And it is not Student Debt alone (scary as that might be in total). No. It is the uncertainty generally, surrounding the economy, which is increasing, that will threaten it it ultimately. Uncertainty that is the norm now precisely because so much instability has been pumped into both social institutions, and the physical systems that we exist in (and not dealt with because money, and human nature, gets in the way of everything). Instability that creates constant turbulence, which in turn destroys the smooth flows of either information, or material objects, through any complex arrangement of interdependent relationships, and processes.

And in this is the ever present display of the "Big Number."

Everybody in power loves big numbers. Nothing looks shinier than an appropriately framed, big number. That's why the jobs numbers work so well in selling the notion that the economy is just fine and dandy, thank you very much. When, in fact, it is not.

This can be especially so if the distribution of the increase can be seen, at the next lower level of aggregation (as in having it broke out in the broad categories of "IT," "Manufacturing," or value adding "services," etc.), as seeming to indicate growth in "good" sectors; manufacturing being one of them, as well as IT, and science/engineering, are often seen as; precisely in as much as both can be perceived for continued growth, and jobs that the rest of us might value because they pay better, and can be obtained without too much expensive retraining.

And let me be clear here. As a notion unto itself, and inside the old norms of Capitalism (reasonable profit expectations working with reasonable skill valuations, for reasonable, sustainable growth) there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The problem, of course, comes in when you have to start factoring for human frailty at all aspects of all of those "working with" parts of my previous aside. But going down that discussion path is not what I want to talk about here.

No, this is about how even big numbers in "good" job sectors don't necessarily mean more than a flaming bag of dog doo on your porch. And that is because you, nor the dummies who keep touting them, in their gross aggregate, have much of any comprehensive way of knowing, exactly, what either (a): prompted their hiring in the first place, nor (b): what actual work the jobs are to be applied to. And that is important because a whole lot of bad can be hidden in there. Doesn't necessarily mean bad is in there either, automatically, certainly, but that is precisely the problem. It could be either, and that variability could be as wildly fluctuating as the stock market itself is right now.

One of my main concerns with the "what prompted the hiring" question is how it pertains to whether the jobs represent reaction decision making in regards to some destructive event that has already occurred; because in this is the realm where spending for disaster recovery of all types (including, but not limited to, extreme weather events, or extreme social interaction events -- which is where things like addiction overall, and crime, and mental health) can be lumped. And of course it's a good thing that people can get work to help other people, but that can't, in my opinion, be seen as something to be viewed, by balanced economic thought at least, as a net positive for the economy.

There is also the idea that what prompted the hiring was just the last, quick, get rich quick, tech inspired, "disruption meme" (as in cryptocurrency, or dumping scooters, blades, or whatever else into whatever town, or city space); memes, and the whole point of their brief validity, that can disappear as fast as morning fog once the sun starts shining down. And... You know.... You can actually see what's going on.

How long do you suppose those jobs are going to last? Even assuming they are good jobs for the economy.

Then, of course, is the unexpected consequences of the work being done itself. Which is where you get to asking the deeper questions about what these people might actually be employed in. Important questions if you consider that they might be desired for hire in work that, say, reinforces the notion of a "Police State." Or work that creates a wonder product for whatever, that also, unfortunately, produces a terribly debilitating, side effect, in its use; or the manufacturing process spews out something awful, or whatever else a fevered imagination can produce.

How can any of that be seen, in the net, total effect, as something that is a positive for the economy as a whole?

And this is where we must segue into an, unfortunately necessary, "may you live in interesting times", description.

What if some clever systems guy (like Jeff Goldblum's character in the last remake of the fly) gets hold of the latest Nvidia, quantum processor enhanced, gagillion cuda cores, exo flopping, number crunching, Demi God box, and coordinates the hack of crunching optimal relationship correlations in the price fluctuations of all commodity, and corporate stock, markets. And in one, very precisely series of sequenced trades, ends up owning both majority shares of every publicly traded entity, as well as cornering every major commodity. Doing it so fast, and creating whatever shell companies, and blinds, and dodges, the regulators haven't even thought of yet, to keep it hidden from their monitoring systems, so as to trigger no warning, or electronic cutouts.

And what if he just keeps that a secret. Keeps it a very keepable secret because he ends up managing things better than the chaos that was trying to manage it, having things start to improve generally, at least for a while; that all important while, where he also begins to plan his real mission.

A matter transmitter that ends up intercoursing not only him all to hell and gone, as a new human-fly species, but the rest of us as well, as we are suddenly forced to deal with a new, very invasive species indeed?

Or maybe it's some other techo fantasy he has in mind, like the AI that will come into the world without us having any way of knowing, ahead of time, how it will regard us?

Or maybe it will be some horrible sexual fantasy that redefines sexuality from the genetics out (augmenting all the naughty bits way beyond the norm); combined with sophisticated new techniques for reprogramming people through various forms of controlled suggestion, via the environment, outright hypnosis, and the application of the right psychoactive drugs. New sexuality that conforms to his sense of what is errotic, and pleasurable, while the way we might like it be damned. For that simply won't matter any more.

Big numbers are shiny things, but let us not forget how shiny has been used to blind us to the truth so many times in the past. I am not asking you to believe in my interpretation of the various aggregates our economy generates, I am just urging you to always try to look deeper, and make sure, as it is both practical, and caring to do, to ask the deeper questions, so as to keep a proper perspective.

In my mind, the whole point here is to have citizens that can make truly informed decisions. What those decisions, and choices, are, after that, are up to each individual involved. That's why we need Democracy in the first place. Democracy that will let us all participate in the negotiations that must always be ongoing in a society. So as to work the difficult balance between the rights, and responsibilities, of both the one, and the many.