This is actually right: The amount worked, determines living standards. We could all work 20 hour weeks, or 40 hour weeks. There is no arbritrary or contrived equilibrium. Our productivity (hours worked) determines our consumption capacity (living standards). So the more we work as a society, the more we produce (and therefore, earn), and can thus, consume = higher living standards. The less we work as a society, the less we produce (and therefore earn). Thus, the less we can consume = lower living standards.
When you say there is no shortage of employment do you have data to back this up. How many minimum wage jobs exist? How many 15 dollar an hour jobs etc.. Do you have some kind of data to confirm this. I seriously doubt people are saying, Sorry I am not interested in making 50 grand a year.
Hi-Tech is not the answer. There just aren't enough positions to go around, especially when you consider that most people can't even balance a check book without a calculator. We need something that will employ millions and requires limited training. The answer is right in front of us, all day, every day. Infrastructure! Our infrastructure is in terrible shape. Every road, highway, bridge and railway needs dramatic improvement. High speed rail system that connects major metro areas is a must. There is at least two decades worth of work for infrastructure improvment. One little problem. Where's the money come from? Simple, we quit playing policeman and babysitter to the world. No more blank checks, no more protection, no more nothing. Plenty of money for projects at home as a result. Scoff all you like, it's the only solution. Everything else is failing, and will continue to fail. Continue down the same path we are and we'll suffer the consequence of having millions of people with absolutely nothing to do. That won't work, or last. Sooner or later the masses will say fuck it and start taking what they need, and then it's over. You just can't have this many people sitting on their asses without some serious consequence.
His point was valid, within context. The problem is asset bubbles destroy wealth by locking-in debt at sky-high prices. And that "asset" returns nothing of value. So buying Tulip bulbs at 40,000$ a piece, kills demand for other goods, many years after. The counter-argument that for every buyer, there is a seller, doesn't hold water. While true, the "behavioral economics" of the typical rich is a hoarding of wealth. Not spending. So 2 million dollars split evenly between 20 middle class families would generate much more consumptive demand, than if given to one rich family. The rich spend a bit, then put the rest in the bank. This is the same reason why a strong middle-class is critical to a robust economy.
That is almost certainly axiomatically correct. There are probably exceptions to what you are saying (e.g., the sun burns out and novas, we send earth into orbit around Alpha Centauri into its goldi-locks-zone as a sun replacement. The energy expended is immense, but where else you gonna get a star?), but they are outrageous to consider. I am not worried about super cheap energy. Somewhere else I mention that fusion is 30 years or so away http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...00737&perpage=6&highlight=fusion&pagenumber=9
You know what - I don't have all the details of all payrolls, I use usually this link: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt just 'analize it' (c) - look at 'employed' number - you see in 2010 it's same number of working people as in 2004, since population grown up more than 14-15 mln. I understand you don't want 50k annual, I'm just curious how much you want? And what you gonna trade for it(what you can propose to do for what you want)? You know, just common sense - since this is trader's forum(at list it pretends to be) - think about traders in common - they're actually re-distributors and re-estimators of wealth(taking some fees). Buying or selling stocks is actually re-estimation of properties, 'cause each stock share has an owner at given time (with some minor exceptions). So, if you take all the bunch of traders, investment bankers, stock exchange brokers - they're just redistributors and reestimators, and who pays for their work - didn't you think about that? In one-man (or one-family) analogy it's like you're interested 1000 times a day to know what's price of your assets or your neighbour assets, and you're ready to pay to know that - that's exaggerated example, but actually that's it... All that starts from 'I don't want, they pay too less' , but the trick is there is no linear dependancy between your salary and your life-time earning, and if you don't get it, you won't earn much..
