Unemployment

[MadMoney]

No need to frivolously attach this to the end of another thread, but I couldn't help but notice that in some other thread people were pissed that someone assumed that many members of RevLeft were unemployed or in high school. I don't want to get into this. I would like someone to explain to me how unemployment is created by capitalists (intentionally) and benifits them. More specifically, if you wish to speak like an econimist and use economic terms (which many people like to throw around carelessly, yet I refuse to) please specify which of the four forms of unemployment you are speaking of (seasonal, structural, frictional, or cyclical). If there is a fifth I do not know about, please enlighten me.

[Demogorgon]

There are more than the four types of unemployment you specify, but trying to narrow it down to one is pointless because that is not really how it works.

The bourgeoisie creates unemployment principally through control of the supply of money. There is a difference between an economy's current productivity and its potential productivity. In short potential productivity is the total amount it can produce with its given resources, by definition if it is producing at that level then there is full employment. Current productivity is the amount it is actually producing. Under capitalism current productivity is always (except in times of war and other exceptional circumstances) below current productivity. This means that there will always be unemployment. The way this is achieved is by keeping aggregate demand (the total amount of demand for goods and services in the economy) lower than the level at which reaching full potential productivity would be needed to meet it.

The reason for doing this is that full employment is not good for the bourgeoisie. When everybody has a job there is no competition amongst workers for jobs and hence they have no reason to fear losing their jobs if they push for better conditions. Under full employment the bourgeoisie is forced to yield increasingly better working conditions and pay to the workers and that harms their profits.

[Robert]

Under full employment the bourgeoisie is forced to yield increasingly better working conditions and pay to the workers and that harms their profits.That sounds logical, I guess, but doesn't it ignore the fact that most workers are already paid substantially more than what they are required to be paid? The average private wage in the states is at present around $17/hour. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

Yet the minimum wage is only $5.85 (£5.52 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older in the UK), and increases to $6.55 on July 24 of this year.

It appears the average wage in the UK is also double (at least) what the law already requires. Doesn't sound like much of a capitalist conspiracy.

[Demogorgon]

That sounds logical, I guess, but doesn't it ignore the fact that most workers are already paid substantially more than what they are required to be paid? The average private wage in the states is at present around $17/hour. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

Yet the minimum wage is only $5.85 (£5.52 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older in the UK), and increases to $6.55 on July 24 of this year.

It appears the average wage in the UK is also double (at least) what the law already requires. Doesn't sound like much of a capitalist conspiracy.
It's not about capitalists wanting to pay minimum wage but rather to prevent excessive wage rises. If they can keep the Labour Market in such a state that there are more people willing to work than there is demand for Labour then Labour is in a state that they call "disciplined" and will not push for rises above inflation, or even rises to match inflation sometimes.

This isn't a conspiracy BTW. The central banks obviously don't say this in as many words when they talk to the press for rather obvious reasons, though they do discuss it openly in the financial columns, but rather it is what is discussed in the more formal justifications for their policies. When they want to use euphanisms they talk about inflation. After all when firms have to grant higher and higher wages there is inflation.

[Green Dragon]

Unemployment serves the role of allowing production to more easily adjust to changing demand by the consumer.

[Jazzratt]

Unemployment serves the role of allowing production to more easily adjust to changing demand by the consumer.

Straight from the horse's mouth - unemployment is useful to capitalism.

I'm so glad that I will be useful if there is a change it what consumers want, as I'm sure are the people who congregate around the local jobcentre desperately trying to find some work. In fact I'm fairly sure these people would love to have some cockdroop remind them that they need to scrape through in poverty because it's so vital that the market is able to react to consumers, never mind that you're grinding actual fucking human beings into misery. I can understand naive types who don't understand how capitalism demands unemployment to function supporting it, but when they understand, as you do, that it is necessary for the bourgeois there is no fucking excuse. You make me physically ill you repulsive streak of rancid goat semen.

[Kronos]

Go Jazz!

[Dean]

Straight from the horse's mouth - unemployment is useful to capitalism.

