Unemployment in the Soviet Union

[MrCool]

Does anyone have any statistics on the subject?

I've managed to find an article from Time magazine published in 1965, (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842009,00.html) (I don't have an account to read the full article) stating that "jobless" rate was 1,5%. How true that figure is?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There will always be frictional unemployment in any society; most likely this was caused by those who were unable to work, plus those who were between jobs.

Officially - and correct me if i'm wrong -, full employment is generally seen as being at 2% or lower of the labour force, to take account of frictions generated by temporary unemployment and so on.

[JPSartre12]

Officially - and correct me if i'm wrong -, full employment is generally seen as being at 2% or lower of the labour force, to take account of frictions generated by temporary unemployment and so on.

It varies, depending upon the economist and the economic school of thought in question. Generally speaking, in the United States, full employment is considered to be at (or below) 5% according to Milton Friedman (the neoliberal former head of the privately-owned U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve), but the value can be plus-or-minus a few points depending upon which country one talks about.

[Ocean Seal]

There will always be frictional unemployment in any society; most likely this was caused by those who were unable to work, plus those who were between jobs.

Officially - and correct me if i'm wrong -, full employment is generally seen as being at 2% or lower of the labour force, to take account of frictions generated by temporary unemployment and so on.
Full employment is generally seen as 4-6% in capitalism which I believe takes into account frictional unemployment.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's the 'natural' rate of unemployment, adjusted for inflation (NAIRU - non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment). In other words, what level of employment is the 'natural' level for a given amount of unemployment, below which inflation will rise (which the capitalists don't like!).

I believe that, if we remove the assumption of a given level of inflation, then ~2% is generally seen as full employment. I think Beveridge said something like 3%. I guess the exact figure isn't the relevant point, though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How true are tales I hear of people in the Soviet Union being placed into non-jobs (like "Hall Monitor of Apartment Block XYZ") or sinecures in order to make up the figures as well as to "prove" that everyone had a guaranteed job under the Soviet system (with the implicit assumption that if you're long-term unemployed you're some kind of bum)?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How true are tales I hear of people in the Soviet Union being placed into non-jobs (like "Hall Monitor of Apartment Block XYZ") or sinecures in order to make up the figures as well as to "prove" that everyone had a guaranteed job under the Soviet system (with the implicit assumption that if you're long-term unemployed you're some kind of bum)?

Well I'm going to play devil's advocate.

When we start phasing out work, we better be ready for it. Because I imagine that if a significant minority of the population no longer has to work then it'll demoralize the segment of the population that still works.

And who says every job has to be productive? Ideally it should be but that doesn't mean that every single human activity needs to produce use value. Why can't we have professional painters and poets under socialism?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

It varies, depending upon the economist and the economic school of thought in question. Generally speaking, in the United States, full employment is considered to be at (or below) 5% according to Milton Friedman (the neoliberal former head of the privately-owned U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve), but the value can be plus-or-minus a few points depending upon which country one talks about.

Don't wanna derail the thread, but...

Just to correct, Friedman was never head of the Fed. You're probably thinking of Alan Greenspan. Friedman was just an economist.

Also, the Fed isn't ENTIRELY privately-owned. It's major figures are hand-picked by the president, and its mission is determined by acts of Congress. The U.S. Post Office is more private than the Fed.

That doesn't mean that they aren't immune to criticism, however. They are essentially a product of capital. And the story of it being formed by representatives of the top robber barons on an island off the coast of Georgia is essentially true.

[evermilion]

And who says every job has to be productive? Ideally it should be but that doesn't mean that every single human activity needs to produce use value. Why can't we have professional painters and poets under socialism?

The countries at the epicenters of capitalist accumulation of wealth, like the U.S., are full of non-jobs that get paid out the ass. I think "Quality Consultant" is an actual title, but nobody knows exactly what one does, only that it's worth six figures.

[khad]

How true are tales I hear of people in the Soviet Union being placed into non-jobs (like "Hall Monitor of Apartment Block XYZ") or sinecures in order to make up the figures as well as to "prove" that everyone had a guaranteed job under the Soviet system (with the implicit assumption that if you're long-term unemployed you're some kind of bum)?
Yeah, they had bullshit paper jobs, but at least they had pay and something to eat.

It's just so inhumane that they'd let bums into apartment buildings to "watch the heater" in winter.

The way it worked was like this. If you were unemployed, the police were obligated to help you get a job. They'd check in on you every few months or so to see if you were settling in or if you'd fallen off the track. With the generally low cost of living in the USSR, some people were able to mill around in semi-employment for a considerable time. You could basically get away with working a couple of months in a year, and some people chose to, since the state was obligated to find you some kind of work, so there was no fear of becoming permanently unemployed. Agriculture, for instance employment of family members in a collective, also soaked up some of excess labor.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

How true are tales I hear of people in the Soviet Union being placed into non-jobs (like "Hall Monitor of Apartment Block XYZ") or sinecures in order to make up the figures as well as to "prove" that everyone had a guaranteed job under the Soviet system (with the implicit assumption that if you're long-term unemployed you're some kind of bum)?

You're a brit, you should know better than to call it an "apartment block"! It's a flat block! Or if you want to be more specific, maybe it's an 18 storey modular-slab block of the Moscow-city type P3, or why not a lovely 22-storey variant of point block type II-68.

And sometimes such things aren't entirely without use, either, many of those jobs had social purposes. An old woman whose purpose it might be to clean a side-walk, hardly the most crucial employment, but it pays and she can talk to the residents all day, which she likes, so it's no harm, is there?

[Prof. Oblivion]

It varies, depending upon the economist and the economic school of thought in question. Generally speaking, in the United States, full employment is considered to be at (or below) 5% according to Milton Friedman (the neoliberal former head of the privately-owned U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve), but the value can be plus-or-minus a few points depending upon which country one talks about.

Friedman was never the head of the Federal Reserve.

[Arlekino]

I born in 1966 in Soviet Union, as I know from my own experiences about unemployment it was some small figures of unemployment only those, heavy drinkers, came from prisons, but government used force them to do jobs, there was law I think it was in 1985 I am not sure if you don't work for some time could face jail for 2 years, my ex husband;s cousin went to jail for that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well I'm going to play devil's advocate.

When we start phasing out work, we better be ready for it. Because I imagine that if a significant minority of the population no longer has to work then it'll demoralize the segment of the population that still works.

Why not spread the labour more equally about the population? I think everyone would appreciate a 6-hour work week!


And who says every job has to be productive? Ideally it should be but that doesn't mean that every single human activity needs to produce use value. Why can't we have professional painters and poets under socialism?

Being an artist or a poet is productive (professional or otherwise), it's just that what they produce is so much more than monetary value or an abundance of goods. Their cultural contributions are greater than the sum of their art's material components, and that greater portion is literally priceless.

What's unproductive, and worse than that, un-fulfilling and dehumanising, are make-work "jobs" that are the equivalent of digging holes in the ground and filling them in again, or watching paint dry.


Yeah, they had bullshit paper jobs, but at least they had pay and something to eat.

That's true, and in a lot of ways that would be better than what we've got now in most parts of the world. But should it be a model?


The way it worked was like this. If you were unemployed, the police were obligated to help you get a job. They'd check in on you every few months or so to see if you were settling in or if you'd fallen off the track.

Why the Police? Why not social workers or labour unions?


With the generally low cost of living in the USSR, some people were able to mill around in semi-employment for a considerable time. You could basically get away with working a couple of months in a year, and some people chose to, since the state was obligated to find you some kind of work, so there was no fear of becoming permanently unemployed. Agriculture, for instance employment of family members in a collective, also soaked up some of excess labor.

Sounds good, but how did that pattern of semi-employment jive with police checks on your employment status? Was a change in employment status sufficient to bring someone into their sights, or was something more required?

Not taking the piss, genuinely interested.


You're a brit, you should know better than to call it an "apartment block"! It's a flat block! Or if you want to be more specific, maybe it's an 18 storey modular-slab block of the Moscow-city type P3, or why not a lovely 22-storey variant of point block type II-68.

The term "block of flats" has a certain cozy aura about it that I don't mentally associate with Soviet-style urban domiciles, however aesthetically pleasing I might find their stark, uncompromising lines.


And sometimes such things aren't entirely without use, either, many of those jobs had social purposes. An old woman whose purpose it might be to clean a side-walk, hardly the most crucial employment, but it pays and she can talk to the residents all day, which she likes, so it's no harm, is there?

Like I've acknowledged, the Soviet solution as presented certainly seems a whole lot more humane than most other options that have been tried, and for that it should be lauded.

However, being the cussed perfectionist that I am, I can't help but think there is a better solution. If we must have something to fill our time, why not fill it with the arts, with science, with the humanities? For generations such pursuits were the preserve of a minority in society, but now we live in a time when it is technically possible for hundreds of millions, maybe even billions to be able to realise their vast and untapped human potential! Think of all those toiling in useless, back-breaking or just plain boring labour, who never got to become something more than a product to be bought and sold on a market. A life spent pushing dust or watching clocks would be just as much of a waste, and even if the persons involved are relatively happy, we are all the worse off for failing to ignite that spark.

With the greater portion of humanity able to drink from the wellspring of its intellectual and creative heritage, we could achieve in collective unity what we could never hope to attain in the divided chaos of our primeval historical era. It would not the end of history, but a bright new chapter of it...

[Geiseric]

They paid for doing not so productive jobs somehow since the military was about half of the economy. They went through a false visits which is why the planned economy was dissolved ny the state who became the capitalists. I'm other words trotsky called it.

[evermilion]

They paid for doing not so productive jobs somehow since the military was about half of the economy. They went through a false visits which is why the planned economy was dissolved ny the state who became the capitalists. I'm other words trotsky called it.

