Slashdot Mirror

AND the highest labor NON-PARTICIPATION RATE (remember you people shouted Obama's number? Eat it) and the historical trend is DOWN since dRumpf took office Jan 2017

AND the highest labor NON-PARTICIPATION RATE (remember you people shouted Obama's number? Eat it) and the historical trend is DOWN since dRumpf took office Jan 2017

The job statistics for the first quarter are poor, mainly due to an absolutely terrible jobs report in February: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit...

Still positive in February though, as much as you pretend it was terrible.

The guy saying "fake news *rolls eyes*", however did the old switcheroo: he is just talking about March

Hey idiot, I posted the EXACT SAME LINK you did. How is mine a "Switcheroo", when my link covers January-March?

You liars just can't help it, can you? What a retard.

I'll let you have the last response, since you'll just lie about some other damn thing. Ain't nobody got time for a serial liar.

You have to compare statistics over the same period.

The article is about the first quarter 2019: that is, January through March. The job statistics for the first quarter are poor, mainly due to an absolutely terrible jobs report in February: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit... First quarter 2019 is significantly down in employment compared to the 2018 average.

The guy saying "fake news *rolls eyes*", however did the old switcheroo: he is just talking about March. March did bounce back... although it would be hard to not bounce back after such a low report for February, and it's still not even as high even as the average for 2018.

This is strange. Didn't the President of the United States tell us he was creating more jobs than any President ever?

Lets see, you can choose to think about only number of jobs lost (although how many are truly lost, vs. just people being laid off...), while ignoring jobs created...

Of course if you do that, you don't actually know the total, do you?

Yep, more Fake News. What a surprise. *rolls eyes*.

27 days paid? You're clearly not the norm in the US.

https://www.thebalancecareers....
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/0...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/w...

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2...

So how many jobs went away with this record number of new robots in 2018?

Huh, that's funny... the unemployment rate went down in 2018, almost as if all these new robots don't actually decrease the number of potential jobs out there, but instead enable people to do new jobs which couldn't be afforded to get done before.

Non-competes are a problem, yes, but not the cause of wage stagnation.

As a general proposition this is correct. Most people aren't asked to sign non-competes.

Job mobility is higher than it's ever been, despite the rash of non-compete contracts.

Recent data seems to dispute your assertion. Non-competes are an issue in some places but they aren't a systemic problem because most people never sign one.

The main problem is that companies no longer value experience (except perhaps at hiring time but often not even then) and believe every employee with similar education is interchangeable.

They value it but experience does have limits to its value. Some companies perhaps don't adequately value experience like they should - usually to their long term detriment. On the other hand some workers think their experience is worth more than it really is. Remember that experience does not equal performance. I know lots of people with long experience who still somehow manage to be pretty bad at their job.

People that switch jobs the most are young people with the least experience. I don't think you'll find any hiring manager who thinks that people are interchangeable. That said they do have some constraints on how much pay differential they can offer for doing the same work. Experience doesn't matter once you are hired unless it translates into measurable job performance results.

So, two fallacies I see here, 1) Not all degrees are "cram and regurgitate" some actually require you to think. and more importantly 2) Many, Many jobs will not hire you without that worthless piece of paper that you paid over $50K for. I know, I used to educate myself in libraries. You know, FREE. I was a software developer in 1985, a field engineer, an R&D person, all without a degree, simply because I could PROVE I could do the job, but MOST big companies, well, they aren't hiring you without some external document that shows you (should be able) can do the job, hence that 'union card' we have that we call a college degree.

I spent the first 20 years of my working life working my way up into positions that normally needed a degree, then when HR could, they would lay me off, always because I didn't have the degree... and I would start all over again somewhere else.

With the degree, I have no such problems.

What can you do to save money on your degree (should you chose to get one):

A) Go to a good community college for the first two years, only taking courses that will directly transfer into the 4 year degree you want B) CLEP! I used this to earn 30 credits that succeeded in saving me from several thousands in tuition! https://clep.collegeboard.org/ C) Use the Bureau of Labor Statistics website to look into job outlooks. https://www.bls.gov/

D) Education for a job is one thing, learning because you are interested is another, do not conflate the two. You can do the second one for free at any good library in the US. The first one, your degree from the State University, for 1/2 the cost of the recognized name university teaches you exactly the same stuff...

