|
Home > Archive > Lyme Disease > October 2005 > Do we need population control?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Do we need population control?
|
|
|
| I've been pondering this question for awhile and would be interested in
the opinions of others. The first question is do we need population
control? ie when will the world's supply not meet the demand? Two, if
not what are some things we could do about it? While China's policy
would never fly something voluntary with a cash incentive might.?.
| |
| derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com 2005-10-27, 6:17 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> I've been pondering this question for awhile and would be interested in
> the opinions of others. The first question is do we need population
> control? ie when will the world's supply not meet the demand? Two, if
> not what are some things we could do about it? While China's policy
> would never fly something voluntary with a cash incentive might.?.
Yes, absolutely.
Your parents should have defintely practiced birth control.
| |
| derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com 2005-10-27, 6:17 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> I've been pondering this question for awhile and would be interested in
> the opinions of others. The first question is do we need population
> control? ie when will the world's supply not meet the demand? Two, if
> not what are some things we could do about it? While China's policy
> would never fly something voluntary with a cash incentive might.?.
Yes. Absolutely.
Your parents should definitely have practiced birth control.
| |
|
|
derdrittemann2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> dali wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes. Absolutely.
>
> Your parents should definitely have practiced birth control.
I can see why you think that way. must be tough getting ones XXX kicked
over and over and over and....
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-27, 6:17 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> I've been pondering this question for awhile and would be interested in
> the opinions of others. The first question is do we need population
> control? ie when will the world's supply not meet the demand? Two, if
> not what are some things we could do about it? While China's policy
> would never fly something voluntary with a cash incentive might.?.
It depends on how you define "need" within the context of your
question. Population control is being decided continuously by the
survival dynamic, in that humans depopulate as a result of the burden
of population on human society the same way animal populations do.
This would normally occur without conscious effort, however the China
example of population management illustrates the potential for profound
human intervention. The mechanisms for depopulation include war, self
poisoning, and a darth of natural resources, primarily food. Birth
control is the only method used for population management to my
knowledge, at least so far. As for the "cash incentive," I think that
aspect sits at the top, not the bottom, of the human social pyramid,
where decision-making, as an unshared resource, represents the greatest
threat to human survival, with or without population control.
PeterB
| |
| derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
dali wrote:
>
> "I can see why you think that way. must be tough getting ones XXX kicked
> over and over and over and...."
And...LOL...you are suggesting that this has actually happened?
Time for your anti-psychotic meds, there, girlfriend.
| |
| george conklin 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
"dali" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130349917.245187.218960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've been pondering this question for awhile and would be interested in
> the opinions of others. The first question is do we need population
> control? ie when will the world's supply not meet the demand? Two, if
> not what are some things we could do about it? While China's policy
> would never fly something voluntary with a cash incentive might.?.
>
63 nations no longer reproduce themselves based on current TFRs. Europe
has to import its children, as is the USA. So we not only import our goods,
we import our babies.
| |
| Herman Rubin 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
| In article <9QR7f.586$m81.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>"dali" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1130349917.245187.218960@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 63 nations no longer reproduce themselves based on current TFRs. Europe
>has to import its children, as is the USA. So we not only import our goods,
>we import our babies.
Maybe we shouldn't. The world is overpopulated, and this
is also the case for the US. And we are importing too many
adults who cannot make a case for coming in the front door.
At this point, I can think of nothing better than removing
all public welfare from those who beget children whom they
cannot support. If we only support those who have fallen
on hard times after they have their children, this might
well do the job.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| quaalude 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
| maybe we could start by executing worthless statistics professors who
have zero empathy for their fellow human beings.
I'm sure the money that goes into your salary could be put to much
better use.
you're undoubtedly a pedant and intellectual tyrant who mentally
masturbates over his outlandish theories and hides from the real world
behind the comforting cover of the "ivory tower".
and someday, when you've turned into a fossilized emeriti, you'll
realize that you accomplished jack-shit.
and then you'll die like everyone else and be replaced by some other
vagina who can't function in the real world.
XXXX you.
| |
| george conklin 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:djor10$1sdo@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <9QR7f.586$m81.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Maybe we shouldn't. The world is overpopulated, and this
> is also the case for the US. And we are importing too many
> adults who cannot make a case for coming in the front door.
>
Migrants who are not employed typically go home. In our part of the
world, the construction business is almost all immigrants.
| |
| george conklin 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
"quaalude" <mockingbirdstl@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130391881.690000.114410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> maybe we could start by executing worthless statistics professors who
> have zero empathy for their fellow human beings.
