Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

There's nothing wrong with people retiring younger, that's where the "excessive people" should go, into retirement.

But do you know what throws a wrench into that equation?  Supporting a bunch of third world leeches that don't contribute to their economy!

---

Why do you think refugees are a bunch of third world 'leeches' that wouldn't contribute to the economy?  Did you know that Syrian Americans, for example, have more bachelors degrees than native born Americans?



39 percent of Syrian Americans have a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 30 percent of the native born.

But you're too much of a bigot to believe brown skinned and/or Muslim people can work, and this makes your arguments ridiculous.

---

night_shift said:

qman said:

"why excessive people even exist?"

Technology kills jobs, but that fact should improve the standard of living. There's nothing wrong with people retiring younger, that's where the "excessive people" should go, into retirement.

---

Oh crap. I thought I was the naive one but here I stand corrected.

Nothing wrong with the idea itself, except that it calls for radical systemic changes to ensure that: 1. people's post-retirement lives are somehow taken care of, either by government or by people's own investments, both of which mean a massive amount of capital should be transferred from corporations to the average citizen, and 2. people do retire early, making room in the labor market for the young (should they be forced or...?!).

Then, there's this other thing. Expertise is gained through ongoing education and experience. So in order not to bring down the level of expertise involved in every field of work, society would need to be organized in a way to ensure that the most experienced experts are out of the labor market yet still contributing to their fields of work.

Overall, an interesting idea but I am not sure whether you realise how radical it is?

qman said:

But do you know what throws a wrench into that equation?  Supporting a bunch of third world leeches that don't contribute to their economy!

---

Ah, there goes the answer to my question, you don't. Your "bunch of third world leeches" isn't the problem, the problem is digging into the deep pockets of corporations. Regardless of who needs the money, refugees, immigrants or retired/to-be-retired people, it's the same problem: those pockets are fucking hard to take something out of and this needs to change.

---

"Regardless of who needs the money, refugees, immigrants, or retired/to be retired people, it's the same problem: those pockets are fucking hard to take something out of"

  Are you OK?  Do you really think corporate profits could take care of the whole world?  You really don't understand economics. 

I got news for you, if Western nations got more tax revenue from corporations, that money would be used by those citizens, NOT refugees and illegal immigrants.

night_shift said:

qman said:

night_shift said:

Why is respecting citizenship laws linked to respecting property right laws?

---

Because the US is the property of US CITIZENS, not foreigners!! The property of the US isn't any different than your private residence.

---

I don't think I've ever seen the notion that a state is property, so I am confused. How is the US the property of US citizens? Do each of the US citizens get a portion of US GDP, or...?!

qman said:

The day everyone can come into the US is the day the US doesn't exist anymore, it's the same if I give a key to your home to 10,000 homeless people.

---

Yet this is precisely how the US came into existence. Do the US have an existencial problem? Frankly, I think the answer is yes.

qman said:

If you want to live in a free for all world where everything should be border-less, I'll send some brothers to sleep in your bed tonight.

---

You know people who are willing to come over and sleep in my bed just to prove your point? Wow.

Yeah, I admit, if such loonatics come to my door, they'll be kicked out. I somehow don't see this happening though. On the other hand, while I do believe personal space exists and should be respected, I also believe it is flexible, hence in my otherwise very boring life I've slept on floors, I've had people sleep on my floor, I've shared a single person sized bed with three other people without being sexually involved with any of them and other not so common experiences like these, which are in fact very rational if you take into account each particular situation. When circumstances call and there's a will people tend to find a way. Your unknown to me brothers kind of don't count as "circumstances call" and I can't even imagine what you think this proves.

---

Enlil said:

I guess it depends on what we mean by "jobs".  If we're talking about specific areas of employment...yes.  Technology kills jobs.  After all, there aren't a lot of Phrenologists out there anymore.  Never in my life have I seen an ad that says "Blacksmith wanted."

It is an undeniable fact that technology makes it so that one man can produce more than he could in the pre-technology era.  That means it takes less people to produce all of the necessities of a population.  That obviously means a smaller percentage of the population would be employed to meet those needs.

The only way that employment opportunities can stay at the same level is if the population takes advantage of the new technologies to increase the standard of living beyond those basic necessities.  The more technology, the higher the standard of living has to climb, or the employment opportunities will fall behind. 

The problem with this is that it isn't an endless cycle.  Technology relies on raw materials and it creates waste.  There is no infinite source of energy or any raw material.  Eventually, the standard of living will get capped, and if technology keeps growing, the job market will contract. 

I'm not advocating for a reversal of technology, of course.  That's impossible.  Besides, I like the standard of living I have.  I'm just recognizing the reality that this train can't go forever, and we're going to hit the end of the track sooner or later.  I just hope I get my free ride on it before that happens.

---

night_shift said:

I don't think I've ever seen the notion that a state is property, so I am confused. How is the US the property of US citizens? Do each of the US citizens get a portion of US GDP, or...?!

---

Enlil said:

I'm just recognizing the reality that this train can't go forever, and we're going to hit the end of the track sooner or later.  I just hope I get my free ride on it before that happens.

---

hostileuniverse said:

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, "you can have open borders or a welfare state, you can't have both"

Makes sense, the US, or Europe, can simply not absorb a never ever ending stream of poor people from other countries and continue to exist, the collapse is inevitable.

---

night_shift said:

qman said:

"Regardless of who needs the money, refugees, immigrants, or retired/to be retired people, it's the same problem: those pockets are fucking hard to take something out of"

  Are you OK?  Do you really think corporate profits could take care of the whole world?  You really don't understand economics.

I got news for you, if Western nations got more tax revenue from corporations, that money would be used by those citizens, NOT refugees and illegal immigrants.

---

Corporate profits couldn't take care of a single thing because they are not designed to do so - and thy don't. Corporate profits increase corporate profits and isn't this great for everybody contributing to said profits by paying taxes and buying goods. No, I don't understand economics and yes, I really think we live in Paradise, so it's all nice and good and let's praise the Lord - or Stalin, it's kind of the same thing anyway.

---

  If you can't make a valid point, just give a rest.

night_shift said:

Enlil said:

night_shift said:

I don't think I've ever seen the notion that a state is property, so I am confused. How is the US the property of US citizens? Do each of the US citizens get a portion of US GDP, or...?!

---

It's not technically property of the citizens, but his point is that the territory is controlled by a group of people, called citizens, that have formed a governmental system to manage it.  Since that governmental system is sovereign, it has full control over that land including the authority to control who enters and exits it.

Since citizens control that governmental body, the citizens control the territory.

---

I know where his point comes from. He also suggests that owning a bedroom is the same as controlling a country. This is bullshit, sorry, and explaining where the bullshit comes from doesn't make it less smelly.

---

qman said:

night_shift said:

Why is respecting citizenship laws linked to respecting property right laws?

---

Because the US is the property of US CITIZENS, not foreigners!! The property of the US isn't any different than your private residence.

---

night_shift said:

qman said:

Sweetie Pie, nothing about conquest is "fair and good" for the losers!!  Guess what?  If people from XYZ want to takeover the US and they can do it, it's theirs at that point. This is called human nature, why do you have such a difficult time understanding this basic fact?

---

Sweety Pie, you do realise what you just said means, right?

---

night_shift said:

qman said:

Sweetie Pie, nothing about conquest is "fair and good" for the losers!!  Guess what?  If people from XYZ want to takeover the US and they can do it, it's theirs at that point. This is called human nature, why do you have such a difficult time understanding this basic fact?

---

Sweety Pie, you do realise what you just said means, right?

---