I find this chart very interesting, because it shows how low unemployment was in the early 1900s. I suspect most people don't know this. It also hints at, therefore, a possible trending of unemployment upwards, which somewhat disagrees with the classical economic thesis that increasing production efficiencies lead to lower unemployment; if there's one thing we can all agree on about the last century or so, it is that technological developments have increased production efficiencies.
Here is a chart I put together from ILO data which suggests that even the proportion of the global workforce in work can fall during periods of global GDP growth:
And as I have posted elsewhere, the natural level of unemployment, which is a measure of the supposed healthy amount of unemployment in an economy, has been climbing over the last 100 years too. Economists seem to think that the current level of healthy unemployment is about 7 to 7.5%. The pre-war level (if I'm not mistaken) was around 3-3.5%. That unemployment was under 2% in the early 1900s tells its own story. So even though I accept, to a limited degree (see post below) that technological developments lead to new work and new jobs, the idea that it leads to more work being done by humans is not born out by the actual facts.
I am an autodidact fascinated with the ramifications of a resource-based economy (RBE). This blog is an ongoing attempt to toss around ideas I believe relevant to the RBE idea, in the hope that any mistakes I make in my thinking will be exposed by your responses, and by time. To appreciate the RBE direction as a pragmatic (not fantastical) and wise (not cerebral) train of thought for generating a sustainable and people-/environment- (not profit-/market-)centred economics takes dedication and study across many disciplines, but perhaps the best starting point is the recognition that infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet.