ongoing basis will strengthen your capacity to manage your career;
Create and develop your own personal brand. To be marketable in the workplace, you need more than experience and an education. You are more than your job, and being able to see and promote who you are in totality, makes you more marketable;
Establish and develop your professional reputation. It's portable, and hugely affected by social media. A positive reputation can make or break individuals or organizations;
Accept that you are more than your job. Whether you love or hate your job, making it your identity is a big mistake. Reflect on what legacy you want to leave in life, and be happy with your definition of personal success.

The reality is that our traditional notion of a career is obsolete and not likely to return.

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

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

My employer has started a program to reduce the number of freelancers and suppliers and built capacity itself. Obviously the reduction of freelancers happens in Germany, whereas the increase of capacity happens in India. You have to wonder who'll eventually buy our products because it won't be those Indians - they aren't paid well enough for that.

My company seems to be a nice sort of place then as we've been hiring for many positions the whole time I've been here.

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 07:43:40 AM
From the sounds of it, the total fucking assholes will inherit the Earth.

I thought this was interesting:

QuoteFor example, the number of financial counselors and loan officers ages 25 to 34 has dropped 40 percent since 2007, outpacing the 30 percent drop in total jobs for the profession, according to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the investment business we are seeing the replacement of financial analysts with quantitative analytic systems, and floor traders with trading algorithms. Mutual funds and traditional portfolio managers now compete against ETFs (exchange-traded funds), many of which offer completely automated strategies.

I completely expect predatory capitalism to destroy as many jobs as possible, but you know you've got problems with your economic model when its starts eating its own young.

Strange new world. Interesting though. The article states something I've been thinking before, that the idea of jobs is relatively new since the industrial revolution when the need for jobs really ramped up, and who knows how much that will change. But rising technology has been predicted to replace so many jobs and it really hasn't, not yet anyway.

I don't think we can blame Capitalism entirely though, since if the new ways are better, more efficient, less costly then the ideas will be more widely adopted by all, non-Capitalists as well. New and more efficient ideas are always being developed.

For a while now though I've felt bad for those just starting out in work, jobs, careers. Things are changing fast, a slow economy which is on a snail's pace towards growth over too many years. Fewer jobs, insane out of control college tuition costs, house prices too high. Kids starting out are already in trouble just getting going.

Quote from: KRonn on July 16, 2013, 09:21:39 AM
, insane out of control college tuition costs

Yes, and shame on the government for not doing anything about it.  This is one of those cases where I think government should intervene, since a) a lot of the problem is with the for-profit educational sector which is bascially defrauding both the government and the students it's pretending to serve, and b) kids that age really aren't equipped to make responsible financial decisions on their own yet and could potentially ruin their lives on the in many cases extremely poor investments they are being pressured to take on.

Quote from: KRonn on July 16, 2013, 09:21:39 AM
For a while now though I've felt bad for those just starting out in work, jobs, careers. Things are changing fast, a slow economy which is on a snail's pace towards growth over too many years. Fewer jobs, insane out of control college tuition costs, house prices too high. Kids starting out are already in trouble just getting going.

They should borrow $20,000 from their parents and start a business.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 11:15:02 AM

Quote from: KRonn on July 16, 2013, 09:21:39 AM
For a while now though I've felt bad for those just starting out in work, jobs, careers. Things are changing fast, a slow economy which is on a snail's pace towards growth over too many years. Fewer jobs, insane out of control college tuition costs, house prices too high. Kids starting out are already in trouble just getting going.

They should borrow $20,000 from their parents and start a business.

Probably need more like $100K these days. That anecdote was a few years out of date.

Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 11:16:17 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 11:15:02 AM
They should borrow $20,000 from their parents and start a business.

Probably need more like $100K these days. That anecdote was a few years out of date.

2012 wasn't that long ago.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 11:17:28 AM

Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2013, 11:16:17 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 11:15:02 AM
They should borrow $20,000 from their parents and start a business.

Probably need more like $100K these days. That anecdote was a few years out of date.

2012 wasn't that long ago.

:lol:

What I meant was that the chap who borrowed the $20K to start a company - Staples, wasn't it? - did so some years ago. You are, of course, correct that the inspirational anecdote was widely shared last year and thus is current; I just feel that Mr. Romney didn't account for inflation if he meant for us to apply his advice today.

It's a minor point, of course; there's not much difference between $20K and $100K, is there?

QuoteMarshall Brain
Daniel Pink
Penelope Trunk

Any "omg teh sky is falling" article with real people in it?

I don't think this change is necessarily negative. There's a lot to be said for not having a traditional boss from a quality of life perspective. Plus, it's bound to continue to reduce our reliance on transportation to get a lot of things done. In a lot of ways, being an employee is a shitty way to live. The main benefit being that you get to feel all snuggly and safe that your paycheck is regular and somebody higher up is taking care of keeping everything solvent. How's that working out, anyway?  :P

Frankly, I'm a competent adult and I don't need that safety shit. Right now, independence is looking really nice.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2013, 11:41:39 AM
Right now, independence is looking really nice.

