What is remarkable is the instability so many people are living with. Add the real unemployment rate (including discouraged workers) to this rate of "churn jobs" and you have 15-20% of the population without a job or unsure if they'll have one tomorrow.

That's a scary number.

Nathan Newman

I guess many people will say something like this ... "sure it's tough. But economies need to be dynamic. That's the price you have to pay." Just for a moment I'd like people think "... price you have to pay for what?"

For cheap consumer goods and faster, less healthy food?

Is that it?

It can't be for more leisure time. Most people don't have it.

It can't be for dragging everyone's living standards up ... because the number of people in poverty is increasing. Nathan Newman again

It can't be for people's happiness and sense of general wellbeing, because surveys show those are going down. And insecurity and the increasing stress it causes is a big part of that.

Is it to stop jobs "flying" to the third world? Well, they only fly because governments choose to make it easy for them to fly.

It might be for technological progress. We sure have more cute tech toys now than ever before. And as a fully paid up technophile I think that's an important part of human culture and destiny. But then if you say to me ... "Phil, so you're happy to see billions of people in poverty around the world in order for Moore's law to bring you a faster computer next year." I'll admit, my conscience is uncomfortable. Maybe I'd be happy to get by on an old 286 in a world without starving kids.

So what is it that we're buying with this extra insecurity? Where's the cost-benefit analysis that shows it's worth it? I think we need one, because if we don't, some damned Marxist is going to come along and whisper ... "well, you know, really all this insecurity is there just to buy the wealthy capitalists more opportunities to get richer" and I'll have a hard time answering her.