Pedro, you write:
Since the time that productivity exists (very long in fact), the unemployment rate should be close to 100% ...
The analysis can also read:
productivity => fall in prices => increase in the purchasing power of the average pequin who will spend this remainder on another item of consumption (new demand) => creation of other jobs (new supply)
This is perfectly correct at a given moment and assuming things are almost static, which is already wrong since the statement, since we are dealing with decreases and increases ...
In fact, and as I mentioned earlier, productivity increases do not automatically translate into lower employment: there is a shift from one sector to another and so on (from the agricultural sector to the economy). industry, then from industry to the tertiary sector), except that the process necessarily hinges on a terminal at a given moment. The tertiary sector was a refuge for employment as long as the computer revolution finally introduced a destructive productivity of employment. The old analysis of
Schumpeter The process of "creative destruction" only accounts for reality at certain very specific stages and, today, destruction largely takes precedence over creation.
As noted
Obamot, if we look at things from the point of view of demand * (and although the concept of "need" is highly suspect), we have to admit that the innovations which made the heyday of the world are not flourishing. after the war, no innovation likely to lead to the masses of purchases ** necessary for the remuneration of the mass of capital currently existing.
* Without even considering the question of purchasing power, which nevertheless constitutes a serious obstacle, although maintained artificially high because of continuous injections of fictitious capital.
** And which should be well above the previous wave of household equipment in household appliances and automobile, central heating, etc ...