Going to be a really interesting Friday with this jobs report, I heard numbers are all over the place for this one. Take that jobs number on top of the millions losing unemployment benefits and this economy is looking at a non stop recession. By the way were still in a recession, dont let the inflated GDP numbers fool you, those numbers were filled with stimulus spending over the last year.
Job Creation, where is it going to come from.
- Thread starter KINGOFSHORTS
- Start date
You missed the point I was making.
You ignore the child from 1920 - that is an important baseline. Each generation in my example is 40 years apart. Compare the changes from 1920 to 1960, with the changes of 1960 to 2000.
I submit there is a diminishing rate of return. Here's another example: The wheel was invented once, which was revolutionary for its time. Was it equally revolutionary for its time when hub and spoke, suspension, rubber, ball bearings, etc... where added to the wheel?
One important point that is missing from this equation is the spurious increase in productivity that has occured by making people work longer/harder/faster.
In a world of joblessness, this really doesn't make sense.
For the one individual working an 80 hour week killing themselves and the one unemployed worker (of equal abilities), maybe its time that we look at having both of those individuals work 40 hours a week.
Of course, under our current system of employer provided benefits, that is uneconomic.
Change the laws, and change the paradigm. The shifting of private to public health insurance is part of it, but there is much more to go. And popular culture isn't helping: "We won't hire you because you don't have a job, therefore you must be BAD."
If we can't be wealthy, we might as well be happy!
Also life expectancy was lower and population was lower. Now people live much longer, population much higher but jobs are not growing fast enough for such a thing.
I wonder if things will keep going like this before some war comes and cuts down human population to sustainable levels. Sort of like forest fires that clear the land for new growth.
Kass and Achilles:
I believe you both refer to space exploration as a technological and resource breakthrough someday in the future.
Here's the dilemma:
Space exploration is not commercially viable because of energy constraints. Those rocks from the moon we have collected are damn expensive - let alone collecting and transporting methane gases from even farther away moons and planets.
However, should we tackle and free ourselves from the energy dilemma - the laws of thermodynamics - to make space exploration for energy resource extraction commercially viable, then do we really need to go to other planets and moons to collect energy resources? It would be pointless, no?
Thus, space exploration for resource extraction is a moot and futile point. If you need to overcome energy constraints to make such missions viable, the missions don't need to be accomplished - i.e. we solved the issue.
I believe you both refer to space exploration as a technological and resource breakthrough someday in the future.
Here's the dilemma:
Space exploration is not commercially viable because of energy constraints. Those rocks from the moon we have collected are damn expensive - let alone collecting and transporting methane gases from even farther away moons and planets.
However, should we tackle and free ourselves from the energy dilemma - the laws of thermodynamics - to make space exploration for energy resource extraction commercially viable, then do we really need to go to other planets and moons to collect energy resources? It would be pointless, no?
Thus, space exploration for resource extraction is a moot and futile point. If you need to overcome energy constraints to make such missions viable, the missions don't need to be accomplished - i.e. we solved the issue.
That's why I explicitly mentioned energy resource extraction in that post.
The argument I was addressing was that one day we can extract energy from other sources in the universe. I say that will never happen. Either we solve the energy dilemma here on earth, or we don't.
If we don't solve it - we're not making intergalactic energy resource extraction commercially viable.
If we do solve it, then we don't need to go to Saturn's moons for methane.
lazy asses - that's a biggest problem. There is no shortage of employment, there is no over-technology, it's just erosion of desire to work.
That's probably nature of human been, it comes and goes.
Make a thought experiment - think of model of one man on the planet - exaggerating example - if you drive Chevy-Aveo, eats junk food and live in vinil-walls home, you don't need to work too much , same with countries - everything gets cheaper, consuming less resources, less labor, less time, we want evrything now, doesn't matter it's junk and bad quality, so we get more free time, 'dollarama world'.
