State radio station report, great news! Birth rates are plummeting!

[–]mugged99 79 points80 points81 points 11 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link

[–]Barely_Intrepid 117 points118 points119 points 11 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamFisherSpy[S] 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]1beerthroway 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]through_a_ways 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not necessarily intelligence that would be the defining attribute of natural selection anymore.

Of course not. Most life is utterly devoid of intelligence. Humans are a mere blip in evolutionary history, and will probably remain so.

We are very K selected - We have long maturation times, naturally low fertility rates, and we probably evolved for some time without the threat of predation, so that the smarter and more slow maturing among us outcompeted and reproduced more often.

There are many K selected animals -- elephants, whales, even wild cows and goats, are K selected relative to the animals around them. There are many K selected animals that have gone extinct. Examples include the Dodo, the elephant bird, the moa, the woolly mammoth, wooly rhino, etc.

The problem with being K selected is that you are less likely to reproduce once predators are inevitably reintroduced into your environment. This is how all those animals listed above went extinct.

We are pretty much the only K selected animal that has, through the use of our slow developing, complex brains, created sufficient technology to make predation by other animals irrelevant. Elephants, killer whales, and dolphins can't say that, because we could make all those fuckers extinct within the next century, while they can't even touch us.

In fact, a lot of the fishing that we're doing has depleting stocks of large-sized fish, such as tuna, because we're creating an environment where r-selection is advantageous (high risk of being killed by a human, so bluefin tuna that are small are more fit, and also tend to reproduce more quickly)

It's been well documented that people are becoming more biologically r-selected. Boys and girls are hitting puberty at earlier ages. Girls are developing breasts at earlier ages than in the past. This is without respect to race; it's not something that can be explained by immigration.

[–]1beerthroway 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]through_a_ways 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You just have to look around, I know what I know because my hobby is reading shit like this, rather than watching the Giants/Mets/Heat. Not that sports is a bad hobby, it can definitely get you in the right place with some crowds.

If you want another nice little tidbit, you can clearly see r/K selection at work in the wasp family, among species that are abundant in North America.

Yellow jackets have the biggest hives, and they mature the quickest. They are also the most aggressive. They have squat bodies. They fly very fast.

Paper wasps have medium sized hives, and mature more slowly than yellow jackets. They are known to be less aggressive than YJs, and have more gracile bodies.

Mud dauber wasps have single cell nests, with a few eggs, and have a very long maturation time (months). They are the least aggressive, with most people remarking on how they've never been stung, despite making agitating movements at the insect. Their bodies are very gracile and slender, and they look very fragile. Their flight pattern is very slow and methodical, almost as if they have a lower adrenaline response.

Mud daubers will often build their nests in the corners of doorways where people enter/exit all the time. Despite this, people almost never get stung.

My suspicion is that K selected animals tend to have a "curiosity" which is mediated by a lower adrenaline response. In r animals, adrenaline kicks in very strongly, and mediates either fight (yellow jackets) or flight (rabbits). In K animals, it doesn't, which enables them to learn more about their environment. The flip side is it also makes them easier prey (dodo bird).

The same "curiosity" trait was observed when the Soviets domesticated foxes. The foxes that retained more "pup-like" traits would stay more closeby when a strange, unfamiliar human was nearby.

Since these foxes were all bred from the same stock, it very clearly suggests that neoteny (retention of childlike features) is inherently linked somehow with a lower adrenaline response. Neoteny and K selection are linked as well, since a long maturation time is by definition neotenous; being in a developmentally dynamic state is a childlike feature.

[–]drunkandstoned 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamFisherSpy[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oriaven 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dumbsubforum 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good thing we actually don't need laborers! Japan has the same "issue" and it doesn't matter. In 50 years, robots will be doing what these dudes are doing now. It's the age of extinction. It's actually evolution/natural selection/eugenics/whatever you want to call it.

One thing I have noticed is that the birth date of guys seems pretty stable, so it's not like if you're trying to "rub it in" you're going to scare girls. Out of everybody I know with kids, more have boys than don't. Girls aren't afraid of "MGTOW" or any shit, it's dumb to try and make a deal about it. It's just silly. They're just going to call you a sperglord celibate or something.

But I am indifferent because don't really want kids, since I'm actually retarded, like, for real, genetically -- and your life sucks and you wouldn't want to pass that on to a kid.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1User-31f64a4e 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]Barely_Intrepid 38 points39 points40 points 11 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

I point to the moon landing as our civilizations crowning achievement. It really is an amazing combination of genius, ambition, and balls of goddam steel. Considering the available technology and the risks involved, those early astronauts are high on my list of the bravest men in history.

That said, it's a bit shortsided to discredit the amazing technological achievments of Americans since then. These men achieved huge advancements despite the degradation of the culture around them. Non of these matched the scale and symbolism of the moon landing, yet they are very significant and absolutely worthy of respect.

Also, the context of your statement suggests another country has overtaken the US in tech, i'd have to ask who?

I agree that the US is on the decline. We're like MJ playing for the Washington Wizards, technically the best in the league and the guy who gets the ball when down by 1 w/ 5 seconds left. Buuuut, everyone knows his best days are behind him.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Barely_Intrepid 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Good god, I try not to slam posters on here but really bro? Do you understand causality?

Let me break it down. A free society allows for failure and a society with responsibility in the hands of citizens is one of extremes, there are winners......and losers, this causes averages to be an unreliable means of telling a whole story. In the examples above you cherry pick both averages and outliers to illustrate your point. Cherry picking and confirmation bias are argumental fallacies. Feminists do this to advance their bullshit, don't argue like a feminist.

No, America is not the best at everything, that would be a ridiculous assertion. However, America, collectively, continues to advance technology more than South Korea, Japan, Dubai (really?), France, China, or Switzerland ON AN ABSOLUTE BASIS, in case I wasn't clear.

And, I'm partial to Tesla personally.

[–]1beerthroway 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Barely_Intrepid 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]through_a_ways -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Corporations have no nationality.

Intelligent people have no nationality.

Nationalistic thinking is generally for the weak, undesirable members of a nation, who have nothing else positive about themselves, that they define themselves by the arbitrary borders of the soil they were born on.

Yes, America had the best and brightest, and still may, although it's much closer now than 50 years ago. But that fact is pretty meaningless, and the idea of "America" itself is now meaningless, beyond superficial definitions of pop culture, national boundaries, etc.

200 years ago, people couldn't travel anywhere in the world in a few short hours. It took months just to cross the continental US once. This is what created a strong sense of nation and state, the fact that you were surrounded by a fairly static group of people.

In today's global society, nations are pretty irrelevant.

[–]Barely_Intrepid -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]alanthemanofchicago 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alanthemanofchicago 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Surf_Or_Die 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Credit cards, transistors, defibrillators, super sonic aircraft, cable TV, video games, carbon dating, atomic clocks, teleprompters, stellarators, airbags, barcodes, heart-lung machines, digital voltmeters, radar guns, nuclear submarines, hard disk drives, computer operating systems, videotapes, lasers, carbon fiber, integrated circuits, fusors, GPS systems, communications satellites, plasma displays, superconducting quantum interference devices, kevlar, cordless telephones, CDs, hand held calculators, jumbo jets, CCDs, microprocessors, e mail, PET scans, MRI, catalytic converters, cell phones, digital cameras, ethernet, internet, LCD projectors, atomic force microscopes and on and on and on. That's just since 1946 and I cherry picked from a much longer list. What has your piece of shit country done in the last 70 years?

[–]DexterousRichard 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]through_a_ways -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Smart fraction theory has nothing to do with it, IMO. The latest study I've seen puts Asians at the highest smart fractions, at any case, followed by Anglos, with Scandinavians at the lowest, with a 95th percentile of only 116 IQ.

What DOES have something to do with it is risk averseness and conscientiousness. Asians are more hard working and risk averse than whites, who are in turn more than blacks.

We know that in America and the west, boys do worse than girls in school, because the nature of school is to do your work, which is boring shit.

However, this trend does not exist in Asia, where boys do equally as well as girls.

If you use that conscientiousness/hard work factor as a proxy for risk averseness (which makes sense, because what other reason is there for doing boring, mind numbing work?), then it makes sense why Asia has never advanced, despite having such high IQs and and smart fraction proportions.

Consider that caucasoid civilizations with IQs in the 80s, such as those of the middle east and India, rival Asian civilizations in terms of academic and technological accomplishment, up until the 20th century (Hindu numerals, which we still use today, algebra, early forms of calculus, steel smithing, etc.)

Also consider the artistic and musical accomplishments of African Americans, who have an average IQ of 85, and probably an even lower IQ during the years of ragtime and jazz.

However, once the means became available, the Asian civilizations literally rocketed forward in technological advancement, surpassing half of Europe in the process. South Korea in particular went from a third world shithole to a first world country in about 25 years.

This is because IQ defines your ability to do something intellectual, not your propensity to do something new.

While a place like India or Iraq may have more risk-taking, creative individuals than Japan, they do not have anywhere near the proportion of high IQ/hard working people who can do the basic shit that civilization needs to thrive.

[–]DexterousRichard 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DexterousRichard 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Riddick_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Invented where? Innovation developed where? The only one on your list that wasn't invented in the US is autos. Everything else you listed is a refinement on something invented or developed in the US. Automobiles may not have been invented in the US, but the building and refining process was developed here, before Ford, cars were expensive, unreliable, hand built machines.

Russia built the largest aircraft, decades after the US built the C5 and 747, and there were only two An 225s. Pioneered by the US, as has been most of aerospace advancements.

You are right that the US is innovating less, and the cutting edge is where prosperity resides. In figuring out solutions to the difficult problems, you learn and advance more in all areas, and the US is collectively more concerned with day to day today than we are about tomorrow. Everything is made elsewhere because we've been there, done that, and usually moved on to something else after the innovation is done, all that's left is refinement and anyone can do that.

Now, look back at the huge advancements in everything. What was the cause for massive aerospace development? WWI and WWII. From WW2 we got jets, cargo aircraft, pressurized cabins, automation, nuclear power, and a space program. Defense budgets drive development. Why did we go to the moon? Look at who went. USAF, Navy, and marine aviators, why them? Because it was the defense budget paying for it, and they were military assets.

The US is innovating, but for defense and entertainment. Nobody thinks about tomorrow, they aren't planning to go somewhere soon that requires great effort, the USA has feminine thinking governing it, at every level. Why do we want to explore space when we have problems right here? That is the reason for the decline. Females are concerned with right here, right now, it's their nature. Men are concerned with what is over the horizon. Men are thinking like girls, and that's the problem.

[–]antidoxdevice 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]widec 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Riddick_ -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]through_a_ways 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]widec 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mugged99 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GREF_ -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Surf_Or_Die 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Surf_Or_Die 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ManiyaNights 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drunkandstoned 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Redpillthriller 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oriaven 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolfNshepherd 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RPthrowaway123 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]coffee_and_lumber 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ManiyaNights -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RPthrowaway123 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

the last time i checked america was one of the few white nations with a birth rate of 2.1 which meant they would replace themselves, canada was under, the european nations were waaay under at 1.3-1.6 and britain was under as well. the only nations that are exploding are arabic nations and some other third world nations. That's why over in europe the muslim populations are far greater and sadly britain and europe has to deal with sjws and muslims.

japan is bad because their birth rate is just as low(1.3 or 1.4 iirc) but no one immigrates there and china has a seperate issue where there are too many boys compared to girls because of their birthing policy from before. which actually wasnt that bad you just had to pay extra taxes.

i'm not sure we should be celebrating the declining birth rate, we still need white people but demographics that are favorable for birthing and reproducing just arent doing it. If i could find someone worth wifing and had oodles of spare cash laying around i would birth a couple kids but it just isn't feasible right now.

[–]satanicpriest13 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antidoxdevice 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManiyaNights 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lala_xyyz 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]antidoxdevice 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lala_xyyz -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drunkandstoned 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How many kids did your grandparents and grand-grandparents have? Did they have oodles of spare cash laying around? Probably not.

Let's be honest - young people today are too selfish and don't want kids.

You didn't used to need oodles of spare cash to raise children, you do now. Want your kids to avoid being indoctrinated through common core bullshit? That will be 20-30k per year. Want a place to live that doesn't have ~~riots~~ peaceful protests outside your window, that will be 2-3x what your grandparents paid for housing, inflation adjusted. Want to discipline your child to make sure they don't turn into shitbags? Hope they don't tell their teachers about it or you'll be having a visit from CPS. Want to give them autonomy to walk to the park? That's child endangerment. That's before even getting to the fact that you need to have more trust in your wife not being a shitty person and leaving with the kids because she's not haaaaappy.

[–]lala_xyyz -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]drunkandstoned 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's hard, but those kind of issues are trivial when compared to issues that grand-(grand-)parents generations faced, when having half a dozen kids.

What? I'm not even going to start to argue this one, I'm just going to punt to a founding father:

But though North America is not yet so rich as England, it is much more thriving, and advancing with much greater rapidity to the further acquisition of riches. The most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants. In Great Britain, and most other European countries, they are not supposed to double in less than five hundred years. In the British colonies in North America, it has been found that they double in twenty or five-and-twenty years. Nor in the present times is this increase principally owing to the continual importation of new inhabitants, but to the great multiplication of the species. Those who live to old age, it is said, frequently see there from fifty to a hundred, and sometimes many more, descendants from their own body. Labour is there so well rewarded that a numerous family of children, instead of being a burden, is a source of opulence and prosperity to the parents. The labour of each child, before it can leave their house, is computed to be worth a hundred pounds clear gain to them. A young widow with four or five young children, who, among the middling or inferior ranks of people in Europe, would have so little chance for a second husband, is there frequently courted as a sort of fortune. The value of children is the greatest of all encouragements to marriage. We cannot, therefore, wonder that the people in North America should generally marry very young. Notwithstanding the great increase occasioned by such early marriages, there is a continual complaint of the scarcity of hands in North America. The demand for labourers, the funds destined for maintaining them, increase, it seems, still faster than they can find labourers to employ.

-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

[–]lala_xyyz -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]drunkandstoned 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lala_xyyz -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]68461674897051454980 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bitches_be_crazy86 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zenBruce 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Redrog1 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nantafiria 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillAnonymous 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Redrog1 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeoreactionSafe 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LancerKagato 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bitches_be_crazy86 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ostroman1989 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 44 points45 points46 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

"the birth rates have been plummeting since the beginning of the recession which is normal but never to this extreme. It's bad because we won't be able to replace our workers, and we won't have enough people supporting the economy."

The health of an economy does not depend on the number of people participating in it. So "supporting the economy" is really just code for "supporting Social Security", and on that point she is right. That's because socialism can only sustain itself through theft, and when your economy is built on that premise, it's doomed to failure when the amount of people stealing exceeds the number of people being stolen from.

Birth rates are plummeting because the government annihilated the economy starting in 2007 and it still hasn't fully recovered, despite statist propaganda that erroneously claims otherwise. Of course, the poor can afford to have babies because welfare will subsidize them, and the rich can obviously afford it. What this really means is that birth rates are plummeting among the middle class. It's part of the state's systematic destruction of the middle class.

[–]ManiyaNights 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ISODAK 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Wealth is traditionally distributed downward by employment, from employer to employee. If the number of employees needed shrinks due to labor-saving automation, then the individuals at the bottom of the labor pool are effectively kicked out of the labor market. The economy then stumbles, because it depends on the sheer consumption power of the great unwashed in order to sustain itself. So the government redistributes wealth through taxes and the various forms of welfare: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and suchlike, as well as government-mandated corporate welfare like Affirmative Action, Obamacare, and others.

Make no mistake, the government is not at fault for the root problem. The root problem is that automation technology is really beginning to hit its stride. And automation supplants laborers. Entire factories can now be run by a couple dozen people. If the jobs aren't automated, they're exported overseas. Globalization is sort of the fault of the government, but there aren't really any effective answers to the problem. Tariffs and other trade restrictions won't really help, because the jobs in question are either already gone, or are going very quickly. They will exported or automated, one way or another, no matter what the government does.

So put yourself in the government's shoes: you have a large and growing population of permanently unemployed people. A) You can let them starve, which not only is morally repugnant, but massively increases political instability. If they go hungry, then we get riots and destruction of property and even possible rebellion. B) You can feed them through the various forms of welfare, make sure they have clothes and a roof over their head, and hope the problem goes away. The problem won't go away, but you can hope. It'll get worse, but that's a problem for another day. C) Do something about the real problem, but it's politically incorrect to talk about it and, besides, there's no political will to do anything about it.

You choose B.

