No jobs? Why so many channels?

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Please do.  Keep in mind you're taking on an impossible task.

It's not an impossible task and it's not an alternative to change, it's working with what we have. Instead of factory farming let's downsize and do it on a more personal/local level. What are we importing that we can make or do ourselves? Why export oil only to import fuel? Why export talent only to import technology? (then go searching for talent?) Why sell off industry so they can export the profits? We argue we need to reduce greenhouse emissions then promote hauling goods all over the world instead of producing finished goods from raw materials right here at home, think about it...

America, China, Russia, Europe can decide on a whim what happens to Canada's economy, I'd say we need to be a little more independant and we have exactly what we need right here at home. Including the skills and labor. There's a wealth of talent and enthusiasm tied up in our youth, let's take advantage of it.

We don't need globetrotting leaders begging for trade with Canada when we can have them knocking at our door asking us for goods and services.

Oh and my comment on factory child care? Let's get back to raising our children ourselves and stop using them as accessories only to be thrown out when they reach puberty. I'm not saying we need to go back to the woman in the kitchen era, we should develop a society where at least one parent can be with the children at any given time. My wife stayed at home with the kids, our friends the husband stayed home, I have a sister and her husband who run a successful business and their four children have never seen the inside of a daycare or had a nanny, grandma filled in when required for all of us. Cheap daycare is not going to fix anything. 

While we're at it, let's stop throwing our elderly into homes when we're done with them. Some do okay but many don't. Why can't we form nice communities with them and work with them as their needs change? Many still have the ability and desire to participate all the way till they pass. Let's give them a reason to live instead of casting them aside to die.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Thinkinoutsidethebox

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

1) Instead of factory farming let's downsize and do it on a more personal/local level. What are we importing that we can make or do ourselves?  

2) America, China, Russia, Europe can decide on a whim what happens to Canada's economy, I'd say we need to be a little more independant and we have exactly what we need right here at home. Including the skills and labor. There's a wealth of talent and enthusiasm tied up in our youth, let's take advantage of it.

3) Cheap daycare is not going to fix anything. 

4) Why can't we form nice communities with them and work with them as their needs change? 

1) Factory farming is more efficient, cost wise, as I understand.  You want to make food more expensive and pay people more.  That is, effectively, a tax on productivity.

2) As we decide what happens to their economy.  Global trade means interdependence.  We don't have everything we need at home, eg. pineapples and COBOL programmers.

3) It will allow two earners in the family and employ additional people who can be trained to do childcare.  Two Cobol programmer parents plus a daycare professional all employed - isn't that what you want ?

4) Form nice communities, sure.

You seem to be asking for a lot of specifics, but what you need is an overarching framework to subvert basic human desires such as the desire for wealth, competitiveness and so on.  This is what I meant by your impossible task.  You ask 'why' and the answer is 'because it costs more'

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-04-09 at 8:02 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Change is neither good nor bad, but both... and inevitable.  

Anyway, my comment is more about how groups of people change when confronted with widespread change.  Conservatives used to be against free trade, then in the last quarter of the 20th century they made it a priority.  Now the populist base has been impacted by it, so we have a right-wing anti-globalist sentiment.

Interesting, don't you think ?

Interesting in that it implies there is a natural cycle to the economy, that it needs to change as the situation changes globally, all players working to put themselves in a position of greatest advantage. Once the wealth in a local system is fully exploited, it's time to move on. In Marxist terms a new system might benefit the proletariat but once the bourgeoisie attain power the system is in decline.

[Altai]

China cant take over anywhere, maybe only Rothschild backed Chinese business World can buy you but they do it in the name of Rothschild, not China. For examle Xinjiang Production and Construction Corp.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Interesting in that it implies there is a natural cycle to the economy, that it needs to change as the situation changes globally, all players working to put themselves in a position of greatest advantage. Once the wealth in a local system is fully exploited, it's time to move on. In Marxist terms a new system might benefit the proletariat but once the bourgeoisie attain power the system is in decline.

Can you rewind a bit and explain how you got that from the switch in positions for conservatives/liberals ?

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Factory farming is more efficient, cost wise, as I understand.  You want to make food more expensive and pay people more.  That is, effectively, a tax on productivity.

2) As we decide what happens to their economy.  Global trade means interdependence.  We don't have everything we need at home, eg. pineapples and COBOL programmers.

3) It will allow two earners in the family and employ additional people who can be trained to do childcare.  Two Cobol programmer parents plus a daycare professional all employed - isn't that what you want ?

4) Form nice communities, sure.

