SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A couple of years ago it was reported that in 2012 more than half of all American wage earners made less than $30,000 per year. The Social Security Administration's new earnings report for 2014 is out and there's still much gnashing of teeth about the dying middle class. With earnings numbers that haven't changed much in 2 years, estimates running as high as 100 million working age Americans without a job, and no one tracking the population of H-1B visa holders, where are the jobs really?
The July 9, 2015, issue of The New York Review of Books carried a very thoughtful piece by Andrew Hacker. In "The Frenzy About High-Tech Talent," Hacker discusses a number of books and reports that address whether or not there really is a need for more tech talent, the justification for the H-1B visa program, and issues in the American educational system.
[...] Throughout his piece Hacker is basically questioning two things:
1. Is there really an unfilled need for STEM graduates, or are we actually graduating too many so that many end up unemployed or employed in different areas?
2. Are there flaws in the American education system, both at the K-12 level and in college, that lead us to be very dependent on foreign STEM graduates?
[...] The texts Hacker is reviewing, and his own information, seem to dwell predominately on overall job projections for the STEM fields. Nowhere does there appear a breakout of the job forecast for computing related job categories. With the increased ubiquity of computing across all industries and employment sectors, it seems unlikely that we will see the "deskilling" trend that may be occurring in engineering (whereby engineers create equipment that means they and others like them no longer have job opportunities). We know that there are many jobs in the "tech sector" but there are also a lot of computing jobs in banking, finance, manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, etc. We can get an accurate picture of future job openings only if we can make a good determination of the computing jobs that exist outside of the "tech sector."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:34PM
where are the jobs really?
Once again, we have hand wringing over jobs in the US. While the recent recessions and the current trouble in China may cause temporary setbacks, it still remains that most of the world doesn't have the US's job problems. The fundamental problem is the huge wage imbalance between the US (and incidentally the rest of the developed world) and the developing world. Why pay a US worker to do something when you can pay several foreign workers to do the same thing?
It's basic supply and demand. I think there is this honest but naive intention that if we educate workers with a lot of STEM stuff, then they'll become more valuable and hence, in higher demand. That only works if someone demands that labor rather than cheaper STEM-educated foreign workers who are in rather plentiful supply right now.
My take is that this will fail just like som any similar efforts have failed over the past half century. Through no fault of our own, US workers are overpriced and thus, wages are dropping as they have for decades. Nothing will not stop that from happening or other related stuff, like increasing wealth inequality. It's a consequence of having so many people on Earth and global trade.
So here's my list of what I think the US needs to do:
1) Present US workers need to man up. How far US wages depends first and foremost on how valuable US labor is relative to other labor. Workers will take a huge haircut in wages and other benefits that cost money no matter what happens. Might as well face it head on rather than wriggle on the hook for a few more decades.
2) Get out of the way of the employers' way. A huge amount of current labor law is just crap. A huge amount of imposed costs are crap too. The overhead of employing someone is a huge obstacle which we need to do something about while the US is still relatively healthy. There's been a lot of fantasy over the post-scarcity world. We aren't there. In the meantime, someone who works (even if it isn't paid work) is better for society than someone who doesn't. And someone who directly employs people benefits society more than someone who merely works.
3) Nuke the entitlements. Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare drive up the of employing someone (for example, Social Security is a 15% premium on every employer). That harms us more than we get from the crappy benefits (and future obligations which often aren't backed by future revenue). These programs also take money away from the little bit of actual stuff that the federal government should be doing. A huge cut in these programs as well as military spending would result in the complete disappearance of the federal deficit, which I think would be a worthy goal just on its own. It would also remove the incentive for the federal government to use inflation as the tool for solving both its debt and the overpriced US labor problems.
4) Reform immigration. My view is that it should be pretty easy to get a green card (the document you need for permanent residency in the US): pay a non-trivial amount of money, pass a background check, and that's it. Completely eliminate indentured servant programs like H1-B (where one gets kicked out of the country, if one loses employment and can't quickly find a replacement employer). I think this would reestablish the US as the place to go for the competent and the ambitious. Those sorts of people help create businesses and employ people and such a policy probably would be enough for the US to maintain permanently a knowledge and wage edge over the current developing world.
Where is the end state of this? Near wage parity with the developing world. There's a lot of people, but there's still just a finite supply. Eventually, the US will return to increasing wages. The only question is how much of a premium, if any, will the US be able to command over the current developing world? The more we do now to destroy labor-harmful policies, the better off we will be in that future.
In sum, we've had plenty of time to prove that welfare, labor protection, and similar policies in the US. As I tell people who complain that we're not doing enough for workers, citizens, etc, you got what you wanted. It just comes with a swarm of unintended consequences that usually decrease or destroy the value of the thing you sought. Instead of creating a society of happy people (or whatever goal was being attempted), these sorts of labor and populist policies created a state dominated by unaccountable government organizations and business oligopolies. I think it's time to become competitive and free once again rather than yet another also ran, failed state unable to manage even basic public services. But that means US workers accept that they continue to make the sacrifices that they have so far failed to avoid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:44PM
I like your list. Don't quite agree with all of it, but it's more worthwhile than most I've seen. Here's a response:
1) Pretty much. Present US workers also need to find alternative revenue streams. Got a hobby? Can you make it pay? Even to the level of paying for its own equipment and resources? That's a hell of a lot better place to start than punching the clock a little later.
2) Yes. Yes, yes. Regulation, red tape, this stuff is a killer. You don't know how much until you run your own business. My own business development has been held up for literal calendar years by the requirements of regulators with nothing better to do. Oh, I submitted paperwork but the regs changed while I was actually submitting the paperwork? Go back to square 1. And there's no meaningful recourse. If your answer to anything in America is to push for more laws or regulations, you're wrong unless you're the agent of a foreign power.
3) I wouldn't entirely nuke the entitlements, but I would reform them greatly. Honestly, we could go to a no-questions-asked basic income and actually save so much money by reduced red tape that it would be affordable, especially once you toss in the money which would otherwise have gone to our present entitlements. So it's unfair that a bazillionaire gets it - it still works out cheaper.
4) Yeah, pretty much. Give the H1Bs a level playing field and their pay will stop being so much of a selling point, as compared to their competence.
I would add this:
5) The dollar is overpriced. It's nice for the consumer because cheap imports, and it's nice for foreign policy because it helps swing a big international dick, but it subsidises fiscal irresponsibility in the government and prices local production out of the market. Let the dollar slide down international rankings a bit - it doesn't have to be that much. Losing maybe 20% of relative value would boost insourcing massively because logistics ain't free, and encourage a lot more efficiency. It would be bad for many people - there's no free lunch here - but a lot of what we're seeing is evidence of price imbalances.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:44PM
I don't think #1 will work, because everyone that actually would agree that there can be wiggling on the hook for a few decades, will accept this and hope to retire in a few decades with the salary they have, than the reductive haircut salary you offer. Being unable to retire in a few decades to save some political process money is something *someone else can do*.
People will trade or cut back, but not like what you suggest. People are going to give up meats due to cancer, conveniences due to global warming, freedom for hypocracy, etc. They are not going to willingly give up their income just so they can make a closer number to people in another country.
If you were able to get those people to "man up" and increase their living expenses 10x, 100x whatever it takes -- then maybe I can pretend it is my merit that makes me special and not the low salary and incredible value I provide.
There will need to be a moon project sort of goal that people care about, or a terrible disaster -- some kind of unifying force to get anyone to man up in the way you suggest.
But what you then would be endorsing looks like nationalism when willingly done, and communism when enforced... as far as the wealth distribution is concerned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:07PM
People will trade or cut back, but not like what you suggest. People are going to give up meats due to cancer, conveniences due to global warming, freedom for hypocracy, etc. They are not going to willingly give up their income just so they can make a closer number to people in another country.
This part isn't negotiable. It will happen no matter how unwilling US workers are or what games are played to avoid it.
If you were able to get those people to "man up" and increase their living expenses 10x, 100x whatever it takes -- then maybe I can pretend it is my merit that makes me special and not the low salary and incredible value I provide.
Where are you going with that? It's worth noting that we're already on that rather dumb course of action with inflated real estate, health care, and education. It didn't take manning up, it took doing dumb things for half a century.
There will need to be a moon project sort of goal that people care about, or a terrible disaster -- some kind of unifying force to get anyone to man up in the way you suggest.
The terrible disaster is becoming poorer than China in the future.
But what you then would be endorsing looks like nationalism when willingly done, and communism when enforced... as far as the wealth distribution is concerned.
It's a national problem so any solutions will look a little nationalist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:15PM
This is the same poster that cited the concerns.
I think what I was trying to say is that there are not enough people to follow through with this, even if they believe it. Even if collapse happens around them.
