<p>You dodged Frankenstorms, Mayan calendars and Koran burnings, but can you survive the next Crisis?</p>
<p>Peak Jobs. </p>
<p>Tech Crunch has a not particularly well reasoned, self-referentially linked, article arguing that you should start worrying. The premise is that historically every time productivity increased (thanks to technology) total employment increased. Steam engine, industrialization, computerization, robotics, containerized shipping etc… </p>
<p>What we may have hit is Peak Punditry- but the graph of household income is pretty interesting. The most populous bucket is income of $15K-20K and things are pretty much monotonically decreasing until $200K.</p>
<p>Implication of peak jobs:
someone going to college should avoid a field subject to automation
the cost of obtaining a degree could send you further down the slope
the idea of a bonus in “lifetime” earnings becomes more dubious. </p>
<p>Is it possible that Zac Bissonnette could have been correct all along?</p>
<p>Most of this speculation seems to be based on a graph in one of the linked articles showing that productivity gains have become decoupled from economic growth after the 2008 crisis. I am skeptical that Peak Jobs is the explanation, but is the concept of Peak Jobs possible or are there other limiting economic factors?</p>
<p>Even if you do not buy the reasons given, the trend described here (increasing inequality, decreasing opportunity) has been well documented in the US over the last few decades. That can be worrisome even if you are among the few wealthy surrounded by hordes of poor people who see no hope within the system. Countries like that tend to have various kinds of social and political instability (popularity of far left politics, revolutions, high crime, etc.) that are not good for the wealthy. In addition, the wealthy’s businesses and investments are less profitable if people are too poor to buy the goods and services that they are selling.</p>
<p>Oh no, I was thinking about jobs that were immune to outsourcing (overseas), but I didn’t consider the threat of automation. I am going to have to rethink my recommendation to young people to go into taxi cab driving or waiting tables, two careers that I considered safe from outsourcing but now I see could be taken over by robots.</p>
<p>There are many dimensions along which one can measure “equality”. Taxing all income above $1 million at a 91% rate (once the U.S. top marginal income tax rate) would reduce both pre-tax and post-tax income inequality, but it would also increase the inequality in tax rates and tax burdens people face. I think it’s morally wrong for 99% of the people to confiscate the income or wealth of the 1%.</p>
<p>What is the evidence that opportunity has decreased?</p>
<p>Outsourcing is so overrated. Many jobs are created here buy Foreign and International companies outsourcing them into the USA. Another boom going on is oil / gas explorations on private lands. The reason that we do not hear much about either, because neither is politically correct facts. Yes, jobs are coming in, but NOT into states with high state taxes and usage of union force. They are making sure to choose states with low or no state taxes and non-union labor. The new ones propping up and to say “buy American” is soooo meleading any more, since even the largest car manufacturers have manufacturing facilities here and on top of it, they are being supplied by American companies, big and small.
In regard to oil and gas explorations on private lands, these regions are in desparate need for labor, they have no unemployment whatsoever, anybody from HS could get a job there that would involve training and a resonably good pay in a region where living is not expansive at all. Imagine the number of jobs that could be created if exploration is allowed at much wider scale.<br>
In regard to automation, it creates many highly paying jobs and eliminates some that are lower paying. In fact, the only reason many companies are not hiring right now is because the current gov. created so many uncertainties and increased the cost of labor so much that hiring is way below the needed level. Yes, many companies are running on a very thin labor in very critical areas and people who are working (mostly salaried, no OT pay) are streatched to the limits. But this will continue for awhile. Even when critical positions loose people for unpredictable causes (death, sudden guit for whatever reason) and predictable ones (retirement), many companies are dealing with current policies of NOT hiring the replacements and it will coninue for many months ahead.
So, as far as I can see working specifically for automotive and building product supplier of a good size (about 25k - 30k employees), all this talk about reaching Peak in jobs is artificially created for covering the real reasons for jobs not growing at the faster rates. These real reasons are not politically correct. So, I know I will be bashed. But the facts still remain and all I did was stating them.</p>
<p>If one parent out of every two-parent family would stay home with the kids while they are under 18, it would potentially open up millions of jobs. (This is not an indictment of two-working parent families - we were one. It is just something that I have been thinking about for awhile).</p>
<p>Not that there is any realistic chance of that happening in the US in the near term. Besides, back when it was 91% (1946-1963; it was actually 94% in 1944-1945), there were plenty of deductions, exemptions, credits, special lower rates, etc. that made the wealthiest people’s effective tax rates much lower.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if the 99.9% feel that there is no opportunity within the system, it might not be too pleasant for the 0.1%, and the confiscatory tax rates you fear (and other unpleasant things) become more likely.</p>
<p>“If one parent out of every two-parent family would stay home with the kids while they are under 18”
-Economically not possible. In addition, it would be a great labor shortage. Another point is that I personally feel in-prisoned in between the jobs. Would you like me and others like me be depressed for the most of our lives? It is depressing for very many to be at home to be stuck with home chores. I hate them all, no cooking, cleanning, shopping, watching TV, garden and whatever else is satisfying to me. So, why don’t we do whatever we want with out lives and let others do the same. And who is going to hire a lady who stayed at home for 20+ years? And another question is what to do at home while kids are at school? Lay around…what a life, thank you, not for me. Others might be happy with this, it is their choice, I am not forcing the issue one way or another, but to expect that every family will have at least one fully functionning able adult member staying at home sounds like pushing people to do what many will not choose for themselves as their life style.</p>
