U.S. Will Need to Create 'Unprecedented' 35 Million New Jobs if Immigration Bill

[Hawker]

I have a proposed solution, but you won't like it.

Go ahead try me.

Rational ignorance is the problem. Voters have little incentive to make sure they're getting the right news, making the right decisions, or even voting at all. So the question is, how to give them that incentive? Give them exactly what they ask for. If the reason democracy is so fragile is that each individual vote matters so little in the grand scheme of things, we should make each vote matter a great deal - to the person making it. Why do we not hear about massive numbers of shirts not fitting? Because every person can get the shirt that fits him. Why do we not hear about massive disappointment in fast food? Because every person can get the fast food that they want. It's been said that we pick our presidents the same way we pick our laundry detergent, so why don't we hear about how low the "approval rating" is of Tide detergent? Because every person gets the detergent they want.

The market works so well for everything else, why do we give the most important things to a monopoly?

Because you can't have competing states without more violence than most people want. 

[1715140748]

1715140748

[1715140748]

1715140748

[1715140748]

1715140748

[1715140748]

1715140748

[myrkul]

I have a proposed solution, but you won't like it.

Go ahead try me.

Rational ignorance is the problem. Voters have little incentive to make sure they're getting the right news, making the right decisions, or even voting at all. So the question is, how to give them that incentive? Give them exactly what they ask for. If the reason democracy is so fragile is that each individual vote matters so little in the grand scheme of things, we should make each vote matter a great deal - to the person making it. Why do we not hear about massive numbers of shirts not fitting? Because every person can get the shirt that fits him. Why do we not hear about massive disappointment in fast food? Because every person can get the fast food that they want. It's been said that we pick our presidents the same way we pick our laundry detergent, so why don't we hear about how low the "approval rating" is of Tide detergent? Because every person gets the detergent they want.

The market works so well for everything else, why do we give the most important things to a monopoly?

Because you can't have competing states without more violence than most people want. 

There's no reason for market competition of governments to cause violence. In fact, you would expect the opposite, a reduction in politically motivated violence.

[Kluge]

Erm - just for some insight from someone who semi-recently had to look for unskilled employment (even though the OP topic was apparently dropped 2-3 pages ago) -- if they can get a GED (maybe not even essential), there's a high level of demand for them pretty much everywhere in the country, because Americans aren't taking these jobs (in fact, the company I was at has frequently considered moving, possibly out-of-country, because they're paying $15/hr to a staffing agency and still have crazy-high turnover and have turned "over-time" into "expected time" because they simply don't have enough labor). It's not even the minimum wage law fucking them over. The jobs are very tedious and have long hours (night-shift is pretty much in-demand at every factory on Earth), but pay $8.50-$13.50 an hour, 65-80 hours/wk, anything over 48h = 1.5x pay, 2x on Sunday, so... yeah... tons of jobs for unskilled workers, but not tons of people willing to stand on their feet 11h/day willing to do an exceptionally unfulfilling and tedious job working every day of the week. Bring on the Mexicans!

ETA: Racial stereotype alert!

[Hawker]

I have a proposed solution, but you won't like it.

Go ahead try me.

Rational ignorance is the problem. Voters have little incentive to make sure they're getting the right news, making the right decisions, or even voting at all. So the question is, how to give them that incentive? Give them exactly what they ask for. If the reason democracy is so fragile is that each individual vote matters so little in the grand scheme of things, we should make each vote matter a great deal - to the person making it. Why do we not hear about massive numbers of shirts not fitting? Because every person can get the shirt that fits him. Why do we not hear about massive disappointment in fast food? Because every person can get the fast food that they want. It's been said that we pick our presidents the same way we pick our laundry detergent, so why don't we hear about how low the "approval rating" is of Tide detergent? Because every person gets the detergent they want.

The market works so well for everything else, why do we give the most important things to a monopoly?

Because you can't have competing states without more violence than most people want. 

There's no reason for market competition of governments to cause violence. In fact, you would expect the opposite, a reduction in politically motivated violence.

A quick flight to Damascus might help you see why most people disagree with you.  At least 3 governments claim the city and they are duking it out with violence.  You may well feel that is not normal way for states to settle border disputes but its what people expect.

[myrkul]

I have a proposed solution, but you won't like it.

Go ahead try me.

Rational ignorance is the problem. Voters have little incentive to make sure they're getting the right news, making the right decisions, or even voting at all. So the question is, how to give them that incentive? Give them exactly what they ask for. If the reason democracy is so fragile is that each individual vote matters so little in the grand scheme of things, we should make each vote matter a great deal - to the person making it. Why do we not hear about massive numbers of shirts not fitting? Because every person can get the shirt that fits him. Why do we not hear about massive disappointment in fast food? Because every person can get the fast food that they want. It's been said that we pick our presidents the same way we pick our laundry detergent, so why don't we hear about how low the "approval rating" is of Tide detergent? Because every person gets the detergent they want.