>
> I'm sure the money that goes into your salary could be put to much
> better use.
>
> you're undoubtedly a pedant and intellectual tyrant who mentally
> masturbates over his outlandish theories and hides from the real world
> behind the comforting cover of the "ivory tower".
>
> and someday, when you've turned into a fossilized emeriti, you'll
> realize that you accomplished jack-shit.
>
> and then you'll die like everyone else and be replaced by some other
> vagina who can't function in the real world.
>
> XXXX you.
>
Some other vagina? I did not know Herman had one! ]
Your post is also worthless.
| |
| cathyb 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> I've been pondering this question for awhile and would be interested in
> the opinions of others. The first question is do we need population
> control? ie when will the world's supply not meet the demand? Two, if
> not what are some things we could do about it? While China's policy
> would never fly something voluntary with a cash incentive might.?.
In Australia, the treasurer fairly recently asked women to produce "one
for the father, one for the mother, and one for the country." I kid you
not. This in a country that has spent the last few years locking up
refugees (including children) for years and indeed was found to be
imprisoning mentally ill Australian citizens it thought were asylum
seekers. Don't go out without your passport.
Just to trivialise the matter though, don't have more than three kids
unless you can afford an enormous car and have a huge amount of
patience. And a huge house. And a willingness not to call your life
your own for about 30 years. And a huge amount of money. I could go
on...
And never, never believe an advert that says "family ticket". It always
means 2 adults+2 children.
Cathy
| |
|
| Thanks for the feedback. I think the topic can hit on a over a dozen
very complicated issues. politics, sociolgy, race, and their
interactions.
While researching I found that we currently are able to make vaccines
which control feral population growths.
The antifertility vaccination causes an immune responses in vaccinated
animals that interfere with their reproduction.
http://www.pestanimal.crc.org.au/faqFOX.htm
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> george conklin wrote:
>
> The anti-immigration efforts by Fox stations and Lou Dobbs etc are
> really a hoot. Like building a mote to protect your sand castle.
>
> btw great movie is "A day without Mexicans"
>
> So the filmmakers asked: What if there were suddenly a day without
> Mexicans?
>
> We get the answer after a mysterious fog sweeps across California,
> removing all Latinos and leaving behind economic distress, food
> shortages, work stoppages and civil unrest. The fog also leaves behind
> scores of helpless Anglos who have grown so accustomed to being catered
> to by their Latino maids, gardeners and nannies that they have
> forgotten how to take care of themselves.
There's another to way at that, Dali. The reason California
agriculture would suffer under that scenario is because of
institutionalized wage oppression. We can argue that people have a
better life toiling under American poverty than Mexican poverty, but
big business is still profiting at their expense. People complain that
American workers are consequently being cheated out of a fair wage,
which is effectively true, but it isn't the bigger issue. The big
issue is that conditions under which a system like this persist depends
on it existing everywhere else, which is why politicians (read:
multi-national conglomerates) reinforce such inequities on both sides
of a border (or both sides of an ocean), to profit at the expense of
labour. Securing borders can certainly frustrate this dynamic, and
that explains why things remain as they are. This cancer on society is
a product of greed, not prejudice. Prejudice is just the excuse
politicians use to protect their interests.
PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> george conklin wrote:
>
> The anti-immigration efforts by Fox stations and Lou Dobbs etc are
> really a hoot. Like building a mote to protect your sand castle.
>
> btw great movie is "A day without Mexicans"
>
> So the filmmakers asked: What if there were suddenly a day without
> Mexicans?
>
> We get the answer after a mysterious fog sweeps across California,
> removing all Latinos and leaving behind economic distress, food
> shortages, work stoppages and civil unrest. The fog also leaves behind
> scores of helpless Anglos who have grown so accustomed to being catered
> to by their Latino maids, gardeners and nannies that they have
> forgotten how to take care of themselves.
There's another way to look at that, Dali. The reason California
agriculture would suffer under that scenario is because of
institutionalized wage oppression. We can argue that people have a
better life toiling under American poverty than Mexican poverty, but
big business is still profiting at their expense. People complain that
American workers are consequently being cheated out of a fair wage,
which is effectively true, but it isn't the bigger issue. The big
issue is that conditions under which a system like this persist depends
on it existing everywhere else, which is why politicians (read:
multi-national conglomerates) reinforce such inequities on both sides
of a border (or both sides of an ocean), to profit at the expense of
labour. Securing borders can certainly frustrate this dynamic, and
that explains why things remain as they are. This cancer on society is
a product of greed, not prejudice. Prejudice is just the excuse
politicians use to protect their interests.
