The biggest challenge of our modern economy here, and everywhere.

[iamwhatiseem]

Due primarily to technology and automation, modern civilization doesn't need everyone to get everything done.
And this "problem" will continue to grow as more and more automation and computerization continues to take over tasks that people use to do - or at least now takes less people to do.
What do you do with the people the economy doesn't need?
In America the problem is exacerbated by both spouses needing to work to in order to get what everyone else has. In order to satisfy our large appetite for stuff - both work for money...and if that isn't enough, we borrow.
But seriously...what is the answer to this problem?
In America, as I have said here and elsewhere many times, UNDERemployment is a bigger problem than unemployment. Indeed, as opportunities for good jobs diminish...the only "opportunity" for many is service jobs to serve the people who have "real" jobs...and we don't even need everyone to do that!
Do we encourage one of the spouses to stay home via very low taxes?
Do we give large tax breaks to stay at home mom's since that provides the economy an open job?
It is a real problem that only economist are talking about.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't feel sorry for people that can be replaced by a machine. But I think once things are that automated the prices will come down, maybe we'll go to a 30 hr. week.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't feel sorry for people that can be replaced by a machine. But I think once things are that automated the prices will come down, maybe we'll go to a 30 hr. week.

Feeling sorry for someone doesn't solve anything. And there are very few jobs that technology/computerization cannot replace in the near future. Yours would be included.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't feel sorry for people that can be replaced by a machine. But I think once things are that automated the prices will come down, maybe we'll go to a 30 hr. week.

Feeling sorry for someone doesn't solve anything. And there are very few jobs that technology/computerization cannot replace in the near future. Yours would be included.

Wrong. I'm a general contractor doing fabrication, installations and repair. Few if any contractors will be replace until some time long after you're dead. By then maybe nobody needs to work.

 

[TNHarley]

Clearly, communism is the answer

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't feel sorry for people that can be replaced by a machine. But I think once things are that automated the prices will come down, maybe we'll go to a 30 hr. week.

Feeling sorry for someone doesn't solve anything. And there are very few jobs that technology/computerization cannot replace in the near future. Yours would be included.

Wrong. I'm a general contractor doing fabrication, installations and repair. Few if any contractors will be replace until some time long after you're dead. By then maybe nobody needs to work.

Which has nothing to do with the problem. If you were someone who does have one of the very few jobs that cannot be replaced...good for you...but has zero to do with the problem.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't feel sorry for people that can be replaced by a machine. But I think once things are that automated the prices will come down, maybe we'll go to a 30 hr. week.

Feeling sorry for someone doesn't solve anything. And there are very few jobs that technology/computerization cannot replace in the near future. Yours would be included.

Wrong. I'm a general contractor doing fabrication, installations and repair. Few if any contractors will be replace until some time long after you're dead. By then maybe nobody needs to work.

Which has nothing to do with the problem. If you were someone who does have one of the very few jobs that cannot be replaced...good for you...but has zero to do with the problem.

It isn't my problem. In fact, the more people are replaced the better off I am. It takes many years to develop my skills so I won't be replaced anytime soon and will be retired by then. I've only had a few jobs that machines could do and I didn't stay long.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. And there are very few jobs that technology/computerization cannot replace in the near future. Yours would be included.

that's naive of course! Technology has replaced every job on earth 100 times over in the last 2000 years and yet we still have 95% employment!!
Technology makes work easier and faster but it never replaces it.

 

[Slave2the$]

. And there are very few jobs that technology/computerization cannot replace in the near future. Yours would be included.

that's naive of course! Technology has replaced every job on earth 100 times over in the last 2000 years and yet we still have 95% employment!!
Technology makes work easier and faster but it never replaces it.

We do not have 95% employment. Check the bureau of labor statistics. The 25-54 age group is at 18.8% unemployment. The other age groups are way worse too.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

that's naive of course! Technology has replaced every job on earth 100 times over in the last 2000 years and yet we still have 95% employment!!
Technology makes work easier and faster but it never replaces it.

uhh...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

that's naive of course! Technology has replaced every job on earth 100 times over in the last 2000 years and yet we still have 95% employment!!
Technology makes work easier and faster but it never replaces it.

uhh...

what don't you get?

 

[pinqy]

We do not have 95% employment. Check the bureau of labor statistics. The 25-54 age group is at 18.8% unemployment. The other age groups are way worse too.

Ummm, you obviously didn't check BLS.

Or if you prefer the direct BLS link: Unemployment rate age 25-64

Of course, we don't have 95% employment either...it's 59.4%. Employment is percent of population, and unemployment is percent of the labor force.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We do not have 95% employment. Check the bureau of labor statistics. The 25-54 age group is at 18.8% unemployment. The other age groups are way worse too.

Ummm, you obviously didn't check BLS.

Or if you prefer the direct BLS link: Unemployment rate age 25-64

Of course, we don't have 95% employment either...it's 59.4%. Employment is percent of population, and unemployment is percent of the labor force.