The market works so well for everything else, why do we give the most important things to a monopoly?

Because you can't have competing states without more violence than most people want. 

There's no reason for market competition of governments to cause violence. In fact, you would expect the opposite, a reduction in politically motivated violence.

A quick flight to Damascus might help you see why most people disagree with you.  At least 3 governments claim the city and they are duking it out with violence.  You may well feel that is not normal way for states to settle border disputes but its what people expect.

That's the problem. they all claim the city. They want a monopoly on it. Now, if all three were to offer their services on a voluntary, market basis to the citizens of Damascus, the violence would stop, would it not?

[Hawker]

...snip...
That's the problem. they all claim the city. They want a monopoly on it. Now, if all three were to offer their services on a voluntary, market basis to the citizens of Damascus, the violence would stop, would it not?

Um; you've never dealt with deeply religious guys who will kill you for impiety and regard it as a blessing to die in the act of killing you.  The word "voluntary" doesn't enter their way of doing things.  And as a non-believer, you would have a very bad time in their hands.

[myrkul]

I have a proposed solution, but you won't like it.

Go ahead try me.

Rational ignorance is the problem. Voters have little incentive to make sure they're getting the right news, making the right decisions, or even voting at all. So the question is, how to give them that incentive? Give them exactly what they ask for. If the reason democracy is so fragile is that each individual vote matters so little in the grand scheme of things, we should make each vote matter a great deal - to the person making it. Why do we not hear about massive numbers of shirts not fitting? Because every person can get the shirt that fits him. Why do we not hear about massive disappointment in fast food? Because every person can get the fast food that they want. It's been said that we pick our presidents the same way we pick our laundry detergent, so why don't we hear about how low the "approval rating" is of Tide detergent? Because every person gets the detergent they want.

The market works so well for everything else, why do we give the most important things to a monopoly?

Because you can't have competing states without more violence than most people want. 

There's no reason for market competition of governments to cause violence. In fact, you would expect the opposite, a reduction in politically motivated violence.

A quick flight to Damascus might help you see why most people disagree with you.  At least 3 governments claim the city and they are duking it out with violence.  You may well feel that is not normal way for states to settle border disputes but its what people expect.

That's the problem. they all claim the city. They want a monopoly on it. Now, if all three were to offer their services on a voluntary, market basis to the citizens of Damascus, the violence would stop, would it not?

Um; you've never dealt with deeply religious guys who will kill you for impiety and regard it as a blessing to die in the act of killing you.  The word "voluntary" doesn't enter their way of doing things.  And as a non-believer, you would have a very bad time in their hands.  And they are the majority...

None of which speaks in the least to my offered solution to the problem townf stated.

[Hawker]

It means your "solution" won't work.  The nutters won't back down.  "Voluntary" is not part of their philosophy.  So to avoid being killed in the crossfire, people prefer to have 1 government with a monopoly on violence. 

[myrkul]

It means your "solution" won't work.  The nutters won't back down.  "Voluntary" is not part of their philosophy.  So to avoid being killed in the crossfire, people prefer to have 1 government with a monopoly on violence. 

It won't work for them. Because they won't use it. If they won't work the plan, is it any surprise the plan won't work for them?

You'll note that there hasn't been a religious war in the US... ever. Why?

Because we actually accept freedom of religion, and don't see it as a reason to firebomb a pub.

It's the same concept.

[Hawker]

It means your "solution" won't work.  The nutters won't back down.  "Voluntary" is not part of their philosophy.  So to avoid being killed in the crossfire, people prefer to have 1 government with a monopoly on violence.  

It won't work for them. Because they won't use it. If they won't work the plan, is it any surprise the plan won't work for them?

...snip...

And if you were there, it would not work for you either because they won't use it.  So you would have to choose a side with all the risks of violence and abuse that comes with that choice.

That's why people prefer to settle it by giving 1 body a monopoly of violence.

Anyway, this is way off topic.  Tell me you disagree and I'll stop hijacking this thread

[myrkul]

It means your "solution" won't work.  The nutters won't back down.  "Voluntary" is not part of their philosophy.  So to avoid being killed in the crossfire, people prefer to have 1 government with a monopoly on violence.  

It won't work for them. Because they won't use it. If they won't work the plan, is it any surprise the plan won't work for them?

...snip...