[–]Fagbasher01 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Wealth is traditionally distributed downward by employment, from employer to employee. If the number of employees needed shrinks due to labor-saving automation, then the individuals at the bottom of the labor pool are effectively kicked out of the labor market. The economy then stumbles, because it depends on the sheer consumption power of the great unwashed in order to sustain itself. So the government redistributes wealth through taxes and the various forms of welfare: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and suchlike, as well as government-mandated corporate welfare like Affirmative Action, Obamacare, and others.

They're not kicked out of the labor market, that just means that they need to advance their education and get higher skilled jobs.

Make no mistake, the government is not at fault for the root problem.

Yes it is, because the government is responsible for the horrible K-12 public schooling it provides, and is responsible for the high cost of college education due to backing student loans. So the people who need to advance their education can't do it either because their K-12 education was awful or they can't afford college.

The root problem is that automation technology is really beginning to hit its stride. And automation supplants laborers. Entire factories can now be run by a couple dozen people. If the jobs aren't automated, they're exported overseas.

Automation means more GDP per capita and lower prices, which means people don't need to work 40 hrs per week to be able to afford to live. People working less hours = more people being able to enter the workforce, which decreases unemployment. The free market always balances itself out in the end and adapts to improvements in productivity and technology.

Globalization is sort of the fault of the government, but there aren't really any effective answers to the problem. Tariffs and other trade restrictions won't really help, because the jobs in question are either already gone, or are going very quickly. They will exported or automated, one way or another, no matter what the government does.

"Globalization" is just a way for consumers and producers all over the world being able to trade more efficiently. There is nothing bad about that at all. Tariffs and trade restrictions do nothing but harm consumers and producers.

So put yourself in the government's shoes: you have a large and growing population of permanently unemployed people.

False, see above.

A) You can let them starve, which not only is morally repugnant, but massively increases political instability. If they go hungry, then we get riots and destruction of property and even possible rebellion.

This is the 21st century. The only reason people ever starve anymore is because of government starving its own people on purpose through controlled famines.

B) You can feed them through the various forms of welfare, make sure they have clothes and a roof over their head, and hope the problem goes away. The problem won't go away, but you can hope. It'll get worse, but that's a problem for another day. C) Do something about the real problem, but it's politically incorrect to talk about it and, besides, there's no political will to do anything about it. You choose B.

D) Private charity is more efficient than government welfare. Welfare traps people in perpetual poverty.

[–]Nantafiria 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You like your libertarian ideals a little too much to see that a lot of what you're saying isn't viable.

For one, 'just getting higher skilled jobs' is functionally impossible for a large amount of people. Someone who's worked in a factory for fifty years and gets laid off in his fifties can't suddenly turn himself into an engineer and get back to work. Education is ridiculously expensive, takes multiple years, and the payoff becomes less and less certain.

Automation does, in fact, tend to cause lower levels of employment. This isn't the 1800's, where unskilled labour was still possible even with its value shrinking. People don't work less hours because of automation, we just have less people working. If the amount of man hours a week to keep a factory working drops from 4000 to 1000 the result isn't everyone working 10 hour work weeks, it's 750 people getting laid off and the remaining 250 continuing to work as long as they did before.

[–]Fagbasher01 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For one, 'just getting higher skilled jobs' is functionally impossible for a large amount of people. Someone who's worked in a factory for fifty years and gets laid off in his fifties can't suddenly turn himself into an engineer and get back to work. Education is ridiculously expensive, takes multiple years, and the payoff becomes less and less certain.

Education is ridiculously expensive because of the governmet. Aside from that point, there are other ways for one to improve their skill set aside from formal education. And as I said before, lower levels of employment is not a bad thing if it's being caused by improvement in productivity and technology. Saying otherwise is like arguing that the invention of the automobile was bad because it put down the horse and buggy industry.

Automation does, in fact, tend to cause lower levels of employment. This isn't the 1800's, where unskilled labour was still possible even with its value shrinking. People don't work less hours because of automation, we just have less people working. If the amount of man hours a week to keep a factory working drops from 4000 to 1000 the result isn't everyone working 10 hour work weeks, it's 750 people getting laid off and the remaining 250 continuing to work as long as they did before.

I see no evidence that, on average, automation leads to a reduction in employment rather than people working less hours. The U.S. is almost at full employment; the only reason it isn't is because we are still recovering from the recession. The facts do not support your position.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You responded point by point, so I will in turn.

They're not kicked out of the labor market, that just means that they need to advance their education and get higher skilled jobs.

People generally rise to their level of competence. On an individual level, a sufficiently competent (read: intelligent and motivated) man can "advance his education and get a higher-skill job", but on the group level you can't just increase the entire population's supply of educated labor and expect the employment opportunities to magically appear.

Yes it is, because the government is responsible for the horrible K-12 public schooling it provides, and is responsible for the high cost of college education due to backing student loans. So the people who need to advance their education can't do it either because their K-12 education was awful or they can't afford college.

The public schools do exactly what they were designed to do: babysit children so that both of their parents can work--they keep them off the streets, and, in conjunction with child labor laws, reduce the total labor supply. Schools—indeed, formal education in general—also provide a remarkable contraceptive effect far above and beyond that which can be achieved with condoms and birth control; schools are so effective at reducing fecundity because they eliminate the very desire to have children. Indeed, your view on whether this is good or bad probably depends most on the circumstances of your education.

I believe the second part of your statement argues rather forcefully against your previous point that people aren't actually kicked out of the labor market. In fact, I agree with you that government subsidization is responsible for the hideously inflated price of further education. I would even go a step further and say that the value of higher education is further degraded by encouraging people who shouldn't go to college, to go to college. College really should be restricted to the top decile or so. Opening the gates to the mediocre just degrades the whole thing.

Automation means more GDP per capita and lower prices, which means people don't need to work 40 hrs per week to be able to afford to live. People working less hours = more people being able to enter the workforce, which decreases unemployment. The free market always balances itself out in the end and adapts to improvements in productivity and technology.

I would encourage you to envision every dollar that you spend as "buying" a portion of someone else's time. Benjamin Franklin said, "Time is money." But it might be more true to say that money is time. Because of the existence of the minimum wage, we can say that the value of an hour of human labor is somewhere around $10. So when you go to the grocery store and you buy a gallon of milk for $3, you are effectively paying for a cumulative ~1/3 of an hour of a collection of people's life and labor. That 1/3 of an hour goes to the various people in the various corporations responsible for getting that milk from the udder of a cow into your refrigerator.

In this light, we can surely say that automation results in more GDP per capita and lower prices, because it certainly does! Automation reduces the amount of human labor into each product, which results in exactly the previous. BUT it doesn't mean that people don't need to work 40 hours per week to afford to live, because the benefits accrued from labor-saving mechanisms mostly go to the corporation—in other words, to the owners of the corporation—in the form of profit. There used to be a struggle between labor and ownership, in which labor demanded some of the spoils, but that fight is long over, and unions are dead and gone.

And an INCREASE in labor supply quite certainly does not REDUCE unemployment. An increase in available, unoccupied labor (read: unemployed labor) increases unemployment. That is the very definition of unemployment. I think you believe that there is a certain number of hours of labor that needs to be done and by God, they'll get done, but the reality is that automation REDUCES the number of hours of labor necessary. This frees up already-employed labor to do other things, or if there are no other economical things to do, frees up the labor entirely. Because they're fired. (And if there were things that needed to be done and were economical at $10 an hour, they would already have people doing them at $10 an hour, which means that somebody's getting fired anyway.)

"Globalization" is just a way for consumers and producers all over the world being able to trade more efficiently. There is nothing bad about that at all. Tariffs and trade restrictions do nothing but harm consumers and producers.

Globalization allows producers to trade more efficiently, but it doesn't allow consumers to trade more efficiently. In other words, it puts enormous power into the court of corporations, but absolutely none into the lap of individuals. Riddle me this: when Ralph Lauren produces and gets a polo shirt into the clothing store for $0.75, where does the other $84.25 go? It goes to Ralph Lauren Corporate HQ, that's where. It goes to the people who work at HQ, advertising and brand whatnot for Ralph Lauren, and the rest (a significant portion) goes to whoever it is that owns Ralph Lauren, Incorporated. Oh, by the way, taxes are included in the $0.75. Here's another: Kenneth Cole leather dress shoes, everything from manufacture to shipping to getting them into the store: $1.50. Taxes also included.

I'm not passing a moral judgement here, just know that you're being played.

So put yourself in the government's shoes: you have a large and growing population of permanently unemployed people.

False, see above.

https://imgur.com/LudaeAN

This is the 21st century. The only reason people ever starve anymore is because of government starving its own people on purpose through controlled famines.

This is true, we have welfare, see above.

D) Private charity is more efficient than government welfare. Welfare traps people in perpetual poverty.

Charitable organizations aren't particularly efficient or effective, either. There are some good ones, because there's more variability in private initiatives, but it's not like they're the magic cure. And charity, by the way, is just welfare by another name. If you can't feed yourself regular meals, there's precisely zero difference between receiving them from a charity and receiving them from government welfare. It's still perpetual poverty.

[–]thedude122487 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People generally rise to their level of competence. On an individual level, a sufficiently competent (read: intelligent and motivated) man can "advance his education and get a higher-skill job", but on the group level you can't just increase the entire population's supply of educated labor and expect the employment opportunities to magically appear.

Irrelevant to the point that they're not "kicked out of the labor market" as you erroneously claimed.

I believe the second part of your statement argues rather forcefully against your previous point that people aren't actually kicked out of the labor market. In fact, I agree with you that government subsidization is responsible for the hideously inflated price of further education. I would even go a step further and say that the value of higher education is further degraded by encouraging people who shouldn't go to college, to go to college. College really should be restricted to the top decile or so. Opening the gates to the mediocre just degrades the whole thing.

As technology progresses, the demand for higher skilled jobs increases as well. So increasing the supply of skilled labor would in fact be offset by an increased demand for skilled labor. Allowing the free market to control the price of education instead of the state is not "encouraging people who shouldn't go to college to go to college". Letting the free market take over doesn't "encourage" or "discourage" anything - it is simply dictated by the natural laws of supply and demand. The state driving up the price of education is artificially discouraging people who would go to college from going to college.

And yes, more people going to college would devalue a college degree. This isn't the 1950s anymore - technology and productivity have progressed to the point where a Master's degree is the new Bachelor's degree. A Bachelor's degree today is the equivalent of what a high school education used to be. You practically need one, and discouraging those who want it from getting it is condemning them to the cycle of poverty generation after generation.

I strongly disagree with your opinion that college should be restricted to the top docile - that is an elitist mentality. Nobody is arguing for opening the gates to mediocrity - that is only something that government education could accomplish (through things like No Child Left Behind that don't actually improve the quality of education, but graduate mediocre students).

I would encourage you to envision every dollar that you spend as "buying" a portion of someone else's time. Benjamin Franklin said, "Time is money." But it might be more true to say that money is time. Because of the existence of the minimum wage, we can say that the value of an hour of human labor is somewhere around $10. So when you go to the grocery store and you buy a gallon of milk for $3, you are effectively paying for a cumulative ~1/3 of an hour of a collection of people's life and labor. That 1/3 of an hour goes to the various people in the various corporations responsible for getting that milk from the udder of a cow into your refrigerator.

