[extropy-chat] economics of scarcity to economics of plenty

[Jack Parkinson]

>
>
>
> Jack, why is full employment defined as success?  Is not
> the goal to have machines do our work, freeing us to do
> whatever we please?  That is what I would call economic
> success, even if everyone does not achieve it.
>
> spike
 ...
> > Lines of robots producing cars and trucks while the former employees
watch
> > daytime tv and worry about paying their power bills is also not economic
> > success... Full employment is economic success...
> >
> > Jack

Why is full employment defined as success?
Because the case above represents only an economic success from the point of
view of the company. It is still a scarcity scenario. True economic success
might be considered as win/win/win - company/individual/society - the
economics of plenty.

In the situation in the automated factory above, if the economic success of
the company is balanced by a disaffected, unemployed, or welfare group of
individuals - then net economic benefits to society are nullified. The
technology is not being used to allow freedom, leisure and family quality
time - it is being used to deprive one section of the community of a chance
to make a living - while at the same time empowering another section to ask
society to feed, clothe and house the unwanted workers - why would that be
efficient!?

It takes almost 800 million farmers to feed 1.3 billion in China. Depending
on your viewpoint this is either grossly inefficient (corporate farmers
could maybe do the same job with a few thousand people) or superbly
efficient - it very effectively feeds clothes and houses a huge sector of
the population (the farmers) at an efficiency level way higher than any
western country could aspire to... And there is no massive burden on the tax
payers due to wide spread unemployment from the introduction of *efficiency
measures*

Similarly, mega corporations are wasteful for the very reasons they pride
themselves on being efficient - the bigger the company, the less percentage
of tax they are likely to pay and the more tax payer handouts they are
likely to receive - bigger companies accrue less benefits for society as a
whole than smaller companies do. At worst they move offshore, contribute
next to nothing, encourage sweat shop labor and become almost parasitic in
some societies. Smaller companies contribute much more to society, they
employ more people for less gross earnings and are hence more economically
efficient by this reasoning.

As big businesses reduce their work-forces in the interests of efficiency -
a hugely inefficient drag and burden on the rest of society is imposed - the
incomes of the poor must come from somewhere. If big business is
*efficient* - that somewhere is maybe you and me...

Jack Parkinson