And that becomes vicious cycle, because you get used to junk and you get used to more free time, you don't care about vinil walls in you house, even paying huge heating or a/c bills, you're fine with junk car, which eats the rest of your resources and time on repairs and endangers you because it's junk - you don't care, you got insurance, and you don't care(or don't know) that insurance people got used to same habits, so they sold you same insurance junk, etc., etc... And once you realize you don't work enough to cover even the junk you get used to, you look to borrow - 'cause you get used to free time and junk around, and if your parents left assets, you can borrow, and still have a lot of free time, and enough junk supply.
Until eventually you run out of other people money (c)... Than what? If we continue this one-man analogy, so, suddenly , nobody lends you more money, no more junk supply and you get a maximum of free time - it comes to two choices - move your ass and get a job or try to rob others, who still works
.
But, back to the beginning above, if you want high quality home, good car and normal food, you have to work more, much more, so, your life consists of less leisure time(less unemployment), but you feel good and sustainable, and you lend instead of borrowing . Than no unemployment, because difference - between junk and normal - in labor, needed education and resources is huge, and you need to work really hard to get it.
The problem is that when you just one man, you can make your own choices, but if you live in country of lazy asses , and that country makes a choice for you, the change is much harder to make..
Actually, no way to tell it better - amount of work vs what you finally get : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Little_Pigs
That's probably nature of human been, it comes and goes.
Make a thought experiment - think of model of one man on the planet - exaggerating example - if you drive Chevy-Aveo, eats junk food and live in vinil-walls home, you don't need to work too much , same with countries - everything gets cheaper, consuming less resources, less labor, less time, we want evrything now, doesn't matter it's junk and bad quality, so we get more free time, 'dollarama world'.
And that becomes vicious cycle, because you get used to junk and you get used to more free time, you don't care about vinil walls in you house, even paying huge heating or a/c bills, you're fine with junk car, which eats the rest of your resources and time on repairs and endangers you because it's junk - you don't care, you got insurance, and you don't care(or don't know) that insurance people got used to same habits, so they sold you same insurance junk, etc., etc... And once you realize you don't work enough to cover even the junk you get used to, you look to borrow - 'cause you get used to free time and junk around, and if your parents left assets, you can borrow, and still have a lot of free time, and enough junk supply.
Until eventually you run out of other people money (c)... Than what? If we continue this one-man analogy, so, suddenly , nobody lends you more money, no more junk supply and you get a maximum of free time - it comes to two choices - move your ass and get a job or try to rob others, who still works
.But, back to the beginning above, if you want high quality home, good car and normal food, you have to work more, much more, so, your life consists of less leisure time(less unemployment), but you feel good and sustainable, and you lend instead of borrowing
. Than no unemployment, because difference - between junk and normal - in labor, needed education and resources is huge, and you need to work really hard to get it.The problem is that when you just one man, you can make your own choices, but if you live in country of lazy asses , and that country makes a choice for you, the change is much harder to make..
Actually, no way to tell it better - amount of work vs what you finally get : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Little_Pigs
Industrial and precious metals are common on the moon and near-earth asteroids. If rampant scarcity ever hits, the economics of space mining become viable. As for the energy conundrum, Helium^3 - a rare element most appropriately used in commercial fusion - is abundant on the moon. Assuming humanity perfects commercial fusion while addicted to oil, it still pays to mine and ship back Helium^3 on an petro-based rocket/shuttle. The net energy expended is far, far less than the total output available via a controlled fusion reaction.
If we none of the conditions are met (humanity invents free energy and resources appear boundless), there's no real economic constraints to growth, on earth. Granted, environmental stewardship is key. But most of those problems with manufacturing and disposal can be easily addressed with existing technology and reasonable law. Solid waste disposal is most efficiently dealt with through incineration. In Europe, it's widely used. Manufacturing can apply similar scrubber-technology for toxic pollutants. Biologists are learning the critical role mushrooms have in breaking down toxic organic chemicals, like oil and pesticides after a spill, for example.