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 ?

And there will always be those who do lots of work but aren't employed. There are a million things people do to improve society that we aren't paid for. Looking after homes, gardens, local areas, our fellow people, animals, creating beauty in various media, creating entertainment/music, growing and cooking wonderful food, sharing knowledge and skills, so much more.

Employment isn't a good system. It's inflexible which is unsuitable for most people. I don't understand the obsession with having everyone in paid work. Many people have so much to offer the world outside of this concept.

I agree. I don't think full 'employment' is the ideal, and of course, as a concept, is exclusionary.
The question is, when will society accept the more 'esoteric' skills (art, literature, care of nature, etc) as a legitimate contribution to culture and society? Such concepts are always the first to be 'binned' in straitened times (arts council cuts etc), which to an extent is understandable. But in a society where no art, culture or pastimes are funded/encouraged, how do we develop or leave a legacy?

To pick up on the Ford analogy mentioned by a previous poster - the problem is that we are living in a horse driven world so when someone invents a car society needs to adapt. At that time the advance of the car was quite slow as they were expensive and so society had time to alter infrastructure. Now technology advances quickly and society is stuck in the horse ages. We need to do quite a lot to catch up - a far from comprehensive list would be

1. Identify jobs that can only be done by people that need entry level (16+ skills) eg basic caring, street cleaning domestic cleaning and see that they are paid a living wage so that young people leaving school at 16 can see a way to earn a viable living.
2. Identify jobs that can only be done by people that need more advanced but not uni level training and find a way to upskill 14-18 year olds to do them - eg childcare, more complex caring, domestic electricity/plumbing etc and again make sure that they are paid properly.
3. Have a pathway so that someone going into pathway 2 who suddenly gets the point of education and shows potential could then develop further skills to eg train to do more complex electrical work on a state/corporate paid apprenticeship.
4. Have a really good overhaul of our education system - its failing far too many of our children who really don't need complex abstract maths and an ability to identify and name different grammatical constructs. They do need to be able to understand how to write a letter and a presentation and read a set of accounts or make sense of a statistical table - ie more practical skills.
5. Look at the housing market - homes should be affordable (whether rented or bought) on the basis of one full time salary and one part time to allow for childcare etc.
6. Look at the cost of childcare - it needs to be properly subsidised/funded and affordable.
7. Look at ways to encourage people to be entrepreneurial - our system of cutting new business start ups off from benefits as well as eye watering costs of living stifles enterprise at the grass roots level.

I think the inherent problems of communism have been proven again and again in a variety of ways.
Whereas, the very real limitations of pure red in tooth and claw capitalism get handwaved away - either with a "this time it will be different" (there won't be a bust, mass unemployment/housing crises isn't because of the disruptors it's all either immigrants or feminists) or by saying "communism is bad". Yes, yes it is. But you could argue the worst thing that happened to America (and Western capitalist democracies in general) in the last 50 years is that they "won".

I actually think it will be entry level jobs that lead to professional jobs. DH started a career in finance by dealing with invoices. That job in the way he did it no longer exists. A lot of the “learning” parts of the jobs don’t exist in the same way either. It’s like using AI in law to do the jobs that junior lawyers would have done as part of their training.

Replacing your hairdresser or your personal trainer is harder. Warehouse work can be reduced with robots but you will probably still need people. Using robots for delivery will reduce people physically delivering stuff but then you need people to programme and maintain them anyway.

i think it’s a complicated picture really.

I remember talking to Dh about this, his employer wanted him to look at some funds involving tech companies. But they weren’t what I considered tech, they used tech to deliver the same sort of product they did before but they weren’t actually tech themselves. Nothing truly innovative.

I think part of the problem is UBI can never realistically be at a level that allows people to live comfortably without some sort of work. And then obviously you would need to provide additional for anyone who had extra needs. There are around 40 million adults in the UK.

Giving them all 1k a month each would cost 480 billion a year the current annual budget is 1200 billion.

There's a sociological term "the urban residuum": a class of society that is unemployed and without privileges or opportunities and the system just keeps on growing them. Maybe because there's also a lot of people whose professional jobs only exist because of them?

it may not be the best but its alot better for the environment overall eg less factories making the products, less forests being destroyed, less mining needed etc overall a lot better for society

Money doesn't grow on trees. Something has to happen in order for anyone go receive an income.

What problem are you trying to solve? Unemployment, Environment. Wealth Inequality, something else?

Usually, this is the point where these discussions fall flat. You can’t have innovation and economic growth if you artificially stifle consumer markets and the free market. Great lots of trees but your population is starving or riddled with crime due to poverty. What about all of those jobs being created by that purple toaster that plays a tune while it’s toasting? OK, let’s save the trees, New technologies pop up up that promote new jobs and skills but they require a different natural resource to overuse. I know let’s just pay people not to work…well crap now we have an idle population being carried by a contributing one… wonder how long the goodwill will last?

Honestly you and others who really deep down want some utopia where life is carefully managed for optimal outcomes on all fronts would be far better off to be realistic and accept there are trade offs in life.

Ooh, that’s a plot twist. I have never thought of this, but you are completely right

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.

New roles tend to materialise.
20 years ago there were no digital marketers, there are technology roles in sectors that never had anything to do with IT before. There are roles in robotics and automation.

The people most likely to be impacted are the low skilled, who to be honest will likely end up in sectors where human interaction is preferred, like hospitality, care work, childcare and sales.

lets say we ramp production , factorys at max, what happens to earth when it runs out of resources to make these products ?

usually yes, but in the end when its majority of machines and Ai running the show then what for humanity ?

Then we’re either screwed and unemployment or poverty won’t matter. Or innovation and Elon Musk has figured out a way to colonize another planet.

Whereas you expect a utopia that will be delivered by a combination of technological innovation, Elon Musk and space travel.

Utopia doesn't exist, technical advances are all well and good but bring with them serious downsides that need to be carefully thought about.
For all that it appeared people were doom mongering about job losses in the past - the UK DID see a mass de-industrialisation in the 80s which had horrendous effects for some communities. This was very different to the utopian suggestions that more robotics etc would make everyone's lives easier and have people working shorter hours (also, plot twist, UK workers weren't replaced by mechanisation so much as cheaper workers in other countries). Maybe this was all for the best, and it did allow economic growth to continue (and lots of consumer choice). It also, IMO, contributed to some of the crises men in particular are facing - there just aren't as many traditional well respected working class jobs that require strength etc. Even Norman Tebbit said as much. But there hasn't been enough analysis of this because, conveniently, a lot of opinion formers etc are blaming feminism/women instead.
A lot of the most important jobs can't be done by computers, machines etc and those will remain. However because these jobs "aren't scalable" (and because many are traditionally done by women) they are usually lower paid or incorrectly viewed as unskilled/unimportant. I don't agree with that anyway. But the more we create a society that valorises the "men who make a lot of money" while pushing the vast majority of men who can't do that towards low status, low pay jobs or unemployment the more we are going to see a horrible backlash. And that will be directed against ordinary women/women's rights NOT the people making money from this situation. And Elon Musk will become the first trillionaire and blast of to Mars on his rocket. Yay.

I don't understand UBI. Surely if everyone gets enough to live on, some people just won't ever work (perfect benefits system) and others will just be significantly better off than they are now (eg. teacher's salary PLUS UBI enough to live on) which would surely drive up the cost of everything? And where does the money come from? Would love to understand, so please do explain it to me!

I also dont understand how it works and would like to.
It's really hard to imagine a totally different way of society.

I think it depends what you mean by enough to live on. If there is ubi I think it should be enough for a very very basic lifestyle. Enough for basic cheap food but not enough for holidays, or a car or luxuries of any kind but then that raises the question of what are considered luxuries!

The only places which currently are able to offer cradle to grave employment for their citizens, and which could easily do the UBI if they wanted, are places like Saudi Arabia. They are able to do it, at no tax cost, because they have money from oil, and can import workers (with no rights) to do all the unpleasant/difficult/manual jobs. So no tax, cradle to grave employment and a state that looks after you every step of the way. Paradise. Also, no democracy or civil rights at all. Probably partly because, no Taxation without Representation works the other way as well. Democracy etc evolved out of conflict and disagreement and needing to find ways to navigate competing interests. I do think a possible downside to UBI is that in theory it reduces the bargaining power workers have. Although, the same people muttering darkly about the WEF and secret plans, are often also the same people who will argue that people working but on housing benefit are a net drain. Someone who is a care worker might never earn enough to contribute more in taxes than they "take" but overall they are not a net drain. I just think our way of thinking about worth, and human value is really messed up and I think we either need to re-think it or basically hit a wall where the majority of the population appears to be a net drain because what they do generates less than a computer mining for bitcoin can.

@biscuitandcake well said 👏
places like Saudi Arabia. They are able to do it, at no tax cost, because they have money from oil
It's going to be rather uncomfortable for them when we all switch to renewables 😬

Yes, and how do we actually live a life that feels worthwhile without those things? Usually they're what make life good, or bring joy, or improve our health and happiness.

The money would come from reducing/removing benefits and welfare or increasing taxes or both. There are also a lot of people here saying that it would be means tested ubi or only available to some, that is not ubi or how it works. The entire concept is that it is universal and paid to all citizens, regardless of their means. If you only gave ubi to some while the rest have to fund it, then yeah, it wouldn't work and those funding it would be resentful and rightfully so.

Nope I don’t expect any utopia… as long as humans are involved it’s impossible.

People are messy, lazy, egotistical, spiteful, stupid, jealous, greedy, damaged, predatory, and everything else. On the other hand they are generous, smart, hopeful, hard working, loving, and everything else.

Utopia is not possible with people. The best we can hope for is balance.

ETA; I think your sarcasm detector might be broken 🙂