🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Martin wrote:
> 
> "Jim Blair" <jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:ak0cau$ka7$1@news.doit.wisc.edu..
> > Hi,
> >
> > ??? As ever fewer people have been able to make ever more (and better)
> > goods because of higher productuvity, the fraction of the population
> > employed has increased, and family incomes have increased to their highest
> > levels ever.
> 
> That makes no sense at all.  "...fewer people making goods means more people
> are employed."

Actually, you've read in the "means more". While what he is driving at is not 
actually what is happening (everywhere), it is consistent to have both more 
employment and more productivity - IF there is vastly more output.

> 
> > While Michael Coburn laments this as increased drugery, sensible people
> > can see that living standards are higher than ever because of this, and
> > few (other than Michael) would want a time machine to take them back to
> > 1950.
> >
> > Would you?
> 
> <flame>
> This worn-out ivory tower logic is tiring.  My *experience* is that a job
> lasts about 2 to 3 years at the most, whereas my dad's job lasted some 35 or
> 40 years.  This instability of employment means that a job is something I do
> inbetween layoffs, that I live off of credit when I'm out of work and out of
> unemployment benefits, and whenever I do have a job, I save like crazy and
> eliminate my debts, reduce my expenses, and do my shopping at Walmart.  It's
> worked pretty good so far.

This is an interesting comparative. Here in Australia there is far more 
last-in-first-out, so what happens is NOT this pattern but rather a growing 
divide between employed and unemployed, with only some interchange between 
the categories. And, we have serious disincentives to save (what's the point 
when the channels are more constrained, you get ripped off using them, and 
the more you save the fewer state benefits you get in the end anyway).

> 
> I don't see how a higher fraction of the population can be employed.

Well, not with the present framework. But there are ways (see my material 
linked via my signature below). PML.

-- 
GST+NPT=JOBS

I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production 
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment. 

See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other 
items on that page for some reasons why.