« More post-debate stuff | Main | Long-term failure of school desegregation in Boston »

October 04, 2012

Comments

Yes and no.

We've been automating for a long time, and still employ more people now than ever before. There is (usually) a demand for ever more services and goods. Same with outsourcing and immigrants.

More of a problem is that we have a decline in productive people. Talk to anyone who hires: it is hard to get good people. Most of the unemployed are marginal hires. For this I blame immigration and dystopic demographic/social trends. We are only as productive as the people in our country. If you have a bunch of unproductive people, you have an unproductive country. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Wow, you missed something - regulations.

I was the proprietor of one of the most innovative beverage startups of that last years. The slate of regulations is beyond all reasonable comprehension. Regulations that prevent small business growth:

1. accredited investor criteria: a small business, operating as a corp, cannot realistically raise money because of the accredited investor criteria and the litany of SEC filings associated with the sale of securities
2. local and state regulations: if you want to make your own factory, the local county is going to have dozens upon dozens of regulations with which you must comply; now add in state regulations with all kinds of "registration" filings
3. federal regulations: these are beyond insane. If you work with an FDA registered product be prepared for upfront costs of at least $30,000 to comply with the most very basic rules. This includes if you sell just basic supplements under your own label.
4. sales tax: you may not know it, but collecting and paying sales tax is a nightmare. The tax rate in Florida is 6%, but it is not calculated as $X * .06%, it goes with some other weird bracket formulation. Then you must collect a surtax by county and report the surtax collected. So let's say that you run a website and collect just 6.5% to add the surtax, you are not complying with the law. If you are a one man operation, then this becomes another source of stress, anxiety and loss of focus. It may seem crazy, but it is not.
5. Uncertainty created by regulations and possible taxes; once regulations get to a certain point, they are so onerous, so massive and so brutal that one must assume more are on the way; this creates uncertainty and breeds inaction.

Those are profoundly important reasons for the lack of small business growth. They are real, they are massive.

[HS: And big business likes regulation because it prevents competition from small business. And Republicans like big business. And Democrats like lawyers who profit from advising companies about regulations.]

Excellent, on all points! I have posted this to a few places.

Reducing this problem is simple: deport illegal immigrants, put a modest tariff on imports (15%), stop new immigration, stop giving citizenship to anchor-babies.

Solving the problem would be harder but doable: replace all taxes other than the tariff with a sales tax. All money from the sales tax gets divided up among adult citizens as a stipend, all other entitlement programs are ended. Ban salaried employment (everyone either has to work for wages or be an owner) and benefits. Institute a maximum 30 hour work week. Have clinics that offer free sterilization but only open them in NAM neighborhoods.

Forget paying people to play WoW. How about paying people to clean up graffiti, pick up litter, landscape government properties, and staff nursing homes. I was in East Germany shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain and saw women down on their hands and knees hand removing grass from between the cobble stones in front of the museums on Museum Island in Berlin. This is the type of government-created jobs the communists had. We should have the same.

Cullen Roche says we are in a balance sheet recession. There is not enough "money" in the system to drive all the productivity that the economy is capable of. His prescription: lower taxes and or/ higher deficit spending.

We have enough low quality mass produced stuff.

We don't have enough high quality custom stuff.

Oh, hey not sure if you caught it but http://newsone.com/2042442/george-zimmerman-dna-gun-trayvon-martin/.

Trayvon Martin's DNA was not on the gun. Zimmerman's was.

Also, did you see Zimmerman on Hannity? He said that him killing Martin was 'god's plan.' Nothing more prole than a statement like that.

"How about paying people to clean up graffiti, pick up litter, landscape government properties, and staff nursing homes."

The problem with these ideas is that they don't reflect the real world. Let's say that I am a contractor who is primarily concerned with doing a great job and only secondarily concerned with profit. The local government gives me a budget with the assumption that I will hire all 20 unemployed people in the town. I hire the 20 people and set them to work.

After a short while I realize that half of the workers are just goofing around and in fact a select few create more litter than they pick up. I realize that productivity would be much higher if I simply got rid of the 10 people who are slowing things down. The remaining will work faster plus there will be less time getting ready assembling the workers, less money spent on gas transporting the workers to the work site, etc...

So now I fire these 10 workers, or maybe I don't, because the city won't allow me to. So instead I pay them to play WoW. Eventually a robot is designed that picks up litter. Eventually I have 20 people playing WoW and 1 robot doing the work. Yes it is cheaper for the city to buy the robot then to have the 10 decent workers continue working, because the robot uses less fuel, is cheaper to insure, doesn't demand a pension, and doesn't leave the city open to lawsuits.

The reality is that robots will eventually replace all or nearly all labor. The excess labor cannot be allocated to marginally useful activities (cleaning) because it is inefficient to pair good capital with bad labor.

Why not go in the opposite direction? Ive always thought it makes sense to do away with labor saving technologies and use people to fill the breach.

There is no other way to create jobs and give people direction. Robots would be a godsend in a world with full employment or if society turned into some brainy utopia as in Star Trek but we are under employed and have a value system which rewards work.

It seems a politician might make a fearsome platform by scapegoating robots and labor saving technologies.

"More of a problem is that we have a decline in productive people. Talk to anyone who hires: it is hard to get good people. Most of the unemployed are marginal hires. For this I blame immigration and dystopic demographic/social trends. We are only as productive as the people in our country. If you have a bunch of unproductive people, you have an unproductive country. Not that there is anything wrong with that."

Yet employers often hire unproductive people because they are cheaper. They think anyone functional will leave for better opportunities- which is true, eventually. But there used to a be a place for temporary work for teenagers, college students, and young people. Nobody is willing to take on temporary workers anymore.

I haven't gotten a server job since I was 19 (23 now). I could use this sort of job over the summers, since it pays relatively well and has flexible hours. Yet nobody hires me despite experience serving when I was younger. I should add that when I was a waitress, most of my co-workers spent all their time socializing instead of working. It honestly appears employers would rather hire junkies or otherwise dysfunctional people instead of hiring a college student or graduate. I'm in grad school now and the only part-time employment I can get is telemarketing, which sucks. Hopefully once I get on the "real" job market for my degree I won't have such bad luck, but I have my doubts.

So don't give me this BS about a lack of productive people, when productive people are the ones most often passed over for lower end jobs.

How about spying people to participate in scientific experiments? There are thousands of scientific questions that need answering so having a huge supply of guinea pigs, especially from the lower class who don't volunteer for such research would be of enormous value. Pay people to give blood and donate organs when they die. Pay people NOT to have kids. We could also pay people to have sex with nerds who create robots and with foreign leaders we are trying to placate. Tell Iran and Israel that if they make peace, they can have their 72 virgins while still alive!

"Yet employers often hire unproductive people because they are cheaper. They think anyone functional will leave for better opportunities- which is true, eventually. But there used to a be a place for temporary work for teenagers, college students, and young people. Nobody is willing to take on temporary workers anymore."

I disagree. There are lots of perverts who love to hire teenagers and then replace them with someone younger when they get too old and expensive (seniority).

Excellent post. Shame that most (all?) Republicans don't realize this.

"Taxes on “small business” have absolutely nothing to do with high unemployment. If anything, it’s cheaper today to hire new employees than it was ten years ago."

Your analysis is all wrong because unemployment is high and the jobs that are available are mediocre at best. Obama's taxes and overregulation of small, medium, and large businesses is what's damaging the economy.

"Interest rates are ridiculously low, and there are a whole bunch of underemployed or unemployed smart college graduates willing to work for a lot less money than they would have been willing to work ten years ago."

First of all, college graduates want GOOD jobs, not to work at lower wages. If working at lower wages is such a sign of economic vitality, how come you don't ask your employer for a wage cut? I'm sure he'd be happy to pay you less.

