FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Technological advancement does not ultimately lead to unemployment.
Why Socialism?
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
Based Chad
Was it me?
It definitely does in the short term. It can. How far in the future is "ultimately".
Im not saying advancement should be ignored, but it does put people out of work, until they retrain, especially when even knowlege worker jobs are outsourced.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
A lot of modern philosophies (1800-1950) were grounded on the premise of economic activity being predatory, so I can see where Einstein was coming from on that, as a product of his age, so to speak...
You argue over non controversial points because you are short sighted and not very bright.
It does not cause unemployment. Technological advancement creates jobs, increases the standard of living and reduces the burdens on the laborer.
apple0154
MEOW
That's one of the reasons social programs are necessary. It would benefit the individual, as well as the entire country, if people were retrained and received assistance while doing so.
The whole idea of technological advancement is to make life easier for all mankind. People will continually be replaced by machines/technology and that's great. It's just a question of dealing with it as a group, as a country, as a planet.
Based Chad
Was it me?
Not necessarily apple. It could be that people live on savings while they are retraining. And there must be something to retrain into,i.e. all high paying jobs cannot be sent overseas to slave laborers or people with a low cost of living. Corporations could cease doing that voluntarily, but protectionism and limiting trade partners could do that too, and that's not welfare, it's just pro american trade policy.
none of this justifies the new world order you crave so much. in fact, the new world order and globalization idiocy are guaranteeing there's nothing to retrain into in the western world.
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Such is true for most scientists. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's too much to ask to have me upvote SM.
Who asked?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Winston Churchill
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Based Chad
Was it me?
but then theres this
"Internationalist fascism turned to out to be the goal of the western powers who trumpeted freedom and free trade, and the threepers were on board with it." --AssHatZombie
apple0154
MEOW
This may be somewhat lengthy so grab a coffee and enjoy the read.
The first thing to consider is, "What makes a high paying job?" I think we can all agree it has to do with demand so the more people capable of doing a job the less their services will cost us. Us, being you and me. Why would we want to pay more if we can pay less and we do pay a lot less for many things.
For example, consider the cost of a TV back in the 70s. It was a major purchase then. People had one TV. Today, people have 3 or 4 TVs. Living room, rec room, kitchen, bedroom, (Just a note addressing some folks saying a TV in the bedroom is a bad idea, romantically speaking. The reality is it all depends on what one watches.
but that's something best left for another thread). Anyway, the point is the more people capable of producing a product the better it is for all concerned. Now we get into services. One's wealth is determined by what others make. The gross national income by country shows China's average wage to be $865.03 compared to the average US wage of $33,070.30 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita) so a Chinese individual earning $8500.00/yr would be equivalent to a US citizen earning over $300,000/yr. In other words it's all relative.
Consider the two-income family. Take, for example, a plumber/electrician married to a school teacher compared to a plumber/electrician being the sole provider for a family. The married plumber/electrician is not as financially strapped as the single guy so he is going to make sure it's worth his while before he jumps in his truck to unblock your sink on a Saturday. However, if his wife loses her job he will be a little more motivated to work resulting is charging less which will result in you paying less which means you can earn less and still get the services you require.
The same principal applies across the board. As more products are produced by people earning less and others taking lower paying jobs after getting laid off the entire country's average wage decreases but that does not mean individuals are getting poorer.
What's happening now is we can afford to buy products produced in other countries but they can't afford to buy products produced here and that results in a trade imbalance.
It's not only a matter of retraining. It has to do with balancing the wages across the planet and that has to be done in order to bring the world together. Do you know of a better way to bring the people out of poverty?
The "problem" is the gap between worker's wages compared to those of CEOs. The problem lies there, not with free trade or a new world order.
The world is becoming more and more interdependent. Sure, there are going to be adjustments that have to be made and they're going to affect the average person but what is the alternative?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what a croc. the gap between workers and CEOs? balancing wages across the planet?
you claim to want to bring people out of poverty, but you're putting the majority of americans in it to do so. how's that work again?