I'm so glad that I will be useful if there is a change it what consumers want, as I'm sure are the people who congregate around the local jobcentre desperately trying to find some work. In fact I'm fairly sure these people would love to have some cockdroop remind them that they need to scrape through in poverty because it's so vital that the market is able to react to consumers, never mind that you're grinding actual fucking human beings into misery. I can understand naive types who don't understand how capitalism demands unemployment to function supporting it, but when they understand, as you do, that it is necessary for the bourgeois there is no fucking excuse. You make me physically ill you repulsive streak of rancid goat semen.
This.

Capitalists who talk about such barbaric policies as if they were economic necessity are really the worst.

[MadMoney]

I guess a discussion on theoretical economics has once again resulted in ad hominem attacks....

Nevertheless, I think people overlook why unemployment is typically divided into the four categories. Perhaps I ought to go over them a little.

Frictional: Never considered an issue by most economists. It is mainly comprised of workers who are newly entering the job market or are switching jobs. Every year this number grows slightly smaller as advances (primarily the internet) help employers find employees and workers find jobs.

Seasonal: Some consider this to be a subdivision of frictional. Either way, it is the term used to describe workers who have to find new work due to the seasonal nature of their prior occupation (think lifeguards, ski instructors, tour guides in certain areas, etc.).

Structural: Structural unemployment is considered to be an issue by some who advocate more control over the marker. This form of unemployment is due to changes in the marketplace (often technology). A great example is the effect of the industrial revolution on craftsmen. With the use of more and more machinery, less craftsmen were needed, as less skilled labor could be employed.

These three forms comprise what is considered by many economists to be the natural rate of unemployment. The free market creates unemployment in these three ways naturally, and the only way to prevent this is to stop employees from finding new jobs on their own, the changing of the seasons, or the advancement of society.

Cyclical: The final form, cyclical, is a tricky one. This is considered strictly bad unemployment by economists. It is typically linked to the business cycle (inverse relationship). In many ways it is the most important but least understood form. Regardless of its exact cause, no free market thinker likes or desires this form.

This is not to say the other forms are desireable. Rather, they are an inevitablity and trying to prevent them will cause more harm than good.

[Sendo]

I guess a discussion on theoretical economics has once again resulted in ad hominem attacks....

Nevertheless, I think people overlook why unemployment is typically divided into the four categories. Perhaps I ought to go over them a little.

Frictional: Never considered an issue by most economists. It is mainly comprised of workers who are newly entering the job market or are switching jobs. Every year this number grows slightly smaller as advances (primarily the internet) help employers find employees and workers find jobs.

Seasonal: Some consider this to be a subdivision of frictional. Either way, it is the term used to describe workers who have to find new work due to the seasonal nature of their prior occupation (think lifeguards, ski instructors, tour guides in certain areas, etc.).

Structural: Structural unemployment is considered to be an issue by some who advocate more control over the marker. This form of unemployment is due to changes in the marketplace (often technology). A great example is the effect of the industrial revolution on craftsmen. With the use of more and more machinery, less craftsmen were needed, as less skilled labor could be employed.

These three forms comprise what is considered by many economists to be the natural rate of unemployment. The free market creates unemployment in these three ways naturally, and the only way to prevent this is to stop employees from finding new jobs on their own, the changing of the seasons, or the advancement of society.

Cyclical: The final form, cyclical, is a tricky one. This is considered strictly bad unemployment by economists. It is typically linked to the business cycle (inverse relationship). In many ways it is the most important but least understood form. Regardless of its exact cause, no free market thinker likes or desires this form.

This is not to say the other forms are desireable. Rather, they are an inevitablity and trying to prevent them will cause more harm than good.

Oh shit, this guy paid attention in Brainwashi.....I mean high school and university economic classes. You need to examine what you're saying "Never considered an issue by most economists" Okay, what does that mean? You can't use abstract good/bad ideas and ascribe them to far-off intellectual, self-appointed circles. Frictional is still a problem. Why is there a delay at all in finding new jobs? I might say that it is bad that frictional unemployment happens. It discourages me from finding new employment if I don't like my current one. So much for the libertarian option of simply choosing a new employer. It also makes me cautious about pressing for chagne and perhaps being fired. Maybe I have a baby kid and can't afford to go even a week without a paycheck.