Secondly this doesn't prove high taxes are not a problem.

Tax cuts (in addition to other policies) spur economic growth and growth leads to the creation of good jobs.

Fourth reason would be the massive influx of "educated" women into the workforce, who are better suited for corporate culture where verbal facility, social harmony, cooperation, teamwork and compromising is essential over physical capability.

Women are earning 60% of college degrees, eventually as the baby boomer workforce is replaced by these gen X, Y and Millennials women this trend will multiply in effect.

McKinsey Study: Companies with three or more women in top-management positions achieve higher scores for each criterion of organizational effectiveness than do companies with no women at the top.

Not to mention many blue collar male dominated fields in the manufacturing sector are getting offshored or taken up by illegal slave labor, which brings the wages and job opportunities both down for the majority of American males raised by single mothers.

Government could fix this issue by reverse social engineering, but why would the welfare government want to limit their own power by reducing the number dependents?

The unemployment rate was 4.7% in 2007. I don't think there are large structural problems causing unemployment right now. We are just still getting over a bad recession. And recessions involving the banks take a long time to get over.

I was in Oregon last month. There is a state law that says a worker must pump your gas for you. It's ridiculous as you sit there and wait for help, but it creates jobs. I hope we don't end up with a make-work economy.

"More of a problem is that we have a decline in productive people. Talk to anyone who hires: it is hard to get good people. Most of the unemployed are marginal hires. For this I blame immigration and dystopic demographic/social trends."

Dysgenics is going to be cured by fertility extension techniques such as egg freezing.

But you're correct about immigration, non-white Hispanics and other NAM immigrants are genetic and garbage and evolutionaryily incompatible with Western democracy.

In addition to whites only immigration, we need to setup outmigration policies that encourage NAM immigrants to leave. Such policies would include paying NAMs $100,000 per family member to give up residency and leave, cutting off welfare checks, eliminating subsidies for racial minorities, and taking other economic policies to eliminate their welfare and drive up their cost of living.

[HS: That's not going to happen. Before you can get anyone to even talk about paying people to leave, first you have to convince them we should stop letting more people in. We can't even get liberals to agree that people who come here ILLEGALLY shouldn't be here.]

Small business drives employment growth because good companies with good ideas expand rapidly ... which creates a bunch of jobs. High taxes on small businesses slow this.

Obama's first signing ceremony was for the Ledbetter Act which worsens one of America's biggest global disadvantages, its affirmative action regime:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009
This crap gets bad at only 100 employees.

Obamacare will be hideously confusing to employers because dummy liberals believe that employers should handle health plans. Worst. Idea. Ever.

The tax code is already incredibly complex and a reflection of gov regulation generally. This makes it harder to run a small business: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vefjI5r2lt4/Tg3TjmFeNXI/AAAAAAAAENQ/ndZQecRf9vY/s1600/2011-cch-std-fed-tax-reporter-number-of-pages-us-tax-code.png

I disagree. There are lots of perverts who love to hire teenagers and then replace them with someone younger when they get too old and expensive (seniority).

You really don't know much about the employment of unskilled teenagers. They QUIT jobs or get themselves FIRED through incompetence or laziness a whole lot more often than they get "replaced with someone younger." The unskilled constantly bounce around from McJob to McJob - uneducated teens are not getting jobs at the mall and then staying there for 10 years working hard and trying to make manager one day.

Entertaining, sports, other service jobs should be created to cater value creators. Let neibghorhood watchers be paid to provide security. Or body guard service for well to do. Or legalization of prostitution. ect.

Reality show like Jersey shore is a good example of job creation.