BLS official unemployment for this year so far:
4.9, 4.9, 5.0, 5.0,

 

[Wyatt earp]

. And there are very few jobs that technology/computerization cannot replace in the near future. Yours would be included.

that's naive of course! Technology has replaced every job on earth 100 times over in the last 2000 years and yet we still have 95% employment!!
Technology makes work easier and faster but it never replaces it.

Since when had technology replaced the oldest occupation?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Due primarily to technology and automation, modern civilization doesn't need everyone to get everything done.
And this "problem" will continue to grow as more and more automation and computerization continues to take over tasks that people use to do - or at least now takes less people to do.
What do you do with the people the economy doesn't need?
In America the problem is exacerbated by both spouses needing to work to in order to get what everyone else has. In order to satisfy our large appetite for stuff - both work for money...and if that isn't enough, we borrow.
But seriously...what is the answer to this problem?
In America, as I have said here and elsewhere many times, UNDERemployment is a bigger problem than unemployment. Indeed, as opportunities for good jobs diminish...the only "opportunity" for many is service jobs to serve the people who have "real" jobs...and we don't even need everyone to do that!
Do we encourage one of the spouses to stay home via very low taxes?
Do we give large tax breaks to stay at home mom's since that provides the economy an open job?
It is a real problem that only economist are talking about.

Do we give large tax breaks to stay at home mom's since that provides the economy an open job?

I never heard that angle before? Is Economist really talking about that sexist solution, if so do you have a link?


.

 

[Slave2the$]

We do not have 95% employment. Check the bureau of labor statistics. The 25-54 age group is at 18.8% unemployment. The other age groups are way worse too.

Ummm, you obviously didn't check BLS.

Or if you prefer the direct BLS link: Unemployment rate age 25-64

Of course, we don't have 95% employment either...it's 59.4%. Employment is percent of population, and unemployment is percent of the labor force.

Wow, 40.6% not working, it's worse than I thought. I wonder how these people get by? Some are retired, some are in college but many want a job. Maybe everyone is living off lottery winnings or have a very rich mother or father. Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Jomama]

Solution? It sounds socialist but I'm favoring a Guaranteed Minimum Income more and more. But only if it is net-neutral in costs. I like the idea of dismantling the inefficient bureaucracy we have now administering all of this and spreading the wealth to the productive and non-productive equally. I'd work just as hard but would bank the GMI money while someone else might want to make it their sole income. If technology really will produce future gains, then it can be shared that way, somewhat like Alaska and Norway share Oil riches with the population.

 

[pinqy]

We do not have 95% employment. Check the bureau of labor statistics. The 25-54 age group is at 18.8% unemployment. The other age groups are way worse too.

Ummm, you obviously didn't check BLS.

Or if you prefer the direct BLS link: Unemployment rate age 25-64

Of course, we don't have 95% employment either...it's 59.4%. Employment is percent of population, and unemployment is percent of the labor force.

Wow, 40.6% not working, it's worse than I thought. I wonder how these people get by? Some are retired, some are in college but many want a job. Maybe everyone is living off lottery winnings or have a very rich mother or father. Thank you for correcting me.

Well, out of the adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+, excluding military and those in prison or other institution) there are101,894,000 who did not work in April.
88,100,000 (87.2%) did not want a job, 13,084,000 (12.8%) did.
Of those 13 million who did, 7,413,000 (7.3% of those not working) were looking for work and were classified as Unemployed.

That leaves 5,671,000 (2.2% of the population, 5.6% of those not working) who said they wanted a job but weren't doing anything to get one. Most of those had not looked for work in the previous year, which makes their claim rather dubious in my opinion. A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[Slave2the$]

We do not have 95% employment. Check the bureau of labor statistics. The 25-54 age group is at 18.8% unemployment. The other age groups are way worse too.

Ummm, you obviously didn't check BLS.

Or if you prefer the direct BLS link: Unemployment rate age 25-64

Of course, we don't have 95% employment either...it's 59.4%. Employment is percent of population, and unemployment is percent of the labor force.

Wow, 40.6% not working, it's worse than I thought. I wonder how these people get by? Some are retired, some are in college but many want a job. Maybe everyone is living off lottery winnings or have a very rich mother or father. Thank you for correcting me.

Well, out of the adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+, excluding military and those in prison or other institution) there are101,894,000 who did not work in April.
88,100,000 (87.2%) did not want a job, 13,084,000 (12.8%) did.
Of those 13 million who did, 7,413,000 (7.3% of those not working) were looking for work and were classified as Unemployed.

That leaves 5,671,000 (2.2% of the population, 5.6% of those not working) who said they wanted a job but weren't doing anything to get one. Most of those had not looked for work in the previous year, which makes their claim rather dubious in my opinion. A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Footnote#1 "includes some persons who were not asked if they want a job"

I wonder what % of people that was????
I know my wife who has been laid off 2 years never got a survey.

 

[Slave2the$]

Do you truly believe there are 88,100,000 people that do not want to work? Really??? Be honest with yourself. All I am saying is 5% unemployment sounds really good for the govt and the country but it just isn't so. It's a big lie. If you say 5% are getting unemployment benefits then that would be correct.