Victor, I wanted to respond to your message. I think that there is a much broader movement underway that just that a machine eliminates a job. Technology has also eliminated the concept of permanent, full-time employment with full benefits, security and the expectation of raises, increased standard of living. We now function with a "just in time" mentality of contract work, temporary, part-time, no benefits, no security. And this has been extended to areas of work that are not technological , nursing now has record numbers of contract, "just in time" positions, as well as warehouse shipping or inventories, etc. Also unions are being busted all over when there are no longer employees, but "contract" self-employed people. Technology has not just eliminated "jobs" but has globalized the work force, outsourcing whole branches, departments, processes. The last GM strike was partly over this outsourcing. Technology has made it easier to move many of our jobs to Mexico, the US south, India, Indonesia. While technically it created "jobs" there in the new found capital market, it really replaced more subsistence, non-market work. Technology also has created the impression that we don't need to relate to humans, we can press buttons and listen to recorded speech and that we don't need to be served but can serve ourselves. The full range of implications hitting us at amplified speed are enormous. Victor Milne wrote: > My interest was not so much in the provenance of "Rifkin's theory"--though > the quotation from Bertrand Russell was fascinating and instructive. I doubt > that Rifkin would claim to be the first to argue that the net effect of > technological innovation is a reduction in the number of available jobs. > > Neither do I put much confidence into Rifkin's proposed amelioration of the > system by bringing volunteerism into the marketplace. > > My main interest was simply to ascertain if most of the thoughtful people on > this list believe that technology is gradually reducing the number of jobs > available within the current economic framework. The question is important > because the mainstream media are propounding the opposite view, that new > technology will bring more and better jobs within a marketplace economy. One > finds even well-meaning, compassionate journalists like David Crane, > economics editor of the Toronto Star, vigorously promoting this optimistic > scenario. (As Rifkin notes, that was the predominant view in the 1920's and > earlier.) Needless to say, many ordinary people are taken in by these > hopeful arguments. When I was talking to a bank teller about on-line banking > further decimating her profession beyond what the ATM has already brought, > she responded that surely lots of good new jobs would be created by the new > technology. Since all these people are voters, I think it important to > counter the optimistic delusion that the current economic structure will > heal itself. > > Another point: when we talk about dealing with structural unemployment > created by technological advance, I think we need to make clear whether we > are discussing short term palliative measures within the present economic > framework and long term visions of what our human world could and should be > like. > > In the long term I agree with the points made by several people that the > only secure foundation for a comfortable life in the future has to be based > on (a) population reduction and (b) an adequate basic income granted to > everyone. The late great Isaac Asimov believed that one billion was about > the optimum population for our planet as it would enable everyone to live in > great comfort without endangering the environment. > > At any rate, I seem to have the answer to my question: virtually all the > thoughtful people on this list agree that technology reduces the number of > jobs available in the present economic structure. The one exception is > Douglas Wilson, who is certainly a thoughtful person. > > I believe that I understand the concept of the assignment problem well > enough though I could not necessarily do the math. However, I remain > convinced that there are presently more people wanting jobs than there are > jobs available. Hence I do not think that even the most perfect solution of > the assignment problem would produce full employment. This is especially > true when you add in other factors like geographic limitations imposed by a > spouse already having a job. A difficult to place person might require a > one-in-a-million matching when he is restricted to a geographic region > holding considerably less than one million jobs. And there are people who > are not going to be tolerated for very long by any employer I have ever met. > For instance, some people with substance abuse problems whose attendance is > extremely sporadic as is their performance when they are on the job. > > This is not to say that Douglas Wilson's thoughts on the assignment problem > are without merit. It could be an important palliative measure while the > present economic order endures and it would be invaluable once we have > achieved a world where people are looking for work because they want a task > that fits their measure and not because they need the money. By the way, if > you solve it in the near future (before I reach retirement age) let me know > as I have been seriously underemployed for the past 12 years! > > Regards, > > Victor Milne > > FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website > at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ > > LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE > at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
begin: vcard fn: Melanie Milanich n: ;Melanie Milanich email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard
