Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before the advent of industrialization, almost everyone who could work worked. Pre-agricultural societies survived by hunting and gathering. If you didn't hunt and gather, you starved to death. Even children and women were members of the work force, and they had their hands full from dawn to dusk. Life was nasty, brutish, and short.
With the invention of agriculture came efficiency in food production. Food surpluses accumulated. Formerly nomadic tribes settled down and formed stable societies. Human population grew. Fewer people were needed to produce the same quantity of food. The work force became more diversified, so some members of society became artisans, priests, soldiers, nobility etc...
Then came the industrial revolution. Machines could now be deployed to do the work that humans previously did. Greater efficiencies were attained in manufacturing and agriculture. The human life span increased and population expanded even more due to improvements in sanitation and health care. People started to enjoy more time for themselves to spend on recreation.
Enter the computer age. The computer has magnified labor productivity by several orders of magnitude. It freed up even more time for people to pursue recreational activities. Quality of life improved. Meanwhile, human population continues to grow by leaps and bounds such that there is now a surplus of people relative to work that is available for all of them to do. This surplus of people is whom we call "the unemployed".
Unemployment is therefore nothing but the fruit of the relentless increase in efficiency in production processes that has been going on for the last 10,000 years. Unemployment can legitimately be called a sign of social progress. It may not feel that way for those of us who are unemployed and have no source of income, and I could certainly sympathize with that point of view. But from a macro historical view, unemployment is the price we pay for secular improvements in social organization. The only way we would have permanent full employment is if we destroy everything we have ever invented over the past 10,000 years and return to a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
Interesting concept . . . although somewhat independent of history . . .
Between the rise of Agriculture and the much later advent of Industrialization . . . there was a several thousand year spread. Lot of stuff went on in between. And btw, even in the starting sentence, you seem to have that basic concept backwards.
Here is how the [hi]story line goes -- at least for your main points.
1. Hunter-Gatherer. Unknown pre-history.
2. Agriculture. Few thousand years.
3. Industrialization. That is just the last 200 to 300 years or so.
By in large, if there were no oppressive kingdoms, invaders, etc., trying to dominate, enslave, and tax the Ag folks along with forcing them into wars, they lived fairly good lives and generally worked far less than many folks in the US today.
After the advent of Industrialization . . . again, only a few hundred years ago . . . things got a little tougher for many . . . and a whole lot better for the folks on the top end. That is driven by greed of the folks on the top end.
But to then to tie all this together into a "just so" story to say that even in an industrialized world we could not choose to act in the common good, and help everyone who can and wants to be a part . . . . is just goofy.
dunno if you were looking for a review, but that is my nickel's worth.
The problem with your thesis however is that we morally adjudicate unemployment as a character flaw, a sign of weakness (it is, from the perspective that somebody else beat you to a job), essentially making the modern society no different than the "f u I got mine" hunter-gatherer construct. What's the point of moving forward 10,000 years if your 2010 society expects the weak and unemployed to quietly die, just like 10,000 years before? That's what I call devolution. The Romans were more civil than we are, and they had lions eating humans for entertainment.
People sit here all day bemoaning the unemployed. " Re-train! wa wa wa, move, wa wa wa, quit being lazy, wa wa wa, go back to school on more loans, wa wa wa, flip burgers until you can afford to go to school again, wa wa wa" In essence, it's your fault. They see red at the mere insinuation that we are responsible for the welfare of our unproductive, that is the very price of living in a civil modern society, where you're not at peril from me raiding your property, killing you, raping your women and taking the property for my own shelter, ad nauseam.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. Otherwise they ought to open season on property re-distribution. I got a gun and a wooden stake. Giddy up. I'd stand a better chance of becoming rich that way than playing the lotto or working. How u like them apples....
Before the advent of industrialization, almost everyone who could work worked. Pre-agricultural societies survived by hunting and gathering. If you didn't hunt and gather, you starved to death. Even children and women were members of the work force, and they had their hands full from dawn to dusk. Life was nasty, brutish, and short.
