Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
"Middle class should move to 'higher class' jobs or 'middle class' jobs that can't be outsourced."
That's all well and great, but there's only so many jobs. When your export-oriented industries go 'poof' and you're left with all these unemployed people, aside from those jobs that you've just lost, there's still the same amount of jobs out there - it drains the labour pool. You have less jobs for the same amount of people. Telling them they should get better jobs doesn't change that.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I believe it should be obvious, but by arguing against your 'evidence' I was putting forth that "the evidence is arguable".
Really? You must know something Gina Rinehart doesn't. I bet your understanding of the dynamics of economics and international relations is far deeper than hers. You're really smart!
Okay, last chance Pig. Watch the video below (and pt. 2), take a gander online, researching points you're unclear or curious about, and after you've done all that, come back and tell me that I'm lying about globalisation.
Originally Posted by Ele
That's all well and great, but there's only so many jobs. When your export-oriented industries go 'poof' and you're left with all these unemployed people, aside from those jobs that you've just lost, there's still the same amount of jobs out there - it drains the labour pool. You have less jobs for the same amount of people. Telling them they should get better jobs doesn't change that.
I'm going to go ahead and challenge your base assumption. Why do you think there are only limited jobs?
Originally Posted by Ele
Really? You must know something Gina Rinehart doesn't. I bet your understanding of the dynamics of economics and international relations is far deeper than hers. You're really smart!
No, I just challenged the predicate that's all.
But I enjoy the humor in you taking Gina's word as gospel. This is the same bitch who cheated her children out of inheritance right? Naturally this doesn't invalidate her opinion or your argument, but it's a bit funny.
Originally Posted by Ele
Okay, last chance Pig. Watch the video below (and pt. 2), take a gander online, researching points you're unclear or curious about, and after you've done all that, come back and tell me that I'm lying about globalisation.
Why is this "prophetic" when reality does not corroborate his theories? From 94 to 2000 it only dropped, yes there are some spikes but overall - including the recessions - it's stable.Yes, a lot of companies exported their manufacturing to SEA, and locally we can surely see that some people lost their jobs, but overall there was no apocalyptic trend. We can also see that prices of chinese products have dropped.
We can also see that wages weren't affected in the way he predicted.
Funnily enough we actually haven't seen lower wages ever since that above video was made. Since 1994 wages have been up, and despite dipping a few times they have remained above 1994 levels.
The video isn't all bad, that logic isn't terrible or anything, but once again we do not see the theories being reflected in reality (again I say this because I suspect the theory was made before the data was examined). Until this discrepancy is accounted for we cannot accept the theory.
Ok, so you are still failing to address several points:
1. Why is there only a fixed job pool? How do you explain that unemployment has been more or less stable despite population growth?
2. Why is a wealth gap intrinsically bad?
There's probably a few more points that I missed.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I'm going to go ahead and challenge your base assumption. Why do you think there are only limited jobs?
You have a finite number of jobs. From that, you take away some middle-class jobs that won't come back. You now have more people competing for fewer jobs. It's a limited market. Sure, jobs can be created, but mostly these are McJobs, not middle-class jobs.
That's the base 'assumption'. Here's the implication; because of the process above, people get poorer and the wealth-gap increases.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
But I enjoy the humor in you taking Gina's word as gospel.
It's not taking her word as gospel. It's recognising she's a greater authority on the subject than you and that what she says about the processes being unarguable is actually true, since nobody argues that it happens because everybody knows that it's happening.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
(again I say this because I suspect the theory was made before the data was examined). Until this discrepancy is accounted for we cannot accept the theory.
That's the expert opinion of Mr. Pig? I'll be sure to let all the world's billionaires know that their business model is wrong.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Ok, so you are still failing to address several points:
1. Why is there only a fixed job pool? How do you explain that unemployment has been more or less stable despite population growth?
I addressed the labor pool my first paragraph. For your second point - those unemployed people take on McJobs (which is reflected in our Gini coefficients).
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
2. Why is a wealth gap intrinsically bad?
Because it promotes class warfare and fucks up social cohesion. Are you seriously suggesting that a wealth-gap is not a bad thing, but a good thing? How predictably contrarian of you.
Originally Posted by Ele
You have a finite number of jobs ... It's a limited market. Sure, jobs can be created, but mostly these are McJobs, not middle-class jobs.
I'm not sure about that. If I were making that claim I'd be very tentative. Can you post your sauce?
From what I've seen the number of McJobs stays roughly constant, most created jobs are middle class.
Originally Posted by Ele
It's not taking her word as gospel. It's recognising she's a greater authority on the subject than you and that what she says about the processes being unarguable is actually true, since nobody argues that it happens because everybody knows that it's happening.
Sure, and I never contested that, I just said maybe they should find a job outside the export industry then they don't have to compete with $2 Africans.
I'm not sure that she should be considered an authority on anything. though.
Originally Posted by Ele
That's the expert opinion of Mr. Pig? I'll be sure to let all the world's billionaires know that their business model is wrong.
