viernes, 24 de enero de 2014

Creación de empleo en 2014,2015.............

Aquí tenemos unos párrafos del periódico  "The Economist" del 18.01.2014. (  Me parece muy interesante en el sentido que trata de una evolución muy que probable de la creación del empleo en el futuro.

Los que piensan que vamos crear plazas de trabajo en 2014, 2015 y más , deberían también pensar donde  vamos a crearles. ¿que serán las tecnologías del futuro? lamentablemente muchos de los parados actuales no van a encontrar empleo debido al hecho que el empleo mismo ha cambiado fundamentalmente. Hay una asimetría entre la oferta y la demanda de trabajo.
Si la estudie de Oxford fuera que parcialmente correcta,  entre 40 y 50% de los puestos actuales van a ser automatizados.  Ya hoy en día falta gente para 1 000 000 de plazas con especialización en informática en Europa.
Conclusión: plazas de trabajo hay solo falta la formación adecuada. Entonces si no cambiamos de rumbo en la formación y la orientación del alumnado y de la gente en general vamos a tener una sociedad que pudiera conocer a medio o largo plazo conflictos sociales que no son a minimizar.
Es interesante que tenemos muchas paralelas con el inicio de la revolución industrial y a veces es importante recordarse de la historia, adaptar los conceptos a los tiempos modernos y intentar corregir los errores del pasado para el bien del futuro.
Tengo la impresión que algunos gobiernos del viejo continente no están preparados ni saben por donde van los tiros. Entonces buena suerte, buenos sueños y que no despierten y se encuentren en una pesadilla!

Technology and Jobs     | From the print edition of the economist

Coming to an office near you

The effect of today’s technology on tomorrow’s jobs will be immense—and no country is ready for it .       

INNOVATION, the elixir of progress, has always cost people their jobs. In the Industrial Revolution artisan weavers were swept aside by the mechanical loom. Over the past 30 years the digital revolution has displaced many of the mid-skill jobs that underpinned 20th-century middle-class life. Typists, ticket agents, bank tellers and many production-line jobs have been dispensed with, just as the weavers were

For those, including this newspaper, who believe that technological progress has made the world a better place, such churn is a natural part of rising prosperity. Although innovation kills some jobs, it creates new and better ones, as a more productive society becomes richer and its wealthier inhabitants demand more goods and services. A hundred years ago one in three American workers was employed on a farm. Today less than 2% of them produce far more food. The millions freed from the land were not consigned to joblessness, but found better-paid work as the economy grew more sophisticated. Today the pool of secretaries has shrunk, but there are ever more computer programmers and web designers
Even if new jobs and wonderful products emerge, in the short term income gaps will widen, causing huge social dislocation and perhaps even changing politics. Technology’s impact will feel like a tornado, hitting the rich world first, but eventually sweeping through poorer countries too. No government is prepared for it.
Why be worried? It is partly just a matter of history repeating itself. In the early part of the Industrial Revolution the rewards of increasing productivity went disproportionately to capital; later on, labour reaped most of the benefits. The pattern today is similar. The prosperity unleashed by the digital revolution has gone overwhelmingly to the owners of capital and the highest-skilled workers. Over the past three decades, labour’s share of output has shrunk globally from 64% to 59%. Meanwhile, the share of income going to the top 1% in America has risen from around 9% in the 1970s to 22% today. Unemployment is at alarming levels in much of the rich world, and not just for cyclical reasons. In 2000, 65% of working-age Americans were in work; since then the proportion has fallen, during good years as well as bad, to the current level of 59%.
Worse, it seems likely that this wave of technological disruption to the job market has only just started. From driverless cars to clever household gadgets (see article), innovations that already exist could destroy swathes of jobs that have hitherto been untouched. The public sector is one obvious target: it has proved singularly resistant to tech-driven reinvention. But the step change in what computers can do will have a powerful effect on middle-class jobs in the private sector too.
Until now the jobs most vulnerable to machines were those that involved routine, repetitive tasks. But thanks to the exponential rise in processing power and the ubiquity of digitised information (“big data”), computers are increasingly able to perform complicated tasks more cheaply and effectively than people. Clever industrial robots can quickly “learn” a set of human actions. Services may be even more vulnerable. Computers can already detect intruders in a closed-circuit camera picture more reliably than a human can. By comparing reams of financial or biometric data, they can often diagnose fraud or illness more accurately than any number of accountants or doctors. One recent study by academics at Oxford University suggests that 47% of today’s jobs could be automated in the next two decades.
Many of the jobs most at risk are lower down the ladder (logistics, haulage), whereas the skills that are least vulnerable to automation (creativity, managerial expertise) tend to be higher up, so median wages are likely to remain stagnant for some time and income gaps are likely to widen.
Anger about rising inequality is bound to grow, but politicians will find it hard to address the problem.

