On August 19, 1964, the then US President Lyndon B. Johnson established the – National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress. He established the Commission in response to growing concern during the deep 1960-61 recession that the unemployment had been created by the pace of technological change. Ring a bell! He wanted to an inquiry to explore this issue and come up with recommendations on how to deal with the possibility that automation was wiping out jobs and the future would be bleak. Before the Commission had reported, the Federal government had reversed its fiscal austerity and the resulting stimulus had driven the unemployment back down to relatively low levels. The Commission noted that unemployment was largely the result of inadequate total spending and that the Government had the tools at its disposal to eliminate it. They considered that there would be workers (low-skill etc) who would suffer more displacement from technology than those with more skill etc, but that ultimately even those workers would be able to get jobs if the public deficit was large enough. In this regard, they eschewed pointless training programs that did not provide immediate access to jobs. Instead, they recommended (among other things) the introduction of a Job Guarantee (Public Service Employment) financed by the Federal government but administered at all levels of government. It would pay the Federal minimum wage and be available on demand. This is the preferred Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) approach and rejects solutions that rely on the provision of a basic income guarantee to resolve the problems created by unemployment.
Technological innovation has often been disruptive historically, but the disruption has always proved temporary, and progress ensued. The problem is not technological innovation. Evolution always brings new challenges along with new opportunities. The primary challenge is to adapt to change. Standing in the way of change is seldom successful.
The currency-issuing government has the responsibility of maintaining aggregate spending at a level sufficient to generate sufficient jobs overall.
This level changes as the pace of labour force growth and productivity changes. But the fact remains – the government can always purchase anything that is for sale in the currency it issues, including all idle labour.
There is never a reason for persistent mass unemployment. Mass unemployment is a political choice not a financial necessity.
This doesn't imply that technological innovation is not disruptive. It may be disruptive to those that lose their jobs, or are otherwise affected, such as new industries being born (tires) and old ones shuttered (blacksmiths, horseshoes, and horseshoe nails). There was huge disruption in customary employment as a result of the transition from the agricultural age that centered on farming to the industrial age that centered on manufacturing. We can anticipate something similar in the transition from the industrial (analog) age to the information (digital) age. For example, if leisure increases as a result of disruptive technology, so will work in areas that serve it. People won't just sit around — as long as they can afford to do something of interest.
A currency issuing government has the ability to address change in a timely way so as to minimize the effects of disruptive innovation by maintaining full employment and keeping the economy on track. It's a matter of maintaining demand so resources that technological innovation and increased productivity make available are not idled owing to lack of demand.
A currency issuer is capable of addressing this by maintaining the flow of money at the level of effective demand commensurate with supply at full employment to the degree that the private sector does not. In this sense, government uses its "power of the purse" to act as a buffer against unemployment.
Technological innovation increases the potential for prosperity and also leisure. Managing the transition involves political decisions along with a correct understanding of economics and government finance. Then it is a distribution issue
Distribution is a political issue with respect to who wins and who loses, rather than just an economic one. Currently, this is where the problem can be traced. Its' a matter of ignorance about economics and government finance, but also involves ideology heavily.
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Automation and full employment – back to the 1960sBill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