PeterB
| |
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
| dali wrote:
> I've been pondering this question for awhile and would be interested in
> the opinions of others. The first question is do we need population
> control? ie when will the world's supply not meet the demand? Two, if
> not what are some things we could do about it? While China's policy
> would never fly something voluntary with a cash incentive might.?.
Well, you could join the followers of Malthus, or
"Club of Rome", both of which predicted
our demise because of too much population.
Malthus, in 1798, proposed the idea that the earth
was getting overpopulated, and the finite
reosurces could not support the population for
too long. He warned that we would all definitely
get in big trouble pretty soon and get wiped out,
unless the governments intervened in a big way to
control the population.
Sadly for him, the governments didn't bother to intervene.
His predictions didn't come to pass either, but
that never stopped other people to keep coming
up with the same type of predictions.
Most recently "Club of Rome" used sophisticated computer
models at MIT during 1970's to predict the same thing.
Club of Rome went into great details, for the
"next decade" (which would be the 1980s) and
their computer models said specific things like:
No more oil for cars by 1990.
Other detailed predictions about various minerals...
all being run out by the growing population.
As a result, major shortages starting from
the 90's, resulting in major catastrophes.
And yet, it's now 2005.
And to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of us all having
died out (several times over by now) are somewhat
exaggerated.
But I think one thing is certain. Malthusians will
keep coming out of the woodworks exponentially
unless controlled.
| |
|
|
| Herman Rubin 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
| In article <eA48f.779$2y.374@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>news:djor10$1sdo@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Migrants who are not employed typically go home. In our part of the
>world, the construction business is almost all immigrants.
Considering that we have more than a million immigrants who
are illegal beyond any remotely reasonable doubt, that is
not the problem.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| Vashti 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
| It wasn't a dark and stormy night when cathyb wrote:
> Just to trivialise the matter though, don't have more than three
> kids unless you can afford an enormous car and have a huge amount
> of patience.
And if you live in The Netherlands without owning a car, don't
have more than two kids... though it takes patience you *can* fit
two kids on the bike. 
Vashti
| |
| Herman Rubin 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
| In article <1130434594.834969.311030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<jdeere2312@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dali wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Well, you could join the followers of Malthus, or
>"Club of Rome", both of which predicted
>our demise because of too much population.
>Malthus, in 1798, proposed the idea that the earth
>was getting overpopulated, and the finite
>reosurces could not support the population for
>too long. He warned that we would all definitely
>get in big trouble pretty soon and get wiped out,
>unless the governments intervened in a big way to
>control the population.
Malthus did not foresee the industrial and mechanical
expansion of the 19th century, as well as the expansion
of agriculture to land not used for that. We can
increase the mechanization, but there is little land
left to expand to; cutting down tropical forests,
while increasing land, produces poor land, which often
reverts quickly to desert.
>Sadly for him, the governments didn't bother to intervene.
>His predictions didn't come to pass either, but
>that never stopped other people to keep coming
>up with the same type of predictions.
We now have close to 90% of the agricultural land
being farmed, and even the oceans are losing their
productivity, being overfished. We can get more
out of the land and oceans, and can feed (poorly)
probably 20 billion people or so, but we can not
live well with so many.
>Most recently "Club of Rome" used sophisticated computer
>models at MIT during 1970's to predict the same thing.
>Club of Rome went into great details, for the
>"next decade" (which would be the 1980s) and
>their computer models said specific things like:
> No more oil for cars by 1990.
> Other detailed predictions about various minerals...
> all being run out by the growing population.
> As a result, major shortages starting from
> the 90's, resulting in major catastrophes.
Using the Club of Rome models, in the 1890s they would
have predicted the major problem to be horse manure.
I have pointed out that we can get oil for cars even
if there are no oil wells; agricultural waste can
handle that. But it seems that we have found even a
shortage of Antarctic krill. The earth's resources
can only handle so much in terms of our type of living
matter; we may be off by a factor, but not that large
a factor, in anticipating it.
And this would be a life of poverty, as we would be
at the subsistence level. We cannot improve standards
unless people can be spared from menial work.
We might be able to get more resources from space, but
this will require an active space-going society, and
people living and working there. However, at that
point, I suspect that those who are resourceful or
successful will move out there, and there will not
be much work for the masses.
>And yet, it's now 2005.
>And to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of us all having
>died out (several times over by now) are somewhat
>exaggerated.
>But I think one thing is certain. Malthusians will
>keep coming out of the woodworks exponentially
>unless controlled.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
|
|
PeterB wrote:
> dali wrote:
>
> There's another way to look at that, Dali. The reason California
> agriculture would suffer under that scenario is because of
> institutionalized wage oppression. We can argue that people have a
> better life toiling under American poverty than Mexican poverty, but
> big business is still profiting at their expense. People complain that
> American workers are consequently being cheated out of a fair wage,
> which is effectively true, but it isn't the bigger issue. The big
> issue is that conditions under which a system like this persist depends
>
> on it existing everywhere else, which is why politicians (read:
> multi-national conglomerates) reinforce such inequities on both sides
> of a border (or both sides of an ocean), to profit at the expense of
> labour. Securing borders can certainly frustrate this dynamic, and
> that explains why things remain as they are. This cancer on society is
> a product of greed, not prejudice. Prejudice is just the excuse
> politicians use to protect their interests.
>
> PeterB.
Not sure I follow..
I would think the multi-national conglomerates that prosper are the
ones who take advantage of the global inequalities?(Walmart is a good
example)
Of course we are still talking about greed. Cheap products at the cost
of good paying american jobs. ah well short term profits is the
american way.
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Not sure I follow..
> I would think the multi-national conglomerates that prosper are the
> ones who take advantage of the global inequalities?(Walmart is a good
> example)
How do distinguish between an agricultural company taking advantage of
cheap labour in California and Wal-Mart taking advantage of cheap
labour in China? It's simply a difference in geography.
> Of course we are still talking about greed. Cheap products at the cost
> of good paying american jobs. ah well short term profits is the
> american way.
I don't think of it as the American way, I think of it as "the
corporate way."
PeterB
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
|
dali wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Not sure I follow..
> I would think the multi-national conglomerates that prosper are the
> ones who take advantage of the global inequalities?(Walmart is a good
> example)
How do you distinguish between an agricultural company taking advantage
of
cheap labour in California and Wal-Mart taking advantage of cheap
labour in China? It's simply a difference in geography.
> Of course we are still talking about greed. Cheap products at the cost
> of good paying american jobs. ah well short term profits is the
> american way.
I don't think of it as the American way, I think of it as "the
corporate way."
| |
| Eric Bohlman 2005-10-27, 6:18 pm |
| hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote in news:djr96u$6ba8
@odds.stat.purdue.edu:
> And this would be a life of poverty, as we would be
> at the subsistence level. We cannot improve standards
> unless people can be spared from menial work.
And that is, in fact, the key to long-term population control. The
driving force behind high birth rates in poorly-developed countries isn't
an inability of adults to uncouple sexual pleasure from pregnancy; it's
the fact that in poor economies, people need lots of children to support
them. It's only in affluent societies that children represent net
expenses to their families; in poor societies, they're a source of
necessary manual agricultural labor and the like. Any family that had
fewer children under present conditions would find itself worse off.
Also, high infant/child mortality leads to more births, and the extremely
patriarchal cultures in some parts of the world leave women with few
choices other than baby production.
Increased economic development, reductions in infant/child mortality, and
better education, especially of women, would all result in significant
birth-rate reductions in a couple of generations, though they might
initially increase the birth rate. In fact, one of Malthus' biggest
errors was his failure to anticipate that increased productivity would
lead to a lower birth rate because parents wouldn't need as many children
to support them.
| |
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com 2005-10-27, 6:19 pm |
| Herman Rubin wrote:
> Malthus did not foresee the industrial and mechanical
> expansion of the 19th century, as well as the expansion
> of agriculture to land not used for that. We can
> increase the mechanization, but there is little land
> left to expand to; cutting down tropical forests,
> while increasing land, produces poor land, which often
> reverts quickly to desert.
So basically your point is that while Malthus and Club of
Rome were not correct, you are.
Sadly, you won't even be the first post-Malthus Malthusian
to say "Malthus didn't foresee (insert x, y, z), but I sure
have it all figured out. This time we are doomed for sure
unless you all listen to me and cut down on those poor
people..."
As long as we are on the fact that Malthus didn't foresee
some things that you would have, since you can analyze and
foresee better, I trust you at least foresaw the PC and
internet booms before they happened? (Or if you didn't
at least you have SOME reason to believe you can
foresee the future better?)
| |
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com 2005-10-27, 6:19 pm |
| Eric Bohlman wrote:
> Increased economic development, reductions in infant/child mortality, and
> better education, especially of women, would all result in significant
> birth-rate reductions in a couple of generations, though they might
> initially increase the birth rate. In fact, one of Malthus' biggest
Something is not too good with this picture -- if all countries
start to have negative rates of population growth, where are they
going to get immigrants from? Or children to adopt from?
| |
|
| On 27 Oct 2005 13:18:35 -0700, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> stated:
>
>dali wrote:
>
>How do you distinguish between an agricultural company taking advantage
>of
>cheap labour in California and Wal-Mart taking advantage of cheap
>labour in China? It's simply a difference in geography.
