Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

Site is not available

One of the best arguments against full employment that I have ever encountered was made by the German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, who fought in both of the world wars and died in 1943. His argument was regarding his officers, but it can be readily applied to the population as a whole.

>"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."

Keeping diligent idiots out of the economy by paying them to stay at home would be far more economically beneficial than a drive to bring about full employment.

Employment isn't the end goal. What we want is to provide people with the access to goods and services, and employment is a good proxy that is easier to optimize for. Also, for what it's worth, we already live in an age of full* employment in the U.S. and so far we're yet to see that the "maintenance of full employment [causes] social and political changes which [gives] a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders".

This essay also overlooks the problem with the government's ability to efficiently allocate capital, or to do so more efficiently than the market itself does, given that the market is ultimately self-correcting, with few exceptions that we can legislate against.

This essay is largely devoid of academic meaning. It's full of conjectures and extrapolations and lacking any bona fide empirical basis.

Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.

> Employment isn't the end goal.

I'm glad to see you write that; it's an uncommon and unpopular view, despite the fact that really many people -- perhaps most -- would love to be liberated from a requirement to perform what fits into the social definition of "work".

Yet in a modern economy "work" fills several roles: access to resources of course (i.e. paycheck) but social ties and perhaps most importantly social status. This latter in particular is a modern invention of the Industrial Age yet, as people's lifespans are shorter than the epochs, it is assumed to be part of the natural order of things.

We can hope that in a future roboticised world where the marginal cost of production approaches nil, that the idea that your "job" determines your status can fade away.

Interestingly, the Soviet Union aimed and likely achieved full employment. Unemployment was actually a criminal offence.