Why is 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there's 300k+ births a month?












11















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?










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    People die. It's true.

    – user22277
    7 hours ago






  • 3





    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
    3 hours ago
















11















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?










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    People die. It's true.

    – user22277
    7 hours ago






  • 3





    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
    3 hours ago














11












11








11


0






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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 12 hours ago









Fizz

13.8k23287




13.8k23287










asked 13 hours ago









corsiKacorsiKa

527616




527616








  • 4





    People die. It's true.

    – user22277
    7 hours ago






  • 3





    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
    3 hours ago














  • 4





    People die. It's true.

    – user22277
    7 hours ago






  • 3





    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
    3 hours ago








4




4





People die. It's true.

– user22277
7 hours ago





People die. It's true.

– user22277
7 hours ago




3




3





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
3 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
3 hours ago










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















45














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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
    12 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
    10 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
    10 hours ago






  • 19





    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
    10 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
    9 hours ago



















13














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.






share|improve this answer








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.




























    5














    "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.






    share|improve this answer

































      1














      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.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 1





        yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.

        – Fizz
        9 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
        9 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
        8 hours ago













      • That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth

        – Fizz
        7 hours ago











      • and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…

        – Fizz
        7 hours ago



















      0















      "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.






      share|improve this answer































        0














        Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.



        The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.



        This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




























          -6














          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






          share|improve this answer








          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.





















            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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

























            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes








            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            45














            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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 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
              12 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
              10 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
              10 hours ago






            • 19





              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
              10 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
              9 hours ago
















            45














            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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 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
              12 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
              10 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
              10 hours ago






            • 19





              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
              10 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
              9 hours ago














            45












            45








            45







            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.






            share|improve this answer













            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.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 13 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
              12 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
              10 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
              10 hours ago






            • 19





              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
              10 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
              9 hours ago














            • 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
              12 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
              10 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
              10 hours ago






            • 19





              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
              10 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
              9 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
            12 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
            12 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
            10 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
            10 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
            10 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
            10 hours ago




            19




            19





            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
            10 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
            10 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
            9 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
            9 hours ago











            13














            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.






            share|improve this answer








            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.

























              13














              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.






              share|improve this answer








              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.























                13












                13








                13







                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.






                share|improve this answer








                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.







                share|improve this answer








                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.









                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer






                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 10 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.























                    5














                    "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.






                    share|improve this answer






























                      5














                      "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.






                      share|improve this answer




























                        5












                        5








                        5







                        "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.






                        share|improve this answer















                        "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.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 9 hours ago

























                        answered 10 hours ago









                        Peter M.Peter M.

                        989610




                        989610























                            1














                            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.






                            share|improve this answer





















                            • 1





                              yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.

                              – Fizz
                              9 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
                              9 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
                              8 hours ago













                            • That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago











                            • and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago
















                            1














                            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.






                            share|improve this answer





















                            • 1





                              yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.

                              – Fizz
                              9 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
                              9 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
                              8 hours ago













                            • That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago











                            • and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago














                            1












                            1








                            1







                            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.






                            share|improve this answer















                            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.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 9 hours ago









                            yoozer8

                            3023517




                            3023517










                            answered 10 hours ago









                            jeanjean

                            11927




                            11927








                            • 1





                              yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.

                              – Fizz
                              9 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
                              9 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
                              8 hours ago













                            • That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago











                            • and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago














                            • 1





                              yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.

                              – Fizz
                              9 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
                              9 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
                              8 hours ago













                            • That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago











                            • and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…

                              – Fizz
                              7 hours ago








                            1




                            1





                            yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.

                            – Fizz
                            9 hours ago





                            yes, but with automation the economy (=GDP) can grow while jobs shrink at the same time.

                            – Fizz
                            9 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
                            9 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
                            9 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
                            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
                            8 hours ago















                            That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth

                            – Fizz
                            7 hours ago





                            That might happen even without automation; South Africa is an example economist.com/special-report/2010/06/03/jobless-growth

                            – Fizz
                            7 hours ago













                            and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…

                            – Fizz
                            7 hours ago





                            and also India, but a shorter time frame qz.com/india/1115328/…

                            – Fizz
                            7 hours ago











                            0















                            "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.






                            share|improve this answer




























                              0















                              "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.






                              share|improve this answer


























                                0












                                0








                                0








                                "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.






                                share|improve this answer














                                "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.







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered 9 hours ago









                                BobEBobE

                                2,8181830




                                2,8181830























                                    0














                                    Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.



                                    The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.



                                    This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                                      0














                                      Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.



                                      The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.



                                      This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.






                                      share|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.























                                        0












                                        0








                                        0







                                        Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.



                                        The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.



                                        This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.






                                        share|improve this answer








                                        New contributor




                                        marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                        Quick answer. Money is produced by private and corporate bank loans. With a fixed base money supply (because bond rates have been flat for 40 years now) this means debt can not be repaid because it amounts to more money then there exists. So there things allow this to continue, new loans but this grows the interest leading to the other two. Alternatively the loans can default, or the banks can essentially give money back.



                                        The give back is why we don't need 100% employment. Most middle class can live off investment and pensions. With enough principle it is trivial matter of funding.



                                        This is in contrast to prior where you got the give back from a know, standard source, gov bonds. Reliable, riskless, standard insertion of new currency. Today bond rates have been flat and non competitive. With growing world economy private and corporate banks use debt to create new money and give interest back through literally any way you can think of. Insanely well paying do nothing jobs, artificial investment growth, or sometimes not at all, bankruptcy.







                                        share|improve this answer








                                        New contributor




                                        marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer






                                        New contributor




                                        marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                        answered 15 mins ago









                                        marshal craftmarshal craft

                                        1013




                                        1013




                                        New contributor




                                        marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                        New contributor





                                        marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                        marshal craft is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                        Check out our Code of Conduct.























                                            -6














                                            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






                                            share|improve this answer








                                            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.

























                                              -6














                                              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






                                              share|improve this answer








                                              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.























                                                -6












                                                -6








                                                -6







                                                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






                                                share|improve this answer








                                                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







                                                share|improve this answer








                                                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.









                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer






                                                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 1 hour 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.






























                                                    draft saved

                                                    draft discarded




















































                                                    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.




                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded














                                                    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





















































                                                    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







                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    Knooppunt Holsloot

                                                    Altaar (religie)

                                                    Gregoriusmis