Your speaking of workers being taken advantage of. I agree that
sweatshops etc are a problem and should be dealt with. BUT, these
multi-national conglomerates are also outsourcing increasingly
higher-skilled and higher paying jobs. India comes to mind.
When you state multi-national conglomerates reinforce such inequities
on both sides of a border I see the opposite. The third world's
standards of living seams to be increasing as the first worlds
declines.
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| dali wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 13:18:35 -0700, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> stated:
>
>
>
>
> Your speaking of workers being taken advantage of. I agree that
> sweatshops etc are a problem and should be dealt with. BUT, these
> multi-national conglomerates are also outsourcing increasingly
> higher-skilled and higher paying jobs. India comes to mind.
> When you state multi-national conglomerates reinforce such inequities
> on both sides of a border I see the opposite. The third world's
> standards of living seams to be increasing as the first worlds
> declines.
Interesting point. I know that several computer companies outsourced
their support to India. That was a disaster for Dell and they brought
the corporate support back to the US.
Several friends have lost long term positions due to outsourcing to
other countries. Two changed careers and one opened his own business.
My business cannot be sent overseas, and, the clients who have dropped
us, started doing our work in house. Three found it more expensive, and
two have asked us to work for them again. I agreed, but at market
prices, with no volume or long term client discount. They agreed.
| |
| Eric Bohlman 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
news:2Ld8f.15383$rE2.6221@fe10.lga:
> Interesting point. I know that several computer companies outsourced
> their support to India. That was a disaster for Dell and they brought
> the corporate support back to the US.
>
> Several friends have lost long term positions due to outsourcing to
> other countries. Two changed careers and one opened his own business.
>
> My business cannot be sent overseas, and, the clients who have dropped
> us, started doing our work in house. Three found it more expensive,
> and two have asked us to work for them again. I agreed, but at market
> prices, with no volume or long term client discount. They agreed.
The US health-care financing system contributes to pressure on American
companies to send jobs overseas; all the places they're sending jobs to
have some sort of nationalized health-care financing system. That means
that companies doing business in those countries pay for health care
through taxes rather than employee benefits. Since taxes are based on
profits rather than head counts, there's no financial penalty for having
a large workforce. In the current American system, OTOH, a company's
cost is tied to its labor-intensiveness rather than its abilty to pay,
and as a result companies are getting squeezed; adding more employees
might bring in more revenue, but the increase in health-care costs would
eat it up.
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
|
dali wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 13:18:35 -0700, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> stated:
>
>
> Your speaking of workers being taken advantage of. I agree that
> sweatshops etc are a problem and should be dealt with. BUT, these
> multi-national conglomerates are also outsourcing increasingly
> higher-skilled and higher paying jobs. India comes to mind.
> When you state multi-national conglomerates reinforce such inequities
> on both sides of a border I see the opposite. The third world's
> standards of living seams to be increasing as the first worlds
> declines.
You're missing the point. Those outsourced "higher-skilled and higher
paying jobs" represent a reduction in labour costs for the employer.
Any positive outcome for a given participant while another declines
simply demonstrates the inefficiency of markets vectoring against
change. In the end, the less you make, the better, as far as your
bosses are concerned.
PeterB
| |
| george conklin 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
|
"dali" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130430920.702035.22160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
> The anti-immigration efforts by Fox stations and Lou Dobbs etc are
> really a hoot. Like building a mote to protect your sand castle.
>
> btw great movie is "A day without Mexicans"
>
> So the filmmakers asked: What if there were suddenly a day without
> Mexicans?
>
> We get the answer after a mysterious fog sweeps across California,
> removing all Latinos and leaving behind economic distress, food
> shortages, work stoppages and civil unrest. The fog also leaves behind
> scores of helpless Anglos who have grown so accustomed to being catered
> to by their Latino maids, gardeners and nannies that they have
> forgotten how to take care of themselves.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...varrette26.html
>
There is an article today in Durham NC's Herald-Sun which shows that the
builders in the area are Hispanic.
| |
| george conklin 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
|
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:djr96u$6ba8@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <1130434594.834969.311030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <jdeere2312@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Malthus did not foresee the industrial and mechanical
> expansion of the 19th century, as well as the expansion
> of agriculture to land not used for that. We can
> increase the mechanization, but there is little land
> left to expand to; cutting down tropical forests,
> while increasing land, produces poor land, which often
> reverts quickly to desert.
