From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 07:35:52 MDT
In a message dated 9/1/2002 1:34:35 AM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Max More writes Many of the following comments on
this thread could be rewritten, replacing current job losses with earlier
losses in agriculture, textiles, and so on. The lack of economic historical
perspective startles me.
We just hadn't got to that part yet, Max. <G> There is a story told
by the fellow that grew Amway into such a huge business.
Suppose we have an island that has 20 men on it. Being pre Gloria
Steinem this island differentiates jobs by sex. The people of the island
live entirely on fish caught by the 20 men. The women are completely
occupied making grass skirts or something. There is no surplus labor.
Now, pretend that somebody comes up with a new way of fishing and now
it only takes 10 men to catch the fish required.
So we now have 10 men of surplus labor. Mr. Amway correctly points
out that we now have a 10 man labor surplus that can be turned to farming
veggies, building better huts, etc. In short 10 people being put out of work
by a technical advance is really an opportunity for the society as a whole
instead of a calamity.
However before we start growing veggies, building better huts, etc.,
someone is going to have to come up with some gardening equipment, carpenter
tools, etc.
In the question I raised yesterday about England it is implicit that
England did not reinvest in England resulting in idled workers remaining idle
or under employed.
The question in this country is not about idled workers, we can see
them accumulating, but instead the question is anyone investing to put those
folks to work and earn a profit for the investor. If no one is doing that,
then the question that interests me is "why not?"
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:36 MST