It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If You're Young, The Job Outlook Is Grim No Matter Where You Live

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: machineintelligence

Or we can adopt an economic model that doesn't require every individual go out & work their lives away at a job?



Is there any economic model you can use as an example? Please be specific. The only model I can see that fits your comment is welfare. That isn't self sustaining and will implode when too many choose to live by this economic model. SOMEBODY has to work. I'd love it if I didn't have to work but then, I choose to support myself and not be dependent upon others to buy my food, pay for my utilities, housing, clothes, gasoline, beer, satellite TV, internet service etc.

I guess that's just me.
edit on 13-10-2015 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux

I choose to support myself and not be dependent upon others to buy my food, pay for my utilities, housing, clothes, gasoline, beer, satellite TV, internet service etc.

I guess that's just me.


What happens when technology can provide all of those things for you without working?

Someday we will have Robot Repair men, repairing the robot workers. Probably not in our life, but shouldn't we develop a model that takes these things into consideration?

Maybe a model of GDP to work hours to fairly distribute the work not accomplished by technology.

I like the Jetsons economic model. 3 hours a day 3 days a week. Those 9 hour work weeks were tough on good old George Jetson.


edit on 13-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Those who's jobs provide the most for mankind live like kings, and the rest of us settle into a middle to upper middle class. Currently those who provide the least benefit, and would be the easiest to replace make the most money.

The banking and merchant class are the laziest and most self righteous of all people. Yet they are the easiest to replace because they have a very limited skill set and require others to do all the work for their class to exist.

In income the bankers and the merchants are followed by entertainers, almost as meaningless, yet slightly more difficult to replace.

Very few of the people who move this world forward are truly rewarded according to their accomplishments for mankind. The medical scientists cure diseases while the shareholders rake in the biggest profits.

The system is broken.

Add - I have written very sophisticated visual basic labor and production software integrated into excel that is still in use at a fortune 500 company, so I understand what you are saying.


edit on 13-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

My concern is that the majority of people on this planet are slated for a demand reduction protocol, and not some Utopian world where we all live to fulfill our lives. My bet is that to save the planet the elite rid the world of most of us so you know (climate change) does not kill nature off. Robots take up the remaining workforce and we all do not live happily or otherwise after the culling.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: onequestion

Participation trophies?


I wouldn't know I'm a fighter we don't do participation trophies you lose even if you win.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

Demand reduction I think is the plan

Fewer people = demand reduction + lower unemployment + reduced carbon emissions + greater biodiversity.

I think that is where this is headed.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Not to be the "grim" one here, but I do try to be a realist.

How can you have unlimited growth in a limited biosphere(for lack of a better word)?

I see drastic changes in the future, not yet because enough people are not sick of living slim, or barely getting by.

The rich will continue to become even more rich for decades to come, then something drastic is bound to happen and capitolism will be nothing more than another chapter in a history book, web page, or whatever cloud genius operation there will be.

Real progress for the human race will happen when "FOR PROFIT" is taken out of the equation.

But what do I know, I am a multi year community college tradesman that works hard for a living.

Time to get some rest, 5 am comes pretty darn early.
edit on 13-10-2015 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: machineintelligence

Or we can adopt an economic model that doesn't require every individual go out & work their lives away at a job?



Is there any economic model you can use as an example? Please be specific. The only model I can see that fits your comment is welfare. That isn't self sustaining and will implode when too many choose to live by this economic model. SOMEBODY has to work. I'd love it if I didn't have to work but then, I choose to support myself and not be dependent upon others to buy my food, pay for my utilities, housing, clothes, gasoline, beer, satellite TV, internet service etc.

I guess that's just me.


I already described the system I would prefer in the rest of my post quoted you . You'll find your answer there, unless you expect me to retype what I already typed?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: StoutBroux

I choose to support myself and not be dependent upon others to buy my food, pay for my utilities, housing, clothes, gasoline, beer, satellite TV, internet service etc.

I guess that's just me.


What happens when technology can provide all of those things for you without working?

Someday we will have Robot Repair men, repairing the robot workers. Probably not in our life, but shouldn't we develop a model that takes these things into consideration?

Maybe a model of GDP to work hours to fairly distribute the work not accomplished by technology.

I like the Jetsons economic model. 3 hours a day 3 days a week. Those 9 hour work weeks were tough on good old George Jetson.



Exactly. I can imagine us sending a robot fleet to a region, planet, moon, or a large asteroid. Some of those robots assemble a series of 3D printers, while others scour the surface & start mining basic materials. Once the 3D printers are set up, they start printing individual building blocks or entire units, depending on the materials required.

Then some of the robots assemble mineral processing plants & living quarters (if humans want to eventually visit). Their processing plants would be vastly more efficient since they wouldn't need to accommodate humans. Anyway, I could then imagine the robot command centers sending back data in real time on the quantity & quality of minerals mined, as well as the progress of their operations.

Back home, I'd like to say we'd need humans to remotely check the robots' work & make important decisions for them. But algorithms are getting so good, we could probably just program the most logical solutions to a wide variety of circumstances then let the robots "decide" what to do on their own.

Other robots would be converting captured sunlight & other forms of radiation into energy. Then the robots could send back loads of processed minerals to our civilizations, which we could freely enjoy. And when we made major advances in designs, we could simply upload the blueprints to the robot command centers & let them update their operations in real time.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
This holds to be rue despite what has been shared by politicians, then what's the solution besides the said PTB plans of crashing the system to implement ___insert scenario__. It's already sketchy that politicians have plans for more people in countries where these issues are very real. More immigration, because Americans and Europeans are said to be having stale birthrates, is supposed to make more jobs? Wait, what?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: machineintelligence
At least young people can still live with their Mom and Pop, try being 60, not as able bodied as you once were making job choice even slimmer and nobody wants to hire you.

Time for some kind of New Deal.


If they are lucky, but many have parents in the same or almost the same boat now days. As they cannot help them have a roof over their heads to save money as parents could in the past-new some later GenXers and early Millennials that lived at home to save money to buy their own home.


Isn't it supposed to be the first time in current American history that young people do not have access to what their parents had with a stable job and owning a home- just being stuck with paycheck to paycheck and going from rental to rental in instability.
edit on 14-10-2015 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2015 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join