T - the make-work jobs I'm talking about would be GOVERNMENT jobs. They would be disagreeable and pay only for basic food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. But there would be no more people living from generation to generation on welfare. No one would just get to sit around and get government money. These jobs would also instill middle-class values in the people required to take them, things like getting up every day and going to work. Anyone productive enough to get a private industry job would take one of them at a higher salary and/or more pleasant working conditions. We've seen in Britain what happens when you pay people not to work. They spend their free time engaging in criminal and/or anti-social activities.

Twenty-one comments so far and the one by Dan Morgan is by far the most sensible. Structural changes and other long term trends could not have caused unemployment rates to double between 2007 and 2009.

Half, in a balance sheet recession, there's not enough money in the economy. Increased taxes on ANY size business or individuals just make things worse.

T - the make-work jobs I'm talking about would be GOVERNMENT jobs. They would be disagreeable and pay only for basic food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. But there would be no more people living from generation to generation on welfare. No one would just get to sit around and get government money.

Not gonna happen.

If the welfare underclass wanted to work bad enough they would already be out in front of Home Depot taking the $8 per hour jobs given to the Mexicans who swarm the contractor trucks that pull into the parking lot to recruit day labor.

CamelCaseRob, you're thinking about the world as it is right now. Your solution doesn't address the actual issue: human labor will be worthless soon. There will come a time when there won't be value creation jobs for ANYONE. Whatever value it is that you create for the world, someday a computer/robot will do it better. That's a fact. This is especially true if your job involves your brain; waitresses and prostitutes will be the last to be replaced. If we go with your system then soon you and I will find ourselves in these disagreeable jobs that you want to create more of.

Peter,

You could easily argue that easy money masked structural changes until it couldn't anymore.

"I disagree. There are lots of perverts who love to hire teenagers and then replace them with someone younger when they get too old and expensive (seniority)." - Linda


Agreed. Although this is only applicable to young women. This is especially noticeable in retail. I always wanted to work at Gamestop but no jobs were available. They normally went to attractive young women. The obese middle aged manager liked being served by young beauties. It made him feel like a big shot.

"Fourth reason would be the massive influx of "educated" women into the workforce, who are better suited for corporate culture where verbal facility, social harmony, cooperation, teamwork and compromising is essential over physical capability." - Lexus


Yes and no. Women do make better drones but they also don't create new industries or enterprises. In other words they compete for jobs but don't create any. They are parasitic.


"McKinsey Study: Companies with three or more women in top-management positions achieve higher scores for each criterion of organizational effectiveness than do companies with no women at the top." - Lexus


I call BS. High performing companies with women at the top are like rich billionaires calling for Marxism. They are successful in spite of their idiotic politics or status seeking social posturing.

Camlost -- these jobs wouldn't be voluntary. No workee, no eatee.

This can't be repeated often enough.

If economics were concerned with value rather than money and work rather than jobs this wouldn't be a point beyond the grasp of economists and conservatives.

There are too many people for the necessary work. The result is exclusion, poverty, crime, vice, divorce, for profit colleges, FaceBook, underemployed lawyers pursuing frivolous law suits, crap addicted fat people driving up health care spending, etc.

This is invisible to neo-liberal ideology.

T - what you say will someday be true, but not for many decades. Once it happens then everyone will get an equal cut of the pie to do nothing. There will be no resentment by the productive worker bees because there won't be any (human) worker bees.

"I hope we don't end up with a make-work economy."

What do you mean "end up"? By my lights 80% of the US labor force doesn't actually do anything.

That 80% includes many well paid and well educated people.

An endocrinologist who specializes in type II diabetes is in a make work job.

A tax lawyer or tax accountant is in a make work job.

All college professors are in make work jobs.

The illegal farm worker creates more value than the HFT hedge fund manager.

@Lexus Liberal: "Fourth reason would be the massive influx of "educated" women into the workforce, who are better suited for corporate culture where verbal facility, social harmony, cooperation, teamwork and compromising is essential over physical capability."

Women are not cooperative, team players, or compromising in the work place (or out of the work place for that matter).

"Women are earning 60% of college degrees, eventually as the baby boomer workforce is replaced by these gen X, Y and Millennials women this trend will multiply in effect."

Right, but most women major in fluff worthless subjects.

@Dan Morgan: "There is a state law that says a worker must pump your gas for you. It's ridiculous as you sit there and wait for help, but it creates jobs."

In the late 70s there were no self-serve gas pumps. At age 14 I got my first job as one of those "gas jockeys" at a neighborhood station. $2 per hour under the table. My parents were happy about my job - it kept me busy, earned some money, learned how to work on cars - right up until the time I got robbed at knife point and beat by two grown NAMs

"The spread of computers and the Internet will put jobs in two categories," Andreessen says. "People who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do."

I thought this was relatively pertinent to the discussion. It is from an old USA Today article that I think was to Sigma's blog. Of course robots will replace the people who are told what to do. I think high intelligence people will just be able to use the tools of computers to a greater and greater degree. This blog often gets very Kurzweilian.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/09/advice-from-marc-andreessen.html

[HS: He overlooks the overclass, the people who tell the people who tell computers what to do, what to do.]

I work in a start-up. We're trying to hire, but it's very hard to find qualified people. After the tech bubble burst, somehow we haven't produced enough people with quantitative skills + programming skills in an age of mining big data. There's a huge drawback for not being located in Silicon Valley. Outside, SV, there are very few qualified people.

"The unemployment rate was 4.7% in 2007. I don't think there are large structural problems causing unemployment right now."

The credit bubble (the real estate bubble, in particular) papered over some structural problems. As we lost millions of manufacturing jobs, we gained millions of real estate-related jobs. Plus, rising home values enabled consumers to spend beyond their means, by using the equity in their homes as ATMs. When the real estate part of the bubble popped, it exposed some structural weaknesses.

http://www.swiss-miss.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy/a/6a00d834515beb69e2010536bf2b30970b-800wi

The countries with the most robots per capita

Japan = 295
Singapore = 169
South Korea = 164
Germany = 163
Sweden = 126
Italy = 124
Finland = 98
Belgium = 89

Sigma If robots cause unemployment, then why do the wealthiest countries with the lowest unemployment rates have the most robots?

Perhaps we need a Third World War to kill off a few hundred million people worldwide and break the pall of existential ennui that has enveloped the western world in recent years.

"CamelCaseRob, you're thinking about the world as it is right now. Your solution doesn't address the actual issue: human labor will be worthless soon. There will come a time when there won't be value creation jobs for ANYONE'

Read Tools for Conviviality and Toward a History of Needs by Ivan Illich.

He says we don't need wage labor or at least we can minimize it. In the past anybody who earned wages was considered the the lowest, most unfortunate person in the world, worse than a serf.

Work wasn't even a noun in Spanish. It was only a verb, You did work; you didn't have it.

We need to use less energy than we do now, but more than when we had horses doing the plowing.

We have the technology to empower people to do these things. But the whole worldview of growth and jobs must be replaced.

Schools are completely outmoded too. We need to rethink schooling and what and how we learn.

@Dan Morgan

Bite your tongue. I live in NJ which has the same law that Oregon has.

I am VERY happy to not have to pump my own gas.

Um, we are literally paying people not to work. It is called welfare.

Need them to work for food so they don't have time for crime? Okay, have them dig ditches with spoons. Seriously. Busy work works. We are going to feed them anyway, may as well have some loser unemployed SWPL's supervise them to be sure they are clocked in 8 hrs a day and go home to tired to make more people.

