The world is massively overpopulated

[Runt]

You do realize that making imports more expensive (by the protectionist policies) people buy less of them. That means the poor country stays poor. That doesn't help the poor, it actually hurts them.

It doesn't work like that. You do not end poverty by not paying people enough to eat, clothe themselves, or get proper medical care. The system you advocate only benefits people in the United States and foreign corporations who benefit from the exploitation of their own countrymen. Thus, those who are already wealthy get wealthier, while everyone else continues living in poverty. There may be some trickle down effect, but it is far from enough, and people benefit more from an honest wage.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

It doesn't work like that. You do not end poverty by not paying people enough to eat, clothe themselves, or get proper medical care. The system you advocate only benefits people in the United States and foreign corporations who benefit from the exploitation of their own countrymen. Thus, those who are already wealthy get wealthier, while everyone else continues living in poverty.

The 'dependency' theory has been fully discredited.

You still need to answer this question: how does the government raising the prices of imports from poor countries help people in this countries?

 

[Runt]

The 'dependency' theory has been fully discredited.

You still need to answer this question: how does the government raising the prices of imports from poor countries help people in this countries?

Just look at the example of minimum wages in this country. Yes, minimum wage drives prices up. The cost of living goes up and we complain that it's hard to keep up with rising prices. But difficult as it can be at times to keep up, we CAN keep up, and the quality of living for the average person is MUCH better than if corporations were able to pay as little as people are willing to accept for their labor. (And if you want to argue that minimum wages do NOT help lift people out of poverty... Point in fact: Illegal immigrants not paid honest wages cannot sustain the same quality of living as people who are paid at least a minimum wage. They do not benefit from corporpations who pay them as little as they will accept.) Although minimum wage makes everything a little financially harder for everyone, fewer people live in poverty because of it.

The same principles apply when paying people in other countries fairly necessarily raises the prices of imports from poor countries. Yes, there are some economic disadvantages, but overall, benefits are more evenly distributed.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

The same principles apply when paying people in other countries fairly necessarily raises the prices of imports from poor countries. Yes, there are some economic disadvantages, but overall, benefits are more evenly distributed.

How so? Do you believe in the economic rule of thumb that when prices rise, people buy less?

Just look at the example of minimum wages in this country. Yes, minimum wage drives prices up.

Raising the minimum wage leads to an increase in unemployment for poor and minorities because it arbitrarily raises the price of labor and necessarily price people out of the market. It also forces many employers to hire more part time employees and offer fewer benefits.

So, your minimum wage analogy proves my point. It actually hurts the very people is intended to help.

 

[Runt]

How so? Do you believe in the economic rule of thumb that when prices rise, people buy less?

Do I believe that there is a negative relationship between price and demand, you mean? Of course. Do I think this is the only relationship operative in economics? Heck no! Yes, yes yes, increase prices and people will buy less, but this is not the only determining factor contributing to quality of living. And it is certainly not the only factor of interest when we engage the issue through an ethical lens!

Raising the minimum wage leads to an increase in unemployment for poor and minorities because it arbitrarily raises the price of labor and necessarily price people out of the market. It also forces many employers to hire more part time employees and offer fewer benefits.

And yet despite all that, overall people enjoy a better quality of life due to the mere fact that they're paid enough to at least put food on the table. It certainly evens things out a bit... but then, maybe you LIKE the idea of a disappearing middle class, and would rather that some people obtain grossly disproportionate benefits compared to the rest of society? I mean, who cares if one person is starving despite being employed, provided his employer can afford three cars and steak every night? It one exceedingly rich man and one poor man better than a man living at minimum wage and another enjoying a middle class existence? Sure, OVERALL the "society" these two individuals comprise is wealthier overall in the first instance than the second, but who cares if one man is starving and the other has way more than he needs?

I would also point off that we've gotten way off topic. We're supposed to be discussing whether the planet is overpopulated, not whether certain economic policies are better than others.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

Do I believe that there is a negative relationship between price and demand, you mean? Of course. Do I think this is the only relationship operative in economics? Heck no! Yes, yes yes, increase prices and people will buy less, but this is not the only determining factor contributing to quality of living. And it is certainly not the only factor of interest when we engage the issue through an ethical lens!

It is a determining factor in poor countries getting richer. Poor countries produce goods (probably cheap goods because they are poor), the U.S. government raises the price of these goods. Thus, people will buy less of them. This hurts the poor country and its ability to raise its standard of living.

And yet despite all that, overall people enjoy a better quality of life. It certainly evens things out a bit... but then, maybe you LIKE the idea of a disappearing middle class, and would rather that some people obtain grossly disproportionate benefits compared to the rest of society? I mean, who cares if one person is starving despite being employed, provided his employer can afford three cars and steak every night?

People aren't enjoying a better quality of life because of minimum wage laws. Wages rise in almost every job if you work for any extended period of time.

 

[blackout]

The world is massively overpopulated.

The people of the world are massively underempowered.

The elite of the world are massively overprivelidged.

 

[Runt]

It is a determining factor in poor countries getting richer. Poor countries produce goods (probably cheap goods because they are poor), the U.S. government raises the price of these goods. Thus, people will buy less of them. This hurts the poor country and its ability to raise its standard of living.

Explain to me how preventing a working person from making enough money to feed herself and her family raises that person out of poverty.

People aren't enjoying a better quality of life because of minimum wage laws. Wages rise in almost every job if you work for any extended period of time.

How does a person making $1-2 an hour enjoys a better quality of life than someone making (what is it now?) $5.50 an hour?

Also, I'm curious as to how an unskilled laborer who is not even making enough to eat regularly is going to have the time and money to be trained in the skills necessary to earn him or her a higher wage.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I don't think it's overpopulated at all. What I think is the problem is how we use the earth's resources. So... really... at the rate we use resources - yes it's overpopulated. But it's got the potential to populate many many many more people, should we live a whole lot more simply.

 

[Runt]

The world is massively overpopulated.

The people of the world are massively underempowered.

The elite of the world are massively overprivelidged.

Oh, but haven't you heard the news?!

Underempowerment + overpriviledge = empowerment!

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

Explain to me how preventing a working person from making enough money to feed herself and her family raises that person out of poverty.

This will happen if we follow your advice and raise the price of imports. That will keep poor people poor. Do you really understand the notion that people will not purchase expensive imports?

How does a person making $1-2 an hour enjoys a better quality of life than someone making (what is it now?) $5.50 an hour?

Let's say there were no minimum wage laws and some employer offered a position for $1 an hour. Guess what? Nobody would take it and the employer would have to raise his wage.

You are committing the fallacy that somebody is being exploited when there is a financial transaction. Both people gain in financial transactions. If a persons earns around the minimum wage, the he gains that money (money he would not have if he didn't work that job) and the employer gets a job done that he would like to be done. Both people are benefiting.

 

[tomspug]

If we didn't all congregate in cities, would overpopulation REALLY be a problem? The earth certainly isn't running out of space, but because we tend to clump together, we kill the land wherever there IS civilization. If we spread out more, nature would be able to run its course and provide in the same way it does for animals.

 

[Smoke]

If we didn't all congregate in cities, would overpopulation REALLY be a problem? The earth certainly isn't running out of space, but because we tend to clump together, we kill the land wherever there IS civilization. If we spread out more, nature would be able to run its course and provide in the same way it does for animals.

We live where we live largely because most of the places we don't live aren't fit to live in.

I don't worry much about overpopulation, though. I haven't done anything personally to exacerbate the situation, I don't have any control over what other people do, and it's the kind of problem that will tend to resolve itself one way or another, even if that resolution is likely to be very unpleasant.

 

[lilithu]

We are in complete agreement. We should envourage foreign investment in poor countries. Too bad the Democratic Party is a the 'fair' trade party and opts for protectionist economic policies thus keeping poor nations in poverty.

Sorry, no. Investment simply means corporations trying to make a profit off of other countries. ie - economic colonialization. I was talking aid and you know it.

 

[lilithu]

If we didn't all congregate in cities, would overpopulation REALLY be a problem? The earth certainly isn't running out of space, but because we tend to clump together, we kill the land wherever there IS civilization. If we spread out more, nature would be able to run its course and provide in the same way it does for animals.

