In many ways I think the industrial revolution has made us forget a very important historical fact. Prior to industrialization, "labor" was often little more than serfdom. "Labor" in the purest sense didn't own anything, but was simply a necessary component for the wealth-producing activities of those who did. Laborers only had one economic move: to offer their time and hands in the service of those who owned things (land, a shop, a ship, etc) in return for a wage. That wage, effectively their value as laborers, was determined by the law of supply and demand. All the industrial revolution did was to vastly increase the demand for labor.
However, the ancient fact that one's existence as more than a serf required ownership of something did not change. The living standards of serfs simply improved dramatically. Those living standards still depended on the demand for labor being high and/or the supply low.
When technology reduces the demand for labor, while the supply increases due to population growth, it's easy to think that the economic sky is falling. But since none of us have lived in a pre-industrial revolution era, we are accustomed to thinking of wage-earning labor as an economic strategy that is more common than ownership of property, and just as valid. But historically it has been a specialized and risky economic strategy, and as the demand for labor-intensive physical products decreases it should not be surprising if those who are dependent on this economic strategy suffer. It may be tragic, but it's certainly not a new tragedy.
If you want long term economic security, own something.
> If you want long term economic security, own something.
Ah, let me commend you on your effective and nuanced translation of the French original, "Le peuple n'a pas de pain ? Qu'il mange de la brioche." Very idiomatic.
>> If you want long term economic security, own something.
So your solution is to tell labor that they should turn into capital? That is what you tell the millions of people who will be unable to find a job that pays a living wage?
> So your solution is to tell labor that they should turn into capital?
Progressive automation, it is at least arguable, makes that an essential part of any long-term solution. Labor as the key to income for the vast majority of the population may well not be a long-term viable option.
Of course, arguably, basic income / negative income tax is just an incredibly way of turning everyone into (at least, in part) capitalist living off what they own; what you own is a dividend-producing share of the commons. At a minimum, its a way of reducing the need to engage in wage labor to meet survival needs, and increasing the ability to direct efforts towards becoming a capitalist.
A solution would propose a "how to"; I did not. I am merely pointing out a long term historical trend. If a person makes their living based on selling their time and specialized skills in exchange for money (as I currently do), there is no one size fits all strategy to take a wage earner and turn them into an owner that will work for everyone.
Labor is a market like any other. If it's too crowded and competitive, it's best to consider other options.
> If you want long term economic security, own something
Couldn't agree more. Thinking that the only means to an income or wealth is labor a very limiting point of view. I'm optimistic about the trends toward entrepreneurialism and ownership, especially in technology. I think this is good for the economy and society overall.
If you don't already have wealth, then the only means to an income or wealth is labor. The view that you must be trading that labor instead of investing it directly in creation is potentially limiting (and is, I think, what you're actually seeing and objecting to).
We are presently in a situation where our particular skills (which, incidentally, society has poured some resources into developing) are capable of creating things worth owning more efficiently than it can be automated. That is outstanding, but it's not necessarily sustainable.
If labor can't produce value, then people need to start out with something else.
Well yes, giving the proletariat ownership of the means of production would obviously solve the problem. How exactly do you expect that to happen, short of a nasty and probably quite bloody revolution?
Self-employment is notoriously difficult when you neither have in-demand skills nor the luxury of spending time to learn them because the work you can get is back-breaking.
However, the ancient fact that one's existence as more than a serf required ownership of something did not change. The living standards of serfs simply improved dramatically. Those living standards still depended on the demand for labor being high and/or the supply low.
When technology reduces the demand for labor, while the supply increases due to population growth, it's easy to think that the economic sky is falling. But since none of us have lived in a pre-industrial revolution era, we are accustomed to thinking of wage-earning labor as an economic strategy that is more common than ownership of property, and just as valid. But historically it has been a specialized and risky economic strategy, and as the demand for labor-intensive physical products decreases it should not be surprising if those who are dependent on this economic strategy suffer. It may be tragic, but it's certainly not a new tragedy.
If you want long term economic security, own something.