Make Progress, Not Work - Econ Chronicles - Learn Liberty

In this Economics Made Easy video, Professor Bryan Caplan explains the gap between the public's opinion and the economist's facts about the merits and demerits of 'making work' - instead of letting individuals find work.

[Monsuco]

Luddites may have faded out early in the 1800's, but their anti-advancement, machine-smashing mindset is still very much alive and well today.

[dmaddock]

More Caplan! More Caplan I say! Good work. Looking forward to the series.

[ikesteroma]

This Econ Chronicles series is excellent.

[alekmiller]

I was at the store the other day and was amazed at the size, scope, and variety found in the frozen food aisle.  You can buy literally a score of precooked meals, place them in the nuker, heat it for five or so minutes, and boom: you have yourself a relatively nutritious, fairly tasty, and very speedy warm meal to satiate your hunger.  I understand that fresh food is better and more important, but the way that technology has made the way we eat so efficient is captivating.

[magister]

Horses actually have about 30 horse power.

The horsepower measurement of automobiles includes the weight of the vehicle itself when determining how much it can pull, but the measurement for horses does not.

[isentient]

Hey what is that glorious music piece associated with this video?

[sincity]

Please, can someone show this video on our public schools?

[meee]

government intervention in economics tends to be for the worse 95% of the time. 

[tannerjacobi]

The make-work bias results from the structure of employment itself: while a society will become richer overall with more innovations, each innovation disrupts current jobs. People relying on those jobs for income are, of course, going to be concerned or afraid. I think just about all reasonable people are in support of automation itself; what they disagree on is how to handle the side effects, and that's starting to become a widespread concern these days, with various solutions proposed. See CGP Grey's video 'Humans Need Not Apply' for information of how automation is going.

So, you have people proposing basic income, negative income tax, letting the market sort things out, transition to socialism...and it gets heated because economics is hard.

[bluo]

I think just about everyone would agree that it's good to make real progress, but people get protectionist when they see transition/retooling costs. Advancement could cause people to start over at the bottom of the totem pole in a new line of work, right? Then they'd have to bear the costs of retraining and acquiring years of work experience before they're once again skilled, productive workers. When you throw in all kinds of what-ifs in regard to a person's circumstances, such as age, health, obligations, wealth, etc., the displacement from advancement might be excruciating. I'd love to know what Caplan has to say about this. I'd appreciate any other commenter's thoughts as well.

[TomHasVideo]

Two things. Most unemployment is not caused by innovation, and redundancy/unproductivity is a common cause.

[evdoku]

Completely correct, I do not see how people do not understand this, coming from the UK where legislation is massive.

[pkonneker]

Man, you guys make me think. Great video.

[Youbeentagged]

I heard this story from some video:

An American businessman goes to communist China. A governor in china takes the American to a desert area where many people are digging dirt with shovels, and tells the American "we are building a new underground system here". The businessman asks "why not use tractors to dig instead of people? You will finish the work way faster if you did" to which the governor replies "we are creating jobs for people". Then the businessman says " if it is jobs you want to make, take away their shovels, and give them spoons"

[badluckwitcarpet]

You can tell how better our "ways of growing food, fertilizing, seeds, and energy sources" are by how 'healthy' our population is. We are sooo advanced, just look at our belt lines.
 

[EriNatori_FFXIV]

First the first 3 months, subsidies is equal to 40% of nominal wage rebated provided that the employer has hired such a person for a length of period. 
For the next 3 months, subsidies is equal to 35% of nominal wage.
For the next 6 months, subsidies is equal to 30% of nominal wage.
For the next 6 months, subsidies is equal to 25% of nominal wage.
For the last 6 months, subsidies is equal to 20% of nominal wage.

[EriNatori_FFXIV]

Even if 500 people go out of work, the fact that millions have gained better/advanced technology, is a fact of net economic benefit superior to the real wages of such workers. If we channel those taxes from those products/services of increased consumption to training programs for businesses in new fields, we can accelerate progress and avoid no/low-income individuals from lack of valuable skills.

[genedide]

On a macro scale, it's valid. However one individual who lost his job doesn't give a crap about the tractor feeds the town faster. What really drives this bias is self-interest.

[leiatskynet]

'Baron Charles Dupin, said to be the torch of learning among the peerage in the science of economics, accuses the railroads of injuring navigation; and it is certainly natural for a swifter conveyance to lessen the use of a comparatively less efficient one. But railroads can harm shipping only by taking away its business; they can take away its business only by doing the job of transportation more cheaply; and they can transport goods more cheaply only by lowering the ratio of the effort applied to the result obtained, since this is precisely what constitutes low cost. Thus, when Baron Dupin deplores this diminution in the labor employed to obtain a given result, he is following the doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, since he prefers the ship to the train, he ought to prefer the wagon to the ship, the packsaddle to the wagon, and the basket to every other known means of transport, for it is the one that demands the most labor for the least result.' - Frédéric Bastiat, 'Economic Sophisms'

[UnknownXV]

The ultimate goal is to reach a point where unemployment is 100%, but yet we're all still fed and happy. That's a utopia, that will only be possible if we can push technology far enough to make it so. Until then, we need the most productive and efficient jobs to get there. It's easy to get 0% unemployment. It's hard to do so in a way that benefits society.