Is there enough work? Will there be enough work?

[nancylebov]

Both sturgeonslawyer and supergee have raised the question, so here goes:

I don't know what constrains the number of jobs--it obviously has something to do with the amount of capital, and the mostly accurate expectation the work done today will get paid well enough for more of it to be done tomorrow, but I don't have a feelng for the large picture. Maybe someday I'll reread _Man, Economy, and State_--I don't remember what Rothbard said about the question, but I'm pretty sure he addressed it.

However, I can think of a number of things worth doing which could work as jobs, which probably aren't going away anytime soon, and that people could get paid to do if we were a little richer or had a little more sense. It may be that people won't work as hard or as continuously, but there really are things for them to do.

Help desks could be better staffed with better trained people. Hospitals could be made into places that are good for sick people, though I grant that might lead to less work in the long run.

Buildings could be ornmented. I don't know why the Victorians could afford prettier buildings than we seem to be able to.

Clothing and shoes could be custom fitted--I'm imagining this done with considerable assistance from computers and automation, but needing human thought too.

There's science--we certainly haven't observed everything worth thinking about. Imho, one of the big frontiers is microbial ecology.

And even though everyone reading this lj probably has close to enough stuff, something like a billion people are living in dire poverty--supplying them with stuff will take a while.

Comments

[solri.livejournal.com]

Yes, but all of this would require some degree of socialism, and that isn't fashionable at the moment.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Why would it all require some degree of socialism? This seems like an especially unlikely claim for custom-fitted clothing and shoes.

[avram]

I don't know why the Victorians could afford prettier buildings than we seem to be able to.

I assume stonemasons are more expensive now. The current median wage for a stonemason is about $21/hour. That’s about $1/hour in 1900 money, but I can’t find what the actual wages were for stonemasons back then.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Could a lot of the stone-cutting be automated? Or are you thinking about the people who put the fiddly bits into place?

[kgbooklog.livejournal.com]

Who says there's not enough work? (Yes, I'm too lazy to look up the context.)

I think it's more a lack of jobs that people are willing and able to do. Around here, we're desparately short of teachers. And I don't think there's anyone, anywhere, that wouldn't benefit from learning skills. Of course, that would eliminate the need for help desks, and lower the need for hospitals.

[folkmew.livejournal.com]

Not only is there a teacher shortage and worse predicted, but IMHO (and the opinion of many others) student teacher ratio should be considerably lower, which would mean even more teachers required. Now if we could just change the priorities of schools away from being "pass this test, learn nothing really, and be a good little cog." Ah, I can dream.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

There's scads of *work* to be done. There's just a shortage of *jobs*, where a job = work + salary. In many places, "a full time job" = work + salary + reasonably-reliable promise of benefits, and those are even more scarce. The short term focus of the current investing climate pushes many businesses to try to show apparent profits as quickly as possible. So it's better for them to make their current people work overtime (unpaid, if at all possible, paid if necessary), or hire temporary contractors, than to make the long term financial commitment of hiring more people.

The way things work

[nwl.livejournal.com]

Help desks could be better staffed with better trained people. Hospitals could be made into places that are good for sick people, though I grant that might lead to less work in the long run.
Buildings could be ornamented. I don't know why the Victorians could afford prettier buildings than we seem to be able to.
Clothing and shoes could be custom fitted--I'm imagining this done with considerable assistance from computers and automation, but needing human thought too.

I'd like to see things done more efficiently, but people are always standing in the way. There are lots of ways to make hospitals more efficient, but the big pro medical group (the name escapes me at the moment) is pretty much against it. Many changes have been made in the veterans hospitals because the military can order it to happen. Civilian hospitals could follow, but choose not to. (My sister and brother-in-law work at a hospital and the stories are incredible.)

Buildings follow what's popular. Many of the buildings in Washington were designed at a time when Roman ruins were discovered and was fashionable to design buildings based on them. The buildings were "prettier" because that was the fashion of the day. I also don't think they have earthquakes in England. You can have a house made in any style you want, but public buildings tend to reflect what is popular.

You can get custom made shoes and clothes - how much are you willing to pay for them? Before clothes and shoes were massed produced, the only way to have clothes and shoes was to (1) make them yourself - and people did, (2) pay a tailor and shoemaker to make them for you, or (3) find something that fit in the clothes of someone who died. Most people couldn't afford to have lots of clothes and generally wore an outfit until it fell apart. You can still make you're own clothes, but what is your time worth?