Mine, not so much.  YMMV.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2013, 11:41:39 AM
I don't think this change is necessarily negative. There's a lot to be said for not having a traditional boss from a quality of life perspective. Plus, it's bound to continue to reduce our reliance on transportation to get a lot of things done. In a lot of ways, being an employee is a shitty way to live. The main benefit being that you get to feel all snuggly and safe that your paycheck is regular and somebody higher up is taking care of keeping everything solvent. How's that working out, anyway?  :P

Frankly, I'm a competent adult and I don't need that safety shit. Right now, independence is looking really nice.

He said as he waits for the unemployment cheque.

Strangely enough I've been doing something sorta related to this in a not so glamourous way. Freelance guys have been doing this shit for ages, it's not something exactly brand new.

A society of free agents is no society at all.  The freedomists won't be happy until they've managed to put every man at war with every other man, some sort of 'law of the jungle' civilization.  Absolute madness.

Quote from: The Brain on July 16, 2013, 11:33:55 AM

QuoteMarshall Brain
Daniel Pink
Penelope Trunk

Any "omg teh sky is falling" article with real people in it?

Is Marshall your brother?

The 12 July show Bill Maher had touched on that subject. Mike Rowe said he visited a CAT plant IIRC and they couldnt fill the 20 positions. These were 25.00/hr +. Interesting segment.

No Seedy it wasnt Kittycat plant either.

Motherfuckers are afraid to get their hands dirty and are basically lazy.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 16, 2013, 01:19:48 PM
The 12 July show Bill Maher had touched on that subject. Mike Rowe said he visited a CAT plant IIRC and they couldnt fill the 20 positions. These were 25.00/hr +. Interesting segment.

No Seedy it wasnt Kittycat plant either.

Motherfuckers are afraid to get their hands dirty and are basically lazy.

Well given what has been posted on this board it could be because each of those job postings required PhDs and twelve years of management experience. :P

Quote from: 11B4V on July 16, 2013, 01:19:48 PM
The 12 July show Bill Maher had touched on that subject. Mike Rowe said he visited a CAT plant IIRC and they couldnt fill the 20 positions. These were 25.00/hr +. Interesting segment.

No Seedy it wasnt Kittycat plant either.

Motherfuckers are afraid to get their hands dirty and are basically lazy.

Something tells me that the RoboCals are rejecting applications.

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 01:34:36 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 16, 2013, 01:19:48 PM
The 12 July show Bill Maher had touched on that subject. Mike Rowe said he visited a CAT plant IIRC and they couldnt fill the 20 positions. These were 25.00/hr +. Interesting segment.

No Seedy it wasnt Kittycat plant either.

Motherfuckers are afraid to get their hands dirty and are basically lazy.

Something tells me that the RoboCals are rejecting applications.

Watch the segment. You would like BM he's a liberal ass-tard too. Also one of his panel called Obama a war criminal and BM was desperately defending the BiG O. It was rather amusing.

I believe he describes himself as "Libertarian", which makes him a horrible person.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 16, 2013, 01:38:17 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 01:34:36 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 16, 2013, 01:19:48 PM
The 12 July show Bill Maher had touched on that subject. Mike Rowe said he visited a CAT plant IIRC and they couldnt fill the 20 positions. These were 25.00/hr +. Interesting segment.

No Seedy it wasnt Kittycat plant either.

Motherfuckers are afraid to get their hands dirty and are basically lazy.

Something tells me that the RoboCals are rejecting applications.

Watch the segment. You would like BM he's a liberal ass-tard too. Also one of his panel called Obama a war criminal and BM was desperately defending the BiG O. It was rather amusing.

Maher does like dead Muslims so I can see how he would react that way.

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

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 01:41:40 PM
Why would I like a guy because he's a liberal?

Well you do have a picture of that pinko RINO Nixon as your avatar.

Quote from: Caliga on July 16, 2013, 10:56:43 AM

Quote from: KRonn on July 16, 2013, 09:21:39 AM
, insane out of control college tuition costs

Yes, and shame on the government for not doing anything about it.  This is one of those cases where I think government should intervene, since a) a lot of the problem is with the for-profit educational sector which is bascially defrauding both the government and the students it's pretending to serve, and b) kids that age really aren't equipped to make responsible financial decisions on their own yet and could potentially ruin their lives on the in many cases extremely poor investments they are being pressured to take on.

Agreed. I keep reading that parents are fed up with the costs and students wary of taking on the debt. I'm surprised that we don't seem to hear more talk and issues being raised about the rise in costs. Yeah, Congress is letting the student loan interest rates go up but I doubt that's the biggest cost issue. Lots of these colleges sit on hundreds of millions, some with billions, in endowments. And all these kids who help make or break the economy get crushed by massive school debt.

Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2013, 01:42:33 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 01:41:40 PM
Why would I like a guy because he's a liberal?

Well you do have a picture of that pinko RINO Nixon as your avatar.

The only people who consider Nixon a RINO are the sort of people who have betrayed the Republican Party and led it into a cul-de-sac of irrelevance and mindless devotion to dogma.

So...most of them?  :P

So what if it is in fact the case that the continuing drive of technology simply means that there isn't enough work for everyone? As productivity continues to increase, isn't this what we would see? That the need for bodies working continues to decrease, while the increased output of "labor" is consumed by those who control the levers of production - ie, they tend to funnel it to themselves, which is human nature?

To put in very simple terms, if I own a business, and I employ 100 people at $50k a year each, and I buy a doodad that means I now can do the exact same thing with 90 people, it should come as no surprise that if I can I will funnel that excess productive capacity into greater profits for myself.

