# What Is the Benefit to Population Growth?



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

There are 2 benefits I can think of, but neither really benefits me.

Government needs more taxpayers because they keep overspending
Big companies want more customers.
But would it really be a bad thing if the population of the US stayed the same or actually got smaller? Where is the benefit in urban areas getting more densely populated? Where is the benefit in more and more land being used for homes, businesses, and factory farms? What is the benefit in building more and more schools? What is the benefit in allowing in immigrants with higher or lower IQs than general US population? Do we want to import a lower class to do menial work? Do we want to import an overseer class to take high tech and other professional jobs?

As jobs become more and more automated, as AI starts to replace the work of humans, when there are not enough jobs to go round, wouldn't we better off with a smaller population?


----------



## Yellowsnow (May 11, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> There are 2 benefits I can think of, but neither really benefits me.
> 
> Government needs more taxpayers because they keep overspending
> Big companies want more customers.
> ...


The US population will not decline. Only Americans decline in population in the USA. Non melting foreigners increase the population overall.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yellowsnow said:


> The US population will not decline. Only Americans decline in population in the USA. Non melting foreigners increase the population overall.


But what is the benefit of the government's program to increase population?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

You can't keep up the Social Security pyramid scheme (and other entitlement rackets) with declining population. Collapsing Social Security and other social programs would rouse the rabble and cause career politicians to lose their jobs. We'd actually be forced to pay attention to and participate in our government, which usually only means bad things to politicians. 

It doesn't matter to the majority of those who set policy what is actually better for its citizenry or the culture or the country, it only matters that they keep their hands under the goose that lays the golden egg and keep getting those votes. 

On a less jaded side note, I've been reading and hearing a lot of interesting things about what will happen with an increasingly AI workforce. Many experts believe it will be no different than the industrial revolution when machines took over jobs humans used to do - those machines created other jobs that required humans to perform them. I'm not sure (I'm no expert) how that works when your machine can learn and think for itself, but most seem to think that there will be jobs we haven't thought of yet (much as someone during the industrial revolution couldn't imagine what a software engineer would be or would do).


----------



## Yellowsnow (May 11, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> But what is the benefit of the government's program to increase population?


I am unaware of a gov't program to increase population.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yellowsnow said:


> I am unaware of a gov't program to increase population.


Encouraging (or ignoring) illegal immigration, pushing things like DACA, giving entitlements and privileges to illegals (such as driver's licenses, which then become a stepping stone to being able to vote, as in California). Encouraging legal immigration, and chain immigration. Adding things into the tax code like the child tax credit which, though small, is an encouragement to have one of those...we don't do that a lot but many other population negative countries do and if we curb the illegal immigration it might become a larger thing.

All of those are programs designed to increase our population. The reasons for it I will leave up to my previous post.


----------



## Yellowsnow (May 11, 2016)

Mish said:


> Encouraging (or ignoring) illegal immigration, pushing things like DACA, giving entitlements and privileges to illegals (such as driver's licenses, which then become a stepping stone to being able to vote, as in California). Encouraging legal immigration, and chain immigration. Adding things into the tax code like the child tax credit which, though small, is an encouragement to have one of those...we don't do that a lot but many other population negative countries do and if we curb the illegal immigration it might become a larger thing.
> 
> All of those are programs designed to increase our population. The reasons for it I will leave up to my previous post.


All of those programs are to increase cheap labor and votes. I'm not aware population has anything to do with it.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yellowsnow said:


> All of those programs are to increase cheap labor and votes. I'm not aware population has anything to do with it.


You need the population to support the aging population that is drawing Social Security. They don't save that money that a working adult pays in right now, what I pay today goes directly to someone else. When I hit Social Security age, if there aren't enough workers paying into the system, I will not get anything back for all the money I paid in, and, assuming I'm like most Americans, I haven't saved anything for retirement because I've relied on SS being there. When it's not there, for an entire generation because we don't have enough workers paying into it, all hell breaks loose.

Right now they are kicking the can down the road knowing it can't continue. The only solution is to fix Social Security, which is going to royally tick off a WHOLE lot of people (which is why they won't do it), or increase your population of young workers. All of those things I listed are ways to accomplish that end. 

Absolutely cheap labor and votes are important. So is not being the party that "destroyed" Social Security and the economy.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Home values go up with increases in population. As time goes on, products are created more efficiently and a stagnant population means a reduced work force. Growing population means stable or growing work force.


----------



## Yellowsnow (May 11, 2016)

Well... I Still do not see the gov't giving a crap about population. Many individuals within the federal gov't want to reduce to population.

What you say is true, but has nothing to do with a Gov't program to increase the population.

Sorry you are relying on SS for retirement. I saw long ago that I would rather keep my money and not have the gov't hold my hand and take care of my retirement. Everything the gov't touches is a mess and not for our benefit.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yellowsnow said:


> Well... I Still do not see the gov't giving a crap about population.
> 
> What you say is true, but has nothing to do with a Gov't program to increase the population.
> 
> Sorry you are relying on SS for retirement. I saw long ago that I would rather keep my money and not have the gov't hold my hand and take care of my retirement. Everything the gov't touches is a mess and not for our benefit.


I'm not relying on the government for retirement, but most Americans are. The government absolutely cares about maintaining and growing the population or we become a stagnant backwater and not a world power...not to mention all the checks they wrote that they will not be able to cash.

We only need to look to Japan to see what starts happening and why governments care about population growth.

Quick article about why population growth matters (Japan-specific)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ng-serious-problems-for-economy-a7770596.html

More in-depth article about what Japan is trying to do to fix it 
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinio...ntary/japans-population-problem/#.Wmaa6zdryUk
For the record, I totally agree on your assessment of the government's capabilities, I'm just talking about why they are doing what they are doing in this particular case. Short term, it is votes and cheap labor. Long term, it's the economy and our standing as a world power.


----------



## Yellowsnow (May 11, 2016)

I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment. Japan isn't backed by the petrodollar system. That in and of itself has led to a lot of our prosperity and heartache. And can collapse at any point.

Our economy won't be based on labor in the very near future. Automation is and will destroy any work force. You don't need a surplus population for anything other than servants. It's about fake stock market numbers and manipulation/corruption of everything. Smoke and mirrors. Wave the right hand so you don't notice the left hand...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Well... Kind of like buying more lottery tickets, I guess we have a better shot at the next Einstein if we keep churning out more kids.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Home values go up with increases in population. As time goes on, products are created more efficiently and a stagnant population means a reduced work force. Growing population means stable or growing work force.


Increases in productivity means fewer jobs.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Well... Kind of like buying more lottery tickets, I guess we have a better shot at the next Einstein if we keep churning out more kids.


If we want another Einstein, shouldn't we encourage German Jews to immigrate to US?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yellowsnow said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment. Japan isn't backed by the petrodollar system. That in and of itself has led to a lot of our prosperity and heartache. And can collapse at any point.
> 
> Our economy won't be based on labor in the very near future. Automation is and will destroy any work force. You don't need a surplus population for anything other than servants. It's about fake stock market numbers and manipulation/corruption of everything. Smoke and mirrors. Wave the right hand so you don't notice the left hand...


Our economy isn't really based on labor at this point anyway, it's based on consumer spending. We absolutely DO need a surplus population to prop up the social systems we have in place - serious question - who is going to pay for all of the retirees and disabled who rely on Social Security to get by when we don't have enough people paying into the system? Who is going to pay for the increasing healthcare costs of the elderly and sick if we continue to have population decline? Stealing a quote - at some point you run out of other people's money. When you're not having kids to work and support you, that time comes sooner rather than later.

There is a mention of automation in one of the articles on Japan I linked. If anywhere is going to show you the future of an automated work force, Japan is. They're STILL having problems - artificial intelligence does not pay into retirement or healthcare programs, and people still need to eat, have housing and healthcare. When you've set up your system the way that we have, someone has to pay into it or the people on the system don't eat, have housing or healthcare. 

I agree there is a lot of smoke and mirrors, but this is a real concrete problem that is going to have real concrete consequences unless something is done to change the inevitable outcome. That automation isn't going to come quickly enough for the generation (probably mine, Gen X) that is the first one that reaches into that government pocket and comes out empty, and no savings of their own to live off because they believed the hype. It definitely isn't going to come fast enough for the inevitable healthcare crisis the way prices are skyrocketing. Too many older, sicker people, not enough young, healthy people paying for them. 

Ignore it at at our peril, and we are.


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> Increases in productivity means fewer jobs.


Productivity increases are normally directly proportional to the workforce requirement... When productivity goes up one generally needs more workers to meet that productivity if everything else stays the same.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

tiffanysgallery said:


> Productivity increases are normally directly proportional to the workforce requirement... When productivity goes up one generally needs more workers to meet that productivity if everything else stays the same.


You would have to provide a source to convince me of that. Fast food restaurants are automating front end services which means they need fewer employees. In the 90's and 2000's, companies installed PCs and networks which raised productivity and resulted in millions of people laid off. I'm sure the stats are similar for automobile manufacturers. About the only business that didn't lay people off after automating is government.

If purchasing and installing computers and other means of productivity gains didn't result in lower costs, why would businesses spend the money?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Mish said:


> They're STILL having problems - artificial intelligence does not pay into retirement or healthcare programs, and people still need to eat, have housing and healthcare. When you've set up your system the way that we have, someone has to pay into it or the people on the system don't eat, have housing or healthcare.


I've had this idea that any machine (hardware or software) that increases productivity should have to pay taxes including social security.

I've also changed my mind about internet based companies having to charge sales tax. In effect, the internet company (Amazon, e-bay, etc) is opening a store in my house or wherever accessed. They should have to collect sales tax on sales in each state.

As automation and especially AI are implemented, fewer and fewer employees will be required. The government will collect less social security, sales tax, property tax, etc, and the money needs to come from somewhere. My idea is to tax companies based on employee displacement which will be determined by a government established equation.

As much as I hate the idea of the government gaining more taxing power, something needs to be done to maintain the local, state, and federal revenue required to provide necessary services.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Increases in productivity means fewer jobs.


Not necessarily. As long as demand increases outpace productivity increases more employee hours will be needed to meet that demand. One seldom gets increased demand with decreasing population.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Ask the folks living in rural areas outside of large metro areas, especially in the south and western US that are being swamped by urban sprawl/flight, about the benefits of population growth.
Daughter looked at a piece of property online that looked absolutely gorgeous. 25 acres of timber, creek, pond and pasture. Went to google earth and zooming out revealed a major subdivision on one edge of the property and a strip mall on another end.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Not necessarily. As long as demand increases outpace productivity increases more employee hours will be needed to meet that demand. One seldom gets increased demand with decreasing population.


But with fewer employees than would be required without automation.


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> You would have to provide a source to convince me of that. Fast food restaurants are automating front end services which means they need fewer employees. In the 90's and 2000's, companies installed PCs and networks which raised productivity and resulted in millions of people laid off. I'm sure the stats are similar for automobile manufacturers. About the only business that didn't lay people off after automating is government.
> 
> If purchasing and installing computers and other means of productivity gains didn't result in lower costs, why would businesses spend the money?


What you're referring to is not an increase of productivity. It is increase in production efficiency. That is different. An increase in production efficiency will generally decrease a demand for labor.

Installing computers does not automatically increase production, it makes it easier to produce the same number of items. This is not increase of productivity, but production efficiency.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> But with fewer employees than would be required without automation.


But then we get to add in the good people building and maintaining those machines. Jobs which wouldn’t exist without such automation. Which is the better job- the one slapping a frozen burger patty on a grill for hours or the one assembling the machine?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

tiffanysgallery said:


> What you're referring to is not an increase of productivity. It is increase in production efficiency. That is different. An increase in production efficiency will generally decrease a demand for labor.
> 
> Installing computers does not automatically increase production, it makes it easier to produce the same number of items. This is not increase of productivity, but production efficiency.


Capital One did a massive project of installing PCs and networks in the late 90's. The result, hundreds of people, including IT staff, laid off in the early 2000's. I saw this repeated over and over again, as I owned a computer training company and saw the demand for training reach a peak around 1999-2000 and then drop off dramatically starting in 2001.

Call it whatever you like, it does not change the fact that automating a business should result in more product being created with the same or fewer employees. I owned a business that installed network cable and we spent a lot of time implementing equipment and practices that allowed us to use a 2 man team that outproduced our competetitor's 4 man teams. That means we need 1/2 as many employees to do the same amount of work.



> Most simply, increased productivity means that your workers are putting out products more quickly or completing services at a more rapid rate than before. In most businesses, the more products that workers produce or services they complete, the more money comes in to the business, making increased productivity a high priority for many business owners. chron


http://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-increased-productivity-10003.html


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mish you see things much more clearly than most.

MR - I have often wondered the same thing. Everything is based on growth. Our plans will be severely harmed by shrink. The Earth can accommodate a lot of people. We will find out just how many. Then we will see what shrink does. Won't be pretty.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> But then we get to add in the good people building and maintaining those machines. Jobs which wouldn’t exist without such automation. Which is the better job- the one slapping a frozen burger patty on a grill for hours or the one assembling the machine?


That's the argument that globalist make. It's not necessarily true. You tend to lose multiple lower wage jobs for adding 1 higher paid job. Plus there is job displacement, a large part of the reason Trump was elected President. Losing good paying jobs in US to gain lower wage jobs in China benefits whom?

To the person flipping hamburgers, that is the better job. How does it help the person flipping burgers that loses their job to someone that gets a job on the assembly line in China?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Mish you see things much more clearly than most.
> 
> MR - I have often wondered the same thing. Everything is based on growth. Our plans will be severely harmed by shrink. The Earth can accommodate a lot of people. We will find out just how many. Then we will see what shrink does. Won't be pretty.


We are already seeing it in health, or rather poor health. We have figured out how to feed an ever increasing world population, but we haven't figured out how to do it in a healthy way. As we export western produced foods to 3rd world countries, we also export Western diseases (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc) along with it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> We are already seeing it in health, or rather poor health. We have figured out how to feed an ever increasing world population, but we haven't figured out how to do it in a healthy way. As we export western produced foods to 3rd world countries, we also export Western diseases (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc) along with it.


Which is good for western medicine. Vicious circle. 

We are a long way from over population globally. Sure, some countries are unable to sustain themselves, but that seems more driven by despotism than population density.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> That's the argument that globalist make. It's not necessarily true. You tend to lose multiple lower wage jobs for adding 1 higher paid job. Plus there is job displacement, a large part of the reason Trump was elected President. Losing good paying jobs in US to gain lower wage jobs in China benefits whom?
> 
> To the person flipping hamburgers, that is the better job. How does it help the person flipping burgers that loses their job to someone that gets a job on the assembly line in China?


Now you’ve changed the question again and I’ll address that later.

The burger flipping jobs aren’t replaced by one job. They are replaced by every job required to build the factory, operate the factory and transport raw materials and finished goods. Without the new factory demand for wood products and ores and the finished products made from them that go into the factory don’t exist. No demand, no job. All the construction jobs and the laborers and professionals that do them don’t work. No demand, no job. Jobs and value get added up and down the line. Any of which the burger flipper can be trained to do.

Now, let’s talk about the effect of zero population growth on that burger flipper. Say there are x number of people and that x number stays steady. x number of people will only ever buy y number of burgers. The burger company will likely still try to increase productivity because getting more done with less increases profit but if they know they will only sell y number of burgers no matter what the pressure for change is less. So, no matter how good that burger flipper gets the company will only sell so many of his burgers and his job will never be worth a penny more barring a price increase just to pay him more. Now if the population grows at 1% all other things being equal the company will sell 1% more burgers. This means the flipper has to become more productive and becomes more valuable. This works until the flipper can no longer keep pace and there’s no room on the grill to add more flippers and automation, with all the ancillary jobs that support it, come into play. And, by the way, where do all those loggers, miners, carpenters, electricians, factory workers and truck drivers spend their money. Often on burgers completing the circle and driving the increased demand.

So, population growth is important to a growing economy. And, so is where that growth occurs which answers your last point.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Now you’ve changed the question again and I’ll address that later.
> 
> The burger flipping jobs aren’t replaced by one job. They are replaced by every job required to build the factory, operate the factory and transport raw materials and finished goods. Without the new factory demand for wood products and ores and the finished products made from them that go into the factory don’t exist. No demand, no job. All the construction jobs and the laborers and professionals that do them don’t work. No demand, no job. Jobs and value get added up and down the line. Any of which the burger flipper can be trained to do.
> 
> ...


Applying that logic then the NFL should continuously expand the number of teams. 

Why does there need to be a growing economy if population is either constant or decreasing? If a company wants to make more money, then they need to offer a better service or product than their competitors at a competitive price.

I see no reason that overall economic growth is a positive. Some companies will do better than others, and those companies will have money to do research and bring new products into the market place. Somebody in their garage will still come up with a disruptive product. Economic growth may provide a psychological effect, but I'm still not sure if economic growth based on population increase means anything. Isn't it relative?


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> it does not change the fact that automating a business should result in more product being created with the same or fewer employees.


I agree with that. 

There is a difference between production and production efficiency and a lot of people confuse the two. 

Yes, the term being used is very important because production is the measure of how much product of which you can create. Production efficiency is a measure of how effective a company is in producing one unit of a product.

If I'm producing a hundred cars a week, that's production. 
If it takes 80 man hours to produce one car, that is production efficiency.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Applying that logic then the NFL should continuously expand the number of teams.
> 
> Why does there need to be a growing economy if population is either constant or decreasing? If a company wants to make more money, then they need to offer a better service or product than their competitors at a competitive price.
> 
> I see no reason that overall economic growth is a positive. Some companies will do better than others, and those companies will have money to do research and bring new products into the market place. Somebody in their garage will still come up with a disruptive product. Economic growth may provide a psychological effect, but I'm still not sure if economic growth based on population increase means anything. Isn't it relative?


And they have in the past and will likely do so in the future.

I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked before. Give me one example of a prosperous society that hasn’t or doesn’t have population growth.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> If we want another Einstein, shouldn't we encourage German Jews to immigrate to US?


I guess.... I think we already have something like 30 million ethnically Ashkenazi Jews in the US? I'd take the next Newton or the next Aryabhata as well, if that helps.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

tiffanysgallery said:


> I agree with that.
> 
> There is a difference between production and production efficiency and a lot of people confuse the two.
> 
> ...


You are equating production, which you used, to productivity, which I used. Production and productivity are not the same thing.

I said automation leads to increased productivity which can result in loss of jobs. I've seen it happen over and over again. Unless increased productivity is coupled with an increase in demand, why wouldn't a company lay off employees?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> And they have in the past and will likely do so in the future.
> 
> I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked before. Give me one example of a prosperous society that hasn’t or doesn’t have population growth.


If anything, a prosperous society is inversely related to population growth!

*Countries and Population Growth Rates*











By ClaudioMB - en.wikipedia, Copyrighted free use, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4981660


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Now you’ve changed the question again and I’ll address that later.
> 
> The burger flipping jobs aren’t replaced by one job. They are replaced by every job required to build the factory, operate the factory and transport raw materials and finished goods. Without the new factory demand for wood products and ores and the finished products made from them that go into the factory don’t exist. No demand, no job. All the construction jobs and the laborers and professionals that do them don’t work. No demand, no job. Jobs and value get added up and down the line. Any of which the burger flipper can be trained to do.
> 
> ...


 I think you are way off on this.
First of the burger flipper machine will likely be a a short job run at the general machine factory, a few days work each year.
More importantly lets talk about that burger flipper.
If that restaurant wants more sales or Higher prices its going to have to make a better burger, add value. part of that will be training a better burger flipper, who will now have more skills and be worth more.
What if they want a better profit with out changing product? They could make a effort to retain experienced burger flippers that make few mistakes and save on waste ,damage and flip more burgers per hour.
Either way seem like a win.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Not necessarily. As long as demand increases outpace productivity increases more employee hours will be needed to meet that demand. One seldom gets increased demand with decreasing population.


That's not what the funeral home association says.........


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

With the unemployment rate at around 4% and things getting more automated everyday, I think we'll adapt to the future. I have faith in the next generation that some here don't share.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

While there are benefits to population growth there are also limits both natural and practical.
For instance the building industry growth will stop when every square inch is built on but we might choose to stop it before then.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Moon: Rulers have struggled with that question since the beginning of time. It was not a real problem when the earth was tribal and disease killed 60% of the population by age 30. It became a huge problem when man settled into communities and built cities.

For a long time disease and malnutrition kept things under control, but then men learned cultivation, sanitation (Jews, Moslems) and rudimentary medicine and surgery. 

The Egyptian rulers used both war and public works to control the masses. War became a major control of overpopulation---Disease (the plague) continued its effect. Masses of unemployed people (overpopulation) are hotbeds of trouble for any government.

If you wish to explore, check the growth of the population of India after the invasion by Alexander. Today great houses, once the homes of nobles, are squalid blocks of apartments of the descendants of those nobles. 

Increased population not matched by increased productivity and infrastructure spells disaster. 

For that matter, check out Chicago. 

No, unchecked population growth is not always desirable. China does not think so but Muslims are determined to outbreed their non-muslim counterparts, thinking war, war, war. Check the family size in the middle east. Gaza strip, average family 5.7, US average 2.5 persons


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> If anything, a prosperous society is inversely related to population growth!
> 
> *Countries and Population Growth Rates*
> 
> ...


I didn’t say unchecked growth. Now show me the countries that have no population growth and still prosper.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> Capital One did a massive project of installing PCs and networks in the late 90's. The result, hundreds of people, including IT staff, laid off in the early 2000's. I saw this repeated over and over again, as I owned a computer training company and saw the demand for training reach a peak around 1999-2000 and then drop off dramatically starting in 2001.
> 
> Call it whatever you like, it does not change the fact that automating a business should result in more product being created with the same or fewer employees. I owned a business that installed network cable and we spent a lot of time implementing equipment and practices that allowed us to use a 2 man team that outproduced our competetitor's 4 man teams. That means we need 1/2 as many employees to do the same amount of work.


While perhaps IT training became less in demand (although everywhere everyone I know works has their own IT department) - other jobs exist in profusion now that were very rare in the '90's. My youngest son is a software engineer - something that most of us had barely heard of back then. He's 24 years old and has gone from designing testing software for computer hard drives as an intern in college, to writing software for internet/cloud connectivity of web cams/security cameras, to now writing integration software for banking systems. I mention what he's done to point out that most everything we use today relies on software and they need people to handle it (at this point at least). 

Companies are STARVING for people who can do this stuff with software and hardware. Even outside of programmers - testing, design, programming, hardware design, etc., I'm sure there's a whole huge list I'm missing - there are a TON of jobs out there anywhere in the computer/AI field, and we are importing workers from other countries because, for some reason, Americans can't get over the idea that the low training high wage jobs of that our childhoods are not coming back. There's now a need for a whole (large) class of workers who really didn't exist except in very specialized capacities 30-40 years ago.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> I've had this idea that any machine (hardware or software) that increases productivity should have to pay taxes including social security.
> 
> I've also changed my mind about internet based companies having to charge sales tax. In effect, the internet company (Amazon, e-bay, etc) is opening a store in my house or wherever accessed. They should have to collect sales tax on sales in each state.
> 
> ...


Or we could redesign our system so that we're not expecting the nanny state to take care of us from cradle to grave, which would be my preferred action route.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mish said:


> While perhaps IT training became less in demand (although everywhere everyone I know works has their own IT department) - other jobs exist in profusion now that were very rare in the '90's. My youngest son is a software engineer - something that most of us had barely heard of back then. He's 24 years old and has gone from designing testing software for computer hard drives as an intern in college, to writing software for internet/cloud connectivity of web cams/security cameras, to now writing integration software for banking systems. I mention what he's done to point out that most everything we use today relies on software and they need people to handle it (at this point at least).
> 
> Companies are STARVING for people who can do this stuff with software and hardware. Even outside of programmers - testing, design, programming, hardware design, etc., I'm sure there's a whole huge list I'm missing - there are a TON of jobs out there anywhere in the computer/AI field, and we are importing workers from other countries because, for some reason, Americans can't get over the idea that the low training high wage jobs of that our childhoods are not coming back. There's now a need for a whole (large) class of workers who really didn't exist except in very specialized capacities 30-40 years ago.


And we still need someone to clean the toilets. Every generation wishes for better for their offspring. Few ditch diggers aspire for their children to hold a shovel. If population doesn’t grow and the next generations strive ever higher who cleans the toilets or digs the ditch? And at what cost?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Mish said:


> While perhaps IT training became less in demand (although everywhere everyone I know works has their own IT department) - other jobs exist in profusion now that were very rare in the '90's. My youngest son is a software engineer - something that most of us had barely heard of back then. He's 24 years old and has gone from designing testing software for computer hard drives as an intern in college, to writing software for internet/cloud connectivity of web cams/security cameras, to now writing integration software for banking systems. I mention what he's done to point out that most everything we use today relies on software and they need people to handle it (at this point at least).
> 
> Companies are STARVING for people who can do this stuff with software and hardware. Even outside of programmers - testing, design, programming, hardware design, etc., I'm sure there's a whole huge list I'm missing - there are a TON of jobs out there anywhere in the computer/AI field, and we are importing workers from other countries because, for some reason, Americans can't get over the idea that the low training high wage jobs of that our childhoods are not coming back. There's now a need for a whole (large) class of workers who really didn't exist except in very specialized capacities 30-40 years ago.


