/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

this would have died anyway

>>1404187
rude

>>1404215
it is the truth

>>1404223
oh you mean the ITO provision. for some reason I thought you meant the thread.

>>1404225
yeah the ito provision lol

>>1404223
in either case, I do find this interesting as a "mask off" moment where porky admitted he's not actually Le Benevolent Job Creator, and doesn't actually wish to see everyone employed, and does in fact wish to see a large portion of the population in the reserve army of labor, precisely as Marx said.

>>1404227
They've always done this stuff before anon

>>1404239
yeah, they do stuff, but how often do they openly admit that they need the reserve army of labor? Their default propaganda mode is to pretend they want 100% employment but that the dirty proles just don't want to work. This rejection of the ITO charter was open proof against that.

100% employment is not achievable, not even in a socialist economy. read queue theory

>>1404185
For me it's peak socdem in the sense of le mixed economy

>>1404185
Man, imagine being a Keynesian and simping for capitalism so hard you make proposals to stabilize it and they just call you a commie.

>>1404468
Which queue thery? The one I find is on telephony or task processing in line. How did you derive conclusion on employement from it?

>>1404499
Keyenesians upset me more than lolberts tbh

>>1404525
Understandable but well I don't want to spoil it read Capital then look into Keynes it's amusing

>>1404528
lolbotarians are funny because you can make an argument for universal basic income owed by the theft of common land and they'll either twist themselves into pretzels or just agree with it

>>1404468
USSR literally had 100% employment since like the early 30s.

Lmao Keynesian invasion. Back to Jaglowbin!

It would not make a difference in the end since automation would gradually weaken the bargaining strength of labor.

>>1404468
100% employment among all eligible, healthy, and able-bodied adults is achievable. the only counter-argument I ever hear to this is "what about babies, children, people with cancer, retired people, and seriously disabled people?" They obviously wouldn't have to work or would work in a limited capacity. "100% employment" doesn't mean literally put babies in coal mines. It means make sure that everyone who can work is gainfully employed and not desperately looking for a job. Because that process, looking for a job, is what creates opportunities for capitalists to build up a larger and larger reserve army of labor, since the reserve army of labor is comprised of those proletarians who are desperate for a job and willing to scab, work for less, etc.

Higher employment creates more organizing opportunities. As does lower rates of imprisonment, since, in places like the USA, convict labor is a huge source of driving down domestic wages (along with undocumented migrant labor, documented migrant labor, outsourcing, and automation).

>>1404578
>automation would gradually weaken the bargaining strength of labor.
You could put safeguards in place to ensure that people put out of work by automation are immediately placed in training programs to perform new or adjacent jobs to the automation. All automated systems require maintenance, updates, etc. Organizations should pay for the re-training of so-called "unskilled" labor displaced by automation instead of throwing them back into the labor market where their desperation will drive down wages further.

>>1404520
it's part of CS curriculum at least. you want some amount of queueing or else your assignment of jobs will almost certainly be suboptimal
>>1404570
it takes non-zero time to reassign workers.
for sure you can strive for having very low unemployment among people who can work, and you can certainly reach zero unemployment on paper, but you cannot reach zero in reality, nor is it even desirable. there is always some slack. slack is good
>>1404952
sure some people can't work and we need to exclude those from the statistics. I don't see the point of bringing up dumb shit in capitalism, we already know it sucks
>"100% employment" doesn't mean literally put babies in coal mines
fucking lazy babies. also there is nothing wrong with child labour, read Gothakritik. every human society puts children to work. large parts of the world have children in these forced labour camps called schools.

>>1405060
>also there is nothing wrong with child labour, read Gothakritik
>every human society puts children to work. large parts of the world have children in these forced labour camps called schools.

anon… there's a big difference between putting children in a learning/social environment like a school and putting children in the farms, factories, mines, and slaughterhouses before they've received an education, especially when that child labor is to provide them with means of subsistence that they wouldn't otherwise have access to.

>>1405060
Gotha critique was based on Marx's pragmatism for that specific period. Weak bait, but made me reply 2/10

>>1405060
>it's part of CS curriculum at least. you want some amount of queueing or else your assignment of jobs will almost certainly be suboptimal
Ok, it deals with queue length and number of "servers" and optionality is what? Less idle time for the server? The work place is not always an energy consuming thing like a server. Even if so, the "packets" - the workers, do not come in randomly.

>>1405060
>it takes non-zero time to reassign workers.
>for sure you can strive for having very low unemployment among people who can work, and you can certainly reach zero unemployment on paper, but you cannot reach zero in reality, nor is it even desirable. there is always some slack. slack is good
Ok but instead of hyper fixating on how literal we should take "100% employment," we should focus on what OP is pointing out, which is that the capitalist class has openly confessed to being against minimizing unemployment, which runs contrary to their "job creators vs. lazy proles" propaganda narrative