General Question

CuriousLoner's avatar

Is the rate at which jobs are created in the US enough for the growth of its population?

Asked by CuriousLoner (1796 points ) August 23rd, 2011

I was having a discussion with a friend about the current unemployment problem we seem to have.

He told me one point of view I should take on it is this. Right now the amount of people without a job in the US is close to Canada’s population. At first I thought wow never look at it in such a way. That is….well a lot people.

However I thought it was interesting, after viewing some of the charts off of Google that really there has been worse times in the US. If anything it would seem that the unemployment right is going to correct itself over time. If that makes sense..? More or less there are spikes and dips throughout.

Another point I’ve seen brought up is that we don’t create jobs here in the US anymore which brings me back to this thing of if our population keeps going up and jobs are going down overall. Is this not a recipe for disaster?

One last thing. I can’t argue to business people or companies who produce else where and outsource. I wish they would hire Americans and build things here. I’d like to see more
“Made in America” But at the end of the day they do have the freedom to choose how they want to handle their company or whatever their business is.It has also been said we need to get rid of regulation and give more incentives for businesses.

But if we do that we won’t create a double edge sword. Too less regulation and companies or corporations could get away with too much? How do we even know for sure that it work?If we need to help businesses, what kind of “incentives” do we give them? How do you find a good balance of this?

Anyways sorry for this long winded question. Most of this bring me back to my main question, if the population growth contines and job growth is slowing and being outsourced. What should be done? Is it inevitable?

Please take a look at the charts as well. I am under the assumption that these are accurate enough.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:12000&dl=en&hl=en&q=what+is+the+population+of+florida#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=what+is+the+unemployment+rate+in+us#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:CAN&dl=en&hl=en&q=what+is+the+population+canada#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CAN&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

prioritymail's avatar

Lately I see countries like companies. You have start ups that have huge potential for growth but can end up bumbling around for a while then fading out, the established companies that are still growing slowly, and the old companies that maintain until someone else comes around and edges them out. We have countries that are rapidly developing, established countries that are growing, and old established countries like the U.S. that are maintaining or on the decline. Seems like other countries want to follow the U.S.‘s path of agriculture based economy that develops into manufacturing based economy that develops into service based economy. Obviously this can only happen so many times before everyone is in service and no one is actually making anything. We haven’t reached that point so who knows what will happen, but I’d guess things would “self correct” some how. Nothing is forever so I don’t expect the U.S. to be Numero Uno forever…China will take over sooner than later I expect.

jrpowell's avatar

The baby-boomers are retiring. Population growth isn’t the problem (the lack of population growth is our problem). Look at Japan to see where we are headed.

The easiest fix is to allow brown people to become medium citizens and get them on the books and tax the fuck out of them.

CuriousLoner's avatar

@prioritymail Why can’t we have a mixture of manufacturing and service? Also U.S. outsources to other countries, where as they are keeping in on their side.

@johnpowell You are saying that older people who are retired and collecting money is too much compared to the actual work force?

Also what is wrong with Japan?

I assume by brown people you mean illegal immigrants? What is a medium citizen?

How much tax money would you actually get from that if that is the case? And you don’t really propose to tax them more than other people do you?

jrpowell's avatar

You are saying that older people who are retired and collecting money is too much compared to the actual work force?
yes

Also what is wrong with Japan?
Japan has been where were are heading for a few years. Basically, a lot of old people and kids trying to figure out what to do with them.

I assume by brown people you mean illegal immigrants? What a medium citizen?
Yup. Nothing you can do will keep illegal immigrants from picking your lettuce or cleaning Mitt Romney’s houses. Might as well tax them more and put them on the books and collect. Once the get citizenship drop them to a lower rate.

CuriousLoner's avatar

@johnpowell This might sound dumb, but shouldn’t there eventually be more jobs though too? If
that many people are retiring someone has to fill their spot/position right? Meaning someone would move up leaving a lower position and so on…?

I’ve thought of similar solution. Stopping all the illegal immigrants from around the world is going cost more I would think…. Where as you say let them become a citizen and tax them.

The problem seems to be connecting to the part of going from illegal to legal. Most people who are having under the table work, I am sure would prefer they stay illegal and cheap, right?

filmfann's avatar

I think the June unemployment numbers showed 12,000 numbers of jobs created, yet the unemployment number went up, due to an increase in people looking for jobs.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Employers will not hire in an economic environment like we have today, or rather, they will hire just enough people to get by. Their thinking goes, “Why should I bear the expense of hiring more people when I may have to turn right around and lay them off?”

CaptainHarley's avatar

“What makes a solution [ to our current economic problems ] so difficult is that the fear gripping investors isn’t just a symptom of economic distress; it’s also a cause of it. Sinking stock prices frighten consumers and businesses. They then spend and invest less. Investors respond to lower corporate sales by selling stocks, worsening the market declines.”

Each day that the stock market sinks “puts another nail in the coffin of the recovery,” says Beth Ann Bovino, senior economist at Standard & Poor’s.

tedd's avatar

The exact number of jobs you have to create on a monthly basis to keep up with population growth adding new workers to the workforce, varies from month to month. But the generally accepted number is around 200,000 jobs per month.

tedd's avatar

If you want to fix our economy as a whole you need to grow the middle class. The lower class doesn’t have that much money to spend, and the upper class tends to just save or invest their money. So for a nation like the US to thrive how it has the last 50 years, you have to have a dominant middle class.

How exactly to do that is open to debate. Republicans/Conservatives would say lower taxes on everyone and on companies, which would result in companies being able to hire more people, and that results in more middle class. The problem is lowering taxes on companies doesn’t guarantee they’ll put that savings towards new jobs. They could just pocket the difference. Not to mention you get companies that purposely screw over members of the middle class with shoddy mortgages or what have you (which admittedly the people should be smart enough to know better) which just removes them from the productive middle class. Democrats/Liberals would say that they should spend money on supporting the lower and middle class with programs like medicare and social security. The idea being those programs can take some burden off the peoples shoulders and help those that have lost jobs and such, until they can get back on their feet. The problem with this approach is it usually calls for higher taxes (at least on the rich), and there’s no guarantee that people will ever get back on their feet. Some inevitably won’t.

A healthy balance of the plans is what needs to be achieved. But of course in today’s politics you have to be one of the polar opposites and completely throw out the other sides ideas if you want to be elected.

smilingheart1's avatar

Even CNN is beginning to wonder.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther