[toomuchtodo]

> Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish!

The unemployment rate is still high (~9%), and thats just people still looking who haven't given up yet.

Labor force participation rate: https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png

U-6: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[Bartweiss]

Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad.

The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

[toomuchtodo]

> It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.

[Bartweiss]

I don't think we actually disagree?

I meant "better number" as in "far more representative than the jobless-and-looking rate". I objected to calling it the "unemployment rate" without caveat, because that term usually refers to jobless-and-looking and therefore threatens to cause confusion.

[toomuchtodo]

HN was throttling me, preventing from me responding, but I believe you're correct and we're not disagreeing. Apologies for that!

[evanpw]

It seems to be mostly back to normal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

[Bartweiss]

Interesting - I wonder why that's basically recovered, but labor force participation is still at a 30 year low?

[toomuchtodo]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/bls-chief-sc...

[BigDaddyD]

The unemployment rate would be closer to 50% if everyone that "should" be unemployed now were. We can argue about the recovery and other economic problems, I'm simply saying automation isn't a source for unemployment, maybe in the short term but definitely not in the long term.

[toomuchtodo]

And I'm disagreeing with you. Most of people's basic needs can be met with automation and clean energy, full stop.

https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/machine-money-and-people-...

[BigDaddyD]

> basic needs

Depends on what you consider basic needs doesn't it? If humans only consumed their basic needs than I agree, we should be scared of automation. The thing is as we become more prosperous, our basic needs are met and our other needs expand. Do you need a cell phone? Do you need a car? No, of course not, but people demand them, and other people supply them. The problem is that the automation people are making sweeping statements about all of our needs being supplied by automation. I don't think that's possible. I also don't think its wise to take advice from a Keynesian.

http://www.cato.org/blog/keynes-was-wrong-stimulus-keynesian...