Amnesty Bill for illegal immigrants defeated in Senate.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, November 11, 2022 04:58
VIEWED: 12286
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:20 PM

Arrogant Senators who likely were on the take from big business have heard from the American public. NO FREE PASS for illegals. The pro amnesty crowd needed 60 votes and didn't even get 50.

Power to the people!!!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:54 PM

YES! (pumps fist)

If we could get rid of that "anchor baby" Consitutional provision, I'd gladly swap that for outright amnesty. But failing that, I'm of the opinion that we need is to start smacking the corporations that hire illegals... HARD. And raise the effing minimum wage, cause nobody's going to hire an untrained, non-English-speaking employee for more than $10/hour.

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

AURAPTOR

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:03 PM

I don't know the break down of those companies which even acknowledge illegals on the books, so what good would raising the min wage do? I'm all in favor of fining employers for hiring illegals, just to be clear. And we've seen where once illegals are taken from a job site, those jobs are usually filled immediatly by LEGAL employees. I just see the min.wage is an unnecessary topic which some want to use as a piggy back issue.

Secure the borders first.

Go after the illegal criminals already in our country, and lock them up. Those who are here working and living by the rules ( aside from being here illegally ) , should be registered and allowed to stay, but kept track of if they want to stay.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:51 PM

The minimum wage is ONE way to handle illegal immigration, and it works well for Germany. Living near the border as I do, and handling compliance for a regional regulatory agency, I hear about businesses that move across the border to escape regulation, high wages, taxes, or whatever else irks them. I also get to see some coming back because of the inability to get a quality product from untrained people. I get to see the day laborers who work hard but who are basically unskilled, building some pretty half-assed stuff. We hire a nanny for our daughter, and we've screened out way more than our share of illegals (We insist on someone who speaks English, has a car and insurance, and a SSN so that they can administer our daughter's emergency meds and drive her to the hospital if need be.) The only reason why untrained labor that you can't communicate with (so you can't even train in any detail) is tolerated is because it's CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.

Trust me, if you had to pay your gardner or your nanny or your painter $10/hour you'd be damn sure to hire someone who was worth it: someone with a driver's license and insurance who could say more than "I don spik Inglis" and who did a good job.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:26 PM

Raising the minimum wage would hurt far more honest hard-working Americans then it would affect illegal immigration. In fact, it could very likely increase the employment of illegals at the detriment of legal Americans. Every time the minimum wage is raised America loses jobs. But illegals who largely work under the table would not necessarily be affected. So it’s quite possible that jobs which Americans would be willing to take with a lower pay, but cannot because the law requires an employer to pay a cost-prohibitive salary, would go to illegals who already work illegally.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KANEMAN

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:07 AM

No shit.........

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:30 AM

Quote:
Every time the minimum wage is raised America loses jobs.

Both historically and geographically, every time the minimum wage is raised the economy goes UP and so does employment. I can link studies if you wish.

Quote:
But illegals who largely work under the table would not necessarily be affected.

The only real "underground" economy not subject to enforcement is either household employers or illegal businesses. Most illegals work for licensed firms: contractors, farmers, restaurants, meat packers, janitorial services etc. Take away some licenses and put their heads up on pikes at the city gates.... er, the state contractors license board website... and these firms would have to recalculate the cost versus the benefit of hiring illegals.

The number of enforcement actions against employers is waaay down under Bush. It tends to give people the helpless, handwringing feeling that "nothing can be done" but that's just not the case.
-------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Every time the minimum wage is raised America loses jobs.
Both historically and geographically, every time the minimum wage is raised the economy goes UP and so does employment. I can link studies if you wish.

It’s not true. The vast majority of economists will tell you that, and the vast majority of studies bare that out. And proponents of it don’t argue that it is. They argue in term of social justice not economic growth, because there’s no way to make that argument. But it’s no good as a tool to remedy social injustice either because it takes unskilled jobs away first and ends up hurting the people it’s supposed to help. And the entire arena of illegal immigrant workers are underground. If it weren’t then there wouldn’t be any illegal immigrant workers, because it’s against the law. It’s just head-in-the-sand politics to believe raising minimum wage is going to change that. It won’t.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:07 AM

Quote:
It’s not true. The vast majority of economists will tell you that, and the vast majority of studies bare that out.

The vast majority of economists are so steeped in ideology that they don't recognize fact when it bites them. Honestly. But the studies bear out that a rise in the minimum wage doesn't have a negative effect on employment.

