There Will Never Be Enough Good Jobs Again

goodjobIt’s over. Except for a short moment or a wild and self-exhausting governmental mandate (both of which are doubtful), there will never again be enough “good jobs” to go around. That model is gone and we need to root it out of our imaginations.

Sure, there will be some good jobs, but nowhere near enough.

About half of the Western world is already on the dole in one form or another. 93 million Americans lack a decent job and have no real hope of getting one. And so long as the current hierarchies remain, things won’t get substantially better.

I’m sorry to dump that on you, but it’s better to face it directly.

But please bear in mind that I’m a confirmed optimist. Just because there are no “good jobs” doesn’t mean that we’ll all languish in a meaningless existence. Far from it. Once we get over our addictions to status, hierarchy, and dominance, a glorious future awaits us.

Why It Won’t Get Better

The standard response to what I’ve noted above is to call it “the Luddite fallacy.” That line of argument says that in the past, innovation has not wiped out jobs, that new types of jobs were created and filled the gaps fairly well.

And that statement is true. Individual jobs were wiped out, but new jobs came along and (more or less) picked up the slack.

However, that is not happening this time, and for a very simple reason: Adaptation is now against the law. Previous rises in technology occurred while adaptation was still semi-legal.

Please take a look at this graph and remember a simple truth: Regulation forbids adaptation.

The US government is currently spending $60 billion, every year, to restrain business activity. (And the EU is worse.) On top of that, reasonable estimates show that US government regulations cost businesses nearly $2 trillion per year.

And let’s be honest about this: The primary purpose of regulation is to give the friends of congressmen a business advantage. Why else would they pay millions of dollars to lobbyists?

So, the new jobs that should be spawned, will not be. Mega-corps own Congress and they get the laws they pay for. And mega-corps do not like competition.

Furthermore, the political-corporate-bureaucratic complex will bite and claw to retain every scrap of power they have, and small businesses will be their first victims. (They already are.)

Trapped Between Hammer and Anvil

So, the people who are hoping and waiting for a “good job” to pop up are trapped between hammer and anvil. Robots are starting to roll into the workplace while the job creators (small entrepreneurs) are in regulatory and economic chains. They can’t come to the rescue.

In the 19th century, all sorts of possibilities were open to entrepreneurs. This remained at least partly true, even into the 1970s, when I watched the business heroes of my youth having a gas while making piles of money.

It used to be that a clever person could get ahead, independently, and have a ball doing so.

Those days, alas, are over.

These days, to get rich, one needs to take government as a partner. If one does not, regulation and legislation are likely to destroy your business. At this point, many of us (myself included) have had businesses – good businesses that benefited everyone involved – crushed by legislation.

To avoid being crushed these days, you have to be smarter and fleeter of foot than everyone else. Not many of us can survive in that situation, and as regulations continue to rise, even that number grows smaller and smaller.

For the generation before of mine, independent success required ambition, but it was reachable. For my generation, only those of us blessed with unusual talent had a chance at controlling our economic destinies. For the young generation of today, it’s nearly impossible. These days, if you want to jump ahead, you need to be part of something big… and you need to start as a sycophant.


So, if you’re looking for the proverbial good job, stop waiting for “The Hierarchy That Is” to sort things out and get everything back to normal. Good jobs get fewer and fewer every year, and those that are lost won’t be coming back.

But… if and when you’re ready to change your thinking – to seriously change your thinking – this is good news too: You can reclaim the parts of yourself that you were ready to sacrifice to the “good job.”

You see, the “good job” was nearly as much a curse as it was a blessing. Yes, I know, steady wages and benefits are a very comfortable thing, but they also play right into a ridiculous, predatory script.

You know the one: where you struggle to display your status to all the other worker-bees. You feel like you have to do what the ads tell you: Get the new car, the bigger truck, the video player in the back seat, the gigantic TV, the most “amazing” holiday parties, the expensive shoes, the designer bags, the organic veggies, etc., etc., etc.

