The certain way to higher wages for workers in the future...

[there4eyeM]

Rather ridiculous to call this 'liberal' from a 'conservative' viewpoint since what being discussed is a principle basic to 'capitalism'. Market forces determine price. Labor is needed and there are few workers? Labor price goes up! A lot of land and no buyers? Real estate prices go down. What's 'liberal' about that?

And it was not being proposed that the population be artificially reduced to achieve an end. It is merely to discuss why, if it is in the interest of people, they do not increase their wealth by increasing their value. Secondly, it is to explore what will happen when the population does decrease, as it most certainly shall?

 

[there4eyeM]

A dramatic and rapid reduction in people WILL make the survivors both more valued by society, and wealthier too in the long run.

this is too stupid and perfectly liberal since the earth now has 7 billion people with 5 billion soon to have smart phone toys!!

more people means more scientists and more economies of scale which explains 5 billion smart phones as opposed to feudal times when they had no people and no smart phones!!

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?.

Even slow would be better than stopped. I'm sure 'liberals' would agree. Ask one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Market forces determine price. Labor is needed and there are few workers? Labor price goes up! A lot of land and no buyers? Real estate prices go down. What's 'liberal' about that?

if I said it was liberal I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs.

 

[akelch]

Rather ridiculous to call this 'liberal' from a 'conservative' viewpoint since what being discussed is a principle basic to 'capitalism'. Market forces determine price. Labor is needed and there are few workers? Labor price goes up! A lot of land and no buyers? Real estate prices go down. What's 'liberal' about that?

And it was not being proposed that the population be artificially reduced to achieve an end. It is merely to discuss why, if it is in the interest of people, they do not increase their wealth by increasing their value. Secondly, it is to explore what will happen when the population does decrease, as it most certainly shall?

We have not had "Capitalism" for decades. What we have is "crony Capitalism" which stifles economic growth, competition, and creates huge economic inequality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Rather ridiculous to call this 'liberal' from a 'conservative' viewpoint since what being discussed is a principle basic to 'capitalism'. Market forces determine price. Labor is needed and there are few workers? Labor price goes up! A lot of land and no buyers? Real estate prices go down. What's 'liberal' about that?

And it was not being proposed that the population be artificially reduced to achieve an end. It is merely to discuss why, if it is in the interest of people, they do not increase their wealth by increasing their value. Secondly, it is to explore what will happen when the population does decrease, as it most certainly shall?

We have not had "Capitalism" for decades. What we have is "crony Capitalism" which stifles economic growth, competition, and creates huge economic inequality.

let's not forget to mention that crony capitalism is 100% liberal!! If it were up to capitalists government would be too weak to offer any favors to help them avoid the rigors of a market economy. The only way for them to succeed then would be for them to serve their customers better than anyone else in the world!!

 

[there4eyeM]

Oh, I forgot! Of course. There are 'elements' in these threads that decide anything bad, or at least anything with which they disagree (same thing) is 'liberal' and, thus, from THE DEVIL!

Anyway, is there anyone who wants to discuss the subject?

 

[Grandma]

Well it is easier to get by when you're supporting 1 or 2 kids instead of a houseful. Maybe a national public service commercial blitz encouraging prosperity through downsizing families would be the answer.

But that would piss off the hardcore fundies. And there's the probability that if they squirt out a dozen kids to everyone else's 2 kids we could have a mess of crazies.

Maybe mandatory birth control?

 

[there4eyeM]

Well it is easier to get by when you're supporting 1 or 2 kids instead of a houseful. Maybe a national public service commercial blitz encouraging prosperity through downsizing families would be the answer.

But that would piss off the hardcore fundies. And there's the probability that if they squirt out a dozen kids to everyone else's 2 kids we could have a mess of crazies.

Maybe mandatory birth control?

There are movements that seem to want that kind of thing (forced birth control). I've even been a little surprised someone or some country has not carried out some sort of sterilization campaign (maybe they have; would we know?)

What is not obvious is why people, on their own, do not see the advantages to themselves and to the children they do have that of reducing their reproduction. 'Hardcore fundies' is a good partial explanation, true. Yet, if market forces do act as some maintain, self interest would prevail.

 

[there4eyeM]

Market forces determine price. Labor is needed and there are few workers? Labor price goes up! A lot of land and no buyers? Real estate prices go down. What's 'liberal' about that?

if I said it was liberal I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs.

Who said I said you said that?

That's not a bet, it's a sure thing.

 

[Toronado3800]

Consider that big government purchase.and welfare land grant era of the 1800's as an example.

We generally imported everyone we could and tried to give em land. Heck, we even gave the Railroads Native American lands and used the military to help keep it theirs lol.

Now THAT was a path to manifest destiny. We just don't have the land to give away any longer.

What about Alaska?....most of it is owned by the Federal Government. The people that live there can't even use it.

And large sections of sand in Nevada are government owned as well. True.

I dunno about further big government colinization in either place. Seems like infrastructure is just expensive due to geographic / climate tyoe reason. But hey, big government here like building in floodplains so my kid can maintain levees his whole life or go save em when it breaks. Nothing would suprise me.

Alaska and Nevada, both places I have driven around btw. Very scenic. Don't just stay in Vegas next time you go. Rent a hot rod and take a road trip to Mt Charleston and Red Rock at the least.

 

[editec]

CAPITALISM owes its existence to the BLACK DEATH in Europe, ya know?

Before the plagues killed off 1/3 to 1/2 of the population, Feudalism was quite secure and in no way threatened by any new economic system.

But once society broke down, the landed gentry had NO choice but to start luring workers by paying them to work.

And as the feudal system broke down, workers felt liberated and could leave their former landlords to find work at pay.

My point?

There4eyeM is right.

A dramatic and rapid reduction in people WILL make the survivors both more valued by society, and wealthier too in the long run.

They tried the same thing in France after the revolution. They planned on killing Millions of "useless people" in order to lower the unemployment rate and bust the supply of food. They only got around in killing a few hundred thousand man, women, and children.

Nonsense.

Don't know you heard that fairy tale, but you have been tragically misinformed.

 

[Freemason9]

...is by reducing the market supply.

If there were fewer humans, there would be much less poverty.

Of course, this is not a proposition that the 'supply' be inflicted through some kind of income-levelcide. It is merely in the interests of that class, that cannot find enough now, not to condemn their heirs to even worse lives.

Pitchforks and torches work well, too.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...is by reducing the market supply.

If there were fewer humans, there would be much less poverty.

Of course, this is not a proposition that the 'supply' be inflicted through some kind of income-levelcide. It is merely in the interests of that class, that cannot find enough now, not to condemn their heirs to even worse lives.

Pitchforks and torches work well, too.

today Americans are the richest in the world because of the highest wages in the world. Wages are higher today than 100 years ago because of all the new inventions that make work more efficient.
Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry

 

[akelch]

...is by reducing the market supply.

If there were fewer humans, there would be much less poverty.

Of course, this is not a proposition that the 'supply' be inflicted through some kind of income-levelcide. It is merely in the interests of that class, that cannot find enough now, not to condemn their heirs to even worse lives.

Pitchforks and torches work well, too.

today Americans are the richest in the world because of the highest wages in the world. Wages are higher today than 100 years ago because of all the new inventions that make work more efficient.
Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry

I like to call it the "Free Market" effect.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Pitchforks and torches work well, too.

today Americans are the richest in the world because of the highest wages in the world. Wages are higher today than 100 years ago because of all the new inventions that make work more efficient.
Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry

I like to call it the "Free Market" effect.

or the Republican, supply-side, new invention effect!

 

[there4eyeM]

Or the 'cheap energy' effect, or any other number of labels.

The basic facts remain clear. 20,000 years ago, salt was scarce most places, so the trade for it was lively.

Labor was individual or group at most, so there was no trade in it. With the arrival of organized agriculture, labor became a need. Slavery developed as one response, providing the market cheaply.

