Re:It's the cities, stupid – Jane Jacobs' macroeconomics (2005)
by yourapostasy on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @02:44AM
(#10841894)
> Or do they just expect to keep being paid for doing the same thing forever, even if it is no longer economically viable?
I agree with your point that it is incumbent upon every individual to continually improve themselves. However, I like point out whenever this sentiment is brought up (including by myself) that while individuals must continuously improve, it does not necessarily follow that organizations will improve. Even if those very organizations are crammed with lots of those continuously-improving individuals. Especially large, monopolistic or duopolistic organizations with a lot of staying power over long periods of time.
Import replacement would be finding ways to supply the same needs using domestic employees.
Also, the whole point of the analysis is that nations like the US are the wrong units to look at. It's not a question of whether the US can keep up with the demand for various kinds of workers; it's whether individual cities or city regions can. The Bay area, for example, seems to have no problem making use of qualified employees from anywhere in the world.
> is being a conventional worker like being a "supply region?"
Not necessarily. I think the key question would be, does the worker do anything to develop their "resources" (their skills and knowledge) so they can respond to changes in supply and demand by changing what they do or how they do it? Or do they just expect to keep being paid for doing the same thing forever, even if it is no longer economically viable?