Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Sommerswerd]

They already work and are paid that way on your current prices. But there could be significantly less.

The amount significant, of course, relative.

Of course, that is why I mentioned those different pay schemes, but my main point was the "rock bottom" part, with the emphasis that those schemes already facilitate low wages, in ways that more typical/standard wage schemes do not, so the farm workers will be particularly vulnerable to having their wages cut.

Your point about "relative" is well made. Relative to how much it costs you to eat, being the most straightforward concern. If a worker could easily and legally come over to the US from another country... say Mexico, for instance, work all day and then go back home where prices are relatively lower, that worker would be able to make a living on the low wage without having to starve or go homeless...

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not like we're looking to share the ozempic. Plus, can't charge a mint for it on the public dime if everyone that needs it has it.

Best keep them moving and skinny. Eh?

 

[Lexicus]

The other problem with that is that the resources to complete such a massive operation simply do not exist.

I would dispute that, I think the federal government's repressive apparatus is capable of scaling up pretty quickly to do it. But whether that actually happens remains to be seen.

Even if you emptied out every single prison cell in the country to house the deportees, the capacity to detain 11 million people does not exist, and its not even close. You would have to increase prison capacity by a factor of ten.

The precedents for this exist right out in the open, for governments that are serious about detaining people. It doesn't take that long to build concentration camps. I don't have a good sense of the numbers but the prison capacity of the USSR and Nazi Germany must have expanded very quickly when their governments decided they needed to detain a lot of people quickly.

"Can try?" The "try" has already begun... See Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Like I say; they can try. They won't succeed.

I can think of a lot of options that are worse or unworkable, which one are you thinking I would be scared of?

Instead of a repressive apparatus, use the state to build our way out of the conditions of scarcity and insecurity that lead us to think we need to be protected. We can build a world where no one feels the need to flee their home.

 

[Farm Boy]

We've been trying for over 200 years. Since I've been stuck in the lens of history, we might actually be doing the first rate job of it.

The need to be protected, though, is not a delusion. Our dominant might may have made it easy to forget. But North Korea is on the march again, doing and preparing to do who it and its sponsors most hope to do. It's not like they're unique humans.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I would dispute that, I think the federal government's repressive apparatus is capable of scaling up pretty quickly to do it. But whether that actually happens remains to be seen.

The precedents for this exist right out in the open, for governments that are serious about detaining people. It doesn't take that long to build concentration camps. I don't have a good sense of the numbers but the prison capacity of the USSR and Nazi Germany must have expanded very quickly when their governments decided they needed to detain a lot of people quickly.

You can do a lot with drafting and forced mobilization... when the populace is unified in believing in the cause. That isn't the case here. There would be protests. I would attend the protests. You would attend the protests.

If they (Republicans) want to turn what would be a largely, frankly an epically successful performative exercise, into a disastrous literal exercise in fascism, obviously reminiscent, even to their supporters, of WW2 era Germany... they are bigger fools than I took them for, and... I guess... Viva La Resistance... here we go... I'll see you in the streets Lex.

Like I say; they can try. They won't succeed.

WW2 "tried" things... I don't want things like that tried, all things considered.

 

[Samson]

What is your idea then? Everyone is welcome to stay everywhere?

This was the situation basically everywhere until quite recently in historical terms.

 

[Kyriakos]

Imo even if there are indeed over 10 million illegal immigrants, the US has a massive population so that's generally negligible. They can only be a problem if concentrated in one area, but again with the US that is highly unlikely.

 

[Akka]

Do you deny that birth rates among the native-born population of essentially every Western country are well below replacement level? If not, then you know it is a question of whether the population will simply decline or whether it will be replaced by immigrants. If you do deny that, then let me know when you are willing to join us in reality.

I have a hard time seeing the point between what I said and your answer. Yes, most developped countries have natality rate below replacement level (which is GOOD for long-term humanity, BTW, unless you subscribe to the insane capitalistic ideal of infinite growth on a finite planet with finite resources), but how does this lead to "national suicide" ? It's not like we're going to go extinct due to this. While, on the other hand, replacing the population by another IS exactly the definition of "suicide".

