The world is massively overpopulated

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

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.

You are completely missing the point. The poor fellow that barely gets by stays poor if you raise the the price of imports. Of course we may be talking past each other here. I am talking about poor democratic countries where there is a established right to private property and a stable rule of law. That would exclude should places like China.

And I am still criticizing your position because you haven't shown me how raising the price of imports helps poor people making those products. It hurts them. Why? People won't buy their products.

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.

So many problems here. Undocumented workers volunteer to work for that wage so it must be worth it. They must be getting a net gain or they wouldn't do it. Second, artifically raising the price of labor doesn't make people more prosperous it makes more poor and minorities unemployed because it prices them out of the job market. Third, you brought up benefits. Raising the price of labor artificially means employers offer fewer benefits. Why? More cost in paying a person a wage that they wouldn't have paid in the first place, thus no money to pay for benefits. Fourth, of course day-laborers don't get a raise. If you noticed what I said I said that people that work any almost any job for an extended period of time will see a raise in their wage. Day laborers are there for the day, not for an extended period of time.

 

[3.14]

The world is massively overpopulated.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

yes, i mean there are about 1 bilion animals for every person on the planeet (most are bugs)

 

[lilithu]

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

Better how? Higher standard of living or are you just looking at GNP? I would like the evidence please. At any rate, one obviously needs money for economic development. The issue is whether a country should be forced to sell away all of its resources for economic development that benefits the investors far more than it does its own people.

Yeah, we got richer, that was terrible.

I had just given in that post all the reasons why cities are more environmentally friendly than suburbs and all you have in response is this non sequitor.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

Better how? Higher standard of living or are you just looking at GNP? I would like the evidence please. At any rate, one obviously needs money for economic development. The issue is whether a country should be forced to sell away all of its resources for economic development that benefits the investors far more than it does its own people.

The record is pretty clear, most socialist and communist countries at first refused foreign investment because they believed like most liberals that they would be exploited. Then they realized that foreign investment actually made their country more propserous. This is one of many failures of socalism and collectivism.

I had just given in that post all the reasons why cities are more environmentally friendly than suburbs and all you have in response is this non sequitor.

And I am just giving you the reason why there are suburbs in the first place. People got richer and began to move, much to the chagrin of liberals.

 

[lilithu]

The record is pretty clear,

And yet no evidence presented.

And I am just giving you the reason why there are suburbs in the first place. People got richer and began to move,

So??! I gave the reasons for why suburbs are bad for the environment. The reasons for why suburbs are bad for the environment have nothing to do with people's wealth. There are plenty of wealthy people in the cities.

 

[Runt]

And I am still criticizing your position because you haven't shown me how raising the price of imports helps poor people making those products. It hurts them. Why? People won't buy their products.

Yes they would. Say I need a t'shirt. I can get the t'shirts I want for $0.25. However, one day there are no t'shirts selling for $0.25. The cheapest t'shirt is now $5. Do I stop buying t'shirts? Heck no! I still want them, and I can still afford them. So, I just start purchasing t'shirts from the new cheapest source.

Now say I run a t'shirt factory. I used to pay my employees $0.25 a day, which would buy most of them a bowl of rice. I was raking in huge profits because I was able to produce my product at so little cost. However, now there are regulations saying I have to give my employees a fair wage. We're in some 3rd world country where a comfortable living can be purchased at $4 an hour, and so I pay my employees a minimum wage of $2, which is enough to feed them AND their kids AND help them afford clean water, medical care, and other basic necessities. I want to be able to sell my product to people in the United States---people who are demanding fair treatment of workers---and so, rather than raise the price of my product, I sacrifice some of my profit margin so people will still buy. Now I'm not making as much as I used to, but I'm still making good profits, I'm still in business, I still have buyers, AND by employees are able to, you know, buy clean drinking water and afford vaccinations.

So many problems here. Undocumented workers volunteer to work for that wage so it must be worth it. They must be getting a net gain or they wouldn't do it.

I suppose you think slaves used to work for food and shelter so slavery must have been worth it, too.

I'm sure every undocumented worker is nodding their head at your statement, saying, "Yes, I ADORE not being able to afford to live in a crime-free neighborhood with good schools! I would NEVER work for more, even if I were able to!" Undocumented workers don't raise their hands and say, "Yes, $3 an hour is enough, sign me up!" They accept the ONLY JOBS AVAILABLE TO THEM out of sheer necessity. It's work for $3 an hour, live on the streets, or go back to their home country. $3 an hour doesn't provide them with the kind of life a human being DESERVES, it just provides them with the sheer basics a person needs to sustain their existence. Yet you can bet that if they happen to gain their citizenship, they would no longer accept $3 an hour even if allowed to do so. Why? Because they're entitled to more, and as citizens they'd no longer be confined by American society to poverty.

Second, artifically raising the price of labor doesn't make people more prosperous it makes more poor and minorities unemployed because it prices them out of the job market.

I'm certain the union workers who once upon a time negotiated for minimum wage wouldn't agree. I'm also fairly certain that the minimum wage today helps prevent a LOT of people from slipping below the poverty line, more people than would otherwise suffer. Suggest to anyone working at a McDonalds that they should be making $2 an hour and you'd probably get spit on, because they know they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves on that.

Third, you brought up benefits. Raising the price of labor artificially means employers offer fewer benefits.

PRMB, medical, dental, life insurance and other benefits < having enough money to feed, clothe and otherwise care for yourself and your family.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

And yet no evidence presented.

You had to read the rest of the sentence: most socialist and communist countries at first refused foreign investment because they believed like most liberals that they would be exploited. Then they realized that foreign investment actually made their country more propserous. This is one of many failures of socalism and collectivism.

Look at the record of socialist and communist countries and their attitude towards foreign investment. Then get back to me.

So??! I gave the reasons for why suburbs are bad for the environment. The reasons for why suburbs are bad for the environment have nothing to do with people's wealth. There are plenty of wealthy people in the cities.

I waiting for the proposed 'solution' to people getting wealthier and moving into suburbs. I assume that you are a resaonable person and won't advocate the use of the power of the government against those that want to move to the suburbs. I'll assume you are okay with this kind of freedom.

 

[michel]

The world is massively overpopulated.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

I do (agree); I saw something on Television about this subject (more to do with the ratio of boys/girls born) which seemed to be nature's way of redressing the fact that Men (Historically) have been the warriors, or soldiers, and that they tended to have a much shorter life than women.

Having noted the fact that young women in the U.K are almost overtaking the lads at over indulging in drinking alcohol, and that the number of young people presenting themselves at hospital with liver and Kidney damage is on the up, I should say that Mother nature is keeping her hand in..........:bow:

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

Yes they would. Say I need a t'shirt. I can get the t'shirts I want for $0.25. However, one day there are no t'shirts selling for $0.25. The cheapest t'shirt is now $5. Do I stop buying t'shirts? Heck no! I still want them, and I can still afford them. So, I just start purchasing t'shirts from the new cheapest source.

Thus not purchasing more expensive items. Thanks for proving my point. Governments abitrarily raising the price of imports means less imports being purchased. Thus hurting the producers of those imports.

I suppose you think slaves used to work for food and shelter so slavery must have been worth it, too.

Good one.

I'm sure every undocumented worker is nodding their head at your statement, saying, "Yes, I ADORE not being able to afford to live in a crime-free neighborhood with good schools! I would NEVER work for more, even if I were able to!" Undocumented workers don't raise their hands and say, "Yes, $3 an hour is enough, sign me up!" They accept the ONLY JOBS AVAILABLE TO THEM out of sheer necessity.

Not true. There is a reason these workers are undocumented; they wanted to make more money here in the U.S. (of course by breaking the law) than in their native countries. They left their country because they could make more here. Which proves my point that they do have a choice and their act of illegally breaking into our country means they rejected jobs in their countries.

I'm certain the union workers who once upon a time negotiated for minimum wage wouldn't agree. I'm also fairly certain that the minimum wage today helps prevent a LOT of people from slipping below the poverty line, more people than would otherwise suffer. Suggest to anyone working at a McDonalds that they should be making $2 an hour and you'd probably get spit on, because they know they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves on that.

The empirical evidience is crystal clear. Read the work of Walter E Williams. He goes into this in greater detail. It is simple economics (and thus puzzles liberals). If I am a small business owner and I pay two or three employees at $5 an hour and then the federal government tells me that I must pay my employees $6 or $7 an hour, guess what I do? I can't simply raise the wage without sacrificing something else. I either have to cut some employees loose or raise the price of my goods. Either way, it is bad economic decision.

PRMB, medical, dental, life insurance and other benefits < having enough money to feed, clothe and otherwise care for yourself and your family.

I am simply pointing out what happens when you artificially raise the price of labor. You brought up the injustice that it is that people work low paying jobs without benefits. But your solution (artificially raising the price of labor) means more people not recieving benefits. How does that help anybody?

 

[Runt]

Thus not purchasing more expensive items. Thanks for proving my point. Governments abitrarily raising the price of imports means less imports being purchased. Thus hurting the producers of those imports.

I didn't prove your point. You missed my point entirely. Say I bought t'shirts at $0.25 from Company X because they were the cheapest. Now Company X is selling t'shirts for $4.00 because they're paying their workers a fair wage, but they're STILL the cheapest t'shirts one can buy. So, Company X is still going to sell their product, their workers are still going to be employed---and if they're laid off, they can go work for another company that pays people fairly rather than being forced to accept a meager wage if they simply want to survive---and I'm still going to get my t'shirt.

Not true. There is a reason these workers are undocumented; they wanted to make more money here in the U.S. (of course by breaking the law) than in their native countries.

Yes, and they're making more money in the United States than they would in their home countries. But they're still not making enough to live comfortably, in the "American way". If they were provided with the opportunity to make enough---if they were not exploited by American companies who don't want to pay them a fair wage because they're not as "deserving" of a comfortable living as American citizens---they WOULD accept better pay. Heck, if one person hires them for $2 an hour, and a second hires them for $3 an hour, you can bet they'll work for the second person rather than the first. And if someone actually offered to pay them a minimum wage, you think they'd turn that offer down? HECK NO. They come here because they're trying to improve their prospects. I don't agree with the way in which they come here, but the fact is that they're trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. And although their lives ARE better here than in their native countries, still, they're NOT rising out of poverty on the wages they're making, despite your argument. People in the system you advocate can sustain a basic existence, and no more, and are NOT getting out of poverty. They're still poor... less poor than in their home countries, but not as well off as they'd be if someone would just pay them fairly.

It is simple economics (and thus puzzles liberals).

I'm not going to continue this conversation with you if you're going to typify an entire group of people as educationally or intellectually inferior to you. Just because someone doesn't agree with you don't mean they're ignorant of the subject. I---and many other liberals---understand economics fairly well, and don't really appreciate beign belittled.

If I am a small business owner and I pay two or three employees at $5 an hour and then the federal government tells me that I must pay my employees $6 or $7 an hour, guess what I do? I can't simply raise the wage without sacrificing something else. I either have to cut some employees loose or raise the price of my goods. Either way, it is bad economic decision.

You're forgetting profit margins. Sure, if you're obsessed with making the BIGGEST POSSIBLE PROFIT MARGIN and ignoring the needs of your workers and buyers, then yeah, you'll lay people off or you'll raise prices if you're forced to pay people more. But ethical companies often take the hit in their profit margins, settling for a lower---but still modest---profit margin rather than fire people or jack up prices. Your "simple economics" ignores many of the complexities of economic decisions. Companies aren't mindless organizations, but the enterprises composed of and run by real, thinking, motivated human beings who appoach their economic decisions in a variety of ways.

I am simply pointing out what happens when you artificially raise the price of labor. You brought up the injustice that it is that people work low paying jobs without benefits. But your solution (artificially raising the price of labor) means more people not recieving benefits. How does that help anybody?

I wasn't talking about the benefits companies offer an employee; I DON'T think a worker is entitled to those things, provided they're making enough to purchase such services themselves. But I do think a person needs to be paid enough to put food on the table, afford medical and dental care for their family, be able to afford basic transportation, and be able to live in an apartment or home that does not present a real, daily risk to their life. A job should be able to sustain at least a basic comfortable existence. You don't need to be able to afford a microwave, television and the internet, but you should have basic needs met. You can't afford to take care of basic needs on less than a minimum wage without help. That's a fact. You can survive, but that's about it. And if a person is giving their time and effort to an employer to help that employer make a profit, they should earn more than a meager existence for their trouble, especially when employers CAN pay more AND make a profit.

 

[lilithu]

You had to read the rest of the sentence: most socialist and communist countries at first refused foreign investment because they believed like most liberals that they would be exploited. Then they realized that foreign investment actually made their country more propserous. This is one of many failures of socalism and collectivism.

That is not presenting evidence. That is you restating the same claim, without evidence.

I waiting for the proposed 'solution' to people getting wealthier and moving into suburbs. I assume that you are a resaonable person and won't advocate the use of the power of the government against those that want to move to the suburbs. I'll assume you are okay with this kind of freedom.

I was providing evidence on why suburbs were bad for the environment. I suppose if I gave evidence for how eating too much processed food is bad for you, you would respond by saying that rich people have the right to eat processed foods and indirectly suggest that I was trying to take away their wealth and/or freedom to abuse their health.