Quote:
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).

Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.

New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.

A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

Quote:
Both overall employment and retail employment rose in 1997, although at a somewhat slower rate than in 1996. The change in employment growth between 1996 and 1997 reflects a modest general slowdown in the state's rate of economic growth, not the increase in the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increase had reduced job growth significantly, it is likely that the trend in retail trade employment would have been significantly worse than the trend in overall employment. The Oregon findings have implications for the debate over raising the federal minimum wage.

www.cbpp.org/529ormw.htm

Quote:
The argument that state minimum wages have had a substantially negative effect on a state's labor market is an extreme repackaging of the perennial claim that minimum wages do more harm than good because they cause many low-wage workers to lose their jobs. While this argument was once more prevalent among economists, recent studies with improved methodologies have reached the opposite conclusion.

www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:55 AM

That's all well and good signy... but in the mean time, my wages don't even increase every year to keep up with inflation every year. A raise in minimum wage by three dollars effectively means that I'm making 3 dollars less an hour after you figure in the higher costs for the end products, every action having an equal and opposite reaction, particularly for staples such as bread and eggs and milk.

I agree something needs to be done, but I think raising the minimum wage here is almost as bad an idea as a national ID card. I think we need to focus all of our efforts on sticking it to businesses hard when they hire illegals and deport the illegals back to Columbia and let them find their own ride back if they're going to try again. At the same time, much larger tax breaks must be given to small businesses across
America while at the same time we hit large companies such as WalMart, Comcast and McDonalds much harder. This way, small business owners can still turn a profit without having to sell their business when they're forced to hire legal workers and pay all of the benefits and insurance that also entails. That way, though prices will inevatibly rise when we're paying Americans to do jobs in America, I'm not getting hit from both ends when I've got to view a minimum wage quickly creeping up on the wages that I make.

You don't think a company that you work for is just going to give you a three dollar an hour wage increase to offset this, do you?

Anyways, it doesn't matter. It's not long before they get enough mexicans, gays and other minorities sympathetic to illegals "plight" that "we" vote to let them all in. Bunch of beaurocratic asshats... Shit. It doesn't even have to be minorities. All we need is 14 more globalist Bushites on either side sitting in that room and we would have woke up tomorrow living in a much different country.

You're supposed to be a Conservative BJr. Fucking act like one! Aside from mailing us out checks to buy popularity in his first term, that man truly has not done one Conservative thing, and with how bad he's got everybody on both sides hating on him along with the rest of the world, I'd swear he was the Liberal double-agent and he's just there to make the Repugs and Christians look as bad as he possibly can before he leaves. (Incidentally, I've never hidden the fact that I don't believe for one second that Bush worships God)

Congratulations Bush. Mission accomplished! You've effectively and irrevocably damaged our worldwide reputation at the time we need our reputation the most. We're some of the most uneducated and undereducated people in a technological world which is building up around us and our Dollar is going down faster than we'll find our wives children and even our own selves having to do to pay for bread when we've finally hit rock bottom.

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:37 AM

I can't seem to find anyone to agree with on this thread. Except maybe..... Finn!?!?

The only thing I can think of as dumb as walling off our country is the minimum wage (or is it flag burning? I get them mixed up...).

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Both historically and geographically, every time the minimum wage is raised the economy goes UP and so does employment.

Then we should just make it illegal for anyone to work for less than $50k a year.

The problem with illegal immigration is that we've created powerful incentives for both sides. Poor immigrants want to get here anyway they can because being dirt poor here still beats what their coming from. Employers have incentive to hire the illegals because they're a very compliant work force (it's not like they can go to the authorities and complain), plus they save a lot of money and avoid all the regulatory overhead required for legal employees (like minimum wage, for example).

Those are powerful incentives. If overcoming these incentives can only be accomplished with overbearing regulation and soviet style border policing, we need to consider addressing the incentives.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It’s not true. The vast majority of economists will tell you that, and the vast majority of studies bare that out.
The vast majority of economists are so steeped in ideology that they don't recognize fact when it bites them. Honestly. But the studies bear out that a rise in the minimum wage doesn't have a negative effect on employment.

I don’t know of many studies that bare that out and dismissing the majority of experts is entirely up to you. But I don’t see any reason to do that.

This is a site from 1995 that cites the large number of studies and papers done that demonstrate that the minimum wage damages the economy including one paper by Prof. William Beranek that claims that minimum wage increases the hiring of illegal aliens.

http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:16 PM

Sarge- Most people think that adopting three strikes/penalty punishments will reduce crime. I'm not so sure of that because many of the people who commit these kinds of violent crimes have lowered IQ/ brain damage/ mental illness/ poor impulse control and they're not thinking of consequences when they commit crimes.

The ONE kind of crime that responds to anticipated penalities is economic crime, because that's when people think ahead of time about what they might gain versus what they might lose. I'm not really too keen on going after illegals as much as I am about going after businesses, and quite frankly I have absolutely no problem with making business obey the law. It used to be that illegals would show a fake green card and SSN making it very difficult for businsses to know status, but there is is now an online service (which I myself have run afoul of) that allows anyone with inet access to query government databases about SSN and name mismatches. (In my case it was a typoed SSN. But believe me, it works)

AFA going after the cause, I've already said that the USA needs to stop militarily propping up corporate interests in Central and South America. I would go one better and say that labor needs effective international unions so that they cannot be played aginst each other as they currently are. I would also like to see the NAFTA/ CAFTA agreement undone. In fact, I would LOVE to see all the LEGAL advantages that corporations have over individuals (starting with the tax law) rescinded. Then there will be real bargaining in the labor market. It can't be a single-approach solution. But given the current situation of unilateral corpraote power, your opinion of the minimum wage is misguided.

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...your opinion of the minimum wage is misguided.

How so? Minimum wage laws are illogical at their core. They basically outlaw low paying jobs. This means that if you don't have the skills or experience to land a job for the current minimum, then you can't work. The higher that minimum is, the more people will be affected. You've acknowledged this effect yourself, in your eagerness to use it as a tool to punish illegal immigrants. But of course that's nonsense because these people are outside the law to begin with. It will primarily punish legal workers and employers who deal in unskilled, part-time labor.

These kinds of head-in-the-sand approaches to solving social ills are what give liberals a bad name. You can't just make poverty go away by making it illegal.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:51 PM

Finn, let us look at your link in detail:

Quote:
Now, the Clinton Administration is advancing the novel economic theory that modest increases in the minimum wage will have no impact whatsoever on employment. This proposition is based entirely on the work of three economists: David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton, and Lawrence Katz of Harvard.

Their studies of increases in the minimum wage in California, Texas and New Jersey apparently found no loss of jobs among fast food restaurants that were surveyed before and after the increase [See Card (1992b), Card and Krueger (1994), and Katz and Krueger (1992)].

While it is not yet clear why Card, Katz and Krueger got the results that they did it is clear that their findings are directly contrary to virtually every empirical study ever done on the minimum wage. These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission, which concluded that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%.

Yes, I saw that study referenced. The question is, what happens to overall employment? If an increase in minimum wage pulls adults into that labor market who would not have previously considered those jobs, then all we're seeing is a shift from teenage to adult employment, and focusing strictly on teens becomes misleading. But they never answered that question. So here are the reaminder of the relevant citations (I'm going to skip the ones unrelated to employment since that is what wer'e considering, but my comments apply to all of the cited studies)

Quote:

Summary of Research on the Minimum Wage

The minimum wage reduces employment.
Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969)

The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults.
Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).

The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males.
Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally.
Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).

The minimum wage hurts the unskilled.
Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers.
Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns.
Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage increases job turnover.
Hall (1982).

The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers.
Meyer and Wise (1983b).

The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors.
Brozen (1962), Tauchen (1981), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing.
Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).

The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.
Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).
The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices.
Trapani and Moroney (1981).

The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens.
Beranek (1982).

Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage.
Brozen (1969), Smith and Vavrichek (1992).

First of all these are for the most part very old studies which need revisting. At the time that many of these studies were done, the minimum wage did not cover as large a percentage of the working population as it does today. In addition, monetary policy, study design, unionization, welfare policy, average wages, and other factors have changed, leading to a different economic milieu.

Secondly, as poor as those studies are, most of them contradict the notion that raising the minimum wage

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:53 PM

Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

Quote:
The higher that minimum is, the more people will be affected. You've acknowledged this effect yourself, in your eagerness to use it as a tool to punish illegal immigrants. But of course that's nonsense because these people are outside the law to begin with.

But the people and the companies that they work for are NOT.

