What will we do if the system can no longer create jobs?

https://libcom.org/library/what-will-we-do-if-system-can-no-longer-create-jobs-interview-anselm-jappe-%E2%80%93-alexandra-p

by __Joker • 12 years ago

33 76 12 years ago

libcom.org

kapnobatairza• 12 years ago

I think there is a much easier answer to this and that is a basic income.

corv• 12 years ago

How so? If you give everyone money you'll only shift prices upwards.

AndrewDucker• 12 years ago

Not if you shift the taxes around so that, on average, the amount of money in the system remains similar.

jiggy20114• 12 years ago

Not necessarily. Prices might rise because minimum wage labor gets more expensive (competing with BI) but excess profits will get sucked out of the system fast by competition.

_ak• 12 years ago

You're not thinking in the grand scheme. The shift from full employment towards (idealistically) full automation requires drastic paradigm shifts in how we view economics.

Just try to contemplate this question: what would a society, an economy look like if everyone was provided with everything for their basic needs, like a house or a flat, food and an "allowance" to participate in social activity, people could still be able to choose to work if they wanted to, but not working would not be frowned upon? How would this society develop, what would people do because they can do what they please all day, what would the influence on society's creativity and inventiveness be?

"Basic income would negatively affect our current economic system" is not the right answer to that question. Automation will not become less, full employment will be less and less feasible, so answering these questions will be inevitable.

collyw5• 12 years ago

Whereas you give it to bankers, they pump up asset price bubbles and shift prices upwards.

RivieraKid2• 12 years ago

Why? Basic income is a different way of redistributing, it doesn't imply more redistributing.

How is basic income better than the current system? Note that unemployed people get money today, at least in (most of?) Europe.

gabzuka• 12 years ago

In a few countries they will give you a flat fee as long as you are unemployed (UK) but in others it's linked to your previous salary and only for a short time (Spain and Germany). Others I don't know much about.

vixin• 12 years ago

'With industrial society, on the other hand, we work as much as possible because it is labor that gives us money. '.

Labor doesn't give us money. Creation of value in goods or sevices (as perceived by others) which may or may be accompanied by proportionate labor provides us with money. Marx, a clever man, nevertheless made this fundamental mistake.

namenotrequired• 12 years ago

Adam Smith did too, to an extent. He realised that wealth is not money but value, but did argue for labour as starting point of value.

zo14• 12 years ago

Which I can understand, because it's only in recent years where labor and value have gotten quite obviously disconnected. To the point such that we've got quite a lot of data points to assert that the theory doesn't hold true anymore.

grondilu6• 12 years ago

Exactly. That's basically the one thing the author fails to acknowledge. Money doesn't magically appears from labor. It results as a voluntary exchange between a worker and a employer. There's no "capitalistic system", unless you consider "economic freedom" to be a "system".

This also shows that labor still is connected to needs, despite what the author claims. Somebody wants something done, finds someone willing to do it for money, and they make a deal. Nothing new under the sun, except our society is much richer in needs of various forms which might explain why the author has the feeling our "pace of lives" is much more intense than "that of our grandparents".

Overall, this article is full of communist FUD : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

guard-of-terra6• 12 years ago

"Money doesn't magically appears from labor"

Tell that to job creation programmes. Our society is built on assertion that they do.

notahacker• 12 years ago

There's no "capitalistic system", unless you consider "economic freedom" to be a "system".

"Economic freedom" is merely an emotive label applied to certain aspects of the current system, which is defined as much by people being unable to use underutilized economic resources without contracting with other parties as it is by there being relatively few restrictions on the nature of contracts and associations that might be made. An economic system in which people didn't have to contract with "owners" in order to use their surplus land or equipment or fork their codebase is arguably more "free" (though in many respects likely to be less productive). Trivially and infinitely replicable software is substituting for elements of expensive physical capital as much as for human labour, and the necessity and defensibility of IP is a concept subject to rather more challenge that the concept of working for a living.

I'd agree with you that the author is well wide of the mark on the assumption the useful services we can provide other humans are being automated away. That argument, along with labour-based theories of surplus value, and the idea of self-sufficient communities feels dated rather than futuristic now.

panarky• 12 years ago

"Economic freedom" is a loaded term that carries a lot of unexamined ideological baggage. It presumes without evidence that unconstrained markets allocate resources better than regulated markets. It's a strongly held belief that is impervious to experience.

Since "free" is better than "unfree", naturally economic freedom must be better than any alternative, right? But word games like this don't shine much light on what actually works in the real world.

What happens when free-market ideology meets the real world? Let's compare the labor markets in Germany and California.

The German minimum wage is about $10.78 at current exchange rates, 20% higher than California's recently increased minimum of $9.00. Germany has far greater and more intrusive regulation. German taxes are much higher. In almost every way, California has greater economic freedom than Germany.

What are the results of California's relatively greater economic freedom? California's economy produces a few more billionaires than Germany does, which benefits a small number of people. But the vast majority of Californians are worse off than Germans.

The unemployment rate in California is much higher than in Germany. More Californians want jobs but can't find them, or are working part-time when they want full-time work. Millions of Californians don't have health insurance or retirement security. More Californians than Germans are homeless, living in their cars, or in abandoned buildings, or on the streets, or in shelters. More Germans get at least four weeks of paid vacation per year than Californians.

Where is the empirical evidence that "economic freedom" delivers better results for more people than other systems? On the contrary, free-market ideology seems to create extremely good outcomes for the few at the expense of the many.

ThomPete10• 12 years ago

Creation of value doesn't even give us money anymore. Money are now days created to keep the system stable. There are far more money in the system than there have been value created.

When a bank for instance in Denmark lends you 300.000USD it actually ads 300.000 to the economy out of no where.

We live in a world where there is no direct correlation between the value of goods or services and the creation of money.

gusfoo• 12 years ago

When a bank for instance in Denmark lends you 300.000USD it actually ads 300.000 to the economy out of no where.

No - it does not. You have completely misunderstood how money works. There are two entries in the ledger, not one. The credit of 30K and the liability of 30K which together cancel out. The only surplus comes from interest and fees.

fennecfoxen5• 12 years ago

There are far more money in the system than there have been value created.

Poppycock of the highest order. The US economy generates about $16.8 trillion a year. Its wealth is estimated at ~$120 trillion. M2 is about $11 trillion.

randyrand• 12 years ago

Start reducing births. Humans are THE worst thing for the environment. No reason to have more of them.

estebank2• 12 years ago

The best way of reducing birth rates? Poverty reduction.

collyw5• 12 years ago

While I agree, poverty reduction will likely lead to a more consumerist, less environmentally friendly lifestyle.

guard-of-terra6• 12 years ago

Can you do that to people in the Africa and the Middle East? India also.

Because people in Europe and Far East no longer overreproduce.

Also, the environment only has value to us if we're still able to use it. No value in the clean environment if humanity gets extinct.

collyw5• 12 years ago

Those kids won't use up nearly as many resources as a western child.

seanmcdirmid2• 12 years ago

Ants consume many more resources than we do, not to mention bacteria. We are part of the environment, and our impact, as horrible as it seems, is not consequential in the big picture (though we will hurt ourselves if we don't conserve, for sure).

atemerev• 12 years ago

"The system" doesn't give jobs. _You_ give jobs.

dasil003• 12 years ago

And you are part of the system. I don't understand what your argument is.

awalton• 12 years ago

Well, that's a silly question. The answer is simple: "change the system."

There are enough parameters in "the system" that we should be able to change almost any single one of them and get some improvement in employment numbers. Change wages, change education levels, change the scale of industrialization, change the number of humans working, change laws surrounding mergers/acquisitions, etc.

The real struggle here is getting anyone to do any of these things consistently, and then measuring the results.

guard-of-terra6• 12 years ago

By doing blind changes you have much better chances of ruining the society in question. Blind evolution works, but it does so by killing most of its subjects by a painful death.

guard-of-terra6• 12 years ago

"we should eat apples that are grown in the nearby orchard rather than in New Zealand"

The problem is, we're going to hit Vladimir Sorokin world order if we try to implement it - 'cause he's already figured that out. I'd rather not :)

scrollaway• 12 years ago

I encourage everyone to watch Humans Need Not Apply, a mini-documentary by the excellent CGPGrey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

I suspect most of what is said in there is well known to the HN crowd, but it's all put together in a very pleasant video and is a nice thing to link to people who don't understand just how far along we are in the process of automating a lot of people's jobs.

guard-of-terra6• 12 years ago

"A social movement that would directly occupy the workshops and the factories. Capitalism is abandoning many productive forces, because they are no longer profitable, but they are still capable of functioning effectively"

That won't work. Imagine you've occupied a factory, and it needs a 20 $ worth of oil to produce a shirt. Meanwhile you can only sell that shirt for 15 $.

