Amnesty Bill for illegal immigrants defeated in Senate. by AURaptor

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And yet, even with the overcrowded world as it is today there is enough food for everyone - it's the poor distribution that causes starvation. There is more than enough air to breathe (though it's beyond its fluorocarbon and CO2 carrying capacity), and even fresh water to drink. The only ores that might be in short supply soon are oil and gold. But that is a much a problem of waste as anything else. So no, even now at this point there are no natural shortages - just human-created ones.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2. You're partly correct in why places with $1/day labor have high unemployment.

The highest employment goes to the nations with the highest productivity. Wage reduction is a bounded figure. You can only reduce wages to a certain point but then starvation takes over. OTOH you can increase productivity a hundred-fold or more with technology.

Cheap labor simply cannot compete with technologized labor.

Now, class... does anyone see where this is going?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And yet, even with the overcrowded world as it is today there is enough food for everyone - it's the poor distribution that causes starvation. There is more than enough air to breathe (though it's beyond its fluorocarbon and CO2 carrying capacity), and even fresh water to drink. The only ores that might be in short supply soon are oil and gold. But that is a much a problem of waste as anything else. So no, even now at this point there are no natural shortages - just human-created ones.

I think you’re confusing some things. Scarcity does not mean that a resource is necessarily in short supply. It just means that its use is not infinite or that trade-offs have to be made with regard to subjective demand. If there were no scarcity, then everything would be free and we would all have everything we want, in as much as we want, whenever we wanted it. And that’s clearly impossible. Scarcity is real.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If there were no scarcity, then everything would be free and we would all have everything we want, in as much as we want, whenever we wanted it."

No, you're confusing things. Let's take a primitive tribe where survival is whatever you can gather on your own. These things are 'free' (no monetary cost) but everyone has to work for them. So clearly even when things are 'free' you can't have as much of whatever, whenever.

There is also the difference between work and jobs. IF people with no jobs and lots of time could muster the initial capital, they could build their own homes and grow their own food - they could work for their survival. But b/c there are people who 'own the means of production' and the accumulated capital, the natural process of self-sufficiency is blocked.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If there were no scarcity, then everything would be free and we would all have everything we want, in as much as we want, whenever we wanted it."

No, you're confusing things. Let's take a primitive tribe where survival is whatever you can gather on your own. These things are 'free' (no monetary cost) but everyone has to work for them. So clearly even when things are 'free' you can't have as much of whatever, whenever.

That’s because scarcity exists.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There is also the difference between work and jobs. IF people with no jobs and lots of time could muster the initial capital, they could build their own homes and grow their own food - they could work for their survival. But b/c there are people who 'own the means of production' and the accumulated capital, the natural process of self-sufficiency is blocked.

I don’t think this makes any sense. Unless you’re suggesting that we should all become primitive tribes scrounging on the ground for whatever we could find, but I can’t see how that solves anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:49 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So clearly even when things are 'free' you can't have as much of whatever, whenever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s because scarcity exists.

________________

No, the limiting factor here is TIME - people effort.

I don’t think this makes any sense
________________________________________

'Cause it's new to you. Just ask yourself this - WHY is it that all around the globe there are people with no homes, no food, no clothes - and lots and lots of time on their hands. You'd think that with all that time to kill they'd build themselves homes, grow their own food, 'work' to sustain themselves even without a 'job'. Why doesn't that happen? What is the disconnect between their time and work - and their survival? Is it b/c they're lazy? Not motivated enough by starvation to be productive?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, the limiting factor here is TIME - people effort.

That doesn’t make it any less scarce.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
'Cause it's new to you. Just ask yourself this - WHY is it that all around the globe there are people with no homes, no food, no clothes - and lots and lots of time on their hands. You'd think that with all that time to kill they'd build themselves homes, grow their own food, 'work' to sustain themselves even without a 'job'. Why doesn't that happen? What is the disconnect between their time and work - and their survival?

I suspect that it probably does happen. If it doesn’t happen, it’s perhaps because they are expecting some handout from the government or some other entity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2. You're partly correct in why places with $1/day labor have high unemployment.

The highest employment goes to the nations with the highest productivity. Wage reduction is a bounded figure. You can only reduce wages to a certain point but then starvation takes over. OTOH you can increase productivity a hundred-fold or more with technology.

Cheap labor simply cannot compete with technologized labor.

Now, class... does anyone see where this is going?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

It's a more complex calculation than that. It is to do with the principle of the cost base, worker productivity and the best use of capital.

Let's say a worker in a modern US factory with modern high tech equipment can produce 200 widgets an hour. Let's pay this guy $50/hr for his labour.

Now imagine that using basic industrial tools a worker in China could make 20 widgets an hour and we pay him $2/hr. You can see that employing 10 chinese at $2/hr for a complete labour cost of $20/hr can produce the same amount of goods as the American can make in an hour. In this case productivity per man is less in China, but it is a valid business case to move production there because the overall cost of production is so much less.

However, for industrial production there is a problem. You have to have skilled workers, you need industries that can make precurser components, you need energy supplies to run machines, you need roads to transport the materials and finished goods. You need law and order and a commercial environment where you can enforce contracts.

If you don't have that and have to create it from scratch yourself that adds to the cost base of your operation. If the cost base gets too high then the benefit of moving the production becomes less, perhaps none existant. Cheap labour is only part of that equation.

That is why places like China have industrial manufacturing and places in Africa do not, even though the Africans may work even cheaper than the chinese. The Chinese have invested in education and infrastructure, the Africans have not. An industry setting up in China does not have to create the roads, power grid etc needed to exploit China's cheap labour. In contrast when you have built the roads and factories you would need the costs of doing business in Africa are too high to make it worth while.

The reason there are still people "unemployed" in China is because it is a vast country and there are still far more people than there are industrial jobs. That is also a factor in why wage costs are so low. Wages tend to rise when there is competition between employers for labour, either because labour itself is in short supply or there are not enough people with the required skills. If there are far more people than there are jobs then wages remain depressed.

This is BTW why full employment is generally an economic objective of most organised labour movements. Not only does it mean more members, but competition for workers aids in ensuring high wages.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, sure. I was using technologized labor v cheap labor in a simplistic sense not wanting to confuse the calculation with too many frills.

But even given your refinements, this is all trending in a direction. Can you guess what that is?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"That doesn’t make it any less scarce." No, it's not scarce in the sense of being unavailable to them. People are using their own time and effort.

"I suspect that it probably does happen. If it doesn’t happen, it’s perhaps because they are expecting some handout from the government or some other entity."

You mean people who spend all day combing the dumps of Manila are too lazy to find a job ? Or that they are looking for a handout from the government ? Do you say the same about the people who spend 16 hours a day digging for gold in the open pit in Brazil ?

Finn, if you think that people all over the globe are too damned lazy to get off their asses so as not to starve --- if you think they're waiting for government handouts when there are no government programs - you've got reality issues.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"That doesn’t make it any less scarce." No, it's not scarce in the sense of being unavailable to them. People are using their own time and effort.

That’s not what scarcity means. The resources are still scarce.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I suspect that it probably does happen. If it doesn’t happen, it’s perhaps because they are expecting some handout from the government or some other entity." You mean people who spend all day combing the dumps of Manila are too lazy to find a job ? Or that they are looking for a handout form the government ? Do you say the same about the people who spend 16 hours a day digging for gold in the open pit in Brazil ?

Finn, if you think that people all over the globe are too damned lazy to get off their asses so as not to starve --- if you think they're waiting for government handouts when there are no government programs - you've got issues.

I don’t know what you’re talking about and I’m starting to get the impression you don’t either. You need to get to a point very soon, because I’m losing my notorious patience with this discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, 'ya need to think a little. I've already made my point - it was a few posts back. The rest is explainin'. I can't help it if you don't get it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, 'ya need to think a little. I've already made my point - it was a few posts back. The rest is explainin'. I can't help it if you don't get it.

In other words, you don’t.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You mean people who spend all day combing the dumps of Manila are too lazy to find a job ? Or that they are looking for a handout from the government ? Do you say the same about the people who spend 16 hours a day digging for gold in the open pit in Brazil ?

Finn, if you think that people all over the globe are too damned lazy to get off their asses so as not to starve --- if you think they're waiting for government handouts when there are no government programs - you've got reality issues.

Thanks Rue. I got to that point in Finn's post and I started seeing spots. Yep, all those people are so lazy and so damn stubborn about it that they'd rather starve to death than work. That must be the problem.

So Finn, have you figured out how it is that people can be homeless and starving and STILL not have "jobs"?

I'll bet Fletch2 has an idea.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn, have you figured out how it is that people can be homeless and starving and STILL not have "jobs"?

What I’m interested in (or was interested in) was where rue was coming from with regard to this, because it seems to be from some weird place. But one answer to your question is minimum wage. For instance South Africa has an official unemployment of double digits, caused by an unrealistically high minimum wage and living wage policies. Many people in South Africa would be willing to work, but jobs aren’t available, because businesses in South Africa won’t hire people given the government mandated costs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, you are a dunderhead! (Consider that friendly exasperation.) How do you explain the many other nations with NO minimum wage who still have starvation and high unemployment? You keep pointing to one example that MIGHT back up your minimum-wage fixation (Maybe. It needs to be examined) and ignore the dozens of other examples that refute it. I know you're not stupid. THINK man!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, you are a dunderhead! (Consider that friendly exasperation.) How do you explain the many other nations with NO minimum wage who still have starvation and high unemployment? You keep pointing to one example that MIGHT back up your minimum-wage fixation (Maybe. It needs to be examined) and ignore the dozens of other examples that refute it. I know you're not stupid. THINK man!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Actually there is a basic answer. No capital.

What you and Rue seem to be talking about is the 3rd world urban poor (these are the folks picking through rubbish in Manilla, which is a city so that's what I guess is the folks you're talking about.)

These people are poorer than even the most destitute subsistance farmer because they have no land for agriculture and no real money worth mentioning. They tend to survive by what they can glean from dumps or by selling themselves in various ways. They tend to have few marketable skills and living in a urban setting where most of the folks they compete for employment with have at least some skills (or family contacts) they don't get very far.

If they had money and knew how to use it they could get out of those conditions, but they dont because they are not employed and they are not employedbecause they live in those conditions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:43 PM

That’s kind of what I thought they were referring to, but I’m trying to figure their particular spin on it. Although I may be giving them too much credit. Signym and rue seem to be playing this game where they speak in code and act as if some deep revelation about human nature is obvious. I’m not always sure there really is a point behind it, though. They may be just making it up as they go along. Who knows? Not me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 5:21 PM

I imagine he thinks that he's clever and believes that everyone else is too stupid to see what he sees. Unfortunately BECAUSE he thinks he's clever, he doesnt actually say what he thinks he sees --- that makes things too easy ---but instead leaves clues so that "dunderheads" can happen upon the truth and appreciate his brilliance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 5:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, as soon as I get 'outa work I'll be heading to a place of no internet for the next week.

Finn, what I find weird (and frankly repulsive) is that you would rather assume a half a billion or so people around the globe are poor b/c they're too lazy and too entitled to work.

Rather than THINK about how it could be that they are entirely motivated to stay alive, but something gets in their way.

"SignyM and Rue ... act as if some deep revelation about human nature is obvious" Oh, and BTW, you were the one who attempted to explain the situation with some bogus "human nature" crapola.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess your question to me is: Do I care about the people working illegally in the USA?

My answer is: Not really.

Then with all due respect, please shut up about your Socialistic and very flawed views. I'm not mindlessly enamoured with Capitalism myself, particularly because a) the "Free Market" is a fallacy and b) being near the very bottom of the barrel makes me pissed when my CEO cashes out and makes 40 million off of his options, but fuck Big Gov and any of their laws and regulation. It's too big and centralized and powerful as it is, and short of the Real ID Act, a minimum wage forced on every company in America is the worst possible answer for the immigration problem. Big companies will deal with it temporarily and very slowly pass the costs on the consumer and Big Gov will blame inflation, meanwhile, the little guys are all going out of business because they can't afford to pay all of these higher rates to legal employees which they also have to insure and pay Social Security for. What you're proposing is another step twoards Wal-Mart owning everything.-

If you don't care about whether or not people work illegally in the US, then you've been on your soap box for a few days now preaching Communism or Socialism or whatever the heck you're doing for either the sake of hearing yourself speak or to try to sway other people like Michael Moore would without giving the people you're trying to sway the benefit of seeing both sides of the coin.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6ix, I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. Do I care that people work illegally in this country? Yes I do. very much! Am I much concerned about their welfare in this country? Not so much.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:07 PM

My apologies then Signy.... Seems I misread your intent there. It also seems that up to that point anyways, we're in complete agreement.

That being cleared up, I take back the angry and insulting tone of the message, and anything insulting directly towards you, but I stand behind everything that I said otherwise.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- You've said at one time or another in this thread that starving people are lazy, that rich people create jobs, that the minimum wage causes unemployment and poverty. Give me a couple more minutes to review this thread and I'm sure I'll come up with a couple more.

Fletch2- What I'm trying to get you to see is that increasing productivity and reducing wages has a limit to it's applicability. The endpoint to unfettered capitalism is either (a) you reduce wages to the point where people are working but getting paid next to nothing or (b) you maximize your productivity to the point where you employ no one at all. Please understand that I'm looking at boundary conditions to make a point.

Then what?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:08 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

But this treasonous law almost passed... It would give amnesty and citizenship to HALF A BILLION ALIENS, since each illegal alien could import 11 family members without any background checks.

USA already has a de facto amnesty, by Uncle Scam refusing to deport 40-million criminal aliens. There's no such thing as "anchor babies", since tourists never get citizenship for their babies born on vacation in USA.

I was in traffic court today, videotaping the judge dismissing 29 traffic tickets, because a cop extorted a blowjob from porn star Barbie Cummings. Out of the 29 dismissals, several were illegal aliens, who were not arrested and deported.

VIDEO: BARBIE CUMMINGS WINS IN TRAFFIC COURT?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3777912617682059209

"Son, you're not the first man to piss off a woman and end up stranded on the side of the road. That's why I always take my keys with me when I get out."
-Trucker, Drive

DRIVE VS POLICE STATE: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
OOPS! CANCELLED!!! FINAL EPPS ON JULY 4 8PM EST
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6ix- understood.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, what I find weird (and frankly perverse) is that you would rather assume a half a billion or so people around the globe are poor b/c they're too lazy and too entitled to work.

Yeah, I find that pretty weird too.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- You've said at one time or another in this thread that starving people are lazy, that rich people create jobs, that the minimum wage causes unemployment and poverty.

Never said starving people are lazy – that’s a figment of your imagination (or a figment of rue’s imagination that you’re regurgitating). Rich people do create jobs and the minimum wage does cause unemployment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
.

Fletch2- What I'm trying to get you to see is that increasing productivity and reducing wages has a limit to it's applicability. The endpoint to unfettered capitalism is either (a) you reduce wages to the point where people are working but getting paid next to nothing or (b) you maximize your productivity to the point where you employ no one at all. Please understand that I'm looking at boundary conditions to make a point.

Then what?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

It's an unreasonable argument because it extrapolates an unreasonable end point from a limited data set. It's like saying that because microchip manufacturers want to make faster chips that use less power, we will eventually end up with infinately fast chips that use no power at all. That is simply not the case.

Let's look at your two end points. First productivity can never rise to the point where nobody makes something, unless we are talking about a Star Trek relicator world. Even if manufacture was completely automated you would still need to pay industrial designers to design your products, people to test them, package, market and sell them. Now in theory you could develop what I call IP land barons --- that is people that make nothing of their own but own patents such that they can extort licence payments from people that DO make things. I'm inclined to believe this is why the US is so agressive in trying to export it's interpretation of IP law abroad. However, even if you live off of IP you need to patent new things in order to maintain your portfolio going forward.

So no... you do still need a workforce of some kind... sorry.

As to the other idea, the one where everyone works for nothing much at all that doesn't work either unless you legalise slavery again. At the end of the day every employee has a cost base a set of standing bills nescessary to survive. It is almost impossible to force someone bellow that level and expect them to keep working. To put it simply, if I can no longer afford a home too many hours in my day will be spent ensuring my own survival for me to hold down a full time job. Over and above that the rate any job pays is determined by the market. If there is an abundance of labour then wages are lower, a lack of labour and they will be higher. Demographics say that as the boomer population ages the workforce will shrink, as it does so potential employers will have to compete for workers and you can expect wages to rise.

So no, your arguments are a fallacy and as such do not bear further consideration.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Now in theory you could develop what I call IP land barons --- that is people that make nothing of their own but own patents such that they can extort licence payments from people that DO make things.

A great analogy of this would be anyone working in the recording industry or the RIAA that would be out of jobs if there were no Artists, or if it becomes more lucrative for the Artist (which seems may the case recently) to start your own label or work with independent labels.

Quote:
It is almost impossible to force someone bellow that level and expect them to keep working.

Won't have a choice if trends keep up and we're all working for the same employer one day. Gonna have to work for whatever they pay us. Governments worldwide are so deep in bed with big business, I don't think that idea is too farfetched. You don't really believe that the Government gives a rats ass about protecting people from a monopoly, do you? Look around you.... How many cable providers are in your area?

Quote:
Demographics say that as the boomer population ages the workforce will shrink, as it does so potential employers will have to compete for workers and you can expect wages to rise.

Not exactly sure where you're getting your Demographic data from here. Possibly a poll from before the civil rights movement that only included white demographic data. Every place I look shows world population exponentially growing out of control. The only people that aren't having more kids in thier families are the primarily white, suburbanite middle-class people who would rather pay health insurance and have plasma TV's than have 3 or more kids. Poor people all around the world, regardless of government assistance or the lack thereof, have no problem with spitting out as many kids as their bodies will physically let them. Now that the 3rd world is catching up quickly in education and technology, we're not going to experience what you're talking about until we get everyone in the world on birth control, there is a "Children of Men" type syndrome or a worldwide epidemic.

Not that I agree with or am defending Signy here, because my posts above would prove that that is not the case at all. I just think that "your arguments are a fallacy and as such do not bear further consideration" as well. Nothing personal.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
A great analogy of this would be anyone working in the recording industry or the RIAA that would be out of jobs if there were no Artists, or if it becomes more lucrative for the Artist (which seems may the case recently) to start your own label or work with independent labels.

You mean like agents? Or Managers? These people offer a service. And in many, if not most, cases they are the music industry. The artists would be out of work if it weren’t for them. I don’t believe for one minute that Britney Spears could possibly make it as a pop artist, if it weren’t for the company of people who promote her.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Won't have a choice if trends keep up and we're all working for the same employer one day.

Of course you have a choice, unless the government enacts slavery. If the only jobs available are jobs that don’t pay enough for someone to survive, then the person will have to quite the job (or not seek it in the first place) and start foraging, farming or something else, but they certainly can’t continue to work a job that isn’t providing for their basic survival and interfering with their efforts to do so.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Not exactly sure where you're getting your Demographic data from here. Possibly a poll from before the civil rights movement that only included white demographic data.

“[[]T[]]he boomer population.” As in baby boomers. From the 40s to the 60s the population in much of the developed world spiked because people were having so many babies. Those babies are now a large workforce, which will eventually retire or die, but who have not had enough babies to replace all of them. In other words the workforce in the developed world will shrink.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:08 AM

Nice man.... you purposely skewed my words to suit your purpose.... bravo.

I won't even get into the RIAA or recording industry with you, because we can always start another thread on that topic if you'd like.

Barring that, allow me to retort:

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Won't have a choice if trends keep up and we're all working for the same employer one day.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: Of course you have a choice, unless the government enacts slavery. If the only jobs available are jobs that don’t pay enough for someone to survive, then the person will have to quite the job (or not seek it in the first place) and start foraging, farming or something else, but they certainly can’t continue to work a job that isn’t providing for their basic survival and interfering with their efforts to do so.

Sorry.... invalid argument. Check your ADHD perscription son. That first sentence means something completely different if not included with the rest of the paragraph it was written with. When we're all working for Wal-Mart, we won't have a choice about wages, particularly when we've either lost the ability to pay for our houses or property tax or the Government just acquired all of our properties under eminent domain. Either you purposely omitted it to argue a point I wasn't trying to make, or you're stupid. I don't belive you're stupid.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Not exactly sure where you're getting your Demographic data from here. Possibly a poll from before the civil rights movement that only included white demographic data.