Poor example. I actually did a strategic analysis as part of my Masters degree which looked at why there was a downturn in training. The biggest reason was almost everyone that needed to be trained, had been. Once you learn how Windows works, you don't need to be retrained when version 1,869 comes out. Same with programming. Once you have a base of qualified JAVA, C, or pick your own language, there is not a lot of training left to do. Once people have a baseline level of learning, they can learn new things on their own.

I knew a lot of IT people who got laid off and they either changed careers or took jobs at much lower salaries. Remember the Internet bubble?

IT people with experience couldn't get hired by the big software companies if they were over 40. The Googles and Facebooks want young programmers at lower wages who will work long hours and have no personal life. I started in IT by going through a civilian intern program with the Army back in the 70's. The Army couldn't find enough skilled programmers so they started a program to develop their own. It was extremely successful.

There is no reason Microsoft, Google, etc couldn't do the same thing, but the reason they don't is: They want people with very high IQs. That's the real reason they hire foreign nationals to work for them.

I live in a city of a little over 40,000 and I don't remember ever seeing an IT job advertised here.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> If anything, a prosperous society is inversely related to population growth!


Are we sure which is correlation and which is causation? Seems to be a huge leap of logic that population growth causes poverty instead of prosperity causing a drop in population growth - which is generally the case. If I work on a subsistence farm, having 10 kids is beneficial to me as I am producing my own free labor. If I work in a bank, having less kids is beneficial to me as I have less drain on my resources and don't require extra free labor.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> If anything, a prosperous society is inversely related to population growth!
> 
> *Countries and Population Growth Rates*
> 
> ...


Now compare that to gdp growth.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.live...mp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=googleamp


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Mish said:


> Or we could redesign our system so that we're not expecting the nanny state to take care of us from cradle to grave, which would be my preferred action route.


I thought we were talking real world!


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> And we still need someone to clean the toilets. Every generation wishes for better for their offspring. Few ditch diggers aspire for their children to hold a shovel. If population doesn’t grow and the next generations strive ever higher who cleans the toilets or digs the ditch? And at what cost?


I was referring to the automation of low skill jobs, where those are lost but other jobs are created, more than aspirations or population growth. Mainly that, yes, jobs will be lost forever to automation, but other jobs will be created in designing/maintaining said automation. You probably will still need people to grease those robotic joints and such 



MoonRiver said:


> Poor example. IT people with experience couldn't get hired by the big software companies if they were over 40. The Googles and Facebooks want young programmers at lower wages who will work long hours and have no personal life. I started in IT by going through a civilian intern program with the Army back in the 70's. The Army couldn't find enough skilled programmers so they started a program to develop their own.
> 
> There is no reason Microsoft, Google, etc couldn't do the same thing, but the reason they don't is: They want people with very high IQs. That's the real reason they hire foreign nationals to work for them.


The problem is everyone thinking they need to work at Google and Facebook if they are in the tech field, and using them as the bar. Every_single_company out there today needs people to deal with software in some form or another. My son is making much better money and works less hours for the company he works for than he would at Google or Facebook (and he does live in the bay area, and was offered a job at one of the big ones, which he turned down for the reason you mention and got something better) - people using those as the examples of places you have to work if you are in tech, and implying that this is they way every tech office works is very shortsighted and just flat out wrong.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Mish said:


> Are we sure which is correlation and which is causation? Seems to be a huge leap of logic that population growth causes poverty instead of prosperity causing a drop in population growth - which is generally the case. If I work on a subsistence farm, having 10 kids is beneficial to me as I am producing my own free labor. If I work in a bank, having less kids is beneficial to me as I have less drain on my resources and don't require extra free labor.


I never mentioned causation. I said related, which doesn't imply causation.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> I never mentioned causation. I said related, which doesn't imply causation.


You said, "If anything, a prosperous society is inversely related to population growth!" Which, to me, implies causation as you are using it as an argument against needing positive population growth. Unless I'm completely misreading/misunderstanding.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mish said:


> I was referring to the automation of low skill jobs, where those are lost but other jobs are created, more than aspirations or population growth. Mainly that, yes, jobs will be lost forever to automation, but other jobs will be created in designing/maintaining said automation. You probably will still need people to grease those robotic joints and such
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is everyone thinking they need to work at Google and Facebook if they are in the tech field, and using them as the bar. Every_single_company out there today needs people to deal with software in some form or another. My son is making much better money and works less hours for the company he works for than he would at Google or Facebook (and he does live in the bay area, and was offered a job at one of the big ones, which he turned down for the reason you mention and got something better) - people using those as the examples of places you have to work if you are in tech, and implying that this is they way every tech office works is very shortsighted and just flat out wrong.


I agree with you. Automation creates jobs that otherwise wouldn’t have existed. I was hypothesizing about the effect of something like ZPG in society as a whole. If the population doesn’t grow and everyone aspires to the top who cleans their toilets?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I didn’t say unchecked growth. Now show me the countries that have no population growth and still prosper.


Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, Czech Republic, Japan, Poland, Austria.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I agree with you. Automation creates jobs that otherwise wouldn’t have existed. I was hypothesizing about the effect of something like ZPG in society as a whole. If the population doesn’t grow and everyone aspires to the top who cleans their toilets?


We end up kind of where we are now. Everyone feels like they have to go to college instead of going into a trade, even if they're going to college to get a degree in dead language studies or specializing the life cycles of African ants instead of something that is actually employable (and no offense meant to anyone, I have a BFA so throw your stones into my glass house). So we end up with a bunch of unemployable people with college degrees and student loan debt, while the trades absolutely beg for people with training, and have to import labor from other countries. Back to the question of why we allow/ignore illegal immigration...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Mish said:


> You said, "If anything, a prosperous society is inversely related to population growth!" Which, to me, implies causation as you are using it as an argument against needing positive population growth. Unless I'm completely misreading/misunderstanding.


As I said, relationships do not imply causation. It leaves that question open.

I was simply showing a chart that refuted the idea that population growth was related to economic prosperity. The countries with the largest population growth tended to be poorer countries and vice versa. Why is a totally different question.



> In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as *cum hoc ergo propter hoc*, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause."
> Correlation does not imply causation


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I agree with you. Automation creates jobs that otherwise wouldn’t have existed. I was hypothesizing about the effect of something like ZPG in society as a whole. If the population doesn’t grow and everyone aspires to the top who cleans their toilets?


The normal curve should take care of that.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

All I know is that when I die, population will decrease and I see no benefit in that to me.

But I think all modern societies need reasonable population growth or stability.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, Czech Republic, Japan, Poland, Austria.


Latvia 2% gdp growth (-.9% population growth)
Lithuania 2.3% gdp growth(-1.1% population growth)
Germany 1.9% gdp growth (1.2% population growth)
Czech Republic 2.4% gdp growth
Japan 1% gdp growth (-.1% population growth)
Poland 2.7% gdp growth
(-.1% population growth). 
Austria 1.5 % gdp growth. (1.3% population growth)

You found a few examples but none of them that robust. And it remains to see how sustainable they are. Poland, for example-

“In 2018, the Polish economy is expected to slow down, however, due to lower economic activity in Europe and labor shortages in the domestic market.”

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pr...2017-before-slowing-down-2018-says-world-bank

Hard to make up labor shortages with fewer people.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> The normal curve should take care of that.


What normal curve?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> As I said, relationships do not imply causation. It leaves that question open.
> 
> I was simply showing a chart that refuted the idea that population growth was related to economic prosperity. The countries with the largest population growth tended to be poorer countries and vice versa. Why is a totally different question.


I'm seriously not trying to be nitpicky (I can't help it, it's my personality, I swear!), but saying that the chart *refutes* the idea that population growth is related to prosperity isn't implying causation is extremely confusing to me.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Prosperity for whom? We are seeing an incredible second gilded age with corporations consolidating and wealth concentrating in to hands of a few. The near future is optimistic for the 1%'rs but not for Joe Lunchbox.

And this idea that everybody just has to go to college... Well not everybody is capable of that. You need lower end RELIABLE jobs that dont require a crew of Einsteins. Jobs with a reliable paycheck, not just a few hours here or there as needed. 

And you need to think carrying capacity of the planet. We have been swapping humans for wildlife for some time and thats ending as human demand for more and more living space and crop land displaces the natural world.

So unless you are predicting some miraculous low energy way to transport people in great numbers off planet, you have a problem. The bacteria in the petri dish conundrum. Bacteria spread until they use or despoil all available resources. Then big die off.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Mish said:


> I'm seriously not trying to be nitpicky (I can't help it, it's my personality, I swear!), but saying that the chart *refutes* the idea that population growth is related to prosperity isn't implying causation is extremely confusing to me.


If someone says "Economic growth is based on population growth", then I just have to show an example that refutes it. So I showed a chart that shows countries with the fastest population increases tended to be countries with low economic growth. I have provided an example that shows a correlation between population growth and low economic growth, not high economic growth. That shows that population growth appears to not be the driving force behind economic growth, but (and this is the answer to your question) does not prove what is.

If one thing is caused by another, it will be correlated; but if one thing is correlated to another, it may or may not be causal. 

Example:

Johnny walks to school and is on honor role
Susie walks to school and is on honor role
George rides the bus and is not on honor role
Mary rides the bus and is not on the honor role

Walking to school would be correlated to honor role, but we can't tell if it is the cause or if something else is. Maybe Johnny and Susie are smarter or maybe they work harder or maybe they get more sleep or maybe they had better teachers in the past, etc.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> 1. Prosperity for whom? We are seeing an incredible second gilded age with corporations consolidating and wealth concentrating in to hands of a few. The near future is optimistic for the 1%'rs but not for Joe Lunchbox.
> 
> 2. And this idea that everybody just has to go to college... Well not everybody is capable of that. You need lower end RELIABLE jobs that dont require a crew of Einsteins. Jobs with a reliable paycheck, not just a few hours here or there as needed.
> 
> ...


(I added numbers so my responses made more sense).

1. Even the poorest of the poor in the U.S. have better conditions (or have access to them, depending on their capacity to go and get it) than the middle class in some developing countries. World travel can be an eye-opener into exactly how prosperous even our poor are in comparison. Joe Lunchbox has the opportunity, here, to do better, but that requires more than just sitting on his duff waiting for opportunity to find him. 

2. Agreed, not everyone can or should go to college. The need for low end reliable jobs is determined by the market, though, not by what you (you in general you, not you specifically) are willing or not willing to do to train yourself for something better. Bootstraps are good things, relying on people to provide things for you is not (even providing you with low-end reliable jobs if it benefits no one but you, not good).

3. This is the case in those previously mentioned non-prosperous countries. Not much of an issue in first world countries. That might imply that prosperity is good for the environment and the planet, if that is what one is concerned about. I could get off on a whole lot of tangents as to commercial farming and the organic, non-GMO movement causing more environmental problems as they do require more land to grow the same food, but I really don't want to. Prosperity tends to allow people the luxury of caring about the environment enough to save it, going back to the original point.

4. It seems the problem is self-correcting, seeing as more technologically advanced cultures are going into negative population growth, it's a trend. So it would seem that, as a whole, the things you are concerned about are actually solved by technology. Other than Joe Lunchbox, who does need to realize that the world doesn't owe him anything and he needs to find his own way, as humans have always been expected to do...other than in our luxurious, prosperous culture.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> If someone says "Economic growth is based on population growth", then I just have to show an example that refutes it. So I showed a chart that shows countries with the fastest population increases tended to be countries with low economic growth. I have provided an example that shows a correlation between population growth and low economic growth, not high economic growth. That shows that population growth appears to not be the driving force behind economic growth, but (and this is the answer to your question) does not prove what is.
> 
> If one thing is caused by another, it will be correlated; but if one thing is correlated to another, it may or may not be causal.
> 
> ...


No, your chart showed countries with high population growth as being poorer not that their economies were growing slower. Two different things. As I linked earlier India with its high population growth is showing high economic growth as measured by their increased gdp. The same with China.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> What normal curve?











Huffington Post


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> If someone says "Economic growth is based on population growth", then I just have to show an example that refutes it. So I showed a chart that shows countries with the fastest population increases tended to be countries with low economic growth. I have provided an example that shows a correlation between population growth and low economic growth, not high economic growth. That shows that population growth appears to not be the driving force behind economic growth, but (and this is the answer to your question) does not prove what is.
> 
> If one thing is caused by another, it will be correlated; but if one thing is correlated to another, it may or may not be causal.
> 
> ...


I understand the chart shows the correlation (and how to tell the difference between the two), but you even showing the map makes no sense unless you're trying to prove the point that population growth doesn't cause prosperity - and I'm assuming you are trying to make that point based on your own statements. 

I could post a graph of the rise of computers in the workplace and it means nothing unless i'm trying to make a point about one thing or another. 

Saying the chart refutes any point implies you disagree with the points others were making and were implying that chart proves your rebuttal. That implies causation, because implying correlation only makes no sense to the argument.

