Talk:Structural unemployment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Excellent structural improvements by --Vuo raised standards for syntactic consistency and factual accuracy of this article. metavalent (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Undid the last reversion that deleted 2/3 of the article.I could not find a serious reason to such a delete so i undid to version before.--J. Milch (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange quote[edit]

This was restored to the page:

One of the explanations behind structural unemployment came from economist and Communist philosopher André Gorz. He argues that it could be permanent in modern society.
He therefore argues that a basic income could be a solution, and as he explain:
"The connection between more and better has been broken; our needs for many products and services are already more than adequately met, and many of our as-yet- unsatisfied needs will be met not by producing more, but by producing differently, producing other things, or even producing less. This is especially true as regards our needs for air, water, space, silence, beauty, time and human contact...
"From the point where it takes only 1,000 hours per year or 20,000 to 30,000 hours per lifetime to create an amount of wealth equal to or greater than the amount we create at the present time in 1,600 hours per year or 40,000 to 50,000 hours in a working life, we must all be able to obtain a real income equal to or higher than our current salaries in exchange for a greatly reduced quantity of work...
"Neither is it true any longer that the more each individual works, the better off everyone will be. The present crisis has stimulated technological change of an unprecedented scale and speed: `the micro chip revolution'. The object and indeed the effect of this revolution has been to make rapidly increasing savings in labour, in the industrial, administrative and service sectors. Increasing production is secured in these sectors by decreasing amounts of labour. As a result, the social process of production no longer needs everyone to work in it on a full-time basis. The work ethic ceases to be viable in such a situation and workbased society is thrown into crisis" André Gorz, Critique of Economic Reason, Gallilé,1989

If you read it, you can see the author is quoted directly, without analysis, and the author doesn't actually talk about structural employment, but about the distinct issue of mismatch between demands to the worker by employers vs. productivity of the worker. That is, it laments that instead of reducing time spent at work, increased productivity has resulted in unemployment, a favorite hypothesis of the Marxists. (Although I don't want to start a fight over this, the reason why I consider this merely as a false hypothesis is that economic development occurs when productivity is increased, according to standard economics taught at schools, in contrary to the simplified Marxist worldview. Marxism claims to be scientific but aptly ignores realities that are contrary to its dogma, like increased proportion of services in the economy after production has "maxed out".) There should be no need to preserve un-analysed Marxist propaganda like this when it is only tangentially related to the article. --Vuo (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


I don´t agree.I am not qualified to judge about if André Gorz have a plausibel explanation to structural unemployement. As far as i know there is a lot og explanations and theories about it and as i see it Economics is not a value free Science. As i see it the best way i to show the different explanations. If there are a lot of explanations from all sorts values the best way in my opinion is to present the different views and explanations according to the different Economics schools,and theres a lot such schools as far as i know.Your self gave some explanations on this Talking page.I suggest you present your contributition with your alternative explanation on the main page and show in what way Gorz fails to give and plausible analyze.I think it´s better then just simply write that Gorz is a Communist.I don´t either want to argue with you or claim that your wrong,but i think it´s best way to present the explainations to a such complex issue as Structural Unemploment.I hope give some contributes to the page,Friendly. --J. Milch (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Summarizing the problem with respect to Wikipedia:
  • Un-analyzed, not in context
  • Quotes lengths of texts directly
  • Tangentially related
  • Should be in another article/own article
--Vuo (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Formatting[edit]

Someone needs to fix the hierarchy of the headings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syr0 (talkcontribs) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)