ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Which is why the old fashioned capitalism so beloved of neoliberals wants to undo the gains of the many.
More than a fifth of UK adults not looking for work
- Thread starter hifinutt
- Start date
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
However, it isn’t capitalism that has the agency, it’s the tiny group.
Social democracy made that tiny group more inclusive and distributed resources somewhat more equitable for a short time.
We are now slowly making it more and more exclusive again.
No, I'm not talking exclusively about the UK, and nor were you. You were the one talking about the USA and Germany operating a full employment strategy either side of WW2. I'm extending this reasoning to your point about a job guarantee. We know we don't have this in the UK. We know none of the UK parties propose it, so it goes without saying that we don't have it here, nor are we likely to. So who does? Anyone? Any trials?
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Sorry, Not sure what you mean by ‘my point about a JG’. My only point is that it would provide a better economy and tackle inflation, a point I have tried to reason with evidence from history and from economic models. Not sure what it is you disagree about here?
The New Deal was a job guarantee, and that was a pretty substantial trial. However, that was in the past. The video I provided modelled how it could work in the future. If your point is that there is nowhere in the here and now using a JG, then, yes, you are probably correct.
PS There have been a number of trials in universities in the US and Aus modelling different economic systems, a couple that have created their own currency that after extensive use and testing, works much as any currency should, without inflation or involuntary exclusion
Yes, if you're a low paid gig economy worker then that side hustle doesn't have to pay much to keep you out of the job market.
gez
pfm Member
Sorry to state the damn obvious, but the reason unemployment was so low after WW2 is because the UK (as well as most other european countries) had lost a large proportion of the male population to the war. For the same reason you'll see violent crime statistics take a nose dive after the war too. There were less men in the population directly after the war. It has nothing to do with any economic or political policies.Unemployment in this sense explicitly means involuntary unemployment, and what is counted and what is not counted is as much a political decision then as now. Obviously no one is talking in absolute terms but about politics and policies whose motives are directed towards full employment, or away from it.
Not sure what a one size fit all solution is, but we had much lower unemployment after WW2
Investment in a job guarantee that provides a job for everyone who wants one on a decent wage with holiday pay and pension entitlements would go a long way to creating a more stable economy that is more capable of supporting those who cannot work due to disability and care commitments etc.
laughingboy
pfm Member
I'm not buying that. The UK (including Crown Colonies) lost 450,000 in WWII (source). That's less than 1% of the 47.5m population in 1939 (source).
Losses in WW1 were almost twice as high (source) from a population of 45.5m (source). But unemployment after WWI was much higher than after WWII (Wikipedia).
Cav
pfm Member
It is simply wrong to use what happened after a global war as proof of any theory of full employment - which means everyone who wants to work has a real opportunity to do so.
The obvious question is why did full employment not continue once rebuilding (in all its meanings) had been achieved?
The obvious question is why did full employment not continue once rebuilding (in all its meanings) had been achieved?
gez
pfm Member
This, to imply a post war (especially a global one) period is an indication of anything that relates to nomal peace time economics is just naive in the extreme. It's akin to comparing the housing/employment situation after a large natural disaster with tens of thousands of displaced people, with a time when people have lived/worked in a safe environment all their lives.
WWI was fought exclusively on the battlefield, it had no significant material impact on the infrastructure of any of the countries involved. WWII was an all out no limits war which impacted every aspect of life to a huge extent in the countries involved. Huge infrastucture damage took place, which needed to be rebuilt. There is simply no comparison between the two bar the fact that they were both wars.
laughingboy
pfm Member
laughingboy
pfm Member
Also, 'huge infrastructure damage' took place in Europe and Japan. Not in the US. So, your argument that 'rebuilding' had anything to do with historically low post-war unemployment does not seem to apply to the US. And yet, we see comparatively low post-war unemployment there, too.
Compare 1945-1970 (averaging around 4-5%, never above 7%) with the years after (averaging around 6%, sometimes exceeding 9%).
