
The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people - cryoshon
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/if-you-re-young-the-job-outlook-is-grim-no-matter-where-you-live
======
downandout
Most of the comments here focus on how people aren't trying hard enough to get
jobs. This article indicates that the jobs _don 't exist_ and that the problem
is likely to get far worse. You can try as hard as you want to get a job - if
no one is hiring, you aren't going to get one.

The reality is that as time goes on, the world's needs can and will be met by
fewer and fewer people. This should be a good thing, but it won't work under
most existing economic systems. Our entire economy has to change to accomodate
the new reality that a significant percentage of the population _will_ be
unemployed.

~~~
icelancer
> Most of the comments here focus on how people aren't trying hard enough to
> get jobs. This article indicates that the jobs don't exist and that the
> problem is likely to get far worse.

The reality is that BOTH are true.

There is no law stating that each generation of humans should have it easier
and with more resources available to them. My generation is facing this
crisis, and the default response is to complain. Which is fine for a few
minutes or days, it's good to vent. But at the end of the day, that won't
change anything. It's time to get to work, even if "work" is 20-30% (random
number) tougher than what our parents dealt with. Assigning blame doesn't
solve anything.

That being said, I definitely agree some sort of Basic Income strategy will be
necessary going forward. Perhaps soon.

~~~
roymurdock
Speaking for myself (as a 22 year-old recent graduate) -

I was brought up to respect my elders and to consider society as a mostly-
altruistic, benevolent mass of humanity with a conscience bent more towards
justice and meritocracy than corruption and inequality. I believed that the
older generation who shape and structure society through government, industry,
and academia were doing their absolute best to set future generations up for
success; after all, what else could be the ultimate aim and goal of life once
you marry and have children of your own?

Now, I'm not so sure this is the case. It seems like there is a lot less to go
around, even for the older generation. I used to see teenagers bagging
groceries and working menial service jobs. Now all I see are 50-60 year olds,
and I wonder "how the hell did these people end up working minimum wage, 11pm
shifts at the grocery store at age 58?". I see my landlord barely getting by
on social security, rent income, and a sales job, unable to retire at age 65.
Ageism is real, with layoffs at major companies (IBM, HP, etc.) affecting
older workers disproportionately, many of whom are not yet able to retire and
who don't have the time to retrain for a rapidly-changing economy that demands
dramatically different skills than it did 20-30 years ago.

So ultimately, I find that many in the older generation are simply trying to
make ends meet in an environment of scarcity that is new for the US, with the
youth subsequently becoming disillusioned because the system seems to be set
up against them.

Of course, as inequality grows, the shrinking proportion of families with
money are largely exempt from these worries. But you would think "they" (the
nameless, faceless, despised rich) would find it in their interests to give
back to society; to give back to a system that had rewarded them with comfort
and prosperity. To make sure it didn't rot from the greed, sloth, misplaced
violence, weak guidance, and weaker morals that did away with the mighty Roman
empire.

It's all a matter of perspective though: at least we're not being conscripted
to go fight in Vietnam or WWIII, which is the ultimate manifestation of the
old using the young for profit and self-serving agenda pushing.

~~~
Domenic_S
> _to consider society as a mostly-altruistic, benevolent mass of humanity_

There is no mass of humanity in that way, just like "HN believes..." or
"Reddit thinks..." is mostly impossible to say. Some folks of that generation
did/do act in mostly-altruistic, benevolent ways, and some of them did/do not.
The generational argument is a very clever red herring that shifts blame from
a broken _system_ to the previous generation -- print this comment out and put
it somewhere safe; your future children will be blaming your generation, too.

> _" how the hell did these people end up working minimum wage, 11pm shifts at
> the grocery store at age 58?"_

Lots of times, sheer boredom. Folks like us might do freelance coding or
something in our old age, but there's not a good market for freelance people
managers (which a great deal of those 58-year-old bag boys probably were --
why not ask them next time?) Also, big grocery stores are typically union so
it's not actually a terrible career for the kind of work it is. Your
generation has a different idea of what a "good job" is, so that's probably
informing a bit of your reaction too.

> _I find that many in the older generation are simply trying to make ends
> meet in an environment of scarcity_

Most people are simply trying to make ends meet. Some saved more, some saved
less, some earned more, some earned less, but in the US if you worked and paid
taxes, you'll get the bare minimum (social security + medicare) and won't ever
starve or go cold. If your desire for retirement is more than "won't starve",
start saving today and always live below your means.

> _with the youth subsequently becoming disillusioned because the system seems
> to be set up against them._

Every generation back to the ancient Greeks felt that way. There's basically
always been a counterculture movement based on youthful disillusionment, some
more successful (hippies of the 60s) and some less (#occupywallst). But it's
not anything new. This should tell you something important: the system is the
problem, and the system is adverse to change. A lot of those hippies turned
into middle managers.

> _But you would think "they" (the nameless, faceless, despised rich) would
> find it in their interests to give back to society_

They absolutely do. The top 1% of earners pay 50% of federal taxes. Those
social programs I mentioned above that will keep you eating, clothed and warm
even if you don't have a penny to your name? Thank the taxpayers, of whom top
earners comprise disproportionately. Almost all charitable foundations are
made possible by the rich. Did you take any grants, subsidized loans or
scholarships? If so, thank taxpayers (mostly top earners) and private donators
(again, mostly top earners).

What's weird is that you understand the effect ("greed, sloth, misplaced
violence, weak guidance, and weaker morals") but totally misunderstand the
cause. Yours is the first generation of "everyone's special" come to
adulthood. Instead of looking at the rich person and saying "wow, I want that,
how can I get that for myself?" (and then doing it or at least trying),
they'll say "wow, I want that, he has it, f __* that guy ". It's worse than
greed, it's covetousness - wanting something so much you'd take it from
someone else. _That_ will be America's undoing.

