Unemployment a problem? C'mon!

Frank Apisa · Feb 18, 2016

During my early reflections on the material I've presented in the "observation" series, an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem” surfaced, 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.

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy the necessities and desires of life” 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.

All of which may seem an idle exercise in semantics, of no particular practical consequences. But I argue otherwise. By exploiting the distinction between “unemployment” and “not having enough money”, I think we can show that “as you increase productivity using machines, unemployment increases” to be much less a "problem" than we are supposing it to be.

Frank Apisa · Feb 18, 2016

Threads leading up to this thread (in various forums):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...edicament.html (An observation about the human predicament.)

(Things are not like they were for the middle class back in the 1950’s)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...edicament.html (An observation (#2) about the human predicament.)

(The more productive we are...the more there will be of everything.)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...ough-jobs.html (There will never again be enough jobs...)

(There will never be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...mployment.html (Relationship between Maximum productivity & Unemployment.)

(As you improve productivity…human unemployment rises/as you improve human employment...productivity decreases.)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/246908-third-problem.html
(The Third Problem…the problem I am talking about in this new thread.)

joG · Feb 18, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
During my early reflections on the material I've presented in the "observation" series, an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem” surfaced, 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.

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy the necessities and desires of life” 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.

All of which may seem an idle exercise in semantics, of no particular practical consequences. But I argue otherwise. By exploiting the distinction between “unemployment” and “not having enough money”, I think we can show that “as you increase productivity using machines, unemployment increases” to be much less a "problem" than we are supposing it to be.

Leisure is not a problem, if it is combined with the resources one requires for the life one wants.

Frank Apisa · Feb 18, 2016

joG said:
Leisure is not a problem, if it is combined with the resources one requires for the life one wants.

Leisure is not a problem, period.

Not having sufficient resources for the life one wants...IS a problem.

Two different things...which is my point.

joG · Feb 18, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
Leisure is not a problem, period.

Not having sufficient resources for the life one wants...IS a problem.

Two different things...which is my point.

That is, what i thought.

Critter7r · Feb 19, 2016

Inasmuch that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck with no means to support themselves except that they have a job that provides them a regular paycheck, it is not surprising that the two conditions are inexorably linked.

But I agree with your semantic dissection.

I love being unemployed. It's when the money runs out that sucks.

Frank Apisa · Feb 19, 2016

Critter7r said:
Inasmuch that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck with no means to support themselves except that they have a job that provides them a regular paycheck, it is not surprising that the two conditions are inexorably linked.

But I agree with your semantic dissection.

I love being unemployed. It's when the money runs out that sucks.

Indeed, Critter.

But that distinction is crucial to actually "solving" the "problem."

I suspect we will all have to get more and more comfortable with the notion of people being unemployed. The machines and devises are just able to do so much...there is not a lot left for us to do THAT PEOPLE WILL PAY DECENT MONEY FOR US TO DO.

But as I suggested, and as you see to be the case...being unemployed is lots of fun. We get to do what we WANT to do (often productive stuff, by the way)...rather than what we must in order to "earn a living."

Thanks for posting. I know we are bumping heads over in that other thread...but I appreciate your comment here a lot.

CrabCake · Feb 19, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
“Unemployment” (having no work to do)

That's not the definition of unemployment in economics/politics.

Frank Apisa · Feb 19, 2016

CrabCake said:
That's not the definition of unemployment in economics/politics.

Really!

Then it was a good move on my part to put this thread in the Philosophy forum, right?

Ntharotep · Feb 19, 2016

For some reason, I am reminded of Wall-E...

The real danger that will come to a head in the year XXXX is that if the dynamics of resources versus contribution for those resources does not change then only the inherently wealthy or the truly innovative will be able to afford to live/survive in that world.
*sits back and watches the definition debate on living vs. surviving*

CrabCake · Feb 19, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
Really!

Then it was a good move on my part to put this thread in the Philosophy forum, right?

No.

The term "unemployment problem" is a political / economic term.

Frank Apisa · Feb 19, 2016

Ntharotep said:
For some reason, I am reminded of Wall-E...

The real danger that will come to a head in the year XXXX is that if the dynamics of resources versus contribution for those resources does not change then only the inherently wealthy or the truly innovative will be able to afford to live/survive in that world.
*sits back and watches the definition debate on living vs. surviving*

A very important distinction...and one I suspect will contract over time...especially since the dynamic you mentioned is very much in play.

In my opinion, it will be in the interest of both the wealthy/innovative...and not wealthy/innovative for that difference to contract.

Frank Apisa · Feb 19, 2016

CrabCake said:
No.

The term "unemployment problem" is a political / economic term.

So tell me...have you seen the movie "Hail, Caesar" yet?

bg85 · Feb 19, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
“Unemployment” (having no work to do) and “problem” (being annoyed with that state of affairs) just doesn’t compute.

well not if you define it that way but you're defining it incorrectly.

"unemployed" doesn't just mean "not having work to do". it means you cannot find the resources with which you can support yourself. it means you're not "employed". if you're a farmer and there's a drought and you lose your farm, it's not that you "don't have any work to do" it's that you aren't able to be employed in generating wealth or resources.

it's just semantics. not having work to do could just be called "retired".

Frank Apisa · Feb 19, 2016

bg85 said:
well not if you define it that way but you're defining it incorrectly.

"unemployed" doesn't just mean "not having work to do". it means you cannot find the resources with which you can support yourself. it means you're not "employed". if you're a farmer and there's a drought and you lose your farm, it's not that you "don't have any work to do" it's that you aren't able to be employed in generating wealth or resources.

it's just semantics. not having work to do could just be called "retired".

Yeah, I understand.

pinqy · Feb 19, 2016

bg85 said:
well not if you define it that way but you're defining it incorrectly.

"unemployed" doesn't just mean "not having work to do". it means you cannot find the resources with which you can support yourself. it means you're not "employed".

That's not quite correct. Unemployed means failing to gain employment. A teenager trying to find a part time job is unemployed even if s/he is fully supported by parents. And someone begging on the streets out of desperation is not unemployed if not looking for actual work.

bg85 · Feb 19, 2016

pinqy said:
That's not quite correct. Unemployed means failing to gain employment. A teenager trying to find a part time job is unemployed even if s/he is fully supported by parents. And someone begging on the streets out of desperation is not unemployed if not looking for actual work.

well yeah if you're using the government's definition. again this is all semantics. my response was to intended to show that i thought the OP's point is all about how you define the term "unemployed".

Critter7r · Feb 19, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
A very important distinction...and one I suspect will contract over time...especially since the dynamic you mentioned is very much in play.

In my opinion, it will be in the interest of both the wealthy/innovative...and not wealthy/innovative for that difference to contract.

Right, but I assert that it is possible that there are wealthy and innovative people in the future ... and it is possible that there aren't wealthy and innovative people in the future.

lb_on_teh_cb · Feb 19, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
During my early reflections on the material I've presented in the "observation" series, an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem” surfaced, 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.

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy the necessities and desires of life” 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.

All of which may seem an idle exercise in semantics, of no particular practical consequences. But I argue otherwise. By exploiting the distinction between “unemployment” and “not having enough money”, I think we can show that “as you increase productivity using machines, unemployment increases” to be much less a "problem" than we are supposing it to be.

rose colored glasses

shagg · Feb 23, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
During my early reflections on the material I've presented in the "observation" series, an anomaly in the expression “unemployment problem” surfaced, 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.

Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy the necessities and desires of life” 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.

All of which may seem an idle exercise in semantics, of no particular practical consequences. But I argue otherwise. By exploiting the distinction between “unemployment” and “not having enough money”, I think we can show that “as you increase productivity using machines, unemployment increases” to be much less a "problem" than we are supposing it to be.

There is a phenomenon among the retired. Without their job, which turns out for many to be one of the last driving forces in their live, one of the last ..... goals or activities that are necessary and not optional, without this, they go soft and softer. They feel without purpose, they wither and waste away, mentally and physically. Of course not everyone will go through this. Some of us will have hobbies or will get more involved with their grandkids. But its true for a lot of people. You see it even more evident in the "should retire but don't want to" group, who feel the above scenario looming and want to hold it off as long as possible.

I, like many, look forward to not having to work some day. But unemployment (in the way you're using the word) isn't always good for everyone.

Frank Apisa · Feb 23, 2016

shagg said:
There is a phenomenon among the retired. Without their job, which turns out for many to be one of the last driving forces in their live, one of the last ..... goals or activities that are necessary and not optional, without this, they go soft and softer. They feel without purpose, they wither and waste away, mentally and physically. Of course not everyone will go through this. Some of us will have hobbies or will get more involved with their grandkids. But its true for a lot of people. You see it even more evident in the "should retire but don't want to" group, who feel the above scenario looming and want to hold it off as long as possible.

I, like many, look forward to not having to work some day. But unemployment (in the way you're using the word) isn't always good for everyone.

Okay...but everyone is free to do as much work as they choose. NO one is required not to work.

I'm almost 80...and I do not have to work.

But I do.

And I work with lots of old geezers like myself who do not have to work...but who do.

So...I'm not sure of your point.

shagg · Feb 23, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
Okay...but everyone is free to do as much work as they choose. NO one is required not to work.

I'm almost 80...and I do not have to work.

But I do.

And I work with lots of old geezers like myself who do not have to work...but who do.

So...I'm not sure of your point.

My point is that you're attempting to show that unemployment is a good thing, its just the lack of money that typically comes with it that's bad.

I'm saying that, for some, not having to do anything is bad. They will choose to do nothing when able to even though they are less happy and less healthy this way. Needing to work is better for these people.

Frank Apisa · Feb 23, 2016

shagg said:
My point is that you're attempting to show that unemployment is a good thing, its just the lack of money that typically comes with it that's bad.

I am attempting to show that the "unemployment problem" and the "not enough money" problem ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROBLEMS...or more exactly, two different situations.

One..."not having work to do" IS NOT A PROBLEM.

You certainly can work if you want to. You have a choice about whether to work or not.

That is not a problem.

"Not having enough money" for the things one needs and wants...IS A PROBLEM.

They are related...BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PROBLEM.

I'm saying that, for some, not having to do anything is bad.

I have never suggested we pass a law that some people have to do NOTHING.

If anyone wants to work...they can work. The streets need to be cleaned...the parks. Lawns need to be tended...one's own, and an elderly neighbor's. The house must be tended to...the children also.

There is all sorts of stuff.

So I do not see your point.

They will choose to do nothing when able to even though they are less happy and less healthy this way.

They will???????????????

And why is that?

Needing to work is better for these people.

Anyone who needs to work...will plenty to do.

Critter7r · Feb 23, 2016

Way to take shag's response and completely flip it on its head so that you can argue with your version of it, Frank.

Frank Apisa · Feb 23, 2016

Critter7r said:
Way to take shag's response and completely flip it on its head so that you can argue with your version of it, Frank.

Really?

And how do you see that happening?

Unemployment a problem? C'mon!

Frank Apisa

Frank Apisa

joG

Frank Apisa

joG

Critter7r

Frank Apisa

CrabCake

Frank Apisa

Ntharotep

Well-known member

CrabCake

Frank Apisa

Frank Apisa

bg85

Frank Apisa

pinqy

bg85

Critter7r

lb_on_teh_cb

Well-known member

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

Frank Apisa

shagg

Wading Through Bull****

Frank Apisa

Critter7r

Frank Apisa