And if you were there, it would not work for you either because they won't use it.  So you would have to choose a side with all the risks of violence and abuse that comes with that choice.

That's why people prefer to settle it by giving 1 body a monopoly of violence.

Anyway, this is way off topic.  Tell me you disagree and I'll stop hijacking this thread

I disagree. :p
btw, I'm running a "game" in the politics & society board, it's still in the very early stages, and I'd appreciate your participation. The more the merrier, and I especially want statists to play.

[myrkul]

You may well feel that is not normal way for states to settle border disputes....

See, bottom line, that's the problem. Borders. It's the reason for the problems in the OP, it's the reason for the problems in Damascus, it's the reason for practically every political problem.

[townf]

Totally free and unchecked markets will always eventually cartelize, then monopolize. Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it. A market for armed force will do this sooner rather than later, due to the nature of its "commodity".

As for other markets to replace government, up to and including government services as you said earlier, I can go for that, except for the inevitible tendency for these things to monopolize naturally, leaving us with corporate fascism, which is a form of government much like we have now.

How will free markets providing for any and all services and institutions enforce fair and peaceful competition in order to avoid monopolies? They need external forces to keep the players honest within them. The players in any market, if they are allowed to, will abide by "Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it".

[myrkul]

Totally free and unchecked markets will always eventually cartelize, then monopolize.

Why do I always hear this fallacy?

Can you prove that, through either logic or historical evidence?

They need external forces to keep the players honest within them.

The players keep each other honest just fine. You, too, are welcome to join my game.

[townf]

Totally free and unchecked markets will always eventually cartelize, then monopolize. Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it. A market for armed force will do this sooner rather than later, due to the nature of its "commodity".

As for other markets to replace government, up to and including government services as you said earlier, I can go for that, except for the inevitible tendency for these things to monopolize naturally, leaving us with corporate fascism, which is a form of government much like we have now.

How will free markets providing for any and all services and institutions enforce fair and peaceful competition in order to avoid monopolies? They need external forces to keep the players honest within them. The players in any market, if they are allowed to, will abide by "Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it".

This sums up my whole problem with agorism. Other than this, i love it. But monopoly is actually a form of "state", and i don't see how agorism keeps this "state" vacuum empty.

[myrkul]

This sums up my whole problem with agorism. Other than this, i love it. But monopoly is actually a form of "state", and i don't see how agorism keeps this "state" vacuum empty.

It doesn't. Agorism is how to get from what we have now to a market anarchy. Market anarchy keeps the "state vacuum" empty by recognizing that it is not a vacuum. There is no need for people to take money by force to provide services. Those services can and should be provided on the market.

[townf]

Totally free and unchecked markets will always eventually cartelize, then monopolize.

Why do I always hear this fallacy?

Can you prove that, through either logic or historical evidence?

It's true. It's logical. It's human nature. It's animal nature.

The logic is bombproof and used by the the players themselves: "Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it." How do you convince the players to do otherwise?

Historically there are tons of examples: Rockefeller, Mt Gox, US Steel, Bell, Rothschild, Wal Mart, OPEC, the FED, ...

Some of these are cartels or overly dominant players, but you can see what im saying.

This sums up my whole problem with agorism. Other than this, i love it. But monopoly is actually a form of "state", and i don't see how agorism keeps this "state" vacuum empty.

It doesn't. Agorism is how to get from what we have now to a market anarchy. Market anarchy keeps the "state vacuum" empty by recognizing that it is not a vacuum. There is no need for people to take money by force to provide services. Those services can and should be provided on the market.

I don't see how these services provided in these markets don't get provided by fewer and fewer players over time as they unchecked gobble each other up until the whole thing is replaced by corporate fascism.

For example, how is company A in a market prevented from saying, "hey look company B is having trouble, let's merge" and acting on it? Now company A has a bigger customer base and there is one less player in the market. This happens all the time.

Or what about slandering company B into oblivion, or any other shenanigan? Or simply just fairly outcompeting everybody else? Or engage in cartel tactics? Statistically, over time, I can't see how it doesn't happen.

I'm thinking that if agorism addressed this phenomenon, it would have happened a long time ago and remained and we would be living in utopia already.

[townf]

We are officially 100% off topic lol

[myrkul]

Historically there are tons of examples: Rockefeller, Mt Gox, US Steel, Bell, Rothschild, Wal Mart, OPEC, the FED, ...

Some of these are cartels or overly dominant players, but you can see what im saying.

