Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Unemployment Statistics - (nf) Message-ID: <10100022@ea.UUCP> Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 17:42:00 EST Article-I.D.: ea.10100022 Posted: Thu Apr 12 17:42:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Apr-84 06:47:20 EST References: <117@wuphys.UUCP> Lines: 56 Nf-ID: #R:wuphys:-11700:ea:10100022:000:2253 Nf-From: ea!mwm Apr 12 16:42:00 1984 #R:wuphys:-11700:ea:10100022:000:2253 ea!mwm Apr 12 16:42:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / brl-vgr!wmartin / 6:34 pm Apr 4, 1984 */ b) Given a continued rising population, and technology developing BOTH new job opportunities AND more efficient ways of performing previous jobs, There MUST come a time when the maximum number of possible jobs is less than the number of people to fit into these jobs So with more and more people living longer, unemployment is inevitable. Possible solutions: c) Redefine work, careers, labor, etc. -- people are changed to expect not a 40-hour week and a 35-year-plus working life, but working one day a week or a 5-year career, or some other method of spreading the jobs among the population. Problems -- productivity related to pay, who pays for all these "workers", general standard of living; can technology provide all the goodies we all expect without us working to earn them? This ought to start some sort of flamage, I suppose. Have fun! Will /* ---------- */ The problems with this solution evaporate in light of the causes. To illustrate: Causes: Technology (Finagle ignore it) has gotten to the point where there are fewer jobs than people to fill them. Problem: Will a reduced work load (per person) still produce enough to support the population? Answer: Obviously, yes. Lets tie some (small) numbers to it. If you have a populace of 120 people, all having enough, but only jobs for 100 working 40 hours a week, you need 4000 work/hours a week to run your community. By reducing everybodies hours to 33 a week, you now have 3960 work/hours out of your 120 people. Of course, the economies of a capitalist society will make things balance out somewhere between these two, but it does work. In other words, the net result will be to reduce the number of hours a person has to work to keep himself alive. This has been happening ever since someone first put stick to dirt to plow a field. With luck, this will continue happening until nobody has to work unless they want to. Personally, I'm glad I don't live in the pre-industrial revolution days, when 60+ hour work weeks were common, or in a hunter-gatherer society, when it was more like 100+. I just wish I lived in the future, when <10 hours was the average. Lazy, and proud of it,