Interesting new economic tidbits...

[Natoma]

As for the topic of productivity, of course it goes up. As more workers are shed, those that remain usually have increased workloads or else they themselves become downsized. I fully expect to see more cases of stress-related illnesses in the future.

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn't explain the late 90s when unemployment hit the 3% range and productivity was soaring at an annualized rate of 4-5% year-on-year. Also, productivity doesn't automagically increase simply because workers are laid off. The infrastructure for productivity increases has to be in place.

 

[RussSchultz]

Well, presumably in any layoff, the less efficient workers workers would be the first to go.

 

[DemoCoder]

It is possible for someone to process more work without their "workload" (amount of labor) being increased.

But it is also plausible that all of their job has been automated. Anyone still want to manually dig rocks out of a coal mine?

 

[Willmeister]

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn't explain the late 90s when unemployment hit the 3% range and productivity was soaring at an annualized rate of 4-5% year-on-year. Also, productivity doesn't automagically increase simply because workers are laid off. The infrastructure for productivity increases has to be in place.

True enough.

Well, unemployment statistics have always been fudged in certain nations. The most agregious example of unemployment statitics fudging was in the UK between 1973 and 1992 where they 'modified' the way they count the unemployed 26-32 times (depending on just who you talked to). They did this to keep the numbers low.

I was told, on Mother Jones a few years back, that the US Department of Labour reclassified people in the mid-1990s, so that those who have more than 8 hours a week as would be considered 'employed' (and 20 hours a week would qualify as fulltime). If a company listed it's workers with 20 hours as fulltime for tax-purposes, they'd be in violation of labour laws. So, it's interesting to see the agency of government in charge of enforcing labour laws was counting violations of those laws (if they existed)... It's twisted and I don't know if I can get my point out clearly... That's one of the ways McJobs and Wal*Mart made millions of people seem employed more than they should be...

 

[DemoCoder]

Department store jobs are usually fulltime. (e.g. walmart), although hours change on a weekly basis. (My mom has been an employee of Safeway for over 10 years)

It is the BLS which compiles the employment statistics using a phone survey. They track unemployed, temporary, part time. full time, and seasonal employment. The figures are readily available.

For the purposes of classification, a part time worker is considered employed. If I work 20 hours a week, consistently, I have a job. You might not LIKE this fact, but someone who works 20 hours a week, say, tutoring children, does in fact, have a job.

As the economy transistions further, many people are self employed, run their own part time businesses, or hop jobs frequently, work multiple temporary jobs, etc. The era of the blue collar dependable union "one size fits all" job you work for X years, Y hours a week, to get pension Z is over. The future is permanent uncertainty.

 

[pax]

That uncertainty is manufactured and unnecessary. That ever increasing technology and automation create this in the current system isnt surprising. Tho the right wing for years said it wouldnt happen while the left said it would... Now the right admit it...

Of course you may define uncertainty in positive ways like simply meaning new opportunities its not always that simple. And I can only wonder what the unemplyment rate would be had we maintained birth rates of the baby boom era.

The 90's boom was pretty simple to me. Mass increases in investment from technological hype. I dont think the tax or other infrastructure had any real input as the boom was more or less worldwide...

 

[DemoCoder]

I think the uncertainty is a positive aspect of dynamism. We can't predict the stock market, or currency value either, but that's because their value is the result of billions of transactions happening globally. Marxism failed in part because of the complexity of economic transactions.


The uncertainly is a facet of the system itself, and rapid technological change only accelerates it. I disagree vehemently that it is "unneccessary". The reverse, economic "certainty" and "security" of "job" would be a yet another socialist disaster.

The attempt by the left to impose order and determinism on the economy, to in fact, oppose progress, is nothing more them a form of economic protectionism, a soft version of Marxism that is none the less, equally doomed to failure.


Why should modern, educated people who easily live to a working age of 60 or beyond want to stay in a single career/job their entire life. What's more, why should they be guaranteed a job making Horses, Carts, and Buggies even if everyone else wants to drive automobiles?

 

[pax]

Well of course theres natural uncertainty. But to accept increased personal economic uncertainty from technology that should be creating more reliability (less uncertainty about access to food or energy, ect) makes no sense to me other than its inherent to the current system.

It certainly wont benefit investors anymore than workers whom Im more concerned with.

No one opposes progress. No system does I find. Its just what you do with the progress once its realized. Its not like science where answering one question creates 2 new ones. Answering a question like whats the best source energy should yeild benefits like reliability and increased affordability...

I dont think its about protecting older jobs but dislocating older workers is a major issue we've already discussed. And if society can produce with fewer people it should also mean it should be a lot easier for society to take care of those dislocated. You can expect someone to go on into another job but at around 50 years of age its getting pretty damn hard to ask that guy to go re educate himself.

To me its not about slowing any progress. But right now dislocation often means poverty.

 

[DemoCoder]

There is a big difference between reducing career uncertainty and reducing dislocation/poverty effects. The latter can be solved by simply extending and enhancing benefits to the unemployed.

The former is the one I'm concerned about: guaranteeing job security.

Presumably, as technological efficiency dislocates people and their labor is no longer needed, they can continue to be supported by some of the profit that comes from the automation that replaced them. For example, if a robot can make 2x the number of cars at 1/2 the amortized cost, presumably the economic efficiency introduced into the economy generates more tax revenues that can be used to help the disclocated (car company has more profits, robot manufacturers pay employees who pay taxes, investors in robots had huge capital gains, etc)


This is different than trying to preserve job positions that have no business existing, or trying to guarantee access to a job to people.

If I had a choice between stopping companies from laying off people and replacing them with technology, or letting them get laided off, but paying them unemployment and an infinite amount of retraining or college tuition as long as they'd like, I'd choose the latter.

In the long run, it will be better for everyone and for the environment too.

 

[pax]

Im not in favor of job security. Id actually love to lose my current job because of a cure for alzheimers. But I wouldnt expect to massivley lose quality of life because of such a job loss. At the very least I expect the massive savings to society to translate to free schooling for me. Im 37 but were I 50 Id expect some kind of early retirement\part time work...

Id love to withdraw pension at 50 and stay on in the field at 2-3 days a week. I think its better than full retirement at 55-60 as few make it to 65 and keep their health in fulltime work as nurses...