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.

What it means in theory is higher productivity per person which drives up wages. Then the excess spending money starts going to creating new markets which the other ten people can work in.

Of course it doesn't drive up wages so much of Bernanke is running the printers full blast.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2013, 02:30:19 PM
What it means in theory is higher productivity per person which drives up wages. Then the excess spending money starts going to creating new markets which the other ten people can work in.

Of course it doesn't drive up wages so much of Bernanke is running the printers full blast.

Yeah, that is a great theory. Sounds kind of like wishful thinking though.

Who is to say that excess money even if spent to open new markets won't just open new markets that are also very non-labor intensive?

We live in a finite world. At some point, the need to have people doing shit to produce shit is going to be exceeded by the number of people sitting around looking for someone to pay them to do shit, right? Isn't that the inevitable end point of continued increases in productivity along with a continual increase in the overall labor pool?

If I could wave a magic wand and make all human labor 100 times more productive, is it not the case that the result MUST be a decline in the value of that labor?

I don't buy the idea that higher productivity leads to increased wages in the general sense - and the reality seems to bear that out. We've increased productivity my immense amounts in the last 100 years, yet real dollar wages have not increased anywhere near those amounts. They certainly have increased, but more as a result of the crap we buy becoming cheaper rather than our incomes becoming greater.

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".

Stuff that doesn't get cheaper, such as land and cars and fuel, stays expensive. If your income was higher, they'd be more affordable too.

Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
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".

Well...this may not be what Berkut is talking about but a big problem is that fuel, food, and realestate are not becoming cheaper.  Luxury goods like cell phones and big screen TVs though are becoming ridiculously cheap.  It is a great time to have disposable income, not so great to be scraping by.

Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2013, 02:54:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
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".

Well...this may not be what Berkut is talking about but a big problem is that fuel, food, and realestate are not becoming cheaper.  Luxury goods like cell phones and big screen TVs though are becoming ridiculously cheap.  It is a great time to have disposable income, not so great to be scraping by.

I ama ctually trying to take an even greater "meta-view". As in looking at the sweep of human history and humanities future.

It seems to me that technology is going to continue to make the value of actual labor continue to decline, while the number of people available to do that labor continues to rise (or maybe just stay steady, at best).

What I am hinting around at is that perhaps humans need to start considering what an economic system might look like that is not driven by a fundamental scarcity of labor. I think that is a really hard thing to understand, because humans have never, ever, EVER been in such a situation.

Will people in a 500/1000/2000 years have "jobs" at all? Will the idea that humans spend the bulk of their time engaged in an activity that has something to do with producing "things" be an anachronism?

Population growth seems to be slowing down a lot too. Maybe that will keep pace with the advances. Maybe we'll get fusion power and replicators and won't really need to work unless we want to. I don't know.


Edit: There will always be a demand for some types of work though. Like art and entertainment.

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2013, 03:00:35 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2013, 02:54:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
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".

Well...this may not be what Berkut is talking about but a big problem is that fuel, food, and realestate are not becoming cheaper.  Luxury goods like cell phones and big screen TVs though are becoming ridiculously cheap.  It is a great time to have disposable income, not so great to be scraping by.

I ama ctually trying to take an even greater "meta-view". As in looking at the sweep of human history and humanities future.

It seems to me that technology is going to continue to make the value of actual labor continue to decline, while the number of people available to do that labor continues to rise (or maybe just stay steady, at best).

What I am hinting around at is that perhaps humans need to start considering what an economic system might look like that is not driven by a fundamental scarcity of labor. I think that is a really hard thing to understand, because humans have never, ever, EVER been in such a situation.

Will people in a 500/1000/2000 years have "jobs" at all? Will the idea that humans spend the bulk of their time engaged in an activity that has something to do with producing "things" be an anachronism?

Its an interesting question.  Futurists seem to go to one of two extremes.  You get the ones who imagine a future that when humanity is freed to pursue endeavors that are not tied to producing the necessities of life that a great new culture of art, philosophy and science will emerge.  Some would argue that is the direction we ought to head now.  The other view is the dystopia of humans being viewed as largely unneeded except for the few that run things and then in the most extreme dystopias even they are uneeded and discarded.

The whole omg singularity stuff makes my head hurt.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2013, 03:10:45 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2013, 03:00:35 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2013, 02:54:45 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
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".

Well...this may not be what Berkut is talking about but a big problem is that fuel, food, and realestate are not becoming cheaper.  Luxury goods like cell phones and big screen TVs though are becoming ridiculously cheap.  It is a great time to have disposable income, not so great to be scraping by.

I ama ctually trying to take an even greater "meta-view". As in looking at the sweep of human history and humanities future.

It seems to me that technology is going to continue to make the value of actual labor continue to decline, while the number of people available to do that labor continues to rise (or maybe just stay steady, at best).

What I am hinting around at is that perhaps humans need to start considering what an economic system might look like that is not driven by a fundamental scarcity of labor. I think that is a really hard thing to understand, because humans have never, ever, EVER been in such a situation.

Will people in a 500/1000/2000 years have "jobs" at all? Will the idea that humans spend the bulk of their time engaged in an activity that has something to do with producing "things" be an anachronism?

