Everyone would work less and enjoy a better standard of living. How naive that seems now. Nearly all of the productivity benefits of the great technological advances of the last 50 years have gone to the top 1%. The good news, or bad news, depending on your point of view, is that it is not sustainable. This topic is the Macro-Economic 800 pound gorilla in the room that few people want to acknowledge let alone address. The dramatic leaps in technology and productivity are enriching a relative few, while the great unskilled masses are shooting out new babies at breakneck speed. Under the current operating models of economics there just is not sufficient prosperity to satisfy all of these people. In my limited understanding of the topic I see three possible courses of action (1) Strong government incentives to employ people, even when this is not the most cost effective approach (subsidizing labor as it were); (2) Communism or similar economic systems where everything is collectively shared and distributed (yes I am aware of all the problems); or (3) very nasty civil unrest, genocide, wars, famine, etc. One other thing that makes me shake my head in bewilderment is the way so many people are opposed to government passing out birth control and paying for abortions. The people who will avail themselves of these services are generally the sort of people whose potential children will likely contribute to this growing unskilled-underemployed labor pool. To me the quintessential "no-brainer" is to do everything reasonably possible to discourage people with poor economic prospects from having children.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra