|Re: INTERVIEW: Why Bad Jobs - or No Jobs - Happen to Good Workers (952902)|
|Home > OTChat|
Re: INTERVIEW: Why Bad Jobs - or No Jobs - Happen to Good Workers
Posted by Concourse Express on Mon Jun 25 15:11:32 2012, in response to Re: INTERVIEW: Why Bad Jobs - or No Jobs - Happen to Good Workers, posted by JayMan on Fri Jun 22 18:19:56 2012.Let's see if my response can survive the intermittent SubChat outages...
I have to say, there isn't much like your thoughtful responses on Subchat. :)
Thanks! I enjoy intellectual discourse; even when there are disagreements, it sure beats the waves of nonsense and BS in politics and other areas...
But you see, the reason employers can get away with crap like that is because they have 1,000+ applicants for every position they put out. And the reason that is true is in part because of the availability of immigrants.
Employee wages and benefits are determined, in good part, by supply and demand. Right now, the supply of labor is high, so the price of labor is necessarily low. Immigrants serve to increase supply. By choking off supply, the "value" of labor will eventually increase, allowing wages to rise accordingly. And high wages benefits us all by increasing the amount of money consumers have to spend, and consumer spending is what drives the economy.
Agreed w.r.t. supply and demand. There definitely is a surplus of supply. Also agreed with your statement on discretionary income (I assume that's what you meant in the last sentence). However, this goes back to what I said earlier - incentives should be in place for employers to hire American workers at respectable wages; even if the supply of immigrants decreased significantly, it won't mean much if employers continue to offer lower wages/salaries. (I would also back policies that "punish" companies that take advantage of illegal labor).
With the cost of living increasing and wages stagnant or even decreasing (see this blog post of mine for proof of the latter w.r.t. college grads), discretionary income (and thus, a means of stimulating the economy) is vanishing rapidly.
No, and that's the crux of the issue. Employers like the supply of labor to be high, because then workers are cheap; it is in their interests to keep having throngs of applicants for the few positions they put out. That way, the employer has all the bargaining power.
And even with this, cats still give unions hell (not that unions are 100% innocent, but methinks employees will have a much tougher time if they lose bargaining rights)...
Yes. Laws limiting work hours and closing the loophole of "salaried" positions may be called for, if for no other reason that it would be vastly more productive for businesses to do so. As well (here's that awful word), "socialist" policies such as mandatory ≥5 weeks/year paid vacation would also increase the number of workers firms need to hire; but those workers would be more productive.
That's an excellent article, but once again, we need INCENTIVES. So long as employers/management continue to be penny wise and pound foolish in terms of exploiting overtime for short-term savings, we won't see much progress here.
To recap, it seems that immigration—low- and high-IQ—may be a problem for native-born Americans, and discouraging employers from sharing their profits with the workers who make it possible. As always, if we do shut down the immigration train, I would advocate that all existing legal immigrants would be grandfathered in, and that efforts be made to eventually deport the illegal immigrants. For more on my solutions, see my blog.
What an amazingly long blog post (there is a glaring typo in the title though). I will address your proposed solutions in the context of the thread topic:
Eugenics: Disagree 100%. Voluntary sterilizations are already available; I know you want incentivized voluntary sterilizations, but the problem (well, one of many, actually), is coming up with criterion on how to target such incentives. Now, I know you gave some criterion on who would "qualify" for incentivized sterilization programs, but I shudder to think of what would become of such programs if left in the hands of not-so-rational politicians (and as we often see in the media, there are many of those). Because of that (and the dark history of eugenics policies in general), I don't see anything of the sort coming to pass.
What I do agree with, however, is this:
Planned Parenthood programs could be expanded and heavily marketed in underclass areas (both White and non-White), and could offer (and promote) plenty of free contraception, especially injectable long-term versions. In addition, an information campaign detailing the consequences of having children while broke could be run.
I highlighted the underlined part since I said something similar in an earlier discussion (though it was more prudish; let me state for the record that I favor contraception much more than abortion - not favoring the latter except in cases of rape, incest, and/or a clear and present danger to the mother's life).
As an aside, here's an article from 2009 that highlights results of a research study on the viability of premature babies.
Immigration reform: You know where I stand on this; your views, as espoused on your blog, are similar to mine. I agree that a modified DREAM Act could work (particularly the provision for all employers to use e-Verify and to disqualify criminal elements; though I'm not entirely in favor of the Act).
Fertility: Methinks some of the HBDers' fears - extinction of Whites and high-IQ elements - are unfounded; yes, there may be downward trends in fertility of higher-IQ elements and a surge in that of the low-IQ elements but the latter is bound to plateau sooner or later.
Somehow I don't believe that, even with incentives, you'll be able to convince consequences-conscious cats to pop out more kids than they desire and/or have the means to support.
visit my blog!