I would like you, please, to consider this quote from the boss of Lehman Brothers, just as the World War I production surge was failing:

We must shift America from a needs, to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old had been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America. Man’s desires must overshadow his needs.

Would you agree that their plan worked?

As long as you follow their script, you’ll remain in a permanent deficit mentality. No matter how much you have, you’ll always feel like you need more. It’s life on a shiny gerbil wheel. The “good job” kept us from knowing ourselves; it allowed us to sleep-walk through life. We got a “good job” and never developed ourselves any further. Work, retire, die, ho hum.

Then What?

So, if we forget about having a “good job,” what happens?

Well, it might very well mean that you do what you’re already doing, but you stop feeling bad about it. It means that you get over the endless grasping after status… of letting ridiculous ads define what “success” looks like… of letting other people define your self-opinion.

Letting go of the “good job” delusion means that you stop pining for the days when you could blow a third of your money on status crap. It means that you start taking pleasure in growing your own food, developing new ventures, and improving yourself.

It means that rather than begging politicians to ride in on a white horse and fix your world, you ignore them and start paying attention to your actual life.

Fundamentally, this means that we start using our own initiative, without seeking permission, and start building better things.

Rather than going on, I’ll leave you with two quotes, both from Erich Fromm. I think they are worth close consideration:

Our society is run by a managerial bureaucracy, by professional politicians; people are motivated by mass suggestion, their aim is producing more and consuming more, as purposes in themselves. All activities are subordinated to economic goals, means have become ends; man is an automaton – well fed, well clad, but without any ultimate concern for that which is his peculiarly human quality and function.

The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers.

Paul Rosenberg

12 thoughts on “There Will Never Be Enough Good Jobs Again”

  1. As a person who worked independently for many, many years as a sales rep for several companies, simultaneously, I am still benefitting. You know, you can’t turn off some of these connections; they have lives of their own. So now, when most other worker bees are retired (on govt doles), I still have incoming deals.
    So, no, I did not get a “good job”; I created my own in my own little world.

    1. My observation is that government doles will not be around as the USA federal system is at the end of the empire. Give it 2 to 2 1/2 years and then “poof”! No more magic dragon. Eighteen trillion and counting!
      Incidentally, I calculated that it would require 203 years to count to a trillion. Get counting as times a’wasting.

  2. I will agree with everything stated here, with one exception:
    “It means that rather than begging politicians to ride in on a white
    horse and fix your world, you ignore them and start paying attention to
    your actual life.”
    I certainly do not beg the politician. However, two things:
    1) Money (real money) makes the world go round. To have paradigm shift, one needs vast resources (capital). Resources on the level of GDP equal to the G7 nations.
    2) An unclaimed inheritance awaits the American people. It means and does absolutely nothing when The People sit idle and refuse to demand it. If we are a nation of The People, and Rule of Law, then we must act like it.
    What really happened here. Beyond and still most relative to Bretton Woods (’71), gold confiscation (’33), Federal Reserve System (’13):
    Yes, what happened here was economic terrorism. And real terrorism and terrorists exist. Just that, most of them are no where near the Middle East. And none of them are even Muslim.
    So much “individualism” and/or individual sovereignty can go so far. (See 1 Thes. 4:11-12; contrast with Rom. 13). We don’t live in that ideal world, though we are to strive for it.
    What is happening. What will happen. (It will accelerate with The People’s help and demand):
    Now both Ron Paul and before him Ross Perot actually won the presidency. But, The People were not keen enough to comprehend such. (at least not enough of them).
    So perhaps, it will take a “catharsis” to fully wake up The People, and then we can enjoy the inheritance that was literally given to us (for a time was stolen or hidden from us):
    So then. How do we now intend to get back what was literally stolen from us? ($31.2 TRILLION) Do we in fact, deserve it at all? You tell me ..

