Does America Really Need More Jobs?

[MoonShadow]

All these projects are real and are offered at trade shows, so I don't really understand why no country invests into these things. I mean if just one of them can be successfully deployed it this will be a huge improvement for countries - in many ways.

Knowing nothing about the projects that you are referring to, the fact that no one is interested in investing in these projects suggests that their application is limited.  Nations shouldn't really be investing, anyway.  The US "invested" into the Apollo program in order to be the first to put a man on the Moon, but the goal there was a display of technical superiority, not profit or sustainability.  One of the greatest projects for public investment in the US would be a right-of-way, pipeline and pumping station on the Mississippi River to force water up, through or over the Rocky Mountains in order to supply freshwater to populations beyond such as Los Vegas.  Or simply a pipeline from San Diego to siphon seawater to refill the Death Valley Basin, which was an inland saltwater sea (like the Dead Sea) up until about 800 years ago that provided rainwater (via the natural water cycle) to the entire area up until the last of the water dried up and left the salt flats.  Those would be investments worth of a national effort, but they are never going to happen due to interstate political issues and environmental issues.  A power plant is something that the private capital markets handle best. 

[1713274712]

1713274712

[1713274712]

1713274712

[1713274712]

1713274712

[1713274712]

1713274712

[johnyj]

I blame technological advancement.
.
.
.
I have no idea what the alternative is.

I mostly agree with your view, and recently I have some other observations:

Since the automation is happening so fast, sooner or later there will not be enough intelligent people that can keep up with the technology advance, that means either you are clever enough to deal with super complex and fast changing automation envrionment, or you totally unqualified for any kind of job thus lost your income


I call this "Robbing by intelligence". Up until now, there are laws to stop people robbing others by using force, but there is no law to stop the robbing by using intelligence (through job)

Basically there are 2 alternatives:

Heavy tax the higher income people and return the money to those who lost the job due to automation
Reduce the working hours to 4 days a week (and salary of course) so that labor become scarce again

It seems government are just ignore such very obvious solution

[johnyj]

Anyways,the only reason there is unemployment now is because nearly all of society's savings have been destroyed by government and there is nothing to feed innovation.

There is no savings, those money you put in the bank are just "proof of work", like bitcoin, it proved that you have done some amount of work, but in reality they do not have anything corresponding to their value, since those products you have created have been consumed long time ago

[Anonymous]

Anyways,the only reason there is unemployment now is because nearly all of society's savings have been destroyed by government and there is nothing to feed innovation.

There is no savings, those money you put in the bank are just "proof of work", like bitcoin, it proved that you have done some amount of work, but in reality they do not have anything corresponding to their value, since those products you have created have been consumed long time ago

The money in the bank is put in an investment fund used towards capital for innovations and businesses. Of course savings produce incredible value. Savings are essential.

[MoonShadow]

Basically there are 2 alternatives:

Heavy tax the higher income people and return the money to those who lost the job due to automation
Reduce the working hours to 4 days a week (and salary of course) so that labor become scarce again

It seems government are just ignore such very obvious solution

There is an obvious third solution.

Educate yourself and/or your children to be able to compete in a rapidly advancing economy; or die off and make room on this planet for those who can.

It's called evolution, and it's one reason that ethnic Jews are the most intelligent race on average.  Because for hundreds of years, ethic Jews had neither a nation of their own, nor the basic right to own property in either Old Christiandom (Europe) or anywhere in the Middle East.  If you couldn't farm to feed your family, you and your children would have had to become the best businessmen around just to be able to feed your family as well.

Artifical support of those who cannot support themselves in the human race is counter evolutionary, and sooner or later nature is going to revert to the mean.  And it will be 'mean' in every sense.  When the USSR broke apart, leading directly into the collapse of the Russian economy, the life expecency of a Russian male was already much shorter than in the US and many "Western" democracies.  But it still dropped significantly in the next two years.

[johnyj]

Basically there are 2 alternatives:

Heavy tax the higher income people and return the money to those who lost the job due to automation
Reduce the working hours to 4 days a week (and salary of course) so that labor become scarce again

It seems government are just ignore such very obvious solution

There is an obvious third solution.

Educate yourself and/or your children to be able to compete in a rapidly advancing economy; or die off and make room on this planet for those who can.

It's called evolution, and it's one reason that ethnic Jews are the most intelligent race on average.  Because for hundreds of years, ethic Jews had neither a nation of their own, nor the basic right to own property in either Old Christiandom (Europe) or anywhere in the Middle East.  If you couldn't farm to feed your family, you and your children would have had to become the best businessmen around just to be able to feed your family as well.

Artifical support of those who cannot support themselves in the human race is counter evolutionary, and sooner or later nature is going to revert to the mean.  And it will be 'mean' in every sense.  When the USSR broke apart, leading directly into the collapse of the Russian economy, the life expecency of a Russian male was already much shorter than in the US and many "Western" democracies.  But it still dropped significantly in the next two years.

I think just like last great recession, we need world war III to wipe out excessive production power and useless people who are not able to compete with super intelligent guys due to their brain is not optimal when they were born

[MoonShadow]

Basically there are 2 alternatives:

Heavy tax the higher income people and return the money to those who lost the job due to automation
Reduce the working hours to 4 days a week (and salary of course) so that labor become scarce again

It seems government are just ignore such very obvious solution

There is an obvious third solution.

Educate yourself and/or your children to be able to compete in a rapidly advancing economy; or die off and make room on this planet for those who can.

It's called evolution, and it's one reason that ethnic Jews are the most intelligent race on average.  Because for hundreds of years, ethic Jews had neither a nation of their own, nor the basic right to own property in either Old Christiandom (Europe) or anywhere in the Middle East.  If you couldn't farm to feed your family, you and your children would have had to become the best businessmen around just to be able to feed your family as well.

Artifical support of those who cannot support themselves in the human race is counter evolutionary, and sooner or later nature is going to revert to the mean.  And it will be 'mean' in every sense.  When the USSR broke apart, leading directly into the collapse of the Russian economy, the life expecency of a Russian male was already much shorter than in the US and many "Western" democracies.  But it still dropped significantly in the next two years.

I think just like last great recession, we need world war III to wipe out excessive production power and useless people who are not able to compete with super intelligent guys due to their brain is not optimal when they were born

Oh, good God!  Not the "the war pulled us out of the depression" BS again!  You learned this economic "theory" in public school, didn't you?  War doesn't improve economies any more than a rock throwing vandal improves the GDP when a glazer has to fix the baker's shop window.  The US pulled out of the depression because, 1) the busybodies in Washington were too preoccupied with war issues to worry about "regulating" industry to death and 2) we bombed our biggest industrial competitors back 10 years or more all across Europe & Japan. 

[johnyj]

Anyways,the only reason there is unemployment now is because nearly all of society's savings have been destroyed by government and there is nothing to feed innovation.

There is no savings, those money you put in the bank are just "proof of work", like bitcoin, it proved that you have done some amount of work, but in reality they do not have anything corresponding to their value, since those products you have created have been consumed long time ago

The money in the bank is put in an investment fund used towards capital for innovations and businesses. Of course savings produce incredible value. Savings are essential.

Again, those money in the bank does not correspond to any tangeable products, they are just a credit that can drive some business activity

Then, in a recession/high jobless/saving era, with decreasing demand and dropping confidence due to higher risk and mature market, who dare to do those investment? If you borrow 1 billion dollar, could you make some profit if everyone is saving and not spending?

[johnyj]

Basically there are 2 alternatives:

Heavy tax the higher income people and return the money to those who lost the job due to automation
Reduce the working hours to 4 days a week (and salary of course) so that labor become scarce again

It seems government are just ignore such very obvious solution

There is an obvious third solution.

Educate yourself and/or your children to be able to compete in a rapidly advancing economy; or die off and make room on this planet for those who can.

It's called evolution, and it's one reason that ethnic Jews are the most intelligent race on average.  Because for hundreds of years, ethic Jews had neither a nation of their own, nor the basic right to own property in either Old Christiandom (Europe) or anywhere in the Middle East.  If you couldn't farm to feed your family, you and your children would have had to become the best businessmen around just to be able to feed your family as well.

Artifical support of those who cannot support themselves in the human race is counter evolutionary, and sooner or later nature is going to revert to the mean.  And it will be 'mean' in every sense.  When the USSR broke apart, leading directly into the collapse of the Russian economy, the life expecency of a Russian male was already much shorter than in the US and many "Western" democracies.  But it still dropped significantly in the next two years.

I think just like last great recession, we need world war III to wipe out excessive production power and useless people who are not able to compete with super intelligent guys due to their brain is not optimal when they were born

Oh, good God!  Not the "the war pulled us out of the depression" BS again!  You learned this economic "theory" in public school, didn't you?  War doesn't improve economies any more than a rock throwing vandal improves the GDP when a glazer has to fix the baker's shop window.  The US pulled out of the depression because, 1) the busybodies in Washington were too preoccupied with war issues to worry about "regulating" industry to death and 2) we bombed our biggest industrial competitors back 10 years or more all across Europe & Japan. 

War is a natual result following your way of "evolution" thinking, if some people can not compete with Jews in intelligence, they can choose to compete with them in brutal force, that is Hitler did.

Competetion has a tendency to develope into a war, either in physical form or in mental form, why do you need a war when today's technology is more than enough to let everyone live a good life?

[wumpus]

War is a natual result following your way of "evolution" thinking, if some people can not compete with Jews in intelligence, they can choose to compete with them in brutal force, that is Hitler did.

Yes, thinking that we somehow need to control evolution (eugenics) has resulted in some of the most cruel actions that humanity has ever done to each other. We should be very careful here. I believe we should optimize for the good of the people currently alive (and upcoming generations), not some far extrapolation/prediction, either biological or sociological. Predictions rarely work out as expected, and also you'll not be alive to see the "result", so why bother at all?

[steelhouse]

I believe the 4 things to end unemployment are balanced budgets, full reserve banking, ending minimum wage, and ending unions.

You need a free flow of labor.  Norway, although it has high taxes has been running 10% surpluses and does not have a national debt.  They have a national surplus and have the highest gdp on earth.  You cannot have a climax community in division of labor without balanced budgets or surpluses.

All depressions/recessions result from credit expansion.  Full reserve banking will end that.

Minimum wage prevents the free flow of labor.

Unions prevent the free flow of labor.  The union worker might do a job for $40 per hour that someone might want to do for $20 per hour.  Unions prevent people from the right to work.

[MoonShadow]

War is a natual result following your way of "evolution" thinking, if some people can not compete with Jews in intelligence, they can choose to compete with them in brutal force, that is Hitler did.

Competetion has a tendency to develope into a war, either in physical form or in mental form, why do you need a war when today's technology is more than enough to let everyone live a good life?

War is a natural state of mankind, regardless.  It's a peaceful civil society that requires effort on the part of people.  If you don't consider the riots happening in Europe a form of war, you will.  That said, I'm not advocating eugenics.  I'm just pointing out that there is a third option of simply letting things take their course.  That is the most likely possibility in any event.  Sometimes these things just have to follow through.  And if we are heading towards a Hobbesian limit (I don't know that we are, I don't know that we're not) would rather risk death in conflict, or simply watch your children starve?  If you're not continueously educating yourself and your children, your complacency is going to be your undoing one way or another.  At a minimum, learn how to grow a garden.  You don't need a job for that, just a backyard.

[MoonShadow]

I believe the 4 things to end unemployment are balanced budgets, full reserve banking, ending minimum wage, and ending unions.

Ending minimum wage laws or unions is unneccessary.  Minimum wage laws really don't have a huge effect upon employment, except for the lowest skilled labor pool.  And unions are a valid use of the right to assemble and engage in contract.  What might need to change is the laws that compel individuals (who own companies) to engage in contracts that they do not wish to participate in.  Corporations, however, are not people; and thus have no rights, only legal privilages.  If the governments that establish limited liability corporations as 'legal entities' independent of their investors wish to impose rules such as required recongnition of collective bargining representatives; then those are the rules.

[Anonymous]

I think just like last great recession, we need world war III to wipe out excessive production power and useless people who are not able to compete with super intelligent guys due to their brain is not optimal when they were born

[Anonymous]

I believe the 4 things to end unemployment are balanced budgets, full reserve banking, ending minimum wage, and ending unions.

Ending minimum wage laws or unions is unneccessary.  Minimum wage laws really don't have a huge effect upon employment, except for the lowest skilled labor pool.  And unions are a valid use of the right to assemble and engage in contract.  What might need to change is the laws that compel individuals (who own companies) to engage in contracts that they do not wish to participate in.  Corporations, however, are not people; and thus have no rights, only legal privilages.  If the governments that establish limited liability corporations as 'legal entities' independent of their investors wish to impose rules such as required recongnition of collective bargining representatives; then those are the rules.