Except it happened several decades after Trotsky said it would happen and for entirely different reasons than you listed.

Seriously, how are there so many different competing histories of this country? And how can none of them be even close to right?

[MrCool]

How true are tales I hear of people in the Soviet Union being placed into non-jobs (like "Hall Monitor of Apartment Block XYZ") or sinecures in order to make up the figures as well as to "prove" that everyone had a guaranteed job under the Soviet system (with the implicit assumption that if you're long-term unemployed you're some kind of bum)?

VPO7DZ_Yf1I

It's a Finnish report from autumn 1991 about two Estonian ferry-boat watchers who haven't seen the ferry they are supposed to watch, because it was stolen in the 1970s. They were still payed for sitting in a cabin every day from 6:00 am to 19:30 pm, doing nothing.

[Tim Cornelis]

They paid for doing not so productive jobs somehow since the military was about half of the economy.

"Half the economy" what does that mean? Military expenditure was ca. 16% of GDP (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2620480&postcount=26), not nearly "half" and certainly not half of the working population was military.

[Tenka]

VPO7DZ_Yf1I

It's a Finnish report from autumn 1991 about two Estonian ferry-boat watchers who haven't seen the ferry they are supposed to watch, because it was stolen in the 1970s. They were still payed for sitting in a cabin every day from 6:00 am to 19:30 pm, doing nothing.

Is that a 13.5-hour workday or did you put a number there you didn't mean to? :unsure:

[Per Levy]

Is that a 13.5-hour workday or did you put a number there you didn't mean to? :unsure:

it might be 2 shifts put together, like 6 1/2 hours each shift for the 2 guys + 15 minutes break. who knows. well i could read a shitload of books in that time though, and got paid, better then my job by far.

[MrCool]

0:52 =>

Lossivahti tulee joka päivä koppiinsa kello kuusi ja istuu siinä puoli kahdeksaan saakka illalla. Näin työllistetään kaksi lossikuljettajaa.
Venäjän aikana on 7 päivää työtä, 7 päivää vapaata...

Ferry-guard comes into his cabin every day at 6:00 am and sits in to half past seven pm. A way to employ two ferry drivers.
During Russian times there was 7 days of work, 7 days off...

Yes, they worked 13,5h/day. One guards works for 7 days, then the other for the next 7 days, etc...

I'd go crazy if I'd wouldn't go doing in a cabin for 13,5h a day for years.

[Luís Henrique]

And who says every job has to be productive? Ideally it should be but that doesn't mean that every single human activity needs to produce use value.

No!

Ideally no "job" should be productive at all.


Why can't we have professional painters and poets under socialism?

Hm.

Painters or poets are productive if they are professional in a capitalist economy.

Under socialism, hopefully, nobody will be a "professional", nor will anyone be "productive".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

An old woman whose purpose it might be to clean a side-walk, hardly the most crucial employment, but it pays and she can talk to the residents all day, which she likes, so it's no harm, is there?

Unless, or course, she also talked to KGB types after chatting with the residents. Then there would probably be some harm, yes.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

There will always be frictional unemployment in any society; most likely this was caused by those who were unable to work, plus those who were between jobs.

Officially - and correct me if i'm wrong -, full employment is generally seen as being at 2% or lower of the labour force, to take account of frictions generated by temporary unemployment and so on.

Full unemployment is not the same thing as zero structural and cyclical unemployment, which the Soviet economy had.

[Q]

I'd say those figures are accurate. The USSR had the highest employment rate in the world and this was the result of a social problem, not of "planning".

Soviet society was structured in such a bureaucratic way that planning wasn't possible. Instead you had a target economy (targets not being the same as planning; the latter implies rationality, the former can zigzag as bureaucrats naturally do). Furthermore, there was no competition incentive between firms. So, the capitalist mode of continuous technological revolution wasn't working in the USSR.

When new machinery arrived from, say, Germany the bureaucrats were expecting to increase production with it and, as such, lower working time over time or fill up shortages. From the standpoint of workers though, this just meant higher exploitation, longer working hours in the immediate at a faster pace and with probably the same amount of resources.

So, what you got was this phenomena where new machinery just stood outside the factory, rusting in the snow. Many reports go on and on about this. The bureaucrats just couldn't understand the problem they themselves created. And they came up with solutions that only a bureaucrat can come up with, such as internal passports and closed off cities.

Instead of technological revolution then, to increase production, the USSR relied upon amassing the great countryside to become proletarians. This was the main reason for the collectivisation: To free up a huge number of people for industry. But there was always a shortage of workers. It became normal that the Red Army helped with gathering the harvest, at times even schoolchildren were recruited for such work.

In the 1960's we saw a leveling out of the migration from the rural to industrial areas and this is also where we see the leveling off of the "planned" economic growth, only to continue in inevitable terminal decline since the late 1970's.