Gah, getting off into the weeds.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> View attachment 64324
> 
> Huffington Post


The problem with that generic curve is that it depends on what the bottom axis measures and where it begins. If we start with 100 people equally distributed but incentivize them to move to the right who fills in the left side? If there is no influx of new people at that end the graph gets out of whack. There are things that will correct for this in what we’re talking about but how much are people willing to pay the toilet scrubbers and how many people aspire to have their first born scrub toilets?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

There likely will always be people capable of only the most menial of jobs. Unless there is some type of medical intervention, we will continue to have a few brilliant people and a few dumb people with the rest of us somewhere in between.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

Population growth...
Boy...this poor planet is already overpopulated...
According to the resources we use, we already would need at least 1.5 earth...
So what ever gets born in addition is just getting a pretty robbed out heritage...
I am already felling sorry for them, cause no matter what, if we keep goig this route, they will grow up in poverty, will face water rationing and maybe not even getting a real chance...


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The U.S. can comfortably support about 250 million. As the U.S. population gained towards 300 million and eventually surpassed that population. urban concentration/sprawl  began contributing to the spread of bacterial and viral infections.

Even as the medical sector developed vaccines, Nature introduced varied strains not susceptible to the man made vaccines and the flu seasons get longer each year and more of the very young and old succumb.

Nature always combats the efforts of Mankind to combat overpopulation when the populations start exceeding about 30 people per acre.

Interestingly, use of sanitizers and normal hamster cage style environments common to urban centers often assist Nature in dispersing its modified population control infections.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shrek said:


> The U.S. can comfortably support about 250 million. As the U.S. population gained towards 300 million and eventually surpassed that population. urban concentration/sprawl began contributing to the spread of bacterial and viral infections.
> 
> Even as the medical sector developed vaccines, Nature introduced varied strains not susceptible to the man made vaccines and the flu seasons get longer each year and more of the very young and old succumb.
> 
> ...



Care to share where that 250M came from?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> *And we still need someone to clean the toilets. *Every generation wishes for better for their offspring. Few ditch diggers aspire for their children to hold a shovel. If population doesn’t grow and the next generations strive ever higher who cleans the toilets or digs the ditch? And at what cost?


Maybe not, if everyone set up their homes the way I did nobody has to clean their bathrooms. We have a "magic" bathroom! I can leave the sink full of whiskers, towels on the floor, socks on the floor etc.... Next time I go in everything is neat and tidy, cloths have been laundered and put away. It's amazing!


----------



## Yellowsnow (May 11, 2016)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe not, if everyone set up their homes the way I did nobody has to clean their bathrooms. We have a "magic" bathroom! I can leave the sink full of whiskers, towels on the floor, socks on the floor etc.... Next time I go in everything is neat and tidy, cloths have been laundered and put away. It's amazing!


Your youngsters are better than mine. LOL


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Mish said:


> (I added numbers so my responses made more sense).
> 
> 1. Even the poorest of the poor in the U.S. have better conditions (or have access to them, depending on their capacity to go and get it) than the middle class in some developing countries. World travel can be an eye-opener into exactly how prosperous even our poor are in comparison. Joe Lunchbox has the opportunity, here, to do better, but that requires more than just sitting on his duff waiting for opportunity to find him.


Sorry but pretending every man is an island independent of all others and totally responsible for his own survival doesnt wash. If you are running a country, giving 80% of yearly wealth to 1% of the population doesnt work very well for very long. You get a society more like Mexico has. If you are running a country you need to find a way to offer an honorable way of life to those not able or inclined to start the next mega corporation or sell bets on bets on bets like the investment bankers do. Pretending everybody can be an Indian Chief and nobody has to be a brave, is silly. Darn few can be Indian Chiefs. The rich dont get rich by sweat of their own brow. They gamble and speculate or inherit their wealth. At best those with a paycheck are middle class, not wealthy.



Mish said:


> 2. Agreed, not everyone can or should go to college. The need for low end reliable jobs is determined by the market, though, not by what you (you in general you, not you specifically) are willing or not willing to do to train yourself for something better. Bootstraps are good things, relying on people to provide things for you is not (even providing you with low-end reliable jobs if it benefits no one but you, not good).


Again if you are running a country you have to provide a way to survive for those unable to manipulate markets to their own advantage. Again few in life will ever be Indian Chiefs, there needs to be opportunities provided for the non Indian Chiefs. Unlike previous generations there is no free or cheap land for the poor to escape to a subsistance agrarian lifestyle when the economy tanks. Or they are too old or their skills are no longer in demand. 

Ignore the poor and the poor may rise up and eat the rich. Communism and socialism and labor unions didnt just miraculously appear for no reason. The poor were treated like trash and they got tired of it. 

Looks lot like those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. 



Mish said:


> 3. This is the case in those previously mentioned non-prosperous countries. Not much of an issue in first world countries. That might imply that prosperity is good for the environment and the planet, if that is what one is concerned about. I could get off on a whole lot of tangents as to commercial farming and the organic, non-GMO movement causing more environmental problems as they do require more land to grow the same food, but I really don't want to. Prosperity tends to allow people the luxury of caring about the environment enough to save it, going back to the original point.


If you ignore the environment, then you may live a better life, but your children wont. Its a finite planet. The wiggle room provided by displacing the wild world with humans is ending. Pretty soon no more wild world to displace.



Mish said:


> 4. It seems the problem is self-correcting, seeing as more technologically advanced cultures are going into negative population growth, it's a trend. So it would seem that, as a whole, the things you are concerned about are actually solved by technology. Other than Joe Lunchbox, who does need to realize that the world doesn't owe him anything and he needs to find his own way, as humans have always been expected to do...other than in our luxurious, prosperous culture.


Ah but once you start marginalizing Joe Lunchbox, he will start having more children cause that becomes his social security. Hoping one or more of his children survive to look after him in his old age. People only stop having numerous children when they feel like society will look after them in their old age.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Care to share where that 250M came from?


When news was headline leading about the U.S. population approaching 300 million, I read a couple agricultural articles that mentioned that the urban sprawl had started taking over farmland that was still in operation three or four decades prior and the U.S. population before the period referenced was 230 to 250 million depending on if the articles were taking illegal immigration into account in their articles.

Regardless of our past population high numbers, now that we are becoming over populated over 300 million, there are many new infections immune to what the medical sector can negate developing every year.

Eventually Nature will introduce an infection that will greatly reduce our population while leaving the strongest most viable central aspect as it has many times in history in a no fault style population reduction since Nature cannot be faulted for acting naturally.

MRSA is a good example of Nature's upper hand over Mankind.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shrek said:


> When news was headline leading about the U.S. population approaching 300 million, I read a couple agricultural articles that mentioned that the urban sprawl had started taking over farmland that was still in operation three or four decades prior and the U.S. population before the period referenced was 230 to 250 million depending on if the articles were taking illegal immigration into account in their articles.
> 
> Regardless of our past population high numbers, now that we are becoming over populated over 300 million, there are many new infections immune to what the medical sector can negate developing every year.
> 
> ...


Without actually being able to read the article and know the context of the numbers I’m at a decided disadvantage to discuss them. Thanks for the opinion.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HermitJohn said:


> Sorry but pretending every man is an island independent of all others and totally responsible for his own survival doesnt wash. If you are running a country, giving 80% of yearly wealth to 1% of the population doesnt work very well for very long. You get a society more like Mexico has. If you are running a country you need to find a way to offer an honorable way of life to those not able or inclined to start the next mega corporation or sell bets on bets on bets like the investment bankers do. Pretending everybody can be an Indian Chief and nobody has to be a brave, is silly. Darn few can be Indian Chiefs. The rich dont get rich by sweat of their own brow. They gamble and speculate or inherit their wealth. At best those with a paycheck are middle class, not wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that is the quandary to ponder.. What do we do with people when we have "too many" people, or too many that can't or won't provide for themselves?

My fear is we turn into a two tiered society, those enclosed by secure high walls and those outside the walls.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> Ah but once you start marginalizing Joe Lunchbox, he will start having more children cause that becomes his social security. Hoping one or more of his children survive to look after him in his old age. People only stop having numerous children when they feel like society will look after them in their old age.


Interesting.... I've never had any children, and never counted on society to look after me in my old age either.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting.... I've never had any *children*, and never counted on society to *look after me in my old age* either.


That is a custom in some places.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> And we still need someone to clean the toilets. Every generation wishes for better for their offspring. Few ditch diggers aspire for their children to hold a shovel. If population doesn’t grow and the next generations strive ever higher who cleans the toilets or digs the ditch? And at what cost?


 There are a few ifs,ands and provisions to that. 
At one time being working class was a great job the people aspired to for their children.

For example at one point the Teamsters union in St. Louis not only had a great retirement plan it had country clubs ,recreational facilities,Helped educate and even build hospitals for its members and their family’s


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> If the population doesn’t grow and everyone aspires to the top who cleans their toilets?


Well paid janitors ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> There are a few ifs,ands and provisions to that.
> At one time being working class was a great job the people aspired to for their children.
> 
> For example at one point the Teamsters union in St. Louis not only had a great retirement plan it had country clubs ,recreational facilities,Helped educate and even build hospitals for its members and their family’s


And at one point a person walked from their high school graduation to the union factory line and worked for 35-40 years, retired with a gold watch and a pension and hoped to live a few years to enjoy it. And a lot of those jobs and the opportunities afforded by them were fueled by population growth. And just as many of those workers who wanted to see their son follow them through the factory gates wished to see their sons go to college and wear a white , not blue, collar and not come home every night with grease under their nails. 

We’ve always been an aspirational country which believes that the sky is the limit for any individual. That optimism has largely been fueled by growth and optimism. Remove the growth and you can still be optimistic but where do the opportunities come from?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Well paid janitors ?


Valid, but it doesn’t address the issue of aspiration. Unless you only tie aspiration to wealth.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Valid, but it doesn’t address the issue of aspiration. Unless you only tie aspiration to wealth.


The percentage of people only capable of low paying, menial jobs is basically a constant. As population increases, the percentage doesn't change.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Valid, but it doesn’t address the issue of aspiration. Unless you only tie aspiration to wealth.


Isn’t that a normal aspiration ?
If toilet cleaning paid well enough to work ten hours a week and spent the rest on your yacht fishing I’m sure many would aspire to it. 
During the pipeline Years in Alaska many of my classmates aspired to jobs like welding or trucking and Yes at least one girl in the class aspired to housekeeping she thought it would be wonderful to make the big pipeline money and never have to go outside.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> The percentage of people only capable of low paying, menial jobs is basically a constant. As population increases, the percentage doesn't change.


Care to provide something to back up that assumption? And we’re not talking about growing populations but not growing them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t that a normal aspiration ?
> If toilet cleaning paid well enough to work ten hours a week and spent the rest on your yacht fishing I’m sure many would aspire to it.
> During the pipeline Years in Alaska many of my classmates aspired to jobs like welding or trucking and Yes at least one girl in the class aspired to housekeeping she thought it would be wonderful to make the big pipeline money and never have to go outside.


I try to stay away from terms like “normal”. Some aspire to money, some aspire to do great things. Both are normal.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Care to provide something to back up that assumption? And we’re not talking about growing populations but not growing them.


I already did - the normal distribution curve.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I already did - the normal distribution curve.


Not all things fit in generic curves. 

*When You Shouldn't Use the Bell Curve*
There are some types of data that don't follow a normal distribution pattern. These data sets shouldn't be forced to try to fit a bell curve. A classic example would be student grades, which often have two modes. Other types of data that don't follow the curve include income, population growth, and mechanical failures.
https://www.thoughtco.com/bell-curve-normal-distribution-defined-2312350



But in thinking about it further it does make me wonder if you really think that all those people cleaning toilets aren’t capable of better as your answer implies. Could it be that many of those people doing low paid menial jobs aren’t doing them simply because they aren’t capable of more but because that is where circumstance left them.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> But in thinking about it further it does make me wonder if you really think that all those people cleaning toilets aren’t capable of better as your answer implies. Could it be that many of those people doing low paid menial jobs aren’t doing them simply because they aren’t capable of more but because that is where circumstance left them.


It really doesn't make any difference. For many and various reasons, there will always people to fill menial jobs.

The real problem is what will these people do when it finally is cheaper to automate these jobs than hire minimum wage workers. It's not that hard to make self cleaning bathrooms. Walmart is replacing some of the checkouts with self checkouts. Fast food restaurants are replacing some workers with automation. The days of minimum wage jobs will soon be largely a thing of the past.

With the right government policies, the US could continue to have a growing economy with a much smaller workforce and a much smaller population. I see absolutely no benefit in importing low skilled workers.

The real problem we are facing is that East Asian countries tend to have higher average IQ's than US and have more cultural homogeneity. Now that they have stolen much of our technology, they are likely to surpass us in economic growth. That's why I think US needs to stop importing low skilled workers and focus instead on things that can advance us, such as education, health care, technology, communications, infrastructure, environment, arts, etc. Too much of our support system is based on 19th and 20th century practices. 

At some point, and hopefully soon, we need a visionary as President. I think to a large degree, Trump is stopping or at least slowing down, our decline, but he is certainly no visionary. Maybe he had to come first to stop the bleeding. 

Look at our space program. No vision since JFK. Our infrastructure. I think nothing much since Eisenhower. Education. Nothing I can think of in my lifetime except for community colleges. We have been a nation in decline for many decades and increasing population won't fix anything.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> It really doesn't make any difference. For many and various reasons, there will always people to fill menial jobs.
> 
> The real problem is what will these people do when it finally is cheaper to automate these jobs than hire minimum wage workers. It's not that hard to make self cleaning bathrooms. Walmart is replacing some of the checkouts with self checkouts. Fast food restaurants are replacing some workers with automation. The days of minimum wage jobs will soon be largely a thing of the past.
> 
> ...


Maybe we should just import some of those smart East Asians. (Snark off).

There’s never been a time of continued economic growth without population growth. Could it happen? Anything’s possible.

I guess I’m not near as pessimistic about our country as some.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe we should just import some of those smart East Asians. (Snark off).
> 
> There’s never been a time of continued economic growth without population growth. Could it happen? Anything’s possible.
> 
> I guess I’m not near as pessimistic about our country as some.


 Are you sure ?
I’m not sure the two of them is have to be related. Four instance after World War II there was a period of huge economic growth and population growth but most of the growth in population was in a young enough group that I don’t think they contributed much to the economic growth. 
What I think contributed greatly to the economic growth was a huge increase in education skills and investment


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> It really doesn't make any difference. For many and various reasons, there will always people to fill menial jobs.
> 
> The real problem is what will these people do when it finally is cheaper to automate these jobs than hire minimum wage workers. It's not that hard to make self cleaning bathrooms. Walmart is replacing some of the checkouts with self checkouts. Fast food restaurants are replacing some workers with automation. The days of minimum wage jobs will soon be largely a thing of the past.
> 
> ...



So we should have free college for everyone ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Are you sure ?
> I’m not sure the two of them is have to be related. Four instance after World War II there was a period of huge economic growth and population growth but most of the growth in population was in a young enough group that I don’t think they contributed much to the economic growth.
> What I think contributed greatly to the economic growth was a huge increase in education skills and investment


Sure they contributed. First as young children who needed things which their parents were more than ready to work for and provide. They drove much of the demand that fueled that growth. Then, as adults, they (me) as the baby boom generation , got their own jobs and their own incomes fueling even more growth.

Education and investment are important but no business invests without expectation of return. If my market is only ever going to be 100 widgets I’m not likely to invest to increase production. If my market looks like it will grow to 120 widgets I might make a different decision. The same number of people seldom buy more widgets.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

oneraddad said:


> So we should have free college for everyone ?


Actually yes, but not in the way you think.

There are already online learning sites like Kahn Academy where you can take many college level courses. There are enough similar sites that anyone that wants to can gain the knowledge equivalent to an Associates or Bachelors degree. The problem is turning that knowledge into a recognized degree.

An idea I have is to have a series of tests that are approved by one of the college certification organizations that anyone can take to earn college credit. These tests would earn credits that could be applied to any college certified by the organization or used toward a degree the authority establishes.

The problem is security. The best solution I can think of is the student must go to a certified testing center, show proper id, and take a monitored, computerized test. This is actually old technology that has been around for over 20 years.

So the classes would be free, but the student would have to pay a fee for each test. Possibly there would also be some graded assignments a student would have to pay for. An associates degree would be less than $5000 and a Bachelor's degree less than $10,000.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

oneraddad said:


> So we should have free college for everyone ?


 Well of course. 
Look what it did for the economy when it was available to a large group of returning veterans. 
Is there a natural law that says free education is good till the end of 12th grade but bad after that ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> Actually yes, but not in the way you think.
> 
> There are already online learning sites like Kahn Academy where you can take many college level courses. There are enough similar sites that anyone that wants to can gain the knowledge equivalent to an Associates or Bachelors degree. The problem is turning that knowledge into a recognized degree.
> 
> ...


 Wow that seems pretty high for a couple of computer tests. 
I took One on the Internet last night that told me my educational level and it didn’t cost me anything.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Sure they contributed. First as young children who needed things which their parents were more than ready to work for and provide. They drove much of the demand that fueled that growth. Then, as adults, they (me) as the baby boom generation , got their own jobs and their own incomes fueling even more growth.
> 
> Education and investment are important but no business invests without expectation of return. If my market is only ever going to be 100 widgets I’m not likely to invest to increase production. If my market looks like it will grow to 120 widgets I might make a different decision. The same number of people seldom buy more widgets.


 I can agree that child cost helped fuel the economy but do you really think it was the major part ?

As for investing to sell a limited number of widgets 
I know people will invest for very limited numbers I sell a product with a theoretical upper limit of 500 units nationwide. 
Twice now I have invested in and ramped up production for that market. 
The first time most of my sales were to people that already had a widget made by someone else
I made a better one.
The second time I again had a better widget and sold a lot of them to people that already had my first one. 

The market hasn’t grown much since long before I made that first one.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow that seems pretty high for a couple of computer tests.
> I took One on the Internet last night that told me my educational level and it didn’t cost me anything.


Take that with you on a job interview and let us know how it goes.

The tests have to be monitored because if people took them at home THEY MIGHT CHEAT!

An AA degree is approximately 60 credit hours, or 20 3 hour classes. Someone has to develop the tests and do all the associated analytics, there needs to be a testing facility with computers, internet hookup, someone to handle check in and out, someone to monitor testing room,etc. I figure tests would cost anywhere from $100 to $300 each. Use an average of $200 for 20 tests and you get $4000. Plus there is a cost associated with accreditation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I can agree that child cost helped fuel the economy but do you really think it was the major part ?
> 
> As for investing to sell a limited number of widgets
> I know people will invest for very limited numbers I sell a product with a theoretical upper limit of 500 units nationwide.
> ...


So, in the first case another company lost market share. You didn’t invest because of growth in the overall market but to take a greater share of a static market.

In the second case you replaced the market. Are you selling 500 old widgets and 500 new widgets or are you selling the same number of overall widgets? The point is that without increased demand there is no incentive for increased production. It doesn’t mean new and different things won’t come to market but if the widget factory will only ever sell 500 widgets there’s no need for it to expand to make more.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Just because a person is doing a low paying job, doesn't mean that is all he/she is capable of doing. 

Also, I remember when young people started at a company, on the loading dock, sweeping floors, mail room, etc.,and ended up in management. You learned as you worked.

As for free college, there is a lot of that going around now - it's just that everyone is not 'deserving', according to the powers that be. Quite a few illegals are getting free college, and other minorities.

I don't think the government wants population growth (as in illegal or legal immigration) to bolster the SS system, as most of them do not pay SS. That's one of the beauties of hiring them. You don't have to collect and match the taxes. All an employer does is record a SS number, send out a 1099 at the end of the year. It's up to the employee to rush up and pay the hefty SS tax. We know they all do that, don't we? I remember the government said it didn't have the ability to check to see if a return was filed for the 1099's the government received.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> The point is that without increased demand there is no incentive for increased production. It doesn’t mean new and different things won’t come to market but if the widget factory will only ever sell 500 widgets there’s no need for it to expand to make more.


 I can’t think of many products like that. 
But the point is can a healthy economy have a stable population ?
I don’t need to sell more each year to have s good income.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I can’t think of many products like that.
> But the point is can a healthy economy have a stable population ?
> I don’t need to sell more each year to have s good income.


Who expands production unless they project that they will sell that increased production? If I sell 1000 widgets a year I’m not building the new plant and hiring new people unless I think I can sell more widgets. Demand drives production. No demand, why produce?

The point is is that it’s never happened over any extended term and we’ll not likely see any examples of it happening barring teofwawki. Economies are globally intertwined and the world population isn’t slowing down.

Good for you.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Who expands production unless they project that they will sell that increased production? If I sell 1000 widgets a year I’m not building the new plant and hiring new people unless I think I can sell more widgets. Demand drives production. No demand, why produce?
> 
> The point is is that it’s never happened over any extended term and we’ll not likely see any examples of it happening barring teofwawki. Economies are globally intertwined and the world population isn’t slowing down.
> 
> Good for you.


Tell that to Steve Jobs (if he was still alive).


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Something I don't think was addressed with increased population is the environmental impact.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Who expands production unless they project that they will sell that increased production? If I sell 1000 widgets a year I’m not building the new plant and hiring new people unless I think I can sell more widgets. Demand drives production. No demand, why produce?
> 
> The point is is that it’s never happened over any extended term and we’ll not likely see any examples of it happening barring teofwawki. Economies are globally intertwined and the world population isn’t slowing down.
> 
> Good for you.


With a stable population you don’t need to increase production. 
Don’t worry about that new plant you don’t need to build it and no one needs a job there.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Tell that to Steve Jobs (if he was still alive).


Wouldn’t have to. He learned the hard way. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...ld-apple-products-that-totally-failed-2013-11


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> With a stable population you don’t need to increase production.
> Don’t worry about that new plant you don’t need to build it and no one needs a job there.


You’re right. But that must then assume that all new technologies or ideas replace old ones at a one to one basis. Say you come up with the next iPhone. You need people to design, manufacture, market , ship, sell and all the other things that go into such a venture. Where do they come from? There’s a finite labor pool. Whose janitor do you lure away to clean the toilets at your new factory?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> It really doesn't make any difference. For many and various reasons, there will always people to fill menial jobs.
> 
> The real problem is what will these people do when it finally is cheaper to automate these jobs than hire minimum wage workers. It's not that hard to make self cleaning bathrooms. Walmart is replacing some of the checkouts with self checkouts. Fast food restaurants are replacing some workers with automation. The days of minimum wage jobs will soon be largely a thing of the past.
> 
> ...


And speaking of all those smart East Asians, how much different and smarter might our country be today if some of these policies hadn’t existed?

https://www.us-immigration.com/asian-american-history-timeline/


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Wouldn’t have to. He learned the hard way.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...ld-apple-products-that-totally-failed-2013-11


Apple is worth almost 1 trillion dollars. Apple creates markets, not follows them. Steve Jobs philosophy is they just don't know they need it yet.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> And speaking of all those smart East Asians, how much different and smarter might our country be today if some of these policies hadn’t existed?
> 
> https://www.us-immigration.com/asian-american-history-timeline/


What's your point? Were the Irish or Italians welcomed with open arms? How about the Poles or the Germans? How about the Acadians who were refused at US port after port until they finally had to settle in the Louisiana swamps? Or the Jews?

Look at technology and see which ethnicity is leading the way. Same with university attendance.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Apple is worth almost 1 trillion dollars. Apple creates markets, not follows them. Steve Jobs philosophy is they just don't know they need it yet.


I know what Jobs philisophy is. But even the great Jobs and Apple don’t continue to build things people aren’t buying. You can create demand for almost anything, from pet rocks to iPhones, but if people aren’t buying them you don’t make even more. Well, you can but then you end up sitting on the phone with your creditors trying to divest if things at dimes on the dollar.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> What's your point? Were the Irish or Italians welcomed with open arms? How about the Poles or the Germans? How about the Acadians who were refused at US port after port until they finally had to settle in the Louisiana swamps? Or the Jews?
> 
> Look at technology and see which ethnicity is leading the way. Same with university attendance.


I was just pointing out how misguided such anti immigration policies look in hindsight.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> You’re right. But that must then assume that all new technologies or ideas replace old ones at a one to one basis. Say you come up with the next iPhone. You need people to design, manufacture, market , ship, sell and all the other things that go into such a venture. Where do they come from? There’s a finite labor pool. Whose janitor do you lure away to clean the toilets at your new factory?


 Good point. 
What I think would happen That you would need a new product that would make more than the worst performing product. 
You would have to offer their janitor more to lure him away and they would eventually have to move their plant to a cheaper labor source. 
Eventually what you would get is high value jobs being done here and low value jobs done elsewhere. 
With certain jobs that we think of as low value That can’t be exported like janitors being valued more.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Good point.
> What I think would happen That you would need a new product that would make more than the worst performing product.
> You would have to offer their janitor more to lure him away and they would eventually have to move their plant to a cheaper labor source.
> Eventually what you would get is high value jobs being done here and low value jobs done elsewhere.
> With certain jobs that we think of as low value That can’t be exported like janitors being valued more.


Interesting but you have only solved the problem if the non growing population is an isolated area. In that case other areas with growing populations will be able to absorb the extra jobs and grow their economies. Which would lead to sociological pressures in those areas where the inhabitants might aspire to that better lifestyle and want to move there by hook or by crook. Sound familiar?

But if you hypothesize a stable world population those other places have the same issue with finding workers.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Both the population stable and growing areas would benifit
In the stable countries the jobs and incomes would continue to get better
In the growing population areas they would acquire the the jobs cast off from the other area which would likely be better than the current average in the growth areas


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Both the population stable and growing areas would benifit
> In the stable countries the jobs and incomes would continue to get better
> In the growing population areas they would acquire the the jobs cast off from the other area which would likely be better than the current average in the growth areas


It’s a good theory and it does work that way. The problem is that those in the more unstable areas aren’t always so patient to wait for that change to come to them and seek to go to the higher level. And those areas of growth don’t always just wait for the low skilled jobs. The evidence is all around you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So we build a wall
Hum seems like I’ve heard something about that....


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> But what is the benefit of the government's program to increase population?


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Mish said:


> Encouraging (or ignoring) illegal immigration, pushing things like DACA, giving entitlements and privileges to illegals (such as driver's licenses, which then become a stepping stone to being able to vote, as in California). Encouraging legal immigration, and chain immigration. Adding things into the tax code like the child tax credit which, though small, is an encouragement to have one of those...we don't do that a lot but many other population negative countries do and if we curb the illegal immigration it might become a larger thing.
> 
> All of those are programs designed to increase our population. The reasons for it I will leave up to my previous post.


I believe very little has changed from when the Confederate states tried to break away mostly because of cheap labor issues. It was called slavery then.

Today it is immigrants without papers. They are treated the same, and have no real rights once they get here, and are hired and paid mostly under the table. Cheap slave labor.

It is interesting to me, I precieve anyhow, that both way back then and now, the conservatives and the liberals stayed on the same side of this issue, who is for and against the slavery.

Tho, then as now, both sides are at least lukewarm to the idea of cheap labor and are willing to turn a blind eye to it, and so the practice flourishes any which way.

Slavery, illegal immigration, whatever you want to call it. It equals cheap labor. All the same?

And if we stamp it all out, we will just import even more stuff from cHina and Mexico and that is stuff made with ultra cheap labor, and so is basically still the same social issue, just off in a different land.

A very deep and complex issue, my few words make very many shortcuts and leave out too much, adds in too much perhaps. If you don't agree with what I say that is fine, but perhaps reflect on the general big picture.....?

Paul


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Respectfully, and I truly mean that, there is a totally false misconception of the illegal problem - really there is. Many are buying into the picture that has been painted by the media and politicians and it just isn't true. At least in Texas.

Again, I truly do not intend to be know it all, or nasty - but the picture is just wrong on so many levels.

One point no one has answered for me yet -

We were eating quite well in this country, houses were being built, lawns mowed, trucks driven, highways built, plenty of people to work in our banks, professional offices. In other words, we were humming along pretty good. Someone was doing all that work before the illegals came - who was it? Who did all the work before the illegals came?? 

Another thing, the media does not speak about - there are not 11 million. They have been using that figure since George Bush's first term in office. It has exploded since then. Organizations that truly watch these things put the number at over 20 million, closer to 30 million.
That's a lot of people and they aren't all poor - truly they aren't. They spend money. Send them home and you will have less 'needs'.

They don't work for less - not for the most part and not anymore.
They do have the same rights as Americans - considering they at allowed to break many, many laws, I'm thinking they have more.

The problem is not complex - it's big - but it's simple.

The question is not, can we afford to send them back - the question is how can we afford not to?

One thing I am 99.99% sure of - if we don't do something and something really significant, we will loose our country, if we don't.

We have to totally clear our minds of what the media and politicians have been pushing for years - and yes - really, really look at the big picture.

Again, I apologize if I offended, but this is too serious to not be direct about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Someone was doing all that work before the illegals came - *who was it*? Who did all the work *before the illegals came*??


They've always been here, along with legal migrant workers.
There just weren't so many of them as there are now.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They've always been here, along with legal migrant workers.
> There just weren't so many of them as there are now.


That's another one of those statements the media puts out there - but truly it doesn't apply at all. The media and others are too full of sound bites and we don't dissect them nearly enough.

They worked some in the seasonal jobs - vegetables, cotton, fruits. They left after the season, most didn't bring families. None expected taxpayers to provide them the necessities and with few exceptions, they were respectful of the law and Americans. They were not working in the meat packing plants, construction job, dairies, road construction, banks, professional jobs, etc.

A big difference between a few thousand and milliions, working in every almost every industry.

So again, who was doing these jobs before the illegals came? 

My husband's family were migrant farm workers - they worked along side the illegals who came. The children worked from an early age. I'm sure if you had told that farmer the illegals and children should not be in his field, he would have sobbed how he would simply go out of business.

Well, they are still raising cotton in AZ, and West Texas, I know - not sure about the Valley and guess what that farmer decided he could use that cotton picker just fine.

I think everyone knows who was doing the jobs - Americans were. I saw the people loose their jobs to illegals in the small town where we lived. Meat cutting used to be a very good job for Americans, now we have illegals doing it. 

So, once again, who was doing the work before the illegals came?????


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> That's another one of those statements the media puts out there - but truly it doesn't apply at all. The media and others are too full of sound bites and we don't dissect them nearly enough.
> 
> They worked some in the seasonal jobs - vegetables, cotton, fruits. They left after the season, most didn't bring families. None expected taxpayers to provide them the necessities and with few exceptions, they were respectful of the law and Americans. They were not working in the meat packing plants, construction job, dairies, road construction, banks, professional jobs, etc.
> 
> ...


Whoever could be utilized. Poor immigrants, poor Americans, convicts, pow's, anyone capable of doing the work and wanting to feed themselves.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Trixie said:


> That's another one of those statements the media puts out there - but truly it doesn't apply at all. The media and others are too full of sound bites and we don't dissect them nearly enough.


Trixie, your last two posts were so direct and to the point, I cannot help but agree, sitting here in at my computer 50 miles from the border in San Diego county. The picture the media paints and the actual picture when you're living near the border are so different you wonder what kind of crazy you've gone.

I had a much different idea of what "illegal immigration" meant when I lived in the Midwest than what I've lived since moving here almost 20 years ago. I just wonder what our national feelings about it would be if everyone lived along the border. 

BTW, removing the magnets so people self deport does work. You should have seen this place during the height of the recession, emptied out pretty quickly when a lot of the service and under the table work dried up. The combined high school dropped from 3000 students to just under 2000. Of course, everyone's back, now, because the magnets are too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> That's another one of those statements *the media* puts out there - but truly it doesn't apply at all. The media and others are too full of sound bites and we don't dissect them nearly enough.
> 
> They worked some in the seasonal jobs - vegetables, cotton, fruits. They left after the season, most didn't bring families. None expected taxpayers to provide them the necessities and with few exceptions, they were respectful of the law and Americans. They were not working in the meat packing plants, construction job, dairies, road construction, banks, professional jobs, etc.


The low pay/ low skill jobs were historically done by poor, ignorant people working for minimum wages. When larger numbers of illegals started coming, they would work for less money, and welfare programs started supporting more and more Americans.

You can try to blame it all on "the media" but the problem exists no matter what they say.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The low pay/ low skill jobs were historically done by poor, ignorant people working for minimum wages. When larger numbers of illegals started coming, they would work for less money, and welfare programs started supporting more and more Americans.
> 
> You can try to blame it all on "the media" but the problem exists no matter what they say.


They were done by high school students (especially in areas where there aren't many jobs, I worked the "muck" during high school to try to save for college), single mothers, people who just had kids too young and would rather work than be on welfare, and, yes, some people without education. People who actually needed the income and had things happen in their lives that put in roadblocks to doing better, even if only temporarily. The "ignorant" part of your statement makes me wonder if you really ever knew/know people who did/do those jobs. Had plenty of them myself during rough patches, sure is a better way to get by than sucking off the government teat.

The problem with the media is that they make it sound like we need to pity these poor, downtrodden people that are just trying to do better for themselves. They don't give you the full picture of what is going on. As Rambler noted in his post - it's simply another form of slavery. You employ these people that don't have any recourse if you decide to treat them badly, not pay them the minimum wage, or not pay them at all, etc. As in Trixie's point, there's also the secondary effect of creating an even larger poor lower class in American citizens because those starter jobs or rough patch jobs are no longer there, so you get into the welfare cycle. It displaces low income Americans from housing - you can't compete to purchase housing with 5 single guys pooling their money (it really does a doozy on neighborhood values as well, I have a few on my street that are basically flop houses, with a minimum of 5-10 cars parked in the driveway, road, yard, anywhere a car will fit). Don't even get me started on what it does to communities that have a lot of illegal immigrants in them - the schools get overwhelmed (there's a reason California is the - I think now - poorest performing state in the Union in education), you have a completely different culture overwhelming social services, instead of our traditional culture of bootstrapping it, the culture coming in tends to be to milk the government for everything it will give you.

The other thing the media has wrong is that a lot, if not most of these people really do not want to become American citizens. At least around here, the plan always seems to be to work for as much money as you can, use all the social services offered so you can save that money quicker, send it home and save for a nice house and retirement - back there, not here. As Trixie mentioned - they're not all as poor as the media portrays. The number of brand new 30k plus trucks parked at those houses is astonishing, and even at the food pantry I donate garden over-runs to, everyone has a smart phone.

Anyway, the media is to blame for the incorrect picture they are religiously spreading of who these people are and why they are here, and leaving out any mention of what it is doing to our own lower classes, schools and neighborhoods...all in the name of some social justice fantasy.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

When I was a kid, my mother used to go pick potatoes for a few weeks every year. I think today a large part of the problem is we have both stigmatized some jobs while at the same time providing welfare that allows people to not have to work at those type of jobs.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> When I was a kid, my mother used to go pick potatoes for a few weeks every year. I think today a large part of the problem is we have both stigmatized some jobs while at the same time providing welfare that allows people to not have to work at those type of jobs.


Agreed. Also left out of the media reports is the fact that many types of jobs that typically employ illegals will not hire citizens - creates too much paperwork, and actually holds them to account for things like workplace safety, wages, the possibility of actually having to be a responsible employer. I currently live in an area with a lot of fruit groves (and for those that don't know, agriculture isn't just those out there picking the fruit, it's also the washers, sorters, packers, loaders, etc), and it's pretty common knowledge around here that they won't even look at you twice if you go in to apply for a job and you are here legally. Gives them too much accountability, they have to pay you legal minimum, and they're just not interested.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Mish, it really is different if you are living in it, isn't it.

If they cut off the freebies, punished the employers, made the illegals pay taxes and obey the laws we must - they would go home in droves. 

It is just not true that the jobs illegals are doing were once done only by poor, ignorant people. 

Assuming it was true, the illegals just replaced poor ignorant people. Did those poor, ignorant people not have the right to work? They were working, they were Americans. Should they not have the right to work, support themselves, contribute, have a sense of self worth? 

Once again, though, it is absolutely a huge lie, misconceptions, however you want to put it that they are just doing the jobs Americans won't do.The illegals are working in banks, professional offices, schools, for cities, truck driving, building construction, highway construction, etc. They now own construction companies.. The idea they are all doing stoop labor is one of the media's inventions.

The last recent arrival I talked with, had styled hair, tasseled loafers, a manicure and a degree in some tech field.

When I renewed my Sales Tax Permit to sell on Ebay, my husband commented on the phrasing of the signs all around in Spanish. The man helping us told my husband he should apply for a job there as an interpreter as 'half the people getting permits couldn't speak English." 

The stories of the negative impact on schools, communities and just individual citizens are huge.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Mish said:


> Agreed. Also left out of the media reports is the fact that many types of jobs that typically employ illegals will not hire citizens - creates too much paperwork, and actually holds them to account for things like workplace safety, wages, the possibility of actually having to be a responsible employer. I currently live in an area with a lot of fruit groves (and for those that don't know, agriculture isn't just those out there picking the fruit, it's also the washers, sorters, packers, loaders, etc), and it's pretty common knowledge around here that they won't even look at you twice if you go in to apply for a job and you are here legally. Gives them too much accountability, they have to pay you legal minimum, and they're just not interested.


This is true, as they have no responsibility for the workers. They make note of the SS#, which they know doesn't belong to the presenter and at the end of the year sends out a 1099 - and that's the extent of their responsibility. If one gets hurt, taxpayers foot the bill.

One wrong conception people have is that if not for the illegals, the veggies and fruit would not get harvested. That is so not true. There are mechanized ways of doing many of these jobs. Consider cotton. 

My daughter lived in another state in an area where they raised lots of potatoes and onions. She passed the fields almost everyday. One day they were harvesting potatoes and the field was full of illegals. Someone had put up a sign on the roadway pointing out illegals were working these fields. The next day the sign was gone and some form of machinery was picking up the potatoes.

