Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, 1 million less construction workers from 2006 as most population growth is in metropolitan with lots of red tape.
It is confusing how sending e-mails, administration jobs such as making reports and other intangible jobs that produce no tangible product are supposed to sustain 360 million people in 2030
I guess Health Care employment will rapidly increase but government already pays or subsidies through tax breaks nearly 2/3rds of all spending
It just seems how a Finance, Insurance and Real Estate economy with lots of government spending directly or indirectly is sustainable.
My view is that the current paradigm for "growing" the economy is to make sure to put in place extremely overwrought and complicated legislation which requires the employment of 1 million new consultants to interpret and manage the ever-increasing liability incurred on a confused populace.
So, there are a million fewer construction workers now than during the housing boom, when prices were rising -- causing everyone and their brother was building houses before the crash. How surprising.
Second, technology jobs, administration jobs, etc., aren't "intangible jobs" that produce no "tangible product." Administrative jobs that do things such as make sure controls are followed, checks are cut and make work more efficient are hardly intangible. Most of America is performing services apart from manufacturing.
I would think new housing would have to slow down as population gets older and move out of their homes to assisted living, retirement villages ETC. There will be a glut of already built houses on the market.
It is confusing how sending e-mails, administration jobs such as making reports and other intangible jobs that produce no tangible product are supposed to sustain 360 million people in 2030
There are a minority of people who create huge amounts of value - but the creation of this value requires administration, marketing, finance, etc. specialists to organise the production process (labor compliments) and these get paid out of the earnings of the minority. Then, their incomes directly lead to the creation of an expansive service sector economy who do things like cut their hair, and dry clean their clothes, and serve them meals.
It's actually more problematic to think about what will happen when we automate the email-sending and reports (which, from experience, isn't all too difficult). Though, I'm optimistic.
It is confusing how sending e-mails, administration jobs such as making reports and other intangible jobs that produce no tangible product are supposed to sustain 360 million people in 2030
Yes! A successful company should have absolutely zero support staff.
20,000 people on the line making widgets every day. On their lunch breaks they can ask for volunteers to handle HR, marketing, accounting and compliance, etc. heck maybe send a few of 'em out for sales call on the weekends so there are people to buy those widgets. They don't need any corporate officers either, just make every decision in a big room with a show of hands.
It's not sustainable, but the US economy, while pointed in that direction, isn't there yet.
Of course it's sustainable. Our advanced economy is bound by resources, and we are not out of resources. Our economy is advanced. So we have huge numbers with service industry employment like with HC. And less with general manufacturing, as that can usually be easily and more cheaply imported. And through this importation we save on our own resources.
Also, 1 million less construction workers from 2006 as most population growth is in metropolitan with lots of red tape.
It is confusing how sending e-mails, administration jobs such as making reports and other intangible jobs that produce no tangible product are supposed to sustain 360 million people in 2030
I guess Health Care employment will rapidly increase but government already pays or subsidies through tax breaks nearly 2/3rds of all spending
It just seems how a Finance, Insurance and Real Estate economy with lots of government spending directly or indirectly is sustainable.
How the world has changed since the OP posted this in 2016. Now, bringing manufacturing jobs back to America is finally important, trade deals that don't hollow out manufacturing are important, stopping illegal immigration to undercut American's wages is important.
Of course it's sustainable. Our advanced economy is bound by resources, and we are not out of resources. Our economy is advanced. So we have huge numbers with service industry employment like with HC. And less with general manufacturing, as that can usually be easily and more cheaply imported. And through this importation we save on our own resources.
Far too simplistic a circle of claims. We are not a diagram on the white board of an Econ 101 class.
To begin with, the population has to be able to afford services.
My point - as already proven by WW2 - is that we are resource and labor bound, not dollar bound.
Still too small a notion. Where does massive loss of jobs to automation/AI fit in those boundaries? Basic Econ theory doesn't allow for a massive imbalance between labor, income and wealth except to hand-wave away the "excess"workers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.