What should be done about the destruction of low-skilled jobs? Should a person invest their time in acquiring professions that are more difficult to master? Will there be enough positions, given that high-skilled work is always more limited? Unemployment will increase thefts; people can be imprisoned for violating the law, but this can break them, and “re-education” is even more pointless, as the theft is forced.
Maksim Barbukhin
Alex Murin answers
First of all, let’s figure out which jobs are disappearing and where? And to what extent automation will affect all layers of life. Jobs are disappearing in cities at large-scale production facilities. Only a large entrepreneur can afford production innovations. Most entrepreneurs used manual labor and continue to do so. A baker bakes bread, a janitor sweeps the yard, a clerk sits in a kiosk. For the most part, the majority of jobs are created by small entrepreneurs who do not strive for and cannot fully automate the production process. If there were no state with a heap of licenses, taxes, fees, and inspections, small businesses would not have the barriers that exist now. This means everything would be regulated by supply and demand. If demand is higher, a person will not have to give half of their income to the state, which would create public goods. Thus, with the development of small business, loaders and salesclerks will not disappear; there will be many farmers, small production sites baking bread, making things from natural products produced by local farmers. One should not expect global automation in this sector.
Another important point is the mastery of new professions. We master many things naturally. If the computer was a rarity in the 90s and required professional education to operate, now there is one in every home, and a child can perform basic work like typing text. Learning happens naturally. Those who find it difficult will, of course, remain outsiders. Those who want to improve will not engage in simply getting pieces of paper and sitting through hours of classes that are unnecessary for mastering a specialty; they will study what they will actually be working with. Many specialties can be mastered using modern teaching methods in a much shorter time than five years on a university bench.
Regarding “whether there will be enough positions” — that is a separate question. The number of accountants, secretaries, clerks, and document management specialists will be significantly reduced. The administrations of jurisdictions and municipalities are unlikely to be able to afford to maintain a huge staff and divide responsibilities as is done now. Electronic document management is already the modern reality. States do not want to use many modern solutions because they would have to cut a vast number of municipal employees. And there would be no one to look after the secretary of the director of the department of internal policy, as the department itself would likely not exist. What should all these people do? Learn in-demand specialties, start a small business. Everyone knows how to bake pancakes or pies, grow potatoes and cabbage. This is a rather harsh solution, but if it is not accepted, then incomes will have to be forcibly taken from everyone else to save the lifestyle of officials. And yes, professions that simply do not fit into the modern world will be eliminated. For example, we no longer need telephone operators, radio operators, or coachmen. But all these people did not end up without work.
Who will solve the problem of the unemployed? The free market. Even now, there are staffing agencies that offer a list of in-demand vacancies for a fee. They can also assist in negotiations and organizing meetings with employers. In essence, the Employment Center is a state staffing agency. And its services are not provided for free. We pay for its activities through our taxes. Everyone together—those who go there once a year and those who do not even know the address of the institution. Who will pay unemployment benefits? Private funds. But not just money for the maintenance of so-called professional unemployed persons, but for those who genuinely want to retrain and start their own business or find a new job. Where will the funds get the money? From those who need workers. Pay the fund, and they will find and train people for you. Moreover, not in philosophy, ancient literature, or theology, but in sausage production, potato growing, and the specialties that a specific employer needs. But again, not everything is so smooth. A social phenomenon such as the “professional unemployed” will disappear. At a state exchange, one can receive a meager benefit for a long time, then work a little, quit, and receive it again. Naturally, any private entity will send such a client to seek help elsewhere.
And another important point: if currently all free land is in municipal or regional ownership, then without the state, anyone can occupy a plot that no one claims. Consequently, a person will be able to legally live by subsistence farming, creating associations to make it easier to cultivate the land, without paying duties or taxes.
The question regarding theft is complex. But so-called forced theft does not exist. Theft is, in any case, a crime against property. Whether a person was starving or stole out of a love for art—they are still a thief. An honest person can ask for or take something unnecessary, thrown away, or that grows naturally. So, the arrest of thieves is a perfectly natural thing. Such people must either be isolated or re-educated. If a person finds themselves in a jurisdiction where everything is built on high technology and cannot find work, they can move to an agricultural community and live there. Most often, there are no extra hands in a village. If they do not do this voluntarily, they will end up in prison, which will send them to such a community so they can earn their keep, as well as pay for the services of the court, escorting, and monitoring. It is better to leave voluntarily.
And one more point regarding “extra people.” City dwellers prefer not to have many children. Most often, middle-class families in cities have 1-2 children, and the population is declining or struggling to maintain its size. Conversely, in developed agrarian settlements, there are many children. And work is found for everyone. Now, the state, through population control programs, is trying to break the natural course of events. Large families in cities are provided with social housing and payments. At the same time, the state cannot accurately account for the reduction in jobs in industrial cities. Precisely because of the mistakes of officials, we are forced first to pay taxes for benefits to large families, and then pay taxes for benefits to the unemployed. Market mechanisms could redistribute these people to places where they would find an opportunity to earn a living or grow their own food.
