some suggestions:

He also mentioned jobs related to infrastructure and the environment.

Still, the types of jobs being created and the wage structure need to be addressed. Increasing the minimum wage to at least $12/hr. would help a lot.

I cannot believe he sees what is happening, but at least someone does.

We really are suffering from too much tech, and this is the kind of stuff we will have to consider going forward.

We are transitioning to the no-work economy, at least no manufacturing. Not because we've shipped jobs overseas, but because the technologies needed to make things without people have matured enough and come down in price that people don't need to do the things they do.

We don't need as many paper pushers, because computers can do that.

People will simply have to cut back hours, and dramatically raise the minimum wage.

I agree with:

but then he goes on to write:



The old nostrum of stimulating demand again -- when demand seems to be at the root of energy problems and ecological and environmental issues.

The general approach seems to be "make the best educated continue to work long hours with high productivity, tax away more of their incomes, spend the income on public goods to be enjoyed by all".

Maybe we should simply reduce the hours worked or years worked so as to distribute the effort more fairly, and let everyone have more time off. Everyone should do their fair share of work -- whether they want to or not.

The US non-institutionalized workforce in January was 242,269,000.

The number of employed workers was 139,944,000.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

However, we know that is not true, and that the majority of the 102 million are provided for by the 140 million workers.

Those who LOST their jobs due to productivity increases have little savings and a shrinking safety net. And no other job prospects, either.

Oh and if only 140 million Americans out of 242 million are working, you have all the ingredients in front of you for a MAJOR ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.

We need more JOBS, not more welfare. 142 million "taking care of" 102 million = massive unsustainable welfare problem.

By and large, the non-working population is supported by family units. Even more so back then.

And it would be unfair to say that the non-working people were not contributing a great deal to their relatives and to society.

Not everyone is interested in working at a paid occupation, and the percent who are working is determined by social as well as economic factors.

How will today's families be able to support their non-working family members?

What if said family is poor?

And most of all, why would I want to depend on my rabidly Conservative family for anything?

Population pressure dictates everything political, cultural, and economical.

Quantum industrialization of the world has logarithmically increased demand for the diminishing resouces that the Earth has to offer. Finding meaningful occupations for an increasing population in an increasingly automated world will only get worse. At this snapshot in time, commodites such as oil, concrete, and steel are the goods that will soon became prohibitively expensive due to world wide demand. Due to unrestrained population growth, each successive commodity will likewise become prohibitively expensive up to and including food and water. All the while ravaging the earth to accomodate the world's population. The earth simply cannot give every human being a refridgerator or a car and do so for multiple generations.

Pack enough rats into a room and they will become increasingly aggressive with each other. Especially if you deny them the basic needs of food, water, or territory. Competition for resources is instinctual behavior that dates back to the dawn of life. We are programmed to be aggressive when our livelihood is in jeopardy. Aggressiveness seen on the macro level of nations down to the aggressiveness we might see in a neighborhood or a classroom.

There is another form of instinctual competitveness that accelerates our bad tendency to collectively rape the earth and exploit it's people. That would be monetary profit. In the name of profit, we are motivated to exploit. It is Darwinism, not Christianity, that dictates this culture. Profiteering is a clinical study of "survival of the fittest". There could not be a more opposite philosophy of Christianity than profiteering.

The world is at an extremely fragile place right now. Our very lives are increasingly dependent on logisitics of which we have no control. Any breakdown in a system of communication or distribution could have devastating impact on our collective well being. The events in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina demonstrate how quickly the social fabric can be torn to pieces. All by events beyond the control of the populace. The magnitude of tragedy being proportional to the size of the population.

...moment, let's deal with the rich who aren't paying their fair share, government subsidized corporations that are making mad profits, the corporations that aren't paying enough taxes and preying on consumers, excessive CEO compensation and other executive greed (outrageous bonuses and perks), income inequality, a ridiculously low mininum wage, the jobs that aren't being created because no one wants to commit to fixing our crumbling infrastructure and support clean/renewable energy.

Everything else is a short term fix.

You do realize that it'll be the poor that get controlled; and if not, we'll wind up with a system of control similar to China's.

Overpopulation is only a fact. It is not a "side" in a political debate.

It only exists.

If a meteor was hurtling through space destined to destroy mankind, debate on how we should live in the interim is justified, but it will still not stop the impact.


When I speak of "address", I mean in terms of public debate and awareness. We are collectively oblivious to the peril. Through education we can mitigate, but only through natural process will it ultimately "self correct".

