[surfmike]

There seem to be two contradictory narratives: one, that rich Western societies are aging and need to make up for a big shortage of workers; and two, that automation has killed and will kill millions of jobs. Probably both trends are true, but each one pulls in the opposite direction for the demand for labor.

Maybe things aren't as bad as people fear on either side.

[hiram112]

It's more like two opposing narrators:

1. Employers: we need more immigration, not enough workers (willing to work for the shitty wages I want to pay).

2. Workers: automation is kill all the jobs (that pay well, but require few skills).

[ufjvuc]

What if the workers just owned the means of production and there was an adequate safety net?

[petre]

In the Eastern Block you had those two conditions checked and it didn't quite work out. This works in agriculture to some extent, but that's sector where automation already displaced most jobs and it will continue to do so.

[forapurpose]

> In the Eastern Block you had those two conditions checked and it didn't quite work out.

The workers did not control the assets, unelected totalitarian dictators did, despite endless propaganda to the contrary.

I'm not saying the idea works, but the Eastern Block was not a test of it.

[pandaman]

In theory the workers did not have full control over the means of production because they could not sell them or destroy them but as far as using them - there was no dictator standing next to every lathe or tractor and telling them what to do. This mainly resulted in people stealing shit from their workplaces though. Few Russian sayings from that period:

Все вокруг колхозное, все вокруг мое (Everything around me belongs to the collective farm, everything is mine)

Тащи с работы каждый гвоздь, ты здесь хозяин, а не гость (Steal every last nail from work, you are the master here, not a guest).

[ufufgztdjfydyx]

Why would people steal from work if their basic needs were provided for and they felt the rules in place were legitimate?

[aoeuasdf1]

How do you suggest accomplishing a massive redistribution of wealth without a state ("dictatorship of the proletariat")?

If owning & profiting from capital is impossible, what incentive is there to produce capital - it will just get seized. Where's the marketplace for capital, or does the state have a monopsony on capital purchases?

[petre]

My poiny exactly. Giving too much power to the state would only turn it into a dictatorship (even if it's a tax dictatorship) for the ones in power will eventually sieze that power for themselves.

Shared ownership of production means is possible w/o a nanny state if the shareholders of a private company are also it's employees. But that doesn't really work well in practice, otherwise we would have cooperatives comparable to Apple, Google, VW or Samsung in terms of market value. I haven't seen any.

The safety net you're talking about could be group insurance policies negotiated by the said company. But why do this, when the same company could automate and greatly reduce expenses with insurance and health benefits paid to human workers? The purpose of a company is to maximize the profit for it's shareholders (by creating market value), as opposed to being a benefactor for it's employees. Of course, we also have a social responsability component but that's only because few people would work for an organization that would rip them off.

[aoeuasdf1]

A co-op has no way to raise capital and expand quickly. They have to create the capital themselves by being profitable, or by reaching into their own pockets.

[theseatoms]

Economic equilibrium does tend to render most of those types of extrapolative predictions moot.

[Tsagadai]

Nothing in economic history has ever indicated that economics is equilibrium seeking. Capitalism is all about growth and equilibrium is stagnation.

[derping69]

Because the goal of mass immigration of unskilled workers isn't what's best for the country, its to bring in people who will be reliant on the government and thus always vote for more government, thus further consolidating power. Also has the benefit of driving wages down resulting in more natives being reliant on government.

If we really needed more workers why wouldn't we incentivize our own citizens to have kids instead of spending that money on refugees and immigrants?

[sumedh]

> why wouldn't we incentivize our own citizens to have kids

I am assuming by "incentivize" you meaning tax payer funded policies so are you ready to pay more taxes?

If you are ready to pay more taxes but what about people who dont want kids.

[mc32]

Singapore, a multicultural society, has a pretty progressive baby bonus[1], among other countries. They think that's what works best for their society. They could import labor, but they prefer do it their way. It seems to work for them.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus

[surfmike]

Their baby bonus also does not work, they have one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

[StudyAnimal]

No it's bad for society. Kids cost money, immigrants earn money. Penalize breeding, encourage immigration.

[derping69]

Will those uneducated immigrants earn money when they are no longer needed due to automation? If you have to pay to educate them anyway why not just have your population have kids instead of importing?

[StudyAnimal]

The uneducated ones we need to fill the jobs that educated locals won't do and won't be automated in their lifetimes. But a lot of them are educated and we need them too.

[derping69]

That's my point, incentivize our own citizens to have kids using the money that would otherwise be spent on immigrants. Preferably you would make it a tax cut so that middle class would have kids.

[StudyAnimal]

Why encourage more population growth? To me it's natural that some more developed societies have less children, and other less developed societies have more, encouraging immigration is a win win without increasing the total population.