Archive for the ‘Employment’ Category

The progress of a civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase

October 18, 2007

The progress of a civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase.

It is because we have become increasingly wealthy as a nation that we have been able virtually to eliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work for many of the aged and to make it unnecessary for millions of women to take jobs.

Politicians are always asking, “How do we legislate to have Full Employment in the next ten years?”  Wrong question.  The real question is not how many millions of jobs will there will be ten years from now, but how much shall we produce, and what, in consequence, will be our standard of living?  The problem of distribution, on which all the stress is being put today, is after all more easily solved the more there is to distribute.

Focus on maximizing production; employment will follow.

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

The Most Persistent of all Economic Delusions is the Belief that Machines Create Unemployment

August 14, 2007

“Among the most persistent of all economic delusions is the belief that machines on net balance create unemployment.

The belief that machines cause unemployment leads to preposterous conclusions. Every technological improvement must cause unemployment. The logical conclusion would be that the way to maximize jobs is to make all labor as inefficient and unproductive as possible.

Let us see exactly what happens when technological and labor-saving machinery is introduced.

Example: a clothing manufacturer learns of a machine that will make men’s and women’s overcoats for half as much labor as previously. He installs the machines and drops half his labor force.

This looks at first glance like a clear loss of employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed.

It is likely the labor employed to build the machines is less than the labor cut by the manufacturer. So there is still a net loss of employment to be accounted for.

The machine was a large investment, so it takes several years for the machine to pay for itself. After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before.

The manufacturer must use these extra profits in at least one of three ways:

  1. He will use the extra profits to expand his operations by buying more machines to make more overcoats; or
  2. He will invest the extra profits in some other industry; or
  3. He will spend the extra profits on buying things for himself, e.g. buy a new house or a new car.

Whichever of these three courses he takes, he will increase employment.

The manufacturer, as a result of improved production has profits that he did not have before. Every dollar of the amount he has saved in direct wages to former overcoat-makers, he now is able to pay out in indirect wages to the makers of the new machines, or workers in another industry, or to the makers of a new house or car. In any case, he gives indirectly as many jobs as he ceased to give directly.

But the matter does not rest at this stage. The manufacturer competes with others. Due to competition the price of overcoats drops. The savings are passed along to the consumers. The consumers now have more money to spend on other things, which results in more employment.

In brief, on net balance machines, technological improvements, automation, economies and efficiency do not throw men out of work.

The central lesson is that we should try to see all the consequences of any economic policy – the immediate effects on special groups, and the long-run effects on all groups.”

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

P.S. It is fascinating to see how interconnected things are, how a change has an effect that ripples outward to things that you cannot anticipate, i.e. unanticipated consequences.