What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around?

Re:What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around? by oconnore on Thursday July 21, 2016 @04:57PM (#12140012)

I think you are mis-attributing our current trajectory. Most of the scientific developments that are now powering the US knowledge economy came out of government (ARPA, etc.) funded labs.

Allocating R&D funds based strictly on "whether or not traders and stock owners can profit in the short to medium term" is relatively new in the US (although you could argue it was the norm before we became a superpower). Our most exciting projects still come from outside that model -- crazy billionaires that want to go to Mars, meager NSF/NASA budgets, and things that mutually benefit Defense/DARPA and the economy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around? by refurb on Thursday July 21, 2016 @05:00PM (#12140037)

The OP was talking about labor allocation and you're talking about R&D allocation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around? by oconnore on Thursday July 21, 2016 @05:35PM (#12140267)

I think that increasing R&D allocation increases labor demand, both within those projects, and from capital investments that are derived from them. I think that investors are yet to demonstrate that they are capable of valuing the sorts of large scale (historically government funded) R&D projects that have been fruitful in the past.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What If There Just Aren’t Enough Jobs to Go Around? by scottlocklin on Thursday July 21, 2016 @05:18PM (#12140153)

What's the difference?

[ Parent | on HN ]