Bob Swern notes that 7.2 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. As I mentioned in January, these jobs were not "lost". Jobs in the great depression were lost - people manufacturing goods, growing food and in construction were put out of work by the business cycle. Some of these "jobs" in the financial sector, real estate, restaurants, hi tech, retail never existed. In the sense that the job did not produce anything of value to a normal economy, only one souped up on debt spending.
What if our economy can no longer be structured solely around "jobs"? That is some people may have to be paid not to work. It sounds radical until you call it retirement
two-thirds of Americans age 55 to 64 are in the work force - the highest participation rate among that age group since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping track in 1948.
What this suggests is that 70 is the new 65
Ten years ago, 59 percent of the 55-to-64 age group was in the civilian work force. In May this year, the percentage had jumped to 65.6, with 1.6 percentage points of that growth occurring just since May 2008.
Among workers 65 and older, the labor force participation rate has grown even more precipitously. In May 1999, their participation rate was 12.5 percent; in May 2008, 16.6 percent; and in May 2009, 17.2 percent.
There used to be this other thing where you get paid not to work. What was the word for that? Wait, wait it will come to me. Welfare!
Welfare cases had hit a high of about 5 million in 1995, then declined sharply with the law that limited benefits to five years, with some exceptions, and stressed getting welfare recipients into jobs. The number of families on welfare was at 1.6 million in September, the most recent date for which national tallies are available.
How about that! Over half our "job losses" can be accounted for in the welfare rolls - and more than that if you scale for the difference in population.
Then there was this other thing they used to have. You didn't get paid to work exactly but you did things for yourself instead of paying others. Stay at home parent (2004).
"Stay-at-Home" Parents Top 5 Million, Census Bureau Reports
The United States had an estimated 5.5 million "stay-at-home" parents last year — 5.4 million moms and 98,000 dads, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. It contains the Census Bureau’s first-ever analysis of stay-at-home parents.
Unfortunately the Bureau only started collecting the statistics in 2004 but I'm guessing that the percentage of the population that 6 million parents represents is historically low. And if we made that life style more attractive in order to just double that number then again the "job losses" mostly disappear.
Another way to go is to have everyone stay in school longer
In the year 2000, there were 76.6 million students enrolled in schools from kindergarten through graduate schools.
That is definitely already happening to an extent as jobs that used to require only a high school degree require college and pharmacists, nurses, school teachers etc. increasingly must go for graduate degrees. IMHO increasing the number of retirees, welfare and stay at home parents would be better than trapping young people in school forever.
But how our society is structured is no longer a decision we can pretend that market forces will take. The world is not and never was simple enough for market forces to be the determination of how our resources are distributed. Bankers have accepted this and are now bravely pioneering a world where there is no relation between pay and useful "work". Its time non-bankers followed their lead.