On the face of it, this argument you are putting forward doesn't appear to be supported by the facts.
gez
pfm Member
The US figures are at least twice as high as the UKs. The UK remained at 2% or lower, up until 1969, whereas the US jumped straight up to 4% and essentially stayed there or was as high as 6% over the same period. So your comparison as well as argument as to why is inaccurate.Also, 'huge infrastructure damage' took place in Europe and Japan. Not in the US. So, your argument that 'rebuilding' had anything to do with historically low post-war unemployment does not seem to apply to the US. And yet, we see comparatively low post-war unemployment there, too.
Compare 1945-1970 (averaging around 4-5%, never above 7%) with the years after (averaging around 6%, sometimes exceeding 9%).
On the face of it, this argument you are putting forward doesn't appear to be supported by the facts.
Depending on who's figures you believe or how it's counted 4-6% unemployment is nothing special. We had it in the UK in the mid/late 70's, from the late 90s through the early 00's and again from the late 2010's till now.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
No one is using global wars as proof of a theory. It is economic recession and how to get out of it that is being discussed. We have two ways of getting out of a recession; one says we can spend our way out of recession, the other advocates austerity. The US adopted the Keynesian approach before WW2 and it brought down unemployment. The UK did not adopt keynesian policies until after the war when the recession was tackled and the Welfare State created.
The effect of government policy without the war can be seen in the US, where unemployment did not start to fall until after the labor programme was introduced as part of the New Deal
It is clear that unemployment is tackled by investment irrespective of the War in the US
In the UK, where similar thinking was not applied until after the war, unemployment did not come down until after the war. But the point is that unemployment stayed relatively low for several decades until there was a change of approach to employment in the 70’s.
unemployment (and now underemployment) is one of the tools of government policy.
Last edited:
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
The UK unemployment figures were massaged under Thatcher by using different measures. If the same measures were applied, the unemployment figures would be 3x higher.
The idea that unemployment is unaffected by government policy is unsustainable. It is a central tool of policy.
Unemployment is not “natural” as claimed by the right wing, it can and should be tackled by policy changes for both moral and sound economic reasoning.
Unemployment three times higher than figures suggest as economic inactivity deepens regional divides - Centre for Cities
The UK’s seemingly record-low unemployment figures mask a hidden army of more than three million working-aged people that are involuntarily economically inactive.
www.centreforcities.org
Enfield boy
pfm Member
Don't know if you've watched this film, I found it shocking and shows how far power seeks to disenfranchise people of colour.
laughingboy
pfm Member
Let's recap. You argued that post-war employment was predicated on two factors: 1/ labour shortages after WW2 and 2/ 'rebuilding'. And 3/ unless I misunderstood, you argued that economic and political policies had nothing to do with post-war employment. I argued that
1/ the first looked unlikely, as the same effect did not take place after WW1 when deaths were worse, both as a proportion of population and in absolute numbers.
2/ the second looked unlikely because the US showed the same pattern of low unemployment between 1945-1970 and higher unemployment after. (Note: I made no claim about the absolute numbers in the US vs. the UK. Just the pattern. For all I know, unemployment in the US may be counted in a different way to the UK. Comparison of absolute numbers would be unwise.)
3/ it is simplistic to ignore economic and social policies.
The third point is an argument to keep an open mind. And the first two are observable facts, are they not?
sean99
pfm Member
Congratulations .... but beware the difficulty of re-entering the workforce later on. My wife (RF design engineer) stayed home with our daughter (learning disabled - childcare /after school would not have worked), and 18 years later her CV was so ancient she would have had to go back to college or take a minimum wage job. It was only via a tremendously lucky accident that I found her a software job with a former customer of mine - who trusted my judgement of her, and wanted some of my knowledge via proxy.
When she originally decided to stay home with our daughter we knew it wasn't a big financial hit at the time due to the cost of childcare, second cars, higher marginal tax rate etc. However we had not foreseen the potential huge loss of lifetime earnings due to not being able to re-enter the same career 10+ years later. Plus it put significant pressure on our marriage since I was the sole earner and the cost of living in a good school catchment was high. It's all worked out in the end, for which I'm extremely grateful, and I don't know that we could / would have done anything differently, but - beware. A 10-20 year gap on your CV can be career suicide (depending on your field).
sean99
pfm Member
Many companies now use automated CV / resume tracking systems, and if the format of your CV is not correct you could get dropped based on that alone. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/resumes-cover-letters/ats-resume-template