Re: bizarre responses to my combinatorial stuff
Some comments: -Original Message- From: Douglas P. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: November 22, 1998 6:58 AM Subject: bizarre responses to my combinatorial stuff >Recently I sent out a message called "more on the underlying >combinatorial reasons for unemployment", and the responses I received >seem so bizarre to me that I find it very hard to make a rejoinder. > >Nobody addressed the title issue at all. > >Jay Hanson said > >> This particular planet -- Earth -- already has too many people working. > >By how many, Jay? How much MORE unemployment do you want? 10%, 20% >maybe? We all know you think the earth is overpopulated, but putting >people out of work isn't going to solve that, unless they kill themselves >in despair. > I think this is another instance of the problem I mentioned earlier, that we sometimes talk at cross purposes because one person has in mind a fix for the present economic regime and another person has in mind a more drastic solution that will change all the rules. I don't think Jay Hanson "wants" more unemployment in the sense of more people being without adequate income to support life. He does view our current level of economic activity as so damaging to the environment that he would feel the top priority is to immediately begin reducing that activity, and he would presumably want the unemployed to receive a Basic Income either for doing nothing or for doing the kinds of things that most economists think have no economic utility--writing poems or praying or whatever. Jay is right about the urgent problem posed to the environment, but unfortunately a rational solution just ain't gonna be adopted in the next decade or two. >Tom Walker said > >> No combinatorial solution of the job matching problem can meet the a priori >> condition that it uphold the regime of compound interest ad infinitum. > >I really can't for the life of me figure out what the one thing has to do >with the other. > Tom Walker has expressed himself at a very high level of generality, so I am not sure just what problems he has in mind. Correct me if I am wrong, Tom, but I think he is referring to the fact that the people controlling the economy (corporations and international money markets) demand unlimited growth. Generally they want at least 10 per cent increase in profits annually. This would mean a doubling of profits every 7.2 years. On the face of it that would mean more jobs, but they often achieve those profit increases by squeezing costs, especially labor. Moreover, as Melanie Milanich just pointed out, technology is not simply eliminating many job positions; it is changing the very concept of job, so that it no longer means a permanent full-time position with adequate pay and benefits. More and more people are not getting jobs in the conventional sense but are called in as contract workers for a short term and then dispensed with. >Pete Vincent takes my notion of widespread job mismatch as implying >that if employment were optimized we would have more economic >activity, and then argues against it, because more economic activity >would lead to more pollution and depletion of resources. > >I really don't get this at all. Take pollution -- I rather favour a >policy of zero-emission, whereby industries just don't pollute, but >the argument against that has always been economic -- it would be >"too expensive". I also favour complete recycling, whereby all waste >is recycled, but that again has been called "too expensive". And I >favour a massive conversion to the use of solar energy, either >directly through solar cells or indirectly through ethanol from >biomass, but both of those seem to be "too expensive". > >Yes, I think we would have more economic activity and more wealth >if employment were optimized, but I see it as a means of affording >clean air, clean water, complete recycling, and drastically reducing >our use of fossil feuls. I think Pete Vincent's position is legitimate. I understood that your contention was that solving the job assignment problem would produce full employment under the present economic system. The present system and its masters have next to no interest in environmental amelioration. Note that the Business Council on National Issues is fighting the Kyoto Treaty tooth-and-nail. Although Kyoto would benefit a few new businesses (eg. the Ballard fuel cell technology) it would hurt far more of the old ones. I think your paragraph immediately above reverses cause and effect. Optimizing employment (under the present system) will do nothing to afford clean air and clean water, etc. However, mandating clean air and clean water will provide additional employment. > >There is so much in our so
Re: bizarre responses to my combinatorial stuff
Ok, Douglas, I'll try again since you have addressed exactly none of my points. Douglas P. Wilson wrote: > Nobody addressed the title issue at all. subjective reality? > Jay Hanson said > > > This particular planet -- Earth -- already has too many people working. > > By how many, Jay? How much MORE unemployment do you want? 10%, 20% > maybe? Unemployment isn't *desired*; it is a systemic requirement given # of humans.(2 B. in 1930, 6B. now) And the % is a function of the gross #s plus sum total of other planetary system variables. > We all know you think the earth is overpopulated, but putting > people out of work isn't going to solve that, unless they kill themselves > in despair. Many on this list have spent months & years attempting to define "work". I've never seen one proposal to 'put' people out of work. Jobs are not infinitely available as providers of sustenance and decent quality of life. As my earlier post said, they provide either barter or tokens(money) for such provision. Money is *relative* value (power) in such provision. A shortage of 'good jobs' is an *indication* of a longage of people. Equal slices of an insufficient pie equals starvation. > > Tom Walker said > > > No combinatorial solution of the job matching problem can meet the a priori > > condition that it uphold the regime of compound interest ad infinitum. > > I really can't for the life of me figure out what the one thing has to do > with the other. Does that mean *you* are correct and everyone else is ill informed? > Pete Vincent takes my notion of widespread job mismatch as implying > that if employment were optimized we would have more economic > activity, and then argues against it, because more economic activity > would lead to more pollution and depletion of resources. I, like Pete, Jay, Don Chisholm, & some others think that a sustainable future more likely requires shrinkage of consumption and throughput. Technology is double edged, and so far hasn't helped whole-systemically. Human well-being is at direct expense of other life forms, materials, and exosomatic energy. > I really don't get this at all. Try harder! > Take pollution -- I rather favour a > policy of zero-emission, whereby industries just don't pollute, but > the argument against that has always been economic -- it would be > "too expensive". Read some ecological economics. You are thinking about tokens & accepting industry's externalization of maximum % of enviro & health costs. > I also favour complete recycling, whereby all waste > is recycled, but that again has been called "too expensive". And I > favour a massive conversion to the use of solar energy, either > directly through solar cells or indirectly through ethanol from > biomass, but both of those seem to be "too expensive". Too expensive *for whom*? I suggest you check out some whole-systems approaches to valuation criteria. See, for ex. John Raven _The New Wealth of Nations_ (a few chapters are on the Canad. Direct Democ site referred by Colin Stark. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/nwn.htm I've met Raven and many others using diverse approaches to address the problematique. Agreement with all details isn't expected; flexibility in thinking is. > Yes, I think we would have more economic activity and more wealth > if employment were optimized, but I see it as a means of affording > clean air, clean water, complete recycling, and drastically reducing > our use of fossil feuls. Define "wealth". "affording" is a human value judgement; once sick, the price of health (and maybe the pure air/water/food...connection)skyrockets! > > There is so much in our society that we just don't seem to be able to > afford, like good healthcare for everyone and better schools. I'm > sure we can afford all of these things if more people are able to find > truly suitable jobs. Is this so terribly hard to understand? You are locked in traditional monetary mode. Some societies operate without money! For many centuries none existed! Tokens have zero intrinsic value. Yes, there could be some efficiency improvements if better matching/combining were accomplished. If that would slow or speed human demise would depend on the work being done. My opinion of key human focus is time horizon. Short term need (& greed)is everpresent, and will get worse as the #s sharing the finite, insufficient pie increase. This spiral down affects planning and valuation criteria. My 2 cents. Steve Kurtz
bizarre responses to my combinatorial stuff
Recently I sent out a message called "more on the underlying combinatorial reasons for unemployment", and the responses I received seem so bizarre to me that I find it very hard to make a rejoinder. Nobody addressed the title issue at all. Jay Hanson said > This particular planet -- Earth -- already has too many people working. By how many, Jay? How much MORE unemployment do you want? 10%, 20% maybe? We all know you think the earth is overpopulated, but putting people out of work isn't going to solve that, unless they kill themselves in despair. Tom Walker said > No combinatorial solution of the job matching problem can meet the a priori > condition that it uphold the regime of compound interest ad infinitum. I really can't for the life of me figure out what the one thing has to do with the other. Pete Vincent takes my notion of widespread job mismatch as implying that if employment were optimized we would have more economic activity, and then argues against it, because more economic activity would lead to more pollution and depletion of resources. I really don't get this at all. Take pollution -- I rather favour a policy of zero-emission, whereby industries just don't pollute, but the argument against that has always been economic -- it would be "too expensive". I also favour complete recycling, whereby all waste is recycled, but that again has been called "too expensive". And I favour a massive conversion to the use of solar energy, either directly through solar cells or indirectly through ethanol from biomass, but both of those seem to be "too expensive". Yes, I think we would have more economic activity and more wealth if employment were optimized, but I see it as a means of affording clean air, clean water, complete recycling, and drastically reducing our use of fossil feuls. There is so much in our society that we just don't seem to be able to afford, like good healthcare for everyone and better schools. I'm sure we can afford all of these things if more people are able to find truly suitable jobs. Is this so terribly hard to understand? dpw Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html