Based Chad
Was it me?
This may be somewhat lengthy so grab a coffee and enjoy the read.
The first thing to consider is, "What makes a high paying job?" I think we can all agree it has to do with demand so the more people capable of doing a job the less their services will cost us. Us, being you and me. Why would we want to pay more if we can pay less and we do pay a lot less for many things.
For example, consider the cost of a TV back in the 70s. It was a major purchase then. People had one TV. Today, people have 3 or 4 TVs. Living room, rec room, kitchen, bedroom, (Just a note addressing some folks saying a TV in the bedroom is a bad idea, romantically speaking. The reality is it all depends on what one watches.
Now we get into services. One's wealth is determined by what others make. The gross national income by country shows China's average wage to be $865.03 compared to the average US wage of $33,070.30 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita) so a Chinese individual earning $8500.00/yr would be equivalent to a US citizen earning over $300,000/yr. In other words it's all relative.
Consider the two-income family. Take, for example, a plumber/electrician married to a school teacher compared to a plumber/electrician being the sole provider for a family. The married plumber/electrician is not as financially strapped as the single guy so he is going to make sure it's worth his while before he jumps in his truck to unblock your sink on a Saturday. However, if his wife loses her job he will be a little more motivated to work resulting is charging less which will result in you paying less which means you can earn less and still get the services you require.
The same principal applies across the board. As more products are produced by people earning less and others taking lower paying jobs after getting laid off the entire country's average wage decreases but that does not mean individuals are getting poorer.
What's happening now is we can afford to buy products produced in other countries but they can't afford to buy products produced here and that results in a trade imbalance.
It's not only a matter of retraining. It has to do with balancing the wages across the planet and that has to be done in order to bring the world together. Do you know of a better way to bring the people out of poverty?
The "problem" is the gap between worker's wages compared to those of CEOs. The problem lies there, not with free trade or a new world order.
The world is becoming more and more interdependent. Sure, there are going to be adjustments that have to be made and they're going to affect the average person but what is the alternative?
You're an idiot.
what does retraining have to do with balancing wages across the planet?
Making less money always means less purchasing power, just due to inflation alone.
The alternative is the time honored protectionist policies of the past and disallowing trade with slave labor nations. It's worth it to pay more for stuff so americans keep their standard of living. This value should be enforced in national trade policy.
I understand you want to destroy american lives with globalization due to your inverted notions of justice, but patriots and those who love their fellow countrymen will not allow your international fascist policies to succeed.
Based Chad
Was it me?
This may be somewhat lengthy so grab a coffee and enjoy the read.
The first thing to consider is, "What makes a high paying job?" I think we can all agree it has to do with demand so the more people capable of doing a job the less their services will cost us. Us, being you and me. Why would we want to pay more if we can pay less and we do pay a lot less for many things.
For example, consider the cost of a TV back in the 70s. It was a major purchase then. People had one TV. Today, people have 3 or 4 TVs. Living room, rec room, kitchen, bedroom, (Just a note addressing some folks saying a TV in the bedroom is a bad idea, romantically speaking. The reality is it all depends on what one watches.
Now we get into services. One's wealth is determined by what others make. The gross national income by country shows China's average wage to be $865.03 compared to the average US wage of $33,070.30 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita) so a Chinese individual earning $8500.00/yr would be equivalent to a US citizen earning over $300,000/yr. In other words it's all relative.
Consider the two-income family. Take, for example, a plumber/electrician married to a school teacher compared to a plumber/electrician being the sole provider for a family. The married plumber/electrician is not as financially strapped as the single guy so he is going to make sure it's worth his while before he jumps in his truck to unblock your sink on a Saturday. However, if his wife loses her job he will be a little more motivated to work resulting is charging less which will result in you paying less which means you can earn less and still get the services you require.
The same principal applies across the board. As more products are produced by people earning less and others taking lower paying jobs after getting laid off the entire country's average wage decreases but that does not mean individuals are getting poorer.
