The Future of Work (Late, Late, Capitalism)

[alice malice]

Well, they live in the same world the rest of us live in. What they
need is work. We shouldn't hold our breath for any national policy to
retrain or support displaced workers, the cyclical or structural
unemployed, underemployed, marginally attached, etc.  And, the
narrative has been written; these folks are going to have to suffer;
there will be lip service and talk, but no policy. We need to invest a
lot of money in education, training, technology, infrastructure....but
this will only get growth to 3-4% in the developed nations, and this
only in expansions and peaks of the business cycle, on average we will
grow at 1.5%.  The world has shifted, capital has shifted, growth is
elsewhere, in catch-up phase Emerging Markets and in newly developing
economies like China and India. There is nothing in Capitalism that
will temper the inequality. In catch-up labor may temper the abuse by
Capital, but labor is dead in the OECD. It's hopeless really. Buy
stocks and cross your fingers. Buy the dollar. Short gold.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:25 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> What US obsolete workers need depends on the real world they now inhabit.
> What their future brethren will need depends on National policy. How
> disposable of an older workforce we will allow as acceptable is up for
> discussion.  That we will allow increasing stratification of income in the
> US, at the peril of our civilization, seems certain.
>
> David Morris
>
>
> On Monday, November 10, 2014, 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
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l