4 ms·

I've been nagging about it for years, there are too many people and not enough jobs. And it's one large reason why salaries have stagnated, especially in the s

I've been nagging about it for years, there are too many people and not enough jobs. And it's one large reason why salaries have stagnated, especially in the service industry where there are numerous applications for a position, they'll simply get the lowest bidder who is capable enough to do the job. Raising the minimum wage could help a little, but I suspect most will just cut employees and merge roles, and again find the lowest bidder.

layer8 2y ago
In the end, Earth is an economically closed system, and what everyone collectively earns and spends must be in some balance. In that light, I’m not sure the total number of people is a problem, barring overpopulation.
- kube-system 2y ago
  That idea is incompatible with all mainstream economic science. Economies are not closed systems, wealth can be created and destroyed. This is, for example, why industrialization led to wealthier societies. The productivity gains created more wealth per person. Likewise, you can bomb a city and a lot of wealth will be destroyed. What you all are discussing is specifically the jobs market, which is a much more narrow issue. The biggest problem with employment is matching worker skill to the available jobs.
  - layer8 2y ago
    I didn’t mean to imply that there is a conservation of wealth. I meant that there is no exchange with participants outside of the population of Earth; and at any given time, if you want people to be able to spend x, they must also be able to earn x. And if you have an economy that works with a population of n, then in principle the same should be possible with a population of (say) 2n, because you can just imagine having the first one twice independently side-by-side. The only hard limit is when you exceed Earth’s resources, hence overpopulation. But we’re not there yet, and according to projections we also won’t reach it this century. The reason for our present difficulties is not that there are too many people.
    - tossandthrow 2y ago
      It would seems like you are both right. Money does not, however, measure wealth. Satisfaction of needs does. That is where industrialization came in. And that might also be why we will see a stagnation of wealth. There are not many needs that need to be solved (from a commodity point of view). Current needs are more of a social and spiritual nature, and the markets are not efficient at providing to these.
    - api_or_ipa 2y ago
      > But we’re not there yet, and according to projections we also won’t reach it this century The best projections we have say our population will likely inflect downwards by the end of this century. In other words, we probably won’t even reach overpopulation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_gr...
      - layer8 2y ago
        We don’t know what will happen over the following centuries, so I wouldn’t make any predictions beyond the current one.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Thermodynamics is the enemy of all "economic$cience". There can only be peace if the physicsdepartment, the messenger of reality, is brought down in armed struggle.
dehrmann 2y ago
Raising the minimum wage means those with entry-level jobs make more, but fewer people have these jobs.
kyralis 2y ago
That's not a universally true statement. Where I live in Vermont, nearly every business has a "Help Wanted" sign- from gas stations and McDonald's through construction, engineering, and knowledge work. None of these places are paying minimum wage. I'm sure there are other places where the inverse is true - the issue has more to do with the distribution of people and work rather than sheer numbers, at least at this point.
- weweweoo 2y ago
  That's true. The US economy is still very strong by world standards. In my country (Finland) even entry-level jobs that pay peanuts often have multi-round interviews, with applicants recording videos and taking psychological tests. It's all handled by recruiting firms, which make good money by filtering the masses of desperate applicants through meaningless tasks like this. Even if the workforce is small, job market can still be highly competitive when the there are simply too few successful employers.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    That might be because the risk of hiring is higher in Finland.

layer8 2y ago

In the end, Earth is an economically closed system, and what everyone collectively earns and spends must be in some balance. In that light, I’m not sure the total number of people is a problem, barring overpopulation.

kube-system 2y ago
That idea is incompatible with all mainstream economic science. Economies are not closed systems, wealth can be created and destroyed. This is, for example, why industrialization led to wealthier societies. The productivity gains created more wealth per person. Likewise, you can bomb a city and a lot of wealth will be destroyed. What you all are discussing is specifically the jobs market, which is a much more narrow issue. The biggest problem with employment is matching worker skill to the available jobs.
- layer8 2y ago
  I didn’t mean to imply that there is a conservation of wealth. I meant that there is no exchange with participants outside of the population of Earth; and at any given time, if you want people to be able to spend x, they must also be able to earn x. And if you have an economy that works with a population of n, then in principle the same should be possible with a population of (say) 2n, because you can just imagine having the first one twice independently side-by-side. The only hard limit is when you exceed Earth’s resources, hence overpopulation. But we’re not there yet, and according to projections we also won’t reach it this century. The reason for our present difficulties is not that there are too many people.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    It would seems like you are both right. Money does not, however, measure wealth. Satisfaction of needs does. That is where industrialization came in. And that might also be why we will see a stagnation of wealth. There are not many needs that need to be solved (from a commodity point of view). Current needs are more of a social and spiritual nature, and the markets are not efficient at providing to these.
  - api_or_ipa 2y ago
    > But we’re not there yet, and according to projections we also won’t reach it this century The best projections we have say our population will likely inflect downwards by the end of this century. In other words, we probably won’t even reach overpopulation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_gr...
    - layer8 2y ago
      We don’t know what will happen over the following centuries, so I wouldn’t make any predictions beyond the current one.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  Thermodynamics is the enemy of all "economic$cience". There can only be peace if the physicsdepartment, the messenger of reality, is brought down in armed struggle.

dehrmann 2y ago

Raising the minimum wage means those with entry-level jobs make more, but fewer people have these jobs.

kyralis 2y ago

That's not a universally true statement. Where I live in Vermont, nearly every business has a "Help Wanted" sign- from gas stations and McDonald's through construction, engineering, and knowledge work. None of these places are paying minimum wage. I'm sure there are other places where the inverse is true - the issue has more to do with the distribution of people and work rather than sheer numbers, at least at this point.

weweweoo 2y ago
That's true. The US economy is still very strong by world standards. In my country (Finland) even entry-level jobs that pay peanuts often have multi-round interviews, with applicants recording videos and taking psychological tests. It's all handled by recruiting firms, which make good money by filtering the masses of desperate applicants through meaningless tasks like this. Even if the workforce is small, job market can still be highly competitive when the there are simply too few successful employers.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  That might be because the risk of hiring is higher in Finland.