I was contesting his 'prophecy' not his business model.
Originally Posted by Ele
I addressed the labor pool my first paragraph. For your second point - those unemployed people take on McJobs (which is reflected in our Gini coefficients).
I'm not sure that you can attribute gini coefficients entirely to your theory. But in the case that someone who was working a middle class job loses their job and then has to work a lower class job, yes I think this would contribute.
But you should remember this is an entire country we are talking about. To say that a larger portion of people are moving down than are moving up sounds unlikely to say the least.
Unless you can find some statistics to at least support your claims I can't agree. As you can see from the graphs I previously posted I think your theories are incorrect.
Originally Posted by Ele
Because it promotes class warfare and fucks up social cohesion. Are you seriously suggesting that a wealth-gap is not a bad thing, but a good thing? How predictably contrarian of you.
I don't see how it would promote class warfare, and I don't see why it would fuck up social cohesion. Again, you are making claims willy nilly. If you read this thread you will have seen various links already posted that challenge the notion that wealth gaps are inherently bad.
Can you comment on them?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
From what I've seen the number of McJobs stays roughly constant, most created jobs are middle class.
Sauce please.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Sure, and I never contested that, I just said maybe they should find a job outside the export industry then they don't have to compete with $2 Africans.
You're acting like these people have a choice. They usually don't. The only reason they get hired for these outsourceable jobs is because there is no skill required. If you follow this train of thought, you will realize that they probably tried to get a job somewhere else, but they were turned down because qualifications were not met.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
But you should remember this is an entire country we are talking about. To say that a larger portion of people are moving down than are moving up sounds unlikely to say the least.
How exactly does it sound unlikely? It sounds perfectly likely. It's not like this sort of thing has never happened before *coughthegreatdepressioncough*. Of course there are going to be more Joe Schmoes than there are Bill Gates'.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Unless you can find some statistics to at least support your claims I can't agree. As you can see from the graphs I previously posted I think your theories are incorrect.
I'll assume you have taken basic algebra in school, and as a result learned what MEDIAN means. I hope I don't have to explain why that renders the graph's data invalid for your purposes.
Oh, and here's those statistics (For the US at least)
http://equitablegrowth.org/research/...united-states/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...st-since-1928/
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I don't see how it would promote class warfare
Class Warfare is the tension or antagonism which exists in society due to competing socioeconomic interests, needs, and desires between people of different classes. With the wealth gap becoming more of a problem, you now have the lower class and the former middle class competing for the same jobs. Since the job pool among the lower class is the same, the competition between these jobs is much fiercer and more animalistic.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
and I don't see why it would fuck up social cohesion.
This goes in tandem with the above. "Cohesion can be more specifically defined as the tendency for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members."
Instead of everyone working to better the whole, they instead compete amongst each other for jobs.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If you read this thread you will have seen various links already posted that challenge the notion that wealth gaps are inherently bad.
Can you comment on them?
If you could provide these links again, it would be helpful, since I saw no links provided by you. Or anyone other than Ele, Boredpayne and myself.
Now, onto the counterargument directed at me:
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If you aim to work in an over-paid export job that's the risk you take. People get training and switch jobs all the time.
You seem to be referring to something specific to your country and a specific job, so unless you explain what you are talking about it's impossible for me to respond.
People shouldn't HAVE to take a risk every time they are hired for a job. As mentioned in my previous bit, the people who get training and change jobs do so because they have that option. Some single mother who's been living in low-income housing all her life is probably not going to put her newly acquired job on the line to go look for another one.
Nothing specific, no. Just in case you were unaware, US students have to pay FAR more for tuition than Australian students, so going back to school is a huge undertaking. Of course, a low-middle class person isn't going to have a bundle of cash sitting around waiting to be used on college tuition, so they usually have to take out a loan. Since loans work the way they do, a bunch of people have a really hard time paying them off (our loan repayment process is worse than yours too, from the little bit I've read)
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I can see why you decided to brush that one aside huh.
I brushed it aside because it's Wikipedia. It's neither a reliable source of information looking to pose an actual argument, nor will it provide any arguments of its own, only "facts."
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Errr, yes this link is irrelevant *cough cough* brush it aside.
Notice how the bit your quoted only says SPENDABLE income. This does not account for investments, which 100% of rich people partake in. Also notice how it only says this spendable income gap is not increasing, not that it isn't a problem.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I'm not sure if you are being facetious, but all of these links support my arguments?! You have failed to prove that globalisation causes wealth inequality, and you have even failed to prove that wealth inequality is actually bad.
Why is it that all of these links support my arguments and are contrary to yours, Ele's and BP's?! Is it because, as I said previously, reality does not support your hypothesis?!
Those links do not support your hypothesis at all. The bit you quoted just there was just explaining that there are bad arguments. If you look at the site itself, you quickly realize it isn't nonpartisan in the slightest. But it also recognizes that wealth inequality is a thing, and it produces effects that hurt the economy.
Last edited by hawkesnightmare; Dec 6, 2014 at 04:11 AM.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
