Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?Why is there no economics theory largely accepted or considered true?Why is Trump winning, when I know so few people who admit to voting for him?Why are there “bad school districts” and “good school districts” in the US, assuming that the government works hard to increase education standards?What happens when there are no ACA marketplace options?Are the first ladies considered politicians?Why are Weapon Restriction Laws considered Liberal?Why are there so many countries that apply interest rate caps/ceilings?Are there economic benefits to federalism?Why are there so many Republican governors?Why are both global overpopulation and low birth rates in developed countries considered a problem?
Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing
A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?
The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server
Theorems that impeded progress
Why, historically, did Gödel think CH was false?
Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?
How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?
can i play a electric guitar through a bass amp?
Risk of getting Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the United States?
Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)
Why dont electromagnetic waves interact with each other?
What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
Mathematical cryptic clues
Python: next in for loop
Which models of the Boeing 737 are still in production?
Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?
Is this a crack on the carbon frame?
Test whether all array elements are factors of a number
Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?
Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?
Minkowski space
Test if tikzmark exists on same page
Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?
Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?
Why is there no economics theory largely accepted or considered true?Why is Trump winning, when I know so few people who admit to voting for him?Why are there “bad school districts” and “good school districts” in the US, assuming that the government works hard to increase education standards?What happens when there are no ACA marketplace options?Are the first ladies considered politicians?Why are Weapon Restriction Laws considered Liberal?Why are there so many countries that apply interest rate caps/ceilings?Are there economic benefits to federalism?Why are there so many Republican governors?Why are both global overpopulation and low birth rates in developed countries considered a problem?
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy increased by fewer than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, doesn't that really mean 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like any figure smaller than 300k jobs is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
add a comment |
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy increased by fewer than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, doesn't that really mean 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like any figure smaller than 300k jobs is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
28
People die. It's true.
– user22277
yesterday
25
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
yesterday
8
@John The question entered HNQ and visitors can upvote but not downvote.
– gerrit
18 hours ago
Lots of people don't work... students, stay at home moms (and dads), retirees, the disabled, homeless, people on extended leave (just because they have the means to do so), military (I don't think that is in your jobs numbers), kids in their 20's and even 30's that live with their parents and don't want to work, etc.
– Robert Hanson
12 hours ago
add a comment |
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy increased by fewer than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, doesn't that really mean 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like any figure smaller than 300k jobs is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy increased by fewer than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, doesn't that really mean 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like any figure smaller than 300k jobs is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
united-states economy demographics
edited 4 hours ago
JJJ
5,88522454
5,88522454
asked yesterday
corsiKacorsiKa
529616
529616
28
People die. It's true.
– user22277
yesterday
25
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
yesterday
8
@John The question entered HNQ and visitors can upvote but not downvote.
– gerrit
18 hours ago
Lots of people don't work... students, stay at home moms (and dads), retirees, the disabled, homeless, people on extended leave (just because they have the means to do so), military (I don't think that is in your jobs numbers), kids in their 20's and even 30's that live with their parents and don't want to work, etc.
– Robert Hanson
12 hours ago
add a comment |
28
People die. It's true.
– user22277
yesterday
25
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
yesterday
8
@John The question entered HNQ and visitors can upvote but not downvote.
– gerrit
18 hours ago
Lots of people don't work... students, stay at home moms (and dads), retirees, the disabled, homeless, people on extended leave (just because they have the means to do so), military (I don't think that is in your jobs numbers), kids in their 20's and even 30's that live with their parents and don't want to work, etc.
– Robert Hanson
12 hours ago
28
28
People die. It's true.
– user22277
yesterday
People die. It's true.
– user22277
yesterday
25
25
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
yesterday
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
yesterday
8
8
@John The question entered HNQ and visitors can upvote but not downvote.
– gerrit
18 hours ago
@John The question entered HNQ and visitors can upvote but not downvote.
– gerrit
18 hours ago
Lots of people don't work... students, stay at home moms (and dads), retirees, the disabled, homeless, people on extended leave (just because they have the means to do so), military (I don't think that is in your jobs numbers), kids in their 20's and even 30's that live with their parents and don't want to work, etc.
– Robert Hanson
12 hours ago
Lots of people don't work... students, stay at home moms (and dads), retirees, the disabled, homeless, people on extended leave (just because they have the means to do so), military (I don't think that is in your jobs numbers), kids in their 20's and even 30's that live with their parents and don't want to work, etc.
– Robert Hanson
12 hours ago
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
yesterday
40
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
yesterday
See Business Insider that did the "calculus" to arrive at an answer of how many jobs need be created to maintain balanced population/jobs. Their answer 203,000 per month. [ businessinsider.com/… ]
– BobE
9 hours ago
add a comment |
In addition to the other answers, it should be noted that jobs don't just exist independent of people. The only reason jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
New contributor
2
A small correction. People create the need for products and services, and that need creates jobs. There are times when society creates jobs merely because jobs are needed, but that is, at best, a temporary fix. Unless the work product is of value, ultimately the job is just a tranfer payment in disguise.
– Walter Mitty
15 hours ago
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
2
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
yesterday
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
yesterday
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
yesterday
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
yesterday
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
add a comment |
Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.
The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.
This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.
New contributor
add a comment |
Other posters noted that you need to subtract the number of people who age out of the labor force from the number of people who reach the adulthood each year. In a thriving society, both numbers are substantially less then the number of births.
In a thriving society, a large fraction of the working age population does not work for monetary pay. They have better things to do: Homemaking, raising children well, gardening, volunteer work.
If a society manages to have 90 % of its working age men working, and 30 % of its working age women working, and does not have net immigration/emigration of working age adults, then the rate of creating net new jobs should average about 60 % of the rate of net new working age adults.
A society with an excess of births is not thriving, it is on the road to suffering from overpopulation, if not actually there yet. Also, it is observed that in economically healthy societies, most people do not consider homemaking, child rearing, and so forth to be better things to do.
– jamesqf
7 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ 16 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
yesterday
40
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
yesterday
See Business Insider that did the "calculus" to arrive at an answer of how many jobs need be created to maintain balanced population/jobs. Their answer 203,000 per month. [ businessinsider.com/… ]
– BobE
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
yesterday
40
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
yesterday
See Business Insider that did the "calculus" to arrive at an answer of how many jobs need be created to maintain balanced population/jobs. Their answer 203,000 per month. [ businessinsider.com/… ]
– BobE
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
answered yesterday
ShadurShadur
543410
543410
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
yesterday
40
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
yesterday
See Business Insider that did the "calculus" to arrive at an answer of how many jobs need be created to maintain balanced population/jobs. Their answer 203,000 per month. [ businessinsider.com/… ]
– BobE
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
yesterday
40
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
yesterday
See Business Insider that did the "calculus" to arrive at an answer of how many jobs need be created to maintain balanced population/jobs. Their answer 203,000 per month. [ businessinsider.com/… ]
– BobE
9 hours ago
1
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
yesterday
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
yesterday
40
40
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
yesterday
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
yesterday
See Business Insider that did the "calculus" to arrive at an answer of how many jobs need be created to maintain balanced population/jobs. Their answer 203,000 per month. [ businessinsider.com/… ]
– BobE
9 hours ago
See Business Insider that did the "calculus" to arrive at an answer of how many jobs need be created to maintain balanced population/jobs. Their answer 203,000 per month. [ businessinsider.com/… ]
– BobE
9 hours ago
add a comment |
In addition to the other answers, it should be noted that jobs don't just exist independent of people. The only reason jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
New contributor
2
A small correction. People create the need for products and services, and that need creates jobs. There are times when society creates jobs merely because jobs are needed, but that is, at best, a temporary fix. Unless the work product is of value, ultimately the job is just a tranfer payment in disguise.
– Walter Mitty
15 hours ago
add a comment |
In addition to the other answers, it should be noted that jobs don't just exist independent of people. The only reason jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
New contributor
2
A small correction. People create the need for products and services, and that need creates jobs. There are times when society creates jobs merely because jobs are needed, but that is, at best, a temporary fix. Unless the work product is of value, ultimately the job is just a tranfer payment in disguise.
– Walter Mitty
15 hours ago
add a comment |
In addition to the other answers, it should be noted that jobs don't just exist independent of people. The only reason jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
New contributor
In addition to the other answers, it should be noted that jobs don't just exist independent of people. The only reason jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
New contributor
edited 8 hours ago
JJJ
5,88522454
5,88522454
New contributor
answered yesterday
kloddantkloddant
30313
30313
New contributor
New contributor
2
A small correction. People create the need for products and services, and that need creates jobs. There are times when society creates jobs merely because jobs are needed, but that is, at best, a temporary fix. Unless the work product is of value, ultimately the job is just a tranfer payment in disguise.
– Walter Mitty
15 hours ago
add a comment |
2
A small correction. People create the need for products and services, and that need creates jobs. There are times when society creates jobs merely because jobs are needed, but that is, at best, a temporary fix. Unless the work product is of value, ultimately the job is just a tranfer payment in disguise.
– Walter Mitty
15 hours ago
2
2
A small correction. People create the need for products and services, and that need creates jobs. There are times when society creates jobs merely because jobs are needed, but that is, at best, a temporary fix. Unless the work product is of value, ultimately the job is just a tranfer payment in disguise.
– Walter Mitty
15 hours ago
A small correction. People create the need for products and services, and that need creates jobs. There are times when society creates jobs merely because jobs are needed, but that is, at best, a temporary fix. Unless the work product is of value, ultimately the job is just a tranfer payment in disguise.
– Walter Mitty
15 hours ago
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Peter M.Peter M.
