"the idea that technology will create a new job to replace the one it has destroyed is no longer..."

[marmar]

Robert McChesney: Capitalism Is a Bad Fit for a Technological Revolution

Sunday, 08 May 2016 00:00
By Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview


In this interview, Robert McChesney, author with John Nichols of People Get Ready, discusses their new book, its challenge to the idea that technological advances always benefit humans and a framework to envision a digital age that will benefit workers over the super-rich.

Mark Karlin: Let me start with the grand question raised by your book written with John Nichols. I think it is safe to say that the conventional thinking of the "wisdom class" for decades has been that the more advanced technology becomes (including robots and automated means of production, service and communication), the more beneficial it will be for humans. What is the basic challenge to that concept at the center of the new book by you and John?

Robert W. McChesney: The conventional wisdom, embraced and propagated by many economists, has been that while new technologies will disrupt and eliminate many jobs and entire industries, they would also create new industries, which would eventually have as many or more new jobs, and that these jobs would generally be much better than the jobs that had been lost to technology.

And that has been more or less true for much of the history of industrial capitalism. Vastly fewer people were needed to work on farms by the 20th century and many ended up in factories; less are now needed in factories and they end up in offices. The new jobs tended to be better than the old jobs.

But we argue the idea that technology will create a new job to replace the one it has destroyed is no longer operative. Nor is the idea that the new job will be better than the old job, in terms of compensation and benefits. Capitalism is in a period of prolonged and arguably indefinite stagnation. There is immense unemployment and underemployment of workers, which we document in the book, taken from entirely uncontroversial data sources. There is downward pressure on wages and working conditions, which results is growing and grotesque inequality. Workers have less security and are far more precarious today than they were a generation ago; for workers under the age of 30, it is a nightmare compared to what I experienced in the 1970s.

Likewise, there is an immense amount of "unemployed" capital; i.e. wealthy individuals and US corporations are holding around $2 trillion in cash for which they cannot find attractive investments. There is simply insufficient consumer demand for firms to risk additional capital investment. The only place that demand can come from is by shifting money from the rich to the poor and/or by aggressively increasing government spending, and those options are politically off-limits, except to jack up military spending, which is already absurdly and obscenely high. .................(more)

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35946-robert-mcchesney-capitalism-is-a-bad-fit-for-a-technological-revolution

[malthaussen]

1. Ultimately, you know, it's an indeterminate question...

... since it's predicated on predicting advances that haven't been made yet, and jobs that haven't been created yet. It is, therefore, faith-based: one either thinks we'll figure it out as always, or not. And since any alternative would require a pretty comprehensive overhaul of the way society does business, a realist might conjecture that a pretty severe period of adjustment is ahead. Society will "probably" survive (although saying so is based on past record, which is in a sense meaningless), but it is a pretty good bet many individuals will not.

-- Mal

[jwirr]

10. You are somewhat correct that this is about faith - but to

reject this book's idea is to say that corporations are going to do a damned thing to help the working class. Without being forced to change their goals I do not see this will happen at all.

When we look at the two author's backgrounds we see that they are writing from the viewpoint of the workers. From that standpoint I don't think they are talking about faith as much as they are talking about reality since 1980. TPTB have been moving everything toward gains for the 1% and loses for the 99%. Any robot that is made will be made in some country where corporations can get the most for their money regardless of the justice of it. And they will be affordable to less and less people. So what exactly does that mean for the common good for the world?

I sat at lunch after a convention with several union people who were for Hillary and three of us who were for Bernie? We more or less steered away for politics because it was clear that they union people were angry at us. I so much wanted to ask them one question: "Tell me what you as a union hope to gain for your workers from Hillary?" and I wanted to follow that up by asking "How does that help all the people of the USA?"

But like a good girl I did not want to start a fight so I remained silent.

So if there are any union leaders on DU could you please explain to me what the answer to there two question is?

[malthaussen]

12. I'm no union leader...

... so anything I might say on that subject is conjecture. I'd speculate that the motives of the leaders were not necessarily the same as the rank-and-file.

Being a good girl avoids some unpleasantness, but it's never going to get you answers to your questions.

-- Mal

[DetlefK]

2. Robots aren't tools. Robots are unpaid slave-workers.

Why hire a human when you can have a robot do that job for free?

Sure, for a long time, robots will stay so inflexible that they will still need a human supervisor. But you need only so many supervisors for a group of workers...

Present: 10 human supervisors for 100 human workers -> 110 humans employed
Future: 5 human supervisors for 50 human workers, plus 10 human supervisors for 50 robot workers -> 65 humans employed

[jwirr]

11. The book talks about the fact that we the people have allowed

this country/world to get into this mess by going along with it. The authors tell us that if we do not fight back the future you describe will be happen. This is a call to the front lines once again.

[Adrahil]

24. I haven't read the book... what do they suggest?

The fact is more automation is coming. There is no way to stop it. It is as hopeless as ordering the tide not to come in. The real question is not "how can we stop it?" but "what are we going to do in response?"

[HughBeaumont]

3. But hey, don't listen to people like us that bring up that canary in a coal mine . . .

. . . we're nothing but "Luddites" and have "issues" that need to be worked out.