That must be addressed.

Unrestrained population growth will cause sufferage on a large scale.

The poor will be the first to realize the effect. The poor will become a much larger demographic because of the effect.

There is not enough to go around for a world population that doubles every 40 years. It is simple math.

Discussion of rich or poor are moot. Rich or poor are only relative to the circumstance.

When a person with access to food and water is considered "rich", the definition of poor will be death.

At that time, the population will balance with the laws of nature and man will no longer be capable of artificially inflating his numbers on a large scale.

When people understand the eventual magnitude of such sufferage, the morality of birth control, even mandated birth control, will finally be taken in the proper context.

When the shit hits the fan the rich will enact population control.

It'll be done by massacring people like just about everyone who posts on the DU... and the Freepers, too. The Plutocrats will be the only ones left when it's over.

If we don't start fighting back now, it will almost LITERALLY be like the movie Zardoz.

The only solution to this is what Stephen Hawking said... colonize.

The largest exploiters of the land and people are those that condition us to do so while expanding their own wealth.

I truly do get it.

I also see a world headed for major catastrophe and sufferage due to unrestrained population growth.

Printing money is inflationary. In other words the value of a dollar bill loses value each time a dollar bill is printed.

So it is with the value of human life. The greater the number of people, the less value that will be placed on human life.

The only way to fight back is to lead a worldwide effort to promote birth control. You are correct as we must start now. The time is rapidly approaching where the "voluntary" aspect may no longer be available and the path to massive sufferage is unavoidable.

This is being forced upon us. We will watch millions starve or feel violated by the notion of mandated birth control. There is "evil" in both paths. I am merely the messenger presenting reality.

When the rich come to tell you to stop breeding, you'll comply and let them take away your reproductive rights? Oh wait, maybe you have no intention to have kids. Maybe you won't mind if the rich enforce forced birth control on others in your neighborhood, the way China does?

And if you believe you, as a "resource-hogging American", are harming the Earth, why aren't you contemplating suicide to save the Earth? Or maybe getting away from all this technology and living a *ahem* more *ahem* sustainable lifestyle?

The only way you are ever going to have any effective method of population control is by the mandated loss of reproductive rights. If you're not willing to resort to that you will not achieve population control. If you are willing to resort to that, well, you've got WW-III on your hands, especially in America. We ain't China.

...this is why I'd rather stick to the point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=373284

I mean, Reich is talking about jobs and a solution to income equality. Introducing population growth into the equation is simple a red herring.

Speaking of "resource-hogging American": http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002347914

the world's poor will change anything without addressing the resources used by the people in developed nations.

I once read that a family of 11 in Mexico lives on the same amount of resources as one of us. It will not do much to control that family while we keep on with our excess usage.

...until the short term is addressed, the long term gets worse.

not be able to reduce the population.

The rich do not notice the fact that resources are dwindling -- because they can afford to pay a lot more for those resources than they now do and still live very well.

The poor respond to the dwindling resources by increasing the one resource they can increase -- their children. For the poor, especially in underdeveloped countries, a child is a resource, another person to work and either get a job or help in the family business. The poor look to their children for support in illness and old age.

Until the disadvantages of overpopulation are felt by all, we will not have a movement to increase family planning and population control.

On edit, in fact the rich profit from the growing shortage of resources because they can gamble on the commodities' market, and with resources dwindling, they are pretty sure they will eventually win. Gas went up to $4.35 in Los Angeles today (heard on the radio news). We saw a price of $4.96 at a gas station at Fairfax and Olympic Blvd. in Los Angeles yesterday. Somebody is making lots of money on that.

and the factories will move to find even cheaper sources of labor.

When the Chinese economy dips below 5% GDP growth, all hell will break loose.

Probably another world war the way things are going here.

In the 19th century, the world powers were reorganized by the Franco-Prussian war, unification of Germany and Italy, the breaking away of the Balkans from the Ottoman Empire, the Russo-Turkish War.

In the 20th century, the world powers were reorganized by the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the dissolution of the USSR, the reforms in China, and the rise of Islam.

Taking 1870 as the benchmark, it was about 45 years until the outbreak of WW I.

Taking 1990 as the benchmark, you can project the next outbreak in 2035, although it is likely that events are proceeding faster than in the earlier case.

Biology and medicine will be to the future as physics and chemistry were to the former.

THEN our unemployment will start to seriously plummet.

And the whole continent of Africa as well. You didn't think that Bill Gates is saving Africa from AIDs for altruistic reasons did you?