The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.
Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.
I meant "better number" as in "far more representative than the jobless-and-looking rate". I objected to calling it the "unemployment rate" without caveat, because that term usually refers to jobless-and-looking and therefore threatens to cause confusion.
https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/machine-money-and-people-...
Depends on what you consider basic needs doesn't it? If humans only consumed their basic needs than I agree, we should be scared of automation. The thing is as we become more prosperous, our basic needs are met and our other needs expand. Do you need a cell phone? Do you need a car? No, of course not, but people demand them, and other people supply them. The problem is that the automation people are making sweeping statements about all of our needs being supplied by automation. I don't think that's possible. I also don't think its wise to take advice from a Keynesian.
http://www.cato.org/blog/keynes-was-wrong-stimulus-keynesian...
The unemployment rate is still high (~9%), and thats just people still looking who haven't given up yet.
Labor force participation rate: https://i.imgur.com/v9sD9PB.png
U-6: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm