The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people • Hacker News Board

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#361

Post by derekp7 » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:03 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #241

sjg007 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why young people need to vote.

For one of two paries that are essentially the same? Obama made a lot of big prommises before getting into power. He hasn't followed through on many of them at all.

But the important thing for a given demographic is for that demographic to get enough members to vote. Because if politicians see that a good chunk of their base is 18-25 year olds, guess what their policy is going to be directed towards? After all, there is a good reason that it is political suicide to touch social security -- quite a few seniors vote.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#362

Post by dropit_sphere » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:05 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #176

jaredhansen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can try as hard as you want to get a job - if no one is hiring, you aren't going to get one. True as far as it goes, and I too am concerned about the future of work, but I'm skeptical that we have ever seen, or will ever see, a future in which "no one is hiring". Today, there is tremendous demand for certain occupations, even as others are being hollowed out. The difference from historical expectations is that t…

>there is tremendous demand for certain occupations The problem is that if you redirect all youth into these occupations, you will likely find yourself with more supply than demand. Software engineers are well-paid, well-treated, mobile, etc. because there are relatively few of them. This will not be the case when the default state of any 18-year-old is to become a software engineer.

And we know this because that is precisely what we got with college graduates.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#363

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #360

Sven7 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well good luck to you. I think differences in policies are irrelevant given the current setup. If Obama's two terms have proven anything, it's how ineffective the system is. You don't see leader's, in any other field stand at the podium and sigh, groan and just look as frustrated/helpless as he does. And telling people to vote for this kind of ineffectiveness (14 years now in the middle east, just to pick one issue)…

I didn't say vote FOR the madness, I said vote against it. Even if that's voting for third party candidates. A vote is a metric. Non-voting gives them no reason to care about your opinion, while a vote (even for no one) means you act. [And once you consider policies, I think it's better to vote for a less-bad option that can win, but if you disagree, by all means vote 3rd party] And I'm comparing voting in this case…

> A question I like to pose: If the US system is truly unsustainable (American-style democracies are rare and have all failed save one...so far)

What possible concrete definition of "American-style democracies" is there for which this is both true and meaningful (e.g., its trivially true but clearly not meaningful if the definition is so narrow that the US is the only "American-style" democracy that has ever existed.)

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#364

Post by nostrademons » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

roymurdock wrote: post #322

nostrademons wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see the people who are doing much better than their parents. The more self-aware of them know that there is nothing good that comes out of drawing attention to their good fortune. The less self-aware just assume that's how it is for everybody and don't think it's remarkable.

Sure, but if people were moving up on aggregate, we would see the middle class growing as children of the poor made their way up. Instead, we see the middle class shrinking, the poor growing, and the wealth collecting to a smaller proportion of the population as families are being pushed down due to the recession.

Be careful with the word "aggregate", it obscures a lot of the complexity of what's going on. In aggregate, for example, the average person will remain...average. That's not a useful conclusion when looking at absolute wealth (which nobody really cares about anyway - the working poor today have more information available to them than a corporate CEO did 20 years ago, yet it doesn't do much good for them), nor is it all that useful when predicting how to raise your social status (which a good number of people do care about).

What's really happening is that the class structure of society is being replaced entirely, similar to what happened during the industrial revolution. During the Renaissance, the class system consisted of landed aristocrats => merchants => guilds => working poor. The Industrial Revolution raised the productivity of certain industries so much that the owners of these machines displaced the previously wealthy class, leading to a class system of industrialist/financiers => unionized workers => non-union & service workers.

What's happening now is that "software is eating the world", and displacing the existing networks of production throughout the economy. That's leading to a class system of "those who own the data" (entrepreneurs & executives of large tech companies) => "those who work with the data" (software engineers, and likely hardware engineers & material scientists in the near future) => "everybody else". This transition has just begun, in the grand scheme of things; I'd estimate that we're at the equivalent of around 1900 on the Industrial Revolution timetable. The big losers likely won't be the middle class, who are probably the best positioned (in aggregate - see, it obscures a lot of relevant details) to move into the engineering class. The losers are likely to be the formerly wealthy, the descendants of the former owners & executives of old-line corporations. The landed aristocracy didn't make a great showing during the Industrial Revolution, and it's unlikely that the country-club set will make a great showing during the Information Revolution.

Pick where you want to be in the new world order, and work hard to get there. One thing capitalism definitely does reward is action. The old economic order has just been blown up, but few people realize it yet; that makes it the best time to build the new one.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#365

Post by ChuckMcM » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:09 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #254

ChuckMcM wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. We are the government, and if you choose not to help make it what you want, it gets made for you by people who don't appreciate your point of view. Look no further than the "hell no" Republican tea-party caucus in the US Congress for a really visible example of people making the government the way they want it made while we sit on the sidelines. You don't do it for the money,…

"We are the government" That's a mythology we are told to pacify us. It has no factual connection to reality. You're arguing the authority of traditional religious doctrine to people who've already left the faith, that strategy will not work. Try another strategy. Or consider you could be wrong, and join us.

I am old enough to have watched Anna Eshoo go from a rinky-dink Santa Clara county supervisor (with only a 2 year associates degree in English) to a Congressional Representative. Her path was pretty straight forward, she was interested in politics, she cared, she hung out with the Democratic committee groups and then got her ticket punched for the big leagues in 1988. (I voted against her).

Trust me, if she can make it all the way to Congress on passion alone, anyone can.

   > That's a mythology we are told to pacify us. 
   > It has no factual connection to reality.

