The Future of Work (Late, Late, Capitalism)

[alice malice]

And, the Ford argument doesn't and never did hold water.

The problem as Piketty describes it, while complex and messy, can be
explained in a nutshell with one simple formula: r>g

As long as the capital's rate of return continues to exceed the growth
of gdp, and thus inflation and wages, the rich will get richer and the
poor workers will get nowhere.

So, buy stocks.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:52 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of silly things in this argument. One is the idea that
> the workers with decent wages, who are replaced by technology,
> automation, outsource, offshore, structural and cyclical combinations
> need to be retrained. They don't need to be retrained.
>
>  It would be great for everyone, and I mean everyone, if we had a plan
> to retrain these workers, but we don't and we are noy going to see one
> now that the unemployment rate is headed to 5%. When the crisis was at
> its most painful stage, we did not see such a plan. We did have a plan
> like this in the 82 Reagan Recession, but those days are long trickled
> down the toilet of the Welfare State that Clinton & Co. dismantled
> (Great Society to New Deal and Labor etc.).
>
>
>
>  When we look at the current state of work we see that the labor force
> in the US has declined and that workers age 50-60 are not returning to
> the workforce, and, while there is still a very small chance that they
> will, because they are not wealthy, not retired, not well supported by
> the state, and there is still a good deal of slack, that, once
> tightened up, with a boost of inflation, and wage inflation, will
> induce this group back to the workforce, but this is only a slight
> chance because these workers are simply too expensive for what they
> can produce and will prefer the current mess they are in to one that
> is no better but has to be earned.
>
> The old labor boss to Henry Ford argument is now obsolete. Who will
> buy the cars Mr. Ford?
>
> Not auto workers in Detroit. But we will produce and sell 17 million
> cars this year.
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:07 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-future-of-unemployment-by.html
>>
>> GE wants us to praise the awesome revolution in manufacturing that is
>> supposed to take place with 3D printing. Fair enough--it is rather exciting
>> to consider the implications of automatically constructed on-site objects
>> from houses to livers.
>>
>> But the sleight of hand here is all the people in hardhats. Notice how all
>> these supposedly busy people are designing and shaping and programming in
>> factory conditions, even as the voiceover talks about factories that build
>> themselves. In order to show visual movement, the people have to be given
>> things to do on camera--most of which, if you look carefully, involves
>> shifting around and setting up laptops, and the rest of which involves
>> mapping out and designing objects.
>>
>> In reality there will be no need for all of these people. The vast majority
>> of objects will be designed off-site by a few designers, who will send the
>> designs wirelessly to the printers. A few very low-wage employees will push
>> whatever buttons are necessary. A few more very low-wage employees will move
>> around or assemble the stuff the printers spit out, which will then be
>> shipped in self-driving trucks to a destination of choice.
>>
>> The future of work, indeed. This is the future of unemployment.
>>
>> Not that that's a bad thing, mind. The human condition is better off with
>> humans not driving trucks long distances or working in dangerous factory
>> assembly lines. Technology that replaces needless human and animal labor is
>> a good thing, and has been ever since the invention of the wheel.
>>
>> But let's not kid ourselves. The jobs are simply going to disappear, and
>> they're not going to be replaced with "design" jobs--even if those blue
>> collar workers could be retrained as designers, which they mostly can't be.
>> Capitalism as we know it, centered around a delicate balance between labor
>> and ownership, is going to start fraying at the seams before it ultimately
>> breaks down. Not because of anything Karl Marx or Thomas Piketty predict,
>> necessarily, but because there just won't be enough viable, high-paying jobs
>> to sustain a customer base.
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l