~~~
roymurdock
It was just my opinion, I was not attempting to speak for anyone but myself,
much less my generation. My upbringing was extremely different from that of
millions of others in this country, and I have no right to put words in their
mouths.

I'm not sure if Medicare/Social Security will exist when I'm 65.

I work for a living. I don't say "hey fuck that guy" because he's rich, I say
"hey fuck that guy" because he's a greedy sociopath who is fucking up the
fabric of our society, a society that I have thoroughly enjoyed being a part
of for the past 22 years and that I would love to raise my kids in one day.

I don't have anything against Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Michael Dell or people of
their ilk - they're geniuses who excelled in bringing a fantastic product to
market, and they were rewarded for that. I would love to emulate their
success.

But the top investment bankers who were intentionally obfuscating the market
through complex securitization and interest-rate manipulation? The CEOs of
Moody's and Standard & Poor's who were intentionally misleading investors and
prioritizing profits over quality and integrity? The people whose job it was
to regulate these markets, stop oblivious consumers from taking on a $500k
mortgage on $50k yearly income? The oblivious consumers and investors
themselves? The government who set a precedent of propping up failed bets with
taxpayer money? The ones who were not adequately punished for the pain and
suffering they caused? Yeah, fuck all those guys.

~~~
Domenic_S
> _It was just my opinion [... ]I have no right to put words in their mouths._

That's fine. But let's not pretend yours is a unique or unusual opinion.

> _But the top investment bankers who were intentionally [...]_

So here's another good example of the red herring that's been skillfully
thrown your way. They could only do what they did _because the system let
them._ Then they got slapped on the wrist a little (if at all) _because the
system doesn 't punish itself._

And let's not forget: most of the people complicit in all that stuff were
regular folks humping a boring job trying to make enough money to not go
broke. By headcount, guaranteed those sub-$40k-a-year regular folks outnumber
the terrible fatcats 10,000-to-1. They're responsible, too, but you don't see
people demonstrating in front of their local mortgage broker's house. So when
you (the global "you") talk about IBs ruining America and so forth, it rings
pretty hollow to me because _the system that let them do it in the first place
is what you should blame._ As long as you're distracted from that fact, you
are no threat which is why knowing how to think is so important (colleges will
try to trick you into believing that's what they're teaching, but they're not.
Your first exercise is to figure out _why_ they're not).

Tangent: my favorite example of this method of distraction is Obamacare. All
this discussion about how to make it so everyone could afford an asprin at the
hospital, and when it was all over nobody had bothered to ask why an asprin at
the hospital should cost $15 in the first place. Why not? Because that's not a
conversation the system wants you to have. $15 asprins build hospital wings
and buy fancy new machines and pay administrators 8 figure salaries. We do
_not_ talk about the asprin.

Anyway, my point is that calling out the rich or the 1% or whatever is stupid,
because they give back way more than their fair share (by the numbers). When
someone/something says you need to direct your hate over that way, your first
reaction should be to look and see what's the other way. The system that let
banks go too far is the same system that's burying young people in student
loan debt. Except this time you can't walk away! You and I both know this, but
now we'll tab over to our editors and keep coding and making money and paying
bills and moving on with our lives. This is why the system is the system, and
we are not.