Lastly, what is wrong with tech schools? What is wrong with learning a trade?

NOTHING! I know a guy who has his masters in Physics who makes TONS of money as a plumber, much more than he was making with the Masters degree. He reads research papers off of the Physics Archiv and enjoys having enough cash to do whatever he wishes.

Oh for fucks sake, the damage is done. How many jobs were lost already because of this bullshit tradewar.

Unemployment rate doesn't seem affected... so I'd say - none?

To an extent the insane, unneeded, unpaid for stimulus is likely offsetting some losses.

The better question is what is the average unemployment over the period it takes to return the debt back to where it was. That is a much harder question, since you have to face the consequences of everything. Sooner or later there will be another downturn. There always is. At that point we will be in much worse shape and the downturn is likely to last longer and be worse than it would have been.

Unemployment rate doesn't seem affected... so I'd say - none?

The unemployment rate measures employment, not specific jobs. It also measures into the past not taking into account anything in the future. All those GM plants that are closing? Yeah they aren't in your unemployment rate. That Harley Davidson plant that won't be built in the USA? That's not in the unemployment rate. Desperate people taking jobs as janitors after they lost their better paying jobs in manufacturing? That's not in your unemployment rate.

The only conclusion you can draw is that unemployment is low. Since this statistic is completely unchanged you can use this statistic in any way to talk about the affect of the trade war on jobs. There is no causation, and nothing in the data to correlate.

Oh for fucks sake, the damage is done. How many jobs were lost already because of this bullshit tradewar.

Unemployment rate doesn't seem affected... so I'd say - none?

You do realize that BLS doesn't utilize any homeless figures, and it does produce the U-6 figure you mentioned. What it does do is attempt to figure out who is no longer looking for work, so they set up a well published explanation of their methodology. So how is the US playing slight of hand?...or did you mean the media, who's doing the reporting of unemployment?

To be fair from one year to the next, you need to compare apples to apples. BLS also supplies that information https://www.bls.gov/ no "slight-of-hand" involved.

Real wages have been down for decades, and no, the Trump tax cut didn't change that https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

I have an MBA and I cannot afford to pay for the house I grew up in. My father paid for it on a single wage and hadn't finished college. It is easy to see where the culprits are: a high reliance on imports for manufactured goods and a significantly large share of earnings being diverted away from labour and going to the highest earners.

In general, corporate leaders have yet to invest the time and resources necessary to fully grasp the unprecedented ways that aging will change the rules of the game.

According to the BLS, the average employee is at a company less than five years. So...

1. Management really doesn't have to worry about this yet.
2. This management will be long gone by the time it matters.

Ten years ago, the software industry seemed a bit age-discriminatory, but even that appears to have reduced... for which I thank the participation awards given to fledgling Millenials, as they do seem to lack the confidence to try something that might not work, while expecting a Director or better position inside of two years. (This isn't their fault; I've hired several initially-entitled Millenials, and all but one turned it around within two years... but it does take work.) So as the young worker-pool shrinks and the experienced pool increases, I suspect adaptation will just happen. On a case-by-case basis until it's normal.

2 People work in most households so divide that wage by 2

Nope. The average American household has 1.3 earners.

Households in the bottom 20% average 0.5 earners. Households in the top 20% average 2.0 earners.

www.bls.gov

Except that manufacturing jobs in the US have been on the rise since 2010...
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

Graph from Bureau of Labor Statistics. If anything, it looks like the unemployment rate is continuing the trend that started in 2009, but is slowly leveling off.

Wage growth is up.

Unemployment bottomed out at 5% for the last year of the Obama Administration, then plunged after the election.

GDP was plunging during 2015/2016 and has since turned around.

The DJIA plateaued during 2015 and 2016 and exploded after the election.

