Why is 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there's 300k+ births a month?Why is economic growth considered so essential, even in rich countries?Why is there no economics theory largely accepted or considered true?What kind of jobs do illegal immigrants do in USA?Why is Trump winning, when I know so few people who admit to voting for him?Why don't governments follow the “save in good times, spend in bad times” rule?How many jobs were created during Obama's presidency?How much of the recent jobs growth is Donald Trump responsible for?Why are Weapon Restriction Laws considered Liberal?When is an act considered domestic terrorism in regards to US policy?Why are both global overpopulation and low birth rates in developed countries considered a problem?

Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter?

Rock identification in KY

Was any UN Security Council vote triple-vetoed?

How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?

Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?

High voltage LED indicator 40-1000 VDC without additional power supply

Revoked SSL certificate

Why is Minecraft giving an OpenGL error?

How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?

Modeling an IP Address

What does the "remote control" for a QF-4 look like?

Maximum likelihood parameters deviate from posterior distributions

Is it possible for a square root function,f(x), to map to a finite number of integers for all x in domain of f?

dbcc cleantable batch size explanation

Codimension of non-flat locus

Why can't we play rap on piano?

Cross compiling for RPi - error while loading shared libraries

DC-DC converter from low voltage at high current, to high voltage at low current

Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?

How to format long polynomial?

Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?

Which country benefited the most from UN Security Council vetoes?



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


Why is economic growth considered so essential, even in rich countries?Why is there no economics theory largely accepted or considered true?What kind of jobs do illegal immigrants do in USA?Why is Trump winning, when I know so few people who admit to voting for him?Why don't governments follow the “save in good times, spend in bad times” rule?How many jobs were created during Obama's presidency?How much of the recent jobs growth is Donald Trump responsible for?Why are Weapon Restriction Laws considered Liberal?When is an act considered domestic terrorism in regards to US policy?Why are both global overpopulation and low birth rates in developed countries considered a problem?













9















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
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    1 hour ago















9















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
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    1 hour ago













9












9








9


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 10 hours ago









Fizz

13.8k23287




13.8k23287










asked 11 hours ago









corsiKacorsiKa

517616




517616







  • 4





    People die. It's true.

    – user22277
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    1 hour ago












  • 4





    People die. It's true.

    – user22277
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    1 hour ago







4




4





People die. It's true.

– user22277
5 hours ago





People die. It's true.

– user22277
5 hours ago




2




2





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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















44














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
    10 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
    7 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
    7 hours ago






  • 18





    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
    7 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
    7 hours ago


















12














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
        7 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
        7 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
        6 hours ago












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

        – Fizz
        5 hours ago











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

        – Fizz
        4 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























        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

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        44














        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
          10 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
          7 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
          7 hours ago






        • 18





          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
          7 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
          7 hours ago















        44














        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
          10 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
          7 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
          7 hours ago






        • 18





          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
          7 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
          7 hours ago













        44












        44








        44







        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 10 hours ago









        ShadurShadur

        343310




        343310







        • 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
          10 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
          7 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
          7 hours ago






        • 18





          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
          7 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
          7 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
          10 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
          7 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
          7 hours ago






        • 18





          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
          7 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
          7 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
        10 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
        10 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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 hours ago




        18




        18





        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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 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
        7 hours ago











        12














        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.
























          12














          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.






















            12












            12








            12







            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 8 hours ago









            kloddantkloddant

            22313




            22313




            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 7 hours ago

























                    answered 8 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
                          7 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
                          7 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
                          6 hours ago












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

                          – Fizz
                          5 hours ago











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

                          – Fizz
                          4 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
                          7 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
                          7 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
                          6 hours ago












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

                          – Fizz
                          5 hours ago











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

                          – Fizz
                          4 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 7 hours ago









                        yoozer8

                        3023517




                        3023517










                        answered 8 hours ago









                        jeanjean

                        11927




                        11927







                        • 1





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

                          – Fizz
                          7 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
                          7 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
                          6 hours ago












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

                          – Fizz
                          5 hours ago











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

                          – Fizz
                          4 hours ago












                        • 1





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

                          – Fizz
                          7 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
                          7 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
                          6 hours ago












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

                          – Fizz
                          5 hours ago











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

                          – Fizz
                          4 hours ago







                        1




                        1





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

                        – Fizz
                        7 hours ago





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

                        – Fizz
                        7 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
                        7 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
                        7 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
                        6 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
                        6 hours ago














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

                        – Fizz
                        5 hours ago





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

                        – Fizz
                        5 hours ago













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

                        – Fizz
                        4 hours ago





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

                        – Fizz
                        4 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 7 hours ago









                            BobEBobE

                            2,8181830




                            2,8181830



























                                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

                                Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                                Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                                199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單