Quote:
“[[]T[]]he boomer population.” As in baby boomers. From the 40s to the 60s the population in much of the developed world spiked because people were having so many babies. Those babies are now a large workforce, which will eventually retire or die, but who have not had enough babies to replace all of them. In other words the workforce in the developed world will shrink.

No shit sherlock. Nothing to argue you about there. Again, you need to read the rest of my comment. That entire arguement you've just restated almost word for word is moot because of the emerging global economy. People that really believe that middleclass America and similarly, developed Europe is the only workforce available, is in for a rude awakening. "Fletch's Sceneario", which you've done us the pleasure of restating, will not ever come to fruition until one of the scenarios I've stated come first, which would be

a) to put the rest of the world on birth control
b) a plague or war wipes a large portion of society out
c) a "Children of Men" scenario arises where most people in the world will be unable to procreate

Thanks for trying to shoot down my valid theories so quickly. Care to argue the entire point this time without picking out the sentence that you want to argue? For God sake man.... Think outside of the box.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:11 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Demographics say that as the boomer population ages the workforce will shrink, as it does so potential employers will have to compete for workers and you can expect wages to rise.

Not exactly sure where you're getting your Demographic data from here. Possibly a poll from before the civil rights movement that only included white demographic data. Every place I look shows world population exponentially growing out of control. The only people that aren't having more kids in thier families are the primarily white, suburbanite middle-class people who would rather pay health insurance and have plasma TV's than have 3 or more kids. Poor people all around the world, regardless of government assistance or the lack thereof, have no problem with spitting out as many kids as their bodies will physically let them. Now that the 3rd world is catching up quickly in education and technology, we're not going to experience what you're talking about until we get everyone in the world on birth control, there is a "Children of Men" type syndrome or a worldwide epidemic.

Actually, the world's population growth rate is decreasing, and it's estimated that it'll stagnate in 50 or so years. Europe's population size will start decreasing quite soon, if it hasn't already, while Japan's has been decreasing for a couple of years, and the increasing worker-pensioner ratio is or will become a real headache for many countries. Even the US has an aging society (although not as pronounced as in Europe or Japan), and the impending retirement of the boomers will bump the worker-pensioner ratio up significantly and at the same time shrink the size of the workforce.

This is interesting:

We can see that once that big bump moves into retirement age, there really will be fewer people in the workforce (both in absolute and relative terms). Note that that image reflects demographic data that's 7 years old already. Btw, that smaller bump below the boomers is the the boomers' echo generation, i.e. that's where most of the boomers had their kids. But as that image is a bit old, most of the echo generation has in fact already entered the workforce, so it won't make up for the loss of the boomers (that generation isn't as large as the boomer generation anyway).

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Thanks for trying to shoot down my valid theories so quickly. Care to argue the entire point this time without picking out the sentence that you want to argue? For God sake man.... Think outside of the box.

Actually the fact that your response is composed of pejorative personal attacks instead of some sort of reasoned reply or clarification is pretty clear to me that I was right on the money the first time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:19 AM

I understand what ya'all are trying to say Khyron. And I've heard that about Europe and Japan. But to use the word "Baby Boomers" is a killer for your arguement. "Baby Boomers" only considers white middleclass suburbanite America. (Possibly white middle class Europe as well, but I couldn't say).

Over 50% of Mexico's population is under 18 years old and getting younger every year. Children of America's Ghettos proliferate at rates substantially higher than the "Baby Boomers". Don't even get me started on Middle Easterners. The "Baby Boomer" argument, as I said before, is completley and utterly moot.

Any reports I've read show the world population as a whole has always been growing.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually the fact that your response is composed of pejorative personal attacks instead of some sort of reasoned reply or clarification is pretty clear to me that I was right on the money the first time.

Can't take the heat, get out of RWED. I talk like that to everybody who talks to me like I'm stupid jack. Nice cop out though. If you'd like to grow up a little and counter with a valid argument, feel free. I'm leaving work soon though so it might be a while till I get back to you. It should give you plenty of time to think of something REAL good.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Can't take the heat, get out of RWED. I talk like that to everybody who talks to me like I'm stupid jack.

And that’s probably why people talk to you like you’re stupid. Because you seem pretty stupid to me right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:31 AM

LOL... I know you are, but what am I.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:49 AM

KHYRON

First I've heard about the term "baby boomers" only applying to the white middle class, especially since the age pyramid of the US above clearly shows a baby boomer bump, regardless of racial and socioeconomic circumstances. Obviously the term doesn't apply to places like Mexico, though.

Latin America and the Middle East aren't the endless source of young people that people think they are. Sure, overall the fertility rates in most of them are quite high compared to that of, say, Europe, but they're coming down and in fact Mexico's is at 2.2, which is close to replacement level (compared to 5.7 in 1976 - http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/rutinas/ept.asp?t=mpob1
6&c=3193).

As you say, though, the world's population is still increasing, I'm just saying the the growth rate is decreasing and the societies are aging, even in most third world countries. A truly global workforce is still a couple of years (maybe decades) away and I expect the US to engage in a very active immigration program for both skilled and unskilled labour once the boomers have left the workforce. Then again, perhaps the boomers leaving the workforce might even be the incentive for the US to start laying the foundations for a global workforce... who knows...

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 2:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
A truly global workforce is still a couple of years (maybe decades) away and I expect the US to engage in a very active immigration program for both skilled and unskilled labour once the boomers have left the workforce. Then again, perhaps the boomers leaving the workforce might even be the incentive for the US to start laying the foundations for a global workforce... who knows...

This was really the point I was trying to make. I don't imagine that unless any of those conditions I mentioned were to happen that we're going to experience a shortage of labor which would raise wages for quite some time, meaning generations and generations from now.

The amount of people on the planet is still growing, that much is for sure. Maybe the growth rate really is decreasing though. (This is another topic that I admit I really can't say because there is far too many variables and no way of truly taking a census of every living being and cataloging the rate in every nook and cranny of this crazy rock we live on). Personally, I hope the birth to life rate is declining healthfully and slowly. I would love for a worldwide decline in birth, but a voluntary one. I keep picturing in my mind an Earth completley spent of resources where we're breating toxic air with little Oxygen and tons of Carbon Monoxide and our collective Governments are using Chinese tactics to make sure we aren't procreating. Population control has gotta happen somehow, sometime and soon. There's got to be a balance. I just hope it happens naturally in a good way, rather than forced upon us at the end of a barrel.

Ain't it kinda funny how the things that made some of the best Sci-Fi short stories, novels and movies we grew up with are actually either happening now or are something that we can really imagine could very well be the case in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 3:10 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do I care that people work illegally in this country? Yes I do. very much! Am I much concerned about their welfare in this country? Not so much.

I think this is the part of the 'get tough on immigration' rhetoric that I find so distasteful. I do care about the welfare of these people. They want to be Americans so bad, they're willing to break the law to do it. I admire their spirit.

I prefer 'amnesty' to criminalizing them further and creating more intrusive government power in the process. This problem developed because we no longer see our nation as a magnet for freedom loving people - we see it as an exclusive club for the privileged and the rich.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 3:17 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
The amount of people on the planet is still growing, that much is for sure. Maybe the growth rate really is decreasing though. (This is another topic that I admit I really can't say because there is far too many variables and no way of truly taking a census of every living being and cataloging the rate in every nook and cranny of this crazy rock we live on). Personally, I hope the birth to life rate is declining healthfully and slowly. I would love for a worldwide decline in birth, but a voluntary one. I keep picturing in my mind an Earth completley spent of resources where we're breating toxic air with little Oxygen and tons of Carbon Monoxide and our collective Governments are using Chinese tactics to make sure we aren't procreating. Population control has gotta happen somehow, sometime and soon. There's got to be a balance. I just hope it happens naturally in a good way, rather than forced upon us at the end of a barrel.

Same here, and it seems like such a (natural) decline in birth rate is happening. As mentioned above, it's happened in Europe and Japan to such and extent that the population sizes themselves are already declining (in spite of Europe's fairly welcoming immigration policies), and even in most third world countries the growth rate is slowing down significantly, even though the overall population in those countries is still growing significantly and will do so for a while.

Have a look at this chart: http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history2.aspx. One can see that population growth peaked somewhere in the 90s (which would mean that, due to increasing life expectancies, the birth rate probably peaked some time before that) and is slowly decreasing again. It's estimated (not on that chart) that the world's population will probably not reach 10 billion (because of natural reasons, not huge wars or anything like that).

Quote:
Ain't it kinda funny how the things that made some of the best Sci-Fi short stories, novels and movies we grew up with are actually either happening now or are something that we can really imagine could very well be the case in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes?

A bit OT, but have a look at some of the supertall skyscrapers they're building or will start building soon: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=902. Some of them are about as futuristic-looking as anything most sci-fi writers could dream up.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do I care that people work illegally in this country? Yes I do. very much! Am I much concerned about their welfare in this country? Not so much.

I think this is the part of the 'get tough on immigration' rhetoric that I find so distasteful. I do care about the welfare of these people. They want to be Americans so bad, they're willing to break the law to do it. I admire their spirit.

I prefer 'amnesty' to criminalizing them further and creating more intrusive government power in the process. This problem developed because we no longer see our nation as a magnet for freedom loving people - we see it as an exclusive club for the privileged and the rich.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

You know Sergaantx, I know I've thought about this before I know I've thought the same things from time to time. You really worded it beautifully. I'd love with all of my heart to say you were absolutely 100% right....

Here's the problem though.

At one point, many Americans were very patriotic and had great love for their country. We cared deeply about our own. I know there were philanderers and murders and rapists and theives.... and even a much higher ratio then, than there is now. I know there was just as much evil in the heart of our own countrymen as there is now. I'm under no false illusion that things were better before. I know politicians even in our earliest days were corrupt, but in order to have created the system we have today, I believe, there must have been many noble men (and their wives standing right at their side) as well. Now I know that that is a vast generalization, and that there has been much racism and sexism and divisions of all sorts ranging from miniscule family fueds to grand scale Civil Wars, but it was our Country. People fought hard to make this country the great thing it is.... I hesitate out of love for an ideal to say it no loger is, but was....

