There is no significant correlation between thinner-populated/shrinking countries countries and any change in the labor force participation rate versus thicker-populated/growing countries. The important part is how strong the economy is, and the modern American economy is extremely weak due to a variety of factors, if you ask me almost entirely due to heavy/complex regulation and associated pathologies, and monetary policy, but that's off topic here. The supply of jobs depends on the demand for goods and services from a given population - given equal per capita demand, demand will change at the same rate as the population, and all other things being equal the jobs will change at the same rate.
Also, at the pace fertility rates are falling, the UN low variant projections will come to pass and it's only a matter of decades before populations begin to shrink worldwide. There will probably be fewer Americans in 2100 than there are today, and by the end of the next century (2200) the surplus you speak of will be remedied even in places like Niger, which are currently facing overpopulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
I think you've unknowingly skipped a step in your logic. That's evidence for a surplus of labor, not population. There's all kinds of ways to resolve a labor surplus. Creating more jobs, reducing work hours, creating a larger leisure class, etc.
|
Indeed. More jobs with higher salaries need to be created; how to do that is the question. My take on it is that if the regulatory burden and complexity is rolled back to a minimum, if the tax burden was low and tax simple to collect, if natural resources across the country were opened up a la North Dakota, if government borrowing ceased, if labor unions were stronger and untethered from government bureaucracies, and if the currency was stable and had a backing as good as gold, growth would take off like a rocket. Stable currency will restore the link between productivity and income that was lost when the currency became unstable in the early 1970's (and briefly restored during a stronger-dollar period in the late 1990's), and labor unions will take care of the rest. If income remained coupled to productivity, the median household would currently be earning $92000.
Of course, that's not the only factor. Regulation alone carries not only direct costs in compliance and complexity, but opportunity costs that
cut the long-term GDP growth rate by 2 points. The hordes of people who were put out of business by regulatory burden when they got started or who were dissuaded from starting a business at all is a tremendous long-term opportunity cost considering that some portion of these would have undoubtedly have been very successful and outcompeted existing corporations thus creating more wealth, so considering that a pretty standard economic model was used to assess the cost, the 2 points is averaged over 60 years and has since 1950 increased along with the regulatory burden, and that only the drag on growth was taken into account rather than the new technologies, I have a hunch that the true drag on growth is currently around 4 points. Nevertheless I'll refrain from speculation and call it 2 points.
This alone provides a neat explanation for the mystery of how 1990-2010 growth was slower than 1950-1970 growth when if anything it should have been faster with the new technologies proliferating. 2 points may not seem like much, but over 60 years it's
the difference between a $16 trillion and a $54 trillion economy and a $50 000 and $330 000 median household income. North Dakota's medium-term growth was boosted by an incredible 7 points by oil and mineral wealth alone; at least 4 points of additional growth are to be expected in other mineral and oil areas, and although there are spillover effects outside those areas which I'd guess at 3-6 points nationally judging by other oil/mineral countries, I'll use a lowball estimate of 1 point nationally. So it's reasonably clear that this program is good for at least 3 points of US GDP growth. Current growth is 2%, which works out to 1% per capita and slightly negative income growth. This boosts growth to 5%, or 4% per capita; income growth should also be 4% along with productivity if they are recoupled. This would be among the most rapid long-term expansions of GDP and standard of living in American history, and this is the lowball estimate.
Assuming 6 points for oil/mineral growth, 2 points for new technology, and 2 points for the base of regulatory burden lifting, my highball estimate, long-term GDP growth would be 12%, or 11% per capita with corresponding income growth. The U.S. would become a tiger economy, with a growth rate outstripping China's and almost double that of the Asian Tigers.
Even using the lowball estimates of 4% growth, median income would reach $100 000 in 18 years, $250 000 in 42 years, and $500 000 in 59 years. Increased automation of jobs benefits those who own the automation, and by mid-century when this will happen to all labor that doesn't require a human touch or creativity most Americans will be capital owners and wealthy enough to purchase automation, particularly given advances in 3D printing and decreases in prices. Once income crosses $200 000 returns from investments begin to be a significant part of one's income, which increases as one climbs the ladder until a salary becomes a small and dispensable part of your income. The ladder of success for individuals starts at the stage of living off of subsistence activities, progressing to living off of a salary or business income, and finally living off of one's wealth. It's reasonable to assume societies follow the same pattern, so given continued and significant growth yesterday's upper class life is today's middle class life and tomorrow's lower class life.
At the 4% growth rate median income will be $2 million by 2110, having reached $1 million in the 2090's. Once you reach those brackets one lives off one's wealth rather than a salary, so only those in severe poverty will need to work for a living. So if the growth rate was not suppressed the advances in technology and automations in jobs would go hand in hand with the mass wealth required to take full advantage of it. As it is the whole process is skewed where technological advancement occurs at the same time as increasing poverty. Keep in mind that 4% is the lowball estimate. The highball estimate is 11%. If that comes to pass starting now, median income will reach $100 000 in 7 years, $250 000 in 16 years, $500 000 in 23 years, $1 million in 29 years, and $3 million by mid-century. In the late 21st century the typical American family will look less like the Waltons and more like the Rockefellers, and income will become meaningless as one's asset base will be the primary factor in standard of living. Most people will not have regular employment, and you might say most are unemployed but it would not be unemployment as we understand it. Frederick Turner probably
put it best:
Quote:
|
Unemployment will disappear in a universally rich world, not because there will be no people without jobs but because unemployed rich people are not called “unemployed” at all, but “independently wealthy”, “idle rich”, “parasites”, “comfortable”, “philanthropists,” or “retired.” The word unemployed will become archaic and comic.
|
The age of growth and abundance that would result from such a development, driven in large part by oil and mineral wealth that environmentalists oppose, will be a boon for the environment. Aside from the desire for a pristine personal environment increasing with wealth, wealth being in abundance will mean that the "it costs too much" barrier will be progressively broken down. This has significant implications; switching to a new power method that is cleaner and better for the environment but increases rates 20% is prohibitive now, but suddenly would become very popular (even among conservatives!) if utility bills were as much of a burden as a package of gum is today. Increased wealth also makes constructing nuclear plants less of a burden, which further reduces fossil fuel use. The same applies to cars, where the cost of new propulsion technologies is easily born by the rich, who have the same desire for coolness and newness the rest of us have but don't have enough money to indulge. To current Americans, it would be like the difference between an ordinary $1000 car and an otherwise identical $1800 car that has new and clean propulsion technology; most would go for the latter. This will cause consumption of fossil fuels to plunge, and keep petroleum relatively cheap into the indefinite future.
People of sufficient means fund and patronize the arts and sciences, so it's reasonable to assume that research grants would be plentiful in the age of growth, and the ranks of scientists and researchers will grow due to "not being able to make it into a career" becoming an archaic concern. This means that vastly more avenues of scientific inquiry will be pursued, with the deliberate and accidental breakthroughs having significant implications. It is likely that this will accelerate the pace of breakthroughs in alternative energy, such that oil's cost and efficiency edge may disappear, and a cheaper and more efficient new source of energy may be discovered or created. This will further accelerate the ebb of the Oil Age. Energy consumption will skyrocket in this era, but the consumers will go to much greater lengths to make it clean and environmentally sound energy.
Government funding of art and science will be a progressively lower share, as will government funding of education, because people rich enough to afford any school will find options superior to public school. Public schools will have to become as good as elite private schools to serve a society of trust fund babies. Funding for space travel will also be in abundance, since those so inclined will still be yearning for adventure and have the money to finance it; even today many rich people are itching to get into space. "Making everyone rich" will not buy happiness, seeing as rich people have their own set of problems, but making everyone rich will go a long way towards solving our social challenges and the drawbacks of the current human condition.
This is possible if incomes increase sufficiently, and to do that growth must be maximized along with the worker's share of it; once salaries increase to a certain level people will start to invest their extra money, and increasing contributions will create a mass asset base with significant returns. Over time returns from investments will become larger than salaries for an ever-increasing share of the population, and for an ever-increasing subset their salary will no longer be needed. Eventually everyone will live off their wealth and needing a salary to live will be obsolete. The best way to improve the lives of workers is to make them prosperous enough to not need to work, and that should be the overriding objective.
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.
I don't know much about much,but when it comes to farmers/cattle ranchers I do know just enough to be dangerous..to myself 