Employment isn't the end goal. What we want is to provide people with the access to goods and services, and employment is a good proxy that is easier to optimize for. Also, for what it's worth, we already live in an age of full* employment in the U.S. and so far we're yet to see that the "maintenance of full employment [causes] social and political changes which [gives] a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders".
This essay also overlooks the problem with the government's ability to efficiently allocate capital, or to do so more efficiently than the market itself does, given that the market is ultimately self-correcting, with few exceptions that we can legislate against.
This essay is largely devoid of academic meaning. It's full of conjectures and extrapolations and lacking any bona fide empirical basis.
Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.
I'm glad to see you write that; it's an uncommon and unpopular view, despite the fact that really many people -- perhaps most -- would love to be liberated from a requirement to perform what fits into the social definition of "work".
Yet in a modern economy "work" fills several roles: access to resources of course (i.e. paycheck) but social ties and perhaps most importantly social status. This latter in particular is a modern invention of the Industrial Age yet, as people's lifespans are shorter than the epochs, it is assumed to be part of the natural order of things.
We can hope that in a future roboticised world where the marginal cost of production approaches nil, that the idea that your "job" determines your status can fade away.
> Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.
It's literally the definition of business.
Otherwise they would be charities and non-profits.
How can the capitalist, a single man, who knows that no state can efficiently allocate resources also be as presumptuous as to think that he knows what is best for society?
The capitalist doesn't believe he singlehandedly knows what is best for society. In fact, the capitalist believes he alone can only maximize value to shareholders – but in doing so maximizes value for all since he creates economic prosperity through growth.
He simply genuinely believes allowing the market to operate as close to freely as possible is what generates the greatest amount of prosperity for everyone. The fact that the U.S. is the world's strongest economy by far should be proof enough, but apparently people still prefer to hate success
I am not debating the mechanism of capitalism, its ability to allocate goods and how or whether it creates prosperity. For the record, it seems to me the most natural way for humans to interact with each other.
My point is that to think that one knows what is best for society is similar to thinking that one knows how best to allocate goods. It just isn’t possible to know. Any capitalist will surely agree that value is purely subjective.
But the capitalist doesn't believe he knows how to allocate capital, while the statist does.
The capitalist believes the exact opposite – that he can never claim to be a better planner than "nature itself" so we should admit defeat and let things transpire naturally while we each focus on our individual lives and businesses, which presumably we know how to live or run better than the state.
One of the best arguments against full employment that I have ever encountered was made by the German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, who fought in both of the world wars and died in 1943. His argument was regarding his officers, but it can be readily applied to the population as a whole.
>"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."
Keeping diligent idiots out of the economy by paying them to stay at home would be far more economically beneficial than a drive to bring about full employment.
I don't agree that this is the best way to categorize folks, but I do think it's a good point: I know at least 3 people teaching public school in situations where literally everyone would be better off if they were allowed to retire now instead of in 5 years.
I don't even think it's about keeping idiots out of the economy. I think that there are a lot of harmful incentives like retirement that keep people doing things they don't like, and then they do poorly at them... they aren't idiots because if they were they would just retire. They have an incentive to stick with a dysfunctional position because there isn't an alternative.
I don't think that's a good analogy. Maybe an army can't make use of every type of person (doubtful, in this context) but doubly doubtful in the economy at large where employers need many different kinds of people. Moreover, who is to say the stupid and diligent, to borrow from your quote, wouldn't do worse harm at home left to their devices?
In any event, Japan, in the 80s, was pretty much near full-employment. I don't think many economists or government officials would argue that was "bad". Perhaps industrialists who could not find labor might have thought it was "bad".
Japan throughout the '80s (and still today, though maybe a little less so) has been practicing something fairly close to what I am suggesting, by having a non-job role for the "madogiwa zoku", the window seat tribe.
They may not be paid to stay home, but they are paid to stay the hell out of the way of anything that could affect the smooth running of the business.
The window watchers is an intetesting phenomenon, and you have a point in that in a way it’s like keeping useless employees out of the way. However, I would hesitate to say they are actually useless, but rather the labor market in Japan is such that it’s extremely difficult for a good employable person to “hop” jobs. Once hired out of University, which is the main avenue for hiring for the sarariiman, workers have little chance to change jobs. In that atmosphere and culture, it’s nigh impossible to have your window watchers go out and find a job where they could actually be productive. Many of them (most?) are able and productive but the company has moved on to other things, or refocused, realigned, reorganized and these people get trapped.
It’s so refreshing to actually see someone dealing honestly with the fact that the interests of the capitalist class and the working class are opposed, rather than engaging in ideologies of denial (there is no working class) or misdirection (we are putting these policies in place for your benefit, not ours). You’d never see such honesty today.
This essay also overlooks the problem with the government's ability to efficiently allocate capital, or to do so more efficiently than the market itself does, given that the market is ultimately self-correcting, with few exceptions that we can legislate against.
This essay is largely devoid of academic meaning. It's full of conjectures and extrapolations and lacking any bona fide empirical basis.
Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.