With the invention of agriculture came efficiency in food production. Food surpluses accumulated. Formerly nomadic tribes settled down and formed stable societies. Human population grew. Fewer people were needed to produce the same quantity of food. The work force became more diversified, so some members of society became artisans, priests, soldiers, nobility etc...
Then came the industrial revolution. Machines could now be deployed to do the work that humans previously did. Greater efficiencies were attained in manufacturing and agriculture. The human life span increased and population expanded even more due to improvements in sanitation and health care. People started to enjoy more time for themselves to spend on recreation.
Enter the computer age. The computer has magnified labor productivity by several orders of magnitude. It freed up even more time for people to pursue recreational activities. Quality of life improved. Meanwhile, human population continues to grow by leaps and bounds such that there is now a surplus of people relative to work that is available for all of them to do. This surplus of people is whom we call "the unemployed".
Unemployment is therefore nothing but the fruit of the relentless increase in efficiency in production processes that has been going on for the last 10,000 years. Unemployment can legitimately be called a sign of social progress. It may not feel that way for those of us who are unemployed and have no source of income, and I could certainly sympathize with that point of view. But from a macro historical view, unemployment is the price we pay for secular improvements in social organization. The only way we would have permanent full employment is if we destroy everything we have ever invented over the past 10,000 years and return to a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
The workers in China that now have the jobs that put American workers in the unemployment lines were hunter gathers just a few years ago. They could live on no income then. Now that they get $130 per month working 12 hours a day 7 days a week, they're so happy they are jumping off roofs.
Interesting concept . . . although somewhat independent of history . . .
Between the rise of Agriculture and the much later advent of Industrialization . . . there was a several thousand year spread. Lot of stuff went on in between. And btw, even in the starting sentence, you seem to have that basic concept backwards.
Here is how the [hi]story line goes -- at least for your main points.
1. Hunter-Gatherer. Unknown pre-history.
2. Agriculture. Few thousand years.
3. Industrialization. That is just the last 200 to 300 years or so.
By in large, if there were no oppressive kingdoms, invaders, etc., trying to dominate, enslave, and tax the Ag folks along with forcing them into wars, they lived fairly good lives and generally worked far less than many folks in the US today.
After the advent of Industrialization . . . again, only a few hundred years ago . . . things got a little tougher for many . . . and a whole lot better for the folks on the top end. That is driven by greed of the folks on the top end.
But to then to tie all this together into a "just so" story to say that even in an industrialized world we could not choose to act in the common good, and help everyone who can and wants to be a part . . . . is just goofy.
dunno if you were looking for a review, but that is my nickel's worth.
LOL....I didn't want to write a whole textbook on the economic history of the world......just a very compressed outline of it.
But to go back to the point of this thread.....unemployment. The cause of unemployment, in my view, is efficiency. Efficiency in manufacturing, in agriculture, in services.....the more efficient these processes become, the less need for human labor. The cure to unemployment is to reduce or eliminate efficiency. This means destroying machines, computers, and any and all other means of efficient production. (The Luddites Luddite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia understood the implications of increased efficiency through mechanization quite well.)
The other solution is to decrease the size of human population. It is interesting to note that states like Idaho, Wyoming, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, the Dakotas......i.e. states with low populations and population densities are doing fairly well in the current recession. Their unemployment rates are in the 3% to 7% range, far below the national rate. It's not hard to see why: they have fewer people competing for the number of jobs available.
First of all, "full employment" is not something we should be aiming to have as a society. The Soviet Union tried that and it failed. Most economists believe that the natural rate of unemployment is around 3-5%, at least for the U.S. economy. That is what we should consider healthy.
High unemployment is not a sign of progress, but is part of the inevitable shift in how the economy will work. I would call that realignment or even a correction of past excesses before I'd call it progress. Some of it is, particularly as it relates to automation of manufacturing and services, but a lot of it is simply a correction of too many people being malemployed in sectors like finance, insurance, and real estate.
But given that human beings have an insatiable desire for more and to progress, that will eventually create more economic activity aimed at satisfying that demand. Many of these unemployed people will create businesses aimed at meeting new demand - businesses which will hire more people.