Here's the problem I have with your theory:

a) If what you said were true. We'd expect all highly developed nations to have high unemployment. However this is not the case. Hong Kong has low unemployment (3.4% in 2011). Japan has an unemployment rate of 4.2%. South Korea have an unemployment rate of 3.0%. These nations still have to worry about the effects of automation and communication.

b) Nations trade with one another based on supply and demand of labor. The reason why we're exporting jobs is because labor is cheaper. However there capital and labor quality is not nearly good as the US, which is why their labor costs less. If it was better, then it would be more expensive for chinese labor. There are actually effects of globalization that increase jobs in the US, despite our high wages. For example, Toray Plastics is a Japanese company that manufactures plastics right here in the US. Same with Toyota and Subaru that have car manufacturing in the US.

c) Not all jobs can be exported. Service industries can't be exported.

d) Pre-financial crisis the unemployment rate has been low. Do you really think the effects of globalization and automation changed so much in 4 years to justify the difference?

e) Technology advancements have been increasing all the time yet the unemployment rate has remained steady, not increasing.

f) In order for unemployment to occur we'd have to say that all of societies demands have been met and people. However, this is certainly not the case. People still demand more goods and services which require people to make them.

@Daniel: "We're trying to hire, but it's very hard to find qualified people...there are very few qualified people."

Increase your wages.

@China is #1: "If robots cause unemployment, then why do the wealthiest countries with the lowest unemployment rates have the most robots?"

Little to no immigration, especially of, well, you know who.

People say we have everything we want, but that seems silly. I want to jet to a new country everyday. I want to live in a mansion next to central park. I want to have celebrities sing at my birthday. I want to have a personal chef cook my exotic meals everyday.

There is no limit to human want. None. It can go to infinity. There will always be demand.

What you guys really mean is that we can satiate the demand for really low quality mass produced goods. Tract houses in nowhere. Processed foods. Video entertainment. Etc. This stuff takes very little to make or copy so we really can provide it for everyone.

The problem is threefold.

1) We can't provide everyone with luxury goods (cutting edge healthcare, specialized high quality services, rent in desirable locations).

2) Those that can do productive work want to buy those specialized things in #1 and don't like having their work siphoned off to pay for the basics for people that don't work.

You can complain that people in #2 are heartless or something, but I don't really feel all that heartless about cutting off the Honey Boo Boos of the world. There are a lot of good reasons to cut those people off.

3) All of this is predicated on cheap energy. If energy becomes not cheap we can't provide mass produced things cheaply.

Shovel ready jobs are not ready yet?

French businessman on their version of the T-party, the "pigeon movement":

"I do not know a single startup founder who accept the idea that creating a company, in which it will invest all his savings and years of effort often without a salary, must then give to the State 60.5 % of gain when he sells his company if he succeeds. It should be known that 9 out of 10 startups fail, and in this case nobody will refund the founder. Then, on the 39.5% that he will be left with, it will pay 1 to 2% per year, every year for the ISF ("Wealth Tax"). And when he dies, the state will take 45% of what remains."

It's interesting how many Euro countries are in dire straits, with white people rioting in the streets and hilarious unemployment levels. Maybe if these countries were as racially enriched as the US they would be doing better.

@ Conquistador

"Yes and no. Women do make better drones but they also don't create new industries or enterprises. In other words they compete for jobs but don't create any. They are parasitic".

This exactly sounds like my view on Asians. Not suprisingly, Asians are the most effeminate race.

Dave Hackensack is an Asian supporter, but he doesn't realize how uneffective Asians are, when it comes to the progress of Western civilization.

[HS: Progress in digital cameras and imaging comes from Japan and not from the West. And I am sure there are other industries where innovation comes from Japan. I predict that Japan will lead the world in robot technology.]

[HS: Progress in digital cameras and imaging comes from Japan and not from the West. And I am sure there are other industries where innovation comes from Japan. I predict that Japan will lead the world in robot technology.]

A list of patents by country. Note placement of
Japan:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pat_gra-economy-patents-granted

Japan chose westernization back in the 1800's. They are the only society on Earth to have completely adopted a foreign culture.

"Not suprisingly, Asians are the most effeminate race."

This seems to depend on how masculinity is being defined. In contemporary usage, it seems to refer to "Game" traits. But male provisioning and warring ability are also masculine traits, and Asians seem to do well in these measures. In terms of these measures, only some Europeans and Asians would qualify as "masculine" and all others would be "effeminate".