I ran across a youtube and this farmer was whining that the illegals were afraid to come work for him harvesting his sweet potatoes and he couldn't get enough workers, etc. There has been a machine to harvest sweet potatoes since late 40's or early 50's. I knew the man who invented it.

They now have machinery that picks strawberries. It can even distinguish between ripe and not ripe.

They have machines to pick grapes. They were interviewing a man who raised grapes and asked if he used the machine. He said, no, he liked his people. There is another aspect of this - some people just like to feel like el jefe.

I hope no one gets nasty and gets this thread pulled - it really is something that needs to be discussed.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Trixie said:


> Mish, it really is different if you are living in it, isn't it.
> 
> If they cut off the freebies, punished the employers, made the illegals pay taxes and obey the laws we must - they would go home in droves.
> 
> ...


Yep it sure is different if you live it. It's so frustrating that people can't/won't see how simple the self-deportation solution is. If there's no reason to be here, they wouldn't be here.

Although I think some of our experiences are different. Where I live - small sleepy village with only service jobs and surrounded by fruit groves and nurseries, it is mainly the poor, uneducated people doing manual labor (the usual stuff, agriculture, landscaping, I'm sure housecleaning but I can't afford one of those lol). We tend to get a lot of people from Central America (Guatemalans mostly for some reason) because we're a short stop from the border but right along the main route in and out. I know there are huge pockets in San Diego proper of the well-off illegal immigrants - mostly from different continents, but some from this side of the world - who definitely don't do the work Americans won't do, but can fudge the number to make it look like they need all of the social services the extremely poor do. There has been some good local coverage about the abuse of the (our) system, but it never makes national media. Frustrating all around.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> But then we get to add in the good people building and maintaining those machines. Jobs which wouldn’t exist without such automation. Which is the better job- the one slapping a frozen burger patty on a grill for hours or the one assembling the machine?


We think adding 2 $40 an hour jobs to replace 5 $10 an hour jobs is a good thing.

But, what do the 3 extra people think about it, and what do they do? And how do they live?

Really tough questions there, no easy answers. We won't go backwards and -not- automate our society, China tried that and loo, what it ddid tot heir farm economy - they are the worlds biggest importer of food because the 'make busy' agricultural policies stifled their food production. (What an odd economy when you compare what they do in the metro manufacturing areas vs the rural food producing areas, but that is a whole different topic....)

A shrinking economy or population has its own set of problems, just as a growing one does.

Change offers good and bad. Adapting to those changes makes winners and losers.

I don't like the urban sprawl and big growth. On the other hand, shrinking the population has a lot of negatives as well.

Study up on Japan's economy and job and social issues, they have been in an economic and population shrink for a while, they have handled it quite effectively but there certainly are bad problems from it. They have become quite stagnant and closed off to themselves, their govt was able to see the issue and address it in time, but it really changed their country a great deal.

Paul


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

So the machines replace illegals - that IS the idea. The illegals return home, no one will be left out of a job, in fact with the illegals gone, there will be other jobs available for Americans. 

A growing population is not necessarily a bad thing - depends on the country. A population that is grown almost completely by people from other cultures, other countries is not a good thing. If a country is producing it's own growth, the increase blends. and just becomes part of it, and comes more slowly. When it is people with differing cultures, mostly low income, comes in droves, it creates problems - costs money. 

A gentle rain over some days is good. It soaks in. A gullywasher, on the other hand, causes problems - it tends to wash across the land, taking topsoil and clogging up the rivers and lakes. In other words, we have added too many, too soon, and they haven't blended (soaked) in -

It has put huge strains on the infrastructure, education system, healthcare system, justice system, welfare system, roads, water, air pollution, and on and on. It has done this with a drain on the tax revenues rather than the addition of tax revenues. With a natural population increase, there is the probability that everyone would not need assistance, that eventually the ones attaining adulthood would begin working and contributing. 

Does anyone else remember when the media/our government was telling us we had too many people in this country. This was back during the 70's - maybe 60's. People who had more than 2 children were called selfish. The 'know everythings' of that time actually accosted families in public who had more than the (in their opinion) allotted children? I do.

Now we are told we have to have all these outside people because we aren't producing our own.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I'm sure it has been studied, but I have never seen it. What is necessary to keep a population from becoming complacent? How are people stimulated to advance the sciences, the arts, etc?

I want to live in a vibrant community, but I don't believe that requires an increasing population. Smaller groups have always broken off from larger groups to start their own communities, so bigger is certainly not necessarily better. It seems to me what is important is the belief systems of the people that make up the community. If the sciences are held in high esteem, then many people will focus on the sciences. Same for the arts.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Good question.

I can't answer to the arts and sciences especially. I do think we have become complacent in many areas. Maybe just having people in the community who encourage and support these areas. 

Also, I'd say it needs to start in the schools, and the homes. Most communities have people who are knowledgeable in many areas, maybe just collectors, amateur historians, archeologist, inventors. The school could have a program to utilize those resources.

In the little town where we raised our children. We had such people. Some of these were people who had retired there after working in various areas. We also had a volunteer program. The program would seek out those people and set up the opportunities for them to come and talk about various areas in which they had worked, or show and tell for Indian artifacts, etc.

We also had a pretty active Arts Council that had people with the connections, I guess, and many different performers were brought to the community. There would sometimes be a small contingent of those performers who would go to the schools. Sometimes the schools would make a point of bringing these ideas into the classroom prior to the performers coming in. 

We had people who were artists who had retired there. They were very generous with their time and talent - especially in encouraging and teaching the children.

Also, maybe encourage more reading with reading programs, etc.

Sadly, that seems to be gone now - 

Just some rambling thoughts - 





How do you encourage people to excel?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> The "ignorant" part of your statement makes me wonder *if you really ever knew/know* people who did/do those jobs.


Those who *stay* in those jobs are often too ignorant to do better.
Few aspire to a career as a chicken gutter.

I worked in textile mills during high school, and I've seen many who never moved on to anything better.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I worked in retail fresh out of high school. Low pay and unskilled seemed like a fit at the time. A summer job turned into years and one day as I was sitting behind a desk staring at my paycheck like I did every Friday, 
with all of the deductions (something must be wrong!) I started figuring out future pay based on a 3% raise, a 31/2% raise, etc.
"So after 6 years, I should be making another $2200 per year....." I looked around at the other guys (and gals) who had been there longer than me and I knew right then I had to get out of there. I left shortly thereafter, and yet 10 years later when the company closed up, there were still folks I had worked with who stayed on until the end. Likes dogs dragging a leash they just wandered around until they found another like kinded owner.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those who *stay* in those jobs are often too ignorant to do better.
> Few aspire to a career as a chicken gutter.
> 
> I worked in textile mills during high school, and I've seen many who never moved on to anything better.


Whether a person 'moves on' or not depends on many factors. Who knows what makes a person stay while others move on.
We stayed in a situation that was spiraling down and we knew it. There was really no alternative in the area. WE had a farm we built from the ground up - it's hard to leave that. Financially, we should have, but it was home for our children and we wanted to allow them to remain in the school until graduation.

As to no one aspiring to working in a chicken plant - possibly not. Again, there are many reasons people do the work they do. Some people just work to make a living - living being most important.

My Grandad worked at whatever he could ferret out during the depression. Someone told him what he was doing (cleaning an outhouse) was not honorable work.

He told her, "Any honest work is honorable work. The dirt I get on me from honest labor will always wash off." He fed 3 families through the depression with no government help.

The idea that people who work with their hands or work at the lower paying jobs are somehow now worthy, not intelligent, etc., is one of the reason the government and employers were able to allow our country to be invaded by illegals and those 'unworthy' people put on welfare.

Now that the elitist attitude has destroyed the country as we know it, I hope they like it. I hope they like it when their children don't get the jobs because the children of illegals have gotten a taxpayer funded college degree, then get preferential treatment in hiring.

We might should be hoping there some of those unintelligent, ignorant jobs are still available for American children when this all shakes out - and it is going to shake out. It already is, but most people can't/won't see it.

Frogs - the water is reaching the critical temperature - 









Sometimes money isn't the prime reason for a person being in one job or another.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Whether a person 'moves on' or not depends on many factors. *Who knows what makes a person stay while others move on*.


Most who can do better, will.



Trixie said:


> Now that the elitist attitude has destroyed the country as we know it, I hope they like it.





Trixie said:


> My Grandad worked at whatever he could ferret out during the depression.


So did lots of people, but that has little to do with this topic.



Trixie said:


> The idea that people who work with their hands or work at the* lower paying job*s are somehow now worthy, not intelligent, etc., is one of the reason the government and employers were able to allow our country to be invaded by illegals and those 'unworthy' people put on welfare.


Or maybe it's just the facts.
Many "work with their hands" but make lots of money, if they are smart enough.
Not everyone in a low wage job is incapable of doing better, but quite a few are.
There are always exceptions.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most who can do better, will.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'
It depends on the ones definition of 'doing better'. If money is the way they define better - yes, but there are may variables to 'do better'.

Yes, the depression story does have something to do with this. He could have taken a government job and he would certainly have 'done better' moneywise. He was a very independent cuss. So yes, it has a lot to do with it. Again depends on how you define 'doing better'. It was honest labor and he felt better doing that than he would have felt doing government make-work.

These people that some may think are just ignorant and incapable are working - they are caring for themselves - but because they don't make tons of money, they don't deserve a job? They are just disposable?

Again, when the illegals take over, and they will, I hope their taxpayer educated children will allow the elitists children to work at some of those 'undesirable' jobs.

Some of the jobs that make the most in this country are done by people I wouldn't want to live in my neighborhood - those running pharmaceutical companies, those hiring illegals, politicians, etc., Give me a burger flipper any day over a politician. 

Yes, many do work with their hands and make lots of money. 

Again, if money is the definition of 'doing better', you are right. For some, though, there are other factors. 

Money is good, but there are a lot of other considerations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> These people that some may think are just ignorant and incapable are working - they are caring for themselves - but because they don't make tons of money, they don't deserve a job? They are just disposable?


No one but you has said anything to that effect.



Trixie said:


> Again, *when the illegals take over*, and they will, I hope their taxpayer educated children will allow the elitists children to work at some of those 'undesirable' jobs.


I don't foresee that happening. There will always be a class of people who will take the jobs others don't want whether they are "illegals" or not.



Trixie said:


> Money is good, but there are a lot of other considerations.


Money is the *main* motivation for working for the majority.
There are always "other considerations" but vague terms such as that can't really be discussed without details.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Money is the *main* motivation for working for the majority.
> There are always "other considerations" but vague terms such as that can't really be discussed without details.


Yes, money is the main motivation for working for most people. But how much money you feel you need to work for varies wildly. Coming from where I came from, I do know a lot of those people who sat at low level jobs because they could get by just fine with what they made, and would rather spend their time doing things they enjoyed or being with people they wanted to be with than chasing the high dollar dream. 

I now live in a place full of the highly educated, high dollar dream chasers, and I don't think a single one of the people I know (many of whom make more than 100k a year - married couples double that) is any happier than my old friends from home who never went to college and have raised a few kids on the money they made bartending, waitressing, painting houses, building houses, etc. or working at the small factories around there, making just above poverty level. Some of them are significantly less happy, because you're working to pay for the things you "have" to have to show the dollar value of yourself as a person around here, and the expense of the lifestyle instead of working to support things that you want to do that make you happy. And, oh my gosh, the debt that a lot of these people have is absolutely astounding. They're working to pay for things they bought years ago, and still buying more. I digress...

Giving a picture of some of the people I know that do not fit your assumptions at all: My father, IQ hovering somewhere around 170 and in possession of a B.S. in engineering, works/worked all sorts of handyman jobs his whole life just because he doesn't care about having more money than he literally needs to live on. My ex mother-in-law is still bartending in a dive bar to this day (45+ years at this point), because she really likes it and can get by just fine one what she makes, AND she gets to spend her days babysitting the grandkids (and before them, could be home with her kids during the day, unlike most single moms). One of my oldest friends (since kindergarten) got a bachelor's degree in Public Affairs, worked in it for a year, decided she hated it and has been managing - customer service floor manger, not white collar manager - a big box store for the last 20-odd years because she also enjoys it and can live near her parents instead of in the big city. Another old friend owns a thriving house painting company which he was able to start after painting houses for 10-15 years (yes, I know he moved up, but mostly because he got tired of working for other people, not because the money was a huge issue, and that man loves painting things more than anyone I know). One of my dad's best friends when I was little was the full time cemetery caretaker because he got a free house and could take off pretty much whenever he wanted to to go fishing. Seriously, I could go on and on. I know a metric crap ton of people who feel no need to work on Wall Street or make X number of dollars per year to be happy. As long as they can pay their bills and eat/feed their kids, any and all money is good. 

Anyway, I just find the whole idea that anyone who ends up working a low income job their entire lives must be ignorant really annoying and incorrect on a whole lot of levels. It is an elitist position, and anyone who ascribes motivations to an entire group of people without seeming to have any actual information about those people...well it just rubs the poor hillbilly in me the wrong way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Anyway, I just find the whole idea that anyone who ends up working a low income job their entire lives must be ignorant really annoying and incorrect on a whole lot of levels. It is an elitist position, and anyone who ascribes motivations to an entire group of people without seeming to have any actual information about those people...well it just rubs the poor hillbilly in me the wrong way.


Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

None of the jobs you mentioned are the type "Americans don't want to do" which are what this conversation started out being about.

I already said there are exceptions, so a few more individual anecdotes don't really change anything.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Well of course.
> Look what it did for the economy when it was available to a large group of returning veterans.
> Is there a natural law that says *free education is good till the end of 12th grade* but bad after that ?


How is it free?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Trixie - I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed your posts in this thread. Bless you.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
> 
> None of the jobs you mentioned are the type "Americans don't want to do" which are what this conversation started out being about.
> 
> I already said there are exceptions, so a few more individual anecdotes don't really change anything.


Oh, I didn't know we were only discussing jobs that "Americans don't want to do." I thought we were discussing "The low pay/ low skill jobs were historically done by poor, ignorant people working for minimum wages." 

Also part of the stereotype you seem to believe in is that illegal immigrants only work in the fields. Where I live, they're working landscaping (mentioned in my individual anecdote), handyman jobs (listed in my individual anecdote), construction, roofing, house painting/stuccoing, geesh I could go on and on but to you it becomes only my anecdotes, not factual information on what the media isn't telling you about what is going on in areas with high concentrations of illegal immigrants. It also bleeds over into other, non- "low pay/low skill jobs" but I don't want to bore you.

It just seems that there are these stereotypes about who/what illegal immigrants do, want, and how they affect areas they live in that are just...wrong. There are these stereotypes about the citizens they are displacing that are just flat out wrong. My individual anecdotes were and are meant to make you rethink your stereotypes. I guess I wonder what your beliefs are based on other than individual anecdotes or actual life experience? Not trying to be snotty, and I'm really curious.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Oh, I didn't know we were only discussing jobs that "Americans don't want to do."


That's pretty much what I said too.



Mish said:


> Also part of the stereotype you seem to believe in is that illegal immigrants only work in the fields.


Those are the types of jobs that were mentioned in the beginning.
Scroll back and you'll see.



Mish said:


> It just seems that there are these stereotypes about who/what illegal immigrants do, want, and how they affect areas they live in that are just...wrong.


Again, you're entitled to your opinion.



Mish said:


> My individual anecdotes were and are meant to make you rethink your stereotypes.


But they really weren't about the same thing I was talking about, making them just interesting trivia.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one but you has said anything to that effect.
> I don't foresee that happening. There will always be a class of people who will take the jobs others don't want whether they are "illegals" or not.
> Money is the *main* motivation for working for the majority.
> There are always "other considerations" but vague terms such as that can't really be discussed without details.


I don't know how to do the partial quotes - sorry.

*Those who stay in these jobs are often too ignorant to do better.*
Few aspire to a career as a chicken gutter.
I worked in textile mills during high school, and I've seen many who never moved on to anything better.>>>>

I responded to that.


I said when the illegals take over - and they will - they already are and if those who don't see that happening, are not looking.

When they get citizenship, and they will, and all these young educated 'dreamers' and and American born children of illegals, all educated with taxpayer dollars, while American kids are getting short changed, get farther up the ladder, it won't be your children or grandchildren they will assist to move up. 

My point being, it will be your children who are then ' the class doing the job no on else will do'. So yes, there will always be a class that will do those jobs - you are right, there certainly will be. For them, it will be the only jobs they can get. 

Here illegals are not just 'doing the jobs others don't want' - that's not even close to true. It hasn't been for about 30 years.

They are doing any job anyone else can do. Maybe the numbers are not as great yet, but they are growing. To pretend it isn't happening is suicidal, if no personally, for your children or grandchildren and the country as we know it.

The vague 'other considerations' is just that - other considerations. While it would be different for everyone, it could mean a lot of things as was pointed out.

Maybe what is important in a lifestyle isn't important to others. I can imagine how people would think more money, bigger house, nicer cars, etc, etc., would be important. I remember when I did to a point.

It shouldn't be hard, though, to understand that contentment is worth a king's ransom to some.

My Grandfather did work for the government once. They came looking for someone who could operate a bulldozer because they wanted a 'hole' dug. He and another man dug the hole to the satisfaction of the man in charge. They they ran a herd of cattle into the pit, shot them and told him to cover them up.

My Grandfather thought they were diseased, but upon learning they weren't, he asked if he could get some meat as he knew a lot of people who were going hungry. He was told no, the government had bought them to be destroyed to keep the price of beef up. My Grandfather tried to explain the people he would give it to would never be a customer, so they would have no effect on the market one way or another.

He covered them up as told. It was pretty distasteful to him and I think he really felt shame for that for the rest of his life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> I responded to that.


And nowhere in any of my posts did I say what you said:



> they don't deserve a job? They are just disposable?


I responded to that.
There's little point in repeating it all again.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Honestly and respecfully, someone mentioned ignorance as a reason for people staying in one job. I went back to copy it once, just to make sure I had read it correctly.

If it's possible it was someone other than you, I apologize.

So to no one in particular, everyone has their own reasons for being in their jobs. Just because we might not consider it the dream job, they might. Or they might just think the life they have because of that job, is great. We have the right to disagree with their choices, to comment on those choices and we have the right to call them ignorant or whatever we choose. We have the right to be wrong. In this instance, I have seen evidence of that fact.

This isn't the first time I have had discussions concerning people who do jobs others consider undesirable, lower class, or whatever. It isn't the first discussion about illegals and the harm they are doing to this country and it's people. 

I feel it won't be the last. 

I will admit that I'm pretty sensitive to people being judged in that way, and of the damage that has been and will be done by illegals.

So again, who was doing the jobs when the illegals came to this country, because the jobs were being done and where are those people who once did the jobs?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Honestly and respecfully, someone mentioned ignorance as a reason for people staying in one job.


Yes, I mentioned it in relation to "*low paying/low skill jobs*".
I think it was somewhere around Post # 170 something.



Trixie said:


> *So again*, who was doing the jobs when the illegals came to this country, because the jobs were being done and where are those people who once did the jobs?


The jobs are still being done by Americans or legal immigrants when the employers follow the laws.
You still find the *majority* of illegals in the low wage, low skill jobs.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, I mentioned it in relation to "*low paying/low skill jobs*".
> I think it was somewhere around Post # 170 something.
> 
> 
> ...


Not nearly as many are being done by Americans today and the the 'employers following the law' is a joke.

Yes, many of these jobs are being done by illegals, because more and more arrive daily, and the others move up the ladder, start businesses, get into the offices, etc. 

So if the majority are being done by illegals, and we know there are millions here, who were doing those jobs before the illegals came - that's a lot, so where are those people now?

Well, to be honest, I know for many of them. 

I have never gotten a real answer to the question. It is apparent there are millions of illegals - they have replaced millions of Americans who were doing the jobs. It's funny, I've asked that questions of dozens of people, more really, and I yet have anyone to state outright - they were put out of work in favor of illegals. Why is it so hard to say?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

When you don’t get a job you seldom know the real reason.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> When you don’t get a job you seldom know the real reason.


That's true.

My take on the situation is based on what happened in one small town when they brought in the illegals. It affected several towns, and I could see it, but not as much as where I lived. I knew the town, the businesses, the people, the schools, etc.

This small town had one large industry. It employed a good percentage of the people. It wasn't for the most part, high dollar work, but many of the jobs paid enough to raise a family and if both parents worked, it was pretty good.

When you suddenly see large segments of the population out of work that was once employed at the 'big industry' and suddenly large numbers of illegals are working there - no one has to tell you what happened. Those people had been working at that company for years, probably second generation. The company had made money and grown all along. It just isn't believable all the workers just decided to quit or somehow became poor workers, overnight. 

It's not hard to see in a small town, and the scenario is the same in larger cities. When you see highway construction and it's all illegals, you know some Americans surely were qualified for that job.

But no, the company isn't going to say you were either fired, or not called back after the slow down so they can hire an illegal, or they didn't hire you because they wanted to hire an illegal.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> When you don’t get a job you seldom know the real reason.


You do if it is because you are required to speak another language to get the job, because you need to be able to communicate with your co-workers or clients. Or when the big industry in your small town has not hired one citizen in the last umpteen years (funny we have the same thing here in our town that Trixie mentions, but ours is pretty in-your-face about who they'll hire and who they won't). Or when you do the old-fashioned thing and walk in and ask for an application (as my kids have done in the past) and people roll their eyes and hand it to you, knowing you'll never hear from them because you don't "match" the rest of the people that work there. Or when the fliers on the board at your local hardware store for, say, small construction companies or roofers hiring help are all completely in a language other than English. You get the picture pretty quick.

I used to take part-time administrative work, mainly front-desk positions, to supplement my husband's military income before being sent to California. Never had a problem finding work when I wanted it, with plenty of training and years of experience. I gave up trying to find a job in that area here because you simply MUST be bilingual or they won't even look at you for 99% of the front desk jobs (and the bilingual can range from English/Spanish to English/Aramaic, English/Persian, English-Vietnamese, English-Chinese, English-Tagalog...that's another thing the media leaves out of the discussion, it's not just people from Mexico, not even by a long shot). 

When your population and density of illegals is as high as it is here, you most definitely know the real reason you weren't hired when you're competing with them for those jobs, or competing for jobs (service, mostly) that deal with them on a regular basis.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Mish, so true. 

It isn't hard to figure it out. 

The young lady I talked with that had just been hired at a poultry plant was working 'on the line'. She said everyone else was illegals and she was frightened most of the time because they didn't know what they were doing and they worked with razor sharp knives.

I asked her if she had talked with a supervisor (stupid me, but I used to know a lot of the supervisors). 

The supervisor told her she would have to train them. She said they don't understand English and I don't speak Spanish. He told her, she had better learn then, hadn't she.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Trixie said:


> Mish, so true.
> 
> It isn't hard to figure it out.
> 
> ...


Yep. My husband took a job with a Fortune 500 waste management company here in California right after military retirement. He was a route manager, meaning he managed the drivers and set up their routes for the day, handled emergencies, took complaints from customers who hadn't had their trash picked up or whatever, etc. The company bought Rosetta Stone for him because he needed an interpreter to talk to at least a few of his drivers, most of the temps they bring in to do light labor, and a lot of the customers. Didn't help much, at some point your brain refuses to think that way, so hard to learn a new language in your 40's! Anyway, like you keep saying, it's not just the low-wage, low-education jobs that are impacted.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Mish said:


> Yep. My husband took a job with a Fortune 500 waste management company here in California right after military retirement. He was a route manager, meaning he managed the drivers and set up their routes for the day, handled emergencies, took complaints from customers who hadn't had their trash picked up or whatever, etc. The company bought Rosetta Stone for him because he needed an interpreter to talk to at least a few of his drivers, most of the temps they bring in to do light labor, and a lot of the customers. Didn't help much, at some point your brain refuses to think that way, so hard to learn a new language in your 40's! Anyway, like you keep saying, it's not just the low-wage, low-education jobs that are impacted.


If I had small kids today, I would insist they learn Spanish. It is now and will be more so, a matter of survival and a matter of having a job.

I was talking with my 21 year old Grandson the other day and was trying to convince him to learn to speak Spanish. He could learn from one of the courses and my husband could help him as well. He refused - just doesn't think he should have to learn to speak a foreign language because of the illegals. I understand that thinking, but sometimes survival has to take the forefront.

I was a volunteer teacher's aid for a third grade teacher once. A little girl from Mexico was placed in the class. She had never been to school, only spoke a few words of English. She was 9 years old. In their wisdom the state of Texas said children have to be placed in an 'age appropriate' classes.

The teacher tried, but she didn't speak Spanish. She begged the school to just let her go to the first grade, ESL classes, but somehow that violated her rights, or some such nonsense. The teacher bought her a computer program. She sat all day with earphones and did learn some. The class only had one computer and all children were supposed to have time on it - but this kept the other kids from their computer time.

The teacher and I both spent a lot of time talking with everyone in the school to try to get them to just let her go to the class where the younger ones were learning English. She was a sweet child and wanted to learn. It would not have bothered her, but no --

Their solution - they hired a tutor for her. She had one-on-one tutoring for half a day for several months. 

I really had a soft spot for the child, she was good, sweet, eager, you couldn't help but love her - but I was just wondering how many American children at risk could have used some tutoring to help them back on track. All it would have taken was some common sense.

The girl went on to do well in school. The last time I saw here, we had gone back to the area to help a friend with an estate sale, and she showed up. She went back home and brought her two children for me to see.


----------