Unions are heavily government-empowered. The unions of today are the not the unions of yesterday.

In addition, minimum wage laws hinder manufacturing. There's no way I can get an assembly line of basic assemblers for cheap goods profitably while paying them over $8 an hour. We would see a lot of innovation and lower-rung jobs opened and made with no minimum wage. There will be a more skilled labor pool in the end since people don't have to jump to reach the ladder in the first place.

[MoonShadow]

I believe the 4 things to end unemployment are balanced budgets, full reserve banking, ending minimum wage, and ending unions.

Ending minimum wage laws or unions is unneccessary.  Minimum wage laws really don't have a huge effect upon employment, except for the lowest skilled labor pool.  And unions are a valid use of the right to assemble and engage in contract.  What might need to change is the laws that compel individuals (who own companies) to engage in contracts that they do not wish to participate in.  Corporations, however, are not people; and thus have no rights, only legal privilages.  If the governments that establish limited liability corporations as 'legal entities' independent of their investors wish to impose rules such as required recongnition of collective bargining representatives; then those are the rules.

Unions are heavily government-empowered. The unions of today are the not the unions of yesterday.

In addition, minimum wage laws hinder manufacturing. There's no way I can get an assembly line of basic assemblers for cheap goods profitably while paying them over $8 an hour. We would see a lot of innovation and lower-rung jobs opened and made with no minimum wage. There will be a more skilled labor pool in the end since people don't have to jump to reach the ladder in the first place.

Well, I don't disagree.  It's just a matter of degree.  There are much bigger issues to be delt with than the minimum wage.  And unions in bed with governments, which isn't all of them btw, will continue to lose influence as the governments that they depend upon continue to lose authority.  Thus, if you wish to make them your pet issues, feel free.  But they are both issues that will lose relevence in their own time.

[johnyj]

At a minimum, learn how to grow a garden.  You don't need a job for that, just a backyard.

This is not really feasible in today's society, in order to get the ownership of that backyard, a normal people have to loan from the bank and work most of his life to pay back the loan. He will be throw into a "profitable" game from the beginning and how big a chance he will have against most of those specialized corporations?

Besides force, intelligence and money, ownership difference is another factor that contribute to the high unemployment

[neptop]

A power plant is something that the private capital markets handle best. 

I disagree in this case, because I am talking about pretty much solving the energy problem, which means there is enough for everyone. I think it is a good thing if the state handles stuff EVERYONE needs. Compare it with water. In countries where there is an unlimited supply you receive it for for free. Not really an unlimited amount, but more than you would ever require for private use.

For a _big_ energy project that would basically be beneficial for ALL humans - it is one of the biggest problems in is close related to the climate - it would make more sense to work together. Maybe you can also compare this with stuff like GPS. I mean if we think about Space-based Solar Power (Japan works on this) then I don't even believe there could be a capital market. It would most likely be too small and therefor would become a monopoly. Also if we think about systems that require a lot of space or for example a coast it would be better to give the people (voting the government) control over this. I know, you can also vote via money, but that's often very unfair. Especially in case of power plants. Everyone living far away from a power plant doesn't really care about environmental damage, but for cheap energy. A government is usually better in even out these things.

However, it REALLY depends on many things, like the technology and stuff. Maybe it should be a bit like most telephone networks with the government caring about infrastructure. I don't know and I didn't really think a lot about it. The thing I worry about is that technology with a lot of potential is overlooked. This really shouldn't happen.

[MoonShadow]

At a minimum, learn how to grow a garden.  You don't need a job for that, just a backyard.

This is not really feasible in today's society, in order to get the ownership of that backyard, a normal people have to loan from the bank and work most of his life to pay back the loan. He will be throw into a "profitable" game from the beginning and how big a chance he will have against most of those specialized corporations?