<p>It may not be economically possible now, because two-working-parent families theoretically may have helped run up the cost of housing and depressed wages/salaries. If families had less to pay for housing, house prices would decrease, if workers were scarcer, pay would increase. I’m not talking in terms of making this a law; but perhaps it could be encouraged with more tax deductions/credits.</p>
<p>Also, Miami,
People who do not work often do lots of volunteer work. They don’t necessarily lay around all day. Not working for money provides an opportunity to do a variety of worthwhile and impactful things for others out of the goodness of your heart which can be more fulfilling than sitting behind a desk in a boring job all day.</p>
<p>Steps that decrease income inequality in the short term may lead to bigger “hordes of poor people” demanding even more redistribution in the long term. Income redistribution via programs such as the earned income tax credit (especially when it is refundable) and food stamps, funded by higher taxes on the affluent, encourage the poor to have more children and reduce the number of children the affluent can afford. Since children’s income is positively correlated with parents’ income, subsidizing low-income families now creates more low-income adults in the future.</p>
<p>I agree income inequality can lead to social instability, although low growth in median income may be a more important factor. The left-wing solution is progressive taxation. Right-wing solutions to income inequality include stopping low-skilled immigration, legal and illegal, and restigmatizing illegitimacy.</p>
<p>“If one parent out of every two-parent family would stay home with the kids while they are under 18, it would potentially open up millions of jobs. (This is not an indictment of two-working parent families - we were one. It is just something that I have been thinking about for awhile).”</p>
<p>I have heard and read this argument in several places (I’d link if I could remember where,) and I tend to believe it. </p>
<p>Also mentioned was that women entering the work force, en masse in the 60’s, resulted in the lowering of wages for everyone. Jobs, which were once only held by the “bread winner” could be done by a woman for a cheaper wage and so the “bread winner” was now in competition with the cheaper wage earner for jobs, necessitating both parents in a household having to work to maintain a certain income.</p>
<p>And neither the left nor right wing really gets it that it is really about opportunity, not the equal or unequal result. The left wing tries to equalize the result after the fact, while the right wing tries to entrench inequality by inheritance, rather than increase opportunity for the next generation through their own ability and motivation.</p>
<p>“It may not be economically possible now, because two-working-parent families theoretically may have helped run up the cost of housing and depressed wages/salaries. If families had less to pay for housing, house prices would decrease, if workers were scarcer, pay would increase. I’m not talking in terms of making this a law; but perhaps it could be encouraged with more tax deductions/credits.”</p>
<p>Ugh. So let’s use tax policy to encourage less people to work? And the people who are working can pay more taxes so other people can stay home. Sure, I could go for that. You all give me your money, and I’ll stay home and watch the dogs. See, that will open up another job for someone. I think that’s the direction we’re headed already, with the movement towards the welfare state.</p>
<p>Comes in awfully handy for the family when the husband gets laid off, for the wife to be employed. Also might allow the husband to work less and see his children more if he isn’t pulling the entire load. Current employment comes in even more handy if the couple divorces or one dies. It’s awfully hard to support children with no job, even with the welfare state giving minimal subsistence.</p>
<p>I don’t follow you, bus driver, unless you believe that keeping more of your own income is the same as taking other people’s money. </p>
<p>The idea behind it is that the working spouse would be less likely to be laid off/unemployed, as jobs would be more plentiful. Perhaps there would be less divorce due to less stress in the marriage if both spouses weren’t working. The children would obviously get more time with a parent - how can that be bad? If spouses divorce or one dies, then the remaining spouse would obviously go to work, but there would be more jobs available.</p>
<p>“I don’t follow you, bus driver, unless you believe that keeping more of your own income is the same as taking other people’s money.”</p>
<p>No, I certainly wouldn’t put it that way. More like I am bothered by using tax policy to encourage people not to work and pay taxes (therefore requiring others to pay more taxes to cover the shortfall).</p>
<p>Sorry, I think your proposal is a fantasy. It is very problematic to use tax policy to influence people’s behavior, though I know our politicians manipulate it continually. We already have policies in the tax code to encourage people to stay home. The marriage penalty, the fact that the higher family income you have, the higher tax rate you have. And policies that discourage work seem counter productive to me.</p>
<p>I work with a number of guys whose wives don’t work, whether or not their children are still at home. And they say, “Hey, why would my wife work? She’s not in a highly paid field, so her meager pay would be taxed at my highest rate, plus social security and medicare. What’s the point of her working for almost nothing?” And when only one person is responsible for family income, I guarantee you it is far more pressure on that person to provide than if they have a backup. Kids can use plenty of time with both parents, not just one. My husband has said repetitively that he is so glad that I have a good job, it has allowed him so much time with our kids…and when he got laid off, what a relief that I was employed. There would be very few jobs in his occupation available, even if every single woman in the country was unemployed.</p>
<p>There will always be people willing to work in the US (as long as they aren’t terrible jobs). People will come from other countries, or less qualified people will fill them, companies will lower their standards. I just don’t think that trying to control what people do through tax policy is a great idea. People should make choices, not have the choices made for them. I’ve know a number of women who have been out of the work force, gotten divorced, and been reduced to living at poverty level. Not because jobs weren’t available, but because they weren’t qualified for anything that paid a decent income any more. But their husbands certainly managed to maintain their standard of living.</p>
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png[/url]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
