Some questions: Question #2. (A much more involved question.)

Ross Dolan

Ross Dolan

Well-known member
Contributor
Question #2

If this topic interests you, please see the first question.

The chief bugaboo here, and everywhere I have ever discussed this topic, is that increasing productivity by using more machines, robots, and computers...will create an unacceptable increase in "unemployment."

Let me first discuss this "unemployment" for a bit...then ask my second question:

While considering this issue when I first did (almost three decades ago) I noticed an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem”...an ironic almost cavalier consideration of that situation. “Unemployment” (having no work to do) and “problem” (being annoyed with that state of affairs) just doesn’t compute. Unemployment, as I view it, is not a problem at all. Unemployment is the reason we all look forward to weekends, holidays, and vacations so much. Unemployment affords us all time to play more golf or tennis; to read, write, wash the car, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other. So, not only is unemployment not a problem, it is the stuff of dreams; an object of pursuit; the reason, if you will, for the long lines at the lottery counters.

People WANT unemployment!

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the problem we are actually considering when apparently discussing unemployment! They go hand-in-hand, do unemployment and not having enough money to get by. So much so that we tend to confuse one with the other—or worse, to consider them to be one.

BUT THEY ARE NOT! They are two separate problems, or more exactly they are two separate conditions. One, not having enough money, a very serious problem indeed—the other, unemployment, a much sought after blessing.

That takes a lot more development before it becomes a fully baked cake (which I will attempt to do)...but first a question...two actually:

FORGETTING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF EITHER ACTIVITY FOR NOW:

1) Do you think "maximizing productivity" is a good thing?

2) Do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more.

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

We will get to that presently.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Question #2

If this topic interests you, please see the first question.

The chief bugaboo here, and everywhere I have ever discussed this topic, is that increasing productivity by using more machines, robots, and computers...will create an unacceptable increase in "unemployment."

Let me first discuss this "unemployment" for a bit...then ask my second question:

While considering this issue when I first did (almost three decades ago) I noticed an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem”...an ironic almost cavalier consideration of that situation. “Unemployment” (having no work to do) and “problem” (being annoyed with that state of affairs) just doesn’t compute. Unemployment, as I view it, is not a problem at all. Unemployment is the reason we all look forward to weekends, holidays, and vacations so much. Unemployment affords us all time to play more golf or tennis; to read, write, wash the car, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other. So, not only is unemployment not a problem, it is the stuff of dreams; an object of pursuit; the reason, if you will, for the long lines at the lottery counters.

People WANT unemployment!

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the problem we are actually considering when apparently discussing unemployment! They go hand-in-hand, do unemployment and not having enough money to get by. So much so that we tend to confuse one with the other—or worse, to consider them to be one.

BUT THEY ARE NOT! They are two separate problems, or more exactly they are two separate conditions. One, not having enough money, a very serious problem indeed—the other, unemployment, a much sought after blessing.

That takes a lot more development before it becomes a fully baked cake (which I will attempt to do)...but first a question...two actually:

FORGETTING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF EITHER ACTIVITY FOR NOW:

1) Do you think "maximizing productivity" is a good thing?

2) Do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more.

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

We will get to that presently.
Click to expand...
1. No

2. Yes
 
Ross Dolan said:
Question #2

If this topic interests you, please see the first question.

The chief bugaboo here, and everywhere I have ever discussed this topic, is that increasing productivity by using more machines, robots, and computers...will create an unacceptable increase in "unemployment."

Let me first discuss this "unemployment" for a bit...then ask my second question:

While considering this issue when I first did (almost three decades ago) I noticed an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem”...an ironic almost cavalier consideration of that situation. “Unemployment” (having no work to do) and “problem” (being annoyed with that state of affairs) just doesn’t compute. Unemployment, as I view it, is not a problem at all. Unemployment is the reason we all look forward to weekends, holidays, and vacations so much. Unemployment affords us all time to play more golf or tennis; to read, write, wash the car, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other. So, not only is unemployment not a problem, it is the stuff of dreams; an object of pursuit; the reason, if you will, for the long lines at the lottery counters.

People WANT unemployment!

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the problem we are actually considering when apparently discussing unemployment! They go hand-in-hand, do unemployment and not having enough money to get by. So much so that we tend to confuse one with the other—or worse, to consider them to be one.

BUT THEY ARE NOT! They are two separate problems, or more exactly they are two separate conditions. One, not having enough money, a very serious problem indeed—the other, unemployment, a much sought after blessing.

That takes a lot more development before it becomes a fully baked cake (which I will attempt to do)...but first a question...two actually:

FORGETTING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF EITHER ACTIVITY FOR NOW:

1) Do you think "maximizing productivity" is a good thing?

2) Do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more.

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

We will get to that presently.
Click to expand...
I'm comfortable with the idea that maximizing productivity,
and I would add efficiency to that,
is a very good thing.

Speaking for myself, not having to go to work is infinitely better than having to go to work---
but I was an accountant and a union rep.