Its an interesting question.  Futurists seem to go to one of two extremes.  You get the ones who imagine a future that when humanity is freed to pursue endeavors that are not tied to producing the necessities of life that a great new culture of art, philosophy and science will emerge.  Some would argue that is the direction we ought to head now.  The other view is the dystopia of humans being viewed as largely unneeded except for the few that run things and then in the most extreme dystopias even they are uneeded and discarded.

I guess a future in which humans spend all of their time eating potato chips and playing video games isn't usually foreseen by futurists.  :hmm:

;)

Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 03:21:43 PM
I guess a future in which humans spend all of their time eating potato chips and playing video games isn't usually foreseen by futurists.  :hmm:

;)

:lol:

The future is now.

We had this discussion 11-12 years ago on paradox OT. It was sparked by a guy spending some ridiculous amount of real money, something like $20k, on real estate in an MMO.

At that time I proposed a future where humans are no longer required for productivity and we determine our relative financial statuses by playing games.

Quote from: Maximus on July 16, 2013, 03:34:25 PM
We had this discussion 11-12 years ago on paradox OT. It was sparked by a guy spending some ridiculous amount of real money, something like $20k, on real estate in an MMO.

:XD:

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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2013, 02:23:10 PM
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 :(

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2013, 02:54:41 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 16, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
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.

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

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

Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2013, 04:37:10 PMThe 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.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2013, 04:37:10 PM
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. ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2013, 04:46:38 PM
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.

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.

QuotePre-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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2013, 05:02:02 PM
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.

QuotePre-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.

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 01:41:40 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2013, 05:10:48 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 07:43:40 AM
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. 

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 06:36:09 PM
There are a few workers' paradises left in the world that one could probably emigrate to if one wished.

What a silly thing to say.

Quote from: fhdz on July 16, 2013, 05:23:59 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 01:41:40 PM
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.

But only by stupid people.

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 06:55:41 PM
What a silly thing to say.

The usual response.

Yi hates the concept of employed people.  Drag on shareholder value.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 07:02:54 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2013, 06:55:41 PM
What a silly thing to say.

The usual response.

It's a foolish response.  After all, did the free-market gun-crazy lunatics just give up and flee their country?  No, they plotted and planned and they attacked America until they turned it to their purposes.  There's no reason that people who want to see reasonable political change should just pack up and leave, just because the crazies have won a few rounds.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 07:10:07 PM
Yi hates the concept of employed people.  Drag on shareholder value.

I may be a great whore of and a mindless shill for fat cats and big business, but at least I'm not deluding myself that my preferences are cost-free.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 07:17:01 PM
I may be a great whore of and a mindless shill for fat cats and big business, but at least I'm not deluding myself that my preferences are cost-free.

Yeah, those costs cutting into dividends really break my heart.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 06:36:09 PM
There are a few workers' paradises left in the world that one could probably emigrate to if one wished.

False equivalence.  Obviously central planning would work substantially better in the U.S. or other Western countries.

BTW good work catching up to where I was in 2004, folks.  All of my predictions have come or are coming to pass.

Except for HD-DVD.  I was wrong about that. -_-

Quote from: Ideologue on July 16, 2013, 07:24:09 PM
Except for HD-DVD.  I was wrong about that. -_-

Never bet against Sony.  Ever.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 07:19:07 PM
Yeah, those costs cutting into dividends really break my heart.

I'm pretty sure I've gone over this line of reasoning before, and the reward for my efforts was a tsunami of Occupy slogans.

Besides, Neil and mongers were talking about the Reds winning the Cold War.  There are no dividends under Bolshevism.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 07:24:55 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 16, 2013, 07:24:09 PM
Except for HD-DVD.  I was wrong about that. -_-

Never bet against Sony.  Ever.

Hey, I was applying the lessons of Beta.  And at the time, the licensing scheme for HD-DVD was far more advantageous.

The factor I didn't consider was the PS3, which increased BD player market penetration by multiples.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 07:27:52 PM
I'm pretty sure I've gone over this line of reasoning before, and the reward for my efforts was a tsunami of Occupy slogans.

That's because your arguments usually rely on a shitload of esoteric market theory. 
Now, if you were just honest about it and acknowledge that it's actually the not so esoteric concepts of avarice and greed that drive our economic model, then we'd have a starting off point to chat.  :)

QuoteBesides, Neil and mongers were talking about the Reds winning the Cold War.  There are no dividends under Bolshevism.

Their system's death was just faster and more pronounced, that's all.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 16, 2013, 07:24:09 PM
False equivalence.  Obviously central planning would work substantially better in the U.S. or other Western countries.

How so?  The number of degrees in central planning awarded by US universities?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 07:27:52 PM
Besides, Neil and mongers were talking about the Reds winning the Cold War.  There are no dividends under Bolshevism.

Why would we be under Bolshevik rule if the Soviets won the Cold War?  The US won, and Russia isn't a liberal democracy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 07:39:29 PM
That's because your arguments usually rely on a shitload of esoteric market theory. 
Now, if you were just honest about it and acknowledge that it's actually the not so esoteric concepts of avarice and greed that drive our economic model, then we'd have a starting off point to chat.  :)

Avarice and greed drive our economic model.  Chat.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 07:47:17 PM
Avarice and greed drive our economic model.  Chat.