Quote:
It will primarily punish legal workers and employers who deal in unskilled, part-time labor

See my response to Finn. above.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 29, 2007 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

You really think it's that easy?

I generally ignore the kind of statistical tit-for-tat you and Finn are engaged in. And in the end I don't care. We could probably spur the economy by making it illegal to drive any vehicle more that five years old - should we do that too?

The fundamental problem is the same as it always is with this kind of crap. You think you can make the world a better place by telling everyone else how to live. I'll always call bullshit on that, whether it's neo-cons trying to remake the middle east, or poverty activists trying to tell us what jobs we can or can't take.

How many times will we have to learn this lesson? You can't just pass laws to make ugly things like poverty go away. You don't like the idea of people working for low wages so you make it illegal. There's still a need for low wage jobs, but now they have to go underground where the folks involved have NO legal rights.

It's the same logic that's driven most of the ill-conceived regulatory efforts that we're currently saddled with. We see the same dynamic in healthcare where we've made it illegal to get cheap healthcare. It's fine for the folks that can afford top-of-the-line care, but the rest of us have do without.

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

FLETCH2

Friday, June 29, 2007 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

I think you have a rather biased view of where those profits go. I think you have this vision of fat cats in board rooms lighting cigars with $100 bills. That's not the way it is at all.

In a recent discusion in another forum I learned that around 60% of IBM stock is held by what we in the UK call "Institutional investors" ie pension funds. So the "profits" you are "redistributing" pay the pensions of millions of ordinary Americans.

As to the bigger question. If you raise the miniumum wage then some employers will either absorb the cost or pass it along to their customers -- that's because continuity of business has a value too. You may even see economic benefit as that extra money flows through the system. However, some folks will lose their jobs as a result if their employers are unwilling or unable to fit the increase into their cost/sales structure.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 29, 2007 5:56 PM

If the logic of minimum wage laws truly holds, why not just guarantee every citizen $30k base salary? That'd give the economy a boost, right?

Signym, seriously, is there are reason not to this?

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I saw that study referenced. The question is, what happens to overall employment? If an increase in minimum wage pulls adults into that labor market who would not have previously considered those jobs, then all we're seeing is a shift from teenage to adult employment, and focusing strictly on teens becomes misleading. But they never answered that question. So here are the reaminder of the relevant citations (I'm going to skip the ones unrelated to employment since that is what wer'e considering, but my comments apply to all of the cited studies)

No. The question is not “overall employment.” The question is employment of illegal immigrants who are mostly at the lower end of the spectrum, and this lower end is where the minimum wage will impact employment. Teenagers are also in this group, along with much of the poor and many minorities. Whom I might add, you don’t seem to concerned with right now. When poor blacks can’t find work, I guess we’ll just blame it all on “whitey” later, and selectively ignore the damage done to the employment of unskilled laborers by minimum wage laws.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all these are for the most part very old studies which need revisting. At the time that many of these studies were done, the minimum wage did not cover as large a percentage of the working population as it does today. In addition, monetary policy, study design, unionization, welfare policy, average wages, and other factors have changed, leading to a different economic milieu.

Some of them are old studies some of them are from the 90’s. The point of the article is to demonstrate what you have already decided to blanketly dismiss: that for 50 years the majority of economics and the majority of studies have demonstrated that increasing the minimum wage harms the economy and that harm is felt most strongly by unskilled laborers, who are largely poor and minorities.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Secondly, as poor as those studies are, most of them contradict the notion that raising the minimum wage encourages hiring illegals. Title after title says that raising the minimum wages hurts the poor, unskilled, racially dispossesed... the essential illegal alien.

No they don’t contradict that notion. What they show is that “poor, unskilled, racially dispossessed” legal employment are disproportionately hurt by increasing the minimum wage. Most of these studies are done in reference to legal employment in the US, not illegal employment. And in fact the one study that was done that focused on illegal immigrants demonstrated that illegal aliens are helped, not hurt, by increasing the minimum wage. And this makes perfect sense, as I’ve already explained. When you increase the minimum wage you increase unemployment among unskilled laborers, but the need for these jobs is not gone; it’s just that companies can no longer afford to fill them, legally. So by increasing the minimum wage, you increase NOT decrease the incentive for hiring illegal immigrants.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- but you can make poverty go away by reducing company profits and spreading it out among the many

Socialism. Income redistribution. This is the true crux of your whole opinion, I suspect.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 6:59 PM

Quote:
I think you have a rather biased view of where those profits go. I think you have this vision of fat cats in board rooms lighting cigars with $100 bills. That's not the way it is at all.

