ThatOwlWoman (08-17-2018)
I was born at the very end of that disaster. But that's actually a reason that I can see the era more clearly. When you live through something, you primarily judge it from what you happened to see around you, personally. For example, if you spent the Reagan era in the military, then that time was a period when constrained budgets were suddenly magnificently bloated, even as the actual burden on the military fell drastically (it was an era with almost no fighting, which contrasted with the hell of the Vietnam years). So, from that vantage point, it would look amazing, and no matter what the statistics told you, it would be hard to see past what you personally felt. On the flip side, if you entered the Reagan years as an air traffic controller, it would have seemed like an absolute nightmare. Your nice upper-middle-class life would have been completely destroyed, along with the lives of your coworkers. And no matter what the stats said about the wider economy, that would be your driving impression of the era.
I, by comparison, am not biased by what my immediate personal surroundings happened to be in that era. I judge by the statistics. And the statistics aren't great, for the Reagan/Bush era. Poverty rates rose. Median real incomes stagnated. Violent crime rates soared to their highest levels in American history. Average unemployment rates were high. I view the era impersonally, through the lens of data that sweeps in EVERYONE'S experience, and I have no reason to apply extra weight to one batch of experiences over another, the way someone would if one batch was her own experience.
ThatOwlWoman (08-17-2018)
ThatOwlWoman (08-17-2018)
Yes. I think it's fair to call me a capitalist, since I think the ideal mix is about 2/3 capitalist to 1/3 socialist.
No. I'm supporting decreasing their exploitation. If it's voluntary immigration, then they're voting with their feet -- telling us they would be more exploited if forced to stay in their homeland than if allowed to come here to work. Denying them that choice would increase their level of exploitation.You are supporting exploitation of Third World Labor by 'bring them in to do the Labor
The problem with supporting that with immigration policy is that skills are probably a very poor proxy for genetic predisposition for intelligence. Most countries are so far removed from meritocracy, that the highly skilled people are generally going to be highly skilled for reasons having almost nothing to do with genetically determined ability.Jack: Briefly, I support 'Eugenics'. Admittedly, importing 'Smart People' is a rather slow way to the eventual goal (genetic engineering is more practical) but I could see this as a valid argument to an Immigration Plan.
Think of it, more simply, in terms of height. Imagine it's the 1700s and you want to pursue a eugenic policy of making Americans taller. Well, then, you'd avoid letting most Dutch people come here, because they were the shortest people in Europe, at the time. But, it turns out, that was a quirk of history at that moment -- a result of diet and disease factors at work in Holland in those generations, rather than genetic predisposition for shortness. Today the Dutch, with pretty much an identical gene pool, are the tallest people in the world, on average. It turns out they were genetically predisposed to be tall, and it just wasn't showing up in the results at that moment in history. Having excluded short Dutch people from the gene pool in the 1700s, by not letting them immigrate, might well have reduced average American heights in subsequent generations, since they may have been carrying a disproportionate share of latent genes for tallness.
In the same sense, the people who are low-skill now could very well be genetically predisposed to have very high intelligences, but thanks to accidents of this moment in history, they're mentally stunted by various factors. A eugenicist making a primitive choice based on an individual's skills could well be bringing in all the wrong people if his goal is raising the gene pool's intelligence level. To do that, you'd need a more sophisticated approach that considered things like markers for diet, and economic class, to account for those. Then you might end up favoring a lower-IQ poor person over a higher-IQ rich one, if the lower-IQ person were higher relative to others in his social class, and thus presumably more genetically predisposed for intelligence (albeit having had that suppressed by other factors). That person's descendants could be more likely to be high IQ than the rich person's descendants, once each set had the same opportunities for nutrition, childhood enrichment, disease prevention, education, etc.
I'll pick up with more later. I'm meeting up with some friends to hit the clubs this evening and have some prep work to do.
ThatOwlWoman (08-17-2018)
Oneuli: "Yes, the same applies equally to all skilled American workers whose investments in their productivity are being negated by way of importing low-cost foreign competitors with the same skills. As for those who are finding themselves displaced by unskilled foreign labor, though, I have some advice: step up your game."
Jack; I have another theory. Each person is a result of 'the genetic roll of the dice'. Meaning none of us are responsible for what are genetic make-up is. Some are blessed, others, not so much.
Oneuli: "If you're really in a position where someone with nothing but a third-world primary education, limited language skills, and little familiarity with US culture is out-competing you for work, perhaps it's time to take a look at your choices in life."
Jack: I'm guessing the 'average' American is a High School graduate. Maybe he works as a Roofer. The "out-competing" is the Wage issue. The 'Third World Immigrant' will 'out-compete' the American on 'Wage'.
Oneuli: "I recognize my position on it. If you want to say it's an elitist position, that's fine by me.'
Jack: OK. Nice listening to your opinions.
1. "Yes. I think it's fair to call me a capitalist, since I think the ideal mix is about 2/3 capitalist to 1/3 socialist."
Jack: I think our perceptions are based upon where we are on the 'economic totem pole'. So ... we both agree you're a Capitalist.
2. "No. I'm supporting decreasing their exploitation. If it's voluntary immigration, then they're voting with their feet -- telling us they would be more exploited if forced to stay in their homeland than if allowed to come here to work. Denying them that choice would increase their level of exploitation."
Jack: Mmmmm, that's very humanitarian of you. Amazing how you empathize with people on the other side of the Planet, ... rather than your fellow American down the street. (I'm guessing your answer to #1 above may have something to do with your answer to #2 here)
3. "The problem with supporting that with immigration policy ..."
Jack: I agree. I've admitted it's a poor way to achieve the Goal. If it was used as a 'Immigration' point, I could understand why it would garner support.
3. "I'm meeting up with some friends to hit the clubs this evening and have some prep work to do."
Jack: Have fun. Nice talking to you. Bye.
ThatOwlWoman (08-17-2018)
You are nothing if not predictable...but mostly nothing.
Who gives a flying fuck whether you think everyone's a sock or not? Apparently only you and a few others who feel impelled to figure out the identities of everyone you don't agree with.
Everyone needs a hobby I suppose.
ThatOwlWoman (08-17-2018)
Gotcha68 (08-17-2018)
Jack (08-17-2018)
Jack (08-17-2018), ThatOwlWoman (08-17-2018)
Ah yes the Bowel sock posts and in just enough time to log in Bowel posts.
Bookmarks