If the robots are going to take all or most of our jobs, why is unemployment near an all-time low?

Because the number of individuals participating in the workforce is getting lower and lower. So less people in the workforce means lower unemployment rate. Chalk it up to retirements and people getting paid under the table.

Calm

Cleverity wrote:

Calm

storm

More likely due because of tightened immigration policy.

Because robots will take our jobs in the distant future, not now.

This is like being in the 1600s and asking, "if cars are going to be the preferred mode of transportation, why are the roads filled with horses?"

Easy, everyone is working in robot factories, robot design, robot training etc.

Same as the IT revolution replacing low skilled jobs now everyone just works in IT instead.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Because the number of individuals participating in the workforce is getting lower and lower. So less people in the workforce means lower unemployment rate. Chalk it up to retirements and people getting paid under the table.

Not true, the workforce is continuing to expand by about 100k a month. The robots aren't taking all our jobs either, that's all sci fi/reddit philosopher nonsense.

Pretty obvious if you think about it wrote:

Easy, everyone is working in robot factories, robot design, robot training etc.

Out of the 50 or so people I know, none of them works in a robot factory or does anything related to robots.

Aging population is falling out of the workforce and retiring.

Still some hidden slack in the labor force.

Back in 1998-2000 (just before the dot.com crash), some ppl were changing jobs every few months to get up to a 20% (or even more) bump in pay. Today? Not so much.

Employers have gotten "used" to not having to pay up and, if they can't fill a position, are more likely to let it go unfilled than increase the salary above what some algorithm tells HR is the "going rate."

As for labor participation rate: the trend is not good for males in prime working years (24 to 54, I believe). Some posit that low marital rates are a factor (marriage/family/babies tends to spur workers, esp. men, to work more hours, seek higher-risk/higher-reward positions, etc.)

It's a weird world out there.

Also , recall that the previous WH administration changed how unemployment is calc'ed; the new admin has not reverted. Better to look at the U6 figure (which includes "underemployed" workers, part-timers who wish for full time and "discouraged" workers who have fallen out of the stats).

The recent dip in unemployment was due to people leaving the workforce. The article below has a pretty good analysis of the current issues with the labor force participation rate.

As for robots, we are a long way away from seeing automation sophisticated enough to have a serious impact on employment. The main impact of automation has not been on total employment numbers but on the quality and distribution of employment. Coal mines, oil and gas fracing operations, steel mills and other manufacturing have become more and more automated over the past 20 years. So, employment has shifted away from rural areas where there used to be a lot of work in manufacturing and coal mining, etc. to big cities.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/05/05/sure-unemployment-went-down-because-the-number-of-people-working-did/#7a9b06408bc1

The vast majority of American workers still aren’t reaping big rewards from the tightest labor market in almost two decades. Companies continue to find ways to contain costs and many customers simply are unwilling to pay higher prices for goods and services.

Says Goldman Sachs: "In its ongoing attempt to reflate [the economy], the Fed has recreated a functional war economy - at least in terms of labor metrics - and if only for the subsegment of the labor force that is not disabled, discouraged or doesn't want a job (or is on drugs). For everyone else, this remains a recession."

Short-term (cyclical) unemployment (

Hmmm... lost the rest of my post. let's see:

Short-term (cyclical) unemployment (

You're not trying to use the forbidden "less than" sign are you?

Weird. Board does not like the "less than" sign... One more time:

Short term unemployment (less than 15 weeks) is super low but long-term (structural) unemployment remains higher than in previous expansions.

Some other factors:

Ppl less willing to relocate

Millennials preferring work/life balance (satisfaction) over rat race (pay): the European model

Shrinking gov't rolls

Rising SS disability rolls

Opioids (and arrest records)

Some older workers failing to retire (didn't save enough or just like working)

Related: Longevity risk

There were some others I threw out there; I forget.

Oh, I remember: All that said, the populace (economy) is way more optimistic than it has been in, say, eight years or so...

Some other anecdotal observations:

Teen jobs are hard to come by. At many the local beaches/pools, all the "old" lifeguards returned ('cause they couldn't find other work), squeezing out the new crop (no experience).

College internships: preferring "older" classes to freshman (I know a Cornell engineering freshman working at a restaurant because of this).

CVS, Starbucks and some local restaurants etc. hiring middle-aged folk over teens ('cause they can: they prefer "lifers" over summertime teens).

Again, still some hidden slack in the economy.

More anecdotes:

Young ppl like to do what they see their older peers doing. If scooping ice cream is out of fashion, they ain't gonna do it (as much). Young ppl are taking classes over the summer rather than working, e.g.

Again, easy to find counterexamples (these observations are not universal, just... noticeable trends/differences from prior years). Also, young ppl aren't getting licenses at the same rate as in the past, limiting job opportunities. If they can't bike to it, they ain't doin' it. Also don't want to live with roommates (would rather return to the nest).

Part of this may be due to higher mandatory minimum wages. As predicted by economic models, artificially higher wages squeeze out those on the lowest rung. If you can earn a "living wage" (or just get by) , you are less likely to progress. Conversely, if an employer is "forced" to pay above-market wages, employers will seek the "best qualified" (typically older, vs. teens, anyway) candidate. Again, preferring "lifers" over casual or seasonal or temp labor.

That's why paperboys, er, paper delivery ppl on bikes are a thing of the past. (Papers are sort of a thing of the past as well, admittedly).

Thanks Uncle Sugar!