Unemployment generally only measures the percentage of people who are seeking work but unable to find it. Those who don’t work because they are otherwise taken care of aren’t usually counted. That’s actually the source of the discrepancy in the article so the headline is bs imo.
I’m all for reducing our working hours as a population though. More productivity should equal less work, not more GDP
You also have the issue of what to do with NEET young adults. What happens if a large class of people are created that don’t have a way to contribute to the economy? How are they going to be able to interact with the economy as they are going to be given the lowest social status due to their lack of work?
People shouldn’t have the lowest social status just because they don’t work, that’s the thing. We should take care of everyone’s basic needs and let people work on things they are passionate about, instead of simply treating with poverty those that don’t participate.
It is going to be hard explaining to the janitor in a job that isn’t what they are passionate about that some one gets the same pay and respect as they do, but have a job they like.
This! Every election is about politicians who want to create jobs. I want to vote for someone who wants us to have less jobs! I thought technology was supposed to make us more productive for more free time.
Before that can happen, we (as the non-ownership class) need to shift away from the capitalist mode of production, into a more advanced economy. On a global scale this is incredibly difficult, since the United States has a hegemonic influence over global economic affairs, and has been hostile to any states that attempt to subvert the capitalist mode. This is kinda sorta beginning to wane, but it’ll be a couple decades still until we see some real progress IMO.
Yep, I guess what I’m saying is that as long as people keep voting for “creating more jobs”, it’ll be difficult to get there. Voting for more jobs includes the whole ethos around those jobs being owned by a handful of people.
I may not live to see it but I’ll keep trying to push that direction when I can!
There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.
And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.
Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.
Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they’re doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).
If someone has a source or refutation, I’ll click and read, but until then I’ll run with what I find.
They should clarify for themselves I guess, but by my reading they were commenting on the general topic of “unemployment metrics” rather than the specific situation in the article. If that’s the case it’d be a different discussion entirely.
I’d hope that people understand that the PRC doesn’t have a robust social safety net as it stands currently.
Unemployment is such a weird metric. If supported externally; high unemployment should be a goal no?
Whats the comparative poverty rate?
I don’t get why we just keep inventing bullshit jobs when we could just let people be humans
Unemployment generally only measures the percentage of people who are seeking work but unable to find it. Those who don’t work because they are otherwise taken care of aren’t usually counted. That’s actually the source of the discrepancy in the article so the headline is bs imo.
I’m all for reducing our working hours as a population though. More productivity should equal less work, not more GDP
You also have the issue of what to do with NEET young adults. What happens if a large class of people are created that don’t have a way to contribute to the economy? How are they going to be able to interact with the economy as they are going to be given the lowest social status due to their lack of work?
People shouldn’t have the lowest social status just because they don’t work, that’s the thing. We should take care of everyone’s basic needs and let people work on things they are passionate about, instead of simply treating with poverty those that don’t participate.
It is going to be hard explaining to the janitor in a job that isn’t what they are passionate about that some one gets the same pay and respect as they do, but have a job they like.
This! Every election is about politicians who want to create jobs. I want to vote for someone who wants us to have less jobs! I thought technology was supposed to make us more productive for more free time.
Before that can happen, we (as the non-ownership class) need to shift away from the capitalist mode of production, into a more advanced economy. On a global scale this is incredibly difficult, since the United States has a hegemonic influence over global economic affairs, and has been hostile to any states that attempt to subvert the capitalist mode. This is kinda sorta beginning to wane, but it’ll be a couple decades still until we see some real progress IMO.
Yep, I guess what I’m saying is that as long as people keep voting for “creating more jobs”, it’ll be difficult to get there. Voting for more jobs includes the whole ethos around those jobs being owned by a handful of people.
I may not live to see it but I’ll keep trying to push that direction when I can!
Did you read the article before posting?
There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.
And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.
Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.
Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they’re doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).
If someone has a source or refutation, I’ll click and read, but until then I’ll run with what I find.
They should clarify for themselves I guess, but by my reading they were commenting on the general topic of “unemployment metrics” rather than the specific situation in the article. If that’s the case it’d be a different discussion entirely.
I’d hope that people understand that the PRC doesn’t have a robust social safety net as it stands currently.
That is what I was thinking, specially if it is the youth. Let the youth study and enjoy, not work.