~~~
roymurdock
> "The people whose job it was to regulate these markets, stop oblivious
> consumers from taking on a $500k mortgage on $50k yearly income? The
> oblivious consumers and investors themselves? The government who set a
> precedent of propping up failed bets with taxpayer money?"

I explicitly called out the regulators and the irresponsible consumers in my
comment. Come on man, at least read what I have to say if you're going to form
such a long and complex argument against it.

------
jonathanjaeger
Disclaimer: This is purely anecdotal, and not backed by any data.

I'm in my mid-twenties and just recently started interviewing people for the
team I work on. It's amazing how little effort many seemingly qualified people
put in to secure an entry-level job. Whether it be hustle to learn more about
a business, the specifics about the company you might work at, or finding
someone to give a second set of eyes on a cover letter or resume, most people
really drop the ball. If job prospects are grim, you'd at least hope people
would put in more effort.

~~~
fecak
Recruiter and resume-writer-on-the-side here, and it's become so easy to apply
for jobs that most people put zero effort into anything but pressing send and
shotgunning a resume to hundreds of companies. If there was even a small cost
(time or money) to applying, you can be sure that resumes and cover letters
would be much more common and of higher quality.

I'm not suggesting that we charge applicants, but years ago when there was the
time taken to type resumes, print them up/copy, put into envelope or hand
deliver, the amount of time invested likely made people more concerned with
their product.

Job seekers are much better served spending an hour sending 10 focused
applications than spending that same hour to send 100 sanitized applications.

~~~
edgyswingset
As a recent college grad who went to a community college and then a run-of-
the-mill state school, my experience and general impression from my peers was
that _unless_ you shotgun as many job applications as possible, you're
probably not going to hear back from anyone.

My own hypothesis is that most companies are so obsessed with a potential
"false positive" hire that they're perfectly okay with not investing in a new
graduate. Thus, we have to send out 10+ job applications per week, otherwise
we end up as yet another one of the millions of unemployed, college-educated
young adults.

It's not totally awful (I found a great job as a result of my career fair),
but unless a company is specifically recruiting from your university it's
pretty much a given that you won't be offered an interview, let alone a job.

~~~
caskance
What you're seeing is actually the opposite problem. That candidates aren't
obsessed enough with a potential "false positive" hire where they end up
working somewhere they don't actually want to work. You can't tell me that
someone applying for 40 positions a week truly wants to work at all 40 of
those places. Primarily, the candidate just wants any job he/she can get
because of the fear of unemployment.

~~~
FilterSweep
> That candidates aren't obsessed enough with a potential "false positive"
> hire where they end up working somewhere they don't actually want to work.
> You can't tell me that someone applying for 40 positions a week truly wants
> to work at all 40 of those places.

This sounds like a whole lot of blaming the candidate. It also assumes that
the candidate could even land one of those 40 positions in the first place. I
applied to a whole lot more before I landed mine - as did most of my peers now
in our early-mid 20s who didn't get swooped up in a career fair early on in
the process.

You can't really tell me that someone applying for a job _in the first place_
truly wants to work (instead of pursuing a passion they like) _period_. More
likely, the candidate doesn't _want_ (keyword) to work at _any_ of those 40
places at all. And here's the kicker:

 _The candidate should not be faulted for that if he or she is competent at
the job and works hard._

The modern age has shown a lot of workers being faithful to their companies
and having that faithfulness be an expected one-way street. Look at the
firings of Disney and IBM Engineers. The Disney engineers had to even educate
their replacements at reduced salary.

I'd love to be spending all my days producing music and building native iOS
apps, but that's not how the world works. So, I work somewhere I tolerate
working, somewhere I work well. And I count my blessings for it - not many
millennials are as lucky as me.

~~~
caskance
I have real trouble believing a competent developer can't find a job
developing native iOS apps in this job market.

~~~
FilterSweep
Why would I do something I truly love for someone elses dream?

~~~
jkaunisv1
To gain experience? To learn the challenges & pitfalls of the field on someone
else's dime? To learn from somebody who has been doing it and getting paid?

Nobody jumps from the bottom of the mountain to the top - you climb it one
step at a time. There are people making a living producing music and writing
apps - the world does work that way. I'm not saying tomorrow you can decide
that's how you'll make a living and it'll happen - but it is something you can
work towards and achieve in a reasonable amount of time.

------
maresca
Student loan debt surpassed credit card and auto loan debt in the US last
year. Many college grads graduate with large sums of debt and can't find
relevant jobs. Since student loan debt isn't forgivable, it'll be interesting
to see the effect of this over the next decade. I have a hunch that the next
big market crash will be caused by student loan debt.