Sadly it is what people would like you to believe because it keeps people who care out of the way, but it is factually untrue. At any given instant in time you are not the government, but over the span of time you absolutely are. Civil rights, the Suffrage movement, Gay Marraige, Health Care reform, these are all things that are driven by people through instititutions that are designed to give them the power to affect change over time.

There is a folk story, I think it is originally Chinese about a worker told to move a large boulder out of the road. He says "Can't you see, no man could move that rock it is too large!" and another man steps up and says "I'll move it." The second man picks up a rock hammer and walks to the boulder and taps it until a piece breaks off in his hand. He carries that to the side of the road and then goes back to the boulder. The next day the rock is gone.

The moral of course it that what you clearly cannot do in an instant, you can often do over time. That is the power you wield. And it might take you 5 years of hanging out with the local party bigwigs, then another few years of local public service, before you make it up to the big leagues, but if you care you can do that. We take high school students and train them to be Neurosurgeons in 15 years, but nobody expects that they can say "Hey I want to be a neurosurgeon!" and instantly become one, why is it so surprising that you can't just decide you want to be president or governor without any training at all?

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#366

Post by Negitivefrags » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #138

NotAPerson wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Job seekers are much better served spending an hour sending 10 focused applications than spending that same hour to send 100 sanitized applications. Let's assume that you have a 1 in 20 chance on the focused applications, and a 1 in 200 chance on the sanitized ones. Then the odds that you are offered at least one job, is 40.13% for the focused ones, and 39.42% for the sanitized ones. I'm not sure the emotional inve…

You're doing a cost-benefit analysis on a completely arbitrary guess and then using that as the basis for your conclusion? That doesn't work, sorry. For example, what if in actuality, all other things being equal, they had a 1 in 10 chance focused vs. 1 in 300 chance sanitized, then the results would be 100% chance for the focused versus 33% chance of a response with the sanitized ones. I just used the same thing you…

Actually, with your numbers the chances are 65.1% and 28.3% respectively.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#367

Post by Sammi » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:11 PM UTC

adamnemecek wrote: post #342

Camillo wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality is that as time goes on, the world's needs can and will be met by fewer and fewer people. This is true, but I don't think it accounts for most of the youth unemployment we have seen so far. The jobs did not go to robots in America, they went to workers in China. To answer another common theme: we can complain about CEO pay, tax cuts, stagnant wages, etc., but the reason for the pure and simple lack of j…

> This is true, but I don't think it accounts for most of the youth unemployment we have seen so far. The jobs did not go to robots in America, they went to workers in China. I think that that is only temporary though. Once the wages in China rise enough, the jobs will be probably given to robots possibly in America.

Yes. China is already running our of its cheapest new labor recruits. And while people haven't been looking many of the biggest African economies have started to get going. The time when you cannot outsource for cheap labor anymore is approaching fast.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#368

Post by cies » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

Who needs a job? We need "goods", and to obtain then we usually trade in part of our monetary income; but that does not need to come from a job.

I believe in "mincome" or "basic minimal income", as provided by a form of government to all citizens; to be paid for by tax money. This will be low, but enough to sustain yourself (simple shelter + food). If you want more then that you need to either find a job or walk a more entrepreneurial path and make a job.

The amount people receive as "mincome" will be an important number to control by politicians. It will have a strong effect on the then emerging "post-mincome unemployment rate". This would be all people that are looking to supplement their mincome, but currently have not found the means to do so.

I think a mincome-society will find a lot more people entrepeneuring: as a safety net is in place.

The "jobs" that the article speaks of are only going to be created if there is a strict need for them. A business will usually only create a job in last resort, as employing people costs money and brings risks.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#369

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

Domenic_S wrote: post #318

roymurdock wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for myself (as a 22 year-old recent graduate) - I was brought up to respect my elders and to consider society as a mostly-altruistic, benevolent mass of humanity with a conscience bent more towards justice and meritocracy than corruption and inequality. I believed that the older generation who shape and structure society through government, industry, and academia were doing their absolute best to set future…

> to consider society as a mostly-altruistic, benevolent mass of humanity There is no mass of humanity in that way, just like "HN believes..." or "Reddit thinks..." is mostly impossible to say. Some folks of that generation did/do act in mostly-altruistic, benevolent ways, and some of them did/do not. The generational argument is a very clever red herring that shifts blame from a broken system to the previous generat…

I don't know how important is it for the overall argument. I may be just nitpicking, and your "go do something about it" message is great. But...

> The top 1% of earners pay 50% of federal taxes.

Don't they have 80% of the income in the US? If so, that's not doing their part.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#370

Post by derekp7 » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #331

relevanttoad wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You apply for a bunch of jobs, maybe you'll hear nothing back, or when you do, it feels random and disjointed. Then apply for places where you actually see yourself wanting to work; even if it's McDonalds, people need to eat, a career in the food service industry might be rewarding if that's what you find you like doing. Or join the military, every country needs a strong military. Or join a non-profit, build a res…

> Or join the military, every country needs a strong military. It's funny how looked down upon this is. If I said, hey come work for me for 4 years. During that time you will get paid, get lodging and likely do some traveling. Oh, and you'll learn some skills. If you want to go to college up front and be an MD for example, I'll go ahead and pay for that and you can work for me for 6 years after gaining valuable exper…

What would be really nice is to have a non-military civil service option. So when someone graduates high school, they can still get a government job doing things like road construction or garbage collection, or even get trained on higher skilled areas. The only problem with this, is most of these activities are done by private companies that bid on contracts, so there is no room for a government organization to fill this role.