"Progress in digital cameras and imaging comes from Japan and not from the West. And I am sure there are other industries where innovation comes from Japan. I predict that Japan will lead the world in robot technology."

The Japanese can't even put a man on the Moon, let alone a robot on Mars, which White Americans were able to do sucessfully.

Cold Fusion, which seems to be the energy of the future has been making strides with White scientists, where as Asians aren't even making any sort of headway with it.

"It's interesting how many Euro countries are in dire straits, with white people rioting in the streets and hilarious unemployment levels. Maybe if these countries were as racially enriched as the US they would be doing better".

BS! The wealth of America has nothing do with NAMs or Asians. These groups are being exploited by large corporations at best. Europeans have a more demanding educational curriculm and are still able to enjoy life despite their setbacks. Working Americans have been reduced to serfdom.

"Cold Fusion, which seems to be the energy of the future has been making strides with White scientists, where as Asians aren't even making any sort of headway with it."

The Japanese actually have been involved in cold fusion research:

http://gizmodo.com/393119/scientist-creates-cold-fusion-for-the-first-time-in-decades

Currently one of the major theories for explaining cold fusion comes from a physicist named Yeong E. Kim.

You should go live in Japan. I like the Japanese a lot, but I found living in Japan really absurd after awhile.

I think Japan is really good for its proles but bad for its smart fraction (who get drilled and shamed into total robot like submission). The ones you meet in America are usually the ones fleeing that culture.

"2) Those that can do productive work want to buy those specialized things in #1 and don't like having their work siphoned off to pay for the basics for people that don't work.

You can complain that people in #2 are heartless or something, but I don't really feel all that heartless about cutting off the Honey Boo Boos of the world. There are a lot of good reasons to cut those people off."

I have no sympathy for these people (who are often L1/2, G3, and all Es): they are selfish, prideful, hedonistic, and often devoid of any virtue. They should realize the things they yen for are not biological or social necessities, but frivolous desires

I hate many "mature" adults in developed countries for holding hypocritical or selfish values, although children are not so innocent either, as they have a propensity to bully those of are mentally, socially, or physically inept; I dislike proles for different reasons than the middle class.

Black_Rose,

This is perhaps true, but keep in mind that while their physical needs are met their other needs are not.

For instance, I'm a scrawny nerd. My nerd abilities allow me to earn a high income, but my body is not sexually desirable.

If choosing a more sexually desirable but unproductive man means poverty this increases my chances with women. It may mean the difference between being able to have a family or not.

When we talk about socialism we are only talking about economic goods transfer. There is no sexual market socialism. There is no social status socialism. It is a one sided transfer from people with high economic productivity + low social assets to people with low economic productivity but high social assets. Then in the social arena they get slaughtered, and quite frankly that's the arena that matters to most people.

'Sigma If robots cause unemployment, then why do the wealthiest countries with the lowest unemployment rates have the most robots?'

the robots don't destroy Japanese jobs, instead they destroy the jobs of the countries that the Japanese export their products to. That's why your auto manufacturers are zombies.

"[HS: That's not going to happen. Before you can get anyone to even talk about paying people to leave, first you have to convince them we should stop letting more people in. We can't even get liberals to agree that people who come here ILLEGALLY shouldn't be here.]"

1) An non-white emigration policy can be argued simultaneously with an immigration moratorium because the reasons for paying them to leave are the same as those for ending their importation, i.e., they're evolved racial characteristics are incompatible with Western civ.

2) We need to get conservatives and libertarians to agree with HBD, not liberals. If conservatives and libertarians collectively decided they had enough of non-white immigration the situation would be easy to reverse.

Stop worrying about what liberals think and try to convince libertarians (who are smarter than liberals) and conservatives to incorporate race HBD into their policy models.

The comments to this entry are closed.