In this light, we can surely say that automation results in more GDP per capita and lower prices, because it certainly does! Automation reduces the amount of human labor into each product, which results in exactly the previous. BUT it doesn't mean that people don't need to work 40 hours per week to afford to live, because the benefits accrued from labor-saving mechanisms mostly go to the corporation—in other words, to the owners of the corporation—in the form of profit. There used to be a struggle between labor and ownership, in which labor demanded some of the spoils, but that fight is long over, and unions are dead and gone.

The benefits also go to consumers in the form of cheaper goods/services. That frees up more capital to be invested elsewhere in the economy to create demand for higher skilled jobs.

And an INCREASE in labor supply quite certainly does not REDUCE unemployment. An increase in available, unoccupied labor (read: unemployed labor) increases unemployment. That is the very definition of unemployment.

Nobody argued otherwise.

I think you believe that there is a certain number of hours of labor that needs to be done and by God, they'll get done,

That's not what I believe

but the reality is that automation REDUCES the number of hours of labor necessary. This frees up already-employed labor to do other things, or if there are no other economical things to do, frees up the labor entirely. Because they're fired. (And if there were things that needed to be done and were economical at $10 an hour, they would already have people doing them at $10 an hour, which means that somebody's getting fired anyway.)

There are always other economical things to do in an economy that is expanding with productivity and technology going up. The only problem is when you have a government getting in the way of people being able to advance their skills.

Globalization allows producers to trade more efficiently, but it doesn't allow consumers to trade more efficiently. In other words, it puts enormous power into the court of corporations, but absolutely none into the lap of individuals. Riddle me this: when Ralph Lauren produces and gets a polo shirt into the clothing store for $0.75, where does the other $84.25 go? It goes to Ralph Lauren Corporate HQ, that's where. It goes to the people who work at HQ, advertising and brand whatnot for Ralph Lauren, and the rest (a significant portion) goes to whoever it is that owns Ralph Lauren, Incorporated. Oh, by the way, taxes are included in the $0.75. Here's another: Kenneth Cole leather dress shoes, everything from manufacture to shipping to getting them into the store: $1.50. Taxes also included.

I'm not passing a moral judgement here, just know that you're being played.

And thanks to globalization, as a consumer, I can get on the internet and buy a superficially similar polo shirt or dress shoes for half the price. Your claim that globalization doesn't allow consumers to trade more efficiently with producers is absolutely bogus.

https://imgur.com/LudaeAN

A picture of a poorly labeled graph that has no sources cited. What's your point?

This is true, we have welfare, see above.

Welfare is just damage control for the poverty that the state causes. When you take away all of the damage that the state causes to the economy, welfare becomes unnecessary.

Charitable organizations aren't particularly efficient or effective, either. There are some good ones, because there's more variability in private initiatives, but it's not like they're the magic cure.

There's little incentive for efficient charity under the system we have now becuase wealth is being diverted into welfare instead.

And charity, by the way, is just welfare by another name. If you can't feed yourself regular meals, there's precisely zero difference between receiving them from a charity and receiving them from government welfare. It's still perpetual poverty.

Absolutely wrong. Charity is funded by voluntary contributions from private donors; welfare is funded by consumers and taxpayers at gunpoint.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Irrelevant to the point that they're not "kicked out of the labor market" as you erroneously claimed.

But they are, and it's technology that's doing the kicking. (These are all U.S. numbers.) There are 4-ish million jobs in fast food. Within the next decade or two, we'll see the advent of the completely automated fast food restaurant, with maybe one employee to watch over it all and make sure nothing goes wrong. Poof! There goes 4 million jobs. We have the technology to do it today.

Within the next decade, we will have self-driving vehicles in mass-production. There are 3.5-ish million professional truck drivers. Poof! There goes 3.5 million jobs. We have the technology to do it today. Google's self-driving cars are safer than humans. Why not truck drivers?

Computers can fly planes. Indeed, modern commercial pilots spend about 10 minutes total actually flying the plane. Probably less, actually, but whatever. Poof! There goes a mere 200,000 jobs.

Grocery stores employ 2.5-ish million people. We could automate away most of their jobs within the next year or two, if we really wanted. Poof! There goes 2.5 million jobs.

Colleges, universities, and professional schools employ 2 million people. What if the government stops backing the massive amounts of debt required to employ them? Poof, there goes a million or more jobs.

Department stores, 1.5 million people. Poof!

Clothing stores, 1 million people. Poof!

Wal-mart and co, 1.5 million people. Poof!

The technology is there. It's there today. There are no replacement opportunities. The people working those jobs aren't skilled enough to work elsewhere. Are you really going to argue that point? And even if they were, there's nowhere else to put them.

I disagree about decile something something...elitist mentality something something.

The bottom 90% isn't competent enough to withstand the rigor of what college should be, what it used to be. Sorry. Some people are a lot smarter than others. It's genetic. That's not elitist. That's the truth.

The benefits also go to consumers in the form of cheaper goods/services. That frees up more capital to be invested elsewhere in the economy to create demand for higher skilled jobs.

Cheaper goods and services for consumers don't matter if the consumers are being paid less. If everything's price goes down by 50%, but the consumers' wages go down by 50%, nothing has changed.

And an INCREASE in labor supply quite certainly does not REDUCE unemployment. An increase in available, unoccupied labor (read: unemployed labor) increases unemployment. That is the very definition of unemployment.

Nobody argued otherwise.

