Eh... Disagree, but only because you have to look at it macro-economically.
A few things have also happened:
1. People aren't unemployed but they're underemployed
2. While new jobs are created, there is a diminishing return, so in a short time frame it can appear that we're fine, over decades or centuries, we can see that far fewer people are working
3. Newer innovation comes on faster AND replaced far more (robotics and AI), the world can't catch up, and we probably don't need everyone working
The free market is the better course to follow to solve the challenge but we have to face facts, we need local craftsmen back, we need trades developed, and we really (already) only need to put in 4 day work weeks.
Government solving the problem by bailing out companies to retain jobs, or worse, just paying for more people (welfare) isn't sustainable nor even a solution, but technology absolutely eliminates jobs, and it's doing it faster and faster.
Only the Fed can create (or destroy) jobs in the aggregate. There is no guarantee that technological change (international trade is a kind of technological change) will not reduce the relative price of some kinds of remuneration.
Only the Fed can create jobs?? Roughly 60% of all new jobs are created by startups, in particular. Are you saying that the Fed creates the circumstances in which that happens? Because I assure you, the Fed isn't doing squat for all the startups I work with trying to scale and employ people.
I think I understand what you say and it's completely correct at its level.
What I'm saying is that if the Fed does not maintain adequate aggregate demand (and to adjust to shocks like COVID more than "adequate" in some sectors so that is will be adequate in others) some markets will not clear, unemployment of resources including jobs appear.
Isn’t the manufacture of automated machines itself a job creator ceteris paribus?
Eh... Disagree, but only because you have to look at it macro-economically.
A few things have also happened:
1. People aren't unemployed but they're underemployed
2. While new jobs are created, there is a diminishing return, so in a short time frame it can appear that we're fine, over decades or centuries, we can see that far fewer people are working
3. Newer innovation comes on faster AND replaced far more (robotics and AI), the world can't catch up, and we probably don't need everyone working
The free market is the better course to follow to solve the challenge but we have to face facts, we need local craftsmen back, we need trades developed, and we really (already) only need to put in 4 day work weeks.
Government solving the problem by bailing out companies to retain jobs, or worse, just paying for more people (welfare) isn't sustainable nor even a solution, but technology absolutely eliminates jobs, and it's doing it faster and faster.
Only the Fed can create (or destroy) jobs in the aggregate. There is no guarantee that technological change (international trade is a kind of technological change) will not reduce the relative price of some kinds of remuneration.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/workers-and-ai
Only the Fed can create jobs?? Roughly 60% of all new jobs are created by startups, in particular. Are you saying that the Fed creates the circumstances in which that happens? Because I assure you, the Fed isn't doing squat for all the startups I work with trying to scale and employ people.
I think I understand what you say and it's completely correct at its level.
What I'm saying is that if the Fed does not maintain adequate aggregate demand (and to adjust to shocks like COVID more than "adequate" in some sectors so that is will be adequate in others) some markets will not clear, unemployment of resources including jobs appear.