viernes, 17 de enero de 2014

Escandalo en Francia

    Escándalo en Francia es el titulo del reciente articulo de P. Krugmann en la NY-times.  Krugmann no quiere intervenir en la vida privada y intima del presidente galo pero ha  utiliza el tema para cargar contra una posición que normalmente hoy en día solamente los  puros adictos a la política de austeridad de la derecha y los más allá  están utilizando. Así el presidente se aliña a la línea de los duros en Europa y el riesgo que tenemos es el mismo de hace cuatro años cuando bajo la batuta alemana los demás países de gobierno neoclásico empezaban a matar los pocos brotes verdes que habían tras la inyección masiva de dinero en las economías de los países desarrollados.  
I haven’t paid much attention to François Hollande, the president of France, since it became clear that he wasn’t going to break with Europe’s destructive, austerity-minded policy orthodoxy. But now he has done something truly scandalous.
I am not, of course, talking about his alleged affair with an actress, which, even if true, is neither surprising (hey, it’s France) nor disturbing. No, what’s shocking is his embrace of discredited right-wing economic doctrines. It’s a reminder that Europe’s ongoing economic woes can’t be attributed solely to the bad ideas of the right. Yes, callous, wrongheaded conservatives have been driving policy, but they have been abetted and enabled by spineless, muddleheaded politicians on the moderate left.

Right now, Europe seems to be emerging from its double-dip recession and growing a bit. But this slight uptick follows years of disastrous performance. How disastrous? Consider: By 1936, seven years into the Great Depression, much of Europe was growing rapidly, with real G.D.P. per capita steadily reaching new highs. By contrast, European real G.D.P. per capita today is still well below its 2007 peak — and rising slowly at best.
Doing worse than you did in the Great Depression is, one might say, a remarkable achievement. How did the Europeans pull it off? Well, in the 1930s most European countries eventually abandoned economic orthodoxy: They went off the gold standard; they stopped trying to balance their budgets; and some of them began large military buildups that had the side effect of providing economic stimulus. The result was a strong recovery from 1933 onward.
Modern Europe is a much better place, morally, politically, and in human terms. A shared commitment to democracy has brought durable peace; social safety nets have limited the suffering from high unemployment; coordinated action has contained the threat of financial collapse. Unfortunately, the Continent’s success in avoiding disaster has had the side effect of letting governments cling to orthodox policies. Nobody has left the euro, even though it’s a monetary straitjacket. With no need to boost military spending, nobody has broken with fiscal austerity. Everyone is doing the safe, supposedly responsible thing — and the slump persists.
In this depressed and depressing landscape, France isn’t an especially bad performer. Obviously it has lagged behind Germany, which has been buoyed by its formidable export sector. But French performance has been better than that of most other European nations. And I’m not just talking about the debt-crisis countries. French growth has outpaced that of such pillars of orthodoxy as Finland and the Netherlands.

It’s true that the latest data show France failing to share in Europe’s general uptick. Most observers, including the International Monetary Fund, attribute this recent weakness largely to austerity policies. But now Mr. Hollande has spoken up about his plans to change France’s course — and it’s hard not to feel a sense of despair.
For Mr. Hollande, in announcing his intention to reduce taxes on businesses while cutting (unspecified) spending to offset the cost, declared, “It is upon supply that we need to act,” and he further declared that “supply actually creates demand.”
Oh, boy. That echoes, almost verbatim, the long-debunked fallacy known as Say’s Law — the claim that overall shortfalls in demand can’t happen, because people have to spend their income on something. This just isn’t true, and it’s very much not true as a practical matter at the beginning of 2014. All the evidence says that France is awash in productive resources, both labor and capital, that are sitting idle because demand is inadequate. For proof, one need only look at inflation, which is sliding fast. Indeed, both France and Europe as a whole are getting dangerously close to Japan-style deflation.

So what’s the significance of the fact that, at this of all times, Mr. Hollande has adopted this discredited doctrine?
As I said, it’s a sign of the haplessness of the European center-left. For four years, Europe has been in the grip of austerity fever, with mostly disastrous results; it’s telling that the current slight upturn is being hailed as if it were a policy triumph. Given the hardship these policies have inflicted, you might have expected left-of-center politicians to argue strenuously for a change in course. Yet everywhere in Europe, the center-left has at best (for example, in Britain) offered weak, halfhearted criticism, and often simply cringed in submission.
When Mr. Hollande became leader of the second-ranked euro economy, some of us hoped that he might take a stand. Instead, he fell into the usual cringe — a cringe that has now turned into intellectual collapse. And Europe’s second depression goes on and on.

viernes, 13 de diciembre de 2013

La globalización

¿Qué pensamos de globalización?
¿La globalización cuesta plazas de trabajos o esta creando plazos?
¿El famoso desplazamiento ("outsourcing") esta bueno o malo?

El hecho actual es que el paro crece o no baja de manera sustancial en los países desarrollados, se destruyen plazas de trabajo y las empresas se buscan la vida fuera de los países tradicionales. Al mismo tiempo hay un montón de plazas vacías, falta de mano de obra cualificada.

miércoles, 27 de noviembre de 2013


Muy bienvenidos a mi blog de la voz critica en economía. Aquí podemos hablar de conceptos económicos y analizar si la teoría encaja con la practica que vemos cada día.
Empezamos directamente:
¿Que penséis de AUSTERIDAD y de la aplicación que se hace en nuestro entorno?