- Thread starter
- #21
Then you were wrong by not clarifying that and simply stating incorrect figures on size of labor force, there is a big difference between what you said in your first post and what you're saying now.No, they are not wrong. Their figures are adjusted for population growth.
There are still all sort of issues with your scary headline. For one thing demographics plays a role as well, as baby boomers hit retirement age the percentage of population that is of working age changes. Blaming it all on increases in productivity via technology ignores our aging population.With our population growth, the US should have 155 million non agricultural jobs. We have only 152 million. We are losing ground. While your chart is correct, it doesn't show that our population is growing faster than the amount of jobs available.
The other is the obvious cherry picking of dates, when a source arbitrarily looks at something over a 17 year timeline like this they are more interested in proving a point than providing a nonbiased commentary. Why not 20 years? Why not 15 years? Because neither provides as scary an answer as looking at it from an employment peak during dotcom era.
In the era of cars that drive themselves, and fast food joints without employees, do you really see jobs expanding?
Its a simple question.
Mark