The BLS government definition ends unemployment status at one year.

There's a classic Micheal Moore movie (or, someone else?) where he discussed the closure of the Janesville Wisconsin General Motors assembly plant which historically employed between 10% and 1% of the city. In December 2008 when it closed the number of unemployed increased by 1200 people. In December of 2009 the number of unemployed auto workers legally officially dropped to zero. Obviously all 1200 people didn't get jobs... Thats where SSDI comes into play, because unemployment is a state funded program but SSDI is federally funded. SSDI has been roughly doubling in size every 5 years since the 80s, very roughly. Currently there's about 14 million under 65 getting federal disability benefits. Its increased from about 2 percent to about 4 percent of the population this century, and shows no indication of leveling off or decreasing, LOL. So the current unemployement rate of 4.7% is realistically about 8.7%

It'd be a shame to suppress or resent improved productivity from automation because the local social policy was messed up. A nation made wealthy from technology could choose to organize its healthcare differently.

Yes but that doesen't solve the problem. For single payer healthcare to work people will need to make more money. The more money they make on mundane things the more likely they are to be replaced by automation.

It's a vicious cycle.

People make less money in Canada, the UK, Netherlands, etc. which all have single payer. It's cheaper.

I'm not saying it's easy to get there. But it can be done by popular will.

The bottom i.e. the majority of workers makes way way less money than in the UK, Canada etc.

Jobs are still jobs, though. If people are still employed then that means that there are still jobs for people to do.

There are always 'jobs' for people to do. I, for one, would love to have a dozen servants to do everything for me.

I'm just not interested in paying them a living wage.

Most of those temp jobs do not pay a living wage. They exist because of the largess of either government subsidies for the working poor, the largess of relatives of the working poor, or because said working poor are burning the furniture to keep warm. (And the government will have to bail them out when they reach retirement age.)

A job that doesn't, or can't pay a living wage is a net drain on the economy. It expects somebody else to subsidize the person working it.

This is true only when the alternative is a living wage job. A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits. Most companies that pay low wages would potentially not exist if they had to pay $15+ an hour today. At a minimum the price structure of goods would radically alter and the incentives to cut workforce would dramatically increase. The poor aren’t necessarily better off with higher salary if that salary is paid for by higher prices on everything they buy.

> A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits.

Unless the government could instead be paying that person to do something useful for all of society, instead of something that benefits only me. This election has shown that millions of people want meaningful work.

Like teaching and caring for children, filling potholes, building bridges, laying down light transit rail, digging trenches to bring fiber to slow-connection areas...

Every single time we talk about infrastructure, we are constrained by how broke the government is. Meanwhile, real unemployment is at 9%, and public funds are paying underemployed people to be greeters at Wal-Mart, and mowing lawns at the Google campus.

I also assure you that my subsidized servants will not be bringing down the price of bread at the grocery, for anyone - poor or otherwise.

Great point. The amount of infrastructure that needs upgraded in the USA is massive. Subsidizing shitty retail jobs is such a waste.

I don't completely believe that. Further, if these companies are not offering jobs with living wages, and expecting the safety net to pick up the slack, why are we not taxing the hell out of them? At least to the point where they pay back what they've drained.

Jobs are jobs there are just less and less of those who can pay a salary you can live from.

Not sure what you are trying to say.