The haves are digging vaults, the nuts are collecting guns, few outside of Etsy have any creative survival skills that involve something other than downloading plans someone else made for their 3d printer or what have you.
There are many good people that will be able to adapt -- but they are unlikely to give it up willingly. I think we have seen in Greece what the austerity measures have done. Even the migrants escaping Syria and Africa and other nearby locales, the people who have nothing -- are unwilling to go there. Instead, they pursue a fantasy--the fantasy that you are suggesting that the people already in the fantasy should give up.
I do not see it happening willingly, and when it happens, someone will get pitchforked to death as things burn. Probably with stolen pitchforks, because the people smart enough to save will be stolen from when those that have nothing see those nearby that do.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:58PM
I'm not an american, but my perception is that there would be strong resistance to making it generally easier to get a green card. "Dang furriners takin our jerbs".
I think you would have more chance of arguing the limited case that any H1-B who survives in the job for a month be given one.
Companies would look like hypocrites simultaneously claiming that H1-B's are needed because of a shortage (and that they get equal benefits to locals), and that the H1-B's shouldn't get green cards because then they could negotiate equal benefits to the locals.
The effect on tech jobs would be complex, removing the indentured servant problem, but possibly increasing the supply of workers. Overall, I would expect an improvement in pay and conditions, simply because the indians and chinese would have a better negotiating position than they do now. If the bottom level moves up, so does the average.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:25PM
You are essentially proposing the "race to the bottom" argument: compete with the 3rd world by becoming LIKE the 3rd world. To do this we get rid of worker safety laws, labor hour laws, pollution laws, etc. etc. "If we become a dump like them, we can compete with them".
And many of those countries keep their wages artificially low because an unemployed population would riot and overthrow the head. They rig currency and trade rules to emphasize local jobs over consumerism.
I say tariff lopsided trading countries so that they increase exchange rates and local consumerism. And no, it will not start a trade-war because they have much more to lose than we do. We ramp up tariffs gradually to avoid financial shocks.
I dislike Trump, but he's right on one thing: we need to negotiate better trade deals. Lopsided trading has only benefited the wealthy. Perhaps we get cheaper trinkets, but what's more important: trinkets or jobs? Some pick trinkets, but I believe it's healthier for the country to employ as many as possible above "more stuff".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:02PM
You are essentially proposing the "race to the bottom" argument: compete with the 3rd world by becoming LIKE the 3rd world. To do this we get rid of worker safety laws, labor hour laws, pollution laws, etc. etc. "If we become a dump like them, we can compete with them".
Sounds bad. Well, my view is that the 3rd world is well on its way to becoming LIKE the US (with a number of countries having completed that transition such as Norway, Japan, or South Korea). Developed world societies don't need to destroy all regulation to "race to the bottom" with the more successful current competitors such as China when China is racing to improve its citizens' standard of living. OTOH, everyone admits that the relative absence of regulation makes China, despite its ugly government a superior economic competitor. "Race to the bottom" wouldn't even make sense as a concern, if the "bottom" wasn't whipping everyone else economically.
And many of those countries keep their wages artificially low because an unemployed population would riot and overthrow the head. They rig currency and trade rules to emphasize local jobs over consumerism.
Why care? Because it works. And who tries to keep wages artificially high? Why it's the developed world societies complaining about the "rigging". Funny how the former "artificially low" wages seems to work a lot better than the latter artificially high wages do?
I say tariff lopsided trading countries so that they increase exchange rates and local consumerism. And no, it will not start a trade-war because they have much more to lose than we do. We ramp up tariffs gradually to avoid financial shocks.
And now we get to the unicorn-powered part of the post. I really don't know what's worse, temporarily losing trading access to the US, a world power that won't shortly be one, due to a little short-lived political posturing, or "an unemployed population" which as you note above "would riot and overthrow the head". That sounds worse to me than a minor trade war. There's this magical assumption that countries which have spent decades following a successful strategy of elevating their populations from poverty are going to reverse all that (especially at the cost of their leadership getting overthrown) just because the US worker wants more money. I think it's dumb to try that argument much less take it seriously enough that you get into a trade war. Another country's citizens will always have priority over US citizens.
I dislike Trump, but he's right on one thing: we need to negotiate better trade deals. Lopsided trading has only benefited the wealthy. Perhaps we get cheaper trinkets, but what's more important: trinkets or jobs? Some pick trinkets, but I believe it's healthier for the country to employ as many as possible above "more stuff".
