Millennials (Are we doomed)? (fit in, to live in, vs.)

[oldtrader]

Cutting hours to 20~25/hours wouldn't double the cost of products and the point isn't that workers could work 20~25/hours and maintain the same standard of living as someone today working 40 but instead someone could work 20~25/hours and maintain the same standard of living someone working 40/hours in the past.

WRONG. It takes so many man hours, to produce a certain amount of product. Prices of products, are based on costs to produce them including materials and labor. To be competitive and stay in business, one has to be able to produce their product at competitive price.

Cut the hours in half, and would require hiring twice as many people to produce the product as you would have to increase the size of the facility, as an example.

Just because using modern methods to produce goods, and producing more goods per man hour, does not mean you can cut the amount of hours per worker and stay in business in a competitive world.

If you are not willing to work the 40 hours, that is standard for industry of all types, then you should not be angry as you will not be employable. .

[nullgeo]

Plenty jobs available ... no STEM technology required:
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/cFb0nLCKypg?rel=0

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Cut the hours in half, and would require hiring twice as many people to produce the product as you would have to increase the size of the facility, as an example.

The Millennials are already having trouble finding a full time job, since many employers hire two part time workers so they won't have to pay any benefits. Increasing the size of the facility? That's not happening. However, the Mills I know are not in manufacturing; they're in the service industries.

If you are not willing to work the 40 hours, that is standard for industry of all types, then you should not be angry as you will not be employable .

There are fewer of these jobs around today.

[jm1982]

I saw this article and it reminded me of this thread as it's related to Millennial in CA.

Go east, young Californians looking for work and affordable housing: Joe Mathews - LA Daily News

Personally i'd probably rather move out of state than Riverside or San Bernadino county ..but it might be a good idea for many millennials. I think it's a better bet than Antelope Valley ...but property is probably more especially in Riverside county.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

There are fewer of these jobs around today.

. . . and more people looking for work every year. If you look at every college in this country and add up all the graduates each year, it boggles the mind. It isn't any wonder they can't find work.

[oldtrader]

Here is a great long article on the subject. It covers guest workers (foreign) in STEM jobs. It is one of the reasons the young are finding it hard to get a start today.

Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market: An analysis of supply, employment, and wage trends | Economic Policy Institute

A good report.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi...FullReport.pdf

Future problems in California.

The Campaign for College Opportunity :: STEM Workforce Seminar Presentation

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

. . . and more people looking for work every year. If you look at every college in this country and add up all the graduates each year, it boggles the mind. It isn't any wonder they can't find work.

OMG! Common sense!

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

OMG! Common sense!

Don't get used to it

[Curmudgeon]

As to the original question, I'm beginning to hope so.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

In your Utopia, what of distribution of this wealth? Is it distributed evenly like communism? Or is redistribution just partial and buffered such as in Socialism. Or is it like the Roman Empire, where only the upper classes lives this leisure life?

Firstly, calling my suggestion a "utopia" underscores the fact that what I describe is one of the available options. As a society, we can do a few difference things with productivity increases:

1.) Use the increased productivity to purchase more goods keeping hours worked the same.
2.) Use the increased productivity to increase leisure time keeping consumption levels the same.
3.) Transfer the gains from increased productivity and put them into the pockets of some group while keeping the standard of living (both in goods and leisure time) fixed for the working/middle class.

American society has picked a combination of #1 and #3, though over the last decade its primarily #3. But we could just as very well picked #2 and #3, or just #2. All of these are equally viable options.
In Europe, in contrast, you see a combination of all three.

I have no idea why you think people would have to fill their extra 20/hours a week with the arts, that isn't how most people pass their existing free time.

Also, just to note, I merely used 20/hours a week as an example. The point is that workers could have more leisure time, whether that occurs with less hours worked per week or a lost more vacation time, or a combination doesn't matter. I think working 30~35 hours a week with a lot more vacation (~3 months) time is more realistic.

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I will admit I am confused, I do not understand your ideal... It seems you want low taxes and more wealth, yet want less work and more free time.

I haven't said anything about low taxes, nor "more wealth".