<p>You forgot a key variable in the equation: <strong>prices</strong>. </p>

<p>If there is the same amount of money chasing an increasing number of goods (which happens when more workers are employed in the economy), then prices will fall. This has been formalised in the so called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Quantitative Theory of Money</a>. The key equation is:</p>

<p>$$ MV=PQ$$</p>

<p>M is money, P are prices, Q is production, and V is velocity of money (disregard for the moment). If M is fixed but Q increases, then P falls. That restores the balance.</p>

<p>This idea is very old, and it was set out very nicely by David Hume in <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL28.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"Of the Balance of Trade"</a>, published in 1752. Here is the key part of the text:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>II.V.9 Suppose four-fifths of all the money in GREAT BRITAIN to be
  annihilated in one night, and the nation reduced to the same
  condition, with regard to specie, as in the reigns of the HARRYS and
  EDWARDS, what would be the consequence? Must not the price of all
  labour and commodities sink in proportion, and every thing be sold as
  cheap as they were in those ages? What nation could then dispute with
  us in any foreign market, or pretend to navigate or to sell
  manufactures at the same price, which to us would afford sufficient
  profit? In how little time, therefore, must this bring back the money
  which we had lost, and raise us to the level of all the neighbouring
  nations? Where, after we have arrived, we immediately lose the
  advantage of the cheapness of labour and commodities; and the farther
  flowing in of money is stopped by our fulness and repletion.</p>
  
  <p>II.V.10 Again, suppose, that all the money of GREAT BRITAIN were
  multiplied fivefold in a night, must not the contrary effect follow?
  Must not all labour and commodities rise to such an exorbitant height,
  that no neighbouring nations could afford to buy from us; while their
  commodities, on the other hand, became comparatively so cheap, that,
  in spite of all the laws which could be formed, they would be run in
  upon us, and our money flow out; till we fall to a level with
  foreigners, and lose that great superiority of riches, which had laid
  us under such disadvantages?</p>
  
  <p>II.V.11 Now, it is evident, that the same causes, which would correct
  these exorbitant inequalities, were they to happen miraculously, must
  prevent their happening in the common course of nature, and must for
  ever, in all neighbouring nations, preserve money nearly
  proportionable to the art and industry of each nation.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-06T19:41:03.653Z
2017-04-06T19:41:03.653Z
luchonacho
<p>Yes, under normal circumstances there is enough money/resources for this.</p>

<p>Usually money always moves from one person to some one else: Your clients pay your company, your company pays your wage, you pay for your car, the car seller pays the manufacturer, they again pay wages, etc.</p>

<p>However, during recession or crisis people spend less money, for various reasons. This in turn effects the economy in a way that creates the unemployment/scarcity: You do not pay your car, so the car seller cannot order cars at his manufacturer, the manufacturer cannot pay all wages, etc.</p>

<p>BUT: You are right with the assumption that it's not possible for all people to <em>be employed</em>, as there also need to be a fair amount of entrepreneurs to employ those people. However, everyone can have a job (e.g. self employed, employ others)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-07T21:03:44.170Z
2017-04-07T21:03:44.170Z
Philipp
<p>If people work to get money/gold, and the money/gold is limited, then does that mean it is impossible for everyone in the world be employed?</p>

<networks>
Are there enough jobs for everyone?
hunter 2050
# Are there enough jobs for everyone?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-06)

If people work to get money/gold, and the money/gold is limited, then does that mean it is impossible for everyone in the world be employed?

**Tags:** networks

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-04-06. Score: 3

You forgot a key variable in the equation: **prices**.

If there is the same amount of money chasing an increasing number of goods (which happens when more workers are employed in the economy), then prices will fall. This has been formalised in the so called [Quantitative Theory of Money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money). The key equation is:

$$ MV=PQ$$

M is money, P are prices, Q is production, and V is velocity of money (disregard for the moment). If M is fixed but Q increases, then P falls. That restores the balance.

This idea is very old, and it was set out very nicely by David Hume in ["Of the Balance of Trade"](http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL28.html), published in 1752. Here is the key part of the text:

> II.V.9 Suppose four-fifths of all the money in GREAT BRITAIN to be
> annihilated in one night, and the nation reduced to the same
> condition, with regard to specie, as in the reigns of the HARRYS and
> EDWARDS, what would be the consequence? Must not the price of all
> labour and commodities sink in proportion, and every thing be sold as
> cheap as they were in those ages? What nation could then dispute with
> us in any foreign market, or pretend to navigate or to sell
> manufactures at the same price, which to us would afford sufficient
> profit? In how little time, therefore, must this bring back the money
> which we had lost, and raise us to the level of all the neighbouring
> nations? Where, after we have arrived, we immediately lose the
> advantage of the cheapness of labour and commodities; and the farther
> flowing in of money is stopped by our fulness and repletion.
>
> II.V.10 Again, suppose, that all the money of GREAT BRITAIN were
> multiplied fivefold in a night, must not the contrary effect follow?
> Must not all labour and commodities rise to such an exorbitant height,
> that no neighbouring nations could afford to buy from us; while their
> commodities, on the other hand, became comparatively so cheap, that,
> in spite of all the laws which could be formed, they would be run in
> upon us, and our money flow out; till we fall to a level with
> foreigners, and lose that great superiority of riches, which had laid
> us under such disadvantages?
>
> II.V.11 Now, it is evident, that the same causes, which would correct
> these exorbitant inequalities, were they to happen miraculously, must
> prevent their happening in the common course of nature, and must for
> ever, in all neighbouring nations, preserve money nearly
> proportionable to the art and industry of each nation.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-04-07. Score: 1

Yes, under normal circumstances there is enough money/resources for this.

Usually money always moves from one person to some one else: Your clients pay your company, your company pays your wage, you pay for your car, the car seller pays the manufacturer, they again pay wages, etc.

However, during recession or crisis people spend less money, for various reasons. This in turn effects the economy in a way that creates the unemployment/scarcity: You do not pay your car, so the car seller cannot order cars at his manufacturer, the manufacturer cannot pay all wages, etc.

BUT: You are right with the assumption that it's not possible for all people to *be employed*, as there also need to be a fair amount of entrepreneurs to employ those people. However, everyone can have a job (e.g. self employed, employ others)


---