Yes it is. The CEO/ CFO, P/VP and Board take a huge cut off the top in "salaries", "perks", "bonuses" and severence. THEN they get their stock options. I'll give you an example: the typical for-profit health insurance company has only a 10% profit margin but 30% "administrative" costs. That compares to about a 3% administrative cost for Medicare and non-profit HMOs. Now, you KNOW that the for-profits are not paying their clerks and bean-counters huge salaries, so really, where is the "administrative cost" money going? It's prolly in that Lamborghini sitting in the parking lot, the $10 million dollar mansion on "The Point" and the private jet. On top of that there IS that 40% of stocks held by "non-institutional investors". Where do you suppose THAT money goes? That often goes to speculation in gold, fine art, currency, and other "bigger fool" investments.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:00 PM

Quote:
If the logic of minimum wage laws truly holds, why not just guarantee every citizen $30k base salary? That'd give the economy a boost, right? Signym, seriously, is there are reason not to this?

Not really. Lots of European countries have done it.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:10 PM

Quote:
Socialism. Income redistribution. This is the true crux of your whole opinion, I suspect

Yep. Take the money away from people who do nothing except light cigars with $100 bills and distribute it to people who do something productive. That sounds fair to me. What about you?

Quote:
Some of them are old studies some of them are from the 90’s. The point of the article is to demonstrate what you have already decided to blanketly dismiss: that for 50 years the majority of economics and the majority of studies have demonstrated that increasing the minimum wage harms the economy and that harm is felt most strongly by unskilled laborers, who are largely poor and minorities

MOST of the studies are from the early 80's and before. As I pointed out before, there was a different economic milieu. Back then the minimum wage law only covered about 60% of the work force and exempted about 40%. Today, it covers a little over 90%. Also, study methods differ. Many of the studies back then didn't distinguish between the effect of an increase in minimum wage and the effects of other economic trends that may have been going on at the same time. In addition, there was a robust middle class back then. Today, not so much.

Quote:
No. The question is not “overall employment.” The question is employment of illegal immigrants who are mostly at the lower end of the spectrum, and this lower end is where the minimum wage will impact employment. Teenagers are also in this group, along with much of the poor and many minorities. Whom I might add, you don’t seem to concerned with right now. When poor blacks can’t find work, I guess we’ll just blame it all on “whitey” later, and selectively ignore the damage done to the employment of unskilled laborers by minimum wage laws.

If 12 million unskilled jobs open up at less than starvation wages, a whole lot of people will be a whole lot happier. Illegal immigrants are working (key word here) illegally. Simple law enforcement should be able to stop that.

I guess your question to me is: Do I care about the people working illegally in the USA?

My answer is: Not really.

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

FLETCH2

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:11 PM

Executive salary isn't "profit" it's payroll and considered an operating cost. You could tax profits at 100% and the CEO's takehome would remain the same.

I also thought we were talking about minimum wage jobs here, so what HMO's have to do with things I have no idea.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:15 PM

Yes, I know. It's not just profits, it's income distribution. Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of taking money away from the guy who does squat and giving it to the folks who do real work.

BTW- none of you have figured out the conundrum that I proposed so I'm going to re-propose it, highlighted, so y'all don't miss it.

If historically low wages guarantee high employment, why does all of Africa, Central and South America, most of southern Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) and China have such high unemployment? If high wages are the death-knell to employment, why does Europe have relatively low unemployment?

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

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:53 PM

It really didn't take any knowledge of the provisions of the proposed bill; it didn't take even any knowledge of current events, or economics, or socio/geo-political awareness to defeat this....the mere fact that Ted Kennedy liked it should have been a bright red flag from the onset that this thing was a lemon....and then to have Bush praise & hawk it side by side with Kennedy, the guy who screamed at the top of his lungs that Bush lied to America & cooked up the whole Iraq War...well for me it's a bit beyond the realm of believability.

I say we must accept reality.....no illegal is voluntarily gonna go back to Mexico to try to get back to America legally. We should grant immediate amnesty to all illegals, as long as they have not committed any crimes while in America...ship the criminals back, keep the working-family folk here, seal the borders tight & back up with National Guard or many more Border agents. No one else new gets in, unless it's through the legal and traditional process. If 11.5 out of the 12 million illegals are not criminals, that should be more than enough to pick our tomatos and lettuce.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:55 PM

Well, there's that too.