NASDAQ followed the same trend as the DJIA, indicating the flat-line in growth was economy-wide, not just specific sectors

Manufacturing job growth is at a 23 year high

Basically you're making stuff up - the facts do not support your positions.

>It also ignores that their employees were on welfare and food stamps _before_ walmart hired them.
>It's not like they took a lower paying job at Walmart in order to get food stamps.

Ok, I might agree with your first point.

However, isn't the goal of having a job to obtain a living wage so that you don't have to continue relying on food stamps and welfare? Maybe even have some extra income for discretionary activities - rent a dvd, order takeout, vacation, etc?

On the flip side, by keeping the employees on welfare because of the low wage, aren't we subsidizing the company through our taxes, which, you know, fund welfare? I'd like to have my company funded through your taxes.

Current unemployment is sitting at around 3.9 percent. This is well into "full employment". As a result companies are having to consider pay raises, or risk losing their employees. Why is any company paying wages like it's 2010 - the peak of the recession?

If you told me that my new job paid so little that I had to remain on welfare, I would just turn down that offer and remain on welfare. Would YOU accept that job?

Wow creimer, you should let the BLS know about your method:

https://www.bls.gov/

I'm sure they will rectify the situation immediately!

https://www.bls.gov/regions/we...

You lunatic.

Wow creimer, you should let the BLS know about your method:

https://www.bls.gov/

I'm sure they will rectify the situation immediately!

https://www.bls.gov/regions/we...

You lunatic.

I'm aware. I used to be a federal employee. Most US companies start people out with 2 week, then after 5 years go to 3 week, and after 10 years offer 4 weeks vacation. I've also worked at several other large companies (over 10k employees) and this seems to be pretty standard. These sites back that up with stats from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics-

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/0...
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

The actual numbers are actually a little lower according to this - https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

And productivity has doubled in the last 20 years

In America, productivity has gone up about 30% in the last 20 years.

... and continues to climb

In America, productivity growth has been mostly stagnant since 2004.

If anything we need shorter work weeks and higher pay to absorb job losses due to increased productivity.

There is little historical evidence that increased productivity causes job losses. There is much more evidence for the opposite, and productivity improvements are more often than not correlated with rising labor force participation rates.

As workers become more productive, it is more profitable to employ them, so demand for labor goes UP, not down.

Countries with low productivity growth tend to have higher unemployment.

Predictions of job losses from productivity improvements are usually based on the zero-sum Lump of Labor Fallacy.

Thats work taken from a US citizen. Work taken from a person legally allowed to be working in the USA.

Preaching to the choir brother, I mean President Trump lowered the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% linearly between 2009 to present, so true, and that took an incredible amount of foreskin to do without even a wall.

At that rate, we'll have negative unemployment in His next term, and we can start hiring North Koreans on the cheap, or maybe they pay us, I don't know. I heard they like computers, and it'll be perfect, I love dim sum.

#makeamericagreatereragain
- True Republican

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

That's not a site, that is a page. https://data.bls.gov/ is a site, and another page on that site shows the U-6 rate as 7.4%. However, we know that the U-6 does not actually count all of the unemployed, by design, so we know the number is higher than that.

Pedantic, much? Heh

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used.

The U-3 has always been a lie, and a deliberate one.

BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

In that case, I'm at least glad to hear you will accept their figure... which is 7.4%.

So, if we use the U6 numbers (which I don't think anyone uses) https://data.bls.gov/pdq/Surve... (seems to be, alter back to 2006), it seems we were in depression numbers under Obama. Never the less, we are in a historic low. Still I'm amazed at how the Democrats really trashed the country right after 2008. That took some work. Combine that with the fact that Obama couldn't even pass a budget the entire 8 years he was President is nothing short of the worst in history. Can't blame it on the Republicans, he owned Congress his first two years. There is no excuse.

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

That's not a site, that is a page. https://data.bls.gov/ is a site, and another page on that site shows the U-6 rate as 7.4%. However, we know that the U-6 does not actually count all of the unemployed, by design, so we know the number is higher than that.

Pedantic, much? Heh

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used.