Elizabeth Warren is a goddess of reformation.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 07:54:18 PM
Elizabeth Warren is a goddess of reformation.

Thank you.  Perfect example of meatheaded Saunderite progressive Michael Moore disregard the consequences type of thinking.

Banks are bad, debit card charges are bad, you put a cap on them and everybody lives happily ever after in the workers' paradise. 

Except when banks stop offering debit cards to people with low balances because they're losing money.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 07:40:19 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 16, 2013, 07:24:09 PM
False equivalence.  Obviously central planning would work substantially better in the U.S. or other Western countries.

How so?  The number of degrees in central planning awarded by US universities?

Our historical experience with an accountable technocracy and a robust civil society, not to mention a capitalist epoch of industrialization, which are 100% requisite to doing it right.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 16, 2013, 08:07:46 PM
Our historical experience with an accountable technocracy and a robust civil society, not to mention a capitalist epoch of industrialization, which are 100% requisite to doing it right.

Technocracy would have some limited value.

Civil society I would argue would undermine central planning.  Civil society is about expressing your wishes.  Central planning is about imposing choices on you.

No clue how capitalist industrialization factors in.  Please elaborate.

You're not much of a chatter Seedy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 08:39:25 PM
You're not much of a chatter Seedy.

Shhh, Rachel Maddow is on.

A capitalist period of industrialization would ensure an industrial base that was more-or-less in step with consumer demand.  I'm not convinced a central planning authority is likely to do that, because everywhere it's been tried, it has failed.  The USSR gets an asterisk, maybe, for legitimately needing to turn so much of its GDP toward its defense concerns in the early days, but it's still not a good model.  Innovation being stifled in a centrally planned economy is also a concern.  After industrialization is complete, useful technological innovation slows anyway (Internet excepted--but a government invention) and is often largely abandoned because of externalized costs of the status quo (e.g., reliance on hydrocarbons).  It is replaced by organizational and financial innovation on the margins.

I feel that central planning ab initio would still be more plausible in the U.S., but the point is that we could and should have enacted large-scale nationalization no later than 1970.

Civil society (including democracy) would undermine central planning only in the sense that fewer gargantuan statues of the Stalingrad lady and chandeliers so heavy no ceiling could support them would be built, and ultimately it would make it far more stable and stronger.  Consumer feedback, and a receptive demeanor on the part of the central planners based on accountability, is vital to the long-term success of a centrally planned economy--just as it is vital to a private firm.  The national business operate along the exact same organizational principles, with the only difference being that exploitation would be reduced and the "profits" of labor married to capital would be more widely shared by the nation, in the form of higher real wages, lower prices, no taxes, or whatever.

Wal-Mart would just be a USMart or something and we'd directly pay its workers instead of indirectly through SNAP, Medicare, and whatever other life-sustaining benefits that the parasites that own it don't pay and pocket as additional profit instead.  I don't believe billions in profits is the only possible incentive to ensure the retention of managerial talent adequate to keep sodas and tampons get stocked on shelves.  I think people paid $100k's instead of $1bn's can do the job perfectly well.

The technological upheaval of the 21st century demands central planning: with it, jobs could be shed with abandon, a guaranteed income established, and a workerless state be approached.  This is unlike our world of atomized firms, which eliminate jobs in order to increase profits, care nothing for the outcomes of those they left behind, and wonder why demand is so low.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 08:14:07 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 16, 2013, 08:07:46 PM
Our historical experience with an accountable technocracy and a robust civil society, not to mention a capitalist epoch of industrialization, which are 100% requisite to doing it right.

Technocracy would have some limited value.

Civil society I would argue would undermine central planning.  Civil society is about expressing your wishes.  Central planning is about imposing choices on you.

We'd have less corruption too. At least at first.

Obviously I would not suggest getting rid of democracy and the democratic process.  This is the root of all communist state's failures.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2013, 05:38:36 PM
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.

To an extent, but I would like to have a team of people to cater to my families needs and keep my affairs in order.

Dump:

Innovation aside, how would you centrally plan creativity?

And probably the heart of the matter, how would you assign, compensate, and incentivize labor?

Money may confuse matters. Think of what is going on in the world ignoring money and in terms of barter.

People who are employed typically specialize. The farmer may grow corn, which he trades for things that other people do. For example, a piece of furniture someone has made, or a massage for his wife, or a tudor for his son. That is the basis for the entire economy--I do stuff other people want, and they give me a chance to get stuff I want.

Better productivity just means that people get more efficient at what they are doing. We are producing more things that other people want. The increases aren't uniform: there are limiting factors in some cases, such as land, or oil.

But that doesn't change that there are innumerable things that many of us want that can be increased. I would like more massage therapy, my daughter to have a good tutor for each subject, and better healthcare for everyone. The reason many of us do not get everything we want in life isn't just because their are finite supplies of aluminum, etc. If we become more productive, we will have more resources to pursue those things.

Innovation: we live in a society that expects innovation; it's capitalism's most noble legacy.  To that end, the national firm would appropriate large R&D budgets and staffs toward desired results (let's say a cure for cancer--but anything works).  Innovation can continue along the fringes as well--I wouldn't envision an economy completely free from private entrepreneurship; it would be the key sectors where nationalization would be most beneficial, e.g. energy, banking, healthcare/pharmaceuticals, big-box consumer retail, and so forth.*  Further, because the national firm is beyond catastrophic failure, costlier but potentially higher-yielding research can be performed with a higher tolerance for scientific or market failure.  How you'd precisely balance this against the risks to personal careers is a bit more involved, but you can see the general shape of things.