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

RUE

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:58 PM

About the bill - whenever someone tries to stampede action (hmmm ... just like the USPATRIOT Act) - saying NO TIME TO THINK ! NO TIME FOR DEBATE ! VOTE FOR IT NOW !! - it makes me suspicious.

If it's that important, why not take the time to do it right ?

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

FLETCH2

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I know. It's not just profits, it's income distribution. Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of taking money away from the guy who does squat and giving it to the folks who do real work.

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

And I'm sure there are blue collar guys that clock in and spend 4 hours reading the paper every day. The point is that people being people there will always be folks that game the system.

A more pertinent question is why the board of some companies feel the need to pay these multimillion dollar packages? Do they really believe that the guy's they hire bring that much value to the company? If they can prove that he does add several million to their bottom line that's one thing but if he can't, well what were they thinking.

The argument I've heard is that you have to pay market rates to secure top talent. I can sympathise with that, but there is a cost benefit component too. I'm sure that if hire an accountant you probably pay the market rate for his services. That rate may be appropriate if he works for a bank because of their cost structures. You would not imagine paying him bank wages to run the checkout at Walmart though.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
If the logic of minimum wage laws truly holds, why not just guarantee every citizen $30k base salary? That'd give the economy a boost, right? Signym, seriously, is there are reason not to this?
Not really. Lots of European countries have done it.

Really? Then how about $130K. That'd be even better, right?

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yep. Take the money away from people who do nothing except light cigars with $100 bills and distribute it to people who do something productive. That sounds fair to me. What about you?

No, not so much. It’s already been tried with horrible consequences. And all those people who “light cigars with $100 bills” also pay the salaries for most people in the country. So their money is already productive and going to people who are productive. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor only works in fairy tails. In reality, unearned incomes from government entitlements and welfare do not produce incentive to be productive. Earned incomes do. Furthermore, the more money you steal from the rich the less willing they will be to invest it in employees and the economy. So I want those rich people producing jobs and paying salaries. I don’t want the money coming as entitlements. I like my capitalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If 12 million unskilled jobs open up at less than starvation wages, a whole lot of people will be a whole lot happier. Illegal immigrants are working (key word here) illegally. Simple law enforcement should be able to stop that.

Then simply law enforcement is all we need and there’s no reason to consider minimum wage increases. And even if it did prevent illegal immigrant workers, which is unlikely, it would still have damaging collateral effects on Americans workers. And the more likely scenario would be that jobs that Americans would lose would go to illegal immigrants.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Friday, June 29, 2007 8:39 PM

Finn, Perhaps you can 'splain how someone can do enough to 'earn' an income of $200 million per year. (In persepctive, if the average worker made 200M in a lifetime - roughly 40 years of work, that is 5M per year.)

I also suspect you have a double standard: fear of starvation drives workers to be productive, while greed drives the rich to do whatever it is they do for their money.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:10 PM

Human nature and reality are what they are. I don’t claim to able to explain it. What I do know is that you will not get rid of rich people no matter how much you try. All you will do is hurt the poor people.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:37 PM

Bull. "Human nature", especially "greedy human nature", is one of the biggest myths foisted on us. Human nature being what it is, there will always be some sociopaths who spend their entire lives thinking how to screw the 99% others. It is our societal systems which run amuck by rewarding and encouraging sociopathic behavior.

Quote:
no, not so much. It’s already been tried with horrible consequences.

Actually, it has with GREAT success. Labor was miserable in Victorian England until unions came about and demanded a higher portion of the wealth. Same with the USA. Same with ANY nation.

Quote:
And all those people who “light cigars with $100 bills” also pay the salaries for most people in the country. So their money is already productive and going to people who are productive.

What the f*ck are you talking about. Capitalists do not "give" labor money, labor demands it. That's the negotiation.

Quote:
Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor only works in fairy tails. In reality, unearned incomes from government entitlements and welfare do not produce incentive to be productive. Earned incomes do.

Yes, and that's why raising the minimum wage is such a good idea because it's not an "entitlement" or "welfare".

Quote:
Furthermore, the more money you steal from the rich the less willing they will be to invest it in employees and the economy.

Fine with me.

Quote:
So I want those rich people producing jobs and paying salaries.

