Millions improperly got ObamaPhones - cost 2 billion dollars.

[Jack T. Cross]

That's just flat out silly. If someone is in this country legally not only am I not bothered than an American might have to compete for a job but I won't even shed a single tear if he ends up not getting it. Competition is what this country is all about, across the board.

You, yourself, came here from elsewhere, as I clearly recall from your past posts. Isn't that correct?

I don't know about Tony, but I'm as uninterested in the "American worker" as I am in the "Chinese worker" or the "Vietnamese worker" or whatever.

Sorry that you're here, then, if that's your opinion.

In looking to hire someone, I seek to maximize my reward:that is, to get the most skill for the least amount. The curves and cutoffs aren't always the same of course - the "sweet spot" is different if I'm looking to hire an engineer to design something than it is when I'm looking for a gardener to take care of my yard.

Would you argue that Americans "aren't good enough", or what, avxo? Trying to figure out where you're coming from.

[avxo]

You, yourself, came here from elsewhere, as I clearly recall from your past posts. Isn't that correct?

I have been a U.S. citizen since the day I was born.

Sorry that you're here, then, if that's your opinion.

Why? My concern isn't any particular hypothetical worker, or any particular individual for that matter. If someone finds it difficult to compete with others who are in the country legally, that's their problem; not mine or anyone else's.

Why do you believe that Americans are entitled to cruise through life, facing no competition? Do you think that is sustainable?

Would you argue that Americans "aren't good enough", or what, avxo? Trying to figure out where you're coming from.

No, quite the opposite. I think that generally speaking, American workers are more productive and do a better job. I simply don't think that American workers are competitive across the entire spectrum of jobs. I think that's by choice and I don't find it to be a bad thing.

[Jack T. Cross]

I have been a U.S. citizen since the day I was born.

What question were you answering?

Why? My concern isn't any particular hypothetical worker, or any particular individual for that matter. If someone finds it difficult to compete with others who are in the country legally, that's their problem; not mine or anyone else's.

Why do you believe that Americans are entitled to cruise through life, facing no competition? Do you think that is sustainable?

Facing competition in such a way that involves greater numbers of people being brought here, do you mean to say? Because we have ample competition between ourselves, and we have FAR too much undeveloped potential within our own people. And I certainly wouldn't refer to that as "cruising".

No, quite the opposite. I think that generally speaking, American workers are more productive and do a better job. I simply don't think that American workers are competitive across the entire spectrum of jobs. I think that's by choice and I don't find it to be a bad thing.

You merely "think" that it's by choice, but you will nonetheless make an argument that it is fact. Would that be fair to say?

[avxo]

What question were you answering?

The implication of your question. Where I came from is irrelevant. My parents were U.S. citizens, and I'm one by birth. Does it matter if I was born in Nebraska, Nairobi or Nunavut?

Facing competition in such a way that involves greater numbers of people being brought here, do you mean to say? Because we have ample competition between ourselves, and we have FAR too much undeveloped potential within our own people. And I certainly wouldn't refer to that as "cruising".

You make a lot of assertions. Can you provide any evidence that we have ample competition amongst ourselves – or that that even natters anyways? The fact is that there are jobs which Americans don't want to do – and I don't blame them. Jobs like seasonal garlic picking and washing cars at the local car wash.

Is that where you want to compete? Is that what you want the Americans with the "undeveloped potential" you mention to do?


[

You merely "think" that it's by choice, but you will nonetheless make an argument that it is fact. Would that be fair to say?

Of course I think it's by choice – few Americans will choose to "compete" to pick garlic in Gilbert, CA because the job pays very little and offers no upside. On the other hand, many Americans will choose to compete to work as lawyers, doctors and software engineers.

That's not a bad thing.

[Jack T. Cross]

The implication of your question. Where I came from is irrelevant. My parents were U.S. citizens, and I'm one by birth. Does it matter if I was born in Nebraska, Nairobi or Nunavut?

It will impact your opinion, that's for sure.

You make a lot of assertions. Can you provide any evidence that we have ample competition amongst ourselves – or that that even natters anyways? The fact is that there are jobs which Americans don't want to do – and I don't blame them. Jobs like seasonal garlic picking and washing cars at the local car wash.

A line around the block upon someone's hiring for a job, tells me that we have ample competition, avxo. Would you disagree?

