Software development can be a high skilled job but entry level skills can be obtained in months, which is not coincidentally, how much training time seems to be involved with learning to be a long haul truck driver in the USA (I see quotes of about two months of full time study for the formal exam around the internet so maybe call that three months when employer training time is included). Three months of full time study isn't going to make you a well paid programmer but that's plenty of time to learn basic web development skills, and another two or three after that with a good course will get someone writing basic CRUD business web apps if they want to. Of course, it's the start of the journey, but now think how many clueless developers you've encountered who are earning good money.
Can the software development world absorb millions of new developers? Sure, it has done in the past, think dotcom boom. Trucking won't disappear over night, nor will taxi drivers, if only because of limited capacity to upgrade vehicle fleets even assuming the technology becomes perfect (which it isn't), and not all drivers will become software developers.
Can you give some specific examples?
When attempting to change your password on the genealogy website Ancestry.com, you get this not-so-helpful message:
New Password -- Your new password should be between 5 to 24 characters long and can be any combination of letters, numbers, and some symbols.
Really. Some symbols. Not that they're going to tell you which ones. Oh no, that would be too easy. You have to guess!
It is a book. The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell, first published in 1970.
The author has a nice piece written on Amazon (the link above). Scroll down to "Editorial Reviews - From the Author". He basically says that he rehashed things he found in other books at the NYC public library. It was a good basis to start with, but it shouldn't have been the finished product.
It sounds like you're talking about all those random text files that have been in circulation for decades. Most of those are junk too, written by people who barely have a grasp of the subject material. I used to really enjoy reading them, and as my real-world experience grew, I realized how many of them were worthless noise.
Boy, are you going to be surprised when you figure out how the Soviet Union used to dispose of nuclear reactors from ships and submarines. At least with the U.S. one it was an accident.
A Russian government report acknowledged in March 1993, that "during the period of 1965 to 1988 the Northern Fleet had dumped four reactor compartments with eight reactors (three containing damaged fuel) in the Abrosimov Gulf in 20 to 40 meters of water." Six other compartments, containing nine reactors in all, had also been dumped into the water in the 1960s and 1970s.
As I recall, The Anarchist Cookbook was full of such errors. It ranged from simply won't work, to serious dangerous errors. I haven't read it since the 1990s, so I can't be more specific.
Another wonderful sources of questionable information was BBS and FidoNet text files. The best craptastic information worth almost as much as the price (free). I read quite a few almost interesting illegal drug recipes. Those too went from useless, to explosive and/or poisonous.
Yes, but you need to take into account Baby Boomers are retiring at an ever increasing rate, which impacts the rate. The age demographic of the nation plays heavily into the workforce participation numbers.
Actually, the numbers, as a percentage, haven't been this LOW since 1978. Go to the BLS, choose "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - LNS11300000", then change the date range to anything from as far back as 1948 to present.
Sorry, I'm totally non-partisan, being disgusted by political parties in general. It counts always.
And no, that number does NOT include those over the age of 18 only. The number it is based on is called the "civilian non-institutional population", of which the definition is:
In the United States, the civilian noninstitutional population refers to people 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (penal, mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
The age is 16+, which you can see in the BLS statistics for yourself.
So, it excludes young children, but assumes everyone 16 and older is working, which is a very outdated assumption. Retired doesn't count, unless you're actually in a nursing facility. Military doesn't count. Full-time students don't count. Housewives don't count. Etc.
There are too many caveats to that number for it to be useful as anything other than a misleading, FUD talking point. This article in the WSJ breaks this down nicely.
The real answer is complex, and you can't break it down to a single sound bite. I still maintain the U-6 is a more accurate representation for trying to convey the total unemployment/underemployment picture. I don't think you fall off of U-6 after a set period of time. As it is compiled from a survey, I think you fall off if you flat out say you've just given up looking.
While there are employment issues in the U.S., saying things like "there are 95 million people out of work" just isn't accurate. Most people have a basic understanding that there are approximately 300 million people in the U.S., and the go "OMG! 1/3 of the population is unemployed! Those people need jobs." And that just isn't true.
That the elections are over and Congress and the Senate are set for two years? The Republican establishment in power now is the one that will be in power until at least then -- not next year.
Using the number of Americans"not in the work force" is inaccurate and dishonest. That 95 million number includes both my parents, who are retired and living in a nursing home; my 18 month old grand daughter and my 8-year old son in elementary school; and my wife who is a traditional home maker and not interested in outside work.
None of the people in those categories should be considered in "unemployment" statistics, which is what you're doing by citing the 95 million non-working Americans.
U-6 from BLS is much more representative and is currently at 9.3â.... It includes people who want to work but have given up on despair, as well as people who want to work full time but can't get anything other than a few hours on a part-time gig.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.