Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
emmitt wrote:Maybe it'd be best to abolish the social division of labor.
Let's assume that Pat Devine's classification of labor is legitimate or correct. We'd have 5 types of activity: repetitive and unskilled activity, administering/directing and planning, caring and nurturing, skilled activity, creative activity. If we were to expect everyone to do work within each category over the course of their lives, the social division of labor would be almost abolished. This would result in the distribution of work people don't necessarily want to do by preventing (some) individuals from performing only one category of activity. That is to say that the monopolization of rewarding and intrinsically more interesting work would be minimized.
emmitt wrote:If you're only interested in efficiency, it won't be very appealing to you.
If you're one of the winners of the status quo who does all the intrinsically satisfying work, it won't be appealing to you at all.
emmitt wrote:Obviously, you don't seriously believe that yourself. Otherwise, you wouldn't have asked what to do about "jobs people don't want to do". (If it were all about efficiency, you'd just force/brainwash the perfect candidate to do crap she/he doesn't like. This suggests to me that there are also other things you value.)
You're apparently quite aware of this problematic tension between efficiency on the one hand and the effective satisfaction of people's preferences on the other.
(And you also seem to realize that your immigration proposal is a quite suboptimal solution.)
I might also want to add that the abolition of the social division of labor might actually boost morale(/solidarity) and therefore productivity since everyone would be entitled to an appropriate share of empowering and inherently rewarding/satisfying work.
emmitt wrote:Nobody doubts that the minimization of unpleasant activities via technological progress is desirable. Unfortunately, it's pretty (e)utopian to assume technology is going to do away with all kinds of disempowering, dehumanizing, intrinsically less rewarding or less interesting activities in the next two weeks. As a matter of fact, it's quasi-religious.
The point is that you will make me unhappy but you will not make him happy.
The point is that not all of us have the same interests, that people desire jobs that match their hobbies and those jobs have a very small demand anyway, or tend to not desire any job, or only a few hours a week. My point is that you cannot redistribute the work the way you meant it and that redistributing it would not do yield the expected satisfaction anyway.
emmitt wrote:I'm not going to address the rampant, quasi-religious belief in the salvational nature of technology since I think it's childish.
The point's to develop everybody's potential by preventing her/his marginalization which is the ultimate result of the social division of labor.
You're basically just saying that you'd hate to give up even one of your privileges.
emmitt wrote:1) I already said that "[n]obody doubts that the minimization of unpleasant activities via technological progress is desirable."
2) You still think that the functional division of labor would be abolished.
3) You still think that everybody would be expected to engage in a wide variety of skilled activities.
Of course not since I assumed that good and bad jobs would still exist.
Of course not since I excluded in my computation the four fifths of skilled jobs among enviable jobs. Which leaves 1/15th of jobs that people could share.
emmitt wrote:Yes, I don't think technological progress will help us in any substantial way right now or in the near future.
Child-rearing is an activity that's often not remunerated nor appreciated. Once child-rearing is done communally, this activity will have to be shared. Elderly care will have to be communalized as well. Everybody's going to do this kind of stuff. It won't be primarily women who are actually doing most of this (either privately or professionally) right now.
The category of administering, directing and planning will have to be more inclusive as well.
The same is true of creative activities. These things are all monopolized at the moment. A more participatory approach will have to be utilized.
They substantially helped us in the past and are going to make half of jobs unneeded in a near future and yet they will not substantially help?
I understand the logic but face it: we currently have 20% of real unemployment (taking into account people who're stuck with part-time jobs while they would want a full one, those who are early retired or deemed as socially handicapped, those who are unaccounted because they're out of the system or in jail, etc). Soon enough we will have 40%. And now you want to equally share the workload of elderly care between they and me who work 80h a week?! While at the same time I will still have to provide them with 50% of my income in order to finance universal income and public services?!
Anyway only a small fraction of the population has creative skills.
emmitt wrote:You obviously mean something else by "near future". Robots are not going to take over child-rearing and elderly care in the next two years (=in the near future).
Unemployment could easily be taken care of by creating a job guarantee (JG) which would improve both wages and the employment situation. It would also function as a minimum wage since you would be guaranteed to get a new job if you think you're underpaid at the moment. A JG is also preferable to a traditional minimum wage since it doesn't take a police force to enforce it.
Harmattan wrote:Indeed, those social jobs will not be taken soon.
The Job Guarantee assumes that unemployment is temporary and results from crises, it is a way to smooth out unemployment peaks.
But it cannot be used as a way to address structural unemployment. What we're seeing is a lack of demand for the unskilled labor.
Universal income and post-capitalism: everyone gets an income without doing anything. People can freely work for non-profitable or not-for-profit, public or private, activities. Those whose skills are in demand stay in a old-fashion and structured models. The difficulty is to marry both models (especially is the latter one is still capitalist) and provide strong enough incentives for the latter.
emmitt wrote:The point of the JG is the stimulation of aggregate demand.
There are a lot of communities that need help so you can't really argue there's nothing left to do.
A basic income would be useful to increase aggregate spending but it's definitely not superior to the JG.
1. Wrt cleaning up pollution; espec re prohibitin[…]
Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't say what I[…]
I watched Gretas address to Congress. There is s[…]
I do not think Gene was a communist. He was a p[…]