4 ms·

Sounds more like a cluster of tactical problems that can be solved individually than an overall strategic failure. I don't think it is a matter of the smartest

Sounds more like a cluster of tactical problems that can be solved individually than an overall strategic failure. I don't think it is a matter of the smartest minds of our generation trying to solve long term unemployment, but rather solving the problem of human effectiveness and happiness. The idea is that we don't have to waste peoples lives on everlasting drudge work. We've created this economic system collectively. We can change it. We have before. Around 1900 we were, on average, paying 40% of our wages for food and working a hell of a lot of hours to do it, mostly with farm work. Now we pay an average of 6% of our wages for food and work around 40 hours a week to do it. It is better than it was and there is no reason it can't get better still. There are people who will still work a lot -- I'm sure I'll be one of them, but we shouldn't really have to with how productive we are per capita and how truly cheap it is for people to live.

2pasc 12y ago
Maybe, but the fact that food is cheaper as a % of income today does not mean we have less poverty overall. It just means we have a different kind. First of all, lodging is still a very important budget item, and not one that is bound to decrease for high employment areas, as city regulations make it hard to increase housing supply at the necessary rate. Second, new needs have appeared that have replaced food among the necessary spending. Mobile phone plans and Internet are one of them. We are the ones who work a lot and make a good living with that. The problem is at the other end of the spectrum with people that are barely making ends meetm and need to work as much as possible to earn enough to feed their family and survive.