On a broader note, I think this point gets at differing definitions of the polity between Europe and the US. The US is not a nation in the conventional sense, it is rather made up of people of many nations (or no nation, as the case may be; many Americans are arguably not meaningfully part of any nation). The states of Europe tend to be conceived as the national states of particular nations (France being the state of the French nation for example). A slightly different point is exactly how porous the boundaries of the nation are. How easy is it for a person to become French? Evidently it is not easy, if immigration is considered to be a "replacement" of the French people rather than an increase in their numbers.

Except you didn't spoke about "the US", but about "the West", which is in majority actual nations (i.e. : a people with historic ties to a location). It's pretty ironic that those who constantly rail against "racism" and are so focused on "identity" are the ones who don't see any problem (and are even encouraging) the actual erasure of existing people and denying their right to keep existing. Guess that's how projection works.

In the US we generally tend to see immigration as increasing the number of Americans rather than replacing Americans. It is therefore not clear what "replacing" the American people would even mean, unless what you actually mean is replacing white people, which...well...good luck making the whites have more babies is all I really got to say about that. I don't think you can terrorize women into returning to the social conditions of the 19th century, but I guess you can try.

Why would we need to have more babies and not simply adapt to a shrinking population ?

My ballot was 2 sides of a legal page and small print: federal races (3), state races (2), city races (2), constitution amendments (4), bonds (12) and judge retention (20)

That kinda illustrates the point I'd say.

This was the situation basically everywhere until quite recently in historical terms.

Kinda not at all actually, considering that mass migrations wasn't a thing outside conquest/colonization until quite recently.

 

[Gorbles]

replacing the population by another IS exactly the definition of "suicide".

I feel pretty confident that isn't exactly the definition of the word suicide at all.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a "cide" of some sort of if done with intent.

 

[Kyriakos]

Everything that can't change, will die. But people prefer to have the ship keep some tie to its previous elements while changing.

 

[Senethro]

Managed decline for me, famine and natural population correction for thee. The moderate face of ecofascism.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have a hard time seeing the point between what I said and your answer. Yes, most developped countries have natality rate below replacement level (which is GOOD for long-term humanity, BTW, unless you subscribe to the insane capitalistic ideal of infinite growth on a finite planet with finite resources), but how does this lead to "national suicide" ? It's not like we're going to go extinct due to this. While, on the other hand, replacing the population by another IS exactly the definition of "suicide".

Except you didn't spoke about "the US", but about "the West", which is in majority actual nations (i.e. : a people with historic ties to a location). It's pretty ironic that those who constantly rail against "racism" and are so focused on "identity" are the ones who don't see any problem (and are even encouraging) the actual erasure of existing people and denying their right to keep existing. Guess that's how projection works.

Why would we need to have more babies and not simply adapt to a shrinking population ?

That kinda illustrates the point I'd say.

Kinda not at all actually, considering that mass migrations wasn't a thing outside conquest/colonization until quite recently.

Problem is pensions or equivalent. Less young workers can't support more older people.

Then young people can't or won't have kids.

Young people have a lot if incentive to logans run old people.

Uncharted territory though.

 

[Samson]

Problem is pensions or equivalent. Less young workers can't support more older people.

I do not get this argument. As long as the system vaguely keeps functioning, why would my pension not be able to sustain me in a world with shrinking population? I talked in the other thread about the relationship between productivity and age dependency ratio.

It certainly would not be a local or national problem, I could put my savings somewhere that is not in terminal decline if my country has such a problem.

Then young people can't or won't have kids.

Young people have a lot if incentive to logans run old people.

Uncharted territory though.

You seriously think young people will actively kill older generations? Or is this some allegory I do not get?

 

[Akka]

Problem is pensions or equivalent. Less young workers can't support more older people.

Then young people can't or won't have kids.

Young people have a lot if incentive to logans run old people.

Uncharted territory though.

Japan has had population in decline for decades now. It's a challenge but it's not doom.
Wealth inequality is a MUUUUCH bigger problem than active population ratio.

And anyway, let's bring up the same point that is ALWAYS deliberately ignored : world population can't increase forever. At some point, we'll need to deal with aging and diminishing population. Refusing to do it is just kicking the can down the road.

I feel pretty confident that isn't exactly the definition of the word suicide at all.

I feel pretty confident that your refusal of recognizing that a people replacing itself with another is "national suicide" is entirely due to political stubborness and not the actual definition which actually fits perfectly.
i.e., bad faith. As usual.

 

[Samson]

I feel pretty confident that your refusal of recognizing that a people replacing itself with another is "national suicide" is entirely due to political stubborness and not the actual definition which actually fits perfectly.

Perhaps you can find some commonly used definition that fits your meaning, but I do not see it outside of the most rabid ethnonationalists. Encouraging immigrants has been common historically, and has added to the economy of countries, the Romans being an example that springs to mind. Is this an example of national suicide?

 

[Kyriakos]

Western Rome did sort of implode due to those foreigners ^^
But not strictly the ones that were assimilated or allied to it - well, the latter also tended to ally with invading barbarian kin.

 

[Gorbles]

I feel pretty confident that your refusal of recognizing that a people replacing itself with another is "national suicide" is entirely due to political stubborness and not the actual definition which actually fits perfectly.
i.e., bad faith. As usual.

I responded perfectly constructively. If you don't want to be called on what "exactly" a word means, please use better language. Semantic strictness is normally something you chide others for (and is indeed one of the things you were trying to nitpick with Lexi - the meaning of "suicide" was integral to the point), and your tired accusations of "bad faith" no longer hold any weight with me.

 

[Moriarte]

Why would we need to have more babies and not simply adapt to a shrinking population ?

To compete with China's and India's labour costs. To hold on to economic leadership. Making yourself irrelevant on the world economic stage will impoverish a nation, relative to other nations. There's moral panic of the western Capital in that two nations with 1.5 billion population each will eventually concentrate all economic activity, because their population levels are too exaggerated and material costs are very low compared to everyone else.

I do not think simply raising population will do the trick. One has to compete with socialist mode of production and the resulting centralisation of resources achieved through this mode of production, which yields superior labour/material costs.

In other words, the only way to defeat the Chinese long terms is not through trying to catch up population wise, but by adjusting the mode of production and by becoming self sufficient in critical industries. Besides, you won't talk the western population into having way more babies. Nor will the citizens en masse agree to have hordes of foreigners immigrate and compete with them.

 

[Samson]

Western Rome did sort of implode due to those foreigners ^^
But not strictly the ones that were assimilated or allied to it - well, the latter also tended to ally with invading barbarian kin.

I did wonder about how that would be interpreted, but my understanding is that the encouragement of immigration was a bigger thing in the earlier years, which is the "good" bit. My classical history is pretty weak to be getting into it here though.

To compete with China's and India's labour costs. To hold on to economic leadership. Making yourself irrelevant on the world economic stage will impoverish a nation, relative to other nations. There's moral panic of the western Capital in that two nations with 1.5 billion population each will eventually concentrate all economic activity, because their population levels are too exaggerated and material costs are very low compared to everyone else.

I do not think simply raising population will do the trick. One has to compete with socialist mode of production and the resulting centralisation of resources achieved through this mode of production, which yields superior labour/material costs.

In other words, the only way to defeat the Chinese long terms is not through trying to catch up population wise, but by adjusting the mode of production and by becoming self sufficient in critical industries. Besides, you won't talk the western population into having way more babies. Nor will the citizens en masse agree to have hordes of foreigners immigrate and compete with them.

This only makes sense from a particular view on the value of a state. Is it bad for Australia to have a low population density, even if it good for Australians?

Are we "defeating" China by being a bigger economy in total, or by being better of individually?