Why is 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there's 300k+ births a month?Why is economic growth considered...
Watching something be written to a file live with tail
Theorems that impeded progress
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
Malformed Address '10.10.21.08/24', must be X.X.X.X/NN or
Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?
Why is 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there's 300k+ births a month?
What's that red-plus icon near a text?
Modeling an IP Address
Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?
Are astronomers waiting to see something in an image from a gravitational lens that they've already seen in an adjacent image?
Roll the carpet
Alternative to sending password over mail?
Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?
What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?
Add text to same line using sed
How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?
Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?
Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)
What is a clear way to write a bar that has an extra beat?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
Why is 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there's 300k+ births a month?
Why is economic growth considered so essential, even in rich countries?Why is there no economics theory largely accepted or considered true?What kind of jobs do illegal immigrants do in USA?Why is Trump winning, when I know so few people who admit to voting for him?Why don't governments follow the “save in good times, spend in bad times” rule?How many jobs were created during Obama's presidency?How much of the recent jobs growth is Donald Trump responsible for?Why are Weapon Restriction Laws considered Liberal?When is an act considered domestic terrorism in regards to US policy?Why are both global overpopulation and low birth rates in developed countries considered a problem?
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy added less than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, that we've really got 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like anything less than 300k job is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
add a comment |
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy added less than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, that we've really got 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like anything less than 300k job is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
4
People die. It's true.
– user22277
6 hours ago
2
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy added less than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, that we've really got 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like anything less than 300k job is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
It would seem that most people who are born will eventually enter the workforce. Maybe that entry is delayed due to college or enlistment or that very important backpacking trip through Europe, but it seems that most people born will eventually get hired somewhere.
So when you hear that the economy added less than 200k jobs, but over 300k people entered the labor pool, that we've really got 100k more unemployed people? It doesn't seem like anything less than 300k job is even breaking even against population growth. What am I missing here?
united-states economy demographics
united-states economy demographics
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
edited 11 hours ago
Fizz
13.8k23287
13.8k23287
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
asked 12 hours ago
corsiKacorsiKa
527616
527616
4
People die. It's true.
– user22277
6 hours ago
2
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4
People die. It's true.
– user22277
6 hours ago
2
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
2 hours ago
4
4
People die. It's true.
– user22277
6 hours ago
People die. It's true.
– user22277
6 hours ago
2
2
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
2 hours ago
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
2 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
11 hours ago
4
It's normally not true that the population retiring is similar to that entering the workforce (most country's population grows over time, the U.S. being no exception,) but this is still the right answer. Even if only 200,000 people retire for every 300,000 entering the workforce, 200,000 new jobs still means that unemployment drops by 100,000.
– reirab
9 hours ago
3
@reirab Yeah, the full answer would be significantly more complex but you'd need to study more economics than I have to understand it, let alone write it...
– Shadur
9 hours ago
18
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
9 hours ago
3
@reirab: if you (or others) want to look at how such an analysis is done, here's one for the adjusted job gap after the Great Recession (the gap was only closed in 2017 after 89 months since the recession). Job losses in the Recession were 8.5 million, but these were adjusted to 10 million to compensate for population growth. hamiltonproject.org/papers/…
– Fizz
8 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
In addition to the answer above, it should also be noted that jobs aren't just something that exist independent of people. The only reason that jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
1
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
8 hours ago
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
8 hours ago
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
7 hours ago
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
6 hours ago
and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…
– Fizz
6 hours ago
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
add a comment |
Please help me turn my dream into a reality 🙏🏾 I am looking for investors to fund my education in coding... Any amount will help (the bigger the better 🤗) but even sharing this link with anyone who can help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance ❤️
https://www.gofundme.com/a-woman-who-codes
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40281%2fwhy-is-150k-or-200k-jobs-considered-good-when-theres-300k-births-a-month%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
11 hours ago
4
It's normally not true that the population retiring is similar to that entering the workforce (most country's population grows over time, the U.S. being no exception,) but this is still the right answer. Even if only 200,000 people retire for every 300,000 entering the workforce, 200,000 new jobs still means that unemployment drops by 100,000.
– reirab
9 hours ago
3
@reirab Yeah, the full answer would be significantly more complex but you'd need to study more economics than I have to understand it, let alone write it...
– Shadur
9 hours ago
18
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
9 hours ago
3
@reirab: if you (or others) want to look at how such an analysis is done, here's one for the adjusted job gap after the Great Recession (the gap was only closed in 2017 after 89 months since the recession). Job losses in the Recession were 8.5 million, but these were adjusted to 10 million to compensate for population growth. hamiltonproject.org/papers/…
– Fizz
8 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
11 hours ago
4
It's normally not true that the population retiring is similar to that entering the workforce (most country's population grows over time, the U.S. being no exception,) but this is still the right answer. Even if only 200,000 people retire for every 300,000 entering the workforce, 200,000 new jobs still means that unemployment drops by 100,000.
– reirab
9 hours ago
3
@reirab Yeah, the full answer would be significantly more complex but you'd need to study more economics than I have to understand it, let alone write it...
– Shadur
9 hours ago
18
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
9 hours ago
3
@reirab: if you (or others) want to look at how such an analysis is done, here's one for the adjusted job gap after the Great Recession (the gap was only closed in 2017 after 89 months since the recession). Job losses in the Recession were 8.5 million, but these were adjusted to 10 million to compensate for population growth. hamiltonproject.org/papers/…
– Fizz
8 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
The obvious answer is that people get older and (presumably, hopefully) retire from the workforce.
If your country's demographic is otherwise more or less stable, it means that by the time those 300,000 people age up to enter the work force, a similar number of people retire from the work force and hopefully live on their pension plan.
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
answered 12 hours ago
ShadurShadur
353310
353310
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
11 hours ago
4
It's normally not true that the population retiring is similar to that entering the workforce (most country's population grows over time, the U.S. being no exception,) but this is still the right answer. Even if only 200,000 people retire for every 300,000 entering the workforce, 200,000 new jobs still means that unemployment drops by 100,000.
– reirab
9 hours ago
3
@reirab Yeah, the full answer would be significantly more complex but you'd need to study more economics than I have to understand it, let alone write it...
– Shadur
9 hours ago
18
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
9 hours ago
3
@reirab: if you (or others) want to look at how such an analysis is done, here's one for the adjusted job gap after the Great Recession (the gap was only closed in 2017 after 89 months since the recession). Job losses in the Recession were 8.5 million, but these were adjusted to 10 million to compensate for population growth. hamiltonproject.org/papers/…
– Fizz
8 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
11 hours ago
4
It's normally not true that the population retiring is similar to that entering the workforce (most country's population grows over time, the U.S. being no exception,) but this is still the right answer. Even if only 200,000 people retire for every 300,000 entering the workforce, 200,000 new jobs still means that unemployment drops by 100,000.
– reirab
9 hours ago
3
@reirab Yeah, the full answer would be significantly more complex but you'd need to study more economics than I have to understand it, let alone write it...
– Shadur
9 hours ago
18
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
9 hours ago
3
@reirab: if you (or others) want to look at how such an analysis is done, here's one for the adjusted job gap after the Great Recession (the gap was only closed in 2017 after 89 months since the recession). Job losses in the Recession were 8.5 million, but these were adjusted to 10 million to compensate for population growth. hamiltonproject.org/papers/…
– Fizz
8 hours ago
1
1
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
11 hours ago
+1, though we've also got an aging population. Figure 1 shows US population growth was largest ~1950 and 1965, which corresponds to folks between the ages of 55 and 70
– Punintended
11 hours ago
4
4
It's normally not true that the population retiring is similar to that entering the workforce (most country's population grows over time, the U.S. being no exception,) but this is still the right answer. Even if only 200,000 people retire for every 300,000 entering the workforce, 200,000 new jobs still means that unemployment drops by 100,000.
– reirab
9 hours ago
It's normally not true that the population retiring is similar to that entering the workforce (most country's population grows over time, the U.S. being no exception,) but this is still the right answer. Even if only 200,000 people retire for every 300,000 entering the workforce, 200,000 new jobs still means that unemployment drops by 100,000.
– reirab
9 hours ago
3
3
@reirab Yeah, the full answer would be significantly more complex but you'd need to study more economics than I have to understand it, let alone write it...
– Shadur
9 hours ago
@reirab Yeah, the full answer would be significantly more complex but you'd need to study more economics than I have to understand it, let alone write it...
– Shadur
9 hours ago
18
18
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
9 hours ago
Or more analogously to the "300k births" number, there are also 230k deaths per month. So anything above about 70k new jobs per month is a surplus. (I know this is a vast oversimplification)
– MooseBoys
9 hours ago
3
3
@reirab: if you (or others) want to look at how such an analysis is done, here's one for the adjusted job gap after the Great Recession (the gap was only closed in 2017 after 89 months since the recession). Job losses in the Recession were 8.5 million, but these were adjusted to 10 million to compensate for population growth. hamiltonproject.org/papers/…
– Fizz
8 hours ago
@reirab: if you (or others) want to look at how such an analysis is done, here's one for the adjusted job gap after the Great Recession (the gap was only closed in 2017 after 89 months since the recession). Job losses in the Recession were 8.5 million, but these were adjusted to 10 million to compensate for population growth. hamiltonproject.org/papers/…
– Fizz
8 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
In addition to the answer above, it should also be noted that jobs aren't just something that exist independent of people. The only reason that jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
In addition to the answer above, it should also be noted that jobs aren't just something that exist independent of people. The only reason that jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
In addition to the answer above, it should also be noted that jobs aren't just something that exist independent of people. The only reason that jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In addition to the answer above, it should also be noted that jobs aren't just something that exist independent of people. The only reason that jobs exist is that people create the need for jobs, so more people means more jobs.
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
answered 9 hours ago
kloddantkloddant
23313
23313
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
kloddant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
add a comment |
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
"300k people entered the labor pool" and "300k+ births a month" are very different things.
You can get to 300k new people in labor pool, if you have 150k people reaching employment age, and 150k of previously long-term unemployed people (excluded from the labor pool by labor statistics bureau) started looking for a job (because they decided such with low unemployment, they have chance to get the job even if they could not get it before).
And to get to 150k people reaching employment age you need more that 150k births, 20 years earlier.
We have no idea how many jobs will be available 20 years from now for people born now. It could be singularity and robots will do all the work. Or climate collapse could start WW3.
And then there is immigration, legal and illegal.
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
answered 9 hours ago
Peter M.Peter M.
989610
989610
add a comment |
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
1
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
8 hours ago
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
8 hours ago
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
7 hours ago
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
6 hours ago
and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…
– Fizz
6 hours ago
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
1
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
8 hours ago
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
8 hours ago
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
7 hours ago
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
6 hours ago
and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…
– Fizz
6 hours ago
add a comment |
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
In addition to other answers. (+1 to Kloddant).
Note newborns will only enter the labor market after 20 years or more. The economy is supposed to grow (even when the population is stable) a lot in that time frame, so by the time anybody born today ends college the new jobs increase ratios is supposed to be a lot higher than today.
Of course, no one can give us a real number of new jobs created for 2039. But we hope it will be more than 300k.
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
edited 8 hours ago
yoozer8
3023517
3023517
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
answered 9 hours ago
jeanjean
11927
11927
1
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
8 hours ago
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
8 hours ago
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
7 hours ago
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
6 hours ago
and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…
– Fizz
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
8 hours ago
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
8 hours ago
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
7 hours ago
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
6 hours ago
and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…
– Fizz
6 hours ago
1
1
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
8 hours ago
yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.
– Fizz
8 hours ago
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
8 hours ago
But the people entering the job market now correspond to births 20ish years ago, and he's assuming the birth rate was roughly comparable then.
– Barmar
8 hours ago
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
7 hours ago
@Fizz There are lots of things to consider. Someone talked about immigration, for example, but that is peanuts compared to job migration (when you close a facility in Europe to reopen another in Asia). Analysts try to extrapolate all those graphs and that's why you cannot correlate today birth rate with today jobs increase rate. In fact, if jobs increase rate was as big as birth rate that can mean you really need immigrants and automation badly.
– jean
7 hours ago
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
6 hours ago
That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth
– Fizz
6 hours ago
and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…
– Fizz
6 hours ago
and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…
– Fizz
6 hours ago
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
add a comment |
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
"On average, 205,300 jobs need to be created every month just to keep up with population growth"
per Business Insider Aug 2016.
Their article appears to be an analysis of this issue, however I will leave it to the reader to debate the accuracy and/or validity of the conclusion. If the analysis was valid in 2016, I would think that it is equally valid 2.5 years later.
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
answered 8 hours ago
BobEBobE
2,8181830
2,8181830
add a comment |
add a comment |
Please help me turn my dream into a reality 🙏🏾 I am looking for investors to fund my education in coding... Any amount will help (the bigger the better 🤗) but even sharing this link with anyone who can help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance ❤️
https://www.gofundme.com/a-woman-who-codes
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Please help me turn my dream into a reality 🙏🏾 I am looking for investors to fund my education in coding... Any amount will help (the bigger the better 🤗) but even sharing this link with anyone who can help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance ❤️
https://www.gofundme.com/a-woman-who-codes
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Please help me turn my dream into a reality 🙏🏾 I am looking for investors to fund my education in coding... Any amount will help (the bigger the better 🤗) but even sharing this link with anyone who can help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance ❤️
https://www.gofundme.com/a-woman-who-codes
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please help me turn my dream into a reality 🙏🏾 I am looking for investors to fund my education in coding... Any amount will help (the bigger the better 🤗) but even sharing this link with anyone who can help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance ❤️
https://www.gofundme.com/a-woman-who-codes
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
answered 41 mins ago
PjaePjae
1
1
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Pjae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40281%2fwhy-is-150k-or-200k-jobs-considered-good-when-theres-300k-births-a-month%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
People die. It's true.
– user22277
6 hours ago
2
I don't really understand how this question got so many upvotes when it is failing to take into account the obvious factor of the rate at which people leave the labor force. This is not a good question. At all.
– John
2 hours ago