> there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most.
And yet the US has full employment.
Could it be that Finland lacks jobs for some reason other than technology?
And yet the US has full employment.
Could it be that Finland lacks jobs for some reason other than technology?
* Citation needed.
Here's the Fed saying we are:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-kaplan/feds-kapla...
Just like the cost of living index, Politicians often use misleading techniques to calculate "employment rate"
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
At 79.9, it's not quite record high employment, but it's close.
The source I found doesn't break down the remaining 35.3% of the population much, except to pull out about 2% as marginally attached or discouraged. Basically, people who have given up looking for work. I tried figuring out the makeup of the remaining 33%, but without much luck. How many 16 and older students are out there not working because they are full time committed to schooling? Hard to figure out, because so many students have part time jobs or are at least actively looking for part time jobs. Then, how many people are retired by choice, versus retired because there's no more work for them? How many homemakers are staying home with kids because they can't earn enough to significantly exceed childcare expenses versus those who stay home because they don't need or want to work?
All ages LFPR are probably low because the Baby Boomers are retiring and Millenials are still in college.
The US has “full employment” only under a definition of “full employment” that allows significant involuntary under- and un-employment to exist while still applying the label.
My point is that saying "people are happy but jobless" is missing the point of UBI.
UBI at this point is more an experimental pilot project to see what it does to people not to actually figure out how to pay for it which is another discussion also.
What it's not a pilot project for is to see if people get jobs as it's a proposed solution for a jobsless future for most.
At the other end we get better at making ever more stuff with less labour. That widget factory that used to employ 1000 people 50 years ago, now employs 10 for the same output. Now from a stuff buying point of view that's good, your products are cheaper so people can buy more. But what happens at the extreme. 0 employees in a factory? If everyone does that there aren't any employees to buy the stuff you've made.
Both of these trends are happening, both are unsustainable, sooner or later we are going to have to address them.