We have massive ABANDONMENT of land from farming in the USA, as people
concentrate in cities. So, Herman, the land is more lightly used now. I
happen to have an old farm which fits this category. The barn is now for
looks.
>
>
>
> We now have close to 90% of the agricultural land
> being farmed,
Herman, we are abandoning agricultural land in the USA, quite massive
abandonments too. One family we know owns 90 acres near Lancaster, PA, and
cannot make a penny on the land anymore. So they grow a little as a hobby,
and work in city-style jobs. No, it is now urban sprawl. It is simply land
which used to support a family, but now is in retirement. This is happening
all over the USA and many web sites show that too. It is a general trend.
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| Eric Bohlman wrote:
> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
> news:2Ld8f.15383$rE2.6221@fe10.lga:
>
>
>
>
> The US health-care financing system contributes to pressure on American
> companies to send jobs overseas; all the places they're sending jobs to
> have some sort of nationalized health-care financing system. That means
> that companies doing business in those countries pay for health care
> through taxes rather than employee benefits. Since taxes are based on
> profits rather than head counts, there's no financial penalty for having
> a large workforce. In the current American system, OTOH, a company's
> cost is tied to its labor-intensiveness rather than its abilty to pay,
> and as a result companies are getting squeezed; adding more employees
> might bring in more revenue, but the increase in health-care costs would
> eat it up.
Agreed. we have hired five new people in the past eight months to handle
a high volume from a brand new client. The five are doing the work that
the client needs, and we have not had to add "overhead staff"
fortunately. While we are making more money, there is a hell of a lot
more work for me, as I review everything that is sent to clients. My
partner who supervises the field work, except for new claims and special
issues, is also swamped. We may actually hire a claims manager at the
rate we are going, as we would like more time off.
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>
> Agreed. we have hired five new people in the past eight months to handle
> a high volume from a brand new client. The five are doing the work that
> the client needs, and we have not had to add "overhead staff"
> fortunately. While we are making more money, there is a hell of a lot
> more work for me, as I review everything that is sent to clients. My
> partner who supervises the field work, except for new claims and special
> issues, is also swamped. We may actually hire a claims manager at the
> rate we are going, as we would like more time off.
Is that why you spend all this time posting to mha attacking natural
medicine, because you are so busy managing this business of yours?
Don't tell me -- you're the world's greatest time mgmt guru. More
likely, you'll claim to know one.
PeterB
| |
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| dali wrote:
> Not sure I follow..
> I would think the multi-national conglomerates that prosper are the
> ones who take advantage of the global inequalities?(Walmart is a good
> example)
> Of course we are still talking about greed. Cheap products at the cost
> of good paying american jobs. ah well short term profits is the
> american way.
What about those who buy from Walmart? Are they being greedy, too?
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>
>
> Is that why you spend all this time posting to mha attacking natural
> medicine, because you are so busy managing this business of yours?
> Don't tell me -- you're the world's greatest time mgmt guru. More
> likely, you'll claim to know one.
None of the above. I do a lot of my work, i.e. reviewing, from home
after completing homework with my son. I do not usually watch TV, and I
need only 5 hours of sleep a night. During the colder months my primary
recreational activity, boating, is curtailed, and I have more at home
time. Even in the summer, I d/l files to my laptop and work while out on
the water.
As for knowing a great time manager...my partner is not bad. He is not a
preacher of time management philosophy.
| |
|
|
PeterB wrote:
> dali wrote:
>
> You're missing the point. Those outsourced "higher-skilled and higher
> paying jobs" represent a reduction in labour costs for the employer.
Agreed, and those who take advantage of this reduction in cost will
outperform (at least for the stockholders) those who do not. While I or
anyone else may not like it, I doubt theres much that can be done about
it.
> Any positive outcome for a given participant while another declines
> simply demonstrates the inefficiency of markets vectoring against
> change.
> In the end, the less you make, the better, as far as your
> bosses are concerned.
>
Agreed, I think we are making two different points.
The purpose of corporations are always the bottom line. I believe there
is a book out which compares them to psychopaths. Sounds about right...
| |
|
|
jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> dali wrote:
>
>
> What about those who buy from Walmart? Are they being greedy, too?
