617
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Arekdirithe@lemmy.world 119 points 1 year ago

I remember when I was younger, having low unemployment was considered a good thing, universally desired it seemed. Only in late stage capitalism is it a requirement that we have people who can’t find a job so the working class doesn’t get too uppity.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.ml 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Reactionary take in response to billionaires being put in their place by a working class that is gaining back the union culture of the 20th century and pro-labour fervour of the 19th, assisted by the technology of the 21st.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

More people are supposed to not have jobs, but at the same time, not be collecting unemployment or public assistance. So basically… go panhandle, live in a tent city, go to prison, or I guess just die is their suggestion.

[-] MonkRome@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

If they died or went to prison then unemployment would go back down. The truth is they have no intelligent solutions and their economic beliefs are all make believe.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I thought of that but considered maybe they just want people to die, anyway. Agreed, I don't get the impression this guy is super good at societal engineering or economics, other than as such might benefit people like him in the short term.

[-] stilgar@infosec.pub 19 points 1 year ago

This effect was analysed in great detail by Marx in the 19th century, so it's not a characteristic of late stage capitalism, just of capitalism.

His term "Reserve army of labour" refers to the unemployed.

Taking them as a whole, the general movements of wages are exclusively regulated by the expansion and contraction of the industrial reserve army...

From Capital by Marx

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 year ago

This is where you realize that capitalists don't care about improving society, they just care about maximizing profit.

Full employment means full utilization of the productive forces of say society, but it also means there is a high demand for workers and a low supply thus the price of labour increases which is bad for business.

When an industry reaches a certain stage of development, capitalists make agreements with each other (economic cartels) effectively turning into monopolies and begin the cycle of destroying productive forces to increase profits. They reduce labour cost by doing massive layoffs, inflate the price of goods by decreasing production, etc... A very clear example of this is the oil cartel (OPEC), but it happens silently in every single sector.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Low unemployment is a good thing- to a certain percentage (3% i think?). Not 0%.

People are arguing saying we expect some people living it tents - no, we expect to have people unemployed for a short time while they swap jobs, or seasonal workers out of season, or new grads looking for their first role.

[-] DDNB@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

A good thing for who exactly?

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Uh... people and the economy??? To copy paste my other comment

I'll happy tell a new grad they don't have to work full time in a minimum wage job while they work through the process of acquiring their first post-grad role, or the student to enjoy their gap year traveling the country. Happily tell the seasonal worker who did 15 hour days over summer they made enough to have 6 months off. The stay at home parent that they are doing a good thing even though they aren't getting paid for it, or the person transferring between jobs that they don't have to start the day after resigning from their other role.

[-] spez_@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Happy to. I'll happy tell a new grad they don't have to work full time in a minimum wage job while they work through the process of acquiring their first post-grad role, or the student to enjoy their gap year traveling the country. Happily tell the seasonal worker who did 15 hour days over summer they made enough to have 6 months off. The stay at home parent that they are doing a good thing even though they aren't getting paid for it, or the person transferring between jobs that they don't have to start the day after resigning from their other role. Do you want to tell them all to get back into paid employment right now to keep unemployment at 0%?

[-] rainynight65@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

There is a difference between unemployed but needing to work in order to afford food and shelter, and unemployed but being able to stay out of the workforce for a while. A lot of people need work but can't find any. Certain degrees of unemployment are fine if those who can't find work are taken care of, through a social safety net and similar.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Correct - but the unemployment rate doesn't take that into account.

I lie, I gave a few bad examples. Those of working age but not looking (like the SAHP) are out of workforce and not included in unemployment rate. But seasonal, grads looking for the right job and those transferring between jobs are still unemployed and form that 3% i mentioned. The other type (structural unemployment) that relates to not having the skills that employers search for we should have as close to 0% as possible and that part is a concern.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
617 points (98.0% liked)

Work Reform

9966 readers
14 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS