[ednut]

as the title says

Just face facts. There are too many people of employment age in the UK and too few jobs. The problem is going to get worse with immigration, larger families and thus more and more people. This will be aggravated by more efficient ways of doing things, by robotisation (just wait to see all those domestic and menial jobs disappear when you can buy a robot to do it all for £5K)
In some areas school places at primary level are expanding by 20-60% in some places doubling. We will have millions of unemployed young men and women

[ufo2012]

Simple answer, yes.

[ednut]

bump

[Phantom Lord]

Maybe.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by ednut)
as the title says

Just face facts. There are too many people of employment age in the UK and too few jobs. The problem is going to get worse with immigration, larger families and thus more and more people.

Two words: markets clear. As long as wages are allowed to adjust according to the supply of and demand for labour then the number of people willing to work at the market wage rate will be the same as the number of people willing to hire at the market wage rate. A shortage or a surplus (unemployment) can only occur in the long term due to price rigidities.

There are not a fixed quantity of jobs, so population growth just causes nominal wages to fall. If what you were saying was true, then we would all be unemployed by now: At the turn of the 20th century the population was around 30 million people, now it's 60 million.

(Original post by ednut)
This will be aggravated by more efficient ways of doing things, by robotisation (just wait to see all those domestic and menial jobs disappear when you can buy a robot to do it all for £5K)

I'm just going to copy and paste what I said in this post.

Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

[amyelizabeth2681]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Two words: markets clear. As long as wages are allowed to adjust according to the supply of and demand for labour then the number of people willing to work at the market wage rate will be the same as the number of people willing to hire at the market wage rate. A shortage or a surplus (unemployment) can only occur in the long term due to price rigidities.

There are not a fixed quantity of jobs, so population growth just causes nominal wages to fall. If what you were saying was true, then we would all be unemployed by now: At the turn of the 20th century the population was around 30 million people, now it's 60 million.



I'm just going to copy and paste what I said in this post.

Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

Very good post. Also, we should remember that immigration wouldnt necessarily lead to more unemployment. As a matter of fact, if the immigrants entering the country have the skills necessary to replace the gaps in the job market, it can actually boost employment and make your economy more competitive.

You (the OP) should also remember that employment is directly linked to economic growth. Periods of economic growth are usually coupled with levels of high employment. This is because one of the components of economic growth is aggregate demand, which includes consumer spending, investment, government spending and exports and imports. If people are spending more, then this stimulates growth by increasing confidence amongst businesses which will lead to investment in capital and LABOUR.

It's one giant cycle, but economies adapt and grow, leading to growth in different job sectors, creating new jobs whilst other industries fade out. This is precisely what happened in the 1920s and 1930s in the UK where structural unemployment caused by a fall in particular industries (coal, steel, shipbuilding) opened the way for the UK to become a predominantly service based economy. Yes, unemployment happens, but it's never a case of it staying that way forever. If not, we WOULD all be unemployed by now.