Cities are much more energy efficient than suburbs. Cities allow for public transportation as opposed to driving. Cities mean that you can walk from shop to restaurant to park, instead of driving. Cities means we use fewer resources to lay down pipes for water and sewage and gas, and lines for power. And a huge amount of electricity is lost just in the transmission, so when the houses are close together, less power is lost. One of the worst things we ever did environment-wise is conceive of suburbs and big green lawns and "spreading out."

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

Sorry, no. Investment simply means corporations trying to make a profit off of other countries. ie - economic colonialization. I was talking aid and you know it.

Why do nations that accept foreign investment do better economicially than those who shun foreign investment?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

One of the worst things we ever did environment-wise is conceive of suburbs and big green lawns and "spreading out."

Yeah, we got richer, that was terrible.

 

[Runt]

This will happen if we follow your advice and raise the price of imports. That will keep poor people poor. Do you really understand the notion that people will not purchase expensive imports?

You didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again. How does paying someone barely enough to eat one bowl of rice a day raise that person out of poverty? I'd like to see some evidence of how treating people inhumanly improves the condition of their life. I'm tired of you criticizing my position, I want to see proof of yours.

Let's say there were no minimum wage laws and some employer offered a position for $1 an hour. Guess what? Nobody would take it and the employer would have to raise his wage.

People would and do take it. They're called undocumented immigrants. They don't refuse the work, but take the jobs and continue to accept the jobs despite receiving NO raise. They can't afford to buy adequate food, housing or medical care, and so do not contribute to the economy in any substantial way because they're not buying. However, if that same person were to be paid fairly, that person would have more money to contribute to the economy and, as they say, money makes money.

You are committing the fallacy that somebody is being exploited when there is a financial transaction. Both people gain in financial transactions. If a persons earns around the minimum wage, the he gains that money (money he would not have if he didn't work that job) and the employer gets a job done that he would like to be done. Both people are benefiting.

Do a cost-benefit analysis and you'll see that this isn't so.

Benefit: $0.25-$1.00 a day. 1 bowl of rice in your belly.
Cost: You did not have time to spend with your family or to devote to devote to acquiring the skills which would help earn you a better job. You toiled under harsh working conditions all day, some of which potentially put your life in danger because your employer most certainly doesn't ensure safe working conditions. You spent the day hungry and weak because that $0.25-$1.00 you earned the day before isn't really enough to nourish you. Malnourishment and physical weakness increase the chances of injuries in places with dangerous working conditions, as well as hinder one's ability to recover from injury or illness. You can't afford proper medical care.

Sure, there's a benefit, but it's outweighed by the cost. Usually we compensate people in a way that makes the benefit GREATER than or at least equal to the cost, not the other way around.

 

[NIX]

resource Definition

re·source (rē′sôrs′, -zôrs′; ri sôrs′, -zôrs′)
noun

1. something that lies ready for use or that can be drawn upon for aid or to take care of a need
2. available money or property; wealth; assets
3. something that a country, state, etc. has and can use to its advantage natural resources, including coal and oil
4. a means of accomplishing something; measure or action that can be resorted to, as in an emergency; expedient
5. a source of strength or ability within oneself
6. ability to deal promptly and effectively with problems, difficulties, etc.; resourcefulness

Perhaps we need to rethink our *resources* to a whole new kind of shared reality?

 

[NIX]

invest Definition

in·vest (in vest′)
transitive verb

1. to clothe; array; adorn
2. 1. to cover, surround, or envelop like, or as if with, a garment fog invests the city
   2. to endow with qualities, attributes, etc.
3. to install in office with ceremony
4. to furnish with power, privilege, or authority
5. Rare to vest or settle (a power or right) in a person, legislative body, etc.
6. to put (money) into business, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. for the purpose of obtaining an income or profit
7. to spend (time, effort, etc.) with the expectation of some satisfaction
8. Mil. to hem in or besiege (a town, port, enemy, etc.)

Etymology: L investire < in-, in + vestire, to clothe < vestis, clothing: see vest

intransitive verb
to invest money; make an investment


Perhaps we are endowed with the qualities and attributes of the very things in which/with which we invest? (ourselves)

Perhaps if we clothed, arrayed and adorned ourselves in-vestments of cooperation, love, compassion and personal re-source (way way out above and beyond the economic monetary structures) we would all wind up way way out above and beyond the limitations of the world as we know it.

Perhaps.

Just Musing...
*Nixxie*