Besides force, intelligence and money, ownership difference is another factor that contribute to the high unemployment

No solution is going to be feasible for everyone.  But it's still a good idea to know how to tend a garden, even if you live in a high rise condo.  You might not always.  Some skills are life skills, that parents need to teach children as insurance against the worst possible futures that child might face.  An example is learning to swim, even if you live in a city many miles from any accessible body of water.  I was in the USMC, and in boot camp I encountered people from big cities that have never learned to swim.  I was shocked.  Really, you grew up and never event went to a pool?  And then the joined the US Marine Corps.  Common sense would say that boot camp isn't going to be the ideal enviroment to learn to swim.  I (actually mostly my wife) teach my homeschooled children to swim before they are 5 (currently my 2 year old, who is a natural born swimmer, and I mean that literally.  He has zero fear of deep water, and is such a strong swimmer he probably doesn't need to.) and continue to teach this as a 'life skill' for ten years.  Odds are against them ever turning pro, but if they are ever in a flood, or take a cruise on the Titanic II, their odds of survival are vastly higher knowing how to actually swim.  Likewise, knowing how to plan, plant and tend a simple garden might prove to be useful life skill someday.  Ever hear of urban gardening?

[MoonShadow]

A power plant is something that the private capital markets handle best.  

I disagree in this case, because I am talking about pretty much solving the energy problem, which means there is enough for everyone.

What defines 'enough' in this context?  The private markets and the free market pricing mechanism is what tells the investor how much power is needed, and he takes all the risks on behalf of his customer base (society) so that they don't have to.   If he judges the future needs accurately, he is well rewarded by the profit that success should bring.  However, if he is a poor judge of what is 'enough' then he either over invests and loses his ass, or under invests and other investors eat his market share.  How does a government judge how much electric service, or anything else, is the right amount?  They have never been able to do this in the past, and that is exactly what ultimately led to the economic (and then political) collapse of the Soviet Union.  Central economic planning was a core function within the Soviet Union.
 

I think it is a good thing if the state handles stuff EVERYONE needs. Compare it with water. In countries where there is an unlimited supply you receive it for for free. Not really an unlimited amount, but more than you would ever require for private use.

I don't think that the state handles stuff anyone needs very well.  I shutter to think what would happen if they actually handled water in scarce environments.  Some of the most unjust things happen in Nevada and California over government granted "water rights".  The government doesn't really 'manage' water in areas of abundance, because there isn't really a need to manage it beyond preventing people or companies from contaminating it.  I can, quite literally, drill straight down into one of the largest replenishing freshwater aquifiers in the US from my back yard.  The state expects a "permit" to be filed, so that they know where it is and can add it's presumed value to my property taxes next year; but that doesn't stop me or anyone else from actually doing the drilling should there be a crisis of water issues around here.  And this helps to keep water rates low, because the water utility knows that, even though they hold a state provided monopoly on water distribution, if they tick off their customer base too much they might just find that their customers suddenly don't need quite so much water.

For a _big_ energy project that would basically be beneficial for ALL humans - it is one of the biggest problems in is close related to the climate - it would make more sense to work together.

Only if that can practically be done.  Just because it makes more sense from a certain perspective, doesn't mean that it's a problem that can be accomplished in a collective manner.

Maybe you can also compare this with stuff like GPS. I mean if we think about Space-based Solar Power (Japan works on this) then I don't even believe there could be a capital market. It would most likely be too small and therefor would become a monopoly. Also if we think about systems that require a lot of space or for example a coast it would be better to give the people (voting the government) control over this. I know, you can also vote via money, but that's often very unfair.

Every decision making model is unfair to some person or group at some time.  Expecially democracy.

 Especially in case of power plants. Everyone living far away from a power plant doesn't really care about environmental damage, but for cheap energy. A government is usually better in even out these things.

By what metric do you judge this?  IT's long been established that the US feeral governemnt and state and local governments are, by a wide margin, the worst cronic pollutors in the history of mankind.  The entire fleet of vehicles owned and operated by the US military are now and forever exempt from EPA regulations.  There is not a single humvee in the fleet that has a catalitic convertor, and they run convoys across the US freeway system regularly.  The USPS's mail truck fleet is also exempt, BTW; although many of them has pollution controls on them only because they are often built from regular SUV's these days.  The older trapazoidal, right hand drive mail trucks never had such controls, and is one reason that they couldn't be sold to the public.

However, it REALLY depends on many things, like the technology and stuff. Maybe it should be a bit like most telephone networks with the government caring about infrastructure. I don't know and I didn't really think a lot about it. The thing I worry about is that technology with a lot of potential is overlooked. This really shouldn't happen.

Dude, you don't know how things happen do you?  The government doesn't build the communications infrastructure in the United States.  And unlike the public roads, the government doesn't even plan for, nor pay for, the public communication infrastructure.  That is done entirely by private industries, whether they hold a state monopoly or not.