Full employment

Socialism will presumably have full employment which I am of course in favor of, however I have a question on how to deal with the creation of new industries. Under capitalism there's the reserve army of labor which can fill the void quickly if labor is needed (assuming the labor is unskilled anyway) however with full employment if there are new jobs to be done then other than forcing people to change jobs how can we effectively fill in these new jobs?

Attached: 1556534471879.png (1900x1200, 83K)

Oh and how have socialist states dealt with this in the past

you could try emailing north korea

[email protected]
[email protected]

An industrial army draft. All citizens will serve an X year period in the industrial army.
One of the 10 planks in the manifesto is this

Presumably, new industries wouldn't sprout from nowhere and would depend on already existing skilled labour in order to fully develop and separate from other industries. So, people would be involved in the creation of new industries, not so much 'transferring' into them, just integrating them as specialization underwent it's course. Also, people who do not yet have to work can get into those new industries once they are old enough

So would people be on the dole for 5 years or so without working to give space for industries that may be short on labour?

gradual shifting of people into new professions

say a new industry is planed, the people intended working there would for a transitional time work part time in their old job and part time there new job. The time spend at their old job would gradually decline and their time at the new job would gradually increase, consider that communists consider training for a job to also be work as you would be producing new skills.

the purpose of this is to spread out change to reduce adaptation stress for the people doing the job, and increase the time available for structural optimization before the new industry is fully ramped up.

All good posts, and if all else fails there are always various tasks that can be done from street sweeping to security guards – this latter job seems to employ half of Zig Forums

Just give the NEET a flashlight, a chair and tell him to post up outside an apartment building as the night watchman. Tell him to sit under a streetlight and bring a paperback novel.

Attached: NW_wiki.png (300x178, 4.24K)

Also bring dignity back to the job of keeping our cities tidy. As Jordan Peterson said, clean your room, bucko!

Attached: IMG_0151-973x730.jpg (973x730, 177.28K)

What was it about my post that confused you?

good way to start getting black vans following me

Oh noes, the spoopy black van. Just the mere thought of the spoopy black van is enough for comrades not to communicate. Nice. Well played, FBI.

1. We regulate the normal work-week to be shorter, so when we are in a pinch people can move to some other place without reduction in output in the place they are leaving because those remaining do overtime.
2. We can't stack overtime on top of overtime without limit though. We need data about how easy it is to interrupt and continue different activities and storage costs of the intermediate results. It will be especially those tasks that are cheap in these interruption costs that will replace unemployment as a pool.
3. We should plan as much as possible with person-hours rather than jobs, a given amount of person-hours to be done doesn't imply an exact number of people doing that.

Attached: 7002cf670ce776512de8122d438b9b2c651c8a86a3300c330b1633cd9c08dbbc 1.jpg (640x360 69.25 KB, 8.59M)

No we actually shouldn't force the old and the crippled to work until they die

that's not what is meant by this, it's about abolishing the reserve labour army.


Just give people more time off. Have a 20 hour work week be the default, then make small adjustments to meet demand.
In the long run we should be aiming for full automation anyway, so allocating labor is only a short-term problem.

Employment statistics are only relative to people eligible to be working, i.e. people who aren't retired, disabled, or unable to work for any other reason. "Full employment" means that of people who are eligible for work, all of them are working. The United States reports a 3.8% unemployment rate right now, but that doesn't mean that 96.2% of 330,000,000 people are all working. It means that of people who are
1) Not retired
2) Not disabled (or not enough to be prevented from working)
3) Either employed or looking for employment
96.2% of them are currently employed.

When people talk about full employment they are normally talking about active population working, the elder, the disabled and students are considered inactive population, inactive people cannot be unemployed by definition.
And yeah, to answer OP's question, we can always force the cripple or the old to work so we can end a project in a new industry, lol!

This comment would have been relevant 37 minutes ago, before was posted.


full employment is a spook

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (718x507, 36.66K)


productivity isn't a spook

You're USSR fell apart because of the violent way Stalin took surplus value from peasants to get primitive capital accumulation to start you collapsed state.

St*rner can't trigger people because he's literally fucking irrelevant. Marxists will build societies while sit on your ass and complain. If you wish to stop us, you can die with the rest of the counter-revolutionaries.

Ok kulak

Whatever puts you to bed at night you little stunted tin pot dictator.

Attached: b869a9a6e974c41eb8c0921caed97571aef5d98f717a793be051e7b494114cd9.jpg (1200x600, 207.11K)

Violently buying their grain?


As a rule of thumb, yes. Time not worked isn't stored up anywhere for later use. Being unemployed long time means you are basically dead to many people. Unemployment leads to depression, alcoholism, crime.