Are jobs obsolete?

[DodgeFB]

Absolutely not. Using that argument, we had too many people during the industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution, and other breakthroughs in tech before that. Clear that wasn't true.

If you have more people than jobs that is too many in my opinion. Those without jobs are just dragging the ones working down. Why do people have to breed like rabbits anyway? There is no shortage of people in the world.

Look at the countries that are starving and their children are sick and dying. But they just keep on breeding and watching their children suffer and die.

 

[myp]

If you have more people than jobs that is too many in my opinion. Those without jobs are just dragging the ones working down. Why do people have to breed like rabbits anyway? There is no shortage of people in the world.

Look at the countries that are starving and their children are sick and dying. But they just keep on breeding and watching their children suffer and die.

1) There is enough food for everyone on the planet. It is the allocation of resources that isn't perfect.

2) Why do we breed? That is what we are meant to do biologically- we are meant to live on- pass on our DNA. It is natural to want to breed- it is not so much a choice as a genetically coded destiny.

3) The number of jobs is not stagnant. More jobs can appear over night should some innovation, growth happen, and at other times they will disappear. Such is the way of markets. That aside, there are times when an increase in population leads to a GREATER increase in jobs.

 

[DodgeFB]

1) There is enough food for everyone on the planet. It is the allocation of resources that isn't perfect.

2) Why do we breed? That is what we are meant to do biologically- we are meant to live on- pass on our DNA. It is natural to want to breed- it is not so much a choice as a genetically coded destiny.

3) The number of jobs is not stagnant. More jobs can appear over night should some innovation, growth happen, and at other times they will disappear. Such is the way of markets. That aside, there are times when an increase in population leads to a GREATER increase in jobs.

I guess I will never understand someone wanting more children or even pets than they can feed. As far as plenty of food goes, because it is on the planet does not mean everyone can eat it. So they still starve. As someone that has had to bury my own child I know the pain. No sex is good enough to go though that pain year after year. Strange they have no food or water for their children. But they have the strength to keep humping away.

Maybe we need to hold off until we see this "GREATER increase in jobs". If you read what has been argued right here on this forum. We are losing jobs to technology and new automation. On one hand it is said this is good. Then on the other hand it is said there is no limit to the people we can accommodate. I think one of the things I am not understanding is how many non-working people can the people that are working support? And should they even be asked to do more? Back when I was in grade school people were having 8 and 10 or more children. And some would even laugh and call that their retirement plan. Well now children are not taking care parents in many cases, but the parents are still taking care of homeless jobless children and even grandchildren. There needs to be a way to get deadwood people (yes like me) off the backs of young people. And we do have plenty of homeless hungry people now. When that problem is solved then maybe can bring in more. But we are far from that place now.

 

[myp]

I guess I will never understand someone wanting more children or even pets than they can feed. As far as plenty of food goes, because it is on the planet does not mean everyone can eat it. So they still starve. As someone that has had to bury my own child I know the pain. No sex is good enough to go though that pain year after year. Strange they have no food or water for their children. But they have the strength to keep humping away.

Oh brother. Sex is hard-coded into us. And for a reason.

That aside, it is not your call to say whether others have sex or not- you can choose not to, but if they want to proliferate it is their right, so there is really no use complaining about it.

Maybe we need to hold off until we see this "GREATER increase in jobs".

It has been LONG proven that population growth can potentially increase the number of jobs. It has been supported NUMEROUS times throughout the course of history and it makes A LOT of sense logically. Now if you don't want to consider those things and just want to go off your intuition, then I have nothing else to say. If you are interested in the studies or examples I speak of, let me know and I can send you some links/reading, but I won't waste my time with it if you are just going to brush it off.

If you read what has been argued right here on this forum. We are losing jobs to technology and new automation. On one hand it is said this is good. Then on the other hand it is said there is no limit to the people we can accommodate.

Do you think the industrial revolution was a good or bad thing? How about previous innovations in machinery and agriculture? Your concerns have been expressed plenty of times historically by those afraid of losing their jobs and time and time again they are proven WRONG.