~~~
nostromo
I agree that student loan debt seems like an asset bubble -- in that the price
of an education greatly exceeds the valuation justified by the fundamentals.

But I can't think of a way that the bubble could actually pop. Or what it
would look like if it did.

Unlike housing, you can't walk away from your education; student loans are
designed to prevent debtors from ever escaping their obligations. They're also
guaranteed by the federal government, which has seemingly infinite resources.

Educational institutions themselves are also either private, or are state-run,
both of which would shield the impacts of a collapse from the average citizen.
The average citizen isn't invested in education like they were in public tech
companies or housing. It's also impossible to short Harvard or the UC system.

I actually think this is worse in some ways. Bubble pops are scary, but the
bandaid comes off quickly. Instead I fear educational indebtedness will just
be a silent vampire on our economy for decades to come.

~~~
lisper
> But I can't think of a way that the bubble could actually pop. Or what it
> would look like if it did.

It would look like a social movement. It would look like tens of millions of
young people realizing that they have fallen under the yoke of life-long
indentured servitude to the older generation, and either 1) getting organized
enough to get the law changed or, 2) saying "fuck it, I've got nothing left to
lose" and rioting in the streets.

~~~
morgante
> It would look like tens of millions of young people realizing that they have
> fallen under the yoke of life-long indentured servitude to the older
> generation

Nobody forced them to take out loans.

There are lots of options which don't involve crushing debt.

~~~
drabiega
Could you elaborate?

~~~
morgante
On which part? That there aren't roving bandits forcing people to take on huge
loans? Or that there are other options?

In terms of other options, there is (a) community college—very cheap, (b)
state school—much cheaper usually, especially if you live at home, (c)
attending a slightly less prestigious college when they offer a substantial
merit scholarship.

------
NoGravitas
> The world needs at least 600 million new jobs in the next decade for young
> people

Or, perhaps, the world needs to stop coupling basic human needs for
subsistence and dignity to wage labour, and find some better way of doing
things.

~~~
thieving_magpie
It's so easy! Why has no one thought of this? All we need to do is convince
every government in the world to undertake dramatic changes to their economic
and labor structure.

~~~
astrodust
We lived for at least fifty thousand years without any money at all, for
around three thousand with some form of money, and the last two hundred years
with the idea of hourly wages and bills and rent.

It's entirely possible we'll find a better way to do this. Maybe we'll have to
"undertake dramatic changes" to avoid an even bigger disaster.

~~~
lujim
Life before money was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". In fact I
wouldn't choose to live anytime before the last 100 or 200 years. 1950 or
later would have been my preference had I been given a choice. For how much we
all like to armchair quarterback our current system (yes.. capitalism), it's
easy to forget how bad 99.9 percent of the human experience on this planet
would have sucked comparatively. That's not to say let's quit trying to fix
things, but take a deep breath and look around. Things are pretty good. There
is an unbelievably high probability that you and all your children live to old
age. You won't have to be too cold, too warm, or too hungry during your stay.
Not bad.

~~~
VLM
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"

Isn't this also our future? The future is unevenly distributed... Detroit
hasn't reached you yet, but its only a matter of time.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
No. Just no. _The future_ is not Detroit. _The future of a few places_ is
Detroit, but not the future of everywhere.

------
jbob2000
This is anecdotal at best, but I feel like there is an apathy epidemic. It's
fucking impossible to get people to even do "fun" things, much less a "boring"
job. Everyone just wants to sit at home in front of a screen. It could just be
the people I surround myself with, but that's the feeling I get.

------
sosuke
What qualifies as an adult anymore?

    
    
      people 15 to 29 years old are at least twice as likely as adults to be unemployed
    

30 is adulthood in their interpretation of the data.

~~~
positr0n
I have two kids and own a house but I guess I'm still 5 years away from being
an adult!

Unless maybe their definition of adult is 18+ and that sentence means "the
15-29 age bracket is twice as likely as 18+ to be unemployed"

~~~
nathan_f77
Haha, I was just thinking that if I'm only 4 years away from being an adult,
then that feels about right. I don't feel like an adult at all, but maybe when
I'm in my 30s.

Wow, I can't imagine having 2 kids or a house.

------
laurentoget
This is quite a contradiction from the recent talk about demographic pressure
leading to a wage turnaround.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34488950](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34488950)

" Taking just wage growth, simply put (and for more detail follow the links
above), an end to the global labour glut should see real wages (wages
accounting for the change in prices) start to rise at a faster pace. An ONS
report of 2014 found that UK real wages in the 1970s and 1980s grew by an
average of 2.9% a year."

so which is it? too many people or not enough?

------
moron4hire
I'm struck by the fact that, if 600M people were living together in one area,
they'd spontaneously create jobs around the fact that 600M people will have to
figure out ways to interact with each other in an civil way.

I tend to believe that the reason we don't have enough jobs right now are
because of market distortions that place unequal value on certain, expensive
things, like college educations, personal vehicles of far greater passenger
capacity than strictly necessary, private dwellings of extremely large size,
and the latest and greatest smartphones ever two years. Our "betters" have
successfully created a scenario where people willingly enter into debt slavery
to acquire what they believe is their entitlement.

Because, sans weird pricing, there is real need for work to be done, that is
not getting done, in our current environments. There are roads that are
falling apart. There is food that is not getting to hungry people. There are
children who are not learning what they need to learn to be successful. There
are hydrocarbons that are continuing to be burnt. There are routine medical
physical exams that aren't being performed.

There are things that people want, but can't acquire at a price that is
reasonable. This could be a function of the constituent inputs being too
expensive, but I doubt this. Arbitrage is a powerful force for innovation. I
suspect there is a much stronger force at work that is preventing the goods
and services that people _need_ from being created: mega-corporate-backed
government regulation.

There are people in 1st world countries who are going hungry, who don't have
heat, who don't have doors on their house. I have seen this with my own damn
eyes. Yes, they are poor, but is their poverty their fault? And even if, in
some extremely twisted way, it is their fault, does it justify forcing them to
live in squalor? Should the laziest of lazy people be forced to live in
_literal_ shit-holes?

As long as there are people willing to work but incapable of moving, I think a
little "undeserved" compassion is a good enough reason to create a job. Just
because some vanishingly few poor people are slovenly doesn't justify
completely writing off the entire class.

------
fensterblick
As the article highlights, the Arab revolutions were led by the youth. I
wonder what, if anything, will happen in the USA when the current generation,
saddled by seemingly insurmountable college debt, comes to the realization
that it cannot find stable work or afford decent housing.

I truly believe that moment will be an earthquake for the current political
environment; what we characterize Republicans and Democrats today will
dramatically change (just like it did after the Civil War and also the Civil
Rights movement).

~~~
xrange
>saddled by seemingly insurmountable college debt

Does anyone know of a source for statistics on student loan debt? This site

[http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data](http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data)

...claims that the average debt of graduating seniors is $28.4k. I'd like to
see a histogram of all recent graduates and dropouts, with the bins in dollars
of debt. I'd also like to see a scatter plot showing the median debt vs.
debtors age (for all age groups, not just recent grads). And another scatter
plot of debt vs. income.

------
peterwwillis
Job hack: open volunteer trade schools in impoverished urban areas and fund it
with both government and private money and give tax incentives to those that
fund them or volunteer to work there. This could be anything from computer
jobs to specialized manufacturing (Foxconn-esque).

Not only could this provide us with a 'cheap labor' manufacturing workforce
that corporations love, tech jobs that could be done remotely would also be
easy to train for, and thus our country's very limited transportation options
wouldn't be such a barrier to getting work. Areas of high crime or gang
violence could begin to get kids off the streets and into a stable job.

------
ChuckMcM
These stories are always interesting to read, both from what they say, and
what they don't say. For example, do you know that world wide there is a
shortage of people in various trades roles[1] ? (Welding, masonry, carpentry,
electricians, etc) And why are their young people who are loading up on debt
they can't afford to go to Ivy league schools when they can be just as
successful going to state schools? How much part time employement might be
found if there wasn't a floor on minimum wage? [2] Since we don't have the
category of 'extra' or 'part time' job like we used to, current minimum wage
policy is geared toward making _every_ job pay a living wage. That prices a
lot of jobs out competitiveness for humans and spurs the development of
robotic replacements. Not that those jobs are career paths, but they do offer
people a bit of extra change in their pocket.

A more intriguing question is to what end might you employ two or three
hundred million people? Imagine they are sitting outside your window waiting
for your command. Assuming you are paying them a living wage, what economic
output could they accomplish that would be "worth" say 5 to 15 trillion
dollars a year?

[1] [http://facilityexecutive.com/2015/05/u-s-employers-suffer-
la...](http://facilityexecutive.com/2015/05/u-s-employers-suffer-largest-
talent-shortage-in-skilled-trades/)

[2]
[https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995)

~~~
DaveWalk
> Assuming you are paying them a living wage, what economic output could
> [200-300 million people] accomplish that would be "worth" say 5 to 15
> trillion dollars a year?

A good thought experiment! My initial thought was a spiritual successor to
WPA-like projects of the depression, but I'm not very well-read on the
economic outcomes. My layman view at least sees the humanitarian and creative
output of such projects.

But your last sentence is key: would it be "worth" 5-15 trillion/year? Is
there a way to "measure" such a number of WPA-like projects?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Since the number presented was world wide, I expect just the US would be a
smaller number, but it would certainly be interesting to offer young people an
opportunity to participate in a service program which was not a military
outfit. So you spend 2 years of service shoring up infrastructure or working
to rebuild cities ravaged by flood or other disaster. In exchange you get
basic clothes, room and board, and perhaps payback on any student loans you
have outstanding.

------
ausjke
I don't know how this is going to work, I actually think the root-cause of
mid-east crisis is more related to youth-jobless.

Young people without job will lead to bad things, in the meantime the
technology/AI/robotic-factory is making more people "unneeded", will it either
be a utopia-coming-true or a revolution?

------
maerF0x0
There are a few ways to create many openings:

1\. Legislate a maximum working hours (probably < 40 ) . 3 jobs at 40 hours
per week becomes 4 jobs at 30 per week, 33% expansion, problem solved.

2\. Allow humans to undercut automation in price competition (eg abolish
minimum wage)

3\. Expand government to employ people for whatever, just print the money you
pay them.

Clearly these all come with unsatisfactory side-effects.

Maybe the fix is to end our obsession with creating jobs and jobs being the
form of survival we offer our species. Imagine if we just created 600M jobs
automating all the things so that those jobs would never (or nearly never)
need to be done again? The future generations would need Billions of jobs! But
no one would be worse off for it. Its like when a dishwasher became common
place, suddenly kids were free to do more homework or facebook or xbox etc.
Suddenly parents were more free not to have kids (to complete household
chores). Etc etc. By automating and reducing the work that human kind has to
do, we're enabling better lives all involved, including the displaced workers.
Change hurts in the shortrun, but can bring utopia in the long run.

~~~
s73v3r
#2 is probably the absolute worst possible thing to be done, and perhaps the
most likely thing to be done.

Abolishing minimum wage won't cause the costs of things to come down, but it
will create even more people who are given no choice but to have a job that
doesn't pay them enough to live, or starve.

"Imagine if we just created 600M jobs automating all the things so that those
jobs would never (or nearly never) need to be done again? The future
generations would need Billions of jobs! But no one would be worse off for
it."

Except for the people who aren't able to buy food or put a roof over their
heads because they don't have a job.

"By automating and reducing the work that human kind has to do, we're enabling
better lives all involved, including the displaced workers."

You're gonna have to explain what's better about being evicted from your
apartment because you can't pay rent.

~~~
maerF0x0
You're missing the point that if automation does all the work there is no
competitive reason not to lower the price down to near 0 (or the cost of
capital, which at current interest rates is VERY low).

If I can get land, put robots on it and churn out apples, all entirely without
my labor, and I can borrow the money for near free, at what price could I sell
said apples for?

------
cies
Who needs a job? We need "goods", and to obtain then we usually trade in part
of our monetary income; but that does not need to come from a job.

I believe in "mincome" or "basic minimal income", as provided by a form of
government to all citizens; to be paid for by tax money. This will be low, but
enough to sustain yourself (simple shelter + food). If you want more then that
you need to either find a job or walk a more entrepreneurial path and make a
job.

The amount people receive as "mincome" will be an important number to control
by politicians. It will have a strong effect on the then emerging "post-
mincome unemployment rate". This would be all people that are looking to
supplement their mincome, but currently have not found the means to do so.

I think a mincome-society will find a lot more people entrepeneuring: as a
safety net is in place.

The "jobs" that the article speaks of are only going to be created if there is
a strict need for them. A business will usually only create a job in last
resort, as employing people costs money and brings risks.

------
morgante
> people 15 to 29 years old are at least twice as likely as adults to be
> unemployed.

