Discussion:
Future scenarios of human slavery
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2019-04-30 10:14:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.

More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Knowledge should be shared"
Quadibloc
2019-04-30 13:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Heinlein's "Friday" had one such scenario.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-04-30 17:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Heinlein's "Friday" had one such scenario.
John Savard
And _Farnham's Freehold_. Along with cannibalism.

Lynn
Mike Van Pelt
2019-04-30 19:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved.
Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might
enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior
knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them
with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Any totalitarian political system is pretty much indistinguishable
from slavery, at least, for those not of the nomenklatura.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Joy Beeson
2019-04-30 23:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Any totalitarian political system is pretty much indistinguishable
from slavery, at least, for those not of the nomenklatura.
From what I can make out from notoriously-unreliable sources, the
nomenklatura get more-comfortable cages and closer supervision.

And the guy at the top is the most-enslaved of all.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Dimensional Traveler
2019-05-01 00:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Any totalitarian political system is pretty much indistinguishable
from slavery, at least, for those not of the nomenklatura.
From what I can make out from notoriously-unreliable sources, the
nomenklatura get more-comfortable cages and closer supervision.
And the guy at the top is the most-enslaved of all.
They how do they slaughter millions so easily?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
1***@compuserve.com
2019-05-03 18:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Any totalitarian political system is pretty much indistinguishable
from slavery, at least, for those not of the nomenklatura.
From what I can make out from notoriously-unreliable sources, the
nomenklatura get more-comfortable cages and closer supervision.
And the guy at the top is the most-enslaved of all.
They how do they slaughter millions so easily?
You got it backwards: it is nearly impossible for them NOT to slaughter all those people, even if they somehow feel that it is wrong to do so.

JimboCat
--
"Computer rules Earth. Abort, Retry, Fail?" [Jack Bohn]
Robert Carnegie
2019-04-30 20:09:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-01 06:53:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.

One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.

Establishing a true meritocracy will give everyone who has the capability to succeed whether as an employee or entrepreneur.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"The truth shall set you free"
J. Clarke
2019-05-02 02:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Establishing a true meritocracy will give everyone who has the capability to succeed whether as an employee or entrepreneur.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
Quadibloc
2019-05-02 22:57:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and
technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of
wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including
the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
This does not follow. Widely available technical education won't make everyone
equal, because some people are less intelligent, or have less aptitude for
mathematics, and so on. But that does _not_ mean that everyone from a less well-
off background is stupid, nor does it mean that they don't face obstacles that
prevent them from accessing education from which they could benefit.

More college scholarships for the deserving poor, however, I do agree are a
measure of very limited effectiveness. More important are things like addressing
peer pressures and problems at home for people in the very poor groups, since
being able to attend high school is not the same as being able to do well there
and be prepared for college... and things like ensuring the economy actually has
a high demand for Americans with STEM training, otherwise efforts to promote
STEM to students will meet with derision.

John Savard
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-03 00:22:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.

I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.

Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.

In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.

An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.

Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.


Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Man is by nature a political animal"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Establishing a true meritocracy will give everyone who has the capability to succeed whether as an employee or entrepreneur.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
J. Clarke
2019-05-03 00:53:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-03 04:55:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
Are you pretending to misunderstanding me? If your friend is intellectually capable of getting a PhD in a certain field, he should probably have the opportunity to do so. But perhaps he should not get a degree in computer engineering.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Studying art, including its history, makes you knowledgeable about art. I don't see why you can't use this knowledge to promote art, provide access to art, and improve understanding of art.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Man is by nature a political animal"
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-03 05:01:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
Are you pretending to misunderstanding me?
There is a grammatical error in the previous statement. "Misunderstanding" should be replaced by "misunderstand".

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"I am only human,
born to make mistakes."


If your friend is intellectually capable of getting a PhD in a certain field, he should probably have the opportunity to do so. But perhaps he should not get a degree in computer engineering.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Studying art, including its history, makes you knowledgeable about art. I don't see why you can't use this knowledge to promote art, provide access to art, and improve understanding of art.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
Kevrob
2019-05-03 10:54:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
Are you pretending to misunderstanding me? If your friend is intellectually capable of getting a PhD in a certain field, he should probably have the opportunity to do so. But perhaps he should not get a degree in computer engineering.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Studying art, including its history, makes you knowledgeable about art. I don't see why you can't use this knowledge to promote art, provide access to art, and improve understanding of art.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
A young lady in my high school class earned an art history
Phd and teaches at an Ivy League college. Yes, she was also
beautiful and charming and of course I had a massive, unrequited
crush on her. She trained in the sciences before getting her
terminal degree. That's needed if your specialty includes judging
if an antiquity is genuine or a fake.

Now, there are probably not so many jobs as good as that, especially
if one doesn't have a terminal degree in the field. see:

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/jobs-for-art-history-majors-3570275

I stopped after a liberal arts B.A. in history and political
science, which was not enough to work in those fields, except
as a political volunteer. I've done my share of that. Nobody
I ever campaigned for ever won, so no "jobs for the boys"
after election day. Too bad - I would have been good at
providing "constituent services." I put my generalist's
knowledge to use in bookselling for a quarter century, while
Big Box stores, some not around anymore (Borders) and Amazon
ate the industry. Technical aptitude was required, as inventory,
point-of-sales and ordering systems gradually were computerized,
and stores launched webstores. Many was the time I was tasked
to do the computer maintenance, as I had actually used them in
college, and taken some basic courses. By the time I left that
field, almost all my colleagues had at least a PC or laptop,
and could access the internet.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

--

Kevin R
a.a #2310
Quadibloc
2019-05-03 12:24:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.

John Savard
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-03 14:08:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.

People have a right to education and work.

Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"You win again"
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-03 14:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
There are a number of countries, right now, where university education is free
to the student.

It's a demonstrably viable model.

pt
Scott Lurndal
2019-05-03 17:34:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
=20
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
=20
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterp=
rise=20
ideology.
=20
John Savard
=20
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is impo=
rtant.
=20
People have a right to education and work.
=20
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necess=
arily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be=
made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are someti=
mes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
There are a number of countries, right now, where university education is f=
ree
to the student.=20
It's a demonstrably viable model.
Was even true in California, for a while.
Kevrob
2019-05-03 20:10:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
=20
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
=20
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterp=
rise=20
ideology.
=20
John Savard
=20
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is impo=
rtant.
=20
People have a right to education and work.
=20
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necess=
arily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be=
made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are someti=
mes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
There are a number of countries, right now, where university education is f=
ree
to the student.=20
It's a demonstrably viable model.
Was even true in California, for a while.
The City College of New York was "I eat, you pay" for
many years, and turned out some stellar graduates.
Combining "free" tuition with "open enrollment" killed
that. "I eat, everybody else eats, and a few pay" is
even less viable.

Kevin R
m***@sky.com
2019-05-04 04:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
There are a number of countries, right now, where university education is free
to the student.
It's a demonstrably viable model.
pt
The UK used to be one of them. The Labour party dropped it because they wanted to expand higher education greatly (the target was 50% going to university, and they seem to have reached that - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22280939). I think that we have removed all danger of there being a dangerous shortage of art historians. Finding a plumber, on the other hand, can be tricky. I ended up using an emergency plumbing service last year because all the regular plumbers I contacted were booked up for months ahead.
Quadibloc
2019-05-04 04:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
I think that we have removed all danger of there being a dangerous shortage of
art historians. Finding a plumber, on the other hand, can be tricky. I ended up
using an emergency plumbing service last year because all the regular plumbers I
contacted were booked up for months ahead.
Perhaps if these Middle Eastern refugees had to work in some essential
occupation to obtain EU citizenship, such as plumbing, for a few years, Brexit
would not seem so urgently needed...

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2019-05-04 19:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
I think that we have removed all danger of there being a dangerous shortage of
art historians. Finding a plumber, on the other hand, can be tricky. I ended up
using an emergency plumbing service last year because all the regular plumbers I
contacted were booked up for months ahead.
Perhaps if these Middle Eastern refugees had to work in some essential
occupation to obtain EU citizenship, such as plumbing, for a few years, Brexit
would not seem so urgently needed...
They want to kick the Polish plumbers out. British jobs!
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 11:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
There are a number of countries, right now, where university education is free
to the student.
It's a demonstrably viable model.
pt
The UK used to be one of them. The Labour party dropped it because they wanted to expand higher education greatly (the target was 50% going to university, and they seem to have reached that - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22280939). I think that we have removed all danger of there being a dangerous shortage of art historians. Finding a plumber, on the other hand, can be tricky. I ended up using an emergency plumbing service last year because all the regular plumbers I contacted were booked up for months ahead.
One wonders to what extent the curriculum has to be dumbed-down in
order to achieve those numbers.
Kevrob
2019-05-03 20:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education...
Parents owe their children an education. If they can't
afford to do that, they shouldn't be having kids. What is
done is offloading that responsibility on the community at
large, which, when it is a voluntary arrangement, like joining
a church, I'm fine with. And that's the opinion of a non-
believer. Making the state the basic educator of the populace
was an enormous mistake, and while it is better if it is done
well, insteas of poorly, it shouldn't be the job of any level
of government.*

...and work.

People have a right not to be thwarted by the government in
seeking work, or by private individuals using force or fraud to
keep them out of the labor market. To that I'd add a right to
go into business for oneself. Plenty of needless licensing
prevents folks from entering markets that have been effectively
cartelized to protect incumbents. See: ridiculously stict
regulations to start hair cutting, or braiding businesses.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
Systems that allow people to work part-time and attend higher education
part-time until they attain a degree should be broadened. I got my best
marks as a college student when I was working a lot of hours, supporting
myself, and going to school. I didn't have much time to party. It was
school/work/school/work..sleep some, maybe do some laundry...then back
to work/school. When I was a full-time student, getting scholarship money
and using loans, I goofed off and partied too much. I wound up having
to withdraw for illness (non-party related!) By the time I was re-enrolled
I had 5 years of experience in the workforce, supporting myself and
had even started paying off some of my loans. I had to borrow more
for my final semesters, at a higher rate. I suppose I had matured some,
but there was no way I was going to waste time or money on Round 2.

I'd suggest US students take a gap year and work for a year before
going on to college, except that they'd be in competition for low-
skilled work that otherwise unemployed people really need. Colleges
give out work-study as a portion of financial aid, and some programs,
notably engineering, employ co-operative education, but scheduling
a part-time job arounnd full-time study doesn't always work, and I
found that I didn't qualify for financial aid when I went to school
part-time and worked full-time.

If I were ever to hit it big (giant lottery prize, a start-up investment
that exploded in value) one of my tax-write-off charitable donations
wiould be for grants to returning students enrolled part-time at my
alma mater. If I had been able to take advantage of something like
that I might have re-enrolled sooner.

Kevin R
a.a #2310
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-03 20:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education...
Parents owe their children an education. If they can't
afford to do that, they shouldn't be having kids. What is
done is offloading that responsibility on the community at
large, which, when it is a voluntary arrangement, like joining
a church, I'm fine with. And that's the opinion of a non-
believer. Making the state the basic educator of the populace
was an enormous mistake, and while it is better if it is done
well, insteas of poorly, it shouldn't be the job of any level
of government.*
...and work.
People have a right not to be thwarted by the government in
seeking work, or by private individuals using force or fraud to
keep them out of the labor market. To that I'd add a right to
go into business for oneself. Plenty of needless licensing
prevents folks from entering markets that have been effectively
cartelized to protect incumbents. See: ridiculously stict
regulations to start hair cutting, or braiding businesses.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
Systems that allow people to work part-time and attend higher education
part-time until they attain a degree should be broadened. I got my best
marks as a college student when I was working a lot of hours, supporting
myself, and going to school. I didn't have much time to party. It was
school/work/school/work..sleep some, maybe do some laundry...then back
to work/school. When I was a full-time student, getting scholarship money
and using loans, I goofed off and partied too much. I wound up having
to withdraw for illness (non-party related!) By the time I was re-enrolled
I had 5 years of experience in the workforce, supporting myself and
had even started paying off some of my loans. I had to borrow more
for my final semesters, at a higher rate. I suppose I had matured some,
but there was no way I was going to waste time or money on Round 2.
I'd suggest US students take a gap year and work for a year before
going on to college, except that they'd be in competition for low-
skilled work that otherwise unemployed people really need. Colleges
give out work-study as a portion of financial aid, and some programs,
notably engineering, employ co-operative education, but scheduling
a part-time job arounnd full-time study doesn't always work, and I
found that I didn't qualify for financial aid when I went to school
part-time and worked full-time.
If I were ever to hit it big (giant lottery prize, a start-that up investment
that exploded in value) one of my tax-write-off charitable donations
wiould be for grants to returning students enrolled part-time at my
alma mater. If I had been able to take advantage of something like
that I might have re-enrolled sooner.
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Education deficiency, concentrated in certain
individuals, is a problem for our whole species.
People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste.
Quadibloc
2019-05-03 21:08:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Education deficiency, concentrated in certain
individuals, is a problem for our whole species.
People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste.
Uneducated people are indeed a problem for their neighbors; having limited
employment opportunities, they're apt to turn to crime.

As for "People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste" - well, while human
individuals are supremely valuable in the sense that murder is the worst of all
crimes, the value of a human is mostly to that human himself. Humans aren't
terribly valuable in the sense that a commodity is valuable - if people stopped
having quite so many babies, we might be able to be in less of a panic about
ensuring everyone is fed, and have fewer wars over land and resources, and so on
and so forth.

I suppose we could go to the United Negro College Fund motto, "A mind is a
terrible thing to waste". Or was that "'Twas better to have had a mind, and lost
it, than never to have had a mind at all..." as one U.S. Vice-President seemed
to think... hey, at least he had an encounter with Shakespeare.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-05-03 21:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I suppose we could go to the United Negro College Fund motto, "A mind is a
terrible thing to waste". Or was that "'Twas better to have had a mind, and lost
it, than never to have had a mind at all..." as one U.S. Vice-President seemed
to think... hey, at least he had an encounter with Shakespeare.
Wikiquote preserved Dan Quayle's words for posterity: "When you take the UNCF
model that, what a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is
being very wasteful, how true that is."

Maybe someday there will be the United Quayle College Fund for Mad Scientists.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-05-03 21:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
hey, at least he had an encounter with Shakespeare.
Silly me. In trying to find where "'tis better to have loved and lost, than never
to have loved at all" occurred in the works of William Shakespeare, I find instead
that it is from the poem "In Memoriam" by Alfred Lord Tennyson.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-03 23:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 3 May 2019 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education...
Parents owe their children an education. If they can't
afford to do that, they shouldn't be having kids. What is
done is offloading that responsibility on the community at
large, which, when it is a voluntary arrangement, like joining
a church, I'm fine with. And that's the opinion of a non-
believer. Making the state the basic educator of the populace
was an enormous mistake, and while it is better if it is done
well, insteas of poorly, it shouldn't be the job of any level
of government.*
...and work.
People have a right not to be thwarted by the government in
seeking work, or by private individuals using force or fraud to
keep them out of the labor market. To that I'd add a right to
go into business for oneself. Plenty of needless licensing
prevents folks from entering markets that have been effectively
cartelized to protect incumbents. See: ridiculously stict
regulations to start hair cutting, or braiding businesses.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
Systems that allow people to work part-time and attend higher education
part-time until they attain a degree should be broadened. I got my best
marks as a college student when I was working a lot of hours, supporting
myself, and going to school. I didn't have much time to party. It was
school/work/school/work..sleep some, maybe do some laundry...then back
to work/school. When I was a full-time student, getting scholarship money
and using loans, I goofed off and partied too much. I wound up having
to withdraw for illness (non-party related!) By the time I was re-enrolled
I had 5 years of experience in the workforce, supporting myself and
had even started paying off some of my loans. I had to borrow more
for my final semesters, at a higher rate. I suppose I had matured some,
but there was no way I was going to waste time or money on Round 2.
I'd suggest US students take a gap year and work for a year before
going on to college, except that they'd be in competition for low-
skilled work that otherwise unemployed people really need. Colleges
give out work-study as a portion of financial aid, and some programs,
notably engineering, employ co-operative education, but scheduling
a part-time job arounnd full-time study doesn't always work, and I
found that I didn't qualify for financial aid when I went to school
part-time and worked full-time.
If I were ever to hit it big (giant lottery prize, a start-that up investment
that exploded in value) one of my tax-write-off charitable donations
wiould be for grants to returning students enrolled part-time at my
alma mater. If I had been able to take advantage of something like
that I might have re-enrolled sooner.
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Since government doesn't and by its nature cannot assure that, they
aren't.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Education deficiency, concentrated in certain
individuals, is a problem for our whole species.
People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste.
David DeLaney
2019-05-11 08:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 3 May 2019 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Since government doesn't and by its nature cannot assure that, they
aren't.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Saying "the government can't possibly
assure that every single child is educated to its capacity, so we should not
let the government in on it at all" is extremely counterproductive.

(So is letting parents put their children through private or home schooling
that does not actually meet the standards for public schooling, to address a
different facet of the "You're not larnin' mah kids raght!" issue.)

Dave, deliberately miseducating them should be criminal ... cue Terry
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2019-05-03 23:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Education deficiency, concentrated in certain
individuals, is a problem for our whole species.
People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste.
2 problems with that:

1) a lot of warehousing of "students" who, if they don't
drop out, are eventually pushed out, un- or undereducated,
into a job market that can't absorb them, or into post-
secondary education that must remediate the K-12 systems'
undereducated or even miseducated "products."

2) State schools being used to "socialize" children,
with education as a secondary value. There's a lot of
indoctrination fed the children by whoever is in charge
of state schools.

Kevin R
a.a #2310
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-03 23:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Education deficiency, concentrated in certain
individuals, is a problem for our whole species.
People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste.
1) a lot of warehousing of "students" who, if they don't
drop out, are eventually pushed out, un- or undereducated,
into a job market that can't absorb them, or into post-
secondary education that must remediate the K-12 systems'
undereducated or even miseducated "products."
So this then?
<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephen-moore-child-labor/>
(and, cheap!)

I can't tell if Snooes is for or against it; I think of
them as rather right-leaning but... do they think this
is too far or that there is much to say for it?
Anyway, the guy seems to have tripped over his timeline,
as happens nowadays.

Successful child farm workers are mentioned; this is
another case of survivorship bias.
Post by Kevrob
2) State schools being used to "socialize" children,
with education as a secondary value. There's a lot of
indoctrination fed the children by whoever is in charge
of state schools.
Like the Constitution and rights and stuff.
Kevrob
2019-05-04 01:13:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Education deficiency, concentrated in certain
individuals, is a problem for our whole species.
People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste.
1) a lot of warehousing of "students" who, if they don't
drop out, are eventually pushed out, un- or undereducated,
into a job market that can't absorb them, or into post-
secondary education that must remediate the K-12 systems'
undereducated or even miseducated "products."
So this then?
<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephen-moore-child-labor/>
(and, cheap!)
I can't tell if Snooes is for or against it; I think of
them as rather right-leaning but... do they think this
is too far or that there is much to say for it?
Anyway, the guy seems to have tripped over his timeline,
as happens nowadays.
Successful child farm workers are mentioned; this is
another case of survivorship bias.
Post by Kevrob
2) State schools being used to "socialize" children,
with education as a secondary value. There's a lot of
indoctrination fed the children by whoever is in charge
of state schools.
Like the Constitution and rights and stuff.
..or prayer in school, DARE programs, "Officer Friendly,"
"the environmental movement," "diversity" (of status, if
not of opinion,) rote patriotism in one area, rote globalism
in another, etc., etc. Mind you, Ask me if I would teach a
child of my own some of these things, and I might say yes.
I would at least try to teach _about_ them. Others being
crammed down kids throats I consider malpractice.

There's also the "Lord of the Flies" ethic of the school
playground to deal with. "Unschooled" children often
interact with adults more than schoolchildren, and may
choose to interact with large groups in their age cohort*
but usually in situations of common purpose and some sort
of affinity that groups joined by choice usually have.

* These bands of nearly-the-same-age children always seemed to
include some educationally deficient character a year or two
ahead in physical development retaking that year's work, who
takes the occasion of being "left back" to establish himself
as he Bull Goose Loony of his new outfit, or an enforcer for
some other would be capo. If I sound bitter, a team like
that gave me a broken arm in the 6th grade, buy sheer recklessness
and their combined mass.