1,019610
1,019610
add a comment |
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
2
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
yesterday
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
yesterday
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
yesterday
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
yesterday
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
2
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
yesterday
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
yesterday
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
yesterday
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
yesterday
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
edited yesterday
yoozer8
3023517
3023517
answered yesterday
jeanjean
12927
12927
2
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
yesterday
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
yesterday
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
yesterday
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
yesterday
add a comment |
2
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
yesterday
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
yesterday
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
yesterday
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
yesterday
2
2
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
yesterday
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
yesterday
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
yesterday
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
yesterday
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
yesterday
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
yesterday
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
yesterday
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
yesterday
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
answered yesterday
BobEBobE
2,8281830
2,8281830
add a comment |
add a comment |
Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.
The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.
This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.
New contributor
add a comment |
Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.
The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.
This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.
New contributor
add a comment |
Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.
The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.
This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.
New contributor
Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.
The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.
This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 21 hours ago
marshal craftmarshal craft
993
993
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Other posters noted that you need to subtract the number of people who age out of the labor force from the number of people who reach the adulthood each year. In a thriving society, both numbers are substantially less then the number of births.
In a thriving society, a large fraction of the working age population does not work for monetary pay. They have better things to do: Homemaking, raising children well, gardening, volunteer work.
If a society manages to have 90 % of its working age men working, and 30 % of its working age women working, and does not have net immigration/emigration of working age adults, then the rate of creating net new jobs should average about 60 % of the rate of net new working age adults.
A society with an excess of births is not thriving, it is on the road to suffering from overpopulation, if not actually there yet. Also, it is observed that in economically healthy societies, most people do not consider homemaking, child rearing, and so forth to be better things to do.
– jamesqf
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Other posters noted that you need to subtract the number of people who age out of the labor force from the number of people who reach the adulthood each year. In a thriving society, both numbers are substantially less then the number of births.
In a thriving society, a large fraction of the working age population does not work for monetary pay. They have better things to do: Homemaking, raising children well, gardening, volunteer work.
If a society manages to have 90 % of its working age men working, and 30 % of its working age women working, and does not have net immigration/emigration of working age adults, then the rate of creating net new jobs should average about 60 % of the rate of net new working age adults.
A society with an excess of births is not thriving, it is on the road to suffering from overpopulation, if not actually there yet. Also, it is observed that in economically healthy societies, most people do not consider homemaking, child rearing, and so forth to be better things to do.
– jamesqf
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Other posters noted that you need to subtract the number of people who age out of the labor force from the number of people who reach the adulthood each year. In a thriving society, both numbers are substantially less then the number of births.
In a thriving society, a large fraction of the working age population does not work for monetary pay. They have better things to do: Homemaking, raising children well, gardening, volunteer work.
If a society manages to have 90 % of its working age men working, and 30 % of its working age women working, and does not have net immigration/emigration of working age adults, then the rate of creating net new jobs should average about 60 % of the rate of net new working age adults.
Other posters noted that you need to subtract the number of people who age out of the labor force from the number of people who reach the adulthood each year. In a thriving society, both numbers are substantially less then the number of births.
In a thriving society, a large fraction of the working age population does not work for monetary pay. They have better things to do: Homemaking, raising children well, gardening, volunteer work.
If a society manages to have 90 % of its working age men working, and 30 % of its working age women working, and does not have net immigration/emigration of working age adults, then the rate of creating net new jobs should average about 60 % of the rate of net new working age adults.
answered 18 hours ago
JasperJasper
3,001923
3,001923
A society with an excess of births is not thriving, it is on the road to suffering from overpopulation, if not actually there yet. Also, it is observed that in economically healthy societies, most people do not consider homemaking, child rearing, and so forth to be better things to do.
– jamesqf
7 hours ago
add a comment |
A society with an excess of births is not thriving, it is on the road to suffering from overpopulation, if not actually there yet. Also, it is observed that in economically healthy societies, most people do not consider homemaking, child rearing, and so forth to be better things to do.
– jamesqf
7 hours ago
A society with an excess of births is not thriving, it is on the road to suffering from overpopulation, if not actually there yet. Also, it is observed that in economically healthy societies, most people do not consider homemaking, child rearing, and so forth to be better things to do.
– jamesqf
7 hours ago
A society with an excess of births is not thriving, it is on the road to suffering from overpopulation, if not actually there yet. Also, it is observed that in economically healthy societies, most people do not consider homemaking, child rearing, and so forth to be better things to do.
– jamesqf
7 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ 16 hours ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
28
People die. It's true.
– user22277
yesterday
25
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
yesterday
8
@John The question entered HNQ and visitors can upvote but not downvote.
– gerrit
18 hours ago
Lots of people don't work... students, stay at home moms (and dads), retirees, the disabled, homeless, people on extended leave (just because they have the means to do so), military (I don't think that is in your jobs numbers), kids in their 20's and even 30's that live with their parents and don't want to work, etc.
– Robert Hanson
12 hours ago