Well now children are not taking care parents in many cases, but the parents are still taking care of homeless jobless children and even grandchildren.

That is a societal matter- a change in the way people think of their responsibilities. There are still places in the world where children do take care of their parents.

There needs to be a way to get deadwood people (yes like me) off the backs of young people.

You are not a deadwood person. No one is. Stop giving yourself such little credit and realize that you too are a valued member of society.

And we do have plenty of homeless hungry people now. When that problem is solved then maybe can bring in more. But we are far from that place now.

Unless bringing more people into the world solves the hunger problem

Not saying it will, but I am saying that the homeless is not a result of too many people. I guarantee you that if we had 1 million people on Earth we would probably still have some homeless people- just like when we actually had 1 million people on the Earth.

 

[DodgeFB]

Oh brother. Sex is hard-coded into us. And for a reason.

That aside, it is not your call to say whether others have sex or not- you can choose not to, but if they want to proliferate it is their right, so there is really no use complaining about it.


It has been LONG proven that population growth can potentially increase the number of jobs. It has been supported NUMEROUS times throughout the course of history and it makes A LOT of sense logically. Now if you don't want to consider those things and just want to go off your intuition, then I have nothing else to say. If you are interested in the studies or examples I speak of, let me know and I can send you some links/reading, but I won't waste my time with it if you are just going to brush it off.


Do you think the industrial revolution was a good or bad thing? How about previous innovations in machinery and agriculture? Your concerns have been expressed plenty of times historically by those afraid of losing their jobs and time and time again they are proven WRONG.


That is a societal matter- a change in the way people think of their responsibilities. There are still places in the world where children do take care of their parents.


You are not a deadwood person. No one is. Stop giving yourself such little credit and realize that you too are a valued member of society.


Unless bringing more people into the world solves the hunger problem

Not saying it will, but I am saying that the homeless is not a result of too many people. I guarantee you that if we had 1 million people on Earth we would probably still have some homeless people- just like when we actually had 1 million people on the Earth.

I don't want to tell people when to have sex. I just said if I had to keep burying my children I would just stop.

And if people want to overpopulate and turn a blind eye to the results that is on them. When I see children on TV living in shanties and eating out of landfills it bothers me. I can't help it. Makes no difference about their race, religion, nationality. They show those little sick and dying babies with flies crawling on them and they are too weak to even raise a hand. So when I see that I feel it is more important than politics, studies, graphs, or even history. I just want it to stop.

 

[myp]

And if people want to overpopulate and turn a blind eye to the results that is on them. When I see children on TV living in shanties and eating out of landfills it bothers me. I can't help it. Makes no difference about their race, religion, nationality. They show those little sick and dying babies with flies crawling on them and they are too weak to even raise a hand. So when I see that I feel it is more important than politics, studies, graphs, or even history. I just want it to stop.

And a pressing question in economics might be how do you make it stop. It isn't necessarily to reduce population

As I said already, there were homeless people when there were magnitudes fewer people on the Earth too.

 

[DodgeFB]

And a pressing question in economics might be how do you make it stop. It isn't necessarily to reduce population

As I said already, there were homeless people when there were magnitudes fewer people on the Earth too.

Were there "magnitudes" fewer homeless too?
Well since nothing will ever be done about it anyway, I guess I should just try to forget about. After all it has always been that way. The people with jobs have nothing better to do than pay for the non-workers.

 

[myp]

Were there "magnitudes" fewer homeless too?

Of course, but does it matter if you have 1 person out of 1000 homeless or 1000 out of 1000000? The ratio is still 1/1000 for both.

Well since nothing will ever be done about it anyway, I guess I should just try to forget about. After all it has always been that way. The people with jobs have nothing better to do than pay for the non-workers.

What do you propose we do about it? I'll tell you one thing- this leftist rightist I'm a Republican I'm a Democrat and pure rejection of academia and intellectualism won't get us anywhere.

And stop looking at it like workers and non-workers, that is not the problem here and those groups are not frozen- there is a cycle between the two that shifts people between the two groups pretty frequently (look at the time unemployed numbers in the US even today).

 

[DodgeFB]

Of course, but does it matter if you have 1 person out of 1000 homeless or 1000 out of 1000000? The ratio is still 1/1000 for both.


What do you propose we do about it? I'll tell you one thing- this leftist rightist I'm a Republican I'm a Democrat and pure rejection of academia and intellectualism won't get us anywhere.

And stop looking at it like workers and non-workers, that is not the problem here and those groups are not frozen- there is a cycle between the two that shifts people between the two groups pretty frequently (look at the time unemployed numbers in the US even today).

Your right. It really does not make any difference how many work or don't work. We will just keep trucking along.:unsure:

But I feel the unemployed that have been out of work for more than a year feel "frozen" as they watch their life go down the drain. I think it will be at least 4 years before things catch up in the US. But what do I know?

 

[dabdab]

es, people would still work, they just don't need jobs. When factories can run on near total automation (still need IT guys to fix glitches and janitors to keep everything clean) and when you can build factories tasked with creating the machines to run the other factories, do people really need to work? No, they could instead focus on architecture, science, charity, healthcare, education, etc. depending on their skill sets and interests while the necessities would still be provided despite nobody doing menial (and not so menial) labor.

it is all ready here the people involved with manufacturing are nearly 20 % of population in working age 76% or so are in the service sector .the problem lies in this sector called services . there are three types good and necessary services like health care ,education and security and policing .others are nice to have and fill a human need like catering and entertainment to name a few . but there are toxic services like what is toxic assets which wasn't really assets to begin with . the original name was "sub-prime mortgage", which really mean a lousy mortgage because the customer was broke before signing on the dotted line and he know it and the lending bank knows it . but who cares the hole notion is to sell this so called mortgage to an investment bank who will yet do magical trick and com up with a phony name for a phony product called "collateralized debt obligations" . welcome to lehman brothers vision .

 

[dabdab]

I don't want to tell people when to have sex. I just said if I had to keep burying my children I would just stop.

And if people want to overpopulate and turn a blind eye to the results that is on them. When I see children on TV living in shanties and eating out of landfills it bothers me. I can't help it. Makes no difference about their race, religion, nationality. They show those little sick and dying babies with flies crawling on them and they are too weak to even raise a hand. So when I see that I feel it is more important than politics, studies, graphs, or even history. I just want it to stop.

don't blame population for the rotten situation you are in . blame politicians and academic think tanks and voters who chose to live with lobbing .the helthy population is the real assets because they are he producer of services and products you need to consume and to barter with other nations .there is a golden rule you have to adhere to it which is pay and handsomely only to those who are involved with producing goods and real services , not the phony type . cut off the speculators and gamblers .what you are doing now is the opposite .

 

[myp]

don't blame population for the rotten situation you are in . blame politicians and academic think tanks and voters who chose to live with lobbing .the helthy population is the real assets because they are he producer of services and products you need to consume and to barter with other nations .there is a golden rule you have to adhere to it which is pay and handsomely only to those who are involved with producing goods and real services , not the phony type . cut off the speculators and gamblers .what you are doing now is the opposite .

You are quite critical of academics without realizing that they also PRODUCE. You also add speculators in there and there are really two types- some speculation is very beneficial and allows businesses to stay solvent- i.e. the kind that allows farmers to know they will make a certain amount of money on the crops they grow or the kind that allows McDonald's to hedge against potential beef price rises so that it doesn't have to raise the price of Big Macs when it happens. I am guessing you mean the speculators who are speculators only though.

 

[DodgeFB]

don't blame population for the rotten situation you are in.

I did not say a damn thing about me being in a " rotten situation". Where the hell did you come up with that?

 

[dabdab]

You are quite critical of academics without realizing that they also PRODUCE. You also add speculators in there and there are really two types- some speculation is very beneficial and allows businesses to stay solvent- i.e. the kind that allows farmers to know they will make a certain amount of money on the crops they grow or the kind that allows McDonald's to hedge against potential beef price rises so that it doesn't have to raise the price of Big Macs when it happens. I am guessing you mean the speculators who are speculators only though.

blaming the the academia think tank for not for not speaking about the bubble economy and danger of lobbing not for the activity , it is one of the constructive services .as for speculations and speculators they never make any thing good happen they are parasites there influence is always harmful .all they do is speculate the only legitimate speculators are the weather forecasters .

 

[myp]

blaming the the academia think tank for not for not speaking about the bubble economy and danger of lobbing not for the activity , it is one of the constructive services .as for speculations and speculators they never make any thing good happen they are parasites there influence is always harmful .all they do is speculate the only legitimate speculators are the weather forecasters .

On academia- there are many academics who say trouble with the housing market and talked about it- the people buying the houses, Wall St., and the government backing them were just too excited to listen. Even more academics did and continue to speak out against an incentive system that leads to politicians selling out.

On speculation- I don't think you really understand the scope of the market or why speculation started in the first place. Futures contracts were originally created by farmers if I remember correctly so that they could get guaranteed prices on crops at the end of the season so that they would make enough money guaranteed to feed their families, run their farms, etc. Without such contracts volatility would have been much higher in farming. And this expands to MANY businesses today- really any business that buys resources to produce something else. A LOT of companies hedge to make sure they don't lose money or at least to curtail losses. There is nothing wrong with that- it stabilizes the market, often to the benefit of them and the consumer. A quick example- let's say you were a McDonald's customer who liked Big Macs. Would you really be happy to see the price of the Big Mac go up and down everyday, sometimes potentially doubling in prices over months and then come crashing down, then up, then down, etc.? Of course not. You like and even EXPECT that stable price. McDonald's can offer you that in large part because they can buy futures contracts on the resources used in making Big Macs.

 

[dabdab]

I did not say a damn thing about me being in a " rotten situation". Where the hell did you come up with that?

not you personally but the country of yours that lack jobs . maybe it was a mistake from my side to use this type of figurative speech .

 

[myp]

not you personally but the country of yours that lack jobs . maybe it was a mistake from my side to use this type of figurative speech .

By the way, what country are you from? I can almost guarantee you that there are speculators there too.

 

[dabdab]

On academia- there are many academics who say trouble with the housing market and talked about it- the people buying the houses, Wall St., and the government backing them were just too excited to listen. Even more academics did and continue to speak out against an incentive system that leads to politicians selling out.

On speculation- I don't think you really understand the scope of the market or why speculation started in the first place. Futures contracts were originally created by farmers if I remember correctly so that they could get guaranteed prices on crops at the end of the season so that they would make enough money guaranteed to feed their families, run their farms, etc. Without such contracts volatility would have been much higher in farming. And this expands to MANY businesses today- really any business that buys resources to produce something else. A LOT of companies hedge to make sure they don't lose money or at least to curtail losses. There is nothing wrong with that- it stabilizes the market, often to the benefit of them and the consumer. A quick example- let's say you were a McDonald's customer who liked Big Macs. Would you really be happy to see the price of the Big Mac go up and down everyday, sometimes potentially doubling in prices over months and then come crashing down, then up, then down, etc.? Of course not. You like and even EXPECT that stable price. McDonald's can offer you that in large part because they can buy futures contracts on the resources used in making Big Macs.

I see your point .trading in my mind is different from speculation what the farmers do and those who by there product or promise a product are trading they are not speculating the kind of speculation I'm against is were you by some thing you know very will it over valued but you expect it go up for the simple reason that others will speculate on it and the suplay is limited like the internet shares bubble.or when the product being bought or sold isn't really a product like CDO . as to the future markets and I have speculation on oil in mind it is a mix , some times it sheld the consumer that use oil as feedstock like Oil refineries but other times it is a major cause of price hike . and in the end it adds to the cost of product with out really adding any thing the cost will come in the end from the consumer one way or another .