  3. To expect a person to have a good job in order to have a right to live after centuries of creating labor saving devices is inhuman it not insane to say the least. Naming our species homo sapiens (wise one) is recognizing our potential but leaves us currently a long ways to go to rectify our short sided shortcomings. One of first facts we need to recognize and rectify is the historical fraud from the very beginning in creating money which is the life blood of our social developments. Money is created from thin air and should be deposited equally in every adults bank account as it is created, Some call that “social credit”‘ That would only be fair play. As it is, bankers have the privilege of creating money out of thin air but hog all the benefits by loaning the money out with interest and to whomever is their choice. All loans are required to be paid back in full so where is the money to pay the interest coming from? More loans, of course! Then we wonder about the accumulations of such monstrous debts and the constant bankruptcies’ over time. It may be about time for a humane society for people.

    1. Elhughman is certainly intuitively sound in identifying “Social Credit” as an appropriate response to the issues posed by the modern age of super-production. However, the problem with banks is much deeper than the interest which they charge for monetizing the community’s wealth and involves the appropriation of the communal credit by their claim to ownership of the credits which they create.
      Increasing centralization of political and economic power is indeed the critical issue facing society. The primary obstacle to it’s decentralization is an almost universal ignorance of the manner in which the existing financial system renders the price-system evermore non-self-liquidating–making impossible the recovery of industrial production costs through sales. We attempt to resolve this problem by contracting bank debt so to provide access to the products of industry by the foolish expedient of mortgaging our future by transferring these costs as an exponentially growing debt charge against future cycles of production and by engaging in an orgy of wasteful and destructive activities culminating in continuous war. Neither Finance-Capitalism nor any form of collectivist organization (e.g., socialism, communism or fascism) can resolve this problem. A solution can only be achieved by an appropriate modification of the existing financial credit and price-system so as to properly facilitate distribution of the out-pouring of modern technology-based industry–in the context of expanding leisure.
      Socialism calls for State ownership and administration of the means of production—the central planning of the economy and of human activity. The key feature of socialism is centralized power exercised by mandatory employment in projects determined by the State. As such the suppression of individual initiative is an inevitable result. This applies to all forms of “socialism”—national or international in nature.
      Social Credit is the inverse of socialism. People have this notion in their heads that a sharing society is socialism, presumably because of an assumption that the sharing will be accomplished by re-distributing existing wealth by various confiscatory forms of taxation. It must be made absolutely clear to all and sundry that Social Credit stands for distribution of consumer goods at source as they emerge from the production line and not for re-distribution of earned incomes. Production and Consumption have no meaning, one without the other. The two must be matched and balanced. Producers’ costs cannot be recovered without money received from consumers, whose incomes alone provide business its only means to liquidate all financial costs of production.
      National (Consumer) Dividends and Compensated (lowered) Prices at point of retail sale must be provided and financed by a Government Agency (created or existing, whatever is most efficient and convenient) with funds not derived from taxation but drawn down from a properly constructed National Credit Account which would be merely a continuously updated actuarial accounting of the nation’s real credit, being an inventory of all those resources which are available to be used for production and which, if so used, may result in the making of financial prices.
      Unfortunately, the minds of the public are conditioned by a false assumption that the economic “pie” is limited to the financial incomes paid out in production and they perceive this as the only source of funding. This assumes, erroneously, that the price-system is self-liquidating, i.e., that incomes paid out as wages, salaries and dividends are not only equal to, but available, to meet the total financial costs of production. This is a major fallacy which is readily proved by the enormous amount of accumulating inflationary private and public debt created as loans by the banking system, which allows goods to be purchased after a fashion but does not liquidate their financial costs of production because these loans merely transfer these costs to be recovered from future cycles of production.
      The physical (i.e., real) costs of production are met as production takes place. Obviously if this were not the case, production could not proceed. That is self-evident and axiomatic. When goods are produced in finished form they are meant to be used and should be available to the overall consuming public in total and without any residual financial debt. Those persons whose services are actually needed deserve to be paid for those services but the money they earn is increasingly inadequate to claim all of the producers’ output. That is why we resort currently to new money created as debt by bank loans in order that we might carry on producing and consuming. This new bank-created money does not remain in circulation but is cancelled when used to purchase the goods in respect of which the loan was contracted. This accumulating debt is bogus and is required only because price increasingly includes, as real capital replaces labour as a factor of production, allocated charges in respect of real capital which are not distributed as income in the same cycle of production.
      Consumer income is cancelled prematurely, leaving a growing deficiency of income relative to total prices of goods awaiting purchase. The flow of final prices increasingly exceeds the flow of effective financial purchasing-power. We can simply forgo acquisition of these goods, leaving the producer no option but merely to warehouse or destroy them and go bankrupt—making the whole exercise of production with the objective of consumption a mindless exercise in futility. Or, we can assure that, while required remaining actual workers continue to benefit from their earnings, all citizens, workers included, benefit by gaining access to the full output of industry by being provided adequate purchasing-power to make this possible. In a Social Credit dispensation, Inheritance would be generalized. Socialism typically wants to destroy inheritance.
      Social Credit stands most definitely, un-ashameably and un-abashedly, for a sharing society—and as labour is increasingly reduced by technology it would become more sharing with the passage of time. It does not involve State ownership, planning or administration of the economy or of social organization as such. It is highly decentralizing of power to individuals to the extent that economic independence is made possible by full access to the increasing abundance made possible by technology. It is appropriate that acquisition of goods and services is available to those with earned incomes, but to limit distribution of goods and services to those with earned incomes when human work is increasingly eliminated as a factor in the production of such real wealth, is totally irrational.
      The abundance which technology makes possible should set men and women free from physical want, increasingly to choose independently and without duress their preferred activities in life. Social Credit gives real meaning to the concept of economic democracy as a consumer-motivated system of production—as opposed to the counterfeit socialist concept of economic democracy as a centralized proletarian Work-State.
      From a metaphysical standpoint Social Credit would be a practical, physical incarnation of the Christian Doctrine of Salvation by Unearned Grace—in contradistinction to the prevailing Judaic conception, and system, of Salvation through Work.
      I hope that the above comments may help to clarify the issues which you have raised.

