Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    A while back, I was considering the problem known as "the unemployment problem"...and came to the conclusion that the nomenclature is an impediment to actually solving the problem that really needs to be solved.

    Let me see if I can make my case. (I’m going to post it as I wrote it at that time.)

    During my early reflections on “the unemployment problem” an anomaly in the expression 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 machines.

    Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem; an onerous one, and more than likely the actual problem we are actually considering when supposedly discussing “the unemployment problem.”

    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 have the makings of a much needed solution to problems technology is creating for life in today’s world.


  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    This may be a debate on semantics. One important distinction to note is that on weekends and vacations, we are still employed. So calling those sought after conditions unemployment is actually inaccurate - we are still being paid for those periods.

    This is in contrast to being furloughed, which the #TrumpShutdown is causing: workers being told not to come to work AND they’re not being paid.

    So we have two separate terms:

    Employment: someone is paying for your services
    Working: whether you are actively producing value for the company that is paying you.


    I agree that not having money is a serious problem; that’s why I believe that if you are working a 40 hour week, you shouldn’t have to work another 40 to get by.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Cancer isn't a problem. Dying is the problem.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This may be a debate on semantics. One important distinction to note is that on weekends and vacations, we are still employed. So calling those sought after conditions unemployment is actually inaccurate - we are still being paid for those periods.

    This is in contrast to being furloughed, which the #TrumpShutdown is causing: workers being told not to come to work AND they’re not being paid.

    So we have two separate terms:

    Employment: someone is paying for your services
    Working: whether you are actively producing value for the company that is paying you.


    I agree that not having money is a serious problem; that’s why I believe that if you are working a 40 hour week, you shouldn’t have to work another 40 to get by.
    Thank you, SharmaK.

    It may be a debate on semantics...and I hope it is. But in my opinion, the debate is a vital one for today's world.

    In a sense, I am saying: When you have no work to do because you are required to "earn a living"...you have time for things that you may prefer to "working to earn a living."

    WORKING...may be one of those things...because "working" IS NOT the same thing as "working." (I won't explain that further unless the concept...the assertion...seems fallacious to you.)

    The "problem" when one is "unemployed" (whether by the valid definition you are using...or by the equally valid alternate definition of "simply not working"...is not that one is not working...but that one is not earning much needed money to buy the things one needs and desires. I argue that being without a job to do...is not in-and-of-itself a problem. The "problem" is that being without money (often as the result of not working) can be a catastrophe.

    Yeah...it is semantics...but a valid and important semantic distinction that, if made, may lead to a solution to a problem society is now facing...that of not enough decent paying jobs for everyone who needs and wants one.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    I don't think this is just a semantic point you are making.

    First the point of a job is to earn money, and the point of money is to do what one wants to do. Retirement is basically having enough money to do what you want to do without having to work for it anymore.
    Star trek is basically a world where everyone is retired.

    Now, how does that apply to our culture? Should we aim to provide for everyone with almost no human labor? I mean, that required star trek to have machines that materialize anything you need out of energy.
    That is out of the question for us, but we may soon see the day where most food production is done without manual labor, except to maintenance equipment.
    Does that mean that some foods should become "free"? If we could totally automate bread production, should the state provide bread for everyone?

    Is this the direction the OP is leading too?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I agree that not having money is a serious problem; that’s why I believe that if you are working a 40 hour week, you shouldn’t have to work another 40 to get by.
    Of course the problem is that not all labor is worth equal amounts, and there are some jobs that simply SHOULDN'T pay a living wage, even though you can do it for 40 hours. Like one should not expect a living wage from pushing buggies, it simply isn't worth that kind of money.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #6
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,420
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank
    “Unemployment” (having no work to do)
    Perhaps much of the issue could be solved by relying on the technical definition of the term. Those seeking for work, but unable to obtain employment.

    I think what you are describing might be called "Idle Human Capital" by economists. And they generally agree that it is not a negative thing if the capital is idle due to individual utility decisions.

    [Note: Rereading that it sounds super condescending. Sorry, no condescension was meant.]

    If we see rest (or however you want to list it) as a good to be consumed by people just like apples, cars, etc. then this becomes simply a microeconomic issue about utility maximization. IE is my "basket of goods" maximized between stuff I want to buy and relaxation I want to take?

    We can discuss moving what is called the "efficient frontier" further out so people can decide to buy more stuff in total and take more rest (IE rest+goods gets larger) through efficiency and capital development.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frank
    Now, for sure, “not having enough money to buy things” IS a problem
    We should be careful here. Having enough money isn't really the issue, its whether your capital input to the economy equates or is greater to the capital output you'd like to consume. A bit technical of a distinction, but I want to be sure we don't fall for the "just give them more money" trap.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    This is in contrast to being furloughed, which the #TrumpShutdown is causing: workers being told not to come to work AND they’re not being paid.
    Slightly off topic, but I don't understand how this would be a "Trump shutdown" he is perhaps the only party not part of the shutdown. I can understand calling it the McConnel shutdown (though he has offered a spending bill that could get 60 votes), or the Schumer shutdown (since he is the one fillibustering the bill that would keep the governement open), but there isn't really anything Trump can do or not do, this is the Congress' issue, not the executive branch.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Now, how does that apply to our culture? Should we aim to provide for everyone with almost no human labor? I mean, that required star trek to have machines that materialize anything you need out of energy.
    Star Trek assumes a post-scarcity society. Color me a bit skeptical on how that would work in a finite universe. But what would also matter in that universe is if everyone had access to replicators. If they didn't, this wouldn't be a post scarcity society. Either there would be prioritization based on who had access, or there would be a question of what to produce.

    Let me set up a hypothetical. Let's say there were only three, giant replicators, they could produce a trillion items a second, so volume isn't an issue.

    How does the operator know what to produce? Normally, we use prices to understand that, but he wouldn't have that information. We would need some kind of costless method of transmitting all of our preferences and tradeoffs to him and for him to costlessly compile and execute on that information. Otherwise we still have knowledge in society issues.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  8. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SQUATCH
    Star Trek assumes a post-scarcity society. Color me a bit skeptical on how that would work in a finite universe. But what would also matter in that universe is if everyone had access to replicators. If they didn't, this wouldn't be a post scarcity society. Either there would be prioritization based on who had access, or there would be a question of what to produce.

    Let me set up a hypothetical. Let's say there were only three, giant replicators, they could produce a trillion items a second, so volume isn't an issue.

    How does the operator know what to produce? Normally, we use prices to understand that, but he wouldn't have that information. We would need some kind of costless method of transmitting all of our preferences and tradeoffs to him and for him to costlessly compile and execute on that information. Otherwise we still have knowledge in society issues.
    The problem that comes to mind for me, is that assuming everyone had one.. who is going to come fix mine when it breaks?
    What do we do with all the trash?... who is going to pick that up?

    And more down to earth.. a replicator is just a metaphor for a black box where what we want shows up and we don't know how.
    so what is the simplest real word application for us... creation of bread. So bread appears at the local shop with no human input, other than fixing a machine here or there.
    My question is... should the gov then provide the bread for free?

    i mean we really aren't that far off. Machines plow the fields, machines cut and harvest, machines process, and deliver. Right now automation is what is missing and we are not that far off... (even if it is 50 years).
    Certainly there are some crops that are not currently done by machine, but I do believe that it will happen eventually. .. but then what?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  10. #8
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,420
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    i mean we really aren't that far off. Machines plow the fields, machines cut and harvest, machines process, and deliver. Right now automation is what is missing and we are not that far off... (even if it is 50 years).
    Certainly there are some crops that are not currently done by machine, but I do believe that it will happen eventually. .. but then what?
    Exactly, and what has that done to unemployment? Really nothing. We've hit "full employment" a couple of times since those autmations were widespread. As you noted earlier, automation tends to create more, better paying jobs rather than on net destroy them (though there are some painful displacements).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think this is just a semantic point you are making.