The U-3 has always been a lie, and a deliberate one.

BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

In that case, I'm at least glad to hear you will accept their figure... which is 7.4%.

So, if we use the U6 numbers (which I don't think anyone uses) https://data.bls.gov/pdq/Surve... (seems to be, alter back to 2006), it seems we were in depression numbers under Obama. Never the less, we are in a historic low. Still I'm amazed at how the Democrats really trashed the country right after 2008. That took some work. Combine that with the fact that Obama couldn't even pass a budget the entire 8 years he was President is nothing short of the worst in history. Can't blame it on the Republicans, he owned Congress his first two years. There is no excuse.

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

That's not a site, that is a page. https://data.bls.gov/ is a site, and another page on that site shows the U-6 rate as 7.4%. However, we know that the U-6 does not actually count all of the unemployed, by design, so we know the number is higher than that.

Pedantic, much? Heh

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used.

The U-3 has always been a lie, and a deliberate one.

BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

In that case, I'm at least glad to hear you will accept their figure... which is 7.4%.

So, if we use the U6 numbers (which I don't think anyone uses) https://data.bls.gov/pdq/Surve... (seems to be, alter back to 2006), it seems we were in depression numbers under Obama. Never the less, we are in a historic low. Still I'm amazed at how the Democrats really trashed the country right after 2008. That took some work. Combine that with the fact that Obama couldn't even pass a budget the entire 8 years he was President is nothing short of the worst in history. Can't blame it on the Republicans, he owned Congress his first two years. There is no excuse.

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

That's not a site, that is a page. https://data.bls.gov/ is a site, and another page on that site shows the U-6 rate as 7.4%. However, we know that the U-6 does not actually count all of the unemployed, by design, so we know the number is higher than that.

Pedantic, much? Heh

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used.

The U-3 has always been a lie, and a deliberate one.

BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

In that case, I'm at least glad to hear you will accept their figure... which is 7.4%.

So, if we use the U6 numbers (which I don't think anyone uses) https://data.bls.gov/pdq/Surve... (seems to be, alter back to 2006), it seems we were in depression numbers under Obama. Never the less, we are in a historic low. Still I'm amazed at how the Democrats really trashed the country right after 2008. That took some work. Combine that with the fact that Obama couldn't even pass a budget the entire 8 years he was President is nothing short of the worst in history. Can't blame it on the Republicans, he owned Congress his first two years. There is no excuse.

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

That's not a site, that is a page. https://data.bls.gov/ is a site, and another page on that site shows the U-6 rate as 7.4%. However, we know that the U-6 does not actually count all of the unemployed, by design, so we know the number is higher than that.

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used.

The U-3 has always been a lie, and a deliberate one.

BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

In that case, I'm at least glad to hear you will accept their figure... which is 7.4%.

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

That's not a site, that is a page. https://data.bls.gov/ is a site, and another page on that site shows the U-6 rate as 7.4%. However, we know that the U-6 does not actually count all of the unemployed, by design, so we know the number is higher than that.

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used.

The U-3 has always been a lie, and a deliberate one.

BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

In that case, I'm at least glad to hear you will accept their figure... which is 7.4%.

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

That's not a site, that is a page. https://data.bls.gov/ is a site, and another page on that site shows the U-6 rate as 7.4%. However, we know that the U-6 does not actually count all of the unemployed, by design, so we know the number is higher than that.

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used.

The U-3 has always been a lie, and a deliberate one.

BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

In that case, I'm at least glad to hear you will accept their figure... which is 7.4%.

Anything other than this site is BS:
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

It's 3.9%. That's what the last administration used, that's what they all used. BLS has the largest sample size of any survey, so it's valid.

Unemployment isn't at 3.9% and never has been. It may still be 10% or 20% depending on the rampant redefinitions that have neen going on since the Obama era.

I was interested, so I looked it up. The current rate of "official unemployment" plus "discouraged workers" (those who have stopped actively looking for work for more than four weeks) is 4.1%. Within the current definitions, the highest current unemployment rate is 7.4%.

https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

If you have any links to good information on the redefinition of "unemployment" please share.

