Ohio miners forced to attend Romney rally without pay...

[kandrathe]

Having the choice to stop working and just collect welfare is not to perfect because just profiting from society is not good, but this image is an image that is created by rightwingers. We have the same in Holland (election time)......some people make it look like people without a job are all profiters.......this is so terrible for all those people who lost their job and kind find a new one.....I mean it is not that the economy is doing so great right now.

Ok, so first, there isn't a monolithic "employer" who decides whether you work or not. Most places have multiple ways of being employed. Second, if the work you are qualified for and want to do dries up in your locality, you can a) move to a place that needs you -- like the tundra of North Dakota b) lower your standards and probably your quality of life, or c) go get more qualifications. Not easy choices, but still choices. As for state run "unemployment" systems, they are great if they focus on moving people back into "usefulness". My criticism for this latest recession is that they've probably erred on not investing in mechanisms of growth resulting in higher costs for sustenance of the unemployed. If you believe the government should have a central role in managing the economy (and I'm not so sure), then our government should have invested more in stimulating the private sector economy (as opposed to government spending on unproductive, or counter-productive things).

The universe of vocations is always in transition -- e.g. since the advent of the motor car, we haven't needed as many stables or buggy whip manufacturers. With automation (computerization, robotics, lasers, etc.) we've seen vast improvements in the productivity of every industry. This has displaced many "qualified workers" where in all likelihood, their chosen profession is an anachronism. People who seek employment need to be mindful of the need to remain useful to the society.

It has been a nagging question in my mine for many years (and I've mentioned it on the Lounge before). What happens to society when due to productivity, the amount of employment needed falls below the amount of employment supplied? The mechanism (the employment system) by which most of our society has access to products and services is through the exchange of labor for money. We produce (in the production system) all the food, clothes, housing, and sundries for our society, with an ever diminishing amount of employment. Our society is stuck in a paradigm where we value and sustain people via a 40 hour work week, which may no longer be needed.

In monetary policy we've myopically emphasized a slight inflation of goods and services, while from a productivity stand point everything should cost much less. The result is a gradual depreciation of not just savings, but also in earning power. (see Hayak -- The Road to Serfdom). In any case, our governments have failed us. It is a structural error to think a stochastic politicized central authority can perpetually provide both high levels of stimulus and high levels of regulation without causing chaos in flow. Government has a role to play in the economy through limited mechanisms of the monetary system (supply, reserve currency), minor labor regulations to prevent abuse, enough of a social safety net, and institutions for the flow of proper information. They err dually in both over and under playing their proper role depending on the whimsy of the party in power.

I just don't think the outcomes are good for a society that no longer needs people.