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

~~~
grondilu
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)

~~~
guard-of-terra
"Money doesn't magically appears from labor"

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

~~~
zo1
Well, creating jobs means that money get's given to those that get those newly
created jobs. Now, I agree with the OP's assertion that it's kinda ridiculous
to claim that labor automagically creates money. But the end result in this
case is that money spent on "job-creation" is money that is given (or if you
want to go further, redistributed) to those that got the jobs.

I think that we've somehow, as a society, been convinced in thinking that
state-intervention needs to "create" jobs because industry won't do it by
itself. That's the assertion we need to fix/educate about, not the one that
job creation means more money, as you claim.

------
guard-of-terra
"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.

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

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

------
grondilu
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.

~~~
jiggy2011
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?

~~~
zo1
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.

~~~
jiggy2011
Very few people starve to death in first world countries, at the same time
however there are millions of people who are completely unemployed and would
likely be unhoused and without food if it were not for gov welfare programs.

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

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

~~~
_ak
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.

~~~
saalweachter
I think there are at least three answers to the problem.

    
    
      1.  Basic income.  Redistribute wealth, since enough wealth
          is produced, it just isn't available to everyone.
      2.  Force everyone to work less (for more money).  If you
          lower the maximum number number of hours people are
          allowed to work, more people will need to be employed to
          do the same amount of work.  You would probably need to
          accompany this by an increase in minimum wage.
      3.  We could all do more.  Government could take a more
          active roll in back-filling demand.  If we decided to
          employ a million more doctors, or revamp the entire
          power grid, or build a Moon base, or colonize Mars, or
          move Mars into orbit around Venus, or accelerate Venus's
          rotation to support colonization, we could easily
          achieve full employment.

------
nathan-muir
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.

------
skrebbel
> _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.

~~~
clarry
> I work 4 days a week. My girlfriend three.

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

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

~~~
clarry
Northern Europe. There are others like me, though I don't know how many there
are. The problem is that there are some serious holes and twisted
disincentives built into the welfare system. Basic income would be godsend.

For instance they complain that people spend too much time in their studies,
and are trying to incentivize people to graduate faster by granting some
benefits related to the student loan if you graduate on a planned timeline. In
my case however, I would get more if I had postponed my studies instead of
starting studying in UoAS this year. I'd get more still if I dropped out of
school entirely and lived on social security, unemployed...

I know other people who are in a similar situation. For example, unemployed
and unqualified middle-aged men with families and kids to feed. For them, the
students' benefits are impossible to live on so they're incentivized against
getting an education. They can somehow make it though, through crazy hoops
than make no sense for the state nor for themselves.. it makes no sense for
anyone.

It's not clear what this all will lead to. I'm expected to graduate in about
four years. The job prospects in my area have been _piss poor_ (this reflects
badly on my CV), and it's not sure yet whether they're getting better or not.

So yeah, my lack of money is in part my own choice. I chose to study because I
want to graduate sooner rather than later. Either way it sucks. And people
around here want to downvote me for not wanting to pay $40 for a
game/movie/book/software. Not realizing that it's almost two weeks worth of
food for me...

~~~
skrebbel
Good points. I actually agree with everything you said. I just don't think my
grandpa had it better than us.

~~~
clarry
Maybe. It really is hard to say.

But some of the people are in the situation they are in now because some time
ago, it was easy to get by. You didn't need qualifications if you were willing
to work. That's how we got people who are now in their mid-to-late 40s, with
no formal education. And they're suffering for it because today getting a job
just isn't the same.

And looking at how it goes today, young people are expected to spend a small
eternity in educational institutions, and finally they come out with a piece
of paper which states that they have the bare minimum of knowledge everyone
else in the field already has. So they have to compete against every other
fresh graduate, as well as everyone else who's already got a job history &
real world experience to boast with. It does make me feel that maybe my
grandpa had it better. And no, he wasn't a farmer.

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

~~~
estebank
The best way of reducing birth rates? Poverty reduction.

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

------
awalton
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-terra
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-terra
"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 :)

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

~~~
dasil003
And you are part of the system. I don't understand what your argument is.

------
esbranson
> _What will we do if the system can no longer create jobs?_

kill the jobs using the most resources

