The only reason that things like company loyalty and morale and doing meaningful work seem like life-threatening problems is because ACTUAL life-threatening problems - food, shelter, safety - have largely been solved [1].
So perhaps the solution is to have them spend a few months living in Darfur, and then see if they still complain about their 'stressful' office jobs. In other words, perspective - No matter how crappy your job seems, you're still doing better than approx. 99% of all humans who have ever lived.
[1] - Obviously poverty and hunger still exist even industrialized countries. But probably not for the people complaining about their jobs.
Are there enough jobs in the world for a population of 6 billion?
This is usually answered by pointing backwards and seeing that previous times of technological disruption were followed by new jobs in new industries as people demanded new kinds of goods and services in the new economy.
But at some point, does our capacity to increase our consumption in order to demand the same amount of labor with exponentially growing productivity reach a breaking point? Farm equipment almost operates itself. Self service technology keeps expanding its scope. Factories become ever more automated.
One thing that has been going on for a while now, is stock prices and profits continuing to increase in the face of massive unemployment and negative wage growth. How else to interpret that but that corporations can continue to increase production without increasing headcount? Or, more likely, reducing head count without decreasing production.
This is all very vague and anecdotal, but it seems to me that economic production is starting to become decoupled from labor and wages. Can anyone point out what it is that I'm missing?
7 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 32.7 ms ] threadSo perhaps the solution is to have them spend a few months living in Darfur, and then see if they still complain about their 'stressful' office jobs. In other words, perspective - No matter how crappy your job seems, you're still doing better than approx. 99% of all humans who have ever lived.
[1] - Obviously poverty and hunger still exist even industrialized countries. But probably not for the people complaining about their jobs.
This is usually answered by pointing backwards and seeing that previous times of technological disruption were followed by new jobs in new industries as people demanded new kinds of goods and services in the new economy.
But at some point, does our capacity to increase our consumption in order to demand the same amount of labor with exponentially growing productivity reach a breaking point? Farm equipment almost operates itself. Self service technology keeps expanding its scope. Factories become ever more automated.
One thing that has been going on for a while now, is stock prices and profits continuing to increase in the face of massive unemployment and negative wage growth. How else to interpret that but that corporations can continue to increase production without increasing headcount? Or, more likely, reducing head count without decreasing production.
This is all very vague and anecdotal, but it seems to me that economic production is starting to become decoupled from labor and wages. Can anyone point out what it is that I'm missing?
Jobs aren't a finite resource, they just consist of people doing enough things to convince people to let them get to enough of the food and shelter.
The threshold most people place on the difference between having a job and not is usually around "I have enough to eat, and a place to sleep".
Or was your question, will there be enough food that's possible to grow on earth to feed everyone? Some ted talks I've listened to say no.