Capitalism CAN solve the problems it creates. Trust us. And above all, trust the wealthy. It'll all work out in the end, just as it did in the past.

[rhett o rick]

6. Well capitalism can solve the problems it creates but it won't be pretty.

In the middle ages the many plagues in Europe actually helped advance civilization (if you agree the direction civilization moved was advancing) by killing off millions thus creating a labor shortage and reducing the pressure on resources. I see the same thing happening with current capitalism. As we progress (again using an arbitrary definition of progress) there will be less and less food and resources for the poor. The rich will not alleviate this except with token gestures and people will continue to die at higher and higher rates. We will reach a steady-state where the remaining serfs will be just enough to keep the system working.

[HughBeaumont]

19. "Capitalism solving the problems it creates" with a labor surplus and a stagnant wage . . .

. . . I think that's what we should ALL be afraid of.

Nothing less than a kinder cull.

The problem we should be concentrating on is "distribution".

[malthaussen]

16. Eh, capitalism is like evolution in that respect.

Survival of the species is not identical with survival of an individual member of that species. The constant error I see people making is assuming that the universe is run for their convenience. The only way you're going to get the ruling class (or owning class) to worry about you is by making them. And the leverage the people have is diminishing rapidly.

-- Mal

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Ultimately, before long, guaranteed income will be seen as the only way.

Swiss are doing it.

Canada is considering it.

[trudyco]

5. Why not expand research?

Guaranteed income is great, but also expanding research and paying better wages for other work done (especially for work that benefits society like teaching, healthcare giving, social work, etc. that has traditionally been low paid). Also a better minimum wage. It would be nice to decouple healthcare in this society with work and increase the pay so people can consider part time work and job sharing yet still have a fulfilling life.

I remember in the 70's how the teachers told us that we would be working part time but still happily living because computers and technology was going to make things that easy. It COULD be that way, but the greedy class swooped in and took the money. Now they are sitting on it.

It would be great to get paid to work in neurosciences or space or global warming or desalination technology. Artists could get paid. Teachers could be paid well and revered again. Instead, we get the billionaire class squirreling money away in Panama type havens. Sigh.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Few people have the capability for research even if they were taught logical & critical thinking. nt

[rhett o rick]

7. What I see happening with using "guaranteed income" is that the cost will be shouldered

by the middle and working class and therefore reduce their standard of living until it all equals out and at that point the rich class will have to take over and will only pay slave wages.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Your scenario is impossible economically & getting close to it would trigger a real revolution.

Revolution might happen, but your scenario will not.

Income inequality is a severe problem that corrodes societies and leads to revolutions.

The question is whether the USA will recognize this in time and pull back from the brink by bringing in more progressive taxation and guaranteed income or will the rich push it over to full blown revolution?

[JPnoodleman]

8. Technocrats will curiously never declare themselves obsolete. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Narrow-minded bullshit.

Good grief I'm sick of this. This changes what we can choose to do as work. Things will still have value, we will still have an economy. The old jobs, and the old TYPES of jobs may well sunset.

That doesn't mean you won't have work. It just might be more human, more fulfilling work than you imagine now.

[Fast Walker 52]

17. yeah, these types of analyses always seem stuck in a box and don't take everything into account

I for one hope people have more time for education and getting involved in politics.

[JPnoodleman]

21. "We might have new exciting more fulfilling work in the future!"

Yeah what will it be? Will it pay all 7 billion of us to live a comfortable life?

The invention of the automobile didn't liberate horses to do newer more fulfilling jobs, their numbers have been on the decline ever since.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. It's the classic 'buggy whip' problem. Did the people who made them die off?

No, they didn't. They make other things now.

Jobs sunset. Entire careers sunset. There's always new stuff. AND there's always demand for the old stuff. I can work CNC machines, forges, 3d printers, and a variety of other modern manufacturing equipment, most of it with a keyboard and a mouse. I still know 3 blacksmiths and a host of welders. Each one of them an artisan, and in high demand.

If you think you can just pick up one job, one skill, and that will carry you a lifetime against the ebb and flow of the world? Yeah, then you're fucked.

The only people who become obsolete are those that are unable or unwilling to embrace change.

[JPnoodleman]

28. No, many become unemployed and underpaid...

1) As has been stated by others such as CPG Grey, the number of new jobs in this country since 1776 has been totally insignificant to the economy.

2) Great you know some welders, You know I once met a Calligrapher. There is never enough demand for old stuff to sustain said industries. HOWEVER, most of those jobs are done and replaced by what?..... well if wage growth is any indication nothing.

3) People can only change so quickly. For most of human history until JUST NOW one could reasonably plan your life and what jobs would exist for the entirety of it. Now you can't even plan a year ahead. What you think everyone is going to go get job training every decade or every five years when your job gets automated? People get old, people form families, people need stability around their biological rhythms.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Wrong.

"For most of human history until JUST NOW one could reasonably plan your life and what jobs would exist for the entirety of it."

