Abandoned Malls into Solar Farms

why not bring back jobs so people have money to spend at the malls instead

"why not bring back jobs"? Really?

Here jobby, jobby. Come home jobby.

Jobs went away because corporations saw ways to lower labor costs and get tax breaks by sending jobs offshore. Yes, tax breaks.

The cost of off-shoring is a business expense that is deductible.

Just as the cost of bringing those same jobs back would be.

Ain't gonna happen. Trump is full of s**t if he says he can do that, and people are idiots if they believe him.

Those abandoned malls would make great prisons for use when we round up all the Mexicans and Muslims for deportation too.

Manufacturing will return,but not the way it used to be.

Most tasks will be performed by robotics.

Robots have come a long way in the last 20 years,and they are now able to work side by side with people without danger.

It is cheaper to have robots than even the cheapest labor,so the offshore jobs will disappear.

There will be an increase in the demand for technicians to maintain and repair the 'bots,but that will not replace all of the jobs that have been lost.

Eventually the techs will become obsolete,and the machines will fix themselves,or have other machines to do it.

My question is:Who will buy the products if everyone is unemployed?

Manufacturing will only come back when the tax/profit return makes it a good deal for Wall Street, not a good deal for America.

All robots need is power and someone/something to feed material to them.

Shipping costs are well matured and probably tax deductible already, so where's the incentive to move it back?

You're right to think that we will outsource all jobs to robots, this has been technically possible for a couple of years.

the question how people are going to pay for stuff is a valid one which some are trying to answer.

You could think about a global personal basic income. I.e. an amount of money you get just for being alive that is enough to meet your basic need above which you can earn more if you can/want.

Or we could go all out into a resource based economy, I.e. a system based not on "do we have enough money to ...." but a system that says the more logical "are there enough resources" (and since we live in a universe with limitless resources, most answers will be "yes").

For more info on the resource based economy or RBE I'd like to point you to the venus project at www.thevenusproject.com

But there might always be jobs that can't be outsourced to robots like science, personal coach, psychiatrists and the like. If nothing's available I hear youtube is a valid profession now a days

Why not turn them into rehab centers for the homeless, which is probably where we will all be in the near future if health care costs keep rising....

And a botanical farm down below.

How about vertical aquaponic farms with fish and other organisms integrated

OH, yes, robots will put a lot of people out of work. Mechanization has been putting people out of work for quite some time. The union coal miners got too greedy, so the companies replaced them with machines. It got where the machine was cheaper than the person. So, away went their benefits.

Robots are just machines. So, with so many people out of work, who is going to buy the product made by the machines. It will be like it is now. Those on welfare and the low paid people will buy the products. The reason we have so many people on welfare is to keep the economy going. Without enough buyers, the economy would shrink. The big boys know this. They don't want their company or stock to slip. So, they tolerate taxes to pay for the welfare. This is going to expand with rising unemployment. We are headed for a few super rich, a lot of super poor, and fewer in the middle. This could be lessened if more jobs were created by shorter work week, higher pay, etc. The extra cost to the seller would be passed on to the consumer and bypass the government supporting the poor. This will never happen. The big boys like the system the way it is.

Corporations have no conscience or soul.They live by $$ alone.

They hire executives with the same traits.

"I just want my life back!" (ring a bell?)

The shorter work week has already been assured by ObamaCare,with employers reducing work hours to below 35 hours/week to avoid health care premiums.

The remaining full time employees have to work harder to make up for it.

Companies have gone to 12 hr and 10 hour shifts,reducing the total number of employees and the related expenses,such as SS,vacations,insurance,liability,etc.

They encourage overtime to avoid hiring more employees.

An overtime employee is your cheapest overall cost.

Insurance rates for the employer are the same regardless of the hours worked.

No additional benefits to provide,as would be the case with another employee.

The philosophy seems to be work the employees into the ground,then when they wear out,replace them with younger ones.

One way to dampen this problem would be to make benefits and insurance costs tied to actual hours worked,for the employee and the employer.

This would encourage regular attendance,and remove some of the benefits of overtime for the employer.

If OT is really needed,it would encourage those that really want to work overtime.

Splitting a job in two doesn't increase the overall employment. You simply get two under-employed people who have to find a second job somewhere else.

As far as the subject of this conversation is concerned, in general, any use of a wasted resource is an improvement. If somebody want to do this, go ahead. It is better than using farm land and having to build power lines to connect them to the electrical network.

As it was mentioned by Randall in #2, this can be applied to any large building before it is abandonned... It may help keeping a few jobs alive.