You can think of most things around us as of made from oil (i. e. energy). Once you spend more energy than you can buy after selling your wares, you are bankrupt. This is why deindustrialization happen and why you can't overcome it by snapping fingers.

skrebbel5• 12 years ago

But what takes place is just the opposite. Today we work much more than ever before. All you need to do is to compare the pace of our lives and that of our grandparents.

A German philosopher says this to a Portuguese interviewer, and it is not questioned? I am convinced that most people in Europe nowadays work less and less hard than they did 40 years ago. I can understand that it is not questioned on HN, given that most of us live in a culture where working 80 hours a week is considered normal, but in Europe? Come on.

I'm from the Netherlands. My grandfather was an old man at 65, tired and broken from a life of hard farm work. When I came to visit as a child, we'd talk a bit and that was it. My parents, now older than my granddad then, play with my son with vigor and love. They're fitter and happier, because they didn't work as hard.

I work 4 days a week. My girlfriend three. We don't consider these numbers a temporary situation. Everybody I know thinks what we do is normal.

I didn't look up the stats, but it seems to me that either I'm really weird, or the quoted philosopher likes to selectively pick out those facts that support his rant.

jahaja2• 12 years ago

Please do look up the stats before going on an anecdotal evidence binge.

skrebbel5• 12 years ago

No, I won't. HN is a place for civilized discussion, but not a place where only deeply and scientifically researched observations may stand a chance. It's so easy to debunk an argument with "you have no stats". I bring just as many stats to the table as the philosopher in the article, and we're here, discussing the article, no?

clarry3• 12 years ago

I work 4 days a week. My girlfriend three.

I study six days and two evenings a week. I have trouble affording food.

skrebbel5• 12 years ago

And you live in Western Europe? And there are many peers like you?

tokenadult• 12 years ago

This is surely correct for a great many working people in many parts of the world. Moreover, the span of life over which people work is shorter at the young end, as people pursue more schooling before entering employment, and a reduced percentage of lifespan at the old end, as people have many years of retirement in reasonably good health with retirement benefits.

P.S. I fear there was a mistaken downvote here, because this is a good comment.

collyw5• 12 years ago

Out of interest, did you buy a property before the credit bubble? Here in Spain, and in the UK, people of a certain age (baby boomer generation) seem to be doing pretty well, while it looks like the younger generation are expected to pay for it.

skrebbel5• 12 years ago

Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely follow your logic, but no, I bought my house after the credit bubble. Still, it is currently worth less than when I bought it. I'm not happy about that, but I can just stay a homeowner until the prices are back up (if ever) and it won't hurt me much.

grondilu6• 12 years ago

The use of the word "system" here is obviously a rhetoric device. Only far-left-oriented people use this term.

If you ask the question, "What will we do if the system can no longer create jobs?", it's hard not to see this question as suggesting the answer "well, we change the system.".

But what if I phrase the question like this: "What will we do if economic freedom can no longer create jobs?". It's much harder then to answer, "well, we abolish economic freedom", isn't it?

Capitalism is all about the right to exchange and collect means of production. It's a natural consequence of economic freedom.

It can be worrying if technology turns many people's labor useless, thus questioning their means of sustaining their lives, but to me that's not enough to question the rights of the others.

jahaja2• 12 years ago

Are you suggesting that we currently enjoy "economic freedom" or that Capitalism in it's internet-libertarian definition is synonymous with "economic freedom"? Also, "Communist FUD" doesn't do you any favours.

fennecfoxen5• 12 years ago

We have a system where an individual who happens to have wealth is generally allowed to take the wealth, purchase capital, use the capital (or pay someone to use the capital) to create something that he or someone else will value, and then either use that something himself or (attempt to) sell it to a third party for More Wealth.

Notwithstanding a variety of reasonably important things like Taxes or Labor Market Regulations or even Regulatory Capture which detract from the purity of this model in practice, this is:

(a) essentially the textbook definition of what 'capitalism' is (b) a natural consequence of the combination of property rights and basic economic freedoms like "i can purchase capital" -- be it a billion-dollar oil rig or a fifty-dollar sewing machine (c) and a common path taken by many or most people who have some wealth and wish to obtain more wealth, be they entrepreneurs themselves or ordinary people saving for retirement or homeowners looking to save money by insulating their basement or what the heck ever.

So yes, in a general way we do enjoy that sort of system, and if someone has some explaining to do around here, it's actually you. We're not in some sort of political echo chamber such that you just say "capitalism" and people will automatically translate that to "Satan, and all his evil works, and all his empty promises" and implicitly remind people of their mission to elect ${politician} to support ${cause}. What do you redefine these words to mean?

jiggy20114• 12 years ago

I'm not sure if it's what you are implying , but would you really be comfortable allowing people to starve if the value of their labor drops below that required to sustain them?

seanmcdirmid2• 12 years ago

The correct question to ask is what happens to these people when they have nothing to lose AND have access to guns. We ony have to look a bit south of our border for those answers.

grondilu6• 12 years ago

Most people walk by homeless, possibly starving people everyday and they do sleep at night. It's a lack of empathy that everyone basically has.

zo14• 12 years ago

We're no where near that point where the value of their labor is less than what is required for them to feed themselves, and yet millions of people a year go to sleep hungry, or die of starvation, have their growth stunted, etc.

I am totally not comfortable allowing people to starve. That is why I pay taxes, and I expect them to be fed using that money. And I am downright pissed-off that it's still an issue.

I don't think it's capitalism that you should be directing any undue criticism over "value of labor" when it's currently government that is the cause#1 of hunger/starvation.

#1: They're the cause because they're not fixing it.

ThomPete10• 12 years ago

The word system make total sense as long as you are only using it as an observation post.

The left have normally been fairly right about their criticism of parts of the capitalist system.

Where they normally go wrong is when they start suggesting another system i.e..

Capitalism is not about right to exchange there is no right in capitalism that is in liberalism. Capitalism is an economic system that just is.

There is clearly something thats not working and it has nothing to do with economic freedom or lack thereof but everything to do with technology and how it affect our current system.

grondilu6• 12 years ago

Capitalism is not about right to exchange there is no right in capitalism that is in liberalism. Capitalism is an economic system that just is.

Even if I'm ok with calling capitalism a "system", it still is a "system" which consists in abstractly dividing capital into shares that can then be exchanged on a market.

This "system" is an abstract representation which you can't do without unless you prohibit the use of maths or freedom of exchange. That's what I meant: capitalism is a natural consequence of economic freedom. Calling it a system sounds very derogative to me as it colors it as artificial and optional. It is not.

nathan-muir• 12 years ago

Not a great article on this topic. But still interesting.

The main points I see in the article, are that weak labour = weak market, and not every country can be an exporter.

It seems that pressure to increase profitability, ends up exerting itself by reducing labour utilisation (via efficiencies or other means). Which (can eventually) in turn, exert further pressure to increase profitability (due to a weaker market).

What I find disheartening is, the current tools governments have to improve the situation are hamstrung in a global environment.

* Corporate Taxation wont work without global reform

* Minimum wages, employment conditions, and other regulations don't work if the job can be outsourced / performed overseas

* Import tariff's on the former, usually result in your own exports being penalised (in retaliation)

* Existing players wish to maintain the status quo

The other issue, is "free time". There could be a considerable portion of the labour market are willing to take a part time-job "for the love of it" with their free time. Effectively volunteering or taking a "token" wage.

Industries accessible to hobbyists / free timers, will suffer a further devaluation of labour, if they haven't already. Anecdotally, it appears this has already started for some roles like teaching / professorships.

The odds seem firmly stacked against a good percentage of the global population. Hopefully those capable of making lasting change do so, before it's too late.

esbranson• 12 years ago

What will we do if the system can no longer create jobs?

kill the jobs using the most resources

What will we do if the system can no longer create jobs?

Related Stories