There aren't many options left.
You have job experience now. Get a better employer or work for yourself. I doubt you're such a shitty worker that you can't get work anywhere else.
Suppose you have 10 people and 10 jobs.
And 100 potential jobs. The huge cognitive failure here is the ignoring of the creation of new jobs when old jobs get obsoleted. If jobs were truly fixed, then we'd have unemployment rates over 95% from the loss of jobs.
Capitalism cannot handle a situation where labour is not the resource that limits production.
Today is the obvious counterexample. Vast numbers of people are being lifted out of poverty as we speak. Just because the developed world chooses to cut itself off from the job-creating benefits of capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism can't handle situations where labor isn't the bottleneck.
Let us keep in mind that the actual regulation of labor in the developed world deliberately attempts to create the outcome of high labor scarcity with high wages and benefits, making it hard to fire people, etc. But all that does is serve to reduce demand for developed world labor further. You are right in that capitalism handles labor bottlenecks (whether natural or artificially induced via policy) well. Here, employers employ more people from the developing world and automate much of what they can't outsource.
The only real question at this point is whether it'll collapse into a dystopia where the poor are kept down by brute force, or incorporate sufficient income redistribution to guarantee a middle-class minimum income. US is trapped to the former fate by the aftereffects of Cold War rhetoric, but Europe and Japan have hope. And China, of course, is a dystopia as is.
You could always man up. Even the US is not "trapped". This is a choice. Bad things happen, here, the labor competition from the developing world (from the point of view of the developed world, which is the loser in this competition). Countries like China and India are making choices that tend to make them better places to live. China in particular still is something of a dystopia, but a dystopia that sucks less than it did a few decades ago.
Meanwhile, most of the developed world makes poor choices and as a result, they are worse places to live than just due to the problems of globalization. Everything gets blamed on the wealthy, but there's always been wealthy and greed. Most of the world is actually doing much better despite today's wealth and greed.
The real explanation here is supply and demand. The supply of labor available to the global economy has gone up a lot. Meanwhile, the highest priced portion of that labor, rather than implementing ways to make themselves more attractive to employers and hence, increasing demand for their labor, has instead punished employers, making their labor even less valuable than it would be normally. Increasing supply coupled with suppressing demand for the highest priced labor naturally explains the problems of the developed world.
According to the article they do.
The article is just outright wrong. Jobs are still created in the usual ways. The pattern hasn't changed. They just aren't being created in the developed world.
You may be too young to remember, but this "Congress has to learn to live within a budget" drumbeat has been going on since at least 1980.
This sort of thing has been going on at least since the dawn of the US. For example, the earliest period consisted of paying down the debt from two wars, the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 (both were fights with the UK).
So, the "right" appears to be very good at reducing taxes, but not very good at reducing spending. The "left" is not very good at reducing spending, but at least they seem to realize that income has to rise to meet spending.
Except if we increase income, then they'll realize once again in a few years that income has to rise to meet spending. There's this destructive pattern of behavior.
Maybe the developed world ought to think about how to get a piece of the action rather than muse whether a 4 day work week or a new Soylent Green recipe will help - it won't. If you want employment to have value, then you need to encourage it, not regulate, limit, and penalize it to death. No need to "modestly" speculate how to deal with the human excess of unemployed created by your shitty labor policies when that excess could be doing something useful instead.
Finally, we ought to think about why fake stories like this are so popular.
We used to have a good health insurance system, good public transport and an excellent mail service, all state financed.
And also a democracy, if I recall correctly. One wonders why the electorate thought it a good idea to vote for those darn ravishers of near perfection.
and that costs money
It's worth remembering here that what's being paid for is a huge amount of corruption. That costs money too.
You didn't mention raise taxes.
Why should that matter? Without some sort of financial discipline, it'd just be more money flushed down the drain.
This American is tired of the rightards false equivalences.
You're the one making the "rightard" equivalence between lowering spending and raising taxes.
Yeah, it's hard to see why the article frames this as an indictment of NASA's bureaucracy, given the article explicitly says a senator from Mississippi explicitly forbid them from stopping construction.
They could have always called his bluff, if they cared. The reality is that they were probably buying the senator's vote for other similarly useless spending by NASA.
How can NASA spend their budget effeciently when congressional representatives decide what they are allowed and required to work on?
What's the point of the question? If we, say, double the budget for NASA, congressional representatives will still decide what the money gets spent on. Congressional behavior can be changed just as NASA behavior can.
While the unmanned part of NASA is not quite as inefficient, it still prioritizes the spending of public funds (usually via development of new one-off projects) over the purposes for which those funds are allegedly spent (such as exploration of the Solar System or the study of Earth-side physical systems).
Between the two, that's a great majority of NASA's funding spent in terrible ways for at least four decades.
In that light, I think it reasonable to ask that before we increase NASA's budget, we insure that it spends its present, quite ample funding in a much more efficient way now. No more non sequiturs about how it's unfair that the big boys like the military or Medicare get to do that. Or terrible spin off arguments that totally ignore that most of NASA's spin offs would have happened anyway, the only meaningful difference being that NASA socialized the costs. Or terrible intangible benefit arguments that argue NASA does this really great but vague thing like international cooperation or inspiration, but nothing that we would spend our own money on.
And narrative thinking comes much more naturally than statistical thinking.
I notice that once again, we're heavy on "narrative thinking" and light on actual evidence.