That has not been true in living history. More than 100 years back is meaningless. 107 years since humanity first piloted a powered aircraft, and we're putting nuclear reactors in deep space now. No, sorry, shit is going to change and I will not just stand here and listen to people cry about some nebulous old way of things that haven't existed 'in the west' in 5 generations.

There is so. much. shit. to. do. Machines are no threat to you. They might be a threat to your job. Maybe. They might enable any of a hundred jobs in return.

I don't need stability. I challenge you to prove that 'people need stability'. That's bullshit. You get stability in a retirement home. You know what happens to people in retirement homes where there's no challenge and no burdens and no demands? They *die*. They get dull, they lose their faculties, they switch off. They're done.

We NEED chaos. We thrive in it.

Plenty of work on this for human happiness and engagement

Psychology's correlational findings: humans seem happiest when they have
1.Pleasure (tasty food, warm baths, etc.),
2.Engagement (or flow, the absorption of an enjoyed yet challenging activity),
3.Relationships (social ties have turned out to be extremely reliable indicator of happiness),
4.Meaning (a perceived quest or belonging to something bigger), and
5.Accomplishments (having realized tangible goals).

How the fuck do you get accomplishment and engagement doing the same stupid shit day in and day out.

LIVE damn you

[Saviolo]

15. I feel like this was the dream of the 50's and 60's

It was lampooned somewhat optimistically in The Jetsons, for instance. Labour-saving devices and automation would make life easier for everyone, and would reduce the amount of work we would have to do in order to get paid the same amount or more. Everyone could live a luxurious life on a single income from a three-day work week, and even housekeeping would be automated.

The Jetsons would be looked at as lazy, mooching, hand-out addicted do-nothings in today's political environment. They want to be paid a lot for doing very little. Technology has taken the economy the other way. Automation and labour-saving devices have made productivity rise, certainly, but that has meant that fewer people now work much harder for wages that do not rise at the same rate as inflation. Productivity soars, wages stagnate, unemployment rises, and money flows freely up to the CEOs, and venture capitalists. There are vast amounts of capital locked up in the accounts of wealthy owners and executives that are not benefiting the economy in any substantive way. There are only so many boats and luxury cars those people can buy.

[Locrian]

18. good but only 1/2 the problem

The shift away from investment into speculation, driven by the requirement for growth at all costs means less and less focus on jobs.

All companies / wallstreet are caught up in this - it's driven by the nature of debt based monetary system that was engineered to transfer wealth to the wealthy. The telecom and now internet has just increased the speed of this as money became "faster" and more "free" to move around.

Read Douglas Rushkoff's "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus, How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity" and "Life Inc: How Corporatism Conquered the World"

[Tsiyu]

20. Jobs as we know or may envision them are all but gone

And corporations are not going to create many decent jobs.

But you have control over what you buy, how you live and where you place your energies.

I see many younger people creating their own jobs and their own economy, because they don't have time to waste wondering where their good positions went. They support each other in art, music, food, clothing, jewelry-making, you name it.

I also see a lot of depressed kids who can't find work and are just prison fodder for the "sweet, devout" Episcopalian DA down the road.

Meanwhile people my age are still whining about what they let slip away and giving grief to their kids because they aren't out there finding all those non-existent jobs.

Stop wasting time looking to oligarchs to do the right thing and either push the politicians like mad dogs for brighter futures or create your own future. Stop supporting shitty businesses and corporations. Get up off your ass and make or do something.

No matter how shiny and mind-blowing the tech becomes, you still have to have underwear, bread, chairs, haircuts, lawnmowers, shoes, cups, fans and fencing. There's a huge market out there for anything. Each household will not have a personal robot to repair and fix all their shit.

I think that a new economy has to be built in the spaces left between the old one, to get a little Tao-ish on the DU. With wi-fi and tech, each person now has more autonomy than ever to create the job they want. That's what I'm doing.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. "But you have control over what you buy, how you live and where you place your energies."

This. This. A thousand fucking times, this.

The machines choose nothing for us. We can be led. Enticed. Economic realities can apply pressure.

But WE choose. We manifest what 'value' IS.

[Tsiyu]

25. Paralysis sets in when people think they don't make a difference

but the market is responding to, for example, consumers who refuse to buy unethically-made, unhealthy products. It's simply not true that the market isn't malleable.

Now, if you want a cookie cutter life with an HOA-controlled yard, a 9 to 5 position with great pay, fringies and cushy working conditions, and no need to worry about people beneath you, or how you will pay for your kids' college, or anyone besides your own household, I can't help you.

If you want to live your own life and make a difference you can do it, but most in the US can't envision anything other than being conformist cookies.

[arcane1]

26. Sounds like an interesting book. On the list it goes!

[tonyt53]

27. Just provide investment credits to alternative energies like that provided the oil industry.

The oil industry has special tax credit provisions for investment. No other industry has enjoyed such favorable direct tax considerations, subsidies, and investor tax considerations than has the oil industry. None are even close.

I do challenge the statement about "less are now needed in factories and they end up in offices. The new jobs tended to be better than the old jobs." That may have been true before outsourcing of those office jobs to other countries. Even engineering jobs are being outsourced to India.