Far more than 1 million unemployed in the US - closer to 20 million if you add in people who are working part time but want full time work.

Sure, but how many of those people are willing to move for a new job? Just looking at the data offhand, the unemployment rate in Imperial County, California is 19.3% while the rate is only 2.7% in Santa Clara County, California. If people won't even go that far for jobs, why would we expect the millions of Rust Belt unemployed to go to the theoretical new Apple factories in Nevada or South Carolina?

In August, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents to $27.16. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 77 cents, or 2.9 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to $22.73 in August. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

So, I guess unless you're a management type that inflation rate of 2.9%--the highest level since 2012--is probably going to hurt a bit. Given that this next round will effectively hit everything on the shelves of Walmart, things might get rather uncomfortable indeed for his voting base.

In August, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents to $27.16. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 77 cents, or 2.9 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to $22.73 in August. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

So, I guess unless you're a management type that inflation rate of 2.9%--the highest level since 2012--is probably going to hurt a bit. Given that this next round will effectively hit everything on the shelves of Walmart, things might get rather uncomfortable indeed for his voting base.

I don't know about the rest of /. but my wages have not kept pace with inflation.

You should really consider changing jobs then, because my salary has continued to increase far, far faster than inflation. I'm assuming you work in tech, of course. We struggle to find decent candidates and have to pay absurd sums to get qualified people. I've given several pay increases and promotions to keep staff this year alone. They say wages are stagnant but I can tell you that's not the case in tech from everyone I'm talking to and my (anecdotal) experience. Unemployment right now is unbelievably low and people are desperate for talented employees. Start talking to recruiters and consider moving to an area where your skills may be more in demand or look for remote work.

I never understood...

That is abundantly clear based on your nonsensical post.

Instead of making shit up in a failed attempt to prove your point, why don't you do a little research first? Start here: https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-...

HS Diploma: $712/week or $37k/yr
Bachelor's Degree: $1173/week, or $61k/yr

Sure, making up a number and choosing $10k/yr more per year makes college not seem worth it. Now redo your math with $24k/yr more. And don't forget to include the difference in unemployment rate and benefits too.

FactCheck is misleading you. Yes, Obama "added 11 million jobs". Obama also caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs (and for many of them, not regain them). The two statements are not incompatible.

To be precise, what I was referring to was the massive drop in labor force participation rate under Obama. And that's not just due to demographic changes, you also see in in the 25-54 male demographic.

Trump has improved the trends, with both a rising labor participation rate

Nope. It's been flat since two years before Trump took office.

and low unemployment numbers.

Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama.

But, I truly do thank you for illustrating the issue: Trump's rhetoric is at odds with reality, and his supporters would rather believe him than their own lying eyes.

If you stuffed $50k under your mattress about 5 years ago, it is now worth $46,347.31 in terms of purchasing power 5 years ago; by "saving", the government has stolen $3652.69 in just 5 years.

Inflation risk is just another risk to be considered

If you stuffed $50k under your mattress about 5 years ago, it is now worth $46,347.31 in terms of purchasing power 5 years ago; by "saving", the government has stolen $3652.69 in just 5 years.

PopeRatzo:

In fact, if you look at the numbers closely, you will see that the rate of improvement has slowed somewhat under Donald Trump.

Wrong. You need to look a little closer. Comparing black unemployment from the first 7 months of 2016, Obama's last year in office, to the first 7 months of this year, black unemployment has decreased by more than double this year. From January 2016 to July 2016, black unemployment went from 8.9% to 8.4% (a decrease of .5%). From January 2018 to July 2018, black unemployment went from 7.7% to 6.6% (a decrease of 1.1%). Black unemployment has been decreasing substantially and at a greater rate under Trump, and he's just getting started.

PopeRatzo:

And, if you were to go look at a chart of the wage growth, you will see that wages rose steadily under Obama and have fallen steadily under Trump.

