How Can a Society Achieve Almost Full Employment in a capitalist System ?

[Yamantau]

Hey everyone, after reading many threads i thought id consder my own thread.

I've been thinking a lot about the idea of full employment and how challenging it is in today’s profit-driven economy. With the rise of AI and automation, it seems like we’re at a crossroads where many traditional jobs are being replaced, leaving a significant portion of the workforce feeling surplus to requirements.

Because overall it seems people are only useful if a company can generate x profits but then there comes a point where its uneconomical to have the whole or majority of the workforce employed espcially when how are profits being generated when also people dont need x services etc there seems to be only so much profits to be made so they what exactly does one do with the overall population ?

We still need workers. A lot of doom mongering along the lines of "falling birthrate" is worrying about who is going to do this or that job in the future. It's an issue, but often the people doommongering the most are also the ones who support fire at will policies, no control over housing and rent costs, low benefits because other wise you incentive laziness. An army of poorly paid seeds competing against each other.

the way society is progressing with improvements in tech and Ai etc there will only be so many jobs that can be run for profit and unless there are population limits or expanding to other colonies in space on other planets then UBI is the essential option

Society relies on workers to sustain economies and ensure essential services, but the dominant for-profit model creates inherent limitations. A clear example is the increasing number of major companies filing for bankruptcy, even in industries that once seemed stable. As technological advancements and artificial intelligence (AI) reshape the economic landscape, fewer companies may remain viable within the traditional profit-driven framework.

This is not to say that work will disappear entirely—many jobs will always need doing. However, the problem lies in the fact that these roles may not generate the necessary profits for companies to justify their existence in a capitalist system. As a result, vast segments of the population could be left without viable employment, leading to significant societal challenges.

Also, I am suspicious of the "AI will revolutionise work" types. I'm not anti technology but a lot of the most successful companies to come out of silicon valley follow the same pattern:

Uber: "what if we had taxis, but they didn't have to follow any of the regulation or employment laws taxi firms have to"

Airbnb:"what if we had hotels/guesthouses but they didn't have to follow any of the regulations hotels have to"

"Deliveroo": what if we had a delivery company that didnt have to follow employment law."

They do use new technologies, including very innovative ones around payment/encryption etc. But the biggest difference technology makes to them is that of scale-they can be much much bigger than the traditional companies, so it makes economical sense to spend money changing the law not following it. This is also a benefit of the capital investment firms in silicon valley trying to find opportunities like the above.

So-my own prediction is AI won't necessarily replace jobs. It will be used to justify paying less, or hiring free lancers etc. Because they will be doing this job, or that job, but a human will still be wanted at some stage of the process. But the human role will command less respect. And the economy will continue to get less balanced in favour of the super rich.

There will always be excuses people try why they can't work

its about the logical implications of how businesses are run for profit and how eventually there comes a point where workers are and always have been expandable assets

Yes, for some reason people say they can't work, but there is no reason you can't get a scooter on credit and set yourself up as a Deliveroo/uber eats driver! If you count tips then you can easily earn above minimum wage of you work really hard (though if course you then need to pay back the scooter money).
It's spoiled and selfish of people to demand more really. No one is Owed the right to have a house/to be able to rent a room with their families after all. Just enjoy it when it's your nice middle class "important" job this happens to Edin.

I think UBI is already an essential option given how much it costs the society to manage benefits system, pressures on universal healthcare etc.
And automation does not mean you set up a machine and run it indefinitely. So many jobs have been created in the AI and machine learning space. Jobs which are arguable more engaging than, say, data entry by hand. Which means higher skill levels for people who are employed in these jobs (and higher wages), which means yet more jobs training these people.... the list goes on.
My grandfather started his life working in a factory. When computerised machinery entered production, he hired a 16 year old chap to teach him programming. He ended up one of the very few specialists who could programme and maintain machinery and was a highly sought after in many production businesses, small and big, all over the country. He could have become despondent at the first signs of change but he didn't. He adapted and evolved.
AI has it's issues but it is in no way the end of the workforce as we know it.
And we still have a decent chunk of services which are non-profit. Universities, healthcare, social services... These jobs are not going to be replaced by machines. Some non-core aspects of these jobs will be and should be (like using AI to assist with admin tasks, for example).

and then by extension the need for other humans will reduced further so then how can society function when companies treat workers as disposable assets and or cannot turn profits etc

I agree!