Not sure that I'd feel the same if I were a writer or an artist.
That's not something that I'll ever know.
I wonder if that's part of Frank's inquiry?
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I'm comfortable with the idea that maximizing productivity,
and I would add efficiency to that,
is a very good thing.

Speaking for myself, not having to go to work is infinitely better than having to go to work---
but I was an accountant and a union rep.

Not sure that I'd feel the same if I were a writer or an artist.
That's not something that I'll ever know.
I wonder if that's part of Frank's inquiry?
Click to expand...

As I see it, if you say, "I have to go to work" you are indicating that you would like more leisure time. Artists, writers, even some construction works...do not think that way. They are, whether they articulate it or not, delighted to got to work. There is no "have to" about it for them.

I know lots of people of both stripes...some who love to go to work...some who hate the idea of having to go to work. I know some people who are happy to be at their job...and who are an asset to our productivity. I know others who "have to be at work"...and who would do their company a greater good by simply staying home. I suspect we all know that kind.
 
More productivity = more goods and services for less for everyone to buy. This is relating to mass-produced things or services needed by many people, rather than art or craftsman things produced by artisans. So I would have to say yes to #1, as it benefits more people.

#2 is a bit harder. Most of us would enjoy more leisure, non-work time -- as long as we could still pay the bills and have discretionary $$ for leisure activities. For many people, work is their life. They wouldn't care for a 20-hour work week even if they made enough in those 20 hours to afford not to work.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Question #2

If this topic interests you, please see the first question.

The chief bugaboo here, and everywhere I have ever discussed this topic, is that increasing productivity by using more machines, robots, and computers...will create an unacceptable increase in "unemployment."

Let me first discuss this "unemployment" for a bit...then ask my second question:

While considering this issue when I first did (almost three decades ago) I noticed an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem”...an ironic almost cavalier consideration of that situation. “Unemployment” (having no work to do) and “problem” (being annoyed with that state of affairs) just doesn’t compute. Unemployment, as I view it, is not a problem at all. Unemployment is the reason we all look forward to weekends, holidays, and vacations so much. Unemployment affords us all time to play more golf or tennis; to read, write, wash the car, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other. So, not only is unemployment not a problem, it is the stuff of dreams; an object of pursuit; the reason, if you will, for the long lines at the lottery counters.

People WANT unemployment!

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the problem we are actually considering when apparently discussing unemployment! They go hand-in-hand, do unemployment and not having enough money to get by. So much so that we tend to confuse one with the other—or worse, to consider them to be one.

BUT THEY ARE NOT! They are two separate problems, or more exactly they are two separate conditions. One, not having enough money, a very serious problem indeed—the other, unemployment, a much sought after blessing.

That takes a lot more development before it becomes a fully baked cake (which I will attempt to do)...but first a question...two actually:

FORGETTING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF EITHER ACTIVITY FOR NOW:

1) Do you think "maximizing productivity" is a good thing?

2) Do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more.

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

We will get to that presently.
Click to expand...

1. Yes
2. Yes


Since the start of the industrial revolution, various groups - Jacobians, Luddites, et al. have engaged in hyperbole that machines will replace man. First with the industrial machines, then computers, then robotics, and now with AI.

Yet it has never happened. Quite the opposite, instead of decimating the workforce, these innovations have sucked in half the population that didn't use to be in the labor force, women. Roughly doubling the work force.

Instead of replacing workers, machinery, automation, and digital intelligence have created a vastly more productive and effective workforce. The NATURE of labor has vastly changed, but the labor force continues to expand and shows no signs of contracting.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
More productivity = more goods and services for less for everyone to buy. This is relating to mass-produced things or services needed by many people, rather than art or craftsman things produced by artisans. So I would have to say yes to #1, as it benefits more people.
Click to expand...

Good. I would say YES to 1 also.
ThatOwlWoman said:
#2 is a bit harder. Most of us would enjoy more leisure, non-work time -- as long as we could still pay the bills and have discretionary $$ for leisure activities. For many people, work is their life. They wouldn't care for a 20-hour work week even if they made enough in those 20 hours to afford not to work.
Click to expand...
Okay, but try that again with the proviso I suggested. Here it is again:

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

So...without that supposed "consequence" do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more?

We'll talk about the suppose consequences (and whether they are immutable or not) in a bit.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Question #2

If this topic interests you, please see the first question.

The chief bugaboo here, and everywhere I have ever discussed this topic, is that increasing productivity by using more machines, robots, and computers...will create an unacceptable increase in "unemployment."

Let me first discuss this "unemployment" for a bit...then ask my second question:

While considering this issue when I first did (almost three decades ago) I noticed an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem”...an ironic almost cavalier consideration of that situation. “Unemployment” (having no work to do) and “problem” (being annoyed with that state of affairs) just doesn’t compute. Unemployment, as I view it, is not a problem at all. Unemployment is the reason we all look forward to weekends, holidays, and vacations so much. Unemployment affords us all time to play more golf or tennis; to read, write, wash the car, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other. So, not only is unemployment not a problem, it is the stuff of dreams; an object of pursuit; the reason, if you will, for the long lines at the lottery counters.

