LFPR is at multi-decades low in US, even prior to COVID. Also, the McKinsey report you posted clearly states that automation has the potential to drive this significantly lower.

For example:




I absolutely think that in the next decades some highly technologically advanced societies will struggle to provide work for populations that just keep on growing. Also, AI is something that hasn't even gotten started, that's going to be a huge displacer in many high wage industries

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 13 2020 10:05am

Source? The link I provided with the OECD data shows the US participation rate as fairly stagnant over the last 30 years and higher than it was > 30 years ago.



It doesn't, it says that automation will result in fewer jobs in certain activities, not that the overall pool of jobs will be smaller. More people will get jobs working with technology as opposed to performing manual tasks, like the example it gives on the internet, some jobs will be lost and some will be created.



Maybe...but that isn't evidenced in the current data yet, and until it is, there is no basis for UBI on the grounds of automation taking people's jerbs.

Lfpr has been dropping mainly because of aging population.

I agree that automaton reducing jobs to the point of mass unemployment is still theoretical but I still think UBI is a good idea as a replacement to the welfare based social safety net.

Not sure what numbers your source is pulling from, the LFPR in the US was like 63% in 2019, now it's at like 61%. It hasn't been this low since the 70s ( hence me saying multi-decade)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191734/us-civilian-labor-force-participation-rate-since-1990/

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate#:~:text=Labor%20Force%20Participation%20Rate%20in%20the%20United%20States%20averaged%2062.87,percent%20in%20December%20of%201954.

This may be trivial but prior to starting my MBA, I worked at a large corporate bank in back-office treasury ops. That specific department went from 20+ people to less than 10 in a span of 5 years. These weren't super high skilled jobs but they were your average middle-class bachelor degree jobs that were being displaced by process optimization, streamlining, etc.

Personally, I'm skeptical of reports that say tech will create more jobs than destroy. That's probably true in the developing world where we will have many people catching up in technology but not in the developed world where we already have outsourced so many low skilled jobs.

Every potential position I'm looking at right now on Linkedin has like 100 applicants for one spot. To me, that's not indicative of plenty of jobs even for people who have bachelors-masters degrees.

My organization has been pivoting toward higher tech over the last decade, a bit faster than our competitors and its one of the MAJOR reasons we are still doing well, especially during these times. It has created more jobs within our organization.

What the labor statistics don't tell is that you will need multi-disciplinary skillsets to thrive in the future, where as in the past that would have merited a fancy position and title. The 'high-tech' job salaries wont be what they were advertised, although better than most.








Will that Google stock go down today like their services?

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Dec 14 2020 06:29am

Housing markets in outer areas such as interior BC are red-hot. Some Kootney areas are experiencing 15% year over year appreciation. This year was no exception. Mortgage rates are low and people have been granted the ability to work from home permanently in some cases.

I assume some US rural areas are experiencing similar activity. Desirable rural areas that is.

If I didn't live in the absolute desolation I would be looking to scoop up property at sub 2%.

you’d run the risk of being called a draconian evil landlord who owns too many properties while others do not (or something like that)

There are so many dumb edicts around being a landlord nowadays. Like imagine living in some of these increasingly far-left places.

>Take out a mortgage of 500k to buy a rental property in Portland
>Government: You can't kick someone out even though they don't pay you rent for a year.

Yeah would have been ok if government fronted this bill

2020 we learned land lords is some risky business, and Washington is truly utterly useless

This post was edited by Bazi on Dec 14 2020 11:15am

I've found arguments that landlords that own single family homes are basically leeches pretty convincing.

>Landlord maintains property
No, landlord uses your money to maintain property

>Landlord pays mortgage
No, landlord uses your money to pay mortgage, and then some. Regardless, once mortgage is paid off rent doesn't go down.

>Landlord took risk to buy property
Yes, that's how buying property for any reason works. Landlords don't contribute value by holding the same risk any owner would have.

The exception being ones that specifically build and maintain and manage multi-family housing like apartments. Those that require actual management, resident dispute management, and specific repairs. The added value is in the improved land use efficiency from having multiple families.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 14 2020 11:26am