Rich people don't produce jobs and pay salaries. DEMAND produces jobs and pays salaries. You may be a historian but you're clueless about economies.

Quote:
I don’t want the money coming as entitlements.

Gee, if I had been talking about entitlements you might have a point.

Quote:
I like my capitalism.

You don't even know what capitalism is. Some day I should explain it to you starting with Adam Smith.

So, have you figured out what nations with low wages have high unemployment, and naitons with high wages have lower unemployment?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:49 PM

Fletch- the guys get the salaries, perks, and stock options that they do because .... guess what... they get to vote on it!

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

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:51 PM

Yep Sarge, I'm with you. $130K is MUCH better!

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bull. "Human nature", especially "greedy human nature", is one of the biggest myths foisted on us. Human nature being what it is, there will always be some sociopaths who spend their entire lives thinking how to screw the 99% others. It is our societal systems which run amuck by rewarding and encouraging sociopathic behavior.

Seems to me the true myth is that rich people are sociopaths. There’s nothing greedy about being rich. There’s nothing sociopathic about wanting to be rich or being successful or skilled and there’s nothing greedy about accomplishing your goals. Rich people are not all evil bastards plotting to take over the world. In fact the vast majority of them are not. Now certainly rich people have their own interests at heart and have the money to secure those interests where as poor people may not. And I’m not saying it’s necessarily fair. I’m just saying you won’t change it. If you try, you’ll just become one those sociopaths screwing the poor.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:00 PM

Finn, I would say that you don't know any rich people. So yes, they DO plot on how to "take over the world". And yes, it IS evil to gun down unionists at home or to have the government send armies to intervene on your business' behalf in foreign countries. AFA screwing the poor- I'm not the one telling folks to bend over and enjoy. It seems to me that people should be representing their own interests, not the interests of the guy who's got more money that God. You're all brave excpet when it come to facing real power, and then you turn into a wimp.

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

RUE

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:01 PM

You now, when less money went to the poor and more to the rich there was a major depression.

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

RUE

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:04 PM

Speaking of "human nature" and morality (AntiM, you around?):

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/29/2179/

We have a pending fortuitous marriage of science and morality of the most profound sort.”

The non-profit Edge Foundation recently asked some of the world’s most eminent scientists, ”What are you optimistic about? Why?” Neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni cited the new experimental work into the neural mechanisms that reveal how humans are hard-wired for empathy. Recall that empathy is more than compassion or sympathy with another’s situation. Empathy requires being able to ”put oneself in another’s shoes,” make a distinction between self and other, and then act on that perception. Empathy recognizes the other’s humanity.

We now know from brain imaging and psychological experiments that the same brain circuits are mobilized upon feeling one’s own pain and the pain of others. We know that separate neural processing regions then free up the capacity for an appropriate response. And scientists at the National Institutes of Health have discovered that altruistic acts activate a primitive part of the brain, producing a pleasurable response. Morality appears to be hard-wired into our brains.

Overwhelming evidence also indicates that the roots of prosocial behavior, including moral sentiments like empathy, precede the evolution of culture. Some 40 years ago, the celebrated primatologist Jane Goodall wrote about chimpanzee emotions, social relations, and ”chimp culture,” but experts remained skeptical. That’s no longer the case. According to the famed primate scientist Frans B.M. de Waal, ”You don’t hear any debate now.” The feelings of empathy identified in monkeys and apes are both the roots and counterpart to human morality, a natural inheritance from our closest evolutionary relatives.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:04 PM

Well 'cause stealing from the poor to give to the rich works so much better! In any case, it's a helluva a lot easier cause you've got the power on your side!

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You don't even know what capitalism is. Some day I should explain it to you starting with Adam Smith.

And some day I won’t care.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:06 PM

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

RUE

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:08 PM

See Finn, when you talk about "human nature" you're talking about one particular set of learned behaviors in a particular structure. Like the chimps that fought over fruit in a pile but resumed their normal ways when the fruit was spread out, humans many be reacting to resource cornering with aberrant behaviors, not the other way around.

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- none of you have figured out the conundrum that I proposed so I'm going to re-propose it, highlighted, so y'all don't miss it.

If historically low wages guarantee high employment, why does all of Africa, Central and South America, most of southern Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) and China have such high unemployment? If high wages are the death-knell to employment, why does Europe have relatively low unemployment?