Seasonal unemployment is bad in the socialist sense because it says that a certain segment of the necessary workforce is unneeded human flesh in the off-season. It is important to keep these people unemployed because you need to keep specialization of labor. It is useful to pigeon-hole people into their respective crafts, makign them machines and making them alienated.


As for structural unemployment. Wouldn't it make more sense to have everyone work less than to have less people employed? From a humanist standpoint, yes. From a capitalist standpoint, no. The people are seen as redundant and we should we wait for them to starve, or act surprised when they steal or demand "handouts" In any case if you have a lot of laid-off people, you have nice, cheaper-than-value labor pool for some new business venture you want to head.

And then we arrive at cyclical unemployment. What a stumper! Gee, when we hit the inherent flaws in capitalism, exploitation, destruction, war, or say, CYCLES, the invisible hand becomes a mysterious, whimsical, woman that we lust for and want to know like the object of a Romantic-era British poet.

"Trying to prevent [them] causes more harm than good." Why is that true? Maybe because it is hackneyed and is a slogan of Nobel-winners like Friedman? Sorry, but that does not constitute an argument. You can solve unemployment with public works projects on say, building a subway, which would greatly improve a given city, mobilize labor, and keep people paid. I don't mean a contract system a la the Pentagon, I mean a community owned and run public works project that could contribute to society while employing people.

[Robert]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have everyone work less than to have less people employed?

Presumably he means "make everyone work less." Otherwise great post.


the invisible hand becomes a mysterious, whimsical, woman that we lust for and want to know like the object of a Romantic-era British poet.

Gosh.

[Kronos]

I dedicate this song to myself and my comrades. Sing it with me, my friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOhVbjsxlH0&feature=related

[Green Dragon]

Frictional is still a problem. Why is there a delay at all in finding new jobs?

maybe you do not like the jobs available, or you do not have the skills to doa particular job you wish.


So much for the libertarian option of simply choosing a new employer.

The purpose of a job is not to satisfy your needs, but to satisffy the needs of those who need the work completed.



Seasonal unemployment is bad in the socialist sense because it says that a certain segment of the necessary workforce is unneeded human flesh in the off-season.

Well, it will have to be explained why it makes "socialist" sense to have lifeguards on a beach in the middle of winter, or ski instructors on the slope in the middle of summer.


It is important to keep these people unemployed because you need to keep specialization of labor.

Neither lifeguards nor ski instructors remain unemployed during summer and winter respectivelly.
Of course, one need to explain why the objection to lifeguards or ski instructors "specialised" into their jobs.


It is useful to pigeon-hole people into their respective crafts, makign them machines and making them alienated.

As above, where is the benefit to the community having unskilled workers at a particular task?



As for structural unemployment. Wouldn't it make more sense to have everyone work less than to have less people employed? From a humanist standpoint, yes. From a capitalist standpoint, no.

From a humanist standpoint, the answer would have to be "no" as well. If your community uses five people to do the work that three people used to do, it means that those two extra workers are not working elsewhere producing other goods and services which the community needs.



The people are seen as redundant and we should we wait for them to starve, or act surprised when they steal or demand "handouts" In any case if you have a lot of laid-off people, you have nice, cheaper-than-value labor pool for some new business venture you want to head.


A new business venture would only succeed if there is a demand for it, that is, if people want the service. An unemployed worker is someone's whose labor is not needed or wanted at that time in another field of production. Why sneer at needs and wants of the community, or at a way to ensure that labor is available for where it helps provide what is wanted and needed?



"Trying to prevent [them] causes more harm than good." Why is that true? Maybe because it is hackneyed and is a slogan of Nobel-winners like Friedman? Sorry, but that does not constitute an argument. You can solve unemployment with public works projects on say, building a subway,

Sure. Which requires a base of wealth to susidise and to create it. It also requires a way to determine whether the public works project benefits the community more than it costs. Allocating resources to a subway system means those resources cannot be allocated elsewhere.

[Green Dragon]

I'm so glad that I will be useful if there is a change it what consumers want,

Hate to break it to you, but your job exists because somebody needs that work completed. Throwing out colorful phrases or words doesn't change that reality.



as I'm sure are the people who congregate around the local jobcentre desperately trying to find some work. In fact I'm fairly sure these people would love to have some cockdroop remind them that they need to scrape through in poverty because it's so vital that the market is able to react to consumers,

Why else produce anything if not to satisfy the needs and wants of those consumers?


never mind that you're grinding actual fucking human beings into misery.

What is the result of utilising labor in the service of production which is not needed or wanted by people? Wealth and prosperity for all?
Or misery and degradation for all?

[Bud Struggle]

Frictional:

Sex workers? :)

[Dr Mindbender]

Hate to break it to you, but your job exists because somebody needs that work completed. Throwing out colorful phrases or words doesn't change that reality.
nope they exist because there is a market for it dictated by the whims of elite society.

If it was for the benefit of the rest of us there wouldnt be such a divide in wealth.



Why else produce anything if not to satisfy the needs and wants of those consumers?
viewing people as merely a vessel for the transaction of capital is a backwards way to look at our species.



What is the result of utilising labor in the service of production which is not needed or wanted by people? Wealth and prosperity for all?
Or misery and degradation for all?

that is an enditement of what happens when you use the antiquated method of wage slavery and outdated dependency on human labour.

By utilising all brain and manpower at our disposal we will reach the next epoch of development much faster.

[Robert]

they exist because there is a market for it dictated by the whims of elite society.

How's your new TV working, Ulster dude?:cool:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How's your new TV working, Ulster dude?:cool:

How's your security?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hate to break it to you, but your job exists because somebody needs that work completed.

Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of people in this world who want more - and would be perfectly fine having more people work if they wanted to. Unemployment derives from private property - telling me as a third party that I have to accept your absolutist property contracts.:lol:

Thank you for illustrating why your system is authoritarian.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Ulster Socialist;1193609]nope they exist because there is a market for it dictated by the whims of elite society.


And who are the "elite" members of society who dictate to the moderaters of this website to do their moderating?

or are the moderators about because there are people who find the service they provide useful?



If it was for the benefit of the rest of us there wouldnt be such a divide in wealth.


Again, you are going to have to demonstrate why and how employment exists or should exist, if there is no requirement by the community that it be done.



viewing people as merely a vessel for the transaction of capital is a backwards way to look at our species.


Its more a basic recognition that work exists because the result of that labor is needed by someone else. Your job doesn't exist to satisfy your needs and wants, it exists to satisfy someone's else's.
To insist that you want to work your job because you want, and the community will just have to accept it, is what is backward.

[Green Dragon]

[
quote=GeneCosta;1193858]Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of people in this world who want more - and would be perfectly fine having more people work if they wanted to.

Sure- IF they wanted to. And would those same people be perfectly fine with LESS people working, if they wanted to.
The bottom line remains true- Your job exists because somebody needs the work you provide. You want more people than needed working in a particular site? Okay. This simply means that you have fewer workers elsewhere in other needed areas.


Unemployment derives from private property - telling me as a third party that I have to accept your absolutist property contracts.:lol:

Your insistence that you perform work according to your standards is what is authoritarian. It is also incredibly selfish and rather "unsocial."

[pusher robot]

Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of people in this world who want more - and would be perfectly fine having more people work if they wanted to.

Such a weaselly use of the passive voice: "some people" would be perfectly fine "having more people work."

I'm assuming that these "some people" haven't got anything material to pay these "more people" for their labor, otherwise there is nothing at all under the status quo that would prohibit them from trading their resources for other peoples' unused labor. Nor is there anything currently stopping people from working without material compensation. Since that's evidently not what you're talking about, "having more people work" can't mean "paying more people to work," nor even "persuading more people to work." It can only mean "forcing more people to work." And you call other people authoritarian?