You said, and I quote, "Automation means...people don't need to work 40 hours per week...People working less hours = more people being able to enter the workforce, which decreases unemployment." (emphasis mine)

There are always other economical things to do in an economy that is expanding with productivity and technology going up. The only problem is when you have a government getting in the way of people being able to advance their skills.

It comes back to energy utilization. I alluded to this with my comment about the economy being reliant on the number of workers and the economy needing both supply and demand. What's needed is the supply and the demand of energy. We use somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million calories every single day to maintain our standard of living. 50 million kilocalories (food calories) for electricity, driving, phones, food, etc. Any drop in energy utilization results in a drop in standard of living. Fewer workers means fewer calories being produced, and less demand for the calories being produced, hence less energy utilization. Energy utilization is the prime factor in GDP.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, we don't have an expanding economy, and we don't have an expanding population. Those things are intrinsically connected for a reason. (Number of (genetically skilled and educated!) workers is important; my original point, I believe.) Technology can help increase energy utilization, to a point, which explains why we haven't totally stagnated. Keynesian economics explains the rest.

And thanks to globalization, as a consumer, I can get on the internet and buy a superficially similar polo shirt or dress shoes for half the price. Your claim that globalization doesn't allow consumers to trade more efficiently with producers is absolutely bogus.

And they're still making a massive profit from you. And the benefits accrued go to the ownership of the company. Great if you're the owner, bad if you're everyone else. Again, no moral judgement; it's a sweet gig if you've got it.

A picture of a poorly labeled graph that has no sources cited. What's your point?

Welfare is a combination of things, but it's mostly a government band-aid to prevent unemployed or underemployed people from starving (and rioting).

Welfare is just damage control for the poverty that the state causes. When you take away all of the damage that the state causes to the economy, welfare becomes unnecessary.

The all-knowing, all-powerful guided-by-an-invisible-hand free market economy is an outgrowth of the state. There's a great book called Debt, written by David Graeber, that goes into much, much more detail on this. In short, it's not the magical thing sold to you by Adam Smith.

There's little incentive for efficient charity under the system we have now becuase wealth is being diverted into welfare instead.

There's little incentive for efficient charity under any system, because people are self-interested. We have more charity today than at any other point in human history. Wonder why? Because the government created tax incentives to promote it. Self-interest.

Absolutely wrong. Charity is funded by voluntary contributions from private donors; welfare is funded by consumers and taxpayers at gunpoint.

There is no difference to the people receiving the handout. Perpetual poverty is perpetual poverty.

If you have any actual questions, I'm happy to answer, but I'm not going to respond point-by-point again. I hope somebody finds it informative, but it's way too much work.

*edited for grammar

[–]thedude122487 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But they are, and it's technology that's doing the kicking. (These are all U.S. numbers.) There are 4-ish million jobs in fast food. Within the next decade or two, we'll see the advent of the completely automated fast food restaurant, with maybe one employee to watch over it all and make sure nothing goes wrong. Poof! There goes 4 million jobs. We have the technology to do it today. Within the next decade, we will have self-driving vehicles in mass-production. There are 3.5-ish million professional truck drivers. Poof! There goes 3.5 million jobs. We have the technology to do it today. Google's self-driving cars are safer than humans. Why not truck drivers?

Got sources for those numbers?

Computers can fly planes. Indeed, modern commercial pilots spend about 10 minutes total actually flying the plane. Probably less, actually, but whatever. Poof! There goes a mere 200,000 jobs.

You're never going to see unmanned aircraft flying people around, there will always be a pilot on board in the event of computer failure.

Grocery stores employ 2.5-ish million people. We could automate away most of their jobs within the next year or two, if we really wanted. Poof! There goes 2.5 million jobs.

Got a source for those numbers?

Colleges, universities, and professional schools employ 2 million people. What if the government stops backing the massive amounts of debt required to employ them? Poof, there goes a million or more jobs.

Massive amounts of debt aren't required to employ them.

Department stores, 1.5 million people. Poof! Clothing stores, 1 million people. Poof! Wal-mart and co, 1.5 million people. Poof!

Got sources for all of those numbers?

The technology is there. It's there today. There are no replacement opportunities. The people working those jobs aren't skilled enough to work elsewhere. Are you really going to argue that point?

No, I never once argued that point.

And even if they were, there's nowhere else to put them.

Your doomsday scenario isn't going to happen overnight, rather it will be a slow transition that will take decades. There is plenty of time for low skilled workers to adapt. That's, of course, assuming a free market scenario.

Instead, we have a centrally planned economy where the government subsidizes companies like Wal-Mart to pay their workers low wages, bail out General Motors so they can ship jobs overseas, destroy the education system so workers have trouble advancing their skills, and creating a welfare system that, along with inflation, traps generation after generation in an endless cycle of poverty.

Any negative consequences that result from automation will be entirely because of the state mismanaging the market.

The bottom 90% isn't competent enough to withstand the rigor of what college should be, what it used to be. Sorry. Some people are a lot smarter than others. It's genetic. That's not elitist. That's the truth.

Except it's not just the top 10% of America that are college educated, so you're completely wrong.

Cheaper goods and services for consumers don't matter if the consumers are being paid less. If everything's price goes down by 50%, but the consumers' wages go down by 50%, nothing has changed.

Wages wouldn't be going down, they'd be going up because real GDP per capita would be going up (GDP is approximately equal to income).

You said, and I quote, "Automation means...people don't need to work 40 hours per week...People working less hours = more people being able to enter the workforce, which decreases unemployment."