OK, now, do you know the difference between a coercive monopoly, and a natural monopoly?
Standard Oil, at it's peak, had 88% of the refinery market. Hardly a monopoly. By the time the regulation came in, they were down to 60-something percent. If anything, the regulation prevented them from losing more. And for a real eye-opener, check the prices of heating oil for that time period, too. MGox, again, does not have 100% of the trades. The only actual monopoly you mentioned is the Fed, and they are a monopoly only by virtue of government force.

Economies of scale do tend to lead one or two agencies to be dominant players. That does not mean that they have, or even can control, the entire market. And not every industry is one where economies of scale play a major part. Government's stated purpose, the provision of security, in fact, is clearly one of those where diseconomies of scale come into play.

I don't see how these services provided in these markets don't get provided by fewer and fewer players over time as they unchecked gobble each other up until the whole thing is replaced by corporate fascism.

Again, it comes down to natural monopolies, game theory, and dis/economies of scale. If a company is fairly out-competing all the others, then there is no reason why they should not be the dominant player. "Shenanigans," as you call them, would be prevented, as the natural requirement of a free market. I'd have to go pretty in-depth on free-market law to explain exactly how. Let's just leave it at "Slander is a form of fraud, and fraud is a no-no," for now.

Let's assume that a company manages to become the only player in a particular industry, because they can provide their service more cheaply and effectively than all the others. What then? Can they start to raise their prices? No, because the moment they raise them enough for a competitor to make a profit by undercutting them, that's exactly what will happen. Can they provide poor service? No, because the moment they do, a competitor can enter the market promising better service, and people will pay a little extra. The only way you can sustain a natural monopoly is by maintaining the conditions which allowed you to gain that position in the first place - ie, being the best in the marketplace.

I'm thinking that if agorism addressed this phenomenon, it would have happened a long time ago and remained and we would be living in utopia already.

Agorism, as a strategy, is only about as old as I am. Sam Konkin came up with it in the late 70's. Drastic political change takes longer than 30-odd years to happen.

We are officially 100% off topic lol

Yes and no. Often, something that is seen as going off-topic is actually just striking the root of the problem expressed in the OP.

[Mike Christ]

Specifically addressing the "human nature" argument: see here.  It's a long series, but a good watch.  Because people can be "fixed" to act in a specific way, we can use the "human nature" argument anywhere; because John killed a guy, it's in his nature, and thus a part of human nature.  If John saves a guy, instead, would that go against human nature?  No, John did that too; it must also be apart of human nature.  Now, to argue that it's human nature to be a businessman and to stab your competitors in the back to ensure your business remains on top is merely sociopathic behavior, unfitting for all of the human race; the reason why you only hear of it, and why only those on top used such methods to get there, is because they've all been the same kin; they're not like you or I (I assume), e.g., people who express empathy, and thus can ruin thousands of people's lives without any remorse whatsoever.  We only see one side of this game; where Joe has the leading industry because he ran Frank and Bill out of business, so Joe's got all that business to himself and doesn't know what to do with it, but what if the three worked together?  As the public is generally unaware that such tactics are even happening, there's nothing they are going to do about it; otherwise, WalMart would've been out of business last decade.  The people behind WalMart are machines, not like us; if anything, their so-called nature goes directly against our nature, and this applies to the sociopaths on the very tip-top, including the Rothschilds and the rest.

So the question becomes; if you could make a decision to, for example, deliberately starve an entire nation, if it resulted in your own profits, would you do it?  If the answer is yes, I can see how such behavior might be mistaken as human nature, as this would be the cold, logical reasoning to improve your own well-being at the cost of others; if the answer is no, however, then we can also see why these examples do not accurately portray the rest of us, who would care if we're damaging another person's well-being with our business practices.  As life leads closer to maximize civil liberties, the sociopaths will become very obvious; there's a few of them on this very forum, if you can spot them.  These are the guys who strive for control, who'll kill when asked by God or a God-like figure, and at the very end of this road, the guys who become the God-like figure, who live their entire lives trying to ascend to this stage, without a single emotion for those they've ruined to get there; if this is what we're calling normal human behavior, it's very disconcerting, to say the least, and I don't believe this is an accurate representation of the natural human being, merely the one we've conditioned for thousands of years.

So how do we answer these questions assuming we're dealing with the human being fashioned much the same way they've been conditioned from the biblical era?  We cannot; it never plays out right, as "human nature" leads us to believe we'll kill when we A.) Cannot be caught, and B.) When it is highly beneficial to oneself.  We must assume we're dealing with a truly free society, where the average Joe is, by today's standards, moderately intelligent, and, at least, knows when he, or his fellow human beings, are being shafted by any given business, which can only happen when the empathy hasn't been beaten out of him at an early age, as is the case today, as we're all living in our own bubbles, and in some cases around the world, wouldn't even stop a woman from being raped in public.