What's happening now is we can afford to buy products produced in other countries but they can't afford to buy products produced here and that results in a trade imbalance.
It's not only a matter of retraining. It has to do with balancing the wages across the planet and that has to be done in order to bring the world together. Do you know of a better way to bring the people out of poverty?
The "problem" is the gap between worker's wages compared to those of CEOs. The problem lies there, not with free trade or a new world order.
The world is becoming more and more interdependent. Sure, there are going to be adjustments that have to be made and they're going to affect the average person but what is the alternative?
You're an idiot.
what does retraining have to do with balancing wages across the planet?
Making less money always means less purchasing power, just due to inflation alone.
The alternative is the time honored protectionist policies of the past and disallowing trade with slave labor nations. It's worth it to pay more for stuff so americans keep their standard of living. This value should be enforced in national trade policy.
I understand you want to destroy american lives with globalization due to your inverted notions of justice, but patriots and those who love their fellow countrymen will not allow your international fascist policies to succeed.
apple0154
MEOW
That is the adjustment. A different problem exists in countries like China and India. For example, ".....China is still poor on an income per person basis. Average income for city dwellers in 2009 was 18,858 yuan ($2,700), while in the populous countryside it was just 5,153 yuan ($752)." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/china-on-path-to-become-s_n_431189.html)
While it's great the average Chinese wage is increasing it will take time for things to balance in their country as well as balance on the world stage.
What other way do you suggest the balance be carried out here? How do we level the playing field?
apple0154
MEOW
You're not looking long term. If you are going to have countries like China as trading partners you have to balance things out so they can buy what you produce. Who are you going to sell your products to if other countries can buy the same product from China much cheaper?
You keep talking about jobs but there won't be jobs if the US can not export products. ? That's exactly what's happening now.
This was one of Einstein's mistakes. It is simply not true that wages are completely elastic. A shortage of farm laborers is not going to dramatically increase the wage a farm laborer can command. As the wages rise other alternatives become more attractive (e.g., more automation, imported goods from some place without a shortage, etc.). Also, it will lead to more immigration, legal or not.
For example, consider the cost of a TV back in the 70s. It was a major purchase then. People had one TV. Today, people have 3 or 4 TVs. Living room, rec room, kitchen, bedroom, (Just a note addressing some folks saying a TV in the bedroom is a bad idea, romantically speaking. The reality is it all depends on what one watches.
The cost of just about everything has come down since the 70's, except for college, medical care and housing (three areas in which the government is heavily involved in fucking shit up).
What? $8500 a year in China does not make one as comfortable as 300k here does. It's not all relative.
Except for the fact that the plumber can't lower many of his costs, regardless of whether his wife works or not. His gas, marketing costs, etc., do not go down based on the employment status of his wife.
Uhhh, no. That might explain trade imbalances between two specific trading partners. But, net trade deficits cannot exist without a capital surplus. We cannot "afford" a trade deficit unless there is a surplus in capital to finance such deficits.
You are trying to argue in favor of free trade? Please, don't.
It's not income disparity. Poor people in China will not be better off if we grow poorer. That is stupid. They will be better off, and the gap will decrease, because their incomes will rise due to trade. It is not necessary that our incomes decline.
Last edited:
Based Chad
Was it me?
It doesn't have to lead to more immigration. Immigration can be controlled and domestic makets kept intact and responsive. Just because you believe in manipulating labor markets by changing immmigration policy doesn't mean labor markets aren't like other markets. All markets can be manipulated and usually are.
As a fascist you're just hostile to labor, and so pretend they're somehow intrinsically different.
Stringfield, don't pretend you're not just as on board with destroying america with globalization as she is. You should listen to some of your own advice about globalization and trade imbalance. I know you have to pretend you;re worlds apart for show, but i love watching you wiggle. You both are on the same side of the debate, as much as you like to deny it.
Last edited:
Based Chad
Was it me?
We shouldn't have china as a trading partner. At this point just providing for our OWN NEEDS would increase production.
We need corporations with a pro american commitment, who don't view degrading the american standard of living as a profit center.