Is there really a shortage of jobs, or have we failed to solve the overpopulation problem?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/21/eveningnews/main20081590.shtml?tag=stack

CBS News reported tonight that many labor intensive jobs are now being taken over by robots. Operating a robot takes more advance training than running an old fasioned drill press.

It appears robots are here to stay, fewer employees will be needed, and outsourcing will continue to countries with cheap labor. While we as a planet focus on more jobs, should we be focusing on overpopulation? Will it become necessary to take drastic actions around the globe similar to what China done has done to resolve overpopulation? And how do you get every nation to cooperate with such a program? Some will worry about BIG BROTHER, a consideration that is on my mind as well.

IF resolving over-population is to be resolved, how can we do it around the globe? As the planet population continues to grow, and nations become more advanced, where are we going to get jobs for all the people? Is population control the way to go?

Seems to me that overpopulation and automation are only tenuously connected. If our population was cut in half automation would still put a similar proportion of the workforce out of work, no?

Once a country obtains a GDP of about $5000 per capita, the total fertility rate (number of babies per woman) drops to about 2.1, which is what you need to stabilize a population. It takes 2 parents to have 2 kids, so population remains stagnant.


The majority of countries have TFRs lower than 3.

The real problem is that the basket case countries are the ones with the highest TFRs. Somalia, Afghanistan, DR Congo, Liberia, Uganda, Sudan, etc.

Countries like Taiwan and Japan have extremely low population growth rates, I’ve read that the nation of Japan could see its population cut in half (down to about 70 million) by 2100 if its current reproduction trends continue. But who knows if that’ll happen, you can’t predict what they’ll do for the next 90 years.

The point is, if you want to stop overpopulation then help nations achieve a basic standard of wealth, education and healthcare. Once you do that people stop having more than 2-3 kids per woman.

As far as robotics, things like that improve our standard of living by increasing productivity. So the people (who still have jobs) see a higher standard of living.

I have no idea what we will do about the lack of jobs though. That is a serious problem in my view. There really isn’t enough for humanity to do jobwise. In many ways that is a good thing (it frees people up to be educated full time when they are young, and retire with a pension when they are old). But you need a lot of wealth redistribution to have a system like that to function.

FWIW, China is facing serious problems due to their one child policy. They created an upside down age pyramid. Soon there won’t be enough young people to work in jobs to support their parents and grandparents or to keep GDP growth rates up.

Then again labor shortages lead to more automation investments, which increase standards of living again (there is no reason to invest millions in automation, robotics, machinery, etc. when labor is 50 cents an hour). I read a blurb in popular science a few years ago about how the illegal alien crackdown was causing farmers to invest more in automation.

So reducing population could lead to more automation, it probably would.

Machinist here. I saw the same news report. I am glad to see something in the media that talks about how manufacturing is no longer brute, manual labor but this has been going on for years. CNC machine tools were first developed in the 1950s and became widespread in the 70s and have been consistently getting better ever since. Before that they were constantly coming up with ways to make manual machines more productive such as turret lathes. Fabrication equipment was maybe a little slower in entering the computer age.

CNC (computer numerical control-programming for machine tools), CAD (computer aided drafting),CAM (computer aided manufacturing-turns a CAD model into a CNC program), PLCs (programmable logic controls-computers for automation) and even the computer on the managers desk have probably done more to shed jobs from manufacturing than off-shoring. I have to add that even with all the computer assistance it still takes a skilled person to do the programming. It just takes a lot less of them.

As far as overpopulation, all this technology has been developed because skilled labor is expensive. Places with cheap labor get the low-margin stuff that is hard to automate.

What’s the biggest hurdle in the real world to redistributing the work itself? Like if there are currently only 75 forty-hour/week jobs per 100 people, why not redistribute that work into 100 thirty-hour/week jobs? Theoretically this shouldn’t make the society poorer if the same amount of work is still getting done.

I believe France tried reducing the workweek to 35 hours, but employers just increased productivity rather than hiring new people.

In western nations, we tend to spend the first 20~ years of our life not employed (people are in school full time), and the last 20~ years of our life not employed due to retirement (assuming we live to early 80s). While employed most people in western nations work about 1800 hours a year. During the new deal there were efforts to push a 30 hour workweek, but SS pensions were pushed instead as a way to reduce the labor force and lower unemployment.

So that come out to roughly 70-80k hours of compensated work over a lifetime. I don’t know how much people worked 100 years ago, but I’m guessing if they lived to be a healthy 80 it was a lot more than 70-80k hours of work in their lives. So we already are reducing work hours per lifetime and devoting more time to activities outside of work (full time education, retirement, leisure, etc).

I’m guessing 100 years from now people may only work 40-50k hours over their lifetimes and still have a higher standard of living. However I don’t know if that’ll come from a shorter workweek, fewer workdays, or a shorter working period in life (starting full time work later and retiring earlier).

Overpopulation is a resource issue. Automation’s effect on employment is more a price-of-labor and wealth distribution issue. I imagine their effects are overlapping now, but they’re not really the same. That said, higher production of manufactured goods does cost scarce resources.

Eventually, we will have to accept lower manufacturing output & an expanded welfare state. Capitalism will learn the meaning of “enough” or destroy the world, & thus itself. And even before that, societies with redistribution nourishing domestic demand will stay in business while laissez-faire societies fall apart.

We will also have to accept negative population growth, whether through family planning or (more likely) repeated ethnic purges. Society will have to learn the meaning of “enough children” or get used to regular wars of extermination.

You have training for 25 extra people, health benefits, 401k, dental, prescription eye, workers comp premiums, uninsurance premiums, vacation pay, sick pay, etc.

There is a built in natural system of quality of life that seems to automatically happen. It is not fair, but consider this. I have been helping a neighbor’s kid find a college. For example Southern Illinois University tuition, housing, books, the whole ball of wax $23,000 a year in State, $35,000 a year out of State. Without scholarships or grants how many Americans can afford $100,000 to $140,000 for college education? This is a cut-off, an automatic block on the advancement of a lot of people. Who goes to college and who does not is a probable limitation of a person’s career success.

How would you like to compete for a job with a guy whose family went four generations to Princeton? Some doors are automatically closed to us just because of circumstances like what womb you popped out of.

Then there is entry to the work force, and employers are looking for practical work experience not merely a degree. References are important too, how do you think you would do going for a job in aviation with a personal reference from a neighbor who is on the Board of Directors of American Air Lines? Certainly not fair, but it happens every day.

My parents had two children because they calculated that they would have enough money in 18 years to send two to college. In our family college is required, everyone in the last five generations has gone. My brother and I thought we knew our income potential until I went to college and learned that what high school education meant for my father, a college education meant for me. The value of college has diluted with more graduates. Both my brother and I went for advance degrees to secure an income advantage.

So, I believe an appliance service tech with has five kids is doing a dis-service to his children. My wife and I will probably adopt, but no more than two, and they will go to college.

Let’s admit it, the deck is stacked. Poor people with a lot of children lose. Sad as it is, I do not see a change coming in my lifetime. In fact I think it is going to be harder for everyone. Home ownership in America is a dream that is slipping away fast. But, my job as a parent includes giving my children every advantage I possibly can. What ever happens to the average guy in America, my kids will have just a bit better. I have the means to do it, and I will see to it.

The peoples of the planet are going to have to resolve overpopulation, or nature will continue do it for us in the twisted fashion we call reality. CBS reported recently that $200 million are needed to feed 17,000,000 in Somalia for the rest of this year. The poor keep reproducing, and more children die of starvation. I wonder how many people in this forum have sent checks for Somalia? Deep down in places we don’t talk about, we look the other way and let these people die. It is the natural way of things. Then we call ourselves compassionate liberals. I am as guilty as anyone else.

I believe as a citizen of the United States my first concern is for my fellow citizens. American foreign policy is up to our government, and is implemented with your tax dollars and mine. America can not solve every problem. If we did raise $200,000,000 for Somalia, next year we would hear something like we have 20 million people who need $250 million people. We need, especially us liberals, to be honest about how this planet works and start coming up with real solutions to deal with these problems, no more bleeding heart liberal platitudes. We need to roll up our sleeves and go to work. First, clean up our house, then see what we can do beyond that.

If we made an effort to control the birth rate based upon estimates of potential future employment needs we would at least have a first step. India, China, and the Roman Catholic Church are the “OVERPOPULATION PIGS.” If they continue to ignore the problem, we should sanction them, and force them to comply.

Why should the rest of us sacrifice because a few can not control themselves. I think it is interesting that it is the uneducated poor that are the biggest overpopulation offenders. You want a lot of kids? Guarantee that you will have an income comparable to Joe Kennedy’s. Surprise! We have an adequate supply of poor.
**
The subject of this thread is;

Is there really a shortage of jobs, or have we failed to solve the overpopulation problem?**

Please stop using big colored letters.

Did you miss the part In Wesley Clark’s post about how fertility decreases as income rises? If you are concerned about overpopulation, the solution lies in aiding the growth of poorer countries and increasing the standard of living for poor people across the globe.

Can you see where you made an unproven assumption?

There is plenty of work that needs doing (or that would be nice to have done). If I just go out into the street and look around, in a few minutes I can find dozens of things that could be fixed, or cleaned, or otherwise improved. Just about everyone’s life could be improved by work someone else might do, and might well be willing to do for the right pay. Unemployment is not a problem of not enough work to be done, it is an economic problem of matching up the work that needs to be done with people able to do it, and (here’s the hard bit) the money to pay them to do it. (Although, of course, once they get paid they will have the money to pay other people to do work to improve the world even more.)

Overpopulation is not the problem (with respect to employment - it may be a problem in other respects, such as depletion of natural resources). If their were fewer people there would be less work to be done: fewer people to educate and entertain, fewer people to grow crops for or manufacture things for.

**
You are no moderator, and this is a matter of free expression. Fuck off.**

You read Wesley Clark, I open my eyes and look around the world as it is first hand. It is not the job of the United States to solve every problem on the planet. I am very impressed with the nation of Egypt where the people took matters into their own hands, and ON THEIR OWN changed their government.

Poor people reproduce children into starvation, it is a problem for them to solve, otherwise nature/starvation takes it’s course.

I have stated it before, Somalia has 17,000,000 starving, most with large families. Somalia needs $200,000,000 to feed their population for the rest of the year. And, next year it will be more people and more money. I’ll bet no one in this forum sent Somalia a dime. Actions speak louder than words. I would love to hear someone/anyone in this forum be able to honestly tell us they sent $10 to Somalia. My next question would be how much did you send India? Then what about South and Central America, or how about China?

We don’t like to admit it about our liberal bleeding heart selves, but we don’t give a damn about foreign problems. American liberalism only extends to our borders and our citizens. After that it is the U. S. Governments foreign policy that kicks in. Is there really anything wrong with that?

So you’ve given up pretending you’re liberal?

No, it ain’t, because it’s everybody’s problem.

Please stop using big colored letters.

There. Does that make my case any stronger?

No?

Learn.

Are you fucking kidding? That’s got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read on this MB, and I’ve read a lot of stupid things here. No one has any idea what our “employment needs” will be 5 years out, much less 20. And by using 20, I’m being generous. Most people work until they are about 60, so you want us to project out the employment needs 60 years in the future?

Think about what you are saying.