What I meant by that is that if you have a situation where 2 people are working 40 hours a week and one of them gets laid off due to automation, then you have one person working 40 hrs/week. The increase in real GDP per capita, coupled with falling prices, means that person no longer needs to work 40 hrs/week because goods/services are cheaper. So he cuts his hours back to 20 hrs/week. Now there is a demand for someone to work 20 hrs/week to pick up the slack, so the person who got laid off can be hired back. It cancels out and everyone is better off in the end.

Again, assuming a free market not being distorted by failed central economic planning.

It comes back to energy utilization. I alluded to this with my comment about the economy being reliant on the number of workers and the economy needing both supply and demand. What's needed is the supply and the demand of energy. We use somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million calories every single day to maintain our standard of living. 50 million kilocalories (food calories) for electricity, driving, phones, food, etc. Any drop in energy utilization results in a drop in standard of living. Fewer workers means fewer calories being produced, and less demand for the calories being produced, hence less energy utilization. Energy utilization is the prime factor in GDP.

Source?

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, we don't have an expanding economy, and we don't have an expanding population.

Yes we do and yes we do.

And they're still making a massive profit from you. And the benefits accrued go to the ownership of the company. Great if you're the owner, bad if you're everyone else. Again, no moral judgement; it's a sweet gig if you've got it.

And great if you're me because I get a shirt and shoes out of the deal. And great if you're anybody else who wants to buy the goods and services those companies are providing, because I just gave them an economic incentive to continue to produce those goods and services. And great if you're the workers who make those shirts and shoes becuase they'd be out of a job if I wasn't buying those products.

Welfare is a combination of things, but it's mostly a government band-aid to prevent unemployed or underemployed people from starving (and rioting).

So unemployed and underemployed people were starving and rioting in America before welfare existed in the 1930s? Who knew. I wonder how on Earth we survived almost 150 years as a country without it.

The all-knowing, all-powerful guided-by-an-invisible-hand free market economy is an outgrowth of the state. There's a great book called Debt, written by David Graeber, that goes into much, much more detail on this. In short, it's not the magical thing sold to you by Adam Smith.

Pejoratively referring to the free market as "all-knowing, all-powerful guided-by-an-invisible-hand" and "magical" is completely inaccurate. The "free market" is just another way of describing a system in which two or more individuals engage in voluntary trade. Period. There is nothing magical about that, and perjoratively referring to it as such does not strengthen your argument.

There's little incentive for efficient charity under any system, because people are self-interested. We have more charity today than at any other point in human history. Wonder why? Because the government created tax incentives to promote it. Self-interest.

Absolutely false. According to Milton Friedman, the 19th century U.S. saw the largest outpouring of charitable activity in recorded history. The reason charity is not as prevalent today is because we have welfare, which takes money from those who would have otherwise donated it to charity, and spend it on a system that perpetually traps people in poverty.

There is no difference to the people receiving the handout. Perpetual poverty is perpetual poverty.

Yes there is; some people morally object to receiving stolen property. Charity doesn't cause perpetual poverty, welfare does because of the way it's structured.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought we were having a fair discussion. It is my experience that those who nitpick are trying to save their ego. Thus, I now see that I have erred. I would like to formally apologize for enabling that behavior by responding point-by-point.

Here is how I should have initially responded: The old automation replaced the ~95-98%'s physical labor for food (and other things), freeing them up for more interesting tasks, tasks which made better use of their cognitive abilities. The new automation is replacing people's cognitive abilities.

I slightly more length reply would be thusly: For sources, Google is your friend. Ubiquitous unmanned vehicles are just around the corner. The average college student pays the salary of the college employee mostly by taking on his average $30,000 worth of college debt. Low-skill workers won't adapt, that's why they're low-skill. Automation is so dangerous to the working class because it replaces human labor with machine labor; machines don't need to be paid, and can be owned. When the cost of goods and services declines, it declines because A) the cost of human labor has gotten less expensive, or B) because less human labor has gone into the good or service; in scenario A) the same number of people are being paid less, in scenario B) fewer people are being the same amount (individually). We have an expanding uneducated immigrant third-world population and a contracting native population (of all colors), and an economy which appears to be expanding due to Keynesian economic policy. In 1930, we didn't have a population of 35 million chronically impoverished, unemployed, blacks, half of which are chronically undersexed black men—the ones under 30 which appear in the media are referred to as "youths". Welfare is government charity.

I did it again, I suppose (point-by-point). I won't bother repeating myself again, though.

[+]datasstoofat -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]mugged99 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]datasstoofat 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrunoOh 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]1beerthroway 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mugged99 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kanyin 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lala_xyyz 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeopolitanAfterglow 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]datasstoofat -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryno55 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lala_xyyz -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorRS73 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This web page has a good summary of some of the outrageous highlights of "Ecoscience": http://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/

This isn't wacko conspiracy stuff. These are the actual written words of Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antidoxdevice 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UgUgImDyingYouIdiot 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]colucci 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaphneDK 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DaphneDK 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheAureate 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Locastor 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Surf_Or_Die 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]drunkandstoned 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPtophan3 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaphneDK 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bitches_be_crazy86 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]frys180 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]watersign 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UlyssesElias 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Riddick_ -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ostroman1989 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oriaven 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jokoran 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Venicedreaming 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thedude122487 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kukenan 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alanthemanofchicago 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Petulance-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]weirdnamedindian 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Barely_Intrepid 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Luke666808g -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoRegretj -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]weirdnamedindian -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	State radio station report, great news! Birth rates are plummeting!
Author	SamFisherSpy
Upvotes	135
Comments	165
Date	May 1, 2015 12:55 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/34igev/state_radio_station_report_great_news_birth_rates/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/state-radio-station-report-great-news-birth-rates.32091 https://theredarchive.com/post/32091

Comments