I just think the "we won't need people, machines will.do it" model is deliberately misleading.
There is also the fact that boom and bust is completely inevitable in the current system-but every time people pretend that it isn't and act like continual growth is the future.

but with further advancements of tech it overall reduces the number of humans needed then without any population limits etc what do you do with the rest of society especially if there are jobs that need doing but companies dont want to have workers doing them because a profits cannot be gained from those roles etc

thats the puzzlement there will be a point where businesses can offer only so much services etc to the public before then either its too many humans or its not profitable for many businesses etc

I believe, historically, we haven't really seen it play out quite like that. Aside from obvious blips like Great Depression, we haven't really seen significant drop in employment rates at any point in the 20th century, despite incredible technological advances and wide-spread capitalism. So clearly, low skilled jobs are being replaced with high skilled jobs or jobs in new industries roughly at the same rate. There is no indication that this trend is not likely to continue in the future

i understand your point but there will be a point where industries are maxed on whats achievable and what can be used to make profits etc, its a case of then what next so to speak and what is to do with the surplus people

That's how it should be, but we seem to be going backwards. My DD's work at different hospitals. At one time they'd employ drivers to move Meds/Bloods/equipment etc. Now they are using porters/stores staff. It's taken three jobs that was ideal for someone disabled, out of circulation. It now also means that because of Staff shortages across the board, they don't have enough staff for either.
OP, there have always been sociology theories that the people at the bottom rung of the ladder in modern society, would have been the basic manual workers, in jobs that no longer exist. I can remember when the oarks and gardens/grave digger etc jobs went and the poverty it caused. There's never been enough work for everyone, all year. Our economic model creates winners and losers, it then becomes a matter of in what state we let the losers live in.

Aside from limited natural resources, what do you think the limiting factor for the industries might be? Why is that you don't think they will continue to profit?
Larger population = larger demand = larger profits for those who can meet the needs. It's a self-perpetuating demand/supply model, isn't it?

Command economies, be they fascist or socialist don't work. They stifle creativity and growth. Workers usually just end up going through the motions of working (low productivity) and then try to earn extra cash/food/favours outside of work.

The old soviet adage of: "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" is more truthful than you'd think.

It's all been predicted before. And those predictions turned out to be wholly wrong.

People were saying the same thing about the internet. Jobs such as teaching were going to be replaced etc. The truth is it created far more jobs which tended to be more skilled and better paid - with some exceptions such as Amazon warehouse workers.

Your post is really about how difficult it is to make forecasts about the future, especially social and economic ones.

I suppose a shift from reliance on workers. A shift of how income is generated. A shift in how taxation happens. There's loads. It's like the Ford quote- which I'm about to butcher, but you're looking at how to make a faster horse instead of inventing a car. Historically a working week was 7 days. Historically farms had laborers instead of machinery. This isn't a new situation, it's always been the way.

Very true. Not much innovation, just old wine in new bottles with all the rules ignored.

But then it depends on what's essential for society, for example in a capitalist society why does one want a range of kettles that basically all do the same principle, instead under a command command economy it could be eg basic kettle, mid range or premium kettle, plus it means a lot less resources are used to make various products if they can be produced this way using the kettle example.

A capitalist system relies on people earning money and using it to buy products.

If jobs are replaced by computers/AI, there will be fewer people with the means to buy what is produced, so why bother?

Is that not one of the 'selling points' of UBI people tall about? You don't have to work/produce to gain an income, but you can spend!
Have no idea where the income for this will be from.

Imagine just having 3 kinds of cars in 3 kinds of colours, handbags or mobiles. Imagine no new designs stuff coming out because why bother designing anything new when you have something that already does the job.

The world would be a really dull place.

Go and have a look at the sort of goods people got in the Warsaw Pact countries. It's depressingly eye opening.

I dont think any govt wants too many of us peasants to have too much free time; unless we are all stressed and fighting amoungst ourselves that is!