Incentivization: money and status.  It seems so obvious, that I'm not sure I understand the question.

*The great thing about the conglomeration inherent to late-stage capitalism is that only maybe a hundred companies need to be nationalized/bought out/merged to control the key sectors.  Competition from upstarts is an issue, that regulation can handle.

The national firm absolutely can fail.  In Europe they've been dropping like flies.

If you use the money incentive, you have to allow for the possibility of withdrawing that incentive if the worker is not performing.  I.e. unemployment.  I'm also not sure how nationalization and central planning solves the problem of stagnating wages, which was the starting point of this discussion.

Still haven't addressed creativity.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 09:39:05 PM
The national firm absolutely can fail.  In Europe they've been dropping like flies.

Yeah, our national firm isn't likely to let some foreign devil control its money supply.

QuoteIf you use the money incentive, you have to allow for the possibility of withdrawing that incentive if the worker is not performing.  I.e. unemployment.  I'm also not sure how nationalization and central planning solves the problem of stagnating wages, which was the starting point of this discussion.

Unless the national wealth is going down, it's a gross inequality problem (it's also a liquidity trap/aggregate demand problem presently, but that's temporary).  Minor and medium inequality is fine, however--obviously equal pay for unequal work is going to be unworkable, even if status or interest is a greater motivator for many high-value professions like medicine and computer science.  And equal pay for no work is not on anyone's agenda until we're in, like, the Star Trek economy.

QuoteStill haven't addressed creativity.

I don't have to.  It's a natural human trait.

Btw I'd leave speech-creating industries entirely or almost entirely to themselves.  Though central planning would be a good way to get my $500 million Legion of Super-Heroes movie financed, it's still not a very good idea.

Did you address unemployment and stagnating wages?  I can't tell what you're trying to say in that middle paragraph.

If our national firm can print, then why should it do anything else? I don't get that bit.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2013, 10:24:25 PM
If our national firm can print, then why should it do anything else? I don't get that bit.

I believe Ide is referring to the ability of independent central banks to inflate away national debts.

It's Europe big problem.  The other problem being idled capacity.

As for the unemployment, there would be a idle class.  They'd live, if not tremendously well, but in some comfort.

Indeed, this would be as important to capitalism as it would be to a centrally planned economy, cf. Milton Freidman.  In both cases, it liberalizes the labor market, in the sense that it frees potential workers from the biological necessity of a wage.  As a side benefit, wages would have to remain competitive with doing nothing.

We already have an idled class.  It'll only get larger.  Time to embrace it.

Working should always be the superior choice, but not the only choice.  Failure to perform adequately would have much the same consequences as present, eventually resulting in permanently being removed from the labor market.  The difference is that this transition would not be as potentially catastrophic, and marginal labor market participants could give up with more dignity instead of depressing wages for people who don't suck.

OK, so 40 million people on permanent disability.

How about stagnating wages?  How does your centrally planned economy take care of that?

In Europe its the liberal countries which are running into trouble.
The socialist north is doing pretty well.

Quote from: Tyr on July 17, 2013, 01:04:49 AM
In Europe its the liberal countries which are running into trouble.
The socialist north is doing pretty well.

:huh:

You're talking about madcap libertarian Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 06:36:09 PM
There are a few workers' paradises left in the world that one could probably emigrate to if one wished.

Sweden being in the European Union certainly makes that possibility greater...true.

But of course one would have to tolerate the weather and always night winters and obnoxious accents.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2013, 01:16:47 AM

Quote from: Tyr on July 17, 2013, 01:04:49 AM
In Europe its the liberal countries which are running into trouble.
The socialist north is doing pretty well.

:huh:

You're talking about madcap libertarian Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal?

I think he is talking about Britain and friends.

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2013, 08:15:13 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 06:36:09 PM
There are a few workers' paradises left in the world that one could probably emigrate to if one wished.

Sweden being in the European Union certainly makes that possibility greater...true.

But of course one would have to tolerate the weather and always night winters and obnoxious accents.

Which accents might that be?

Quote from: The Brain on July 17, 2013, 08:18:12 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2013, 08:15:13 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 06:36:09 PM
There are a few workers' paradises left in the world that one could probably emigrate to if one wished.

Sweden being in the European Union certainly makes that possibility greater...true.

But of course one would have to tolerate the weather and always night winters and obnoxious accents.

Which accents might that be?

Come on - even as a native Swede you must get annoyed by the constant "bork bork bork!" refrain.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2013, 09:09:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2013, 05:38:36 PM
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.

To an extent, but I would like to have a team of people to cater to my families needs and keep my affairs in order.

Yes but there is a difference between want and need.  If it took 6 hours a day to do the laundry you and I would for sure be hiring some domestic help to do it otherwise it would not get done.  But with modern appliances domestic services are a luxury because we can do those chores easily ourselves and so we choose to spend our money on other things.

That is why I brought up the point of minimum wage laws.  The utility of domestic help in today's world would never be the same as it was back in the day when domestic servants were common.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 10:46:33 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2013, 09:09:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2013, 05:38:36 PM
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.