Median income increased from the 3rd quarter of 2016 (just before Trump was elected) until now by about 50% as much as median income increase from Obama's inauguration until Trump's election. If you look closely at the chart linked below, you'll see median weekly wages only increased by $100 dollars from when Obama entered office until Trump's election, but from Trump's election until now weekly wages have increased by about $50. Again, not even 2 years in, and he's just getting started.

Median usual weekly earnings (second quartile), Employed full time, Wage and salary workers (unadj)

This is but one of many reasons why many consider Obama's economy a very stagnate one and Trump's an economy vibrant and coming back to life. With real GDP growth, record low unemployment numbers, and higher median wage, we're well on our way to being "great" again! MAGA!

See, this requires a little thought.on your part. You have to look at a graph of black unemployment numbers to understand what's going on here.

As you will see, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (run by the Trump administration), that the black unemployment numbers have been dropping steadily since the recession ended in early 2010. They fall steadily through the Obama administration and the slope of decline is unchanged. In fact, if you look at the numbers closely, you will see that the rate of improvement has slowed somewhat under Donald Trump.

https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

And, if you were to go look at a chart of the wage growth, you will see that wages rose steadily under Obama and have fallen steadily under Trump.

Linking to some news stories without understanding the numbers can lead to some incorrect conclusions, and we wouldn't want that to happen. You're welcome.

"Women do not like confrontation or long hours" I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.

Would the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics be considered "half-decent"?

The cost of computers has come down over the years, and cars are more like computers than they are like CDs in terms of competition based on price.

Then why is the cost of cars going up so much?

Just like CD prices came down after all the music companies recouped the cost of switching from making cassettes?

Why CDs are expensive Hint: the cost of the actual CD technology always was a small fraction of the record company costs.

Also, cars are not the same as CDs. Honda, Nissan, and Ford might all be selling a similar car at a similar price; but if you want the latest music by $ARTIST you don't have a choice of multiple companies selling that music. Only if music consumers said "I'm not loyal to $ARTIST but rather to $GENRE" and shopped on price would the two be comparable. I don't even pay attention to what company makes the CDs of my favorite artists; I buy the specific music I like.

There are some people who are very brand loyal and will buy a particular car brand no matter what, but those are IMHO few when we are talking about the low end of the car market. (It's different with prestige brands like BMW, Mercedes, etc.)

The cost of computers has come down over the years, and cars are more like computers than they are like CDs in terms of competition based on price.

Given that as of today only 60% of people 16 and older work, needing 50% to sustain mere livelihood seems unreasonable.

While I agree the current agricultural model needs support from various others, I do think the remainder 8% employed is sufficient (approximately 20 million people). This is mainly due to how little support agriculture actually needs.

For example, there are 5.9 million working in "Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations", and of those, only 42,000 are "farm equipment mechanics and service technicians". Much of the remainder, such as auto mechanics, would not be necessary in a world where 90% of the people don't need to work and thus don't need cars.

Another way to look at it is that the service industry employs 125 million out of 156 million workers. No matter how you slice that, most of them will not be necessary to keep the farms going, especially given modern agriculture predates most of those jobs.

Of course, any number between 0% and 90% would be possible, depending on the amount UBI provides and human psychology. Neither of which we know right now, and the latter being impossible to know until we actually try it.

Given that as of today only 60% of people 16 and older work, needing 50% to sustain mere livelihood seems unreasonable.

While I agree the current agricultural model needs support from various others, I do think the remainder 8% employed is sufficient (approximately 20 million people). This is mainly due to how little support agriculture actually needs.

For example, there are 5.9 million working in "Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations", and of those, only 42,000 are "farm equipment mechanics and service technicians". Much of the remainder, such as auto mechanics, would not be necessary in a world where 90% of the people don't need to work and thus don't need cars.

Another way to look at it is that the service industry employs 125 million out of 156 million workers. No matter how you slice that, most of them will not be necessary to keep the farms going, especially given modern agriculture predates most of those jobs.

Of course, any number between 0% and 90% would be possible, depending on the amount UBI provides and human psychology. Neither of which we know right now, and the latter being impossible to know until we actually try it.