People WANT unemployment!

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the problem we are actually considering when apparently discussing unemployment! They go hand-in-hand, do unemployment and not having enough money to get by. So much so that we tend to confuse one with the other—or worse, to consider them to be one.

BUT THEY ARE NOT! They are two separate problems, or more exactly they are two separate conditions. One, not having enough money, a very serious problem indeed—the other, unemployment, a much sought after blessing.

That takes a lot more development before it becomes a fully baked cake (which I will attempt to do)...but first a question...two actually:

FORGETTING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF EITHER ACTIVITY FOR NOW:

1) Do you think "maximizing productivity" is a good thing?

2) Do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more.

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

We will get to that presently.
Click to expand...
1) Yes but as guno hinted at efficient and max productivity is better. You can "maximize productivity" with a very inefficient system.

2) yes i think that's true
 
Ross Dolan said:
Good. I would say YES to 1 also.

Okay, but try that again with the proviso I suggested. Here it is again:

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

So...without that supposed "consequence" do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more?

We'll talk about the suppose consequences (and whether they are immutable or not) in a bit.
Click to expand...
I do agree that most of us would prefer less work to more leisure time. I've been retired for over a decade so this is based on when I did work.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Question #2

If this topic interests you, please see the first question.

The chief bugaboo here, and everywhere I have ever discussed this topic, is that increasing productivity by using more machines, robots, and computers...will create an unacceptable increase in "unemployment."

Let me first discuss this "unemployment" for a bit...then ask my second question:

While considering this issue when I first did (almost three decades ago) I noticed an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem”...an ironic almost cavalier consideration of that situation. “Unemployment” (having no work to do) and “problem” (being annoyed with that state of affairs) just doesn’t compute. Unemployment, as I view it, is not a problem at all. Unemployment is the reason we all look forward to weekends, holidays, and vacations so much. Unemployment affords us all time to play more golf or tennis; to read, write, wash the car, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other. So, not only is unemployment not a problem, it is the stuff of dreams; an object of pursuit; the reason, if you will, for the long lines at the lottery counters.

People WANT unemployment!

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the problem we are actually considering when apparently discussing unemployment! They go hand-in-hand, do unemployment and not having enough money to get by. So much so that we tend to confuse one with the other—or worse, to consider them to be one.

BUT THEY ARE NOT! They are two separate problems, or more exactly they are two separate conditions. One, not having enough money, a very serious problem indeed—the other, unemployment, a much sought after blessing.

That takes a lot more development before it becomes a fully baked cake (which I will attempt to do)...but first a question...two actually:

FORGETTING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF EITHER ACTIVITY FOR NOW:

1) Do you think "maximizing productivity" is a good thing?

2) Do you think people, in general, would rather work less so that they can enjoy the off-work activities a bit more.

REMEMBER...WHEN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...PUT ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOW.

We will get to that presently.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if more productivity is a good thing in and of itself, but without high levels of productivity we would get outcompeted by developing nations with lower labor costs.

I think most Americans would like a 35 hour work weeks, like some nations in Europe supposedly have
 
I am in favor of maximizing quality of life which means that I am in favor of working towards productivity as it is defined in the East, bettering the quality of life within the collective.

Humans tend to be lazy and as the Greeks figured out having too little work is a much bigger problem than is having too much....hard work makes humans strong, too little work makes humans weak and as the Christians believed (they are mostly gone now) is the Devils workshop.

I am not in favor of chasing Western productivity numbers, which are at this point mostly fraud.
 
This is a good point to note Jordan Petersons message that happiness is a shitty metric....first of all almost nobody at least in this dark age as any idea what would make them happy, and second of all a quality life is driven by purpose, by mission.
 
I on the other hand have spent most of this life following this:

“Follow your bliss and the universe will open doors for you where there were only walls.”
― Joseph Campbell
 
I dont actually disagree with Peterson, I made my mission living a life of the grandest adventure possible, which has included constant learning and constant caring about the best interests of my fellow humans.
 
Cypress said:
I'm not sure if more productivity is a good thing in and of itself, but without high levels of productivity we would get outcompeted by developing nations with lower labor costs.

I think most Americans would like a 35 hour work weeks, like some nations in Europe supposedly have
Click to expand...
I think most Americans should have a 20 hour work week...or less.** We essentially have billions upon billions of mechanical slaves working in our economy. When are the common folk going to see some benefit of it.

**Frankly, most people should not be working at all. They should be part of the stay-the-Hell-out-of-the-way community. THEY should have to EARN their way into the working force...which should be comprised exclusively by people who WANT to work...and who are able to work efficiently.

I am not sure why you suppose that "more productivity" (what I call maximizing productivity) is NOT a good thing. Explain that to the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top