What Are the Factors Which Led the Economic Growth in India to Be Termed As Jobless Growth?

India is the land of 125 crore people. So the amount of problem it has, is also enormous. But the most important problem in India is Joblessness.

India has been facing this menace since Independence. But now it has been height of joblessness. Education awareness is increasing rapidly but the job creation is not increasing at that pace.

With the advent of Automation and Robotization,more jobs are to be lost in coming times. More than 2 to 3 crore Graduates are applying for various Government Competitive Exams. The vacancies are negligible in comparison to the people applying for it.

The next biggest obstacle in getting Government job is huge reservation. The other obstacle is that whenever a general category student vacates his seat, it is given to the SC / ST candidate. Thus it continuously reduces the space for General categorys meritorious students.

The another difficult obstacle is that less literate people are given priority in Government Sectors like B. Ed holders are given preference to Engineers, Accountants, M.Com.

& M. Sc. holders.

Two year B.Ed course is required in TET jobs for which vacancies are released in large numbers. But again less talented and less deserving people get into this.

The next thing is Private Sector. The top 106 people of India have collectively 388.9 B $ which amounts to 24.

89 Lakh Crores (1$ 64 Rs) (According to Forbes Billionaires List for 27 July 2017). This amount is so huge that they can use it to create atleast a Crore jobs, but they wont. because they are not to do social service.

They are all here to just do business. The private companies treat their employees so badly like a low-class labour. They do not have even little sympathy for their employees (especially the lower rank employees).

They treat as they are their slaves. The self-respect of the lower rank employees is completely lost. The salary structure is too low for lower rank employees that it is even difficult to survive at that salary.

The ratio of the highest and the lowest salary can go upto 1 crore times. (The salary for the lowest is Rs 3000/- and salary for the highest is Rs 3000 Crores). There is absolutely no job security in Private Sector.

They give targets which is very difficult to achieve and when this target is not achieved, they fire their employees. The lower rank employee is pressurized by his immediate boss to achieve target because the salary of the boss is directly linked to the target achieved. Their is huge politics in Private Sector in granting benefits and salary hikes to their favourites.

I praise Subrata Roy Sahara because atleast he created more than a million jobs (Nevertheless whatever he did wrong needs to be punished for). He was, at one time next biggest recruiter to Indian Railways. India needs people like him who do mass scale recruitment to actually narrow the problem of Unemployment.

It is practically upto the top 1000 Richest People of our country & up to the Central & State Governments who can considerably reduce this problem. 1 View.

· Other Questions

How will the SEC's approval of Title III affect Silicon Valley in 2016?

Short term, it might have an uptick for startups in 2016, but over the long term, I think it will be a bust for both investors and startups.For startups.I think it is a myth that they are capital starved at the level of their first $1mm and that we are but one less set of government regulations away from unleashing the true promise of Silicon Valley.

The reality is that I do not see good deals fail for lack of angel money. Its probably the opposite which is that there are too few good deals. And in the last year or two, I've read about the Seed Funding Chasm which is the gap between the large number of companies securing seed funding and the amount of professional investing taking place.

Unlike current non equity based crowdfunding, this crowdfunding involves making these small investors shareholders and giving them shareholder rights. That number of shareholders for that small a company is going to be a new drain on management that their predecessors or their competitors who take money in larger sums from fewer and more experienced investors will not have. For investors.

Angel investing is hard. Don't ask me, ask the angels, David S. Rose or Terrence Yang.

The hope is that the average casual invstor has the same chance of picking the next Facebook, as, well, David or Terrance. They don'tAngel investing takes lots of money. Successful angels do not succeed because they have the midas touch and can pick the next Facebook.

The succeed among other reasons becasue they spray and play. To generate good returns, they have enough money to spread out among 10-20 bets to diversify risk and enough money to support what they see as good investments when (not if) those investments get in trouble. So, like a good angel investor with $1mm for intial investments who makes 20 $50,000 bets, is it going to be worth your while to set aside $10,000 to make 20 $500 bets?

Angel investing takes work. These folks spend a lot of time and energy building a network to secure good deal flow and doing due diligence on deals. It is a full time job (because they are investing a lot of money).

They reject lots of deals. The casual investor putting in $5,000 or $10,000 simply isn't going to spend the same amount of time doing this level of research. And, of course, as discussed above, the casual investor should be investing $500 in 20 companies.

A lot more time. And if you're a start up, do you really want that number of shareholders? And those companies going the equity crowdfunding route?

They won't be telling you why they were unable to secure this kind of funding from traditional angels.Regulatory. What the feds giveth, the state may taketh away.

I have not followed the regulations to know whether they preempt state regulations or whether California has adjusted its securities regulatory regime to follow suit. If not, this may all be moot. All in all, my thinking is that is a solution in search of a problem and allows the less wealthy people who do not want to invest the time and energy to become good angel investors to be just as foolish with their money as the wealthy who do the same.

------

Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003?

Answer divided into motive, opportunity, and situation.Motive:- The US was still at war with Iraq.

No peace treaty had been been signed since the end of the first Gulf War, and there were periodic hostilities as the US enforced the no fly zones and Saddam tested them by lighting up anti-aircraft radars. - There were indications that Saddam had continued his attempt to build nuclear weapons, like stonewalling and hiding things from the UN weapons inspectors. It turned out that these weapons programs had been abandoned around 1991 (Iraq Survey Group Final Report.

) There's speculation that Iraq intended to create an impression on Iran and other regional actors, that they had continued with these programs. - Saudi had hosted large numbers of US troops since the end of the first Gulf War, and this was considered destabilizing. The fact that the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis was considered an indication of how much the US presence destabilized Saudi Arabia.

But as long as Iraq was a serious threat, neither side was willing to let the Americans leave. - I'm pretty sure "getting our hands on Iraqi oil" was not a motive, but concern about Iraq becoming a regional threat that influenced Kuwaiti and Saudi oil decisions was an important consideration.- There were people in the administration who had urged Bush senior to continue the first war.

A key part of their ideology was that democracies don't go to war against each other, so promoting democracy was a way of making the US safer. Their position was strengthened by Saddam's massacre of Kurds and genocide against Shi'a "southern Arabs" after that war, and by the ongoing cost of maintaining the no fly one.Opportunity:- 9/11 put the US on a war footing, and raised the level of anxiety both in the public and on both sides of the aisle, making it much easier to go to war.

- Post 9/11, there was considerable international sympathy and support for the US, so even though most countries were opposed to the Iraq war, there was less opposition than would otherwise been the case. - The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the nadir of Russian power at the time (and also the low point in Chinese power, still just a few years after 1989) made it much easier for the US to assert power internationally at that moment.Situational (mis)understanding:After the CIA failed so miserably in predicting and preventing 9/11, Cheney stopped trusting them, and ordered that raw intelligence come directly to the VPs office.

Without the professional level of assessing and curating intelligence, and since they were expecting the worst, they were subject to considerable confirmation bias. There was plenty to see, it was hard to assess, they were afraid of missing anything, and they expected to see Iraq doing something nefarious.Cheney believed that whether or not Saddam and Al Qaida were working together, in tandem they created a huge threat to the US.

His nightmare was a state-power entity that could build a nuclear bomb, that could potentially coordinate with a terrorist organization that couldn't be stopped by conventional nuclear deterrence. The neocons in and out of government, like Wolfowitz and Kristol, analogized from the rapid fall of the Soviet Union and it's satellite regimes, and believed that if Saddam and the oppressive Baathist structures were removed by an invasion, Iraq would self-organize as a democracy - the Iraqi people were educated, secular, and rich. Without the dictator they would choose democracy and have the means to implement it