I just thought about this:

Using modern technology, lots of work can be done by less people than fifty years ago, e.g. a state-of-the-art car assembly line which once was run by thousands of workers can now be operated by ten people. The other thousands of people can consider themselves lucky since they've got lots of time to spare now.

But: In the current economic system, those who don't need to (or: can't) work anymore, e.g. due to having been replaced by a machine, don't have any money to spare.

The less money there is to spare, the less people buy (duh? Did I have to write that?).

The less people buy, the worse it is for business.

Therefore, paid jobs need to be created. As most useful jobs can be automated, useless jobs have to be created.

"outward bound" call center-jobs are one of these: I did not meet anyone who likes to be called by these guys and gals yet. I did not meet an outward-bound call center-agent who liked to do his job either.


well ... this seems to be one out of many problems of current economics - Instead of giving people what they need (need, not think they need), people are forced to do senseless stuff for low wages...

 

 

 

Reply

well, it depends on whose viewpoint you are looking at from, to say that kind of work ("outward bound" call-center jobs) is useless. for the business owners who hire the workers, it is their marketing strategy to profit more from their enterprise by "pestering" their "clients" in their database and bombarding them with their products and service offers. for the call center agents, who does the call, it is a job which they choose to accept moreso because it pays better than other jobs, even if it is not their actual line of work based from their college/university course.

but i understand the sentiment of your post. for the millions of so-called "clients" who randomly receive such calls and get swayed to purchase what they don't actually need in the first place, we are more or less bound to think that such "losers" can be more productive in another line of work.

but still, these "losers" are also "buyers" and helps business in general. they tend to have more spending power more than others, and they "help" circulate the money they earn from their jobs making the economy more robust and active.

thinking about that, what really is "useless work"? and another, if the economy needs to change, into "what kind" actually does it need to change into?

 

 

 

Reply

I doubt that all of the call center-agents choose this job on their own, free will; at least not in Germany where the social system was reformed to cut into the freedom of people requiring the state to help. It's still possible to get welfare cheques (checks?) but what people on welfare get is too little to live but too much to die and they are offered work from a federal agency. If they refuse to accept an "acceptable job", there welfare payments can be cut. If they refuse thrice, they can be kicked out of the welfare system completely, i.e. they don't get any money from the state anymore (thanks to Red Help and other associations supporting people regardless of what jobs they accept and which not...).

I understand and accept that the definition of "useless" work can not be done in a matter which makes everyone agree and yes, if anyone else in here had made an attempt of describing useless work, I would have disagreed...

In my opinion, the economic system should change into one where people don't need to work to be able to live but to work because they want to (well, if noone wants to clean the streets, noone should be able to complain about dirty streets. If everyone wants clean streets, they can share the work. If anyone wants to call someone to offer them someone else's work ... they can do so [if _they_ want to, not if their boss wants them to. And there should be a file of people who don't want to be called which can be checked _before_ the call is done, there are reports of cases in which the number which was called is compared to a "don't call me"-list after the person has been called...]

Reply

well, now you mention welfare checks and state involvement. it's a good thing that germany has that in place, and it just makes me imagine other countries which doesn't have welfare checks for its unemployed citizens, much more the resources to feed its people and not slide down into widespread famine.

now that state involvement and welfare checks are in discussion, alongside freedom to accept or refuse work given them by the state, german people are still lucky in my opinion. the state with its mandate to help provide employment for its citizens has the same right to "kick" its citizens out of its welfare system when help they offer (in terms of work) obviously is not wanted after three times. as opposed to welfare, work provided by the state would be much more economically-productive for a person. how much is state welfare anyway? as you've said, it's too little to live. hence, we must draw here the line between "want" versus "need". if a person needs something to give him MORE than what state welfare can offer, then he should at least consider state-sponsored work -- which i would suppose in germany, can aid a person -- enough to live. but then again, freedom to accept or refuse is still a citizen's right. and he should not take it against the state if it means living without state welfare after three times (reasonable enough times, i would think) a job has been offered him by the state. again, i'd say germans are lucky enough they can exercise that freedom to refuse state help these days. and the more lucky they are that there are organizations which can help them afterwards.

work entails production of something in return for something. welfare entails what -- something for nothing? in an economic sense, what keeps government and its citizens and the economy constantly moving? work versus welfare. you tell us.

in your economic system, i can only envision it for a small group of people who of their own volition would have the same outlook. at least they will have nothing to point fingers at but themselves, as in your example, if they have dirty streets. in this case, there won't be the state to blame, since they themselves decreed it as their way of life. but bringing in state involvement in this case, it's like saying "if we screwed up, we need someone else to blame other than us."

it's easy to say that one need not work to be able to live, but work because one wants to. unless of course if one inherits a large sum of money to tide him more than his wants and needs would there ever be in his lifetime. but on state welfare? well, i'd say if one wants to live, with the ability to satisfy one's other wants and needs, then it should be paramount that one would want to work. to sum it up, a useless work for one, is a useful work for another. if he doesn't need to work, it's like giving up on his own life then.

Reply