JohnDonne wrote:
I do not buy that it is an either/or scenario. One can be both for investing in and upgrading the skills of the menial laborer and holding off the inevitable onslaught of automation as long as possible to allow a smoother transition of those workers from unskilled to skilled. Yes I would rather our economy be based on skilled labor than neo-ludditism, but in the very possible event that society decides not to invest in these programs, or they are not sufficient, I would prefer seeing make-work to mass unemployment. I understand this defies the free-market principle but I don't care about any of that.
And I actually do think there is a world of difference between a menial low paying job and no job. If you ask the people that would otherwise be unemployed they will tell you the same.
I don't advocate an either/or position in regards to the transitional period, either. Nor am I a "the business owners is always right" kinda guy. I simply don't see that make-work program as a
solution to unemployment or the smooth transition part. I see it as a stall. A bad stall, because you're supposed to stall something because you, at least, have
some solution or possible solution you need time to realize. "Free market" advocates usually just use the term as code speak for "Getting big, fat government to make rules that exclusively benefit
our business interests". If free markets were free, it would be as free for the seller of labor services as it was free for the buyer of labor services. Without strong unions, your interests as an employee can only be protected by a distant government, who for the most part get their money from the donations by the guys who you work for, anyway.
Fame is not flattery. Respect is not agreement.