Today I learned that 28-year-olds aren't adults.

~~~
nilkn
I'm curious if that sentence is itself an explanation for the perception that
a 28 year old might not be an adult.

In other words, at least in American culture, adulthood is strongly tied with
stable employment. If the 15 - 29 age bracket in general does not enjoy stable
employment, that could itself be responsible for creating the perception that
members of this bracket are not adults.

~~~
cryoshon
Adulthood is also tied with marriage, home ownership, car ownership, child-
rearing, etc... these things have been pushed back a decade or so as a result
of too little money.

By the standards of the 1950s, the 20-somethings of today aren't adults. That
has sociological twists to it as well, of course-- but primarily economic. I
suspect that people aren't actively avoiding having a house, car, wedding, or
children, so much as adjusting their wants to be more in line with what is
realistic-- choosing one or half of one of the above listed items.

~~~
morgante
> Adulthood is also tied with marriage, home ownership, car ownership, child-
> rearing

No. Just no.

Those are things which some adults do, that does not mean you aren't an adult
if you don't do them.

Is a 40-year-old with a successful career who just never got married not an
adult?

Stop insulting and marginalizing people.

~~~
cryoshon
Just reiterating the state of the status quo's expectations-- they happen to
be tied to useful and measurable economic activities.

I fully believe you can be an adult without any of the above.

------
PebblesHD
This is a truly massive global issue and it hits quite close to me. I've been
absolutely lucky in going to university and getting a reasonably promising
role in a financial institution whilst studying. The flip side has happened to
my brother who at this point is stuck doing menial jobs to pay for food and
transport to get to university whilst he collects debt for going. I've had
conversations to the effect of 'I actually cannot afford to go to class today
or ill be losing another few hundred dollars i need for food' which is not a
though ANY young person should have to face. The system needs immediate change
for the future of our current society.

------
dba7dba
We should be honest and talk about just not creating more jobs BUT having LESS
babies.

~~~
theworstshill
Why not the other way around - just kill everybody above a certain cutoff and
feed them as soylent to the rest? They've already spent most of their
productive years anyway, right? Its equally ridiculous, isn't it?

~~~
nilkn
No, killing people and feeding them to others is several orders of magnitude
more ridiculous than simply voluntarily having fewer children.

~~~
theworstshill
Every developed country in the world has a negative net population growth -
natural growth excluding migration. The only reason the seniors are fed,
clothed and washed is a a supply train of foreign nurses and home-care aides,
usually from a country such as Philippines - which has a positive population
growth. The entire economic system, as it is right now - in reality, is based
on positive population growth. How is decreasing the number of kids is going
to help?

~~~
chillwaves
Because automation means less need for labor, which solves the issue of
"positive population growth" \-- since it's not the bodies that are providing
the economic activity, its their labor. But the bodies require more and more
resources that our planet is not capable of sustaining. Hence, less babies.

------
forrestthewoods
Central Asia and South-East Europe are lumped together? Ouch! That feels like
a rather stinging critique of the European Union.

------
cousin_it
Solution:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration)

It's been done. It worked. Do it again.

~~~
petra
It's different this time. To do many things today(say like repair
infrastructure) , the bottle neck is capital costs, not labor.

------
sprucely
Meanwhile the more menial / labor-intensive jobs are being replaced by
automation. I read somewhere that automation was supposed to be the great
liberator, enabling an ever-increasing amount of leisure time. But at some
point attitudes started shifting so that people must justify their existence
by continuously working hard; and if things don't happen to work out for them,
well they just weren't motivated enough. This attitude is apparent in our [US]
welfare system which has a huge administrative overhead in place to prevent
freeloading.

------
geff82
It is grim with the exception when you live in Germany or Switzerland.

~~~
ju-st
It's still hard to find interesting jobs. But maybe I'm already spoiled...

------
DrNuke
The point is there will be less and less global-economy jobs (because of
automation and the insane productivity it allows to very few skilled people)
and more but not enough local-community jobs (caring, agriculture, menials and
so on). In a fair deal of the so-called first world, too many educated people
are just reverting to local-community jobs already, competing with the
uneducated and migrants. This is not going to end peacefully if some sort of
basic income is not introduced soon.

------
dm03514
Less jobs more food. Grow food, at whatever scale available, pots in your
room, pots on the balcony/porch, small gardens, side gardens, public spaces,
large gardens.

------
pinaceae
I don't fully understand this claim.