Is that where you want to compete? Is that what you want the Americans with the "undeveloped potential" you mention to do?

It's a better starting point than a soup-kitchen. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that.

Of course I think it's by choice – few Americans will choose to "compete" to pick garlic in Gilbert, CA because the job pays very little and offers no upside. On the other hand, many Americans will choose to compete to work as lawyers, doctors and software engineers.

That's not a bad thing.

And they'll tap into which magical bank account as they're preparing themselves to do that?

[avxo]

It will impact your opinion, that's for sure.

How so? I'm a rational person. I don't think my birthplace affects my ability to examine facts and reach logical conclusions.

A line around the block upon someone's hiring for a job, tells me that we have ample competition, avxo. Would you disagree?

Maybe, maybe not. At best it says that there's competition for that particular job. Unfortunately, it's not the only job in the world. For example, I can tell you that there's significant demand for many jobs in my field which cannot be met by the domestic market whether you include or exclude immigrants.

It's a better starting point than a soup-kitchen. I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that.

No doubt. But how many Americans take the seasonal garlic picker job and are you seriously begrudging the immigrants (who are here legally) for "taking" those American jobs? And to be perfectly honest, if the best job an American qualifies for is seasonal garlic picker, then I'll take a foreign graduate student over that American any day. I understand you find this offensive, but I judge people on their merits, not on something they have no control over - such as whether they were born here or there.

And they'll tap into which magical bank account as they're preparing themselves to do that?

Ahh yes... the "but they aren't given a chance!" argument. Listen, I worked my way through University; in fact, when I started, I was working two jobs - one developing software for a company that underpaid and overworked me, and part-time at a fast-food joint to make ends meet. The only magical bank account I tapped into was my own.

The road isn't going to be covered in cotton candy. It's hard to go to College. You may have to make sacrifices. You may have to work very hard. You may have to get a loan. It's how it is. Plenty of people did it before you and plenty of people are doing it now and plenty will do it in the future. If you can't do it, then the problem is you.

[Jack T. Cross]

Let me ask you this, avxo: When an entire work environment in America develops around a foreign language, thereby removing the effective opportunity for an English speaker to work there, would you have any issues with such lost opportunity?

[avxo]

Let me ask you this, avxo: When an entire work environment in America develops around a foreign language, thereby removing the effective opportunity for an English speaker to work there, would you have any issues with such lost opportunity?

Not particularly. If there was a sufficient number of English speakers then the market wouldn't have developed as it has.

Furthermore, there's plenty of work environments that develop around something specific. Take homeopathy for example. I couldn't break into that market even if I wanted to since it evolved entirely around speaking pseudo-scientific-sounding bullshit - a skill I never learned. I don't bemoan the lost opportunity.

[Jack T. Cross]

Not particularly. If there was a sufficient number of English speakers then the market wouldn't have developed as it has.

Furthermore, there's plenty of work environments that develop around something specific. Take homeopathy for example. I couldn't break into that market even if I wanted to since it evolved entirely around speaking pseudo-scientific-sounding bullshit - a skill I never learned. I don't bemoan the lost opportunity.

So you'd say such a development - which is occurring and has occurred WELL beyond the garlic field, and into the factories, restaurants, construction sites, and many more places - is due to a lack of English speakers?

[avxo]

So you'd say such a development - which is occurring and has occurred WELL beyond the garlic field, and into the factories, restaurants, construction sites, and many more places - is due to a lack of English speakers?

No, I'm saying that such a development is the natural result of having more people who speak a particular language monopolizing jobs in a particular sector. Whether that is because Americans don't want those jobs or whether they want too much to do them is irrelevant.

Not that I buy your premise to begin with. It's a vast over-exaggeration.

[Jack T. Cross]

No, I'm saying that such a development is the natural result of having more people who speak a particular language monopolizing jobs in a particular sector. Whether that is because Americans don't want those jobs or whether they want too much to do them is irrelevant.

Not that I buy your premise to begin with. It's a vast over-exaggeration.

So you would say that it's a vast over-exaggeration, that entire factories, construction sites, restaurants and other work environments have become places where only a foreign language is spoken and understood?

[Jack T. Cross]

Americans and others are being stripped and locked out of opportunities, folks.

It serves the unashamed globalists greatly, but unashamed globalists don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. They will make a world where everyone but the most well-connected are desperate and competing for scraps.

[avxo]

*shakes head* the troll is strong with this one...

[Jack T. Cross]

*shakes head* the troll is strong with this one...

I hope that's not your argument, avxo.

If you endorse ideas that will lead to a global Third World state, you shouldn't expect to go unchallenged.

[avxo]

I hope that's not your argument, avxo.

If you endorse ideas that will lead to a global Third World state, you shouldn't expect to go unchallenged.

It's not, but it's pointless to argue with you, so I'm not going to bother. As to where my ideas lead, I think I'll let the past suggest where they will.

Laissez-faire capitalism has been the driving force that has elevated the standard of living of the entire world and created the middle class. Not a bad track record.

[Jack T. Cross]

It's not, but it's pointless to argue with you, so I'm not going to bother.

No problem, avxo. I couldn't have asked you to make a more revealing statement than you already have, which is to declare that you're "uninterested" in any worker, anywhere.

As to where my ideas lead, I think I'll let the past suggest where they will.

Laissez-faire capitalism has been the driving force that has elevated the standard of living of the entire world and created the middle class. Not a bad track record.

Barring some incredible and sustained decline in population (and ONLY then if the entire world were a strong democracy), your ideas - no matter what you call them - can't lead anywhere but to the most degraded existence for all but a very few on this planet.

Don't think so? Explain what will stop it.

[Archer77]

Laissez-faire capitalism has been the driving force that has elevated the standard of living of the entire world and created the middle class. Not a bad track record.

Real Laissez-faire capitalism has only really been tried a couple of times and in these cases regulation was found to be necessary.  During what is referred to as the gilded age there was expansive wealth inequity.

[avxo]

No problem, avxo. I couldn't have asked you to make a more revealing statement than you already have, which is to declare that you're "uninterested" in any worker, anywhere.

Why would I be? I think that person best qualified to care for a worker is the worker himself.

Barring some incredible and sustained decline in population (and ONLY then if the entire world were a strong democracy), your ideas - no matter what you call them - can't lead anywhere but to the most degraded existence for all but a very few on this planet.

Can you prove this, or are you just spouting stuff? Inquiring minds want to know.

Don't think so? Tell what will stop it.

What will stop what?

Real Laissez-faire capitalism has only really been tried a couple of times and in these cases regulation was found to be necessary.  During what is referred to as the gilded age there was expansive wealth inequity.

It's true that people became obscenely wealthy during the so called gilded age. So what? Why is that a problem and why do you care? I could ask why we should care about wealth inequality, but I won't. I know what the answer you're going to give is. Instead I'll point out something else - something that you and your ilk leave out when you criticize that period of time:

It dramatically raised the standard of living for everyone, to get us to where we are today, where things like televisions, washers, dryers, mobile phones and so many other things have become commonplace and are available to almost everyone.
 
So yeah, go ahead and blame the capitalists - the people who have multiplied your earning capacity and raised your standard of living. How many cars did you produce before Henry Ford revolutionized the process of automobile manufacturing? How many tons of steel did you produce before Andrew Carnegie revolutionized the steel business? Your standard is that of the manufacturer of handmade horseless carriages and of the blacksmith. That's all you're worth. The rest of your productivity is a gift from people like Ford and Carnegie. And you complain that they became filthy rich in the process? They did and should have.

If you want wealth equality look at what happened in the Soviet Union, when the idiots started equalizing everything, across the board. They drove themselves into the ground, all in the name of equalizing the unequal.

We live in a rational world Archer where actions have consequences that are, frequently, easy to predict, especially given past experience. You decry the gilded age and look forward the what? Equalization? That's a pipe dream.

With all that said, please note that I don't think that laissez-faire capitalism allows anyone to violate the rights of anyone else. You can only do that through the use of force and I don't believe in initiating force against anyone and think that anyone who does ought to be dealt with in accordance with the law. What I don't believe is that government should be in the business of telling companies how to run, placing limits, preventing mergers and so on.

If you care to argue, specifically, why I'm wrong, by all means do it. But spare me the bullshit about how the barons of industry were evil tyrants who accumulated their wealth at the expense of everyone around them.

[Jack T. Cross]

Why would I be? I think that person best qualified to care for a worker is the worker himself.

I can't tell you why you would or should care about others, avxo. I can only hope it may someday occur to you to do that.

Can you prove this, or are you just spouting stuff? Inquiring minds want to know.

You indicate doubt that such imbalance would develop under your ideas, but then you go on to suggest to Archer that it would develop, and that it wouldn't be a bad thing.

So which is it?

[avxo]

I can't tell you why you would or should care about others, avxo. I can only hope it may someday occur to you to do that.

Unlike you, apparently, I treat people as capable of caring for their own interests, and don't believe I should be in the business of telling them how to live or working on their behalf.

You indicate doubt that such imbalance would develop under your ideas, but then you go on to suggest to Archer that it would develop, and that it wouldn't be a bad thing.

So which is it?

It depends on which imbalances you refer to. Under the system I advocate, some people will be very rich, others moderately rich, others well-off, others will make ends meet, others will be struggling, and yes, others will be poor. I see nothing wrong with that. It's not that I don't believe in equality: I think all people are equal - it's just that think that they are equal under the laws, no more and no less.

[Jack T. Cross]

Unlike you, apparently, I treat people as capable of caring for their own interests, and don't believe I should be in the business of telling them how to live or working on their behalf.

And you will go as far as to ask them to compete against an exploding world population, effectively paying the freight for inferior cultures, while operating under ideas that would have every incentive to see a continued explosion. Would that be true?

It depends on which imbalances you refer to. Under the system I advocate, some people will be very rich, others moderately rich, others well-off, others will make ends meet, others will be struggling, and yes, others will be poor. I see nothing wrong with that. It's not that I don't believe in equality: I think all people are equal - it's just that think that they are equal under the laws, no more and no less.

Please go into further detail about the middle class you envision under your ideas, avxo.

[avxo]

And you will go as far as to ask them to compete against an exploding world population, effectively paying the freight for inferior cultures, while operating under ideas that would have every incentive to see a continued explosion. Would that be true?

I ask nobody to do nothing. Competition against an exploding world population is a fact of life. People can either choose whether and how to compete. If people wish to compete, great. If people don't wish to compete, also great. My point is that people are responsible for their choices and the consequences of their decisions.

How about you tell us the system you envision and how you think it will work?

Please go into further detail about the middle class you envision under your ideas, avxo.

What further details do I have to go into? The system I propose is not that far removed from the system currently in place in the United States.

[Jack T. Cross]

I ask nobody to do nothing. Competition against an exploding world population is a fact of life. People can either choose whether and how to compete. If people wish to compete, great. If people don't wish to compete, also great. My point is that people are responsible for their choices and the consequences of their decisions.

So do we act to mitigate the damage that it has on the average person in our culture?

How about you tell us the system you envision and how you think it will work?

I say we reflect the beliefs we claim, everywhere, including in our trade agreements. Either we believe in the things we claim, or we do not.

What further details do I have to go into? The system I propose is not that far removed from the system currently in place in the United States.

We're getting there, no doubt about it.

[avxo]

So do we act to mitigate the damage that it has on the average person in our culture?

We didn't have to "act to mitigate the damage" the lightbulb did to candle-maker, or the "damage" cars did to shoe-horse manufacturers. How's that saying? Out with the old, in with the new? I think so. When automated phone switches took over the jobs of long-distance operators, women didn't start crying. They started becoming engineers.

You seem to think that, somehow, there's great injustice in the world that can be righted by equalizing sacrifices. I say you and your ilk have been equalizing sacrifices for hundreds of years on your way to that just world you dream about. Enough is enough.

I say we reflect the beliefs we claim, everywhere, including in our trade agreements. Either we believe in the things we claim, or we do not.

What, specifically, are the beliefs you claim we hold?

[Jack T. Cross]

We didn't have to "act to mitigate the damage" the lightbulb did to candle-maker, or the "damage" cars did to shoe-horse manufacturers. How's that saying? Out with the old, in with the new? I think so. When automated phone switches took over the jobs of long-distance operators, women didn't start crying. They started becoming engineers.

You seem to think that, somehow, there's great injustice in the world that can be righted by equalizing sacrifices. I say you and your ilk have been equalizing sacrifices for hundreds of years on your way to that just world you dream about. Enough is enough.


What, specifically, are the beliefs you claim we hold?

 

You'll have to explain how this pertains to the argument, avxo. Because you've definitely lost me.