|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| smee18 wrote: |
LMMAO, senior, you just won't stop ...
"It's more expensive for a rich person to have kids than a poor person."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah |
Think about it for two seconds.
If the mother is making 100K a year, she has to give that up in order to have a kid.
A woman on welfare gives up nothing. In some countries her income actually INCREASES!!!!!!!!!!!
So the (opportunity) cost for our theoretical rich woman is 100 grand. For our theoretical poor person it could potentially be a positive gain!
This is elementary econ. You learn this in 101. That you don't get this point pretty much negates any input you have made on this thread in the area of econ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| smee18 wrote: |
Senior, I don't think your an advocate of the Chicago school. 'Play school' is more where your ideas come from. Speaking of which, this is a real pearler:
"Human existence isn't beneficial to the planet. But I refuse to feel guilty for that. If humans didn't exist there would be no one to enjoy the planet."
I mean, WTF dude? Are you really a university graduate? |
You just proved your self to be illiterate in the field of basic econ.
What exactly is wrong with this statement? Should I beat myself up for being alive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Old Seen has a point about population growth rate declining as nations get wealthier as that correlation has been noted in many-a statistical analysis, but the unfortunate tendency with folk who seem to over-emphasise "the market" and economics in general to the exclusion of apparently anything else, they overlook other factors.
The economic argument about birthrate presents interesting, but again rather one-dimensional account of lower birth rates. Is there no room in this analysis increases in personal freedom, esp. in the West? Alternatiely, are birth rates lowering because an intensification of market competition means people feel unable to have as many children as they may want? Lower birthrates being brought about by uncertainty and insecurity?
Old Seen is basically saying that wealthier folk stop having as many babies. However, by this standard the old Eastern Bloc must be exceedingly wealthy, since their birth rate is even lower than in the rich nations. This drop also co-incided with an increase in economic uncertainty.
Hell, I'm not taking issue with what old Seen is saying, just that it skims over or ignores so much more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As an addendum, I might also moot the idea of changing patterns of childhood as an impact on birth-rate. Back in the day when kids could be put to work earlier, then having kids was more of an economic asset, since they could much sooner contribute to the household income. Contrast to nowadays, where some kids may not start earning until they're in their early 20s, and in the time running up must be supported. Much bigger cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Isn't the United States fertility rate all ready below the level required to simply replace the population? I don't think we need to be instituting any policies which will decrease our national reproductive rate. Population contraction is not a good thing. |
I'd agree, but the kids being born into welfare homes just perpetuate the cycle. Sure, some escape it, but many just end up parents in their teens. I hate to generalize, but it's a sad truth in many cases. Not all, but enough to be a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
Old Seen has a point about population growth rate declining as nations get wealthier as that correlation has been noted in many-a statistical analysis, but the unfortunate tendency with folk who seem to over-emphasise "the market" and economics in general to the exclusion of apparently anything else, they overlook other factors.
The economic argument about birthrate presents interesting, but again rather one-dimensional account of lower birth rates. Is there no room in this analysis increases in personal freedom, esp. in the West? Alternatiely, are birth rates lowering because an intensification of market competition means people feel unable to have as many children as they may want? Lower birthrates being brought about by uncertainty and insecurity? |
Personal and economic freedom are two sides of the same coin. Both are necessities for economic growth.
Why would people feel insecure or uncertain about "intensification of market competition"? What does that even mean? People are afraid of lower prices and more choice?
| Quote: |
| Old Seen is basically saying that wealthier folk stop having as many babies. However, by this standard the old Eastern Bloc must be exceedingly wealthy, since their birth rate is even lower than in the rich nations. This drop also co-incided with an increase in economic uncertainty. |
That is what I am saying, but in your example, the opposite is the case. Many countries in that area have more freedom and freer economic rights than during the communist era. It's probably not surprising that birth rates declined. However, obviously there may be other factors at play.
| Quote: |
| Hell, I'm not taking issue with what old Seen is saying, just that it skims over or ignores so much more. |
There is more, obviously. However, I harp on the free markets thing because if you get growth right, everything else tends to fall into place. Basically every problem we have as a society is related to poverty. If you cure the poverty, the problems go away.
We know what causes growth. It is personal and economic freedom.
Everything else is just obsessing over the color of the drapes while the house is on fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
Old Seen has a point about population growth rate declining as nations get wealthier as that correlation has been noted in many-a statistical analysis, but the unfortunate tendency with folk who seem to over-emphasise "the market" and economics in general to the exclusion of apparently anything else, they overlook other factors.
The economic argument about birthrate presents interesting, but again rather one-dimensional account of lower birth rates. Is there no room in this analysis increases in personal freedom, esp. in the West? Alternatiely, are birth rates lowering because an intensification of market competition means people feel unable to have as many children as they may want? Lower birthrates being brought about by uncertainty and insecurity? |
Personal and economic freedom are two sides of the same coin. Both are necessities for economic growth.
Why would people feel insecure or uncertain about "intensification of market competition"? What does that even mean? People are afraid of lower prices and more choice?
| Quote: |
| Old Seen is basically saying that wealthier folk stop having as many babies. However, by this standard the old Eastern Bloc must be exceedingly wealthy, since their birth rate is even lower than in the rich nations. This drop also co-incided with an increase in economic uncertainty. |
That is what I am saying, but in your example, the opposite is the case. Many countries in that area have more freedom and freer economic rights than during the communist era. It's probably not surprising that birth rates declined. However, obviously there may be other factors at play.
| Quote: |
| Hell, I'm not taking issue with what old Seen is saying, just that it skims over or ignores so much more. |
There is more, obviously. However, I harp on the free markets thing because if you get growth right, everything else tends to fall into place. Basically every problem we have as a society is related to poverty. If you cure the poverty, the problems go away.
We know what causes growth. It is personal and economic freedom.
Everything else is just obsessing over the color of the drapes while the house is on fire. |
Seeny, by intensification of market competition I'm alluding to declining job security over the past 20 years or so, the growth of temp working, out-sourcing of jobs and so on. I'm suggesting it's hard to start a family when you can't be certain of your job prospects. Though quite right about lower prices, that's not so much fun if you can't establish stability in your work life to enjoy it.
Indeed about declining populations in the old Eastern-Bloc, there is much at play, I did conducted/wrote a statistical analysis about it a year ago using god-damn near-unusable econometric computer program, although I was focused on alcohol and drug problems rather than indices of economic freedom. It was a fascinating topic I thought.
As for personal and economic freedom being two-sides of the same coin and necessities for economic growth- I can see what you're saying for the first part, but I think the second part is a moot point, Seen, old bean. Although I would agree with you that personal and economic freedom do lead to higher quality economic growth over time, they are not necessary to it, otherwise no authoritarian society anywhere ever would grow. (Though having said that, I'm guessing it is what you meant anyway.)
Curtain drapes on fire- yeah I'm not disputing that economics and the reduction of poverty aren't at the crux of the question, but I think your comment goes too far in being so dismissive though, which is something, like I said, I've noticed in people who are very gung-ho about economics and markets. I remember my economics professor was pretty scathing about this quality in his colleagues too, when he did his final class before retiring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
Seeny, by intensification of market competition I'm alluding to declining job security over the past 20 years or so, the growth of temp working, out-sourcing of jobs and so on. I'm suggesting it's hard to start a family when you can't be certain of your job prospects. Though quite right about lower prices, that's not so much fun if you can't establish stability in your work life to enjoy it. |
The problems you allude to aren't problems with the market. They are problems caused by govt intervention.
Out sourcing of jobs is bad for the people in those jobs but good for everyone else. There is a net gain to society when jobs go overseas. It makes the good being produced cheaper, which leads to more jobs in other parts of the economy.
Temp work is probably a response to regulations or something. I don't really see how it is a problem. It suits some people better.
I would've thought that 10% UNemployment would be the biggest issue.
| Quote: |
| As for personal and economic freedom being two-sides of the same coin and necessities for economic growth- I can see what you're saying for the first part, but I think the second part is a moot point, Seen, old bean. Although I would agree with you that personal and economic freedom do lead to higher quality economic growth over time, they are not necessary to it, otherwise no authoritarian society anywhere ever would grow. (Though having said that, I'm guessing it is what you meant anyway.) |
Authoritarian govts rarely grow. The ones that do had fairly free economies BEFORE they became more restricted. Germany and Russia in the early part of the 20th century for example.
| Quote: |
| Curtain drapes on fire- yeah I'm not disputing that economics and the reduction of poverty aren't at the crux of the question, but I think your comment goes too far in being so dismissive though, which is something, like I said, I've noticed in people who are very gung-ho about economics and markets. I remember my economics professor was pretty scathing about this quality in his colleagues too, when he did his final class before retiring. |
I just don't see the point in faffing about, when we know full well how to fix 99% of the major issues facing man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
Seeny, by intensification of market competition I'm alluding to declining job security over the past 20 years or so, the growth of temp working, out-sourcing of jobs and so on. I'm suggesting it's hard to start a family when you can't be certain of your job prospects. Though quite right about lower prices, that's not so much fun if you can't establish stability in your work life to enjoy it. |
The problems you allude to aren't problems with the market. They are problems caused by govt intervention.
Out sourcing of jobs is bad for the people in those jobs but good for everyone else. There is a net gain to society when jobs go overseas. It makes the good being produced cheaper, which leads to more jobs in other parts of the economy.
Temp work is probably a response to regulations or something. I don't really see how it is a problem. It suits some people better.
I would've thought that 10% UNemployment would be the biggest issue.
| Quote: |
| As for personal and economic freedom being two-sides of the same coin and necessities for economic growth- I can see what you're saying for the first part, but I think the second part is a moot point, Seen, old bean. Although I would agree with you that personal and economic freedom do lead to higher quality economic growth over time, they are not necessary to it, otherwise no authoritarian society anywhere ever would grow. (Though having said that, I'm guessing it is what you meant anyway.) |
Authoritarian govts rarely grow. The ones that do had fairly free economies BEFORE they became more restricted. Germany and Russia in the early part of the 20th century for example.
| Quote: |
| Curtain drapes on fire- yeah I'm not disputing that economics and the reduction of poverty aren't at the crux of the question, but I think your comment goes too far in being so dismissive though, which is something, like I said, I've noticed in people who are very gung-ho about economics and markets. I remember my economics professor was pretty scathing about this quality in his colleagues too, when he did his final class before retiring. |
I just don't see the point in faffing about, when we know full well how to fix 99% of the major issues facing man. |
Indeed temping does suit some people better, especially if it's for some specialist or niche skill that can command high pay. What I'm talking about are the crappy office temp jobs that pay a pittance and are short term. In the late 90s I was in such a household and it was brutal- not an environment conducive to making babies.
Indeed, I agree that the lower prices do benefit the wider society, but the lowering of job security is bad for individuals affected, and so may lead to the delaying of starting a family, (which is what we were talking about, rather than the broader merits or otherwise of outsourcing, which can be a tale for another day).
Faffing around? As an aside, Seen old boy, "man does not live by bread alone". Making people richer does indeed solve the most serious problems about hunger and whatnot, but we're talking about baby-making. My original suggestion being that birth-rate is affected by more than rising incomes alone, that baby-making is affected by more than people looking at their pay cheque and saying "hmmm, according to the laws of economics, and as I am a totally rational economic agent like in the economics textbooks, it makes no sense for me to have 2 babies when one baby costs $x". Some sort of subjective assessment of the stability one's situation surely comes into play (hence my allusion to job insecurity as it affects individuals on the sharp end, or people in temp jobs who are struggling to find permanent work, who might be thinking about having children), and also reasonable expectations of how long you'll have to support said child (hence my allusion to changing social notions of childhood since the days of 8 year olds working in factories or mines to bring money to their parents). I'm not disagreeing that rising incomes have an effect, and that individuals and society are richer is good, but what I am suggesting is that other factors are not as negligible as you might think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has this free market ever existed? I am fairly confident that it hasn't, but please correct me if I am wrong. You are arguing a theory that hasn't and probably can not ever be proven in a large scale real world scenario. In a free market competition would cease to exist, one company would become the most effective at something, become a monopoly and then control price and market for the product getting rid of the price benefits the free market is supposed to provide. I am a big fan of the FDA. I want to know that the products that I purchase are safe, not find out by seeing people get sick or die and then letting the market fix the problem. I mean does the name Upton Sinclair mean nothing to you? Child Labor? Read the book "The Jungle" to look your philosophy eye to eye.
Feel free to keep arguing for your ideas, but until they are tested thats all they will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
Faffing around? As an aside, Seen old boy, "man does not live by bread alone". Making people richer does indeed solve the most serious problems about hunger and whatnot, but we're talking about baby-making. My original suggestion being that birth-rate is affected by more than rising incomes alone, that baby-making is affected by more than people looking at their pay cheque and saying "hmmm, according to the laws of economics, and as I am a totally rational economic agent like in the economics textbooks, it makes no sense for me to have 2 babies when one baby costs $x". Some sort of subjective assessment of the stability one's situation surely comes into play (hence my allusion to job insecurity as it affects individuals on the sharp end, or people in temp jobs who are struggling to find permanent work, who might be thinking about having children), and also reasonable expectations of how long you'll have to support said child (hence my allusion to changing social notions of childhood since the days of 8 year olds working in factories or mines to bring money to their parents). I'm not disagreeing that rising incomes have an effect, and that individuals and society are richer is good, but what I am suggesting is that other factors are not as negligible as you might think. |
It doesn't really matter, because I would be opposed to any form of social engineering, that would attempt to affect change in this area, anyway.
The reason we don't have kids working in mines anymore is because of economic growth. It has nothing to do with child labor laws. Child labor laws are actually not beneficial for children. Unintended consequences always occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Has this free market ever existed? I am fairly confident that it hasn't, but please correct me if I am wrong. |
Once again, this debate has been done to death. A true "pure" free market has never existed. But, there have been times of greater and less freedom.
The period leading up to the Industrial revolution in Europe and North America, is such a time. Blocks on the market working correctly did exist but nothing like today. They had a real currency and no income tax during that time for instance.
Personal freedom was a lot worse back then, though. Slavery still existed for instance.
| Quote: |
| You are arguing a theory that hasn't and probably can not ever be proven in a large scale real world scenario. |
Govt intervention fails every day. Yet people still advocate it. If you let the market flourish, it always creates growth. Look at economically freer countries. they are richer. How hard is that to understand?
| Quote: |
In a free market competition would cease to exist, one company would become the most effective at something, become a monopoly and then control price and market for the product getting rid of the price benefits the free market is supposed to provide. |
This is just stupid. Give an example of when this ever happened. You could say Standard Oil in the early 20th century, but John D. Rockefeller was so ruthless in his competition, that he drove the price of oil down to virtually zero! How is that a bad thing? These types of monopolies are a good thing! If they don't keep providing the product at the right price competitors will soon come in who will.
Monopolies can only exist because of govt regulation and intervention. And monopolies aren't automatically a bad thing. This has been done to death.
| Quote: |
I am a big fan of the FDA. I want to know that the products that I purchase are safe, not find out by seeing people get sick or die and then letting the market fix the problem. I mean does the name Upton Sinclair mean nothing to you? Child Labor? Read the book "The Jungle" to look your philosophy eye to eye. |
The FDA approves dangerous products all the time. And it bans perfectly safe ones as well.
The regulations put in place after the Chinese lead toys debacle basically killed small toy makers, whilst the larger firms Mattel Hasbro etc made a killing. More corporatism.
I have read "The Jungle". Did you notice the amount of govt corruption in the story?
| Quote: |
| Feel free to keep arguing for your ideas, but until they are tested thats all they will be. |
Intervention has been tested, and has been proved to fail consistently. Your own example of the FDA is a prime example of this type of failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeonmunka
Joined: 05 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ... the kids being born into welfare homes just perpetuate the cycle. Sure, some escape it, but many just end up parents in their teens. I hate to generalize, but it's a sad truth in many cases. |
Just in the same way that kids from rich families invariably end up rich, too - 'money makes money.'
Sometimes kids from rich families end up addicted to meth or have heaps of psychotic problems, yet they don't end up in the ghetto - they end up in clinics.
It's all a big Have if you ask me. I don't begrudge the poor for being poor, nor for perpetuating the cycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Has this free market ever existed? I am fairly confident that it hasn't, but please correct me if I am wrong. You are arguing a theory that hasn't and probably can not ever be proven in a large scale real world scenario. |
Generally, when people use the term 'free market', what they mean is economic freedom.
So, has economic freedom ever existed? Yes, of course, and just look at the manifold blessings it has produced.
| Leon wrote: |
| In a free market competition would cease to exist |
which might imply that consumers are satisfied and there is no need for competition.
| Leon wrote: |
| one company would become the most effective at something, become a monopoly and then control price and market for the product getting rid of the price benefits the free market is supposed to provide. |
And what would be the best hard evidence in favor of this belief, in your view?
| Leon wrote: |
| I am a big fan of the FDA. |
Facinating stuff, Leon. Be sure to keep us all fully informed as to the things you're a "big fan" of, won't you?
| Leon wrote: |
| I want to know that the products that I purchase are safe, not find out by seeing people get sick or die and then letting the market fix the problem. |
And who, in the absence of "the market", will "fix" this, in your view?
I love this. You make it so easy.
You are a lefty, right? So you believe that the prohibition of alcohol and the prohibition of drugs has had the complete reversal of its intended effects (I agree), yes?
And yet, I assume (correct me if I'm strawmanning), it's simultaneously your view that it was the government prohibition of child labor, and only that, that eradicated child labor?
Prohibition of alcohol and drugs, essentially, nurtured the expansion of the Mafia. And yet, according to leftists, prohibition of child labor, and only that, eradicated child labor! I love it.
| Leon wrote: |
| Read the book "The Jungle" to look your philosophy eye to eye. |
You want us to read a novel?
Presumably, this is a reflection of the paucity of any actual evidence you have in favor of your views.
| Leon wrote: |
| Feel free to keep arguing for your ideas, but until they are tested thats all they will be. |
The kind of society you admire was "tested" in China during the Great Leap Forward, in Russia during Stalin's Purges and in Cambodia in the late 1970s.
Marxists only killed 100 million people. 100 million is nothing. Let's give Marxism another try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