Kevin R
Kevrob
2019-05-04 01:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
If the government doesn't assure that children are
adequately educated, then generally they aren't.
Education deficiency, concentrated in certain
individuals, is a problem for our whole species.
People are valuable and shouldn't go to waste.
1) a lot of warehousing of "students" who, if they don't
drop out, are eventually pushed out, un- or undereducated,
into a job market that can't absorb them, or into post-
secondary education that must remediate the K-12 systems'
undereducated or even miseducated "products."
So this then?
<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephen-moore-child-labor/>
(and, cheap!)
I chafed at having to wait to be 12 and get the necessary "working
papers" approved ny the state to deliver the NY Daily News.
Post by Robert Carnegie
I can't tell if Snooes is for or against it; I think of
them as rather right-leaning but...
US right-wingers would accuse Snopes of being left-leaning.
Being a libertarian, I think the one axis political spectrum
is obsolete.
Post by Robert Carnegie
do they think this
is too far or that there is much to say for it?
Anyway, the guy seems to have tripped over his timeline,
as happens nowadays.
Successful child farm workers are mentioned; this is
another case of survivorship bias.
When I was a grammar school kid, my mother brought piecework
home from her office, and had us pitch in: sorting 3" x 5"
cards for library books, so that every book shipped by the
library nook-buying co-op she worked for was delivered with
all the CC cards needed to look the book up by author, Title,
Subject, etc. My siblings and I were paid based on how many
packets we created. So was my Mom.

A court case brought the co-op into Civil Service and the
piecework was stamped out. That put a crimp in my budget
for comics, baseball cards, etc.

Part-time paoid work for kids can be a good thing.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Kevrob
2) State schools being used to "socialize" children,
with education as a secondary value. There's a lot of
indoctrination fed the children by whoever is in charge
of state schools.
Like the Constitution and rights and stuff.
Answered in another post.

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2019-05-03 21:02:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Parents owe their children an education. If they can't
afford to do that, they shouldn't be having kids. What is
done is offloading that responsibility on the community at
large, which, when it is a voluntary arrangement, like joining
a church, I'm fine with. And that's the opinion of a non-
believer. Making the state the basic educator of the populace
was an enormous mistake, and while it is better if it is done
well, insteas of poorly, it shouldn't be the job of any level
of government.*
In practice, the public school system is the only system I know of that is
likely to succefully ensure that nearly all children get a basic education.

In theory, indeed, the parents who produce children should be responsible for
that. But it is not practical to enforce that resposibility.

Sterilizing the poor would be considered a disguised form of racial genocide.

Requiring people to register with the government and prove financial
responsibility before having children would be seen as an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, due to the exigencies of national defence, people were used
to the idea of paying taxes.

John Savard
Kevrob
2019-05-03 23:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
Parents owe their children an education. If they can't
afford to do that, they shouldn't be having kids. What is
done is offloading that responsibility on the community at
large, which, when it is a voluntary arrangement, like joining
a church, I'm fine with. And that's the opinion of a non-
believer. Making the state the basic educator of the populace
was an enormous mistake, and while it is better if it is done
well, insteas of poorly, it shouldn't be the job of any level
of government.*
In practice, the public school system is the only system I know of that is
likely to succefully ensure that nearly all children get a basic education.
In theory, indeed, the parents who produce children should be responsible for
that. But it is not practical to enforce that resposibility.
Sterilizing the poor would be considered a disguised form of racial genocide.
Requiring people to register with the government and prove financial
responsibility before having children would be seen as an invasion of privacy.
That is a fantastic, unsupported leap, typical of the "everything
that is not mandatory is prohibited" (T. E. White) statist mindset.

Their are plenty of things that, from a eudaimonic viewpoint,
people "shouldn't do." I'm not going to propose banning those
things, unless they violate the rights of others - with rights
defined in a "negative liberty" context, please!
Post by Quadibloc
On the other hand, due to the exigencies of national defence, people were used
to the idea of paying taxes.
In the US, state schooling grew from the local level up, with
various states adopting it at different times, replacing common
schools managed by established churches, which were disestablished
at different times.

Kevin R
Thomas Koenig
2019-05-03 21:50:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Parents owe their children an education. If they can't
afford to do that, they shouldn't be having kids.
Do you want to go back to the times before compulsory education?
In Germany, it's been around (both for boys and girls) since 1592,
Prussia introduced it in 1763.
David Johnston
2019-05-03 22:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education...
Parents owe their children an education. If they can't
afford to do that, they shouldn't be having kids.
Well the extinction of the human species would solve all our problems.
David DeLaney
2019-05-11 08:55:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Making the state the basic educator of the populace
was an enormous mistake, and while it is better if it is done
well, insteas of poorly, it shouldn't be the job of any level
of government.*
ERROR: footnote not found
execute program writer? [ynq]

It's a terrible, horrible, mistake of an idea, sure ... but it's better than
any OTHER systematic way of educating the next generation that's ever been
found.
Not educating them: doesn't get you the workers you need in non-bluecollar jobs.
Patronage system: educates the rich and those who can manage to get the
attention of the rich.
Apprentice/guild system: gets you workers for the guilds you have, doesn't get
you extra workers for them or workers for anything else.
Putting young ones in service: gets you servants.
etc etc.
Post by Kevrob
Systems that allow people to work part-time and attend higher education
part-time until they attain a degree should be broadened.
Agreed. Not everyone's suited to learning-by-lecture/lab. Some are suited to
learning by doing.

That being said, "internship" programs, unpaid, need to be heavily sat on and
regulated to within an inch of their lives; no company has a right to get work
out of any grade of employee without paying them fairly. ("Exposure" and
"experience" are not pay methods.)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2019-05-11 11:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Making the state the basic educator of the populace
was an enormous mistake, and while it is better if it is done
well, insteas of poorly, it shouldn't be the job of any level
of government.*
ERROR: footnote not found
execute program writer? [ynq]
Stray asterisk. "ynq?" Yes or no question?
I'm far from a programmer, and don't know all
the jargon.
Post by David DeLaney
It's a terrible, horrible, mistake of an idea, sure ... but it's better than
any OTHER systematic way of educating the next generation that's ever been
found.
Not educating them: doesn't get you the workers you need in non-bluecollar jobs.
Patronage system: educates the rich and those who can manage to get the
attention of the rich.
Apprentice/guild system: gets you workers for the guilds you have, doesn't get
you extra workers for them or workers for anything else.
Putting young ones in service: gets you servants.
etc etc.
You neglect the charity school model, which never allowed for mass
education, except for the Sunday School movement, which did promote
literacy and numeracy among the poor. Such schools receded to
being places to learn about religion when state-funded common
schools were instituted.

Education isn't just about skills for employment. In a free
polity, the state shouldn't run the churches, the press, or any
other institution that forms the minds of the individual. At the
time of the founding of the US, such common schools as there were
existed in the Northern colonies, and then in Virginia, and except
in the latter case were operated by the established churches,
due to be disestablished, state by state, over a period of 40
years. Including a "Congress shall butt out of education" clause
to Amendment One didn't occur to anyone, as it wasn't a problem
anyone contemplated dealing with. I consider it an oversight.

Of course, there are still countries with state churches, and people
in the US determined to re-institute religious education in government
schools.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Systems that allow people to work part-time and attend higher education
part-time until they attain a degree should be broadened.
Agreed. Not everyone's suited to learning-by-lecture/lab. Some are suited to
learning by doing.
That being said, "internship" programs, unpaid, need to be heavily sat on and
regulated to within an inch of their lives; no company has a right to get work
out of any grade of employee without paying them fairly. ("Exposure" and
"experience" are not pay methods.)
Paying interns makes those who need a paying job eligible to
participate, not just those from well-to-do backgrounds, widening
the talent pool for the "hiring" firm. I wouldn't require it,
but I would recommend it as a way to get the best candidates.
Universities hosting internship recruitment could only allow
firms that pay to become part of any fair or exchange for that purpose.

Kevin R

J. Clarke
2019-05-03 23:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.

As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
Quadibloc
2019-05-04 02:29:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
Communism, where the State pretends to pay its workers, and they pretend to
work, does not work well. No argument there.

People need an opportunity to translate their labor into value; without that,
they cannot even eat except by charity. In the early years of the United States,
this was provided to people by the opportunity to engage in homesteading.

Unfortunately, we are no more able to create new worlds to settle than Alexander
was able to create new worlds to conquer.

John Savard
Dimensional Traveler
2019-05-04 02:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
How that has worked in the real world is a large number of people who
get student loans end up unable to pay them back. They used to get the
debts discharged (forgiven/wiped out) by declaring bankruptcy until the
financial industry lobbied Congress into changing the bankruptcy laws to
make student loans a non-dischargable debt. Now they just get hounded
by collection agencies into homelessness or suicide.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-04 04:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
How that has worked in the real world is a large number of people who
get student loans end up unable to pay them back. They used to get the
debts discharged (forgiven/wiped out) by declaring bankruptcy until the
financial industry lobbied Congress into changing the bankruptcy laws to
make student loans a non-dischargable debt. Now they just get hounded
by collection agencies into homelessness or suicide.
Maybe a combination of loans, scholarships, and jobs to the academically deserving. If they are intelligent they should be able to find jobs.

Or loans that only become due when they are making money. That might be good for the students but problematic for the state, bank, or university guaranteeing the loans.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"You have a right to know the truth"
Post by Dimensional Traveler
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 12:06:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
How that has worked in the real world is a large number of people who
get student loans end up unable to pay them back. They used to get the
debts discharged (forgiven/wiped out) by declaring bankruptcy until the
financial industry lobbied Congress into changing the bankruptcy laws to
make student loans a non-dischargable debt. Now they just get hounded
by collection agencies into homelessness or suicide.
Maybe a combination of loans, scholarships, and jobs to the academically deserving. If they are intelligent they should be able to find jobs.
Finding a job in the US isn't all that difficult. Finding a job that
leaves enough for food and shelter after making payments on a $40,000
loan is another story, especially if one doesn't have some kind of
technical skills.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or loans that only become due when they are making money. That might be good for the students but problematic for the state, bank, or university guaranteeing the loans.
For many people this would in effect be a grant.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"You have a right to know the truth"
Post by Dimensional Traveler
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 11:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 3 May 2019 19:32:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
How that has worked in the real world is a large number of people who
get student loans end up unable to pay them back. They used to get the
debts discharged (forgiven/wiped out) by declaring bankruptcy until the
financial industry lobbied Congress into changing the bankruptcy laws to
make student loans a non-dischargable debt. Now they just get hounded
by collection agencies into homelessness or suicide.
You know that, I know that, but does Alal know that?
Dimensional Traveler
2019-05-04 15:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 3 May 2019 19:32:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
How that has worked in the real world is a large number of people who
get student loans end up unable to pay them back. They used to get the
debts discharged (forgiven/wiped out) by declaring bankruptcy until the
financial industry lobbied Congress into changing the bankruptcy laws to
make student loans a non-dischargable debt. Now they just get hounded
by collection agencies into homelessness or suicide.
You know that, I know that, but does Alal know that?
I assumed "no" which is why I felt the need to rub his nose in reality.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-04 04:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.

