It seems to me that unemployment is the elephant in the room that no politician today has the nerve to mention. To do so would then require a massive rethink of how we do society, from the bottom up, including how wealth is distributed. Imagine that in an environment where just raising taxes four percentage points (only on the uber rich) causes a firestorm in the US.

As we become more efficient, we tend to need less workers. Of course, some here might point out that as some industries have dried up in terms of employment, new ones have been created, with new positions. I think it is arguable though that the tendency has been in one direction: away from masses of workers pouring into factories in the morning, and towards a few highly skilled specialists writing software, or doing similar tasks. And economist Paul Krugman, in the link below, makes the case that today even some very skilled workers are becoming surplus to the labour market.

Globalization has transferred work from the developed world to the less developed, such as China and India. Yet even these countries are in a mortal struggle to provide enough jobs for their populations, enough at least to ward of civil discord.

Perhaps more significantly, digitalization has eliminated the need for masses of workers, in an increasing category of industries. What seemed outside the capability of software yesterday is increasingly on the drawing board for tomorrow.

What to do? Spain reportedly has a youth unemployment rate of about 50%. In some countries, the true extent of the problem can be masked by figures that don't include those hanging on with part time, poverty wages, or have dropped out, and are hanging on by the most precarious means. It seems unlikely we could roll back the tide of computerization and technological change, even if this was so desired. On the other hand, how long are millions of educated youth going to sit around on the dole, or perhaps not even have that, and watch life go by?

It's not that society, overall, isn't doing well. GDP has been going up, even in the EU. So wealth is there, but it seems to me the way we look at the whole business of work, and value produced in society, is going to need a complete reanalysis.

What do you think? How to proceed is such a minimal labour market? Have you had personal experiences with this?

"....To articulate the core of his argument, McAfee draws from the concept of exponential growth patterns. The numbers at the beginning of any exponential curve (1+2+4+8+16….etc) are easy to comprehend. It isn’t until later in the progression that intuition breaks down and human imagination is outstripped by the explosive growth in the doubling pattern. With regards to the digitization of labor, McAfee argues that we may have just entered the “knee” of the curve; the portion of the growth pattern characterized by massive acceleration...."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity ... the-alarm/


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opini ... c=rss&_r=0

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... e12294236/

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... economists

I agree that we're in an economic state now where automation is decreasing the need for a big part of the labor force.

Also, for the first time in the history of the US, the rural economy is on the decline. You actually have fewer people on farms and doing farm-related business.

As a system's level software architect in addition to being a published author, I can tell you I'm the guy they call to come in and write the software that makes the jobs go away. I'm in that business, and business is good. Right now there is between 0% and 2.0% unemployment for C#/ ASP.Net programmers nationwide. I get calls every day - do you know someone? If you hear of someone, will you call me?

And the jobs are up to $55/hr in places like East Tennessee, where you could make $35/hr two years ago if you were lucky. You're at $80 -> $120/hr on the West Coast.

Understand - this is going to be a short term in human terms. In five to ten years, the software will be written and the programmers will be rewriting it to maintain efficiency. The jobs that the software has replaced will be gone forever and the demand for the programmers will level off. We the developers will have our time in the upper middle class and industry will redirect itself to creating the things we want to buy.

The problem that is your elephant in the room is the existence of a significant portion of the US population coming through the educative process with skills that no one can use. A big percentage of the people in that block realize it and stop trying. You have a whole force of politicians right now catering to that block and getting them to vote for more free services provided on the sweat of those who can work.

It is a foot race between the tolerance and the need. Eventually this new middle class is going to have to choose: we'll give most of our money away to the government to support a block of the population so that they can breed and produce nothing, or we'll revolt.

Or do you think it's a coincidence that Homeland Security is trying to buy up every box of cartridges it can lay its hands on?