To an extent, but I would like to have a team of people to cater to my families needs and keep my affairs in order.

Yes but there is a difference between want and need.  If it took 6 hours a day to do the laundry you and I would for sure be hiring some domestic help to do it otherwise it would not get done.  But with modern appliances domestic services are a luxury because we can do those chores easily ourselves and so we choose to spend our money on other things.

That is why I brought up the point of minimum wage laws.  The utility of domestic help in today's world would never be the same as it was back in the day when domestic servants were common.

Maybe though I can tell you that if I had to spend the roughly 2-3 hours at the laundromat doing my own laundry, it also wouldn't get done. That's why I have my guy downstairs who takes care of it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 10:46:33 AM
Yes but there is a difference between want and need.  If it took 6 hours a day to do the laundry you and I would for sure be hiring some domestic help to do it otherwise it would not get done.  But with modern appliances domestic services are a luxury because we can do those chores easily ourselves and so we choose to spend our money on other things.

That is why I brought up the point of minimum wage laws.  The utility of domestic help in today's world would never be the same as it was back in the day when domestic servants were common.

So you agree there is the demand, the question is why isn't there the supply?

I would be willing to pay subsistence level wages (ie, minimum wage) to a couple of quality people in order to take care of ordinary day to day tasks (grocery shopping, driving, cooking, routine tasks such as basic banking, childcare, etc). The problem is that such quality people can not be hired for such low wages and be expected to stick around for any length of time. Such quality people have other opportunities that pay more and are more interesting.

That isn't true in much of the modern world--better opportunities for quality people often do not exist. Thus in many developing countries  it is still common for normal people to have full time domestic help. This type of situation would happen before we ended up with some dystopian level of permanent unemployed.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2013, 12:44:33 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 10:46:33 AM
Yes but there is a difference between want and need.  If it took 6 hours a day to do the laundry you and I would for sure be hiring some domestic help to do it otherwise it would not get done.  But with modern appliances domestic services are a luxury because we can do those chores easily ourselves and so we choose to spend our money on other things.

That is why I brought up the point of minimum wage laws.  The utility of domestic help in today's world would never be the same as it was back in the day when domestic servants were common.

So you agree there is the demand, the question is why isn't there the supply?

How did you get my agreement that there is a demand out of that  :huh:   Nobody in their right mind would spend money on that kind of luxury item when there are so many more pressing demands on household income.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 11:58:12 AM
Maybe though I can tell you that if I had to spend the roughly 2-3 hours at the laundromat doing my own laundry, it also wouldn't get done. That's why I have my guy downstairs who takes care of it.

My example only included people that had access to modern conveniences.  You do not and so you need to make other arrangements.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 02:49:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 11:58:12 AM
Maybe though I can tell you that if I had to spend the roughly 2-3 hours at the laundromat doing my own laundry, it also wouldn't get done. That's why I have my guy downstairs who takes care of it.

My example only included people that had access to modern conveniences.  You do not and so you need to make other arrangements.

Yes because if you take washing machines and put them in a laundromat, you suddenly lose access to modern conveniences.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 02:50:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 02:49:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 11:58:12 AM
Maybe though I can tell you that if I had to spend the roughly 2-3 hours at the laundromat doing my own laundry, it also wouldn't get done. That's why I have my guy downstairs who takes care of it.

My example only included people that had access to modern conveniences.  You do not and so you need to make other arrangements.

Yes because if you take washing machines and put them in a laundromat, you suddenly lose access to modern conveniences.

If the "you" in question is the person who doesn't have a washing machine in their apartment, and the "modern convenience" in question is said washing machine...then why are you arguing his point?

You do not in fact have access to this particular modern convenience, and hence it is more worth your resources to pay someone else instead.

This doesn't strike me as particularly controversial.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 02:50:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 02:49:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 11:58:12 AM
Maybe though I can tell you that if I had to spend the roughly 2-3 hours at the laundromat doing my own laundry, it also wouldn't get done. That's why I have my guy downstairs who takes care of it.

My example only included people that had access to modern conveniences.  You do not and so you need to make other arrangements.

Yes because if you take washing machines and put them in a laundromat, you suddenly lose access to modern conveniences.

Yeah, that is exactly the point you made when you said you need to spend  "roughly 2-3 hours sitting at a laundromat".   :)

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 03:15:51 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 02:50:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 02:49:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 11:58:12 AM
Maybe though I can tell you that if I had to spend the roughly 2-3 hours at the laundromat doing my own laundry, it also wouldn't get done. That's why I have my guy downstairs who takes care of it.

My example only included people that had access to modern conveniences.  You do not and so you need to make other arrangements.

Yes because if you take washing machines and put them in a laundromat, you suddenly lose access to modern conveniences.

If the "you" in question is the person who doesn't have a washing machine in their apartment, and the "modern convenience" in question is said washing machine...then why are you arguing his point?

You do not in fact have access to this particular modern convenience, and hence it is more worth your resources to pay someone else instead.

This doesn't strike me as particularly controversial.

I do have access to it though. I could walk down the street to it.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:18:50 PM
I do have access to it though. I could walk down the street to it.