Too many bodies and not enough jobs.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
See Finn, when you talk about "human nature" you're talking about one particular set of learned behaviors in a particular structure. Like the chimps that fought over fruit in a pile but resumed their normal ways when the fruit was spread out, humans many be reacting to resource cornering with aberrant behaviors, not the other way around.

Maybe. In fact, probably. If there were no scarcity, then we’d all be happy chimps.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- none of you have figured out the conundrum that I proposed so I'm going to re-propose it, highlighted, so y'all don't miss it.

If historically low wages guarantee high employment, why does all of Africa, Central and South America, most of southern Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) and China have such high unemployment? If high wages are the death-knell to employment, why does Europe have relatively low unemployment?

Too many bodies and not enough jobs.

Which seems like a glib response but is essentially accurate. The problem with Sig's worldview is that it presumes that there is just one component to economic activity and that is labour. Once you get beyond basic agriculture and resource extraction you need capital in order to be able to use the labour that's there. The reason that there are unemployed people in Africa is that in general nobody invests there, because they lack the stability/education and infrastructure to make that happen.

It is not the case that a $1/day worker is always a good deal, not if you have to spend billions building roads/factories and schools to get to a position where you can actually exploit that cheap labour. Places like China and India have spent government money on education and infrastructure to make that happen. Once you have an educated workforce, once you have political stability and basic infrastructure, thenyou will get investment == jobs == less people unemployed.

RUE

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:30 PM

Too many bodies and not enough jobs.

Maybe. In fact, probably. If there were no scarcity, then we’d all be happy chimps.
_______________________________________

There is no scarcity. The only things that have absolute limits are enviromental - arable land, fresh water, trees, oceans, air, ores. Every other scarcity is due an economic system which does not have people work in order to fill human needs.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:38 PM

Quote:
Places like China and India have spent government money on education and infrastructure to make that happen. Once you have an educated workforce, once you have political stability and basic infrastructure

Are you saying there is a role for taxes and government?

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

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:39 PM

So you think communism is the next natural progression?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There is no scarcity. The only things that have absolute limits are enviromental - arable land, fresh water, trees, oceans, air, ores.

Yeah, that’s scarcity. Scarce resources is where it starts.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:49 PM

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."

SIGNYM

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:56 PM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:15 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:36 AM

"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."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:41 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:49 AM

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."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:53 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:56 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:01 AM

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.

RUE

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:03 AM

"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."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:09 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:13 AM

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."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:24 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:28 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:58 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 2:09 AM

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.

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 30, 2007 2:20 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 2:43 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 30, 2007 3:21 AM

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.

RUE

Saturday, June 30, 2007 3:22 AM

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."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 5:00 AM

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 5:57 AM

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:07 AM

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:08 AM

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.

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:08 AM

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/

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:08 AM

6ix- understood.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:33 AM

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 30, 2007 9:17 AM

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:25 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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:56 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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:08 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

KHYRON

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:11 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:17 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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:19 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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:21 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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:23 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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:31 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

KHYRON

Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:49 AM

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:52 PM

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

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:10 PM

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

KHYRON

Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:17 PM

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 3:36 PM

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 starte

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 5:29 PM

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 30, 2007 5:46 PM

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 30, 2007 5:48 PM

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.

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:16 PM

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

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:19 PM

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 1, 2007 12:17 AM

No, that's not the problem. What I DON'T want is (a) people who are in the country illegally who can't avail themselves of their legal rights and (b) people who are in ths country legally who don't know their rights.

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

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 1, 2007 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I DON'T want is (a) people who are in the country illegally who can't avail themselves of their legal rights and (b) people who are in ths country legally who don't know their rights.

I'm in complete agreement with this. It's the root of the problem. Not all employers of illegals exploit them. Many are co-conspirators and deal honestly. But they don't have to. That means illegals are often cheated by employers who know they have nowhere to turn.

You'd like to see these jackasses punished, and so would I. But popping a few of them, even if it is severe and public, will only put a dent in the problem. To really change things for the better, I think we'd have better results, and a more humane outcome, if we just offered the immigrants a reasonable path to citizenship.

And christ, no fees or lengthy waiting periods. I think we could reasonably ask that they learn basic english and show a decent understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship, but beyond that just get it going and bring these people into the legitimate workforce. They'd get treated better and we'd all be ahead.

(I can't tell you how perverse it feels to side with GW against RP

)

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

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE