Population growth/Job loss random thoughts...

[soulcougher73]

This question is in regards to the US but it is also a world problem.

With a world population growing fast and growing faster all the time, and a global economy where the US for example out sources more jobs every year as well as technology cutting the need for many jobs. To me it seems as if population growth will always outpace job creation. So unemployment will always continue to rise in the future. Am I wrong in my assessment? If im not, what type of solution can we look forward to in order to combat this problem of more people and less jobs to go around here in the US?

Will taxes have to rise to give the less fortunate a means of survival?
Will what we decide to give welfare recipients for example just the bare minimum to survive (bread/water) to save money that way?
Adopt a one child policy?

To me something in the future will have to vastly change. Just throwing the idea out there to see what you all think.

 

[dmcowen674]

With a world population growing fast and growing faster all the time, and a global economy where the US for example out sources more jobs every year as well as technology cutting the need for many jobs.

To me it seems as if population growth will always outpace job creation. So unemployment will always continue to rise in the future. Am I wrong in my assessment? If im not, what type of solution can we look forward to in order to combat this problem of more people and less jobs to go around here in the US?

Will taxes have to rise to give the less fortunate a means of survival?

Will what we decide to give welfare recipients for example just the bare minimum to survive (bread/water) to save money that way?

Adopt a one child policy?

To me something in the future will have to vastly change. Just throwing the idea out there to see what you all think.

Sounds like you like Government control a lot.

The U.S. is not suited for you. You should move to China stat.

 

[lotus503]

This question is in regards to the US but it is also a world problem.

With a world population growing fast and growing faster all the time, and a global economy where the US for example out sources more jobs every year as well as technology cutting the need for many jobs. To me it seems as if population growth will always outpace job creation. So unemployment will always continue to rise in the future. Am I wrong in my assessment? If im not, what type of solution can we look forward to in order to combat this problem of more people and less jobs to go around here in the US?

Will taxes have to rise to give the less fortunate a means of survival?
Will what we decide to give welfare recipients for example just the bare minimum to survive (bread/water) to save money that way?
Adopt a one child policy?

To me something in the future will have to vastly change. Just throwing the idea out there to see what you all think.

population increase is going to do more relative to the perceived quality of life I suspect.

Someone else in another thread made a great point.

Poverty by American standards is living like a king compared to say African standards.

With increase in world population you are going to see the same things you see now, only exaggerated. More poor, more wealth disparity, higher resource cost.

Mo People Mo problems

 

[Zebo]

I think about this often with youth UE at 50% in the West third world much much higher.

Advancing innovations such as robots and automation and financial deleveraging is eliminating the need for people to work. What worked in the past may not work in the future because of this. My guess is a third way will emerge, true socialism, never practiced before - or massive world war to kill off excess bodies.

The wealthy have multigeneratioal underground compounds and could kill everyone off and emerge to new Garden of Eden. My guess is that's what will happen.

 

[Munky]

Regardless of any proposed solution, the only thing you can look forward to is politicians extending the status quo until they are literally unable to do so. Sure, I would like to kick out all the illegals and quit importing cheap labor on work visas, but that's probably not gonna happen. At least not as long as the government serves the interests of big business lobbyists.

 

[Doppel]

Perhaps a more significant problem is automation of productivity making low-skill workers irrelevant to the degree it's just cheaper to keep them as wards of the state than bother trying to give them a job. Already the US has literally millions of unemployable people who have little desire to work and never will (e.g. crap load of kids and no education = government teat indefinitely).

Currently this problem is increased by outsourcing, but even foreign laborers cost more than a machine.

 

[Zebo]

Perhaps a more significant problem is automation of productivity making low-skill workers irrelevant to the degree it's just cheaper to keep them as wards of the state than bother trying to give them a job. Already the US has literally millions of unemployable people who have little desire to work and never will (e.g. crap load of kids and no education = government teat indefinitely).

Currently this problem is increased by outsourcing, but even foreign laborers cost more than a machine.

Computers and robots will be able to beat any expert too.


Couple cool stories
http://www.fxstreet.com/education/forex-basics/forex-visionaries/2012/03/16/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...gence-pioneer-we-can-build-robots-with-morals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301113254.htm

 

[Doppel]

Computers and robots will be able to beat any expert too.


Couple cool stories
http://www.fxstreet.com/education/forex-basics/forex-visionaries/2012/03/16/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...gence-pioneer-we-can-build-robots-with-morals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301113254.htm

Read beginning of the first link--will read the rest when I get more of a chance!

I think eventually we'll stop using employment rate as a prime indicator of the health of the economy. After all, there are many wealthy who don't work (e.g. retired). In time with more computers working on our behalf we could be catered to by machines.

 

[lotus503]

This question is in regards to the US but it is also a world problem.

With a world population growing fast and growing faster all the time, and a global economy where the US for example out sources more jobs every year as well as technology cutting the need for many jobs. To me it seems as if population growth will always outpace job creation. So unemployment will always continue to rise in the future. Am I wrong in my assessment? If im not, what type of solution can we look forward to in order to combat this problem of more people and less jobs to go around here in the US?

Will taxes have to rise to give the less fortunate a means of survival?
Will what we decide to give welfare recipients for example just the bare minimum to survive (bread/water) to save money that way?
Adopt a one child policy?

To me something in the future will have to vastly change. Just throwing the idea out there to see what you all think.

Please ecuse the source, it came up in google search, I have not seen it before however the article is interesting.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

 

[Juddog]

The real question is this: When you can produce a robot that does the same thing as a human, but doesn't get tired, can work 23 hours a day (assume 1 hr per day for maintenance and repairs etc.), doesn't get sick, and when it eventually dies you can just buy a new one - why hire a human at all?

Then the next question becomes - when you have robots that produce everything, what will humans do to add value, other than programming and repairing machines and robots? Eventually we'll have robots that can drive better than 99% of people (e.g. look at how far the google automated car has gone), that can build better (already in place), perform better surgery (work in progress, I estimate another 15-20 years before we have robots taking over a lot of basic surgery), build buildings better, etc.. All the manual work can eventually be taken over by robots and machines.

The rich will have their deepest wishes: a perfect working class of machines that require zero benefits and no pay. The rest of the "working class" will do what? When unemployment sits at 80% what will people do? Society will be forced to change.

 

[nageov3t]

population growth is slowing... my understanding is that if not for immigration, the US population would be declining (see also: Japan, Italy)

 

[Infohawk]

This question is in regards to the US but it is also a world problem.

With a world population growing fast and growing faster all the time, and a global economy where the US for example out sources more jobs every year as well as technology cutting the need for many jobs. To me it seems as if population growth will always outpace job creation.

We're not at the point where robots can do all of our jobs. Normally, job opportunities should grow with the population. The problem is most of the population growth is third world impoverished people. Thanks to our trade policies, the average American is in competition with these people for jobs. For many jobs, there's no reason to hire an expensive American. Right now that's the biggest issue with employment in the West.

Another issue is that all these third-worlders, even when they become rich, will consume resources. Unless we find alternatives, all the resources are going to be more expensive and everyone is going to be a lot poorer.

Most countries should have a 2 child per couple limit. Many overpopulated countries should have a 1 child per couple limit.

 

[Lithium381]

Perhaps a more significant problem is automation of productivity making low-skill workers irrelevant to the degree it's just cheaper to keep them as wards of the state than bother trying to give them a job. Already the US has literally millions of unemployable people who have little desire to work and never will (e.g. crap load of kids and no education = government teat indefinitely).

Currently this problem is increased by outsourcing, but even foreign laborers cost more than a machine.

this, everyone needs to stop having kids, or limit it severely especially the poor. but anyone who watched the first 5 minutes of "Idiocracy" knows what i'm talking about

 

[Munky]

We're not at the robot-dominated stage quite yet. Yes, robots build many things already, but so do Taiwanese workers laboring in slave-like conditions for a few dollars a day.

I don't believe that robots will eventually make humans obsolete or unemployable. Just like all technological advances in human history, they allow humans to specialize in a wider array of skills instead of being a low-skill laborer. We still need humans to design, build and maintain the robots, as well as all the other modern technological advances, from ipads to nuclear ICBM's.

 

[BoberFett]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2221758

 

[chucky2]

this, everyone needs to stop having kids, or limit it severely especially the poor. but anyone who watched the first 5 minutes of "Idiocracy" knows what i'm talking about

This, unfortunately, will never happen, for a multitude of reasons. First you have two groups of people who cannot stop themselves from having more than two kids per female (I leave out couple, since there are so many single mothers): the poor and/or the religious. The poor are just too dumbf*ck stupid/lazy/ignorant to not have kids they should never be having, and the religious actually think it's a good idea.

Then you have the 'country-folk' type of people who have a mentality of pop out babies because that's what grandma did, and because that's what grandma did, that's what mama did too.

Convincing any of these groups, all who vote btw for - or against - the politicians who would be telling them and/or enacting policies to get them to stop their absolutely necessary zygote production, will be next to impossible because of their aforementioned dumbness/stupidity/ignorance/ and/or indoctrination.

If all this wasn't bad enough, we have let, and continue to let, 1/2 of Mexico into the US, and these aren't the type of people to have one kid...and their kids won't be the type of people to have one kid. The problem now has grown by leaps and bounds.

Next we have our lovely Politicians. They are elected by the groups above, and aren't going to do what's necessary for the country long term vs. what is good for them (short, or long term). These super smart political guys will get advise from the super smart economic guys, who will tell them, the gravy traing will be immediately over if we go to negative population growth. My god, the unlimited funding will be over! These worthless F's will actually have to run a balanced budget, plus a savings! Even now, in the face of Trillion dollar yearly deficits - to speak nothing of the national debt - they can't manage to get to parity. What would happen if they actually needed to be running a positive?

And finally, we have the top echelon of super smart business guys, somewhat but not quite synomonus with the super smart economic guys. They too will be telling the super smart political guys that the economy will drown in doom if we reign in our unsustainable population increase. See above for how that will go down.

In short: Enjoy these good times. If not just for yourself, but for the future generation(s) who will finally have to face some very harsh Realities because we couldn't limit our of age females to a paltry two kids per vag and keep third worlders in their third world.

Laissez les bons temps rouler! :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[Doppel]

Just like all technological advances in human history, they allow humans to specialize in a wider array of skills instead of being a low-skill laborer

Some, but the US has many very low-skilled laborers who already ARE less capable than a machine. The ONLY reason many are working is because their wages are simply less than a particular machine may cost to replace them. As that cost comes down, they lose their jobs. As machines get better, the only people who really add value are those who are still ahead of the machines, either in competency (i.e. today literally no machine on the planet can perform all the duties of a general surgeon) or in price (i.e. we could easily make a machine to fry hamburgers, but until it's cheaper than a $7.50/hour guy, McDonalds won't bother with it).

200 years ago how many people were unemployed? You couldn't be unemployed unless you were ill. Otherwise you worked, or you starved. No social safety net, and people don't like to starve, so they worked. Our society has vast, huge, massive surpluses now which is why combined with the uselessness of many millions of people we already have a permanent underclass who do nothing at all but consume. They add nothing to the economy whatsoever.

 

[Zebo]

You guys thought outsourcing was bad? even those Chinas are replaceable. Foxxcon to replace workers with robots.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20086066-37/foxconn-to-replace-workers-with-robots/

 

[soulcougher73]

Some good stuff so far. I thought this idea would see more participation. Or maybe im just more in the minority at seeing this as the next huge thing that will change the world we currently know. Something big will have to change. I think the first thing i could see changing would be a child limit even here in the US to try and slow it while they try to figure out another solution.

 

[Albatross]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png
Already a large part of the world has sub replacement fertility(lest than 2.1 kids per woman) and the rest of the world will join soon.

 

[Jaskalas]

population growth is slowing... my understanding is that if not for immigration, the US population would be declining (see also: Japan, Italy)

It's true, our population would be stagnant at best.

What are we going to do, stop immigration? Our finances are based on leveraging growth. The system collapses without it.

 

[blankslate]

or massive world war to kill off excess bodies.

Somehow I think this is more likely...

as the Police said it...

Now you can join the ranks of the illustrious
In history's great dark hall of fame
All our greatest killers were industrious
At least the ones that we all know by name

But you can reach the top of your profession
If you become the leader of the land
For murder is the sport of the elected
And you don't need to lift a finger of your hand

 

[zsdersw]

I laughed when I read the first word in the thread title: "Pupulation"... sounds like a way to describe the dog population.

 

[QuantumPion]

The real question is this: When you can produce a robot that does the same thing as a human, but doesn't get tired, can work 23 hours a day (assume 1 hr per day for maintenance and repairs etc.), doesn't get sick, and when it eventually dies you can just buy a new one - why hire a human at all?

Then the next question becomes - when you have robots that produce everything, what will humans do to add value, other than programming and repairing machines and robots? Eventually we'll have robots that can drive better than 99% of people (e.g. look at how far the google automated car has gone), that can build better (already in place), perform better surgery (work in progress, I estimate another 15-20 years before we have robots taking over a lot of basic surgery), build buildings better, etc.. All the manual work can eventually be taken over by robots and machines.

The rich will have their deepest wishes: a perfect working class of machines that require zero benefits and no pay. The rest of the "working class" will do what? When unemployment sits at 80% what will people do? Society will be forced to change.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes a static world of productivity and prices. Unskilled labor will decrease in value but it will settle on an equilibrium point where it is competitive with robots. This wage may be lower than current wages, but with the ubiquity of robots producing goods and services, the prices of goods and services will decrease as well.

Think about the fictional future Earth in Star Trek: they don't use use money anymore because they can produce everything for essentially free. It's true you get paid $0 for your labor, but all food, housing, goods and services cost $0. That would be the extreme case but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[Zebo]

The problem with your argument is that it assumes a static world of productivity and prices. Unskilled labor will decrease in value but it will settle on an equilibrium point where it is competitive with robots. This wage may be lower than current wages, but with the ubiquity of robots producing goods and services, the prices of goods and services will decrease as well.

Think about the fictional future Earth in Star Trek: they don't use use money anymore because they can produce everything for essentially free. It's true you get paid $0 for your labor, but all food, housing, goods and services cost $0. That would be the extreme case but hopefully you get the idea.

Define skilled labor? Is a journey man auto painter one? They make $200K a year right now but a 800K machine can do a better job than 20 yrs exp. Is a stock broker forex trader one, robots replace these now. Book keepers and accountants are being replaced. Robots and satellites farm thousands of acres.

There is no such thing as skilled labor that can't be "replicated". Eventually replicants will make replicants and service them too.

We are going to have to find a new way of doing things.