Philosophy Now Forum

Employment versus Full Employment versus Population
As is obvious an economy is essential for the existence of society, providing employment. And a thriving economy may provide full-employment, for all those in a position to work.
But that is mere statistics. It says little of the ethical significance of employment. This has only been stated in part, by saying that Society requires an economy - it leaves open the question of what kind of society is enabled. Also the fact that while employment is implicit, full-employment may merely be an incidental, or it can be made a purpose. The purpose of an economy and employment for the principal forms of society, or consonant with them, illustrates this. Tyranny, as an industrial economy, whether owned by an oligarchy or by an authoritarian 'state', would view people as little more than tools, employing those that are needed leaving others aside to go where they will. Anarchism, the nearer it is to personal autonomy, would tend to distribute economic activity broadly, but with no responsibility for ensuring everyone's welfare. Commerce would not own people in any genuine altruist society, but be a social asset for the purpose of employing everyone capable of work and enabling everyone's welfare.
<>
There is a signal danger where commerce, above the minimum essential, is prioritised over social and environmental concerns. Commerce and industry today can expand remorselessly, so as to 'necessitate' an ever expanding population. Technology is then employed to ameliorate the effects in a spiral of folly. It is indeed the world we have today.

RWStanding wrote:Employment versus Full Employment versus Population
As is obvious an economy is essential for the existence of society, providing employment. And a thriving economy may provide full-employment, for all those in a position to work.
But that is mere statistics. It says little of the ethical significance of employment. This has only been stated in part, by saying that Society requires an economy - it leaves open the question of what kind of society is enabled. Also the fact that while employment is implicit, full-employment may merely be an incidental, or it can be made a purpose. The purpose of an economy and employment for the principal forms of society, or consonant with them, illustrates this. Tyranny, as an industrial economy, whether owned by an oligarchy or by an authoritarian 'state', would view people as little more than tools, employing those that are needed leaving others aside to go where they will. Anarchism, the nearer it is to personal autonomy, would tend to distribute economic activity broadly, but with no responsibility for ensuring everyone's welfare. Commerce would not own people in any genuine altruist society, but be a social asset for the purpose of employing everyone capable of work and enabling everyone's welfare.
<>
There is a signal danger where commerce, above the minimum essential, is prioritised over social and environmental concerns. Commerce and industry today can expand remorselessly, so as to 'necessitate' an ever expanding population. Technology is then employed to ameliorate the effects in a spiral of folly. It is indeed the world we have today.

Today yes, tomorrow no due to robotics and universal basic income. Also some people prefer to take welfare instead of working so full employment is a fantasy.

There's nothing ethical about employment as I've already indicated we're headed towards a jobless economy. That's in the cards.

PhilX

are people content with not working? The whole point of life is to do things that are worthwhile and make life for people. A universal income for all is to say everybody has the right to life survival. Do you think people are satisfied with mere survival? I say on average no.
They would want better lifestyles and better conditions to live. Economy would still thrive if everybody was guaranteed right of survival. In fact you would have more employable people with a right to survival and a right to education for all.

osgart wrote:are people content with not working? The whole point of life is to do things that are worthwhile and make life for people. A universal income for all is to say everybody has the right to life survival. Do you think people are satisfied with mere survival? I say on average no.
They would want better lifestyles and better conditions to live. Economy would still thrive if everybody was guaranteed right of survival. In fact you would have more employable people with a right to survival and a right to education for all.

Life could be a lot richer, as people could more afford to do the sort of jobs they could not afford to do.
For example I spend time in a Sculpture studio. It's hard for the owners to make ends meet, let alone make a profit or a living wage. And yet they provide a fantastic service for people of all ages wishing to learn art.
In the day time they provide a unique service for several old people who would have nothing stimulating to do. All this comes at a price to keep the concern going.
If I had basic income I'd be happy to work for free since it is such a good public service for so many people.

Obviously there would be many who'd just vegetate in from of the TV all day - let them! Others could get on with the job of enriching the world with jobs that whilst have little financial rewards enrich society in many other ways.

osgart wrote:are people content with not working? The whole point of life is to do things that are worthwhile and make life for people. A universal income for all is to say everybody has the right to life survival. Do you think people are satisfied with mere survival? I say on average no.
They would want better lifestyles and better conditions to live. Economy would still thrive if everybody was guaranteed right of survival. In fact you would have more employable people with a right to survival and a right to education for all.

Have you heard of retirement? With noncompulsory retirement, people do like that which answers your first question. If you were retired on say $3,000 a month and saw your income drop to $1,280 a month under Universal Basic Income, I don't think you'd be too happy about it.

PhilX

'Employment' means paid to work, right?

Throng wrote:'Employment' means paid to work, right?

It could, but not necessarily.

PhilX