I think you're right about that elephant, etudiant. It seems to be a lot easier for us to debate issues like religion than to confront a massive problem that we have no idea how to combat. I have two kids in early employment (well, one just quit her job) and wonder how the economic climate will affect them. I see that one solution proposed is for all education systems to become more like Germany's, which puts 40% of all h.s.students into apprenticeships. There is still resistance to making education and vocation so closely tied, but under the circumstances is there an alternative? I wonder especially about classical liberal arts education in colleges. There now seems to be some skepticism about the nostrum that a liberally educated person will be able to adapt to whatever employment conditions exist. It seems crass to ask what a degree in English and Classics (my daughter's) is worth, but if there are so many fewer middle-class jobs available, the question should be asked.

When an improving economy occurs alongside a stubbornly high level in long-term unemployed, something is up. What's worrisome is that the experts cited in the links think it will get even worse.

TheWizard wrote:I agree that we're in an economic state now where automation is decreasing the need for a big part of the labor force.

Also, for the first time in the history of the US, the rural economy is on the decline. You actually have fewer people on farms and doing farm-related business.

As a system's level software architect in addition to being a published author, I can tell you I'm the guy they call to come in and write the software that makes the jobs go away. I'm in that business, and business is good. Right now there is between 0% and 2.0% unemployment for C#/ ASP.Net programmers nationwide. I get calls every day - do you know someone? If you hear of someone, will you call me?

And the jobs are up to $55/hr in places like East Tennessee, where you could make $35/hr two years ago if you were lucky. You're at $80 -> $120/hr on the West Coast.

Understand - this is going to be a short term in human terms. In five to ten years, the software will be written and the programmers will be rewriting it to maintain efficiency. The jobs that the software has replaced will be gone forever and the demand for the programmers will level off. We the developers will have our time in the upper middle class and industry will redirect itself to creating the things we want to buy.

The problem that is your elephant in the room is the existence of a significant portion of the US population coming through the educative process with skills that no one can use. A big percentage of the people in that block realize it and stop trying. You have a whole force of politicians right now catering to that block and getting them to vote for more free services provided on the sweat of those who can work.

It is a foot race between the tolerance and the need. Eventually this new middle class is going to have to choose: we'll give most of our money away to the government to support a block of the population so that they can breed and produce nothing, or we'll revolt.

Or do you think it's a coincidence that Homeland Security is trying to buy up every box of cartridges it can lay its hands on?

A question for you wizard: A couple of years down the road, the population wises up, either due to information campaigns, or other routes, and potential employees pile into what pays, en mass. I.T., new medical technologies, 3-D television, whatever, they seek out what employees people. What now happens to your pay scale? To your job security?

There is a dichotomy between individual initiative and resourcefulness, and the broader sociological and technological trends that affect society at large. Let's say for example that, due to changes in industry and technology, employing more than about 80% of the workforce in productive jobs is not really feasible. One could certainly argue that the more resourceful would most likely gravitate towards the 80%, and the less so towards the remaining-unfortunate- 20%. This is primary to the individual of course, but it matters not a wit to society.

Because overall, the figures would be the same. The question would remain of what to do with the surplus. You see what I am getting at? If by some weird twist of fate the welfare sloths you suggest suddenly got steel in their pants, and went to work, it would merely mean that now a surprised and dismayed 20% of the resourceful would find themselves adrift. Individual work ethic and energy are admirable traits, but we are talking about two separate layers here. By the way, these aren't entirely hypothetical figures- some economists consider we are pretty much there already, even if this is not acknowledged.

You mention a new middle class, but in fact today the middle class is in steep decline, in the US and elsewhere. The reasons for this are fairly clear. Most middle class jobs are no longer needed. When making a projection of a middle class continuing on into the future, one is stepping on thin ice. Greater efficiencies mean less need for large workforces. You have even alluded to reductions in your own presently successful field. And today we are light years beyond the hundreds of thousands pouring through factory gates in Detroit or Manchester. It is not that there are not jobs still required, and likely always will be, but that productive work, for the entire population, is becoming more and more problematic.

Homeland Security can stockpile all the ammo they want, but it won't change the dynamics of employment in the world today, in the US or elsewhere. And drawing a line between those that miss the boat, for whatever failing or miscalculation, and those who have enjoyed foresight, or luck, is only a recipe for conflict. Today, for example, you are doing well in writing softwear. Your job is seriously at risk, as you likely know, from those in places like India or China, that can do what you do for a fraction of the price. If you lose your job to such rising forces, does that make you someone that "breeds and does nothing", or someone that that has been struck by global forces beyond an individuals control? Before you jump in and say, well I would do something else, I'd make my way, the precise point I am making here is that more and more around the globe are just that- trying to make that guess as to what will work in the future, ever more people for ever less positions.

I'd suggest to you that there is indeed a foot race- but it isn't between tolerance and need, but between a newer and enlightened concept of the world of employment, and the imperatives of self-interest, lobbyists, entrepreneurs, timid and corrupt politicians, and the credulous whose interest is sadly limited.

DWill wrote:I think you're right about that elephant, etudiant. It seems to be a lot easier for us to debate issues like religion than to confront a massive problem that we have no idea how to combat. I have two kids in early employment (well, one just quit her job) and wonder how the economic climate will affect them. I see that one solution proposed is for all education systems to become more like Germany's, which puts 40% of all h.s.students into apprenticeships. There is still resistance to making education and vocation so closely tied, but under the circumstances is there an alternative? I wonder especially about classical liberal arts education in colleges. There now seems to be some skepticism about the nostrum that a liberally educated person will be able to adapt to whatever employment conditions exist. It seems crass to ask what a degree in English and Classics (my daughter's) is worth, but if there are so many fewer middle-class jobs available, the question should be asked.

When an improving economy occurs alongside a stubbornly high level in long-term unemployed, something is up. What's worrisome is that the experts cited in the links think it will get even worse.

Germany is doing quite well, but then again, there is only so much employment available in the trades, as useful as these jobs might be.

Personally, I'd say a liberal arts education is highly valuable. Those that make wise choices can often have multiplying effects rippling through society, and it is harder to make good choices without having significant background resources at hand. Just take a look at the politicians that have received remarkable amounts of votes in recent elections, when in fact an assertive visit from a case manager or police officer would have been more appropriate for said figure. A broader understanding of the world means a more enlightened society, something particularly important in democracies where marking a ballot can have serious ramifications.

There is no solution and nobody will accomplish anything. But we may all be in agreement on this point. The problem as I see it is that employees wages, benefits and value has been systematically diminished over the past 40 or so years. In response to not having a real job people feel they do not have to be real employees. Well anyone can see where this has to lead. Nationalize everything. For the fun of it!

Kevin wrote:There is no solution and nobody will accomplish anything. But we may all be in agreement on this point. The problem as I see it is that employees wages, benefits and value has been systematically diminished over the past 40 or so years. In response to not having a real job people feel they do not have to be real employees. Well anyone can see where this has to lead. Nationalize everything. For the fun of it!

I completely agree that wages, benefits, and indeed, other workers rights have atrophied over the last number of years. My personal experience though, is that the up and coming generation X do not think of these things very much, and simply take the world as they find it. A house costs a million dollars? (it does in Vancouver BC) I guess I'll work till I'm 80. Three hundred other people want the same job I do? I'll need some professional help with my resume. That's about the extent of it. The underlying sociological and political trends are of no interest. In fact, many for whom history is an obscure and negligible enterprise will not only see a real job, but work all the harder to keep it, assuming this is the way the world works, and probably has for a great deal of time.

As for nationalization, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. The current fashion is against it, and if I am not mistaken, there are some factions in the US that might be drawn to charging the magazines of their assault rifles upon hearing this term.

There is a solution but our esteemed politicians are too bust getting themselves (or their party) re-elected. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh but he is right in one aspect: the Democrats want to give you food, the Republicans want to give you a job so you can buy food. Now if the Republicans got off their asses and created jobs and the Democrats let them we'd start to get out of this mess.

My firm belief is that we are at a new crossroads in manufacturing. For the first time with the Internet, we have the ability to custom make goods for a small segment of the population. Example: Audiophiles will pay big bucks for certain items related to their hobby. So will car nuts. So will anyone with a specific interest. Millions could be employed in high end enterprises catering to relatively tiny targeted production. It is also a fact that we have vast oil fields we could exploit but which are untouchable by government (EPA) edict. Green, organic farming could be championed by the government to create more jobs. This is plenty of opportunity but NO VISION in our government. We have no leaders!
Just my humble opinion.

imagexposed wrote:There is a solution but our esteemed politicians are too bust getting themselves (or their party) re-elected. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh but he is right in one aspect: the Democrats want to give you food, the Republicans want to give you a job so you can buy food. Now if the Republicans got off their asses and created jobs and the Democrats let them we'd start to get out of this mess.

My firm belief is that we are at a new crossroads in manufacturing. For the first time with the Internet, we have the ability to custom make goods for a small segment of the population. Example: Audiophiles will pay big bucks for certain items related to their hobby. So will car nuts. So will anyone with a specific interest. Millions could be employed in high end enterprises catering to relatively tiny targeted production. It is also a fact that we have vast oil fields we could exploit but which are untouchable by government (EPA) edict. Green, organic farming could be championed by the government to create more jobs. This is plenty of opportunity but NO VISION in our government. We have no leaders!
Just my humble opinion.

My observation is that both the Democrats and Republicans have favoured those policies that are beneficial to the established, well healed, affluent apex of the business community and the generally influencial, within recent years at least. The Democrats with reservations,and occassionaly dragging their feet, the Republicans with a new found enthusiasm that brings to mind religious extremism.

I agree that we are in a transition re manufacturing, and also internet business. The internet is vastly changing the way we look at the world, and the way we do business. For the most part, I believe it is consumers who have benefited the most from the net. As you say, they can find any manner of speciality, odd ball items, anywhere. But in the context of this discussion, the problem is that this reduces employment, not the other way around. Those that previously endulged their hobbies had to go to an established store, in which there where paid employees. Today, these are no longer needed. There is much more one to one interchange, the only other "employees" needed, in any sort of numbers, are delivery workers, themselves facing the prospect of the Google car, something that may not affect them, but almost certainly their children.

Green farming is an excellent concept for a sustainable future. In my part of the world, it is already quite well established. But again, this does not affect employment in any significant way. Total employment in the agricultural industry in North America runs around 2% of the workforce today. Any changes here are not going to be a large impact.

As for oil fields, in relation to demand, vast is an overstatemen IMO. There are large unconventional sources of oil, such as the Alberta tar sands, but how much of these are actually exploited will depend on the prevailance of weather related events that occur over the next few years. If global warming hits us in the face like an angry drunk, you can bet a lot of oil will remain in the ground. And anyway, as far as employment goes, there are few more positions to be had. The Alberta oil sands, for example, are currently being exploited in a most labour intensive way. As is fracking in the US, and also in other examples worldwide. These issues will affect us, but not in the sense of increasing employment.

For the first time with the Internet, we have the ability to custom make goods for a small segment of the population. Example: Audiophiles will pay big bucks for certain items related to their hobby. So will car nuts. So will anyone with a specific interest.

The problem is that an increasing portion of the population can no longer indulge in hobbies that require spending money. Republicans may want to give you a job to buy food, but the methods they're using will ensure you can't buy anything more than food. There are higher paying jobs, but I don't see many of them as sustainable since they increase the severity of climate change. The easiest short term solutions are the worst long term solutions.

The Democrats with reservations,and occassionaly dragging their feet, the Republicans with a new found enthusiasm that brings to mind religious extremism.

I get the same vibe from MrA, who posts here often. Objectivism has been rising on the right. Job creators are the hero's and deserve any wealth they acquire. This sounds good on the surface, except that the wealth they acquire is almost universally more than their contribution to society. While both parties may share responsibility, Objectivism is a gunpowder catalyst that promises to push the trend further.

Laborer's compensation decreases. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110224.htm

While the rich get richer. http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf


For a discussion on a hypothetical wage question: http://www.booktalk.org/topic15188.html