While a bunch of the recent trade dealings are attempted giveaways to special interests (like *IAA and US intelligence agencies), most deals aren't with a lot of the historical ones being unfairly slandered. Sure, maybe NAFTA or the WTO could be better, but really these complaints are about the US being unable to compete with the other parties in the trade agreement than the actual nature or advantages of the trade agreement. And trade agreements are not panaceas. Negotiating a good trade agreement won't magically fix broken US labor policy.
As to "lopsided trading has only benefited the wealthy", it's also benefited citizens of every impoverished country that has tried the "Japanese miracle" [wikipedia.org] of which a key strategy is lopsided trading. Another aspect of the Japanese miracle (for any developed world country that would like to try it), is that you don't give workers a lot of free stuff.
In summary, I think this post unfortunately is an example of the cognitive dissonance surrounding globalization and trade with other countries. We implicitly admit that the developed world has significantly inferior economic strategy and then, while ignoring half a century of counterexample, attempt to bulldoze through anyway. I just don't see that ending up well when the developing world catches up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:06PM
Not all regs, but much of them. China is highly polluted and many work slave-like hours. We DON'T want to emulate many aspects of their society.
I have no problem with adjusting the dollar to make our wages more competitive.
One causes the other. They "compete" by deflating their currency and discouraging in-coming trade.
What "policy" are you referring to? I'm willing to try it. If doesn't work, we go back to the current lopsided trade mess. We can theorize until the cows come home. Sometimes you just have to do and try. Experimentation is part of science.
You don't understand. They would do it because we'd give them practical incentives (or disincentives), NOT because we ask them. And increasing consumption will NOT get the leaders overthrown. If anything, it may make many citizens happier. Who wants to save commie dictators anyhow?
That export-centrism is the only way out of 3rd-world poverty is nonsense. It's a habit, not a true-ism. It's a habit because we fall for it and let them rig trade at our expense. If you keep giving chocolate to people who fart, more will fart.
Projection. You are suckered by unscientific plutocrat propaganda.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:24AM
I have no problem with adjusting the dollar to make our wages more competitive.
Remember that race to the bottom thing? You're doing it. Inflation (here, via "adjusting the dollar") is probably the most common way that wages are devalued. Unless of course, you were thinking the other direction - which hopefully you weren't. A strong dollar is great for buying trinkets and neutralizing US exports. Not so great for job creation.
One causes the other. They "compete" by deflating their currency and discouraging in-coming trade.
Inflating their currency.
What "policy" are you referring to? I'm willing to try it. If doesn't work, we go back to the current lopsided trade mess. We can theorize until the cows come home. Sometimes you just have to do and try. Experimentation is part of science.
For example, the labor hour policy you mentioned in your original post.
You don't understand. They would do it because we'd give them practical incentives (or disincentives), NOT because we ask them. And increasing consumption will NOT get the leaders overthrown. If anything, it may make many citizens happier. Who wants to save commie dictators anyhow?
Unicorns again. I don't buy this at all. The "we'll be awesome in this negotiation" thing is silly. Countries like China have their own interests and they're not going to throw those away on some toothless, unspecified negotiation threat just because US workers want more stuff.
That export-centrism is the only way out of 3rd-world poverty is nonsense. It's a habit, not a true-ism. It's a habit because we fall for it and let them rig trade at our expense. If you keep giving chocolate to people who fart, more will fart.
Nonsense - only if you ignore that it works well. We have several countries that have completed the transition to developed world as a result (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan).
[In summary, I think this post unfortunately is an example of the cognitive dissonance surrounding globalization and trade with other countries. We implicitly admit that the developed world has significantly inferior economic strategy and then, while ignoring half a century of counterexample, attempt to bulldoze through anyway. I just don't see that ending up well when the developing world catches up.]
Projection. You are suckered by unscientific plutocrat propaganda.
If so, then why is it true? We have a half century to try out the labor-centric approaches and the cushy public entitlements. As a result, the US gave the car keys to the plutocrats, bureaucrats, politicians, cronies, rent seekers, and other nefarious vermin of the modern US political ecology. Further, the US has more or less maintained its economic position, despite the decades long modest decline in the fortunes of its workers, but hemorrhaged a staggering amount of industry and business to other countries in the process as well as steadily reducing the value of its public goods and service.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:02AM
(* A strong dollar is great for buying trinkets and neutralizing US exports. *)
Why would we want to neutralize our exports?
(* For example, the labor hour policy you mentioned in your original post. *)
Please clarify.
(* Countries like China have their own interests and they're not going to throw those away on some toothless, unspecified negotiation... *)
If we tariff them, they'll pay attention. They have no choice because their econ is too tied to exports. No unicorns needed.
(* you ignore that it works well *)
It works "well" because we give them a free ride at our expense. Thievery works well until you are caught.
(* We have a half century to try out the labor-centric approaches and the cushy public entitlements *)
And northern European countries, Germany, and Canada have a HIGHER median income than us, and Japan has some of the lowest unemployment. (There's a reason I didn't use "average".)
(* As a result, the US gave the car keys to the plutocrats *)
Please elaborate.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:03PM
(* For example, the labor hour policy you mentioned in your original post. *)
Please clarify.
Labor hour policy like the 40 hour work week devalues significantly US labor since it tends to force more people to be employed for the same task and given there is considerable overhead per employee. There are a lot of jobs where one can work a significant number of hours beyond that work week and still make a net gain for the employer. Further, there's plenty of evidence that a lot of people want to work those extra hours. By artificially making it harder to employ people profitably while simultaneously thwarting the desires of the workers themselves, you make the labor force subject to labor hour policy less valuable and less productive than a population which is not subject to those constraints.
If we tariff them, they'll pay attention. They have no choice because their econ is too tied to exports. No unicorns needed.
And the US economy is tied to cheap imports. Goes both ways. What you are missing here is that the developing world's internal markets are growing too - faster than the US's economy. They don't need the US in order to prosper and in the advent of a trade war, they'll still be growing faster economically than the US will.
(* you ignore that it works well *)
It works "well" because we give them a free ride at our expense. Thievery works well until you are caught.
There's no free ride here. They make goods and services vastly cheaper than we do and we buy those things. It's a straightforward trade with both sides benefiting.
(* We have a half century to try out the labor-centric approaches and the cushy public entitlements *)
And northern European countries, Germany, and Canada have a HIGHER median income than us, and Japan has some of the lowest unemployment. (There's a reason I didn't use "average".)
Unless that's not actually true. Toss in cost of living and taxes too please.
(* As a result, the US gave the car keys to the plutocrats *)
Please elaborate.
US Social Security is a blatant example of this. It's been called the "third rail" of US politics (a "third rail" is an electrified rail sometimes used in electric-powered light rail to deliver power. Touching it can be fatal. One such example is in Washington, DC) because for decades, even hinting at cutting back on Social Security could destroy a politician's career. Until the last few years, Social Security was a net revenue program with revenue collected ranging into the hundreds of billions for much of its 80 year lifespan.
Now let's look at what happens to the excess funding. It gets used to buy internal treasury bonds and the funds thus transferred to the general fund. Notice what happened. The money was originally claimed for Social Security and now it's in the federal government general fund where it can be used for the whims of Congress. There is no constraint at this point on what that money can be spent on.
Therefore, we have a program viciously protected by the electorate over its entire lifespan which dumps vast amounts of money into the general fund where it can be apportioned and consumed by any party with sufficient political power, such as, say plutocrats. That makes it IMHO a straightforward bribe of the electorate for corruption.
Another example is Obamacare which is a straightforward bribe of people with "previously existing conditions" to allow the insurance companies to rob the public.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:11AM
Getting rid of OT pay and SS are something even a good many conservatives are not entirely for. I won't debate them.
(* They don't need the US in order to prosper *)
"Need" is relative. We are huge market for them such that we have decent leverage. I'm willing to test their resolve, as I mentioned before.
(* And the US economy is tied to cheap imports. *)
No it's not.
(* Toss in cost of living and taxes too please. *)
Okay, but those countries also have more leisure time and a better safety net. Being a heavy social Darwinist, I suppose you don't value those much.
As far as O-care, China etc. also has nationalized health insurance such that it's not a difference maker.
(* It's a straightforward trade with both sides benefiting. *)
In terms of our stuff, perhaps, but not in terms of jobs. Policies can trade stuff for jobs and vice versa, and we erred on the side of stuff.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:32AM
Okay, but those countries also have more leisure time and a better safety net. Being a heavy social Darwinist, I suppose you don't value those much.
It's not what I prefer. It's what will last when you're competing with countries which don't do that. My view is that we in the developed world, including Germany, Canada, and the US are about halfway, time-wise, through this phase of competition with the developing world. When China and India near wage parity with the developed world, this pressure on labor will go away.
In terms of our stuff, perhaps, but not in terms of jobs. Policies can trade stuff for jobs and vice versa, and we erred on the side of stuff.
