Where will they go?

SixNein

There is also an interesting perspective of automation with regards to military. At what point will people in power become locked into power permanently through automation?

ThomasT

It might be argued that they're already locked into power, more or less permanently, via the distribution of wealth. And of course with that comes access to the sort of technology that can control masses.

The controlling factors of the world's political systems isn't likely to change. Nor is the distribution of wealth, imo. If anything, the disparities will become increasingly more apparent.

So, the well being of those not needed in the workforce will be upon the 'haves' to do something about, or not. And, as Ryan opined, it's quite possible that the 'haves' will consider helping those not needed in the workforce to be an undue and unfair burden.

Elihu5991

I see that there are two main types of people ruling this world: those that only view things in a capitalist manner and those that view things in a socialist manner. (I see communism as a minority in our world, so am ruling it out for now in my reply). Some politicians and prominent business-people care about others (ie. socialists) and others don't (ie. capitalist). What a lot of people don't see is that we can have an even more flourishing economy if we cared about each other. My post is BY NO MEANS me advocating socialist regimes, I'm just stating that there are two types of elite people in conflict, concerning control; it's hard to tell who'll overcome - if at all.

Ryan_m_b

Hmm I disagree because I don't think it is far to suggest that capitalism and socialism are on the opposite end of a spectrum, you can have socialist capitalism (1, 2) and I can't think of any country that has no socialist policies or institutions.

The opposite of socialism is individualism which IMO is damaging to society at large if it is the majority practice. Also with regards to communism I'm not sure why you think it is a minority as the most populous and second richest country in the world practices communism.

Elihu5991

Ok, I see that I was not adamantly clear ... my apologies. I was not stating that capitalism and socialism or on opposite ends of the spectrum (think of the quartered graph thing in politics - sorry but can't momentarily remember it's name). I can think, on the top of my head, that Zimbabwe doesn't (please don't take this example in a racist manner).

Individualism = egotism = corruption amongst self and all.

I meant country wise. Think of how many countries are communism, not it's population. Besides, China is not a true communist nation.

Ryan_m_b

I think on the whole no country is truly socialist and none is truly individualist/capitalist. Moreover I would suggest that most countries are mostly socialist.

Elihu5991

I wouldn't say most, but a lot are. There's a lot of this world that we don't know that goes on (ie. you didn't know about ZImbabwe as such) and I don't of other nations as such, too. So I say we are generalising far to much to say that most countries are. Of those nations, most of them 9for sure) have poorly functioning (if at all) 'socialist' systems.

Gokul43201

To college?

Ryan_m_b

A university education is not for everyone, I have a big problem with the often espoused assumption that educations and training is a linear process with university as a climax rather than the reality that university as a route for certain specialties.

On top of this how would they actually pay for this education? And will it really help having an overqualified workforce with huge debts and not enough work for them?

Gokul43201

The basis for this thread is the following sentence from the OP:So:

1. Having an underqualified workforce go after the qualifications that they are anticipated to need does not make the workforce overqualified.

2. The article cited includes all kinds of "post-secondary education" in the statistic quoted in the OP. That includes trade school, community college, etc. - a lot of which does not come with huge debts of the kind that are common with private university tuition.

3. Do you think the fraction of the workforce with a college education today is the same as it was 20 years ago, 50, or a 100? The cost of tuition and the resulting expected salary (amongst other factors) determine the position of the (quasi) equilibrium - the fraction of the workforce with a college education. As these risks and rewards vary with time, people living near the margins of the equilibrium will move over into one side or the other, in response to those forces.

Why is it that the question raised in this thread, "how will the workforce respond to a greater demand for college education" is answered with a number of possible scenarios, not a single one of which is "they will respond by seeking more college education"?

SixNein

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/te...ot-people.html

http://www.economist.com/node/169907...ry_id=16990700

SixNein

I think the labor market will eventually get saturated with college educated people. Maybe it already is in quite a few areas.

ThomasT

You can probably make some sort of accurate statement about "where they will not go".

Gokul43201

Wait ... are you saying that more people will start getting a college education?

OmCheeto

The data at the Bureau of Economic Analysis might indicate where they might go.

GDPbyInd_GO_NAICS: Gross Output by Industry in Current Dollars, Quantity Indexes by Industry, Price Indexes by Industry


(dollars in millions)
% Δ________1998________2010____Description
68%____$215,672____$362,308____General Federal nondefense government services
14%____$320,990____$366,383____Other nonresidential structures
81%____$214,504____$388,590____Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities
37%____$296,292____$406,174____Management of companies and enterprises
20%____$377,990____$454,476____Insurance carriers
13%____$477,434____$537,816____Telecommunications
29%____$429,724____$556,071____Food services and drinking places
78%____$316,283____$562,360____Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related activities
46%____$390,964____$572,369____Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners
294%___$154,000____$606,411____Petroleum refineries
59%____$394,794____$626,833____Hospitals
55%____$413,200____$642,181____Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation
74%____$405,963____$708,297____General Federal defense government services
25%____$815,047__$1,021,821____Real estate
29%____$957,347__$1,230,213____Owner-occupied dwellings
19%__$1,032,467__$1,231,934____Wholesale trade
13%__$1,176,978__$1,335,540____Retail trade
36%__$1,355,308__$1,843,225____General state and local government services

These are the top 18 sectors by 2010 gross output.
Other than doctors and nurses, I don't see much on the list that would require any college.

Gokul43201

How are you using this data to answer the question? I don't follow your argument. Admittedly, you are not explicitly answering the question in your post, but the last line seems to be implying that you are.

The important numbers in that list are in the first column: %Δ. Those numbers tell us which sectors are growing most/least rapidly, and from that, one might be able to guess something about necessary changes in qualifications. The retail trade sector, for instance, has grown only 13% in the last decade, a period over which the US GDP has grown about 30%. So if you believe that most of the workforce in that sector requires no college education (and I have no good reason to doubt that), that is an argument against the point you seem to be making, or at least implying.


Really? Maybe you have a very different opinion of the usefulness of a degree than most hiring and HR departments. Or maybe they don't have as much time as you do to delve into the intangibles of the applicants.

SixNein

How much is the output attributed to automation vs people?