Nope. Here lies the vicious cycle. As the good paying jobs go overseas
they are being replaced with well walmart type jobs. Their record on
how that treat employees is well known. NO pay and no benefits.
They have no choice but to find the cheapest goods available.
| |
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| dali wrote:
>
> Nope. Here lies the vicious cycle. As the good paying jobs go overseas
> they are being replaced with well walmart type jobs. Their record on
> how that treat employees is well known. NO pay and no benefits.
> They have no choice but to find the cheapest goods available.
So basically you are saying that if there were no good paying
jobs going overseas, nobody would have been buying from Walmart?
(Or a lot less people would have been buying from Walmart?)
| |
|
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
> dali wrote:
>
>
> So basically you are saying that if there were no good paying
> jobs going overseas, nobody would have been buying from Walmart?
> (Or a lot less people would have been buying from Walmart?)
Not really.
Wal-Mart is dictating to the american producers that if you want access
to its low-end market, you will have to move production to China. Which
they really have no choice but to do.
A huge change in dynamics in which the retailer now calls the shots.
The consequence is low price items at the cost of good paying american
jobs.
I'm not getting on walmarts case, all the big retailers do it.
With the rules of supply and demand there are three outcomes that can
come from this. The third world countries can have their standards of
living rise to ours, first world countries will be brought down to
third world status, or something in between.
| |
| PeterB 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
|
dali wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Agreed, and those who take advantage of this reduction in cost will
> outperform (at least for the stockholders) those who do not. While I or
> anyone else may not like it, I doubt theres much that can be done about
> it.
Well, the loss on the cafta vote was unfortunate for the US, so you're
right, it's all downhill from here.
>
> Agreed, I think we are making two different points.
Yes, that's usually the case with complex subjects like this.
> The purpose of corporations are always the bottom line. I believe there
> is a book out which compares them to psychopaths. Sounds about right...
Individuals share a lot of the blame. I've done a lot of stock market
investing, but I will never buy stock in a company whose business model
is built on drug dependency or disease. This is a social disease we
shouldn't be willing to finance.
PeterB
| |
| jdeere2312@yahoo.com 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| dali wrote:
> The consequence is low price items at the cost of good paying american
> jobs.
> I'm not getting on walmarts case, all the big retailers do it.
> With the rules of supply and demand there are three outcomes that can
> come from this. The third world countries can have their standards of
> living rise to ours, first world countries will be brought down to
> third world status, or something in between.
Currently, people who get laid off etc have a standard
response, blame outsourcing.
While the blame game may feel good, it doesn't solve
things by too much. Or at all.
After first world war, the returning veterans didn't have
jobs. So the public worked to get the 40-hour week.
That worked out real well.
Currently, the US economy has over-produced automation.
That requires something like a 32-hour 4-day week. Production
needs to be consumed.
Unfortunately, people in the US may not have the psychology
needed to be able to handle more leisure. If anything,
there is some thinking that we have made our lives
worse and more hectic in response to the advances in
automation.
In which case, countries like Mexico, India etc that
do have leisure-oriented cultures, will end up consuming it.
So jobs will continue to grow in the US, but there has
to be an adjustment in lifestyles. So what you are
seeing is the initial stage of a change that will
allow more leisurely lifestyles in parts of the world
that desire it, and more "stuff" in parts of the world
that desire it.
In the meanwhile, as for Wal-Mart, it's merely one part
of the cycle. It's doing EXACTLY what people want -- getting
each and every one of them more and more "stuff". And it's
getting rewarded for fulfilling that desire.
The poorest in the US have more "stuff" than their
parents may have dreamed of. Even the one's really
benefitting from outsourcing in India do not
have as much "stuff" as the poor in the US.
So you can see the big dynamic -- people getting
what they desire.
| |
| Herman Rubin 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| In article <1130454440.445467.157900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<jdeere2312@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Eric Bohlman wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Something is not too good with this picture -- if all countries
>start to have negative rates of population growth, where are they
>going to get immigrants from? Or children to adopt from?
Why should we care at this time?
But this is not the whole story; the above changes do
not seem to work on all, especially those of lower
intelligence. We may end up without the scholars to
carry on education, let alone do the research needed
to improve our condition.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| Herman Rubin 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| In article <yYo8f.1106$2y.85@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>news:djr96u$6ba8@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> We have massive ABANDONMENT of land from farming in the USA, as people
>concentrate in cities. So, Herman, the land is more lightly used now. I
>happen to have an old farm which fits this category. The barn is now for
>looks.