The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.

There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.

Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Man is by nature a political animal"
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-04 05:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-04 05:20:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
I have made a commitment to the truth. So let me clarify my statement about the rural employment scheme. It is a scheme to give employment to people in rural areas, but I am not sure how it selects it recipients, whether unemployed or partially employed. Neither do I know the exact amount of work or pay.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"You deserve truth and freedom"
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 12:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
Quadibloc
2019-05-04 16:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Ah, but maybe they _do_ know how to do it, but the secret is being hidden by the
great conspiracy!

After all, the United States has lots of land, water, and mineral resources.
This was noted during the Great Depression as something which made the economic
crisis of the time inexplicable.

How do you _decouple_ employment rates from things like the stock market or the
world economy?

Phrased that way, the answer is obvious.

The world economy has tanked, so foreign countries can't afford U.S. exports. So
there would be a one-way trade imbalance if the U.S. were to put the unemployed
to work, and pay them in real money with which they could buy imported items.

All right, instead, put them to work, but pay them in scrip that can only be
used to buy products from other U.S. workers put to work in this employment-
expansion program. (Those who managed to have jobs anyways can continue to be
paid in real money, since the economy was able to support that.)

*** This is basically exactly what Baldur von Schirach did that enabled Germany
to put its people to work, building the armaments that Germany used to start
World War II. ***

So, yes, it works, and we have proof of that from experience.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 17:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Ah, but maybe they _do_ know how to do it, but the secret is being hidden by the
great conspiracy!
After all, the United States has lots of land, water, and mineral resources.
This was noted during the Great Depression as something which made the economic
crisis of the time inexplicable.
How do you _decouple_ employment rates from things like the stock market or the
world economy?
Phrased that way, the answer is obvious.
The world economy has tanked, so foreign countries can't afford U.S. exports. So
there would be a one-way trade imbalance if the U.S. were to put the unemployed
to work, and pay them in real money with which they could buy imported items.
All right, instead, put them to work, but pay them in scrip that can only be
used to buy products from other U.S. workers put to work in this employment-
expansion program. (Those who managed to have jobs anyways can continue to be
paid in real money, since the economy was able to support that.)
Put them to work doing _what_? Tell us the tasks that they would
perform.
Post by Quadibloc
*** This is basically exactly what Baldur von Schirach did that enabled Germany
to put its people to work, building the armaments that Germany used to start
World War II. ***
I think you're conflating Baldur von Schirach with Fritz Todt. In any
case, the German economy expanded a little bit before being forced to
engage in a program of pillage and rape, but ultimately that's where
that program ended.
Post by Quadibloc
So, yes, it works, and we have proof of that from experience.
If you count pillage, rape, and genocide as "working".
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-05-04 17:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Ah, but maybe they _do_ know how to do it, but the secret is being
hidden by the
Post by Quadibloc
great conspiracy!
After all, the United States has lots of land, water, and mineral resources.
This was noted during the Great Depression as something which made the
economic
Post by Quadibloc
crisis of the time inexplicable.
How do you _decouple_ employment rates from things like the stock
market or the
Post by Quadibloc
world economy?
Phrased that way, the answer is obvious.
The world economy has tanked, so foreign countries can't afford U.S.
exports. So
Post by Quadibloc
there would be a one-way trade imbalance if the U.S. were to put the
unemployed
Post by Quadibloc
to work, and pay them in real money with which they could buy imported items.
All right, instead, put them to work, but pay them in scrip that can only be
used to buy products from other U.S. workers put to work in this employment-
expansion program. (Those who managed to have jobs anyways can continue to be
paid in real money, since the economy was able to support that.)
Put them to work doing _what_? Tell us the tasks that they would
perform.
Post by Quadibloc
*** This is basically exactly what Baldur von Schirach did that enabled
Germany
Post by Quadibloc
to put its people to work, building the armaments that Germany used to start
World War II. ***
I think you're conflating Baldur von Schirach with Fritz Todt. In any
case, the German economy expanded a little bit before being forced to
engage in a program of pillage and rape, but ultimately that's where
that program ended.
Post by Quadibloc
So, yes, it works, and we have proof of that from experience.
If you count pillage, rape, and genocide as "working".
The US solution was the WPA (Work Progress Administration) which put
unemployed men to work building public works projects. You can still
see their distinctive architecture in many local state parks here.
Whether it was a success in economic terms, I don't know, but with the
example of the Bonus Army fresh in mind, that would probably a secondary
consideration.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 18:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Ah, but maybe they _do_ know how to do it, but the secret is being
hidden by the
Post by Quadibloc
great conspiracy!
After all, the United States has lots of land, water, and mineral resources.
This was noted during the Great Depression as something which made the
economic
Post by Quadibloc
crisis of the time inexplicable.
How do you _decouple_ employment rates from things like the stock
market or the
Post by Quadibloc
world economy?
Phrased that way, the answer is obvious.
The world economy has tanked, so foreign countries can't afford U.S.
exports. So
Post by Quadibloc
there would be a one-way trade imbalance if the U.S. were to put the
unemployed
Post by Quadibloc
to work, and pay them in real money with which they could buy imported items.
All right, instead, put them to work, but pay them in scrip that can only be
used to buy products from other U.S. workers put to work in this employment-
expansion program. (Those who managed to have jobs anyways can continue to be
paid in real money, since the economy was able to support that.)
Put them to work doing _what_? Tell us the tasks that they would
perform.
Post by Quadibloc
*** This is basically exactly what Baldur von Schirach did that enabled
Germany
Post by Quadibloc
to put its people to work, building the armaments that Germany used to start
World War II. ***
I think you're conflating Baldur von Schirach with Fritz Todt. In any
case, the German economy expanded a little bit before being forced to
engage in a program of pillage and rape, but ultimately that's where
that program ended.
Post by Quadibloc
So, yes, it works, and we have proof of that from experience.
If you count pillage, rape, and genocide as "working".
The US solution was the WPA (Work Progress Administration) which put
unemployed men to work building public works projects. You can still
see their distinctive architecture in many local state parks here.
Whether it was a success in economic terms, I don't know, but with the
example of the Bonus Army fresh in mind, that would probably a secondary
consideration.
One wonders what would have happened if the Japanese had not committed
seppuku at Pearl Harbor though.
David DeLaney
2019-05-11 09:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Put them to work doing _what_? Tell us the tasks that they would
perform.
Infrastructure maintenance and repair. Including after various kinds of
disaster. The USA is a good bit behind on this in many places.

Once we get all caught up, THEN worry about what else there might be for them
to do.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2019-05-04 17:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Ah, but maybe they _do_ know how to do it, but the secret is being hidden by the
great conspiracy!
After all, the United States has lots of land, water, and mineral resources.
This was noted during the Great Depression as something which made the economic
crisis of the time inexplicable.
The main woe during the Great Depression was not a lack
of resources, but depressed _demand._

Developing more land had its problems, too, Have you never
read the novel "The Grapes of Wrath," nor seen the film?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl
Post by Quadibloc
How do you _decouple_ employment rates from things like the stock market or the
world economy?
Phrased that way, the answer is obvious.
The world economy has tanked, so foreign countries can't afford U.S. exports. So
there would be a one-way trade imbalance if the U.S. were to put the unemployed
to work, and pay them in real money with which they could buy imported items.
All right, instead, put them to work, but pay them in scrip that can only be
used to buy products from other U.S. workers put to work in this employment-
expansion program. (Those who managed to have jobs anyways can continue to be
paid in real money, since the economy was able to support that.)
*** This is basically exactly what Baldur von Schirach did that enabled Germany
to put its people to work, building the armaments that Germany used to start
World War II. ***
Maybe referring positively to a proponent of forced labor,
who was convicted at Nuremberg isn't the best way to argue
your point.

https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/4561/Verdict-Baldur-von-Schirach.htm

This guy was in charge of the Hitler Youth. Are you sure
you are giving us the right name?
Post by Quadibloc
So, yes, it works, and we have proof of that from experience.
Citation, please.

Kevin R
Dimensional Traveler
2019-05-04 20:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Ah, but maybe they _do_ know how to do it, but the secret is being hidden by the
great conspiracy!
After all, the United States has lots of land, water, and mineral resources.
This was noted during the Great Depression as something which made the economic
crisis of the time inexplicable.
The main woe during the Great Depression was not a lack
of resources, but depressed _demand._
Developing more land had its problems, too, Have you never
read the novel "The Grapes of Wrath," nor seen the film?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl
Post by Quadibloc
How do you _decouple_ employment rates from things like the stock market or the
world economy?
Phrased that way, the answer is obvious.
The world economy has tanked, so foreign countries can't afford U.S. exports. So
there would be a one-way trade imbalance if the U.S. were to put the unemployed
to work, and pay them in real money with which they could buy imported items.
All right, instead, put them to work, but pay them in scrip that can only be
used to buy products from other U.S. workers put to work in this employment-
expansion program. (Those who managed to have jobs anyways can continue to be
paid in real money, since the economy was able to support that.)
*** This is basically exactly what Baldur von Schirach did that enabled Germany
to put its people to work, building the armaments that Germany used to start
World War II. ***
Maybe referring positively to a proponent of forced labor,
who was convicted at Nuremberg isn't the best way to argue
your point.
https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/4561/Verdict-Baldur-von-Schirach.htm
This guy was in charge of the Hitler Youth. Are you sure
you are giving us the right name?
Post by Quadibloc
So, yes, it works, and we have proof of that from experience.
Citation, please.
From Quaddie? Please let me know what you are smoking so I can stay
far away from it. :)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Kevrob
2019-05-04 23:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kevrob
Citation, please.
From Quaddie? Please let me know what you are smoking so I can stay
far away from it. :)
That's just a polite way of saying "you are full of spoiled poutine,"
or words to that effect. :)

Kevin R
Dimensional Traveler
2019-05-04 23:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kevrob
Citation, please.
From Quaddie? Please let me know what you are smoking so I can stay
far away from it. :)
That's just a polite way of saying "you are full of spoiled poutine,"
or words to that effect. :)
*looks up "poutine"*

Ew. Now that's just _mean_.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Quadibloc
2019-05-05 06:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
This guy was in charge of the Hitler Youth. Are you sure
you are giving us the right name?
You are correct, my memory was faulty. It was Hjalmar Schacht that I was thinking
of.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-05 06:36:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
This guy was in charge of the Hitler Youth. Are you sure
you are giving us the right name?
You are correct, my memory was faulty. It was Hjalmar Schacht that I was thinking
of.
You mean the guy who ran the bank until Hitler fired him, who wanted
to reduce military spending, who joined the Resistance and ended up in
Dachau? _That_ Hjalmar Schacht? Or are you thinking of some other
Hjalmar Schacht?
Quadibloc
2019-05-05 17:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
This guy was in charge of the Hitler Youth. Are you sure
you are giving us the right name?
You are correct, my memory was faulty. It was Hjalmar Schacht that I was thinking
of.
You mean the guy who ran the bank until Hitler fired him, who wanted
to reduce military spending, who joined the Resistance and ended up in
Dachau? _That_ Hjalmar Schacht? Or are you thinking of some other
Hjalmar Schacht?
No, that Hjalmar Schacht. Why would it be surprising that the Nicola Tesla of
economics would eventually realize the Nazis weren't such good guys, after, unfortunately, using his genius to make their aggression possible?

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-05-05 18:05:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
This guy was in charge of the Hitler Youth. Are you sure
you are giving us the right name?
You are correct, my memory was faulty. It was Hjalmar Schacht that I was thinking
of.
You mean the guy who ran the bank until Hitler fired him, who wanted
to reduce military spending, who joined the Resistance and ended up in
Dachau? _That_ Hjalmar Schacht? Or are you thinking of some other
Hjalmar Schacht?
No, that Hjalmar Schacht. Why would it be surprising that the Nicola Tesla of
economics would eventually realize the Nazis weren't such good guys, after, unfortunately, using his genius to make their aggression possible?
Your thesis was that this person put people to work building
armaments. Schacht opposed building armaments, not because he had any
moral objections to armaments but because in his opinion it was not a
wise use of resource, so it would seem that you have still missed your
target.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-04 16:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.

Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.

I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.

You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people. But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.

Many countries have achieved this. I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"The truth shall set you free"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
Thomas Koenig
2019-05-04 16:55:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
"The truth shall set you free"
ObSF: "The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret."
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 18:16:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.

Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
Kevrob
2019-05-04 18:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
There are "workers" not counted in the unemployment rate:

[quote]

Among Americans of prime working age, 25 to 54, some 29  million aren’t
working or looking for work, but many of them are waiting just offstage.
"The labor force participation rate of prime-age workers is still way
below its peak in the last expansion," says Mickey Levy, an economist
at Berenberg Capital Markets and an adviser to several Federal Reserve
banks. That means the labor market holds more slack than it seems to.
One result: Upward pressure on wages isn’t as strong as we’d expect.

[/quote]

http://fortune.com/2018/10/19/us-unemployment-rate-2018/

That labor force participation rate has fallen a full 4%
since 1999, including some recent rises. It had been down
~ 5 points as of Sept 3015.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-
participation-rate.htm

Unemployment rate drops, and some people who had stopped seeking work
reentered the work force, which is what you'd expect.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-05 00:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.
Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
My original issue was to reduce class slavery, which can be done by by reducing inequality.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
If your unemployment is low, why are you asking for a plan on how to give everyone jobs?

Inequality is still high in USA, but I don't have a specific plan to reduce that for your country. Other countries have implemented high progressive taxation for wealth redistribution, free or cheap University education etc.

Freedom is also important to create a rich and happy society, including freedom of communication, association etc. Many economists have also pointed to the rule of law for economic success - but that should include protection of human rights for most people.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Man is by nature a political animal"
J. Clarke
2019-05-05 00:45:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.
Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
My original issue was to reduce class slavery, which can be done by by reducing inequality.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
If your unemployment is low, why are you asking for a plan on how to give everyone jobs?
Because you asserted that everyone has a right to jobs and I'm asking
you how you plan to make that happen.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Inequality is still high in USA, but I don't have a specific plan to reduce that for your country. Other countries have implemented high progressive taxation for wealth redistribution, free or cheap University education etc.
Define "inequality". In the US it generally means minorities getting
different treatment from non-minorities. I have the impression that
to you it means something else.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Freedom is also important to create a rich and happy society, including freedom of communication, association etc. Many economists have also pointed to the rule of law for economic success - but that should include protection of human rights for most people.
China seems to be well on the way to becoming a rich society. They
don't see to be too big on freedom of much of anything. Their
happiness index is somewhat higher than India's. Whether that
actually means anything though is open to question.
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-05 04:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.
Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
My original issue was to reduce class slavery, which can be done by by reducing inequality.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
If your unemployment is low, why are you asking for a plan on how to give everyone jobs?
Because you asserted that everyone has a right to jobs and I'm asking
you how you plan to make that happen.
I am not an official part of any government or institution, thus I do not have any such responsibility.

Although if you read the next paragraph, and my posts (including this one) in this thread, you will see some of my ideas.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Inequality is still high in USA, but I don't have a specific plan to reduce that for your country. Other countries have implemented high progressive taxation for wealth redistribution, free or cheap University education etc.
Define "inequality". In the US it generally means minorities getting
different treatment from non-minorities. I have the impression that
to you it means something else.
Economists may measure inequality by the Gini coefficient.

Too much inequality may lead to unhappiness and crime, for the "inequal" people.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Freedom is also important to create a rich and happy society, including freedom of communication, association etc. Many economists have also pointed to the rule of law for economic success - but that should include protection of human rights for most people.
China seems to be well on the way to becoming a rich society. They
don't see to be too big on freedom of much of anything. Their
happiness index is somewhat higher than India's. Whether that
actually means anything though is open to question.
If you make a generalization, there are usually exceptions to the rule. Although different happiness surveys can have different results. Most experts may agree that wealth and freedom are factors important for happiness.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"The truth shall set you free"
J. Clarke
2019-05-05 05:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.
Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
My original issue was to reduce class slavery, which can be done by by reducing inequality.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
If your unemployment is low, why are you asking for a plan on how to give everyone jobs?
Because you asserted that everyone has a right to jobs and I'm asking
you how you plan to make that happen.
I am not an official part of any government or institution, thus I do not have any such responsibility.
In other words you see your job as wringing your hands and saying
"somebody should perform this impossible task".
Post by a***@gmail.com
Although if you read the next paragraph, and my posts (including this one) in this thread, you will see some of my ideas.
I see some that might work in some parts of the world but not in
others.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Inequality is still high in USA, but I don't have a specific plan to reduce that for your country. Other countries have implemented high progressive taxation for wealth redistribution, free or cheap University education etc.
Define "inequality". In the US it generally means minorities getting
different treatment from non-minorities. I have the impression that
to you it means something else.
Economists may measure inequality by the Gini coefficient.
Too much inequality may lead to unhappiness and crime, for the "inequal" people.
It may. But that isn't necessarily the case. And right now one of
our major political parties seems determined to enlarge the "unequal"
class.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Freedom is also important to create a rich and happy society, including freedom of communication, association etc. Many economists have also pointed to the rule of law for economic success - but that should include protection of human rights for most people.
China seems to be well on the way to becoming a rich society. They
don't see to be too big on freedom of much of anything. Their
happiness index is somewhat higher than India's. Whether that
actually means anything though is open to question.
If you make a generalization, there are usually exceptions to the rule. Although different happiness surveys can have different results. Most experts may agree that wealth and freedom are factors important for happiness.
But what makes someone an expert on the topic of happiness?
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-05 07:23:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.
Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
My original issue was to reduce class slavery, which can be done by by reducing inequality.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
If your unemployment is low, why are you asking for a plan on how to give everyone jobs?
Because you asserted that everyone has a right to jobs and I'm asking
you how you plan to make that happen.
I am not an official part of any government or institution, thus I do not have any such responsibility.
In other words you see your job as wringing your hands and saying
"somebody should perform this impossible task".
As we agree, there is low unemployment in many countries, including Thailand, and now USA. So it is not an impossible task. I don't owe you a plan, you can research and come up with a plan if you want one. If you know more about economics than me, it is up to you.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Although if you read the next paragraph, and my posts (including this one) in this thread, you will see some of my ideas.
I see some that might work in some parts of the world but not in
others.
The economic and political system depends on many things including history and culture. As you imply, there is no one solution for all nations. Different solutions may also work in the same place.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Inequality is still high in USA, but I don't have a specific plan to reduce that for your country. Other countries have implemented high progressive taxation for wealth redistribution, free or cheap University education etc.
Define "inequality". In the US it generally means minorities getting
different treatment from non-minorities. I have the impression that
to you it means something else.
Economists may measure inequality by the Gini coefficient.
Too much inequality may lead to unhappiness and crime, for the "inequal" people.
It may. But that isn't necessarily the case. And right now one of
our major political parties seems determined to enlarge the "unequal"
class.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Freedom is also important to create a rich and happy society, including freedom of communication, association etc. Many economists have also pointed to the rule of law for economic success - but that should include protection of human rights for most people.
China seems to be well on the way to becoming a rich society. They
don't see to be too big on freedom of much of anything. Their
happiness index is somewhat higher than India's. Whether that
actually means anything though is open to question.
If you make a generalization, there are usually exceptions to the rule. Although different happiness surveys can have different results. Most experts may agree that wealth and freedom are factors important for happiness.
But what makes someone an expert on the topic of happiness?
Those who study psychology may know something about the subject. In recent history GDP was a measure of a nations success. But now, some nations are also measuring happiness. Politicians and economists should brush up on the psychology of happiness.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-05 11:27:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.
Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
My original issue was to reduce class slavery, which can be done by by reducing inequality.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
If your unemployment is low, why are you asking for a plan on how to give everyone jobs?
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Inequality is still high in USA, but I don't have a specific plan to reduce that for your country. Other countries have implemented high progressive taxation for wealth redistribution, free or cheap University education etc.
Freedom is also important to create a rich and happy society, including freedom of communication, association etc. Many economists have also pointed to the rule of law for economic success - but that should include protection of human rights for most people.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-05 15:42:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a***@gmail.com
You continue to misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret me.
His problem is that he is enmeshed in a rigid laissez-faire free enterprise
ideology.
John Savard
Freedom to do as we wish while respecting everyone's human rights is important.
People have a right to education and work.
Allowing everyone capable to pursue a university education doesn't necessarily imply the government pays for it. Private or government loans can be made available. University part time research or teaching jobs are sometimes made available to those pursuing advanced degrees.
If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? As for loans, you
might want to see how that is working out in the real world.
As for a right to work, if you really mean that then when there are no
jobs someone has to be coerced into creating them. How do you propose
to do that? And how has that worked out in societies that tried it?
The communist system is not what I am advocating, where the state gives everyone jobs. In reality modern economies are mostly mixed economies. In India there is a rural employment scheme which gives work to the unemployed in rural areas.
That's fine if there is work that needs to be done in rural areas. In
the US there isn't. People move to cities because there isn't any
work for them outside the cities.
I don't remember the exact reasons for the rural employment scheme, or what it is called, but it might have been because of high unemployment in rural areas.
If you're talking India, India has a lot of things going on in rural
areas that the US and Europe don't. Among other things, your
agriculture is vastly more labor-intensive than US agriculture and
your transportation system needs to be greatly expanded.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Urbanization is generally a global trend, and isn't isolated to USA.
No, but it is extreme in the US, with less than 1% of the US
population providing 8.8 percent of the food production for the entire
world.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am not focusing on USA, because I am in India. But higher progressive taxation with more government jobs, including more jobs in R&D for the scientifically inclined, and jobs in infrastructure for others.
You might want to look at the US to have an idea of your end point.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
The state should create an environment or economy where businesses and jobs flourish. Most people should be able to find jobs according to their abilities and potential.
And what happens when there is less work to be done than there are
people to do it? It's all well and good to say "create an environment
or economy where businesses and jobs flourish". Why don't we cure
cancer while we're about it? The objective isn't the issue, the issue
is that nobody knows how to do it.
Some countries have very low unemployment rates, including Thailand in Asia. Some countries have low inequality. Some high tax mixed economies in Europe have low inequality, and happy people. My memory, as you may have noticed, is fading with age, but these countries may include Finland and Denmark.
So tell us what those countries do to provide that low unemployment.
And make sure it's something that they are actually doing, not just a
matter of this being a high point on a transient curve.
Oh, and Thailand reports 0.7 percent unemployment, but also 17.2
percent of the population lives in near poverty, with more than that
applying for social welfare, also Thailand has the third highest
income inequality in the world. What's wrong with this picture?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
There is an unwritten social contract between the citizen and government. The citizen agrees to follow the laws, in return for the state taking care of their human rights. If people can't have economic and educational opportunity, then they have less of an incentive to respect the rules and authority of the government and ruling class.
Unless the government wants revolution, they should do their best to value the human rights of all people.
Leaving aside whether having a job is a "right", show us your _plan_.
You say that everybody should have a job but not one provided by the
government, so tell us how to make this happen.
I already mentioned some countries that have low unemployment or low inequality. Those countries have experts or leaders who have the answers. I don't.
In other words you have no idea how to bring about your paradise, but
you think that some politician somewhere has The Answer. When those
countries have had low unemployment and low unequality for a hundred
years, consistently, get back to us.
Post by a***@gmail.com
You can reduce class slavery, by reducing inequality, and providing good jobs or state income and benefits to most people.
You said earlier that you didn't mean jobs provided by the government.
Paying people to not work is no different from paying them to work in
that regard.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But you cannot totally eliminate inequality in a mixed economy, but try to give everyone a living income.
That's a different issue from increasing employment. You're changing
the subject.
My original issue was to reduce class slavery, which can be done by by reducing inequality.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Many countries have achieved this.
Name three that have sustained it for 50 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I don't have a specific plan for USA. Americans and your leaders are responsible for coming up with a plan for this.
Why? Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in half a century,
wages are starting to rise, the economy is doing well. There's a
saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". How about we wait until it
breaks before we try to fix it?
If your unemployment is low, why are you asking for a plan on how to give everyone jobs?
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.

For example, if we assume that in a nation 2% of population are unable to find good jobs in the private sector, the government can give them jobs in technology or infrastructure projects for the government. If tax revenue is 30% of GDP, we can raise it to about 33% of GDP to cover wage expenses.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Politics is the art of the impossible"
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Inequality is still high in USA, but I don't have a specific plan to reduce that for your country. Other countries have implemented high progressive taxation for wealth redistribution, free or cheap University education etc.
Freedom is also important to create a rich and happy society, including freedom of communication, association etc. Many economists have also pointed to the rule of law for economic success - but that should include protection of human rights for most people.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Man is by nature a political animal"
J. Clarke
2019-05-05 16:22:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
Post by a***@gmail.com
For example, if we assume that in a nation 2% of population are unable to find good jobs in the private sector, the government can give them jobs in technology or infrastructure projects for the government. If tax revenue is 30% of GDP, we can raise it to about 33% of GDP to cover wage expenses.
What are they going to be doing on these technology or infrastructure
jobs?
Cryptoengineer
2019-05-05 18:04:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA.
But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
Post by a***@gmail.com
For example, if we assume that in a nation 2% of population are unable
to find good jobs in the private sector, the government can give them
jobs in technology or infrastructure projects for the government. If
tax revenue is 30% of GDP, we can raise it to about 33% of GDP to
cover wage expenses.
What are they going to be doing on these technology or infrastructure
jobs?
I've read (I may be out of date) that the 'rural employment' projects
in India which alal speaks of are grossly and deliberately wasteful;
for example, if a earthen dam need to be built, rather than use
bulldozers and dump trucks, they'll hire a thousand unemployed
villagers with shovels and baskets. The cost winds up being far
higher, and completion much slower, but they provided employment
for a bunch of people for a while.

The problem is, this isn't moving them forward at all. They gain
no skills, and once the project is over, they're back where they
started, just older and more physically beat up.

pt
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-05 18:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
I don't have the necessary expertise to definitively answer this question. My guess, you could survey unemployed people, or look at data from employment agencies. If a person has recently applied for a job, than he is probably looking for work, and hence wants to work.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
For example, if we assume that in a nation 2% of population are unable to find good jobs in the private sector, the government can give them jobs in technology or infrastructure projects for the government. If tax revenue is 30% of GDP, we can raise it to about 33% of GDP to cover wage expenses.
What are they going to be doing on these technology or infrastructure
jobs?
This is just a hypothetical example. People who have the right training can do scientific and technological research. People with other skills can do jobs to renew infrastructure, like building bridges, or repairing roads.

From my understanding, investment in R&D and infrastructure is critical for the health of the long term economy.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Politics is the art of the impossible"
Kevrob
2019-05-05 20:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
I don't have the necessary expertise to definitively answer this question. My guess, you could survey unemployed people, or look at data from employment agencies. If a person has recently applied for a job, than he is probably looking for work, and hence wants to work.
The US uses a survey model. I posted links in my answer to Robert.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
For example, if we assume that in a nation 2% of population are unable to find good jobs in the private sector, the government can give them jobs in technology or infrastructure projects for the government. If tax revenue is 30% of GDP, we can raise it to about 33% of GDP to cover wage expenses.
What are they going to be doing on these technology or infrastructure
jobs?
This is just a hypothetical example. People who have the right training can do scientific and technological research. People with other skills can do jobs to renew infrastructure, like building bridges, or repairing roads.
Robert's example of people being used as unskilled laborers - navvies,
coolies, etc. - to build public works, where construction equipment
would be more cost efficient, faster, and, I would think, safer, would
be one consideration. Building stuff just to employ people can be wasteful
of resources and damaging to the environment.

Training people to use modern tech is expensive, and guessing wrong
about what skills will be needed by the time the trainees can be
certified as competent enough to be hired is difficult.
Post by a***@gmail.com
From my understanding, investment in R&D and infrastructure is critical
for the health of the long term economy.
30 years ago, a plan to use an army of unemployed as the "wire pullers"
to make sure every Indian household would be connected to the electrical
grid and to an internet service provider might have been technically feasible.
It also might have been ruinously expensive. Tech has leapfrogged the need
to string copper wire or even fiber-optic cable to remote villages. Cell
signal towers and mobile phones are doing the second job. Great progress
has been made on the first, but there is still work to do.

https://thewire.in/government/narendra-modi-government-rural-electrification-power

https://www.powerforall.org/campaigns/india/universal-rural-electrification-india-not-so-fast

Now, who among the unemployed have enough skills to finish that job,
or could learn quickly enough, and would the organizations already
doing this work be able to absorb them?

One field of public works that might be labor-intensive, but also
require skills, is environmental remediation.

https://www.environmentalscience.org/career/environmental-remediator

I could see an alliance of government agencies, insurance companies,
real estate firms and investors coming up with schemes to make
land treated poorly in the past safely usable for the future.
Cleaning up sources of polluted water would help folks, too.
This is often not easy. Sometimes the best one can do is
encapsulate a riverbed after dredging it, as it is nearly
impossible to remove all the dangerous chemicals, as in the
case of New York's Hudson River.

https://www3.epa.gov/hudson/cleanup.html

Even much simpler jobs, like restoring wetlands, take trained
staff.

https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/article/5-tips-for-taking-on-wetland-restoration-work/

Labor is needed for public works, but it is usually _trained_
labor that is needed. Technology is reducing the need for workers
who offer a willing attitude, a strong back and not much else.
Assessing the skills of an unemployed person who has worked in
an industry that has undergone technical changes to opportunities
in other fields isn't always easy, and there are a lot of likely
candidates chasing those jibs.

I speak as someone who was a "csasualty" of "disintermediation"* in
book retailing. I've spent the last 10 years doing customer service
work for a company that ships for several firms who operate web-based
stores, catalogs, or solicit business via direct mail. Except for the
vendors who have managed from time to time to get their items placed
in some major brick and mortar stores and/or with Amazon, we don't
have to deal with the 20th century sales model.

Part of my old job included filling orders for catalog sales,
and orders placed on our website, so I wasn't completely untrained
for my "new" position. But not everyone who thrived in the old
system is flexible enough to make the transition.

It is very easy to declare "all who want jobs shall have them!"
It is much tougher to make that even close to true.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

--
Kevin R

a.a #2310
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-06 05:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
I don't have the necessary expertise to definitively answer this question. My guess, you could survey unemployed people, or look at data from employment agencies. If a person has recently applied for a job, than he is probably looking for work, and hence wants to work.
The US uses a survey model. I posted links in my answer to Robert.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
For example, if we assume that in a nation 2% of population are unable to find good jobs in the private sector, the government can give them jobs in technology or infrastructure projects for the government. If tax revenue is 30% of GDP, we can raise it to about 33% of GDP to cover wage expenses.
What are they going to be doing on these technology or infrastructure
jobs?
This is just a hypothetical example. People who have the right training can do scientific and technological research. People with other skills can do jobs to renew infrastructure, like building bridges, or repairing roads.
Robert's example of people being used as unskilled laborers - navvies,
coolies, etc. - to build public works, where construction equipment
would be more cost efficient, faster, and, I would think, safer, would
be one consideration. Building stuff just to employ people can be wasteful
of resources and damaging to the environment.
Mine was a hypothetical example. In India labour is cheap, and may work for as little as USD 150 per month. So sometimes labour is used instead of expensive equipment.

If there is no necessary infrastructure work to be done, then the unemployed can be given a "basic income" and skills training.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Politics is the art of the impossible"
Post by Kevrob
Training people to use modern tech is expensive, and guessing wrong
about what skills will be needed by the time the trainees can be
certified as competent enough to be hired is difficult.
Post by a***@gmail.com
From my understanding, investment in R&D and infrastructure is critical
for the health of the long term economy.
30 years ago, a plan to use an army of unemployed as the "wire pullers"
to make sure every Indian household would be connected to the electrical
grid and to an internet service provider might have been technically feasible.
It also might have been ruinously expensive. Tech has leapfrogged the need
to string copper wire or even fiber-optic cable to remote villages. Cell
signal towers and mobile phones are doing the second job. Great progress
has been made on the first, but there is still work to do.
https://thewire.in/government/narendra-modi-government-rural-electrification-power
https://www.powerforall.org/campaigns/india/universal-rural-electrification-india-not-so-fast
Now, who among the unemployed have enough skills to finish that job,
or could learn quickly enough, and would the organizations already
doing this work be able to absorb them?
One field of public works that might be labor-intensive, but also
require skills, is environmental remediation.
https://www.environmentalscience.org/career/environmental-remediator
I could see an alliance of government agencies, insurance companies,
real estate firms and investors coming up with schemes to make
land treated poorly in the past safely usable for the future.
Cleaning up sources of polluted water would help folks, too.
This is often not easy. Sometimes the best one can do is
encapsulate a riverbed after dredging it, as it is nearly
impossible to remove all the dangerous chemicals, as in the
case of New York's Hudson River.
https://www3.epa.gov/hudson/cleanup.html
Even much simpler jobs, like restoring wetlands, take trained
staff.
https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/article/5-tips-for-taking-on-wetland-restoration-work/
Labor is needed for public works, but it is usually _trained_
labor that is needed. Technology is reducing the need for workers
who offer a willing attitude, a strong back and not much else.
Assessing the skills of an unemployed person who has worked in
an industry that has undergone technical changes to opportunities
in other fields isn't always easy, and there are a lot of likely
candidates chasing those jibs.
I speak as someone who was a "csasualty" of "disintermediation"* in
book retailing. I've spent the last 10 years doing customer service
work for a company that ships for several firms who operate web-based
stores, catalogs, or solicit business via direct mail. Except for the
vendors who have managed from time to time to get their items placed
in some major brick and mortar stores and/or with Amazon, we don't
have to deal with the 20th century sales model.
Part of my old job included filling orders for catalog sales,
and orders placed on our website, so I wasn't completely untrained
for my "new" position. But not everyone who thrived in the old
system is flexible enough to make the transition.
It is very easy to declare "all who want jobs shall have them!"
It is much tougher to make that even close to true.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Kevrob
2019-05-06 05:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Robert's example of people being used as unskilled laborers - navvies,
coolies, etc. - to build public works, where construction equipment
would be more cost efficient, faster, and, I would think, safer, would
be one consideration. Building stuff just to employ people can be wasteful
of resources and damaging to the environment.
Mine was a hypothetical example. In India labour is cheap, and may work for as little as USD 150 per month. So sometimes labour is used instead of expensive equipment.
... which may result in things being built short of modern
standards, and unsafe work conditions.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If there is no necessary infrastructure work to be done, then the
unemployed can be given a "basic income" and skills training.
Assuming they have exhausted any unemployment benefit they
earned while working, that

a) puts them on the dole and

b) puts them in a training program.
which is all well and good, but it
ignores all the difficulties of
what to train these folks for I
outlined in my last post.

Please note: you can't just "give people skills."
They have to learn them. Some will, and some won't.
Then the newly skilled have to find employers who
want employees with those skills.

If governments guaranteeing "jobs for all" were easy,
they'd have done it long ago. There's the old Soviet
model, with "we pretend to work, and they pretend to
pay us." That doesn't work.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-06 08:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Robert's example of people being used as unskilled laborers - navvies,
coolies, etc. - to build public works, where construction equipment
would be more cost efficient, faster, and, I would think, safer, would
be one consideration. Building stuff just to employ people can be wasteful
of resources and damaging to the environment.
Mine was a hypothetical example. In India labour is cheap, and may work for as little as USD 150 per month. So sometimes labour is used instead of expensive equipment.
... which may result in things being built short of modern
standards, and unsafe work conditions.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If there is no necessary infrastructure work to be done, then the
unemployed can be given a "basic income" and skills training.
Assuming they have exhausted any unemployment benefit they
earned while working, that
a) puts them on the dole and
b) puts them in a training program.
which is all well and good, but it
ignores all the difficulties of
what to train these folks for I
outlined in my last post.
Please note: you can't just "give people skills."
They have to learn them. Some will, and some won't.
Then the newly skilled have to find employers who
want employees with those skills.
The government should be responsible for public goods and work that benefits everyone. This includes infrastructure, basic scientific research, and defense among other things. The government's needs include jobs with both basic and more advanced skills. Those who have the skills can work for the government, and the unskilled can be trained to take government funded jobs.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Politics is the art of the impossible"
Post by Kevrob
If governments guaranteeing "jobs for all" were easy,
they'd have done it long ago. There's the old Soviet
model, with "we pretend to work, and they pretend to
pay us." That doesn't work.
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
J. Clarke
2019-05-06 11:50:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Robert's example of people being used as unskilled laborers - navvies,
coolies, etc. - to build public works, where construction equipment
would be more cost efficient, faster, and, I would think, safer, would
be one consideration. Building stuff just to employ people can be wasteful
of resources and damaging to the environment.
Mine was a hypothetical example. In India labour is cheap, and may work for as little as USD 150 per month. So sometimes labour is used instead of expensive equipment.
... which may result in things being built short of modern
standards, and unsafe work conditions.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If there is no necessary infrastructure work to be done, then the
unemployed can be given a "basic income" and skills training.
Assuming they have exhausted any unemployment benefit they
earned while working, that
a) puts them on the dole and
b) puts them in a training program.
which is all well and good, but it
ignores all the difficulties of
what to train these folks for I
outlined in my last post.
Please note: you can't just "give people skills."
They have to learn them. Some will, and some won't.
Then the newly skilled have to find employers who
want employees with those skills.
The government should be responsible for public goods and work that benefits everyone. This includes infrastructure, basic scientific research, and defense among other things. The government's needs include jobs with both basic and more advanced skills. Those who have the skills can work for the government, and the unskilled can be trained to take government funded jobs.
And after a few centuries of this you have ten taxpayers trying to
support a billion government workers.

Where does the money come from?
Kevrob
2019-05-06 18:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Robert's example of people being used as unskilled laborers - navvies,
coolies, etc. - to build public works, where construction equipment
would be more cost efficient, faster, and, I would think, safer, would
be one consideration. Building stuff just to employ people can be wasteful
of resources and damaging to the environment.
Mine was a hypothetical example. In India labour is cheap, and may work for as little as USD 150 per month. So sometimes labour is used instead of expensive equipment.
... which may result in things being built short of modern
standards, and unsafe work conditions.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If there is no necessary infrastructure work to be done, then the
unemployed can be given a "basic income" and skills training.
Assuming they have exhausted any unemployment benefit they
earned while working, that
a) puts them on the dole and
b) puts them in a training program.
which is all well and good, but it
ignores all the difficulties of
what to train these folks for I
outlined in my last post.
Please note: you can't just "give people skills."
They have to learn them. Some will, and some won't.
Then the newly skilled have to find employers who
want employees with those skills.
The government should be responsible for public goods and work that benefits everyone. This includes infrastructure, basic scientific research, and defense among other things. The government's needs include jobs with both basic and more advanced skills. Those who have the skills can work for the government, and the unskilled can be trained to take government funded jobs.
This on the "because I say so" principle?
Post by J. Clarke
And after a few centuries of this you have ten taxpayers trying to
support a billion government workers.
Where does the money come from?
Oh, the state's mint just coins it, or the central bank prints it,
or sends electrons to arous bank accounts, et voila! - problem solved!

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Quadibloc
2019-05-06 19:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And after a few centuries of this you have ten taxpayers trying to
support a billion government workers.
Where does the money come from?
Before it gets to that point, have some of the government workers
produce things like food and clothing, and, indeed, luxury goods as
well, so that if the free enterprise economy declines, or is unavailable
to government workers because of the quality of the money with which
they are paid, the government workers can be paid in currency with which
they can buy the things they need and want.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-05-06 20:08:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And after a few centuries of this you have ten taxpayers trying
to support a billion government workers.
Where does the money come from?
Before it gets to that point, have some of the government
workers produce things like food and clothing, and, indeed,
luxury goods as well, so that if the free enterprise economy
declines, or is unavailable to government workers because of the
quality of the money with which they are paid, the government
workers can be paid in currency with which they can buy the
things they need and want.
Yeah, history has proven that communism works *so* well.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2019-05-06 20:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And after a few centuries of this you have ten taxpayers trying to
support a billion government workers.
Where does the money come from?
Before it gets to that point, have some of the government workers
produce things like food and clothing, and, indeed, luxury goods as
well, so that if the free enterprise economy declines, or is unavailable
to government workers because of the quality of the money with which
they are paid, the government workers can be paid in currency with which
they can buy the things they need and want.
More Prairie Province economic crankery? Refounding the Western
Social Credit League, are we, John?

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-05-06 11:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
I don't have the necessary expertise to definitively answer this question. My guess, you could survey unemployed people, or look at data from employment agencies. If a person has recently applied for a job, than he is probably looking for work, and hence wants to work.
The US uses a survey model. I posted links in my answer to Robert.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
For example, if we assume that in a nation 2% of population are unable to find good jobs in the private sector, the government can give them jobs in technology or infrastructure projects for the government. If tax revenue is 30% of GDP, we can raise it to about 33% of GDP to cover wage expenses.
What are they going to be doing on these technology or infrastructure
jobs?
This is just a hypothetical example. People who have the right training can do scientific and technological research. People with other skills can do jobs to renew infrastructure, like building bridges, or repairing roads.
Robert's example of people being used as unskilled laborers - navvies,
coolies, etc. - to build public works, where construction equipment
would be more cost efficient, faster, and, I would think, safer, would
be one consideration. Building stuff just to employ people can be wasteful
of resources and damaging to the environment.
Mine was a hypothetical example. In India labour is cheap, and may work for as little as USD 150 per month. So sometimes labour is used instead of expensive equipment.
If there is no necessary infrastructure work to be done, then the unemployed can be given a "basic income" and skills training.
Where will this skills training be held and how will they get there?
What will it cost per person and who will pay for it?
William Hyde
2019-05-05 20:52:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
Once upon a time Canada's UI system had serious problems with this.

Long, long ago I received a letter from Employment Canada telling me that unless I applied for more jobs, I would not receive an unemployment cheque. I advised them that I neither wanted nor deserved such a cheque, as I was going back to university full time. I got another warning letter, and another. As I resolutely declined to apply for any jobs, the problem eventually solved itself.

As I understand it, that sort of thing does not happen nowadays. They're quite happy to deny you UI (or EI as it is now called), particularly if you are in a prosperous area.

William Hyde
J. Clarke
2019-05-05 22:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 5 May 2019 13:52:53 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
I don't know how statistical data is analysed and collected in USA. But everyone wanting too work should be able to find a job.
How do you determine that someone wants to work?
Once upon a time Canada's UI system had serious problems with this.
Long, long ago I received a letter from Employment Canada telling me that unless I applied for more jobs, I would not receive an unemployment cheque. I advised them that I neither wanted nor deserved such a cheque, as I was going back to university full time. I got another warning letter, and another. As I resolutely declined to apply for any jobs, the problem eventually solved itself.
As I understand it, that sort of thing does not happen nowadays. They're quite happy to deny you UI (or EI as it is now called), particularly if you are in a prosperous area.
People who believe in the efficiency of government seldom seem to have
actually had to deal with government. After my mother died I did
everything that the lawyers told me to do including notifying the IRS
and the Florida Department of Revenu of her death. I had her mail
forwarded to me. So I started getting tax bills for various amounts
that would have accrued if she was still alive, but since she wasn't
they didn't accrue. I contacted the agency and tried to explain to
them that she was dead. They didn't seem to be able to grasp the
concept. Finally I filed a change of address with the tax agency and
listed the cemetary as her new address and apparently they eventually
got the message.

I mean what purpose is served in dunning a dead person?
Kevrob
2019-05-06 00:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
....Finally I filed a change of address with the tax agency and
listed the cemetary as her new address and apparently they eventually
got the message.
I mean what purpose is served in dunning a dead person?
If they are doing it "right," they dun the estate.

Kevin R
Kevrob
2019-05-05 20:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Low unemployment statistics don't always mean that
people have jobs. They can mean that the definition
of "unemployment" is not exactly what you think.
For instance, people out of work more than a year
may be deleted.
In the US, where the official numbers are compiled by survey,
once a participant in the survey admits he/she has not looked for
full-time nor part-time work in the last 4 weeks, and isn't self-
employed she/he is from the ranks of the workforce.

See my post upthread for a link to labor force participation
official statistics.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.arts.sf.written/tBuUKsWQvyc/jWx1zK2WCwAJ

Message-ID: <992e79a3-b9f9-47d1-ad69-***@googlegroups.com>

Official definitions of who as counted "in," and
who is not:

https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm

The article also points out that other versions of the
unemployment rate are compiled, using a more or less
than "U-3," the one known as the "official unemployment
rate."

see also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discouraged_worker

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-03 08:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
If you WERE his friend, you'd have written it on
each of the boxes. Maybe call the CPU box "Brain".
The other one, "Television". So, turning the television
off or on doesn't affect the show, it just means you're
not watching the show.

Or just show him where to buy an all-in-one.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
J. Clarke
2019-05-03 23:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 3 May 2019 01:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
If you WERE his friend, you'd have written it on
each of the boxes. Maybe call the CPU box "Brain".
The other one, "Television". So, turning the television
off or on doesn't affect the show, it just means you're
not watching the show.
He knows that this box is called a "television" and this box is called
a "computer". He just is incapable of grasping the relationship
between them.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Or just show him where to buy an all-in-one.
Good luck finding a 55" all-in-one.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-04 00:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 3 May 2019 01:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
If you WERE his friend, you'd have written it on
each of the boxes. Maybe call the CPU box "Brain".
The other one, "Television". So, turning the television
off or on doesn't affect the show, it just means you're
not watching the show.
He knows that this box is called a "television" and this box is called
a "computer". He just is incapable of grasping the relationship
between them.
I meant to label the PC screen as "television".
Nowadays it may be both. I also mean to use
"television", the old-fashioned broadcast kind,
as a metaphor of a performance that proceeds without
interruption whether you watch or not. If your
Ph.D. friend is puzzled by that too... well...
once you've written a Ph.D., there may be not many
people who read it. Did you?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
Or just show him where to buy an all-in-one.
Good luck finding a 55" all-in-one.
<https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/surface/business/surface-hub-2>
is about 52 inches and hurtfully expensive.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
J. Clarke
2019-05-04 00:20:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 3 May 2019 17:08:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 3 May 2019 01:37:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two scenarios are highly unlikely.
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for a luxurious life.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"Knowledge should be shared"
I think India had "the gig economy" - insecure
labour - long before the U.S. did. And of course
was occupied by Britain just within living memory.
The class system is not necessarily equivalent to slavery. But it is when the upper class keeps information from the lower class, in order to better control them, and get labour at subsistence wages.
One of the ways to reduce this class slavery, is to provide University and technical education to all those who intellectually qualify, regardless of wealth or income. Another way is to ensure freedom of communication, including the media and internet.
You have clearly (a) never tried to teach anything technical to anyone
who has zero aptitude for it and (b) never tried to get a job with an
art history degree.
My first job was as a tutor in mathematics, physics, and computer science at an American College. Most students needed help with mathematics.
I particularly remember an American woman, who was very weak in physics, but it was required for her as part of her training. With my personal attention she was very happy to achieve a B grade in the physics course I was helping her with.
Maybe if students received personal attention from those who had the time, like more advanced students, they will have a chance at succeeding.
In my post, I clearly stated that affordable education should be made available to those who are intellectually capable, not those who have no aptitude.
So my friend the PhD who after 30 years of trying still can't grasp
that the monitor is a different device from the computer wouldn't have
gotten his doctorate in your best of all possible worlds?
If you WERE his friend, you'd have written it on
each of the boxes. Maybe call the CPU box "Brain".
The other one, "Television". So, turning the television
off or on doesn't affect the show, it just means you're
not watching the show.
He knows that this box is called a "television" and this box is called
a "computer". He just is incapable of grasping the relationship
between them.
I meant to label the PC screen as "television".
Nowadays it may be both. I also mean to use
"television", the old-fashioned broadcast kind,
as a metaphor of a performance that proceeds without
interruption whether you watch or not. If your
Ph.D. friend is puzzled by that too... well...
once you've written a Ph.D., there may be not many
people who read it. Did you?
Actually I did. It was on the history of education and like most
things related to the doings of "educators" it made little sense.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
Or just show him where to buy an all-in-one.
Good luck finding a 55" all-in-one.
<https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/surface/business/surface-hub-2>
is about 52 inches and hurtfully expensive.
He already has a 55". Why would he want to pay 9000 bucks for a 52"?
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by a***@gmail.com
An art history degree for those interested in art and history is also a worthwhile intellectual pursuit. Without art and beauty to understand and enjoy in our free time our lives will be incomplete. But as you imply, these are not skills in high demand.
Art historians do not make art and beauty. That is artists.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Everyone has a role to play in society, from those who study the sciences to those who study the arts. You should focus on what you are interested in, and what you enjoy; ease of finding a high paying job should only be one of the criteria.
So you're fine if people spend ten years getting a doctorate on the
taxpayer's dime in order to flip burgers at McDonalds?
k***@gmail.com
2019-05-01 17:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
There are a multiplicity of plausible scenarios in which most humans
are enslaved. Machines might enslave us to maintain them and their
environment. Aliens might enslave us as labour. These first two
scenarios are highly unlikely.
I know I've read the aliens one, but can't think where now. It
wouldn't surprise me if I'd read the machines one, but again...
Post by a***@gmail.com
More likely is, a group of technologically advanced humans, using
their superior knowledge, whether cultural or genetic, to enslave
ordinary humans to provide them with necessary goods and services for
a luxurious life.
This, on the other hand, is easy. Without thinking at all hard:

Stirling, Draka (the extreme example)
Stirling again, but much more localised, <Dies the Fire> et seqq
(I mean here the Protectorate mark 1, specifically, though
Libertarians are unlikely to be comfortable with the handling
of edge cases in *any* of the series's societies.)
To a lesser extent, Niven and Pournelle, <Lucifer's Hammer>, ending of
To a still lesser extent, Flint and Kosmatka, <Time Spike>, ending of
(Lesser because luxury isn't really the object there. The same
goes for prisons in our own society; they certainly represent a
form of enslavement, but the comfort we get from them isn't based
on the resources we thus extract. The enslavement in <Lucifer's
Hammer> enables a significant improvement in quality of life for
the enslavers, though; I don't think that's true in <Time Spike>.)
Oh, duh. Norman, Gor.
(It isn't unusual for slaveowners to concoct an ideology according
to which their conduct is the only moral way of life, but nobody
else, except perhaps their slaves, is obliged to treat such
ideologies with any respect.)

I'm probably missing a whole bunch of obvious examples, but as I
said, I'm trying not to think too hard.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Kevrob
2019-05-01 22:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
I'm probably missing a whole bunch of obvious examples, but as I
said, I'm trying not to think too hard.
One that freaked me out as a kid: Buck Rogers being sentenced
to "shovel radium" in Killer Kane's Atomic Furnace Room, complete
with mind control helmet, by which the Dictator could order Our
Hero to kneel and wipe his boots.

It was in the serial.

A more modern version: Thor made to fight in the Grandmaster's
arena by means of an Obedience disk/shock collar.

Kevin R


{Spoiler alert:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..Buck managed to get free!}
Loading...