This is silly semantic quibbling. It's legitimate in ordinary language, to call a government policy the cause of a statistical trend, even though everyone knows perfectly well that the efficient/necessary causes involved are the millions of individual decisions that go to make up the trend. Newspaper/media articles and scientific papers do it all the time. — gurugeorge

Strange how free will suddenly can become irrelevant, huh?

I don't have to define it, the employers do. — gurugeorge

On the other hand you say

Some labour just isn't worth very much — gurugeorge

This sound like you had an idea what was worth how much.

Strange how free will suddenly can become irrelevant, huh? — Heiko

Free choices are influenced by conditions, including political conditions (a free choice takes into account as many factors and conditions as possible, and then makes a decision based on that information). Market conditions incline, but do not necessitate. For example, one given employer might find the kid with his baseball cap on backwards pretty useless compared to the more skilled, experienced worker that he could employ, but he might like the kid and think he has promise and has other good qualities like loyalty and good timekeeping, and notice that he's been at least trying to conscientiously learn the trade, so for his particular case, he might be willing to make the trade-off. There's a myriad of possible responses, as I said. The higher unemployment rate that's caused by minimum wage laws is the aggregate result of all those many varied individual decisions, or one might say a mean around which all those varied decisions tend to cluster. (Just like prices.)

This sound like you had an idea what was worth how much. — Heiko

No, it's just a general observation explaining the economic logic of the situation and making a prediction, based on economic theory, which has been borne out by the facts again and again and again. But people look at the visible beneficial result of minimum wage laws (a few people employed at a higher rate) and proceed to pat themselves on the back while remaining blissfully unaware of the damage that's not seen and is not obvious, and only shows up after policy's been implemented for a while (higher unemployment) - until it shows up in statistics, whereupon of course they blame capitalism ;)

The higher unemployment rate that's caused by minimum wage laws is the aggregate result of all those many varied individual decisions, or one might say a mean around which all those varied decisions tend to cluster — gurugeorge

This makes the proposition that one is willing to understand the decisions made. One does not have to and hence: why should I? Just invest less in abstract "growth" and employ them right away.

No, it's just a general observation explaining the economic logic of the situation and making a prediction, based on economic theory, which has been borne out by the facts again and again and again. — gurugeorge

I see. Than it is just a sloppy formulation not pointing out the factum in the right way:

They(Employers) are the ones who have to weigh up the costs and benefits to them — gurugeorge

It is not about how much their work would be worth objectively but how much a potential employer could profit from it.

division of labour — gurugeorge

I think division of labour is problematic because it forces people into menial jobs and creates hierarchies

So people are less free. Someone has to sort odd peas, or clean toilets and not everyone can reach the higher positions or more lucrative jobs.

It is not clear that the people in menial labour are the least capable in general or best at this kind of work rather the reverse because you meet graduates and all sorts of people in cleaning, caring and retail.

No, the classical liberal or propertarian position is against colonialism — gurugeorge

It is a bit late to be against colonialism when it already happened, apparently the term Propertarianism was coined in 1963.

It is too late to claim we are starting on a level playing field. It is the same problem with the notion of a Meritocracy. These things need a level playing field to be an honest reflection of ability and just desert.

Do propertarians believe in taxation and social services?

I don't see evidence that communist regimes took extra care to preserve their environs, more the reverse. It is not like they tried sustainable practises and failed rather the reverse. — Andrew4Handel

Well, they didn't.

And even if cooperatives can be quite successfull in the West, the soviet style agriculture and economy wasn't. And here with the history of the multitude of Marxist-Leninist experiments we can see that what on paper looks just, logical and reasonable in reality can end quite poorly. And this is one of things that has to be in consideration: we might talk about philosophical constructs on how to improve the World we live in on some theoretical level, yet there is the actual political World we live in where benevolent ideas might come out as not being so good. Property rights as an institution is actually very important. To have somebody (usually a government official) then deciding who is eligible for "stewardship" and who isn't creates a vast mountain of problems in my view.

— Andrew4Handle

Overpopulation is a fairly recent problem. These countries became poorer and exploited under colonialism and inherited the colonialists religious beliefs in fertility and contraceptives etc.

It is ironic that the western countries which consume the most of the earth resources become complacent about their luxury and can boast of responsible breeding. It is not clear that all these others people can conceivably share our lifestyle and consume the same amount of resources. — Andrew4Handel

Responsible breeding? What are you talking about?

You should actually look at the present fertility rates around the World to notice how dubious the idea that the West can boast of "responsible breeding" is. The World's average total fertility rate has dropped from 5 in the 1960's below 2,5 at the present. And notice that a rate below 2 means a decreasing population, which is reality to many, many countries, rich and poor today. Now only something like 14 countries in the World have a fertility rate of 5 or more.

And the idea that other people cannot share our lifestyle sounds to me as a static view of the World where there is no increase in productivity and technology. Or that we can take into account the environment. As if it would be impossible for others to enjoy the quality of life that we do. Luckily reality has shown otherwise as we have seen a huge increase in affluence around the World and a similar vast drop in global povetry in our lifetime. That tells something different.

Responsible breeding? What are you talking about? — ssu

Decreasing the population is responsible breeding.

Unfortunately the worlds population is increasing.

A country can easily increase its population overnight by taking in immigrants, refugees and so on. there are plenty of those.

Based on the rates of resource domination and depletion by the west to support our current lifestyles we would have to come up with some dramatic new technology to give everyone as similar lifestyle quality and not completely wreck the planet.

Are saying you think everyone can have a car, washing machine, microwave, computer and so on?

Even if it were possible I still think it would be irresponsible use of resources.

Here is a relevant article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China

"According to the Chinese Ministry of Health, industrial pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death."

"500 million people in China are without safe and clean drinking water."

"Lead poisoning or other types of local pollution continue to kill many Chinese children."

"The pollution has spread internationally: sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo; and according to the Journal of Geophysical Research, the pollution even reaches Los Angeles in the USA."

This is what is fuelling our affluent lifestyle.

Again, this:-

I think division of labour is problematic — Andrew4Handel

Contradicts this:-

Someone has to sort odd peas, or clean toilets — Andrew4Handel

But you seem oblivious - it's like you have two hermetically-sealed compartments in your thought that aren't sparking together. It parallels your not noticing that a claim of dispossession implicitly affirms the principle of private property, or that a claim of theft implicitly affirms the principle of private property.

It is too late to claim we are starting on a level playing field. — Andrew4Handel

That's not the "claim," the recommendation is that we ought to be maintaining a level playing field now, and now, and now, and now ...

Contradicts this:- — gurugeorge

No it doesn't

I was giving an example of the division of labour and how it creates menial tasks.

There may always be some division of labour under any system but not to the extent and rigidity of a highly exploitative society.

I think life is dystopian and the less we create the better.

I think we should interfere to improve the quality of peoples live as much as possible.

I was giving an example of the division of labour and how it creates menial tasks. — Andrew4Handel

And unless are you saying that there will be no necessity to sort peas or clean toilets in your ideal society, then you're implicitly admitting that your ideal society will also have division of labour and have menial tasks to do, so it's not something you can be against in principle.

I think we should interfere to improve the quality of peoples live as much as possible. — Andrew4Handel

I'd rather leave them be to improve their lot by their own efforts, or not, as they choose. I'm not prepared to impose some pretty pattern that's arisen in my head, on their lives.

I was giving an example of the division of labour and how it creates menial tasks. — Andrew4Handel

Labour is divided because there are menial tasks, if all jobs were equal then there would be no need to divide the labor force.

I was giving an example of the division of labour and how it creates menial tasks. — Andrew4Handel

Labor is divided because there are menial tasks, if all jobs were equal then there would be no need to divide the labor force.

And unless are you saying that there will be no necessity to sort peas or clean toilets in your ideal society, — gurugeorge

I am not putting forth an ideal society.
I think the main reason for the division of labour is to speed up or streamline the exploitation of resources.

But is possible for a doctor to grow her own peas and clean her own toilet and play in an amateur orchestra. Some businesses make employees do a variety of tasks including cleaning to share the burden of menial tasks.
It is possible for a family to live on a small holding to milk their own cow, grow some of their own food and so on.

Nowadays a lot of doctors do some care work as part of their training, to practise interacting with patients and experience a different aspect of healthcare.
It is possible to make work less monotonous.. but the bigger the population, the more focus on exploiting resources and producing stuff the less likely that will occur.

It may entail making sacrifices. Another solution is machines and robots doing as much menial labour as possible.

Your basic assumption is wrong, resources are not finite. We are not restricted to earth. It's perfectly possible even with current technology to start collecting resources from the rest of our solar system... only including earths resources is an arbitrary limitation.

You are inventing moral rules, based on incorrect assumptions, that go against human nature, and would never work anyway because of that. Please stop the naysaying, and start thinking of ways to actually move forward.

Based on the rates of resource domination and depletion by the west to support our current lifestyles we would have to come up with some dramatic new technology to give everyone as similar lifestyle quality and not completely wreck the planet. — Andrew4Handel

Well, that is happening. And it can happen in the future.

Just to give an example of the "dwindling" resources take what is called Peak Oil. It has already happened: that is the peaking of conventional oil production. Happened some years ago actually in the timeline the inventor of the term had forecasted in the 1970's (if I remember correctly).

So has the World fallen into chaos and anarchy? No. Not only has production methods changed, but also alternative energy production has emerged. For example solar power has made dramatic advances in few years. And finally it seems that electric and hybrid cars are truly cornering the market. There is your example how that adaption through technology happens in the real World.

Decreasing the population is responsible breeding.

Unfortunately the worlds population is increasing. — Andrew4Handel

Unfortunately?

A stable population could perhaps work, but a decreasing population creates a lot of problems. The most simple fact is that an increase in population is the most natural reason for economic growth. A decreasing population is a reason for stagnant growth or a long economic downturn. This then hampers down technological innovation and advancement as companies do not see incentives for R&D. Also this naturally makes changes in the demography of the population as there are far fewer younger people than older people. This in turn creates huge problems for our pension systems, but it also creates other problems too.

And basically economic stagnation and recessions create political upheaval, crisis and problems. In poorer countries this leads to conflict and war.

Rise in the wealth of the population has been historically the biggest reason for population growth to decrease. Hence if the poorest countries which have the highest population growth would get richer, the problem would go away. Also economic growth would then give these young populations work, which then would solve a lot of their internal problems. Also, usually more affluent societies do take care more of their envinronment where in the poorest countries where people have to fight against starvation their basic needs go understandably in front of things like preserving the environment.

Hence your idea of decreasing population being a good thing will in fact create huge problems and a lot of suffering.

Are saying you think everyone can have a car, washing machine, microwave, computer and so on?

Even if it were possible I still think it would be irresponsible use of resources. — Andrew4Handel

So you having those appliances isn't irresponsible, but some African having them would be?
And what is so irresponsible in having them in the first place? After all, for you and me to discuss this thing here on the Philosophy Forum means that both have a device to enter the internet. What is irresponsible in that? We'd be better off without Computers, the net, cars etc?

How would you define what the labour is worth? — Heiko


I don't have to define it, the employers do. They are the ones who have to weigh up the costs and benefits to them, of employing such people. — gurugeorge

The employees do too. They offer their labour in return for a wage. And they too must "weigh up the costs and benefits to them, of" being employed by "such people". There are (at least) two parties to every contract. :up:

So you having those appliances isn't irresponsible, but some African having them would be? — ssu

What is irresponsible is to exhaust environmental resources rather than reduce the worlds population.

Yes our lifestyles are wasteful. I try to be as environmentally friendly as possible. I don't have a car, I have never used a plane, I recycle everything possible.

I don't think it is possible for every country to have America and Europe's level of consumption so what is irresponsible is to just try and make everyone equally prolific consumers.

Also, usually more affluent societies do take care more of their environment — ssu

I don't think this is true at all. I already linked you to the problem of pollution in China and that is where a lot of things we use in the West is manufactured. Britain became very polluted when we did our own manufacturing.

Personally I don't think we should create children, to be wage slaves, care for the elderly and save the economy. If decreasing population leads to stagnant growth and wealth leads to decrease in population then it seems like you are advocating poverty.

Our reliance on oil is a key player in the problems in the Middle East.

I am not putting forth an ideal society. — Andrew4Handel

What was all that stuff about "stewardship" then, if not a rough sketch of your ideal?

But is possible for a doctor to grow her own peas and clean her own toilet and play in an amateur orchestra. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, it's possible, but there's an opportunity cost to everything - the more peas, the more toilet cleaning, the less doctoring, and/or the less leisure for the doctor.

unemployment is caused either by people not trying to get employed or by firms not employing them — Heiko

Sort of, but your list is incomplete. Sometimes there are more people needing jobs than there are jobs for them. At other times, there are jobs, but they just don't pay enough to meet the needs of the prospective employee. And so on.

People don't get jobs because they love work. They get jobs because they need a means of supporting themselves and their families. And it is soul-destroying for them to see the owners of companies sporting ocean-going yachts when their employees, the people who earn their money for them, need to claim benefits to subsidise their piss-poor wages.

When it comes to employment, and the lack of it, the main problem is inequality. When the Earth has finite resources, as the topic informs us, it seems silly of us all to allow such inequality. :chin: Jeff Bezos has close to a million million dollars, while the poorest of us own less than a dollar. We need to fix that. It's not that everyone MUST have the same, but that such gross inequalities are moderated. Drastically. :up:

So you having those appliances isn't irresponsible, but some African having them would be? And what is so irresponsible in having them in the first place? After all, for you and me to discuss this thing here on the Philosophy Forum means that both have a device to enter the internet. What is irresponsible in that? We'd be better off without Computers, the net, cars etc? — ssu

[My highlighting.] No, but the planet, and all the living things that live here, would be. Better off, that is. It's humans that are the problem. Both in terms of our rapacious demands on the resources of our Earth, and the sheer number of us making those demands.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - “May we live long and die out”

I don't think that the productivity or success of an ideology validates it.

For example I don't think that Christianity is true because of its successes, because of the great Cathedrals, music and the foundation of Universities and so on.

Likewise I don't think that the success of capitalism or any human endeavour makes it valid.

As with the example of religion you can build some great things, impressive feats of the imagination and persuasive social ideals on a fantasy.

This is one way you can view economics as soulless if it is not concerned with ethics, meaning, purpose and truth. If It is only concerned with profit and growth.

Also, usually more affluent societies do take care more of their environment — ssu

I don't think this is true at all. I already linked you to the problem of pollution in China and that is where a lot of things we use in the West is manufactured. Britain became very polluted when we did our own manufacturing. — Andrew4Handel

Perhaps you don't notice, but pollution in China actually does make my point: even if it has grown, it's still a poor country compared to West as the per capita isn't so high. Other places with huge pollution problems in urban areas are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Mongolia, India. The least polluted urban areas you find in Australia, New Zealand, Estonia, Finland, Canada, Iceland. The comparison tells it all.

It's no wonder you have the least pollution, tough environmental laws and a working environmental policies in wealthy industrialized democracies. And btw, you in Britain are still making a lot manufacturing, very likely far more than earlier, even if it doesn't employ as much people as before thanks to automation.

No, but the planet, and all the living things that live here, would be. Better off, that is. It's humans that are the problem. Both in terms of our rapacious demands on the resources of our Earth, and the sheer number of us making those demands. — Pattern-chaser

This idea starts from the thinking that we humans are somehow separate from the life on the planet, that were are not a species as others and part of those living things. We surely are the dominant species and mold a lot the planet to our benefit, but that doesn't make us totally separate. In my view this is just the extreme hubris of humans who think that they are absolutely different from anything else. Life hasn't been harmonious even before us with mass extincion events happening before our time. The truth is that if a large asteroid hit the planet and would wipe out the human race, there still would millions of years for life to recover on Earth and prosper before the Sun burns the planet. So life on this planet isn't going to be erased away by us.

Caring for the environment is one thing, saying that humans are just a problem is something else. It's just self-criticism stretched out to the extreme and to the absurd.

Comes to my mind (from a totally different field) certain Americans who are convinced that all the problems and crisis in the World happen because of the actions of the US government and simply don't understand how hubristic, self-centered and truly condescending their viewpoint is. As if everything evolves around the US and other people couldn't be able stir up problems without it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo

'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

Millions of tons of waste plastic from British businesses and homes may be ending up in landfill sites across the world, the government’s spending watchdog has warned.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/23/uks-plastic-waste-may-be-dumped-overseas-instead-of-recycled