(August 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Do you even understand basic world economy?

Yes, especially the parts you don't.

(August 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: What part of "you cant compete with a dollar a day pay" do you not understand?

The part that says why you shouldn't starve if you can't compete.

So you are FULL aware of the payrates and the conditions in China then as you have openly admited..and bragging you know more than I as well... yet you still blamed America for not being able to keep up with wage you fully were aware was equal to slave wages?

What are you? Some kind of tyrannical ass hole or something?

Let me guess...Libertarian.

---

(August 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 30, 2011 at 4:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Exactly what we need to think about, outproducing the chinese in the plastic baubbles dept. Later, we can erect temples to our idiocy with them. Is it so absurd to demand that workers everywhere have a greater share in the profits of the business that would not exist without them? Again, the world didn't suddenly become poor, the money simply changed hands.

Who said we have to compete with the Chinese baubble for baubble? It's precisely not the baubbles but things which we really could add more value in proportion to our greater salary that we should concentrate. Let the Chinese make baubbles, we should find something we make 5 times better than they do if our worker cost 4 times as much. This is exactly why we should outsource.

If we don't outsource, all we are doing is to subsidize American labors for getting paid more, while producing less. Cooperation might seem like a cushy, foresight obscuring way out, but in the long run, no economy can long prosper by costing more to produce less. And to sustain the ability to produce more for unit cost, this efficiency has to penetrate pretty thoroughly throughout the economy, down to the minimum wage earners.

Well, I am glad to see that you are so excited about this. I am sure you will be standing in line for the first job that offers only $.89 pay for a 12 hour day of hard labor. Surely you will insist that the company not give you benefits or medical ins as well, since you are so gung ho about this.

(August 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Here is a good question.

Is there currently enough resources to clothe feed and give every human the basic necessity's of life? Because currently that is not happening.

Once we know the answer to that question we can develop ways to spread these resources to benefit all humans.

I will justify my thinking by saying that, I did not choose to be born in the US, I did not choose to have good parents, I did not choose to be a male, I did not choose to be white.

Ahh but religion is a great way to artificially make yourself better than someone else!!!! When in reality we are all the exact same, besides superficial differences.

So how can I hold any of these things against anyone else?

There is enough resource to ensure everyone has the necessities of life, which I define simply as food to eat, a home to live in, medical care available to all. What is missing is the will to distribute the wealth of the world more evenly to achieve that end.

(August 30, 2011 at 6:00 pm)bozo Wrote:

(August 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Here is a good question.

Is there currently enough resources to clothe feed and give every human the basic necessity's of life? Because currently that is not happening.

Once we know the answer to that question we can develop ways to spread these resources to benefit all humans.

I will justify my thinking by saying that, I did not choose to be born in the US, I did not choose to have good parents, I did not choose to be a male, I did not choose to be white.

Ahh but religion is a great way to artificially make yourself better than someone else!!!! When in reality we are all the exact same, besides superficial differences.

So how can I hold any of these things against anyone else?

There is enough resource to ensure everyone has the necessities of life, which I define simply as food to eat, a home to live in, medical care available to all. What is missing is the will to distribute the wealth of the world more evenly to achieve that end.

But didnt you know?!?! The Libertarian types consider that to be bad for humanity. The only way it should work is that the best Libertarian be crowned Emperor, and that all other people be his slaves.

Wouldn't want to go coddling any starving people anywhere. What incentive would there be to go out and sell their bodies for food?

(August 30, 2011 at 5:31 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Well, I am glad to see that you are so excited about this. I am sure you will be standing in line for the first job that offers only $.89 pay for a 12 hour day of hard labor. Surely you will insist that the company not give you benefits or medical ins as well, since you are so gung ho about this.

How long do you really think a economy will continue to be able to do so if ut were to try to pay you $50 for a 3 hour day when the rest of the world gets 8 hours of more productive work out of $40?

---

(August 30, 2011 at 6:03 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(August 30, 2011 at 6:00 pm)bozo Wrote:

(August 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Here is a good question.

Is there currently enough resources to clothe feed and give every human the basic necessity's of life? Because currently that is not happening.

Once we know the answer to that question we can develop ways to spread these resources to benefit all humans.

I will justify my thinking by saying that, I did not choose to be born in the US, I did not choose to have good parents, I did not choose to be a male, I did not choose to be white.

Ahh but religion is a great way to artificially make yourself better than someone else!!!! When in reality we are all the exact same, besides superficial differences.

So how can I hold any of these things against anyone else?

There is enough resource to ensure everyone has the necessities of life, which I define simply as food to eat, a home to live in, medical care available to all. What is missing is the will to distribute the wealth of the world more evenly to achieve that end.

But didnt you know?!?! The Libertarian types consider that to be bad for humanity. The only way it should work is that the best Libertarian be crowned Emperor, and that all other people be his slaves.

Any intelligent people with an interest in the long term prosperity of the world would consider it bad to reward people for wanting to take more while menifestly giving back less (Assurance of being fed and clothed for just breathing when others could have taken the same pay and make ipads).

Refusing to allow people to be paid the same for flipping burgers as making ipads is the a far different thing from providing emergency relief to tie an otherwise productive ipad maker over brief period of unemployment.

Yeah..I thought so..all of this talk about "they" when it comes to people making less.

Chuck has no balls. If he honetly believed his crap he would say "I need to make less money, because the economy cant continue like this"

No..he says "THEY" need to make less money...of course paycuts are for eveyone BUT Chuck.

Any other cuts you wish to volunteer for everyone else Chuck? Perhaps I should give up myhealth insurance coverage, or should I take a $20 dollar an hour pay cut to make the economy work better for you..since you are so special and all.

(August 30, 2011 at 1:54 pm)paintpooper Wrote: When you have a machine that takes 100 jobs, what 100 jobs get created? See my point? With population still rising, is this not a significant issue to be addressed?

This is the central tenet of Ludditieism, & has been around as long as we have had steam powered manufacturing.

(August 30, 2011 at 3:14 pm)paintpooper Wrote: Example. All hypothetically but I think truth is in it.

It takes one man 1 hour to build 1 toy car.
It takes one machine 1 hour to build 10 toy cars.

Just don't forget that someone still has to:

1.) Design that machine.
2.) Build that machine.
3.) Sell that machine.
4.) Transport that machine.
5.) Service that machine.
7.) Provide power for that machine.
8.) Know how to operate that machine.

I don't think it's quite as bleak as you think.

---

(August 30, 2011 at 4:17 pm)Chuck Wrote: So American minimum wage labor who just stand there and breath would be of truly embrassing inferiority compare to the Chinese labor who turn out Ipads for the same pay.

So where do we draw the line? Happiness in Slavery?

---

(August 30, 2011 at 4:49 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Libertarians absolutely LOVE this sort of stuff.

Personally I don't. Most would say that the state should be setting the minimum wage (like quite a few do already). I personally don't know any libertarians that think the idea of a minimum wage should be abolished.

Quote:So where do we draw the line? Happiness in Slavery?

If by drawing the line, you mean creating an artificial level in the scale of poverty and subsidizing anyone falling below that line, then one could only possibly hope to hold this line if one's overall economy is developing in such a way that its relative competitiveness and productive efficiency is increasing comparing to its international competitors. In other words, the competitive portion of the economy can be expected to produce increasing amounts of surplus value with which to subsidize the uncompetitive portion of the economy.

It is impossible to draw such a line and hope one could possibly hold it for very long in situation where the overall economy's competitiveness and relative productivity is declining compare to major international competitors, like our economy is now thanks to the rise of low wage, but extremely competitive economies like China. In other words, by diverting resources from the competitive portions of the economy to subsidize the uncompetitive portions of the economy, one weakens the ability of the competitive portions of the economy to keep up with competitors, thus cause a long term decrease in the amount of surplus value in the economy with which to subsidize the uncompetitive portion of the economy, until there is simply not enough surplus resource to maintain the subsidy.

So as long as China's overall competitiveness is rapidly gaining on ours, it doesn't matter where we draw the line, we can't hold the line. So we might as well not count on any lines we draw.

The only solution is hinted at in paragraph one. To try to ensure "one's overall economy is developing in such a way that its relative competitiveness and productive efficiency is increasing comparing to its international competitors".

(August 31, 2011 at 2:23 pm)Chuck Wrote: The only solution is hinted at in paragraph one. To try to ensure "one's overall economy is developing in such a way that its relative competitiveness and productive efficiency is increasing comparing to its international competitors".

Like when the quality of Asian cars eventually caught up & surpassed American cars?

How would you compete with nations like India & China & still keep a decent quality of life?

Competition again. Okay, here's the deal. You cannot compete with someone in anything, ever, if that person is not following the same rulebook.

Let's say you're playing chess, normal rules apply for you, but your opponent's pieces all act as queens. Compete? I think not.