    First the point of a job is to earn money, and the point of money is to do what one wants to do. Retirement is basically having enough money to do what you want to do without having to work for it anymore.
    Star trek is basically a world where everyone is retired.

    Now, how does that apply to our culture? Should we aim to provide for everyone with almost no human labor? I mean, that required star trek to have machines that materialize anything you need out of energy.
    That is out of the question for us, but we may soon see the day where most food production is done without manual labor, except to maintenance equipment.
    Does that mean that some foods should become "free"? If we could totally automate bread production, should the state provide bread for everyone?

    Is this the direction the OP is leading too?


    Of course the problem is that not all labor is worth equal amounts, and there are some jobs that simply SHOULDN'T pay a living wage, even though you can do it for 40 hours. Like one should not expect a living wage from pushing buggies, it simply isn't worth that kind of money.
    Thank you, MINDTRAP.

    The only thing I am trying to say in this particular post (I have several more follow-up threads in mind) is to differentiate between "being without work"...and "not having the essentials for a decent life."

    I don't seem to be doing a good job of making that distinction, because so far, nobody has seen the point.

    I'll attempt to make the point more clear. But for now, I want to concentrate just on that aspect of my thesis.

    Suffice to say what I have said previously:

    Not having work to do is NOT, in my view, a problem.

    Not having sufficient of the things needed to live a decent life...IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

    But the two are not the same thing. One..."not having sufficient of the things needed to live a decent life" IS A HUGE PROBLEM. The other, "not having work to do" is NOT a problem in-and-of-itself. For many people...not having work to do is a goal.

    ---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps much of the issue could be solved by relying on the technical definition of the term. Those seeking for work, but unable to obtain employment.
    Okay...then for the sake of your comments on what I have suggested here, let's stop calling it "unemployment" and start calling it...NOT HAVING TO WORK.

    I am saying that "not having to work" is not a problem. Not having sufficient of the things needed to live a decent life...IS.

    Can we agree on that?

    I think what you are describing might be called "Idle Human Capital" by economists. And they generally agree that it is not a negative thing if the capital is idle due to individual utility decisions.

    [Note: Rereading that it sounds super condescending. Sorry, no condescension was meant.]
    You are jumping way ahead. All I am doing here (read the OP) is to differentiate between "not having to work" and "not having sufficient to live a decent life."

    I have not even suggested what would be sufficient, for example.

    I am just trying to make the differentiation.

    Can we do that?

    ---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem that comes to mind for me, is that assuming everyone had one.. who is going to come fix mine when it breaks?
    What do we do with all the trash?... who is going to pick that up?

    And more down to earth.. a replicator is just a metaphor for a black box where what we want shows up and we don't know how.
    so what is the simplest real word application for us... creation of bread. So bread appears at the local shop with no human input, other than fixing a machine here or there.
    My question is... should the gov then provide the bread for free?

    i mean we really aren't that far off. Machines plow the fields, machines cut and harvest, machines process, and deliver. Right now automation is what is missing and we are not that far off... (even if it is 50 years).
    Certainly there are some crops that are not currently done by machine, but I do believe that it will happen eventually. .. but then what?
    MT...you also are jumping way ahead without agreeing or disagreeing with an essential that I am trying (not particularly successfully) to make.

    See my comments to Squatch above.

  12. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course the problem is that not all labor is worth equal amounts, and there are some jobs that simply SHOULDN'T pay a living wage, even though you can do it for 40 hours. Like one should not expect a living wage from pushing buggies, it simply isn't worth that kind of money.
    Depends what you mean by “worth”. If it’s not worth it then it shouldn’t be done - clearly people don’t mind being “overpaid” so in a way MW makes all jobs “worth” it for the worker.

    Secondly, a real living MW shouldn’t require supplemental money and programs from the government. The taxpayer shouldn’t have to fund profit making organizations by bolstering their poor wage policies. It’s only not worth MW to companies because they’re not having to pay the full load to support a living MW.

    And what happens when MW is raised? The companies drop the jobs without government assistance. Then that job shouldn’t have existed in the first place.

  13. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    MT...you also are jumping way ahead without agreeing or disagreeing with an essential that I am trying (not particularly successfully) to make.

    See my comments to Squatch above.
    Yea I think I see your distinction and I agree with it. Not having work is not a problem, not having access to things we need is the problem.
    .. hence the star trek tie in.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  14. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea I think I see your distinction and I agree with it. Not having work is not a problem, not having access to things we need is the problem.
    .. hence the star trek tie in.


    Thanks, MT.

    We'll get to the Star Trek thingy...but first I want to see how many are able to see and acknowledge the distinction I am making.

    I hope you stick around.

    ---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Depends what you mean by “worth”. If it’s not worth it then it shouldn’t be done - clearly people don’t mind being “overpaid” so in a way MW makes all jobs “worth” it for the worker.

    Secondly, a real living MW shouldn’t require supplemental money and programs from the government. The taxpayer shouldn’t have to fund profit making organizations by bolstering their poor wage policies. It’s only not worth MW to companies because they’re not having to pay the full load to support a living MW.

    And what happens when MW is raised? The companies drop the jobs without government assistance. Then that job shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
    I'm going to comment on the minimum wage thing over in the other thread devoted to that topic.

  15. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Slightly off topic, but I don't understand how this would be a "Trump shutdown" he is perhaps the only party not part of the shutdown. I can understand calling it the McConnel shutdown (though he has offered a spending bill that could get 60 votes), or the Schumer shutdown (since he is the one fillibustering the bill that would keep the governement open), but there isn't really anything Trump can do or not do, this is the Congress' issue, not the executive branch.
    It’s called the Trump shutdown because he didn’t provide the leadership he himself claimed Obama should have done in the 2013 shutdown.

    He was also the one that ruined the immigration discussions that lead to the shutdown in the first place.

  16. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Cancer isn't a problem. Dying is the problem.
    If you or someone you loved had cancer you wouldn't say this (at least in this way). Of course dying is the ultimate problem, but people with cancer can suffer horribly till death finally becomes relief.....

    I apologize for being off topic and mean no offense to you Even in any way whatsoever.

  17. #15
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,420
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Okay...then for the sake of your comments on what I have suggested here, let's stop calling it "unemployment" and start calling it...NOT HAVING TO WORK.

    I am saying that "not having to work" is not a problem. Not having sufficient of the things needed to live a decent life...IS.

    Can we agree on that?
    I would defintely agree with that, with the one caveat that what those things are and how much of them vs how much no working is an individual utility decision. But I completely agree with the thrust you are making, I tend to attribute a lot of that benefit to capital accumulation. We are wealthy enough as a society that we can afford to take two days off a week and have large segments not work at all. That's certainly a success story historically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank
    You are jumping way ahead.
    Apologies, economics is a hobby of mine so I tend to run down the rabbit hole a bit.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would defintely agree with that, with the one caveat that what those things are and how much of them vs how much no working is an individual utility decision. But I completely agree with the thrust you are making, I tend to attribute a lot of that benefit to capital accumulation. We are wealthy enough as a society that we can afford to take two days off a week and have large segments not work at all. That's certainly a success story historically.
    Good. That makes two people in the thread besides me who agrees that "not working" or "not having to work" is really not the problem. The actual PROBLEM (in most cases) is that unless someone IS working (and earning money by that work)...they cannot meet their economic necessities, let alone their desires.

    That really is not a small thing...because dealing with "people not having the wherewithal to meet their needs (and some desires)" MAY BE an easier problem to deal with than dealing with "how to we insure that there are enough decent paying jobs available to meet the needs of all the people who want one?"

    I suggest the former IS a much easier problem to deal with than the latter. And I suggest further almost all the efforts right now are directed toward the former...and almost none toward the implications of the latter. I also suggest that there is NO REAL WAY to deal with the former. With our current technology...and the availability of cheap foreign labor...IT CANNOT BE DONE.

    TO EVERYONE READING THIS: MindTrap and Squatch both have indicated they see the "difference" I spoke of in the OP. Do any of you others agree also? Any with strong disagreements?

    Apologies, economics is a hobby of mine so I tend to run down the rabbit hole a bit.
    No need for an apology. I majored in economics in college and am addicted to it. I've been working on this thesis for almost thirty years...and have had correspondence about it from national pundits...and in one remarkable case, from Milton Friedman, who was kind enough to read a rather lengthy essay of mine on the topic and actually write comments to me in return.

  19. #17
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,420
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    The actual PROBLEM (in most cases) is that unless someone IS working (and earning money by that work)...they cannot meet their economic necessities, let alone their desires.
    Generally I would agree with this, though I think there is a strong psychological case for work being necessary for happiness. But I do agree with you about your distinction, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank
    I suggest the former IS a much easier problem to deal with than the latter. And I suggest further almost all the efforts right now are directed toward the former...and almost none toward the implications of the latter. I also suggest that there is NO REAL WAY to deal with the former. With our current technology...and the availability of cheap foreign labor...IT CANNOT BE DONE.
    I'd be interested in seeing the defense of that claim. I would imagine there is some implication of which counterfactual you are presuming in that scenario. I assume you mean "no real way to deal with the latter?" I'm not sure that is the case either, we'd need to get a better insight into how you see trade and its implications for US labor.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Good. That makes two people in the thread besides me who agrees that "not working" or "not having to work" is really not the problem. The actual PROBLEM (in most cases) is that unless someone IS working (and earning money by that work)...they cannot meet their economic necessities, let alone their desires.

    That really is not a small thing...because dealing with "people not having the wherewithal to meet their needs (and some desires)" MAY BE an easier problem to deal with than dealing with "how to we insure that there are enough decent paying jobs available to meet the needs of all the people who want one?"

    I suggest the former IS a much easier problem to deal with than the latter. And I suggest further almost all the efforts right now are directed toward the former...and almost none toward the implications of the latter. I also suggest that there is NO REAL WAY to deal with the former. With our current technology...and the availability of cheap foreign labor...IT CANNOT BE DONE.

    TO EVERYONE READING THIS: MindTrap and Squatch both have indicated they see the "difference" I spoke of in the OP. Do any of you others agree also? Any with strong disagreements?
    Generally speaking, I would say I agree with you, at least so far

    ---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Generally I would agree with this, though I think there is a strong psychological case for work being necessary for happiness.
    This is also a good point. I have know many (it boggles my mind how many...) that want to basically work till they die (I guess if you LOVE your job, why not, but doubting most of us fit into that category). Also, when I mention wanting to retire, one of the most common comments are
    "what would you do all day?"

    I have no problems being able to live everyday pretty much how I want to (given I had enough money to do so), but it is common for people to "need" "work" at some level.

    However, I'm with ya on this one Frank

  21. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Generally speaking, I would say I agree with you, at least so far

    ---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------



    This is also a good point. I have know many (it boggles my mind how many...) that want to basically work till they die (I guess if you LOVE your job, why not, but doubting most of us fit into that category). Also, when I mention wanting to retire, one of the most common comments are
    "what would you do all day?"

    I have no problems being able to live everyday pretty much how I want to (given I had enough money to do so), but it is common for people to "need" "work" at some level.

    However, I'm with ya on this one Frank
    Thanks, Belthazor. Another name added to the "I agree" (all with some reservations) list.

    I will be posting the next step in my thesis/notion/idea (the first of several next-steps)...probably later in the day.

  22. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does an "unemployment problem" ever actually exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post

    The "problem" when one is "unemployed" (whether by the valid definition you are using...or by the equally valid alternate definition of "simply not working"...is not that one is not working...but that one is not earning much needed money to buy the things one needs and desires. I argue that being without a job to do...is not in-and-of-itself a problem. The "problem" is that being without money (often as the result of not working) can be a catastrophe.
    .
    I don’t think you’ll find anyone to disagree with you that financial independence is a Good Thing. And being able to work to keep busy or have fun is also Good.

    I don’t get why this isn’t obvious though.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "The Larger Problem" part II: Modern Science's Implications on Theology
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 12th, 2007, 01:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •