Question on a sentence by J.-M. Jancovici on the professions of tomorrow

[stata36]

Hello,

I would like to have opinions on a passage of the book Sleep well until 2100 by Jean-Marc Jancovici (2017).
Towards the end of chapter 2 entitled "The University for all, obviously!", he wrote:

"from now on, it will be necessary - as a trend - manual workers in increasing quantity and office workers in decreasing quantity, starting with those who have received a so-called literary training (languages, sociology, psychology, part of the training in economics, etc.), which are farthest from the physical production of the field."

In your opinion :
- when he writes "part of the training in economics", what training in economy does he speak exactly?
- how would an economics training with mathematical formulas (micro and macroeconomics, econometrics, statistics) be less "distant from physical production in the field" than a more literary economics training?
- does it also refer to training in business management / management? If so, which ones do you think?

Thank you!

[izentrop]

Hello,
The idea is that more will have to be done with fewer resources. Circular economy = yes. Silver speculators = no.

[Ahmed]

In a society that has a lot of energy and therefore mechanical slaves, the aspect of "button presses" and management of interactions predominates; on the contrary, a lasting energy depletion makes the latter less relevant and the direct actors unavoidable.

As for the "circular" economy, I have never seen an example of it: at most a few circular arcs, the imagination doing the rest...
As for the accumulation of capital, it will be compromised by the impossibility or the limitation of the destocking of fossil energies which had allowed it, indirectly. Those who worked for this objective will be replaced by economic agents directly useful* to human needs. Economists only exist because of this occurrence and therefore their corporation should also decrease...

* Even if the concept of "usefulness" needs to be carefully defined, which is not easy...

[perplex]

All human actions involving a sale price are conditioned by profit,
This inertia disc has picked up so much speed that I don't see how to stop it, fossil fuels fuel it but not only...
Apparently even a serious nuclear threat does not catch the machine...
To propose that human actions are conditioned for the survival of all, I will say at the earliest 3500… ​​but we will be much fewer.

[Christophe]

Hello,
The idea is that more will have to be done with fewer resources. Circular economy = yes. Silver speculators = no.

It is well summarized and it is the adage of this forum almost from the start!

Could someone remind me of the old profession of buffoon 1st? I forgot...

Thank you!

[wirbelwind262]

https://wikirouge.net/Travail_productif ... _productif
productive work: that which contributes to the realization of a market good (like the work of the worker)
unproductive work: work that does not add value to anything (like the work of the manager)
bullshitjobs, under-chefs and other managers who multiply like cockroaches, sellers of sausages of all kinds
in short the parasites of the system who can do nothing with their hands, will darwin take care of it ?
edit: https://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/econ ... ifs-130178

[Christophe]

What do you have against bratwurst vendors?

[perplex]

@wirbelwind262
You're not afraid that by putting all these beautiful people in COAL, we fall back into the fossil…. ?

[wirbelwind262]

we can always put them in resin and make amber for decoration

[Ahmed]

whirlwind, your definition of productive/unproductive work lacks precision.
Any work that directly increases the initial capital is productive. A good part of current labor is strictly unproductive since if it is necessary for the realization of the first, not only does it not increase the mass of capital, but it takes its share from productive labor. That's what Marx called "incidental expenses"; this share has increased disproportionately with the increasing complexity of modern societies and therefore the correlative regulatory bodies. Fortunately (?), the quantitative easing makes up for the difference and thus creates an illusion...
Mention should also be made of all that is not considered work, but which is necessary "for the reproduction of life", i.e. household chores, breeding (sic) and caring for children, to the sick and old... This last category (with a strong patriarchal tendency!) is not taken into account in the GDP, but nevertheless constitutes the necessary framework for its production.