I think you might be missing the point that you need to sit at the laundromat for several hours to do this chore which is a very difference experience from those of us who have ready access to washers and dryers in our own homes.  We get to put the laundry in and leave to do whatever it is we want to do.  That is a big part of the convenience. ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 03:21:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:18:50 PM
I do have access to it though. I could walk down the street to it.

I think you might be missing the point that you need to sit at the laundromat for several hours to do this chore which is a very difference experience from those of us who have ready access to washers and dryers in our own homes.  We get to put the laundry in and leave to do whatever it is we want to do.  That is a big part of the convenience. ;)

I do recognize that and that's why I don't go to the laundromat. :)

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:23:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 03:21:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:18:50 PM
I do have access to it though. I could walk down the street to it.

I think you might be missing the point that you need to sit at the laundromat for several hours to do this chore which is a very difference experience from those of us who have ready access to washers and dryers in our own homes.  We get to put the laundry in and leave to do whatever it is we want to do.  That is a big part of the convenience. ;)

I do recognize that and that's why I don't go to the laundromat. :)

Then why the hell are you arguing with me  :huh:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 02:47:55 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 17, 2013, 12:44:33 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 10:46:33 AM
Yes but there is a difference between want and need.  If it took 6 hours a day to do the laundry you and I would for sure be hiring some domestic help to do it otherwise it would not get done.  But with modern appliances domestic services are a luxury because we can do those chores easily ourselves and so we choose to spend our money on other things.

That is why I brought up the point of minimum wage laws.  The utility of domestic help in today's world would never be the same as it was back in the day when domestic servants were common.

So you agree there is the demand, the question is why isn't there the supply?

How did you get my agreement that there is a demand out of that  :huh:   Nobody in their right mind would spend money on that kind of luxury item when there are so many more pressing demands on household income.

That is the way supply and demand curves work...What you wrote indicates there is demand, but demand that is uneconomical with the current supply curve.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 03:23:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:23:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 03:21:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:18:50 PM
I do have access to it though. I could walk down the street to it.

I think you might be missing the point that you need to sit at the laundromat for several hours to do this chore which is a very difference experience from those of us who have ready access to washers and dryers in our own homes.  We get to put the laundry in and leave to do whatever it is we want to do.  That is a big part of the convenience. ;)

I do recognize that and that's why I don't go to the laundromat. :)

Then why the hell are you arguing with me  :huh:

Hello and welcome to Languish!

Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2013, 04:21:22 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 03:23:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:23:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2013, 03:21:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 03:18:50 PM
I do have access to it though. I could walk down the street to it.

I think you might be missing the point that you need to sit at the laundromat for several hours to do this chore which is a very difference experience from those of us who have ready access to washers and dryers in our own homes.  We get to put the laundry in and leave to do whatever it is we want to do.  That is a big part of the convenience. ;)

I do recognize that and that's why I don't go to the laundromat. :)

Then why the hell are you arguing with me  :huh:

Hello and welcome to Languish!

:)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2013, 12:44:10 AM
OK, so 40 million people on permanent disability.

How about stagnating wages?  How does your centrally planned economy take care of that?

Real wages would always increase as productivity per unit of labor grows.  Even the guaranteed income would grow in real terms.

This is the opposite of the case in the current system, where the benefits of productivity gains are experienced directly only by the owning class, and only indirectly by consumers, who often find those benefits cancelled out by being laid off either immediately or later due to the periodic and ultimately permanent collapse in demand capitalist economics occasions.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 17, 2013, 04:41:12 PM
Real wages would always increase as productivity per unit of labor grows.  Even the guaranteed income would grow in real terms.

How does your Planning Committee decide which national subsidiary gets the capital, and therefore the raises?

"Key industries" are key for a reason: they're indispensible to the basic function of the national economy.  Why, then, would workers doing the same type of work be paid more or less than other workers, when their work is equally important?  Use an analogue of the GS system.

As for allocation of capital--which is distinct from establishing a payroll fund out of gross corporate income--that I happily leave in my fictional Planning Committee's expert hands.  I don't know anything about running an oil company.

We're talking past each other.

When you say pay increases come from productivity, do you mean all workers get pay increases for changes in national average productivity, or by industry, or by individual, or what?

Being able to purchase more stuff (and not just TVs and microwaves) is an increase in real wages.  Productivity gains, more widely shared, equal an increase in real wages, unlike the decline or at best slow growth in real wages under pure market conditions due to the lack of a guaranteed income in the real world (and hence the effects of technological unemployment negating or degrading gains in productivity).

Nominal wage increases are the purview of the CPC (I'd say decreases as well, but the stickiness of wages is an economic concept that is unlikely to be done away with in the command economy future).

Damn, dilemma time, there's a vacancy at the museum where I volunteer, it's pretty much what I do there and I'm slightly tempted to apply, but if(when) I don't get it, pride will oblige me to resign.   :hmm:


Meant to put this in the CdM 'work thread', but couldn't find it.

I don't think Money's getting a Euro work visa to sell overpriced T-shirts to naive Hungarians.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2013, 05:16:15 PM
I don't think Money's getting a Euro work visa to sell overpriced T-shirts to naive Hungarians.

Is that tangential to my post ? :unsure:

Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2013, 05:16:15 PM
I don't think Money's getting a Euro work visa to sell overpriced T-shirts to naive Hungarians.

BEETS, DEATH FROM ABOVE