There was a time where nothing was easy in this country. Some people may have had access to larger houses and much more goodies, but they had a lot of shit to do. Nothing about running plantations in the south early on would have been easy at first, I would imagine. To have gotten to the point we have today, there must have been leaders and followers. Otherwise, there would have been complete chaos and we'd be working against each other while natural forces ravaged us or the British or Mexicans came and smashed us. Our unity was what held us together, and this was the origial intent of our forefathers, I believe, to create a system with many layers that ensured unity on a grand scale that would be needed to fend off attacks from the British or from south of the border.

Personally, I think it was a beautiful thing.

Some may think me a slave to propoganda for thinking so, but I don't think so. Imagine all of the civilizations lost to us forever because nobody had the strength or will or means to unite everyone in defiance of somebody else who would invade your way of life and change the way you did things forever. Ask the American Indian casino owner (one that is an American Indian). He probably couldn't even speak much about it. He's making tons of money and wouldn't even understand what I'm talking about. Nobody with such a surplus of money that they've never had a time in their life where they had to choose between paying the electric or having cable TV would ever even be able to begin to grasp what I'm talking about.

After watching so many movies in my life about givng and being the good guy, I really would love to give everything to these people. I would love to give them the American dream and let them at least have as much as I do so they can become Godless and self indulgent as I've become and bargain with the Devil so we're okay for today.

To tell you the truth, when I started writing this, I was really under the impression that I couldn't argue against your so eloquently stated point. I was actually going to say that I agree with you. But the more I think about it the further from that conclusion I come.

I see nothing wrong with loving your country and defending what is yours. Bush is not Freedom. Religion is not Freedom. There are many aspects which come equally from each bullshit political side which are pure bullshit, and due to the internet, we know the world knows it too. There is a lot, however, to say about what American's have accomplished in the last 200 years. We've had a great run, and I don't falut anybody for wanting to keep that up. Even though it may be too late because we've become fat and complacant.

Bottom line is, I love my Country. I may not be a big fan of where it's heading now, but I love it. It needs to be stopped (the Federal Government, I mean), but I'm no longer going to be a part of the hate American Government group. I was a member before many of you ever were. Just like I hated Seinfeld when it was popular, I now hate the Anti-American Government movement now that it's popular, I want no part of it. The fact that it has even become popular, in light of an impending one world Government, is scary to me. I believe that the only reason that it would be allowed for the media to spread my original hatered for our Government to the mainstream is because the powers that be want us to be nothing more than a seat at the UN table. I don't want any part of that, and I don't blame anybody else who doesn't.

I consider myself a patriot so much that I bleed Red White and Blue, but I think that most people would vote me second most likely to pull a McVeigh in highschool now if I talked this way when I was 17. I fucking love my country. I'm the only guy I know who would admit to tearing up a little when watching "The Postman".

There's not enough to give everybody who wants to come here SergeantX. I'm sorry. I don't know everything about economy or health insurance. But I do know that the inflation rate is rising much faster than our cost of living increases, regardless of what the papers say. On top of my cigarette prices which have raised 100% in the last 5 or so years, I've also been witness to gas prices tripling, bread and egg and milk prices doubling, and cellphone companies (add iPhone insult here) raping their customers. I've seen Mexicans illegally cross our borders (what once would have beeen considered an act of war), and recive free healthcare and education for thier children on my dime. Sorry man, but I pay enough taxes as it were, and they're only covering the interest on the debts we already owe the Rockafellers.

I'm all about helping somebody who shares a geographical border with us, and also calling all of our corrupt politicians out as well as theirs, but I'm not down at all with amnesty for 12 million immigrans and it's complete and utter bullshit that their kids are citizens because they were born here. If you let 12 million of them stay today, you're looking at 200 million tomorrow. I think it's shitty enough here for most of us trailer park and apartment dwellers, thank you.

Nice post though. That's admittedly the most convincing post I've ever seen. And here I though you were on the "Conservative" side..... Don't worry. I hate both sides. You should really think about a carreer in political journalism. Just that single post alone would be all you need to get a recommendation from me..... even though I'm nothing more than the guy who's opinion I value higher than anyone elses in the world.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So no, your arguments are a fallacy and as such do not bear further consideration.

Oh for heaven's sake Fletch2! Are you not aware of hypothetical arguments?

Quote:
Let's look at your two end points. First productivity can never rise to the point where nobody makes something... Even if manufacture was completely automated you would still need to pay industrial designers to design your products, people to test them, package, market and sell them... So no... you do still need a workforce of some kind... sorry.

First of all, automation is far more advanced than you think. There are fewer and fewer reasons to involve humans, even in the design process. When automation is maximally applied, only a small percent of people are required to design and troubleshoot. Do you see any economic reason - not technical reason but economic reason- why we would not reach that state of maximal automation? And if we reach that state, what does "everyone else" do for a living?

Quote:
Now in theory you could develop what I call IP land barons

That is one direction that we're heading...

Quote:
As to the other idea, the one where everyone works for nothing much at all that doesn't work either unless you legalise slavery again. At the end of the day every employee has a cost base a set of standing bills necessary to survive. It is almost impossible to force someone bellow that level and expect them to keep working.

The end state of this situation is that people starve because the economy has no room for them. Do you see any economic - not moral or social but economic- reason why people will not be allowed to starve? Considering that people are starving today, I don't.

Quote:
If there is an abundance of labour then wages are lower

People are competing against machines.

Quote:
Demographics say that as the boomer population ages the workforce will shrink, as it does so potential employers will have to compete for workers and you can expect wages to rise.

In the USA. But not elsewhere in the world where half the population is under 15.

My point - and yours- is that the driving force behind the capitalist's approach to labor is to reduce labor costs as much as possible. With the advent of multinationals, this is applied worldwide. Automation is a one-way step in that direction and starving the workforce is not exactly impossible. So do you see any economic mechanism by which demand for labor can go UP on a worldwide basis?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:46 AM

You give a compelling argument Signy. I'm not saying I agree with you because it's very "Sci-Fi" yet.... but I'll be the first to admit that it's less so every day.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- people are coming here for money not "freedon". That was the reason why so many people came here in the 1800 and 1900's. Nothing new there.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So no, your arguments are a fallacy and as such do not bear further consideration.
Oh for heaven's sake Fletch2! Are you not aware of hypothetical arguments?

I do, but in general I believe the hypothesis itself has to be reasonable. Could the government re-enact slavery and herd us all into corporate work camps? In theory they could. Is that a reasonable hypothesis outside of PN and Jack's fevered imaginings?..... Not so much.

Quote:

Quote:
Let's look at your two end points. First productivity can never rise to the point where nobody makes something... Even if manufacture was completely automated you would still need to pay industrial designers to design your products, people to test them, package, market and sell them... So no... you do still need a workforce of some kind... sorry.
First of all, automation is far more advanced than you think. There are fewer and fewer reasons to involve humans, even in the design process. When automation is maximally applied, only a small percent of people are required to design and troubleshoot. Do you see any economic reason - not technical reason but economic reason- why we would not reach that state of maximal automation? And if we reach that state, what does "everyone else" do for a living?

What you want to do is isolate economic tendencies from all other constraints then project what would happen. That is a fallacy because everything else, the real world and people in that world in fact ARE economic drivers. They actively change models which is why no economic model accurately describes even a most basic economy and why almost every grand economic theory hits unexpected unpredicted problems like "stagflation."

If you look at my analogy of chip manufacturing, yes you can have infinately fast chips that draw no power if you never have to worry about the laws of physics. However in real world examples those physical laws constrain what is possible. To remove economic trends from social and political considerations is liek designing chips without physics. You come up with all kinds of extremes that simply don't work that way in real life.

That's why your "examples" are bogus even as thought experiments.

Quote:

Quote:
Now in theory you could develop what I call IP land barons
That is one direction that we're heading...

For it to work you need to keep making IP so even then you will eventually need workers. In addition we have already seen that nation states ignore IP when it suits them, in fact they even have an opt out in teh WTO. If bird flu ever jumped to humans do you really believe the USG would pony up $20 a dose to some private company for Tamiflu?

Quote:

Quote:
As to the other idea, the one where everyone works for nothing much at all that doesn't work either unless you legalise slavery again. At the end of the day every employee has a cost base a set of standing bills necessary to survive. It is almost impossible to force someone bellow that level and expect them to keep working.
The end state of this situation is that people starve because the economy has no room for them. Do you see any economic - not moral or social but economic- reason why people will not be allowed to starve?

But people dont starve, they rob, they mug, they riot, they start revolutions. That's why this is a false argument. Do you see a guy like Jack just sitting in an alley and politely starving to death because I don't. People don't do things like that, they move to other places, they overthrow governments, they rob from the rich.

I shudder to call economics even a social science because science implies predictability and repeatability in models and economic theories are at best always incomplete. Why? Because outside influences, social trends and fads impact the way things work. If you remove that social, human element from the equation then you miss a huge part of what's going on. You could have asked. "Given the specification of this mobile phone is there anything technically outstanding about it. just from a TECHNICAL point of view." In that case I may look at it and say no, so how do you explain folks camping out for 10 hours for an iPhone from just a technical viewpoint? The answer is that you can't, people's behaviour exists outside the model.

Quote:

Quote:
If there is an abundance of labour then wages are lower
People are competing against machines.
Quote:
Demographics say that as the boomer population ages the workforce will shrink, as it does so potential employers will have to compete for workers and you can expect wages to rise.
In the USA. But not elsewhere in the world where half the population is under 15.

I love when you do that. You talk about the US then when I point something out you dont like you go global when I go global you give croc tears about the poor US worker. There is always going to be cheaper labour somewhere. However a kid in Manilla will not be changing your adult diapers when you are senile in a nursing home in Florida. Chances are he might be making them but I'm sure the he or she that cleans your ass when you mess yourself will be in the US and will expect to be well paid for caring for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:19 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- people are coming here for money not "freedon".

Yup, the freedom to make money is a big draw. Probably the most important freedom there is.

So it sounds like you subscribe to the 'exclusive club' camp. As long as you've got yours, eh?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 30, 2007 2:17 PM