06 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaYes, population growth nearly always leads to economic growth.
Oh, OK.
So... You think that, given enough unskilled labor immigrating to our country, our nation's economy will appropriately expand?
Let me guess... You can't elaborate on this idea, but that is the case, right? And I'll just get some curt response like this one..?
06 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhat is your source of information?
The "elites" have already established classless societies (or at least something close to it) in Europe, and there is no reason the U.S. could not emulate them.
06 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSure, there will be some middling amount of fiscal expansion by mere virtue of the fact that there are more peopel performing labor.
Yes, population growth nearly always leads to economic growth.
But let's look at the economic expansion of, say, Finland or Norway between 1940 and 2000 versus that of India, and what this actually meant for people's quality of life.
Surely, you understand that the goal of an economy isn't too simply have larger numbers. It's to have a higher quality of life for all people.
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraBullcrap!
The "elites" have already established classless societies (or at least something close to it) in Europe, and there is no reason the U.S. could not emulate them.
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
What is your source of information?
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaI didn't say economic (i.e. GDP) growth should be a goal per se, but it is what you mentioned.
Sure, there will be some middling amount of fiscal expansion by mere virtue of the fact that there are more peopel performing labor.
But let's look at the economic expansion of, say, Finland or Norway between 1940 and 2000 versus that of India, and what this actually meant for people's quality of life.
Surely, you understand that the goal of an e ...[text shortened]... nomy isn't too simply have larger numbers. It's to have a higher quality of life for all people.
In both Finland/Norway and India people's quality of life increased dramatically over that time period. What does that have to do with migration?
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNo classless societies or even close. No such thing. Probably will never happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThe improvements to quality of life in most places have to do with advancements in technology and nothing at all with the sheer number of people. Indeed, having less people makes it easier for a nation to be prosperous in many ways.
I didn't say economic (i.e. GDP) growth should be a goal per se, but it is what you mentioned.
In both Finland/Norway and India people's quality of life increased dramatically over that time period. What does that have to do with migration?
For the overall quality of life to improve in India, for the bulk of people to occupy a middle class similar to the middle class lifestyle of a Finnish person, it literally involves getting sophisticated logistics systems and middle class incomes for hundreds & hundreds of millions of people.
Even as it stands here in Korea... Samsung can only employ so many people for so long. There are literally policies in place dictated by politicians which make it so that persons at Samsung who haven't achieved a certain status by a certain time are forced into retirement if only to get more people the opportunity to work at this company.
It's hard to actually fully describe these things to people because it takes a while to sink it but like... In places like Korea, it was considered very prestigious to be a flight attendant for Korean Air back int he day. In places like Uzbekistan, it is now like it used to be in Korea back in the day; it is actually still considered quite prestigious, and they have even done TV shows about people competing to become flight attendants here in Korea! everyone is proud of their kid that became a flight attendant because in an overwhelmingly agrarian or cottage industry society where so many people bust their knuckles to make a buck, the idea that you have one of the few slots like that is spectacular...
You know, in the seventies, it was considered very prestigious to be the lady on the bus who read the names of the bus stops because you got to be pretty, literate, and have a sort of 'authority' over other's behavior, and a sort of 'knowledge.'
That's how it is in economies where grandpa grew up illiterate on the farm as opposed to grandpa went to school and had the potential to work at a desk.
If you can say that your grandpa wore a suit & tie to work, in many societies that's very prestigious still.
07 Sep 18
That was a bit of a rant -- and I apologize -- but the point is that... the quality of living, and the process of improvement, can be surprisingly gradual, and the lack of resources in a place can make for odd circumstances and odd imbalances.
And, moreover, looks can be very deceiving.
We used to joke about "peasant phones." You know, the off model smartphones that you see some people have -- the $50 version of the phone with terrible audio quality, a horrible camera, and sensors that don't allow you to play most games; but, if you do not know what you are looking for, it just looks like an older version of some other $800 phone.
You meet these people out from the islands or the countryside who are indistinguishable from others but you quickly learn that they live in an apartment the size of your bathroom and only have two days off work a week; they get paid around $10 grand a year, all of which goes towards their apartment and foodstuffs, and one of the perks of their position is that their boss buys them lunch and occasionally takes them out to drink.
I knew a kid who absolutely had to get his scholarship or his gig was totally up... And that really meant going back to work on the fishing boats in Cheolla; maybe if he got a really great gig and was super frugal, he'd be able to somehow work himself into a more technical side of the job and have a lower middle class existence, but even this is highly competitive, right.
And we are talking about a country is now considered widely as a prosperous, good place to live.
And... it feels like a snag has been hit and that there isn't going to be that much foreseeable improvement for a lot of peopel who aren't already in the zone, so to speak.
To some degree... It feels like a zero sum game.
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainHerp derp.
No classless societies or even close. No such thing. Probably will never happen.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhat is a "reasonable" limit, and what governs it?
Through fiscal policy, governments can make net wages for workers anything they want them to be (within reasonable limits).
I am an apologist for a classless society.
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaYeah sorry, not really getting your point.
That was a bit of a rant -- and I apologize -- but the point is that... the quality of living, and the process of improvement, can be surprisingly gradual, and the lack of resources in a place can make for odd circumstances and odd imbalances.
And, moreover, looks can be very deceiving.
We used to joke about "peasant phones." You know, the off mo ...[text shortened]... ren't already in the zone,[/i] so to speak.
To some degree... It feels like a zero sum game.
Yes, the government should ensure that the quality of life is optimized, but it is far from obvious that repressive migration policies achieve this goal.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo you are saying there will be a single class to which every member of society will belong. So not "classless" society, just a common "class" society. The overall standard of living will be uniform among all members, and set in such a way as to maximize group societal utility (how is this parameter measured?). Can you please provide an example of relative compensation between a coal miner and a physicist in you're theoretical construct?
The limit should be set in such a way as to maximize utility, i.e. the overall standard of life in a society.
P.S. you didn't answer my question, I asked what governs the "setting" of that parameter, not what it "should be" set at.
07 Sep 18
Originally posted by @joe-shmoI don't understand the difference between "classless" and "common class."
So you are saying there will be a single class to which every member of society will belong. So not "classless" society, just a common "class" society. The overall standard of living will be uniform among all members, and set in such a way as to maximize group societal utility (how is this parameter measured?). Can you please provide an example of relati ...[text shortened]... question, I asked what governs the "setting" of that parameter, not what it "should be" set at.
What I mean is that birth ought not be important for the essentials in life e.g. a safe neighbourhood, access to high-quality education and health care, etc. So the compensation actually wouldn't matter for those kind of things (as is already for the most part the case in Nordic countries for example, and to a slightly lesser degree here in Germany). So the idea is to make the salary only matter for buying nice (but in the greater scheme of things, unimportant) stuff.
BTW, I don't know what you think a physicist makes, but I don't think it's very different from a coal miner's salary. I get around $65k before taxes, although that is a junior position of course.