Korean Job Discussion Forums

jvalmer · Joined: 06 Jun 2003

^ Yes I agree it's debatable if it could be successfully implemented somewhere. But a lot of great things have had it's doubters. Yes, more people will just sit around and do nothing, but I'd say that would max out around 10%.

I'd say most people will continue working, and may even work for a lower wage which would benefit the employer. The employer also doesn't need to pay into pension and unemployment which saves the employer more money. Also many would consider working in retail part time to supplement their income. Or maybe more volunteer work.

If you had the basic income, you could eliminate old age security and welfare. You can even cut out government subsidies of university tuition (in Canada). And the garbage men that don't want to work well then you can pay the one who does more money, therefore more efficient. Or maybe automate more things which makes it cheaper for companies. Also you can also make payments only available to natural born citizens which would prevent immigrants taking advantage of it. So immigrants will still work lousy jobs for lousy wages. Also maybe start payments when you reach 13 or some other standard age. Also if you're in a household of 3 or 4 people that could potentially be 4x the income and more people willing to take more risks and starting small businesses.

The way things are going these high unemployment rates are here to stay. I'd say in the future 10% unemployment will be considered low.

rollo · Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China

Apparently the reining in of China has began. The Brazillian finance minister talked of a currency war yesterday. The U.s. has passed a resolution that if China does not reevaluate the R.M.B. they will face tariffs.

The British U.S. actions in the Burma theater sapped Japan of strength. also the Nationalist who I believe haad about 4 million troops in action weakened the japanese. By the time the Soviets attacked Japan was on its knees. The Japanese fought the U.
S China . the U.K. and Australia and various guerilla movements for three years. They endured massive bombings for three years. Their entire merchant fleet was sunk and it still took two strikes by nuclear weapons to get them to surrender.

They no doubt have nuclear weapons and because of their innovation in Technology they enjoy a substantial advantage over China. The first stage of course would be the seizure of Korea after a Chinese invasion.
After the Chinese are done with that party the Japanese would strike.

comm · Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Japan has been dependent on imports of natural resources since before WWII. If it feels this supply is threatened it will lash out violently, as it has in the past.

As it stands though, China's strength is in exports, which other countries have significant influence over. So China wont screw with Japan's sea-lane security too much or much of the world may be willing to put the screws on their export economy. If this were to escalate, Japan would DEFINITELY win a conventional war with the Chinese just because their economy is more internally stable.

I'd recommend reading "The Next 100 Years" if you haven't yet. It's a delicious lesson in past and future geopolitics.

Summer Wine · Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Location: Next to a River

Are you guys still refighting WW2?

Listen if you don't have a way or idea to reign in nationalism in China, who do seem to be following a similar path as the military nationalists of Japan 1880s - 90s and onwards.

Then could you at least offer up solutions that dont end with a similar situation that occured in the mid 1940s or the early 1940s. (oh, pass them onto the Chinese govt and people - some who do seem to be pretty extreme in thier beliefs)

The early 1940s didnt win too many supporters in my neck of the woods. I am not sure I want to live through a world war, though if I have too then I have too.

(eddited)

rollo · Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China

You are correct rehashing history doesnt help. I think what the U.s. is doing by forcing the Chinese to revalue their currency is a way of reining China in. Now if the E.U. and the other Bric nations will go along it would slow down the Chinese economy and possibly force internal changes in China. Things are different than the 1930's and 40's. This time I dont think the world's hyper power will let the Asian situation fester like the British did in the 20's and thirties. Of course the Brits were quite happy with the Soviets , Japanese and Chinese feud. It served their purpose. But they underestimated Japan.

I really doubt that if a war did break out that the current Chinese government could remain in power or China would hold together. Tibet and the Uigyur areas and parts of South China would go their own way. The Mao dynasty has held on for 61 years but China has always been amoeba-like constantly shrinking, growing splitting. A difficult people to govern.

Interesting that the current Chinese government is an exact replica of the qing dynasty court . A supreme leader a chief advisor, a council of advisors and huge buruearacy. Also like the qing they really only control Beijing. Various Magnates control the other provinces. A small elite governing a billion and a half.