|
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 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| radcon wrote: |
| I don't understand that Danish model. A salary of 80,000 is taxed at 56%. That about 35,000 take home. Yet these youngsters on the dole lead these nice financially secure lives. Their take home must be in the ballpark of 35,000 because Denmark isn't cheap. Why would anyone bother to work? No resentment? |
I'm guessing it must be marginal rates, meaning that they wouldn't pay that rate on all their income, but only on income above 80,000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Anyways, after reading all of this about other countries welfare policies and such I am a bit jealous, here we have a shutdown over something like the ACA, there even the conservative parties wouldn't dream of ending these programs. |
I'm unnerved by your apparently friendly comparison between the two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Anyways, after reading all of this about other countries welfare policies and such I am a bit jealous, here we have a shutdown over something like the ACA, there even the conservative parties wouldn't dream of ending these programs. |
I'm unnerved by your apparently friendly comparison between the two. |
Not commenting on ACA merits, but on the reasons why it is opposed, if that makes sense. More a comment on American political attitudes than on specific policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I wasn't thinking of Sweden, but of Denmark, but couldn't remember what country I was thinking of this morning when I wrote my post. They have a similar system to the ones the Swiss are proposing, and they are having some issues maintaining it, at least based on the limited information I've read about it. They are doing relatively well for Europe though. There birth rate is at 1.7 which is a bit higher than I'd expected, but still low. |
1.7 is not bad. Eliminate feministic anti-maternity culture and they can probably achieve replenishment rates. I feel like you are making my case for me. Remember, I did not say the basic income was a one-stop solution, I said it was only part of the solution.
| Leon wrote: |
| "But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them. |
Unemployment, in-and-of itself, is not necessarily problematic though Leon. The reason unemployment is usually so damning is that it reduces demand, which can lead to further layoffs, and so on in a vicious cycle. Because a basic income creates a minimum level of demand, such cycles are less of a problem; production, not employment in itself, becomes the concern. That's how it should be. So long as we can keep productivity at an adequate level, in principle it is all right if not everyone works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| "Oh, the rich will just stop producing then." |
The rich throw money around hoping one of their investments makes them tons of money. They don't produce, but they do facilitate the ability to produce, by giving opportunities to that young small business owner with that big idea. And that's the role they are supposed to fill anyways. Hopefully, one day I will have amasses enough capital to do this too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Allowing people to extract millions from the economy in hopes that they will give opportunities to small business owners is silly in modern times. Fundraising is easier than ever in the Internet era; a few thousand small investors can fund a good idea just as easily as one hedge-find tick on the body public, and they'll cause fewer societal problems in the bargain.
Ideas of the format, "We need the ultra-wealthy because <insert narrative>," are generally propaganda. Do not fall for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I wasn't thinking of Sweden, but of Denmark, but couldn't remember what country I was thinking of this morning when I wrote my post. They have a similar system to the ones the Swiss are proposing, and they are having some issues maintaining it, at least based on the limited information I've read about it. They are doing relatively well for Europe though. There birth rate is at 1.7 which is a bit higher than I'd expected, but still low. |
1.7 is not bad. Eliminate feministic anti-maternity culture and they can probably achieve replenishment rates. I feel like you are making my case for me. Remember, I did not say the basic income was a one-stop solution, I said it was only part of the solution.
| Leon wrote: |
| "But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them. |
Unemployment, in-and-of itself, is not necessarily problematic though Leon. The reason unemployment is usually so damning is that it reduces demand, which can lead to further layoffs, and so on in a vicious cycle. Because a basic income creates a minimum level of demand, such cycles are less of a problem; production, not employment in itself, becomes the concern. That's how it should be. So long as we can keep productivity at an adequate level, in principle it is all right if not everyone works. |
This issue of demographics is harder than you make it out to be, otherwise I would leave it alone. You keep bringing up feminism, is Japan feminist? Next you will say that it's expensive to raise children, except that even in poor countries this trend exists on a micro level. This is a well researched topic, look it up and you will find more information. The Danes find 1.7 too low, at least according to the newspaper articles I saw, and also it turns out Danish men have weak sperm, which was odd.
I don't find the unemployment as damaging as the aging population. Enough about demographics from me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
This issue of demographics is harder than you make it out to be, otherwise I would leave it alone. You keep bringing up feminism, is Japan feminist? |
From an economic perspective, yes; women are a major part of the mainstream work force. Moreover, Japan does not have a basic income, so how can you hold them against my case. I put forward a small suite of policies intended to counteract low fertility, and none of your counter examples have enacted it in its totality.
You want this to be complicated. Complexity is something you hide behind, because the real world is not friendly to your ideals.
| Leon wrote: |
| Next you will say that it's expensive to raise children, except that even in poor countries this trend exists on a micro level. This is a well researched topic, look it up and you will find more information. |
No, I will not. Present your data, and present it convincingly, because I will vigorously attack it if it is not absolutely solid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
This issue of demographics is harder than you make it out to be, otherwise I would leave it alone. You keep bringing up feminism, is Japan feminist? |
From an economic perspective, yes; women are a major part of the mainstream work force. Moreover, Japan does not have a basic income, so how can you hold them against my case. I put forward a small suite of policies intended to counteract low fertility, and none of your counter examples have enacted it in its totality.
You want this to be complicated. Complexity is something you hide behind, because the real world is not friendly to your ideals.
| Leon wrote: |
| Next you will say that it's expensive to raise children, except that even in poor countries this trend exists on a micro level. This is a well researched topic, look it up and you will find more information. |
No, I will not. Present your data, and present it convincingly, because I will vigorously attack it if it is not absolutely solid. |
I feel like you continually misunderstand this about me, saying things are complicated isn't a defense of my ideas, it is a keystone to my idiots. The world is relatively kind to my ideas, I don't think that an increasing birth rate is a good in and of itself, and that given the exponential growth of the population in the past century the idea that the link between population growth and prosperity is a two way street seems to be intuitive. I don't remember where I read this, but it might have been in the economist piece I linked, but if you want to know how to increase the pop. GF already knows, get rid of birth control, some 1/3 I think of the babies born in the third world are unwanted. If you are willing to argue that it should be illegal to increase the pop. that would be one way to do it. The real world is very unfriendly to a lot of your ideas Fox, we both know this, but don't forget we share many ideas and that I am an advocate for this type of program.
If women working is feminism, then it isn't new, women have always worked to some extent, except that way back when it was agricultural work and they stayed home, but as the means of production changed roles of women changed. The period where women didn't work was the exception, not the rule. If you can disprove it please do.
As to presenting data, you and I both know how time consuming it can be to do so properly. Did you look at the Economist article I linked to earlier, start there. If you want to go on with this, I'm willing, but you have to go first, I've liked data about Swiss demographics and the relationship between prosperity and birthrate. Post some numbers and I will expend the time to go into this, don't and I won't, but asking me to present absolutely solid data while you haven't presented any yet isn't fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| If women working is feminism, then it isn't new, women have always worked to some extent, except that way back when it was agricultural work and they stayed home, but as the means of production changed roles of women changed. |
I believe this is the point. Historically, women's work has always been in or around the home, where they can supplement their natural - and as far as the family is concerned, more important - role of child-rearing. Force them into the workforce outside of the home, and you naturally impair their ability to fulfill their other role.
As for the topic at hand, I certainly agree that basic functions of living should never be a concern, food, shelter, healthcare, (but certainly not children) etc. However, I worry what about the long-term effects of handing out enough to the point that pursuing other means of happiness is not something that need be worked towards. Sustainability of such programs aside, it seems a dangerous gamble to pursue, and for that reason I'm happy for a relatively small and unimportant nation to run the experiment for the rest of us.
I still prefer Kuros's maximum wage suggestion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If women working is feminism, then it isn't new, women have always worked to some extent, except that way back when it was agricultural work and they stayed home, but as the means of production changed roles of women changed. |
I believe this is the point. Historically, women's work has always been in or around the home, where they can supplement their natural - and as far as the family is concerned, more important - role of child-rearing. Force them into the workforce outside of the home, and you naturally impair their ability to fulfill their other role.
As for the topic at hand, I certainly agree that basic functions of living should never be a concern, food, shelter, healthcare, (but certainly not children) etc. However, I worry what about the long-term effects of handing out enough to the point that pursuing other means of happiness is not something that need be worked towards. Sustainability of such programs aside, it seems a dangerous gamble to pursue, and for that reason I'm happy for a relatively small and unimportant nation to run the experiment for the rest of us.
I still prefer Kuros's maximum wage suggestion. |
Men used to work in and around the home too, you can argue about the effects of them working outside of the home legitimately, but to label it all feminism when it was more an inevitable reaction to changing economic systems and means of production doesn't make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the early 20th Century, it was indeed common for women to work outside the home. But it was uncommon for companies to employ married women.
| Quote: |
Clerical occupations and the twenties woman
Married women still did not hold jobs in any great numbers, the exception being married black women who were often forced to out of destitution. Among married white women of both native and immigrant backgrounds, only around 10% worked outside of the home.
Among single women, there was a huge increase in employment during this era. Certain occupations had always been weighted towards women — teachers, social workers, nurses, and librarians. And for those who were working-class, textile mills had been the one type of factory where jobs could be found. And on the farm, women helped out in myriad ways, as they traditionally had.
But now with the rise of the corporate office, a number of other types of jobs opened up. Typists, filing clerks, stenographers, and even some secretarial roles all became possibilities for the ambitious young woman. In an era with absolutely nothing in the way of mass data storage, entire floors of office buildings were filled with the sound of typewriters and filing drawers.
In most offices, desks were lined across a central room in rows, with no cubicle walls and often not even a window. Tasks consisted of things like listening to dictations and typing their contents, of creating and updating ledgers, or of creating bills and sending out requests for payment.
These jobs supported a great number of young women who had fled the poverty of the countryside. In comparison to mills or farming it was an improvement. However, there was little opportunity for advancement and it was monotonous to the extreme. |
As such, the traditionalists on the forum appear correct, insofar as they blame the modern economy for employing mothers and married women. Nevertheless, the liberals on the forum appear justified insofar as they associate female employment outside the household with earlier times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I feel like you continually misunderstand this about me, saying things are complicated isn't a defense of my ideas, it is a keystone to my idiots. |
Freudian slip, or is your smartphone's autocorrect feature simply being cruel to you today?
| Leon wrote: |
| get rid of birth control, some 1/3 I think of the babies born in the third world are unwanted. |
Forcing people to have unwanted babies is of absolutely no interested to me. My concern is the question of how we can encourage a populace to willingly reach and maintain a basic replenishment level of fertility, not how we can induce a population explosion.
| Leon wrote: |
| If women working is feminism, then it isn't new, women have always worked to some extent ... |
"Working" in the sense of "women being productive" is not feminism. "Working" in the sense of "women of child-bearing age spending their time in traditionally male productive spaces instead of at home, where their productivity and child-rearing can occur simultaneously," on the other hand touches on feminism. I shouldn't be too lazy with my terminology: it's not necessarily feminism in itself, but it shares an essence with feminism.
| Leon wrote: |
| If you want to go on with this, I'm willing, but you have to go first, I've liked data about Swiss demographics and the relationship between prosperity and birthrate. Post some numbers and I will expend the time to go into this, don't and I won't, but asking me to present absolutely solid data while you haven't presented any yet isn't fair. |
I asked you for solid data because you said you had solid data, Leon; if you're going to use data to bolster your case, you need to present that data, and if you won't present it, you cannot use it to bolster your case. You ask me for data, but which specific claims that I've made do you want data to back up? That societies benefiting from a basic income are more fertile than societies with comparable cultures but which lack a basic income? You already did that for me with Denmark. That career women have fewer children than stay at home mothers? Do I really need to Google such an intuitive suggestion? I do not generally attack people for making reasoned rhetorical arguments, so I see no reason that I should be assailed on such terms; if you have data which contradicts what I say of course I want to see it, but unless I specifically reference data to support my case, why should you demand it of me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I feel like you continually misunderstand this about me, saying things are complicated isn't a defense of my ideas, it is a keystone to my idiots. |
Freudian slip, or is your smartphone's autocorrect feature simply being cruel to you today?
| Leon wrote: |
| get rid of birth control, some 1/3 I think of the babies born in the third world are unwanted. |
Forcing people to have unwanted babies is of absolutely no interested to me. My concern is the question of how we can encourage a populace to willingly reach and maintain a basic replenishment level of fertility, not how we can induce a population explosion.
| Leon wrote: |
| If women working is feminism, then it isn't new, women have always worked to some extent ... |
"Working" in the sense of "women being productive" is not feminism. "Working" in the sense of "women of child-bearing age spending their time in traditionally male productive spaces instead of at home, where their productivity and child-rearing can occur simultaneously," on the other hand touches on feminism. I shouldn't be too lazy with my terminology: it's not necessarily feminism in itself, but it shares an essence with feminism.
| Leon wrote: |
| If you want to go on with this, I'm willing, but you have to go first, I've liked data about Swiss demographics and the relationship between prosperity and birthrate. Post some numbers and I will expend the time to go into this, don't and I won't, but asking me to present absolutely solid data while you haven't presented any yet isn't fair. |
I asked you for solid data because you said you had solid data, Leon; if you're going to use data to bolster your case, you need to present that data, and if you won't present it, you cannot use it to bolster your case. You ask me for data, but which specific claims that I've made do you want data to back up? That societies benefiting from a basic income are more fertile than societies with comparable cultures but which lack a basic income? You already did that for me with Denmark. That career women have fewer children than stay at home mothers? Do I really need to Google such an intuitive suggestion? I do not generally attack people for making reasoned rhetorical arguments, so I see no reason that I should be assailed on such terms; if you have data which contradicts what I say of course I want to see it, but unless I specifically reference data to support my case, why should you demand it of me? |
I should stop posting with my phone, the autocorrect is more trouble than it's worth. Women and Men work in even different industries now, women tend to be social workers and teachers at far greater rates then men for example, so that hasn't changed entirely. I don't have the time to make as convincing a case as I would like, unfortunately, which is why I tried to drop the topic, but even if this changed the birth rate positively in the long run, in the short run the current demographics are such to cause problems for the proposed system before a new generation would have time to grow up and add their productivity to society, do for this discussion it is almost irrelevant anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A not entirely unrelated comment:
Yesterday I spoke with a friend who has kept in contact with one of our former high school students.
Among the many John Birch Society scions we taught, BS was the most dedicated. BS became the father of 8 children. His eldest, a daughter, is now the mother of 7. So far. (Perhaps liberals need to re-evaluate their stand on abortion, etc. out of self-preservation.)
[Another former student has become a Sovereign Citizen, but that's completely and totally unrelated to the thread.] |
|
| 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