      1. When I mention Social Credit, I am not advocating the A+B Theorem that C. H. Douglas makes a part of it. I have to say IMO the A+B Theorem puts a completely unnecessary complication to the operation of social credit in that without it social credit would still do a world of good in giving every adult equal opportunity in sharing the money created out of thin air. Then we might find out how true democracy or fair play benefits everyone in our society,. We might then at least be able to call social credit money as fair play money.

  4. I’ve been seriously ill for the past 12 years, but I’m getting well and expect to be able to work again. I’ve been thinking for over 10 years now that I won’t have a boss or work for a company ever again. And while I quite agree with what you’ve written here, I think the internet is a ray of hope in this situation. I plan to start making money again as a freelance computer programmer. and I’ll be joining the ranks of thousands, maybe millions of freelancers, and employers seeking freelancers, worldwide. And I hope to graduate from freelancing into starting my own business – on the internet, where I’ll have no physical property for local governments to have a stake in, and none of the expenses of same. Freelancers still have a very low profile, but Reason Magazine did an article on them recently and their theory is that it’s the freelancers that are throwing off so many economic analyses and projections. They simply haven’t been taken into account. The highest demand for freelance work now is for computer and internet expertise by far, but there’s also a healthy demand for writing, sales and SEO. I expect the current smattering of other freelance demands will also eventually expand into healthy ones. So the future is not all doom and gloom, for the adventurous on the internet anyway.

    1. Don’t impute your lack of knowledge to the entire world. You and your closest friends are not a significant sampling of the world population.

  5. What a quandary. About 1/3 of Americans are out of the labor force. Well meaningful labor anyway. 1/3 are gainfully employed. And 1/3 are heavily armed. What do we make of this situation?

Comments are closed.