It doesn't have to be zero sum. Having these cheap trinkets does mean the US has labor available for other uses. The trade offs happen because we've made the place so hostile to employing people.
"Need" is relative. We are huge market for them such that we have decent leverage. I'm willing to test their resolve, as I mentioned before.
Another thing here with the complaints about inflating currencies is that the strategic is very easy to exploit by a rival. For example, the US government could purchase inflation resistant Yuan-valued securities with US dollars after each time the Chinese government devalues its currency or just permanently hold on to put options for the currency (which increase in value when the currency is inflated). Then not only do such strategies put pressure on China not to inflate, they make profit for the US every time China tries to devalue its currency. Done right, the profit can come straight from the Chinese government too. China might not be so keen to inflate it's currency, if it knows its government is going to lose a few tens of billions of dollars to the US each time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:52PM
(* When China and India near wage parity with the developed world, this pressure on labor will go away. *)
More likely, some new "emerging market" countries will take over the cheap-slave-like-labor role. South Africa and Vietnam are potential examples.
(* Having these cheap trinkets does mean the US has labor available for other uses *)
Available, yes. Actually used is another matter.
(* It doesn't have to be zero sum. *)
I don't believe it's possible to optimize both jobs and stuff at the same time.
(* The trade offs happen because we've made the place so hostile to employing people. *)
Many of the rules are because jerk companies abuse people, especially during recessions when people have few choices. Blame the jerk companies, not regulations.
(* could purchase inflation resistant Yuan-valued securities with US dollars after each time the Chinese government devalues its currency... *)
It pretty much started out devalued and they kept it that way, making it hard to pull that off.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:42PM
More likely, some new "emerging market" countries will take over the cheap-slave-like-labor role. South Africa and Vietnam are potential examples.
They don't have the people now or later. Here's my view on the matter.
By 2060, the only continent with positive population growth will be Africa and it will be almost zero growth by 2100. Thus, the "cheap, slave-like" labor role will after 2050, be filled by Africans and maybe a few economic holdouts elsewhere in the world (I'm thinking countries with weak economies like North Korea, Burma, or Venezuela though the latter two probably will have recovered well by 2050). There's no way there will be enough Africans to soak up demand for cheap labor from the rest of the world.
After 2050 or so, we'll see an interesting phenomenon which mirrors what happened to US labor over the latter half of the period around 1900-1970 with people growing in prosperity and life choice. The balance of power will swing towards labor because the supply of it is no longer increasing rapidly and cheap labor has tried up. It might even be by 2100 that the greatest global powers are labor unions not countries or businesses.
Available, yes. Actually used is another matter.
That's always the great comfort. No matter how useful these trinkets are to other people, we know better.
I don't believe it's possible to optimize both jobs and stuff at the same time.
Why would we want to? I may be thinking of some other SoylentNews, but didn't we all kind of agree that we don't want to be busting our tails every day for the Man? It appears to me that stuff has already been prioritized over jobs.
Many of the rules are because jerk companies abuse people, especially during recessions when people have few choices. Blame the jerk companies, not regulations.
I speak of consequences not blame.
It pretty much started out devalued and they kept it that way, making it hard to pull that off.
Point is, predictable behavior is profitable for everyone not engaging in the predictable behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @08:03AM
If cheap labor dries up, then automation research will speed up. Picking crops can probably be automated with enough R&D, but so far labor is cheaper than much of the R&D, or at least a more predictable cost.
(* No matter how useful these trinkets are to other people, we know better. *)
I meant using labor, not using trinkets.
(* but didn't we all kind of agree that we don't want to be busting our tails every day for the Man? It appears to me that stuff has already been prioritized over jobs. *)
If there are decent safety nets etc. If machines can do most of the grunt work, that's great, but only if we ALL benefit from that instead of the just the 1%, which is what is happening now.
(* I speak of consequences not blame. *)
If you don't punish or stop a given bad behavior, other co's see you got away with it, and it spreads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @09:29PM
Social Security and Medicare are necessary because most people can't, or won't, plan ahead for retirement.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:21PM
Social Security and Medicare are necessary because most people can't, or won't, plan ahead for retirement.
So what? I don't see a need for anyone to plan retirements for people who can't be bothered to care. And it's worth noting that by "planning" retirements in this way, we degrade everyone's ability to plan future retirements, should that be something they want to do. Both Social Security and Medicare are substantial money sinks which will cripple the US's (both at individual and government levels) future ability to pay for anything including retirement planning.