You seem to be asking for a lot of specifics, but what you need is an overarching framework to subvert basic human desires such as the desire for wealth, competitiveness and so on.  This is what I meant by your impossible task.  You ask 'why' and the answer is 'because it costs more'

1 It might, but then again maybe not, what percentage of our income goes to food? http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil132a-eng.htm  , It's a long list of cheques and balances, does local employment cost or benefit, does the enviroment have any value? Health?

2 A little ingenuity we could grow our own pineapples  . 

Do we need imported COBOL programmers to fix the government payroll? It's probably done in India now?  

3 Again, the children are being raised by strangers, it is the most important job to mankind yet we need to hire people to do it for us? Maybe we should give stay at home parents a break and train the would be nannies to be COBAL programmers. All three are still employed...

4 It costs more... here's a wild thought, the money stays within the country, benefitting our citizens.

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

1 It might, but then again maybe not, what percentage of our income goes to food? http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil132a-eng.htm  , It's a long list of cheques and balances, does local employment cost or benefit, does the enviroment have any value? Health?

2 A little ingenuity we could grow our own pineapples  . 

Do we need imported COBOL programmers to fix the government payroll? It's probably done in India now?  

3 Again, the children are being raised by strangers, it is the most important job to mankind yet we need to hire people to do it for us? Maybe we should give stay at home parents a break and train the would be nannies to be COBAL programmers. All three are still employed...

4 It costs more... here's a wild thought, the money stays within the country, benefitting our citizens.

 

1. Ok, so a tax to subsidize Canadian farmers.  

2. At a much higher cost.

    Yes.  I doubt this service is offshored but every other big business is

3. A break=more government spending.

4. Yes and you will also impact export jobs.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, so a tax to subsidize Canadian farmers.  

2. At a much higher cost.

    Yes.  I doubt this service is offshored but every other big business is

3. A break=more government spending.

4. Yes and you will also impact export jobs.

So the bottom line is continue the status quo? Follow the rest of the world around the drain into the inevitable cesspool of financial and environmental  collapse?

National governments have an endless supply of money and resources to finance the direction we are headed? It appears so because so far the policies you are promoting are costing jobs and accelerating us into debt at an ever increasing rate.

Exporting jobs, importing people to transport our raw resources for export and import finished products and push numbers around multinational corporations and government in cubicles is going to be our salvation? 

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

1. So the bottom line is continue the status quo? Follow the rest of the world around the drain into the inevitable cesspool of financial and environmental  collapse?

2. National governments have an endless supply of money and resources to finance the direction we are headed? It appears so because so far the policies you are promoting are costing jobs and accelerating us into debt at an ever increasing rate.

3. Exporting jobs, importing people to transport our raw resources for export and import finished products and push numbers around multinational corporations and government in cubicles is going to be our salvation? 

1. We have to find our own way.  I don't see how environmental and economic collapse is a necessary result of global integration.

2. I have pointed out that your plans require more money from government and consumers.

3. The future is in higher end services.  The economy is changing and I believe Canada needs to anticipate that and not isolate itself.

[ZenOps]

I don't believe in farmer subsidies.  In fact, I believe that humans should be completely removed and things like grain farming be entirely done by GPS driven automated machines (like its very close to being done in other places around the world)

When people say they are losing jobs to China, they are not losing jobs to *humans* in China.  They are losing to the machine.

We are on the cusp of something great - the electric car.  Cars with 18 moving parts with full lifetime warranties (instead of 2,000 moving parts in a combustion engine that require maintenance every year and are thrown away after seven) Cars that take 84 cents (in Calgary) per 100 kilometers.  Cars that can drive themselves.

It will only further decrease the human need to operate "work" in these sectors of the economy.  What will replace it?  Who knows, but more is getting done with less human effort - which is always a good thing.  Imagine if you needed to have a human flipping every single pixel on your computer screen, that is the insanity of trying to fight the machine.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by ZenOps

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

So what do you propose all the humans being replaced by robots do ZenOps? We don't have enough gangs and wars? Look at how crazy people get when they have nothing better to do. Or is the answer putting everybody in cubicles pushing numbers around for multinationals and government?

Again I find it curious so many don't believe work is actually fulfilling for many of us. Some of us like it outside, some of us love to play in the dirt, some enjoy waiting on people, some enjoy driving truck, train, tractors, flying planes, some enjoy fixing things and so on, do we need to be deprived of this? We need to pass the time from our birth to our death, so far everyone that has proposed the idealist utopia cannot answer what is supposed to happen when robotics take over all human tasks.