Most of us haven't lived through this kind of economic realignment, which makes it particularly scary for a lot of people.
Most of us haven't lived through this kind of economic realignment, which makes it particularly scary for a lot of people.
Had to live through it 3 times now... Getting a little old. Early 80's had to move to another state with my parents. Away from our family and in turn seeing my grandmother 3 more times before she died, the same went with the other grandparents.
.com crash with the same situation. lots of businesses closing. Father loses work and finds work in another state, back near family but I have to make the choice of staying behind or going with, decided to go with.
08-09' Now that I am married. I watch my wife, a teacher, get laid off. She was a 3rd grade teacher. She now works sometimes 20 hours and sometimes 38 hours, if she is lucky and prays that she can cover for someone. Going from a living wage of 35,000, that's with 8 years of experience, and with benefits to $8.00 an hour with no benefits. I have 10 years of experience in the computer field, but never perused certificates till now.
I'm really confused how this realignment is a positive thing. Are we realigning the wealth to China? Are they going to be the central government for all? I look under cups, made in China, go to any store, made in China. I don't see made in USA, Mexico, Pakistan, India, Indonesia. It's all China now.
Unemployment is therefore nothing but the fruit of the relentless increase in efficiency in production processes that has been going on for the last 10,000 years. Unemployment can legitimately be called a sign of social progress. It may not feel that way for those of us who are unemployed and have no source of income, and I could certainly sympathize with that point of view. But from a macro historical view, unemployment is the price we pay for secular improvements in social organization.
I agree.
I think the big question is, how does America, as a matter of policy, ease this structural transition?
LOL....I didn't want to write a whole textbook on the economic history of the world......just a very compressed outline of it.
My concern was with the Quality of the information -- not the Quantity of the information. Do you follow the difference? I am not saying Not Enough -- but rather that it was Fundamentally Incorrect and being used to then draw conclusions that could not be supported.
Quote:
But to go back to the point of this thread.....unemployment. The cause of unemployment, in my view, is efficiency. Efficiency in manufacturing, in agriculture, in services.....the more efficient these processes become, the less need for human labor. The cure to unemployment is to reduce or eliminate efficiency. This means destroying machines, computers, and any and all other means of efficient production. (The Luddites Luddite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia understood the implications of increased efficiency through mechanization quite well.)
Ahhh, the Must Be Luddites, routine? Swing and a miss.
So Nope. Advanced degrees in Engineering with specialization in Power and Automation.
Quote:
The other solution is to decrease the size of human population. It is interesting to note that states like Idaho, Wyoming, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, the Dakotas......i.e. states with low populations and population densities are doing fairly well in the current recession. Their unemployment rates are in the 3% to 7% range, far below the national rate. It's not hard to see why: they have fewer people competing for the number of jobs available.
Ahhh, The Other Solution. As in only one other?
How about a good solution? They do exist.
Work Less and Be Less Greedy. Crazy Wild Insane thinking, huh?
Let the Chinese worker (or wherever else is the "Industrialization" exploitation target of the day is) get a decent wage. Let them work some sane hours. It is a Jesus 101 thing -- but maybe treat "them" the same way we would like to be treated.
And while on Geee-Moral-Action-May-Be-Good-Business theme . . . We could share the jobs we have with less pain for everyone. At a 10% (or so) unemployment rate -- if we the (still) working -- did 10% less, there would plenty for the remaining to do. This is mostly just a greed and selfishness problem.
On an operational level, I have come to respect a view that promotes -- Between Two Evils, Choose Neither; Between Two Goods, Choose Both.
But at any rate, for your 3 choices/views offered --
1. Fake History, that this is "Natural," so Accept It., or
2. You must be a Luddite (marginalize / separate / isolate), or
3. Then Go Die.
I reject all of those. None sound Good to me.
On the other hand --
Play Nice, Treat other People Well, and Quit being so Greedy and Share -- all those sound Good to me.
You may have but in this recession we lost more jobs than the last 3 recessions combined. This is uncharted territory for folks unless they were coherent in the late 1920's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