Let's forget about the greater economy and technological advances, and focus on a household. And why not? The word "economics" comes from the ancient greek word "oikos" meaning household. Households, in the past 100 years experienced a technological revolution. From microwave ovens, to lawnmowers, chainsaws, dishwashers, washing machines, etc... Overall, time spent on household chores diminished significantly. Does that make people lazy? In the past, usually the woman, had to hand scrub clothes, cook for hours, knead bread, etc... countless hours were spent in the home doing work. It was truly an operational endeavor. Does that mean we should continue to work at the home based on the same amount of hours people worked on chores 100 years ago? These technological advances have also permeated in the greater economy - robotics, agriculture, construction equipment, etc... yet we have this policy of 95% of the population needing to work 50 weeks a year, 40 hours a week. That's a lot of hours. So what did governments do to keep that target? They deficit spend, they create a FIRE economy, they increase aggregate demand by using a debt based monetary system, etc... all artificially created demand based on a Ponzi Casino economy to keep 95% of the labor force employed. Look around you. Is it working? I guess it's easier to dismiss a collapsing casino driven economy on the "laziness" of the population. Or you can dig a little deeper and see how a large percentage of aggregate demand really is created artificially. Then you will realize that many jobs that exist today, are really subsidized by the government. From housing to defense. From transportation to social work. And on and on.... take those away, and you will see unemployment soar. What we are witnessing is not laziness. It's the collapse of an artificial, unsustainable economy premised on the childish concept of permagrowth. According to your theory, every generation, if they work hard enough, should realize those gains in the form of bigger homes, bigger cars, more TVs, etc... Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Reducto ad absurdum. Let's forget about resource depletion and focus on your target of ever increasing living standards. In theory, one day, maybe 100 years from now, everyone should be driving tractor sized SUVs and living in 10,000 square foot homes. Right? Because living standards should go to infinity? What I'm suggesting doesn't cut off technological advances. What I'm suggesting is greater employment through greater leisure time. Leisure time, IMHO is a standard of living increase, not a 10,000 sf house... Before the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels, people worked practically from sun up to sun down. Leisure time was for the elites. People lived on farms, and between household chores and farming, their days were full. Then came the industrial revolution, yet the hours worked did not change much. Eventually, we arrived at a 40 hour work week with two weeks vacation. For the average person, this was a godsend. What I am saying is that it might be time for a re-adjustment. I don't know what the numbers should be, but if you want 95% of the people employed without government interference, then maybe a 30 hour workweek may be needed. Or a 20 hour workweek. And this would have to be universal. Why do you support a 40 hr workweek? Why not 35 hours? Or why not 55 hours, if that would lead to increased consumption = increased happiness? Look, bottom line, I am questioning the 40 hours. How was that decided? Why should it still hold in the era of productivity advances?
I am not speaking specifically of space exploration for resource extraction, although that could be one potential example. My point is that we don't know where the future job creation via technological advancements/innovation will happen because they haven't happened yet. This does not mean that it won't happen. Space exploration is obviously going to be a large part of technological advancement in the future, but my point is not limited to that area. In fact, the next big technological advancement that will fuel future economic growth may have already been invented, we just haven't realized the benefits yet.
No, man, no! There are a lot of things you can invest the resources, freed by laundry machine and microwave. Literally a lot - and I'm not talking about bigger houses and SUVs. You can invest more resources to researches - starting from climate to earthcore and human body(medicine) - to make mankind existanse on Earth more safe, you can invest more in breathtaking researches of nuclear fusion, desert soil enrichment and than enjoy it - even with growing population. You can build houses out of bricks (c) or whatever better material in Kansas and everywhere instead of recovering home(and moral) damage after each tornado.. All this cost money, work, education, and it's a lot , just a lot of directions to develop a society. Or, instead of that, once you got banana palm , you seat in its shadow smoking - you got food(bananas falling because of wind), roof(palm leaves) and leisure time - end of story(ah, if there is no wind, that's a fast season).
If it costs 60,000 dollars for a highschool student to get a work permit and spend 4 years in the process. Jobs should compensate for this fact by better than minimum wages.