The job market has people coming in, but also, in parallel, people exiting out
of it.

developed markets, especially in Europe and Japan, will see massive attrition
due to people retiring or dying off. the baby boomer generation in the US is
retiring as well. all those jobs need to be backfilled and all those old
people will need services.

as the world population is stabilizing, it should not be that bad, no?

------
AnimalMuppet
I recently saw an article (don't recall where, but I think it was based on a
World Bank report) that indicated that the fraction of the population aged
18-65 had peaked in 2012. That was part of the problem - more people were of
working age. But demographically, that's going to be less and less true as we
move forward; perhaps that will soften the conclusions of this article.

------
peg_leg
Another idea: how are people today that do so-called 'work' contributing to
the human race anyway? In my occupation I call 'work' my contribution is
minimal. I help build software to make corporations more money. Almost a
negative on the human race. My saving grace is that I make music in my spare
time. That is my real contribution to the world.

------
sogen
Is this a plain in the open "ideology injection in the brain" from above (the
rich) to deter emigration to better countries?

~~~
kaonashi
What makes you think they'd want to deter emigration?

~~~
sogen
I think I'm paranoid

------
tmaly
If we had space exploration capability like in Star Trek, we could think about
a different approach. But we are constrained to Earth and we have limited
resources. Capitalism is the best system available to allocate resources. What
we have right now is not really Capitalism.

------
sudo-i
Hey how valid is this information? I didn't quite grasp if they counted in
other factors, for example, people incurrent jobs that will pass away.
Additionally data such as baby boomers are getting older and will create
markets in stagnant areas at the moment.

------
peg_leg
The young people of today are different. They are on the cusp of potentially
something wonderful and strange for the human race. Older people don't
recognize it. The values are different. Maybe the idea of 'work' will change
to suit them.

~~~
xrange
>The young people of today are different...

"They have exalted notions, because they have not yet been humbled by life or
learnt its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes
them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted
notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: their lives
are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning; and whereas reasoning
leads us to choose what is useful, moral goodness leads us to choose what is
noble."

------
Kinnard
Once we no longer need to work we can occupy ourselves with love, learning,
passion and play!

------
tdsamardzhiev
Better think positive, guys - it's only going to get worse as you get older ;)

------
nathan_f77
Alternatively, let's rethink capitalism now that automation is taking over
jobs. Maybe we all don't need to work so hard anymore.

------
oconnor663
The world has confronted this problem every decade since the beginning of
time. Is there any reason to believe This Time Is Different?

------
collyw
Or just redistibute the wealth more equally.

~~~
ionised
Sounds like pinko-commie talk to me!

------
oneJob
...because we don't have enough stuff and we always have to be doing
something? How about, work less, live more.

------
mygodtou
Lots of people have great ideas but most governments stifle small business
with excessive relations and fees.

------
Mz
Or, we need 600m new small businesses, consultants, etc. The world can change,
adapt.

------
faragon
Let's produce more. Let's make a rich world for everyone :-)

------
mrdrozdov
Sounds like a good time to create an education business. :)

------
mwhuang2
Extra schooling only delays reality and leads to more debt. What really
matters is simple supply and demand - whether people have the skills that
others are willing to pay for.

------
greengarstudios
Start a startup and create your own job?

~~~
cryoshon
Okay, so how is this startup going to pay its founder before it is profitable?

Where are the founders getting this money, if they're unemployed?

~~~
VLM
How are the customers going to pay revenue if they're unemployed...

------
fredgrott
The reality is with $31 Billion in mobile app sales and rising those jobs will
come from small businesses building mobile apps as we have 1 TBytes of free
data to organize into mobile services every year that our current programming
languages cannot self learn how to organize.

Yes there will still net jobs loss as tech progress eliminates them..the new
job is your small business you set-up

~~~
petra
That's not a that large of a number, considering it's a global industry.Also,
we don't know how concentrated this wealth is.

------
theworstshill
As difficult as it would be to find money for it - I would propose a one time
entrepreneurship grant to all college graduates equal to an average yearly
salary in the profession (this is an approximation and experts should figure
out what variables should adjust for best amount). That would allow several
things to happen: 1\. New graduates with a strong drive for entrepreneurship
can start working on their ideas right away and do not have to spent several
years working for corporations, picking up anti-patterns. 2\. New graduates
who are unable to find professional work can have a cushion while they search,
and can potentially become lesser partners to people in the first category.

Jobs and careers are created by businesses, so the more small-medium size
businesses there are, places that are still flexible in their mindset - the
more work there will be.

