Full Employment, or Future Productivity Gains?

Indeed, why should it have to be one or the other? And why isn't automation more often acknowledged, for the long term employment problems it might ultimately pose? Basically the issue is this: Would it be necessary to give up full employment for society to realize continued progress?

Perhaps the fact many earlier Luddite arguments didn't pose long term problems, explains an inclination to disregard where automation is a factor in regional employment losses. Nevertheless, as Scott Sumner noted in a recent post, protectionist and Mercantilist trade spats between nations aren't a reasonable approach, either. Alas, more logical responses aren't as obvious as one might expect, and there are plenty of moving parts in this scenario. Even though nationalist responses for instance are inappropriate and counterproductive, there's little consensus regarding a constructive framework for long term employment potential.

Any progress in this regard would focus on domestic economic realignment, and continued productivity gains are key to this discussion. Importantly, there are no linear solution sets which include full employment and continued productivity gains in a general equilibrium scenario. That said, the good news is that tradable sector organizational capacity is as appropriate as ever, at all levels of equilibrium dynamics. It's the organizational capacity of non tradable sectors which pose such problems for long term productivity, and employment as well.

If there is a tradable sector problem in all this, it's that we can no longer expect full employment in these areas. What we also can't accomplish is full employment from non tradable sector time based services as they are currently constructed. Without a more dynamic approach to services generation, these dependent (secondary) markets would ultimately create extensive societal burdens. Hence non tradable sector activity could benefit from a non linear approach. These new institutions (new communities) would build defined equilibrium settings which create additional employment and supply side potential, via mutual time reciprocity.

Once new non tradable sector institutions address full employment, how would they contribute to future productivity gains? First, a time arbitrage defined equilibrium does not detract from total factor productivity, since it would function as a primary or direct wealth creation market, instead of as a secondary market which depends on general equilibrium wealth.

Possibly the best news, is that internal sustainability is only part of what time arbitrage could contribute to long term productivity gains. When participating groups align skills and applied knowledge internally, they create new wealth in the process. Even though each individual's economic time options are necessarily rival due to time scarcity, the applied knowledge in each setting is non rival. Consequently, knowledge and skill gradually accumulate in ways which move forward services production benefits to future generations. This, instead of mostly expecting future generations to pay for today's skilled services! Even though these particular aspects of productivity might not manifest as monetary gains, they would nevertheless accumulate as long term output gains for knowledge, skills and services markets access.

Again, tradable sector productivity is still optimal in the sense that in many respects, we mostly need to keep doing what already works. One could say that tradable sector activity as a linear reality, is relevant as ever - not just for general equilibrium dynamics but as potential for every defined equilibrium setting. Yet we need to organize differently for non tradable sector output capacity, by thinking in non linear patterns which simultaneously encourage full employment and long term productivity gains.