Massive abandonment? Yes, the apricot center of the country,
which also produced most of the prunes, was converted to
housing in the 50s. But the recently idled farmland is not
the best farmland, and is a small proportion.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Herman, we are abandoning agricultural land in the USA, quite massive
>abandonments too. One family we know owns 90 acres near Lancaster, PA, and
>cannot make a penny on the land anymore. So they grow a little as a hobby,
>and work in city-style jobs. No, it is now urban sprawl. It is simply land
>which used to support a family, but now is in retirement. This is happening
>all over the USA and many web sites show that too. It is a general trend.
It is only small farms, not suitable for agribusiness or
the few types of agriculture for which small farms pay,
which are being abandoned. Meanwhile, the need for large
concentrations of people, because of the type of assembly
line industry in the past, has decreased. Also, as far
back as the 30s, the move to non-downtown shopping centers
and supermarkets started, with the concommitant increasing
availability of automobiles; this has now expanded into
shopping centers, malls, and large "local" stores. The
need for residential concentrations has decreased, and
with the more intelligent use of electronics, will decrease
even more.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| george conklin 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
|
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:dju6jt$3eoe@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <yYo8f.1106$2y.85@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Massive abandonment? Yes, the apricot center of the country,
> which also produced most of the prunes, was converted to
> housing in the 50s. But the recently idled farmland is not
> the best farmland, and is a small proportion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is only small farms, not suitable for agribusiness or
> the few types of agriculture for which small farms pay,
> which are being abandoned. Meanwhile, the need for large
> concentrations of people, because of the type of assembly
> line industry in the past, has decreased. Also, as far
> back as the 30s, the move to non-downtown shopping centers
> and supermarkets started, with the concommitant increasing
> availability of automobiles; this has now expanded into
> shopping centers, malls, and large "local" stores. The
> need for residential concentrations has decreased, and
> with the more intelligent use of electronics, will decrease
> even more.
>
>
> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| george conklin 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
|
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:dju6jt$3eoe@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> It is only small farms, not suitable for agribusiness or
> the few types of agriculture for which small farms pay,
> which are being abandoned.
Not true Herman. The land I speak of was considered prime farmland for
generations. Even the NYT had long articles a few years ago against farm
supports because farmers were not farming and taking their money for RVs and
such. We have such massive agricultural surplus that no one knows how to
deal with it. Even good wine in France is being turned into gasohol there
is such a wine glut.
| |
|
| On 28 Oct 2005 11:54:36 -0700, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> stated:
>
>Individuals share a lot of the blame. I've done a lot of stock market
>investing, but I will never buy stock in a company whose business model
>is built on drug dependency or disease. This is a social disease we
>shouldn't be willing to finance.
I probably agree, of course "built on drug dependency or disease" is
quite a statement?
| |
|
| On 28 Oct 2005 13:08:20 -0700, jdeere2312@yahoo.com stated:
>dali wrote:
>
>
>Currently, people who get laid off etc have a standard
>response, blame outsourcing.
>
>While the blame game may feel good, it doesn't solve
>things by too much. Or at all.
and I'm not. Globalization is a reality and griping about it wont
help.
>After first world war, the returning veterans didn't have
>jobs. So the public worked to get the 40-hour week.
>That worked out real well.
>
>Currently, the US economy has over-produced automation.
>That requires something like a 32-hour 4-day week. Production
>needs to be consumed.
>
>Unfortunately, people in the US may not have the psychology
>needed to be able to handle more leisure. If anything,
>there is some thinking that we have made our lives
>worse and more hectic in response to the advances in
>automation.
Not I.
>
>In which case, countries like Mexico, India etc that
>do have leisure-oriented cultures, will end up consuming it.
>
>So jobs will continue to grow in the US, but there has
>to be an adjustment in lifestyles. So what you are
>seeing is the initial stage of a change that will
>allow more leisurely lifestyles in parts of the world
>that desire it, and more "stuff" in parts of the world
>that desire it.
>
>In the meanwhile, as for Wal-Mart, it's merely one part
>of the cycle. It's doing EXACTLY what people want -- getting
>each and every one of them more and more "stuff". And it's
>getting rewarded for fulfilling that desire.
Correct
They are taking advantage of wage inequities which was inevitable.
>
>The poorest in the US have more "stuff" than their
>parents may have dreamed of. Even the one's really
>benefitting from outsourcing in India do not
>have as much "stuff" as the poor in the US.
>
>So you can see the big dynamic -- people getting
>what they desire.
America has lost the ability to get "stuff". What we have done to our
children and their children concerning debt I consider child abuse.
|
| |
|
|