[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?
> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:41 PM, grarpamp <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The Roosevelt authors say a key factor is the concentration of
> resources in the hands of managers and owners of large
> corporations—think of CEOs who are compensated largely in shares of
> the firms they oversee. This ownership encourages them to skimp on
> labor costs to further enrich themselves, in their analysis. That
> shrinking demand for labor then helps depress job-market dynamism. It
> also contributes to broader secular stagnation, since wealthier people
> tend to save more of their incomes.
> 1) Eventually, and probably pretty soon (within 100years), that there
> obviously won't be jobs for everyone. Automation, progress(efficiency
> gains) and increasing population makes it inevitable.
> 2) That a general "goal" of society is do away with jobs. In any
> traditional sense. To me we've been approaching that ever since
> agriculture provided ability to support specialists (those who don't
> spend time gathering/producing the food/resources they need). Such as
> scientists, artists and soldiers. The jobs keep moving "up" the ladder
> (away from production). Previous low-rung jobs get reduced in number
> by efficiency or replaced via automation. The end of this trend is
> that all basic needs are met by 0 to a tiny fraction of a percent of
> human labor and rest are all free to pursue specialist activities such
> as science, art, and killing each other.
I once read an article somewhere about the notion of the modern day ‘job’ and how they didn’t (all) exist in order to get actual ‘work’ done, but instead existed to prove ones ‘worth’ to society, in the form of what we call money.
Perhaps you have a link or title to this article? I’ve completely spaced the author, title, location of this piece, but i’ve mentioned it to friends a million times over, and am simply unable to locate…