The onus is on individuals to add value to society. Don't sit around and wait for a job. Create your own job. There is not a shortage of jobs there is a shortage of entrepreneurs and go-getters.
We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
91–100 of 270 posts
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#92"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?
It's probably not going to be "now" or any time soon but, barring a global-scale disaster, it's hard to imagine how the future may not be jobless, given enough time. There are only so many levels "higher up the stack" humans can go before most of theirs skills are rendered redundant by the machine. Even if The Singularity doesn't happen and humans continue being exclusively in charge of the thinking, decision making, strategizing, etc., will there be enough demand for multi-millions or billions of such jobs? I doubt it.
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But why now, when it hasn't in the past? One might well ask, why not now ? Given a(t) t, where a(t) = rate of new jobs created per year -b(t) t, where -b(t) = jobs lost due to technology per year Problem is, the function a(t) is stable and predictable over time, because human populations are generally sigmoids ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_growth ) Whereas the function b(t) feeds on itself ( http://en.wiki…
So far in the 20min discussion, I like this answer best as it tries to outline the factors for even a crude estimation. I do have another variable to add that nobody has mentioned. I think the sentiment, not explicitly conveyed in the article, is that "there are less jobs for the number of employable people ". And there lies the rub. Perhaps net total jobs is still on the rise, but the rate of population growth is th…
Interesting point. In addition to population growth, you could say that this comes with progress in technology and policy, too.
Countries like China and India a good place to export our jobs, at a minimum, because they're stable enough. Even if we could trade with China in the late 1950's, the Great Leap Forward would've made such trade very unattractive. Why would I want to export my jobs to a country where the average citizen isn't even fed properly, assuming I could?
I posit that as countries such as North Korea and Libya stabilize, the global job growth rate will have to increase in order to main the job-to-employable-people ratio. A positive, but stable, job growth rate would not be enough.
I could be totally wrong about this in that there will always be some minimum political chaos in the world, but I'm an optimist :)
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#94Here's a different way to look at it.
We will soon be in a leisure economy and 'jobs' will be something completely different. It'll be about helping people waste time/kill time rather than producing something of value.
As we advance, we are moving to a scenario where there just isn't that much work to do. Leisure time is increasing more and more. More and more 'work' is becoming automated or being done by robots or algorithms. People just aren't needed in lots of places.
If wealth was distributed equitably or even a little inequitably, then it would mean that most people could just take time off and spend their money on entertainment. You could argue this is already a big trend with movies, video games, devices that aren't necessary, etc. taking up more and more time.
Since wealth is very inequitably distributed - it leads to lots of people being left in a leisure economy with very little money. These people 'need' jobs even though the economy itself doesn't have 'jobs'.
The net is that we have technology doing this ->
A small percentage are taking up most of the money and lots of people need jobs for money even though the economy doesn't really have jobs left for them. They will be forced to adapt to become entertainers/time waste-helpers rather than productive workers.
instead of this ->
People need to work less and wealth is reasonably distributed and people can do what they want without worrying about money.
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#95In my opinion John Michael Greer's "The Long Descent" is the most realistic and most hopeful take on this vein of thinking and writing. It is also a well-written and easy to read book. The main takeaway is that our situation is not a problem with a solution, but rather a predicament or situation with various coping mechanisms. http://www.newsociety.com/Books/L/The-Long-Descent
However I should point out that JMG points to different root causes of "decline". His core thesis is that Peak Oil and net-energy / net-resource growth not meeting demand are the main determining factors in our shrinking economy. His hopeful response to this scenario is that although there will be far fewer jobs, there will be much more work.
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#96This is a classic economic fallacy. Invention of the plow improved efficiency and killed jobs, invention of the sewing machine improved efficiency and killed jobs, invention of the computer improved efficiency and killed jobs.
They killed jobs in the short run but they made everyone in society better off on the whole. Sure, some workers had to be retrained -- and some workers could never find a job again. However such is progress. We are better off now because the next generation doesn't have to all be farmers, some can do this or that. It is a good thing when we require less humans to do the same amount of work than before. It means we free up human capital for more valuable uses.
Because of the advancements in technology their children will have jobs that never could have existed if we still needed 90% of our population to farm just so that we would not starve. Now like 1% of our population is farmers. It's progress.
Read: 'The Choice' by Russell Roberts
Read: 'Economic Facts and Fallacies' by Thomas Sowell
Read: 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#97"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?
"Economics in One Lesson", chapter 7. Everyone should read that book
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#98The OP's post could use some context. Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage was forged in a world where labor and capital were essentially fixed. England could weave cloth more efficiently than Spain, but Spain could make wine more efficiently than England. Therefore, they would both benefit from trade given that each of these countries had a comparative benefit or efficiency to offer. The assumption under compa…
You don't understand comparative advantage. As long as there is scarcity, comparative advantage matters. There were 24 hours in a day when Ricardo was around and there still are today. There are theoretical cases under which trade can make a country worse off, but they are rare situations and cannot be simplified down to "inputs flow around today but didn't during Ricardo's days". That doesn't even make sense. But wh…
There is no level playing field with foreign workers, because they and we are not free to travel where wages are best or prices are lowest. Capital is free in the modern economy, but labor is not. Exploiting the poverty of trapped foreign workers is not altruism, it's lowering costs to maximize profits, which is what businesses are supposed to do.
And trade deficits accumulate as public and private debt (or rather negative savings.) This is not theoretical, this is an identity.
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#99"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?
PG, what probability would you assign to the propositions "This time things are different" (empirically: the jobs won't come back 5 years from now) vs. "This time things are not different" (empirically: the jobs will come back 5 years from now)? Warning, if your probabilities are extreme enough, someone might want to bet you on it. Presuming things are different, I see five obvious answers to the original question (a…
>5) The Thiel hypothesis: Recent technological developments are intrinsically more boring than past technological developments;
Shouldn't that be the Cuban hypothesis ?
Cuban in 2006 http://blogmaverick.com/2006/07/12/the-internet-is-old-news-...
Cuban in 2007 http://blogmaverick.com/2007/08/27/the-internet-is-still-dea...
Cuban in 2008 http://blogmaverick.com/2008/02/10/the-internet-is-officiall...
Thiel said it in 2011 ( or late 2010) if I'm not mistaken.
Re: We’re not going to have a jobless recovery. We’re going to have a jobless future
#100"Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth." Anyone who wants to make the claim that technology is net killing jobs has to be prepared to answer the question: why now? Technology has been killing (but not net killing) jobs for centuries. It's possible that technology could start to net kill jobs. But why now, when it hasn't in the past?
why now?
Because technology != technology.