The plague reduced the population enormously and gave 'labor' the negotiating leverage it needed to respond to exploitation.

The industrial age changed the situation on its face, but not profoundly. Machines meant fewer hands needed to farm, but big centers of work in cities. The population went up, keeping the price of labor down. It is very plain that the reduction in population will necessarily increase the value of labor.

But the reduced population will also reduce 'consumption'.

How much will these work in proportion?

 

[akelch]

Or the 'cheap energy' effect, or any other number of labels.

The basic facts remain clear. 20,000 years ago, salt was scarce most places, so the trade for it was lively.

Labor was individual or group at most, so there was no trade in it. With the arrival of organized agriculture, labor became a need. Slavery developed as one response, providing the market cheaply.

The plague reduced the population enormously and gave 'labor' the negotiating leverage it needed to respond to exploitation.

The industrial age changed the situation on its face, but not profoundly. Machines meant fewer hands needed to farm, but big centers of work in cities. The population went up, keeping the price of labor down. It is very plain that the reduction in population will necessarily increase the value of labor.

But the reduced population will also reduce 'consumption'.

How much will these work in proportion?

No disrespect...but you are looking at it all wrong. A large population means more opportunity.
Why do you think everyone wants to move to large Metropolitan areas like New York and LA...to be poor?

Coming from a small town, I can honestly tell you, there is little opportunity and even less income mobility.

A large diverse population is a key to a roaring economy. Many different talents, interests, social habits, creativity, etc.

The point you are missing, with a free market anything is possible. But if you are taking about hiring just low skilled labor to dig holes and work on assemble lines...then yes.....the pay will be based on the ratio of jobs available and workers wanting jobs.

The American people are more innovative then that. Make sure to factor that in.

 

[there4eyeM]

Or the 'cheap energy' effect, or any other number of labels.

The basic facts remain clear. 20,000 years ago, salt was scarce most places, so the trade for it was lively.

Labor was individual or group at most, so there was no trade in it. With the arrival of organized agriculture, labor became a need. Slavery developed as one response, providing the market cheaply.

The plague reduced the population enormously and gave 'labor' the negotiating leverage it needed to respond to exploitation.

The industrial age changed the situation on its face, but not profoundly. Machines meant fewer hands needed to farm, but big centers of work in cities. The population went up, keeping the price of labor down. It is very plain that the reduction in population will necessarily increase the value of labor.

But the reduced population will also reduce 'consumption'.

How much will these work in proportion?

No disrespect...but you are looking at it all wrong. A large population means more opportunity.
Why do you think everyone wants to move to large Metropolitan areas like New York and LA...to be poor?

Coming from a small town, I can honestly tell you, there is little opportunity and even less income mobility.

A large diverse population is a key to a roaring economy. Many different talents, interests, social habits, creativity, etc.

The point you are missing, with a free market anything is possible. But if you are taking about hiring just low skilled labor to dig holes and work on assemble lines...then yes.....the pay will be based on the ratio of jobs available and workers wanting jobs.

The American people are more innovative then that. Make sure to factor that in.

Of course, the value of all labor at all levels, the cost of time people allow to a task in order to make money, will increase.

You are missing the point. The rise in population is artificial and temporary. What has happened since the beginning of the industrial age has only temporarily to do with humans on earth over time.

The people in the Middle Ages could also say that things were better because there were more and more hands for doing the necessary work - agriculture. This slowly and painfully built up to actual surpluses, 'progress', increased freedom for those living in cities and the development of the trade-based economy, largely functioning without 'money'.

But it didn't last. Something happened and changed the scene. Part of the change and evolution was 'capitalism'.

The Pharaohs and similar rulers had nice systems going for them. Of course, being only for the noble, most of society suffered from want of what would make a comfortable life. That system worked for thousands of years, but where is it now?

 

[akelch]

What is your point of this thread?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is very plain that the reduction in population will necessarily increase the value of labor.

very stupid of course since population has grown to 7 billion and 5 billion can now or soon will be able to afford smart phone toys!!. Sorry.