SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Mykl:] This is actually the exact problem in the US at the moment. Money is trickling to the top and not making its way back down. Those at the top are hoarding it, thus keeping it out of, and slowing, the economy. This in turns damages the businesses that they own, because their customers can't afford to spend money that they don't have.
The problem would be largely solved by handing out a bunch of cash to employees, who will use it to go out and spend, stimulating the economy and generating demand (thus improving the outlook of business). It would actually be a win-win, but the cash hoarders can't see beyond having the biggest number in the bank they can (which they'll never spend).
The big thing missed is that due to inflation, hoarding money means losing money. Rather than wonder why businesses aren't hiring people or building up capital right now, Mykl merely suggests that the business give away that money to create a little short term economic activity and something that will be better than the present state of affairs while ignoring that the business has just thrown away its cheapest means to expand and employ more people. Later on in the same thread, we have this gem:
[deimtee:] I think this is actually becoming one of the major problems, especially on the small end of the investment scale. At some point, the economy is producing enough to feed, house, and entertain everyone without requiring anywhere near enough human work to keep everyone employed.
Investing in a new business requires identifying an under-filled need in order to attract customers. It is getting to the point where starting a new business means competing with a giant company, it is just not viable unless you can come up with something that is both truly new and valuable. Not many people can do that, and every time one does there is one less opportunity left. At the same time, big companies are streamlining and using automation and economies of scale to reduce the number of employees.
The solution, of course, was to shrink the labor market, not fix the problems described above.
[khallow:] Deliberately shrinking the labor market won't identify under-filled needs nor create more small and medium sized businesses.
[deimtee:] The labour market is currently over-supplied. This is evidenced by the difficulty young people have in entering it. Raising the retirement age is like eating your seedcorn. By the time those geriatrics are finally knocked off by COVID 2040 or something society is going to hit a wall where no-one knows how to do the jobs. 30 year-olds on unemployment for 10 years are not ideal trainees and no trainers will be around anyway. Early retirement forces the companies to train the next generation now.
Yes we should be massively investing in life-extension, medical research, space, all that stuff. Now what percentage of people do you think can realistically contribute to that sort of endeavor? I would say less than 1% of people have the capability to undertake research at that level.
Notice the insistence on shrinking the labor market even when presented with clear evidence that we need that labor for hard, open-ended problems and to preserve institutional knowledge. In the recent story, Kill the 5-Day Workweek (which was about some business that does 4 day workweeks), we see more examples of this dysfunctional reasoning in action. There's anecdotes about bad bosses, insistence that economies is less rigorous than physics, and lots of fantasizing about all the amazing things you'd do, if your employer was forced to give you one more day off. Let's start with the "bullshit jobs":
[Thexalon:] Counterpoint: A lot of jobs are completely useless and exist for basically bullshit reasons. If you've ever worked in a larger corporation or non-profit, you will have no difficulty identifying a bunch of Wallys or Peter Gibbonses walking around who are accomplishing absolutely nothing but vaguely looking like they might be working. And no, that's not limited to government, because despite what a lot of libertarians seem to think private corporations are not even close to perfect models of efficiency.
To summarize the above link, some clueless idiot doesn't understand a variety of jobs. So those jobs must not have a reason for being and are thus "bullshit jobs". Notice that once the author has failed to understand the purpose of these jobs, he then has to come up with a conspiracy theory for why they exist.
[author David Graeber:] The answer clearly isn't economic: it's moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the '60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them.
Who here really thinks that Joe Billionaire is going to burn money on that?
Then there's the fantasizing about how shortening the workweek and the amount of work per job won't have any impact on competition from other countries.
[AC1:] A lot of Asian companies still work on Saturday (6 day week ). If going to a 4 day workweek in any way hurts productivity these Asian firms will have an advantage
[AC2:] Ridiculous, and already proven wrong since they are open an extra day already and haven't taken all the business.
"Proven wrong" because those Asian companies haven't eaten entirely our lunch. We still have some left. Funny how half a century of off-shoring can be ignored.
Moving on, it wouldn't be complete without a contribution from the peanut gallery. fustakrakich continues his bid to destroy Western civilization:
[fustakrakich:] Also demand a six hour work day. Make each day a little less tiresome
Here's my take on all this. It's basically a supply and demand problem in the developed world. Due to labor competition from the developing world, developed world labor has lost much of its pricing power. For some reason, most of the above posters think we can get back to higher labor prices by reducing the supply of labor. What's missing from that is that the developing world is still increasing its supply of labor (more from building out trade/transportation infrastructure to populations than from birth rate). Those moves won't actually reduce labor supply as a result.
Instead, let's increase the demand for labor. Rather than rhetorically ruling out the creation of new businesses and such, how about we enable those things to happen. Because plenty of new businesses still happen - indicating the narrative is faulty.
But that would mean acknowledging that protecting labor is less important than nurturing business growth and creation. Who will do that?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday June 24 2021, @12:16PM
You have needs that are particular to you. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that you do something about those needs that are particular to you.
This is one of the key aspects of the making things worse of the title. There is no point to making it more expensive to actually do useful things, but that's the effect of so much of the labor regulations, taxation, corruption, etc that is out there. And then many proponents of these policies will just double down rather than consider that labor, just like any other market-based good or service, experiences traditional supply and demand behavior. Make labor more expensive to procure and you'll get less employment. Meanwhile remove roadblocks to hiring people should, as in the rest of the world, result in a surge of employment.
I see you haven't bothered to define wealth. Sure, we could define it as our economic system, but we already have the label "economic system", we don't need more such labels. Instead, wealth is typically defined as an accumulation of an asset we value. Here, we quickly see that wealth has an existence independent of economic system. The key wealth of most people is their potential to create value - such things as their education, work skills, and capital that allows them to do jobs, etc. Skills and education don't change, if the economic system changes, for example. The same goes for hard assets. A vehicle or building won't cease to exist just because a different economic system is employed. Using those assets may become more or less difficult depending on the economic system, but the use of the asset in itself is independent of economic system. If you drive from point A to point B, the action doesn't change no matter the economic system.
The bottom line is that economic systems are about doing things, distributing resources, and providing things of value. Different systems and other infrastructure can change the relative difficulty of these things or what we consider valuable, but they don't change us or our needs, much less the assets we use. Sure, most of our current wealth might disappear with relatively modest destruction of technical infrastructure (say in some sort of extreme solar event), but it's not our economic system that creates meaning behind wealth.
And the bottom line is what we do with that wealth rather than the wealth itself. Just because the economic system can change (and often does, this is not a rare problem) to render some wealth worthless at some future time doesn't mean that wealth shouldn't have value now.