Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 May '15 14:48
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]There is no law that says "Newer better technology always means newer better jobs for humans".

    What's a "better" job? Better in what way?

    The majority of jobs in the workforce existed 200 years ago in some form or another

    Nope. Mine didn't exist, for instance. Yet, today there are millions of researchers.

    There is a limit to ...[text shortened]... or them.

    It sure doesn't look that way. What's that limit and how have you determined it?[/b]
    Nope. Mine didn't exist, for instance. Yet, today there are millions of researchers.


    Out of how many hundred million people?

    In percentage terms, the biggest jobs were all around in some form 200 years ago.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 May '15 14:58
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Nope. Mine didn't exist, for instance. Yet, today there are millions of researchers.


    Out of how many hundred million people?

    In percentage terms, the biggest jobs were all around in some form 200 years ago.
    The biggest jobs being 'civil servant'.
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 May '15 14:58
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Nope. Mine didn't exist, for instance. Yet, today there are millions of researchers.


    Out of how many hundred million people?

    In percentage terms, the biggest jobs were all around in some form 200 years ago.
    The service sector today accounts for about 70% of the workforce. Many of those jobs didn't exist or existed only in service to a few aristocrats 200 years ago.

    Here's a nice article analyzing the rise of BS-jobs:
    http://strikemag.org/bs-jobs/ (edit the URL to write the expletive fully)
  4. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95105
    07 May '15 17:07
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    [quote]Well the point of my thread is to demonstrate that austerity does not work and is in fact harmful and you appear to accept this is the case. Seeing[b] the evidence that the initial two years of ConDem austerity screwed the economy and killed stone dead a recovery that was well underway thanks to Gordon Brown, you will be voting for a repeat p ...[text shortened]... n invade us.

    Until such a party exists, we are left with choosing the least bad alternative.[/b]
    isnt there a slight problem with your thinking on nuke's? you say we must have wmd's because of international threats, yet we are the country who actually actively goes into illegal wars.....doesnt that make us the bad guys, can we be trusted after our actions in the middle east?

    you may think this second point is naive, but it makes perfect sense to me.....doesnt somebody have to set the example and put their guns down first? shouldnt that be us?
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 May '15 17:18
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    isnt there a slight problem with your thinking on nuke's? you say we must have wmd's because of international threats, yet we are the country who actually actively goes into illegal wars.....doesnt that make us the bad guys, can we be trusted after our actions in the middle east?

    you may think this second point is naive, but it makes perfect sense to ...[text shortened]... .....doesnt somebody have to set the example and put their guns down first? shouldnt that be us?
    yet we are the country who actually actively goes into illegal wars


    We are A country that has gone into illegal wars, something I am pretty pissed about,
    [hence the whole vowing never ever to vote labour thing I mentioned] and something
    that should get politicians unelected [if not imprisoned].

    However the idea that we should 'put our guns down first' when the other side is led
    by a paranoid madman and has over 4.6 thousands nukes.... I'll give that one a miss.

    Get back to me when Russia's stockpile is down to a couple of hundred nukes, and
    they are not flying nuclear bombers at our airspace to intimidate us while illegally
    invading various European countries. [and there is nobody else at the time who have
    taken their place].


    However, as bad as our recent actions have been...

    YES we can be trusted with our nukes.
  6. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95105
    07 May '15 19:081 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    yet we are the country who actually actively goes into illegal wars


    We are A country that has gone into illegal wars, something I am pretty pissed about,
    [hence the whole vowing never ever to vote labour thing I mentioned] and something
    that should get politicians unelected [if not imprisoned].

    However the idea that we should 'pu ...[text shortened]... wever, as bad as our recent actions have been...

    [b]YES
    we can be trusted with our nukes.[/b]
    do you really think us having nukes would deter a 'paranoid madman'? if he's going to do it then he will, our only choice is - do we retaliate, for me the answer is no.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 May '15 19:46
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    And no, the basic 'types of jobs' are fundamentally the same as 100+ years ago.
    The 'new' jobs don't employ many people.
    Give some examples. You are being so vague that I really don't know what you are on about.
    Certainly the quantities of people in particular sectors has changed dramatically. In Europe, a significant number of people were soldiers 100 years ago.
    In Zambia, most people were subsistence farmers.
    Sure, Zambia had a few civil servants but now the government is the largest employer by far.
    If you make your categories broad enough then yes, 'types of jobs' never change. But how those jobs are done and how many people do what, changes very very significantly.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 May '15 21:36
    Originally posted by googlefudge to stellspalfie
    yet we are the country who actually actively goes into illegal wars


    We are A country that has gone into illegal wars, something I am pretty pissed about,
    [hence the whole vowing never ever to vote labour thing I mentioned] and something
    that should get politicians unelected [if not imprisoned].

    However the idea th ...[text shortened]... wever, as bad as our recent actions have been...

    [b]YES
    we can be trusted with our nukes.[/b]
    Googlefudge apparently has completely swallowed the popular Western demonization of
    Vladimir Putin. While I am critical of Putin in many ways (which would make it very hard
    for me to work in Russia now), I reject Googlefudge's opinion of him as a 'paranoid madman'.
    Putin's not close to being as bellicose or tyrannical as Stalin (who really was paranoid).
    I think that Putin's neither 'paranoid' nor a 'madman' in terms of foreign policy.
    Stephen Cohen, an American scholar of the USSR and Russia, would concur with me.

    Unlike Googlefudge, apparently, few Russians regard NATO's relentless expansion
    eastward (evidently violating a promise made by the US government to Russia after
    the break-up of the USSR) as benign. So Putin has enjoyed overwhelming approval
    from Russians for standing up to a perceived threat from NATO. And most Russians
    also approve of the Crimea (with a clear ethnic Russian majority) returning to Russia.
    (Crimea belonged to Russian SSR before Khrushchev transferred it to Ukrainian SSR.)
    It's also a reasonable, though not necessarily ideal, decision for Putin to pursue closer
    ties with China and some other non-Western countries (e.g. Iran) than with the West.
    While Putin may be criticized for backing Assad (a Russian client, who's fighting ISIS)
    in Syria, he's not worse than the US governments that strongly supported brutal
    right-wing dictators because they were dependent US clients in the Cold War.

    I also think that Googlefudge's paranoid if he seriously believes that Russia's likely to
    launch an unprovoked nuclear strike against the UK, even if the UK decided to get rid
    of its nuclear arsenal. Germany (a historical enemy of Russia) has no nuclear weapons,
    yet most Germans don't seem obsessed by the fear of an unprovoked Russian attack.
  9. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 May '15 21:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Give some examples. You are being so vague that I really don't know what you are on about.
    Certainly the quantities of people in particular sectors has changed dramatically. In Europe, a significant number of people were soldiers 100 years ago.
    In Zambia, most people were subsistence farmers.
    Sure, Zambia had a few civil servants but now the government ...[text shortened]... hange. But how those jobs are done and how many people do what, changes very very significantly.
    Did you watch the video I linked on the topic that is completely not vague on the subject?
  10. Joined
    18 Jan '05
    Moves
    11601
    07 May '15 23:33
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I believe that corporations that extract so much from the economies are the ones that should do the stimulating as much as, if not more than the government.
    Well the corporations are cash rich and not investing because the demand in the economy is insufficient to make it worth their while and also because cheap labour makes it less urgent to ...[text shortened]... landlords making fortunes out of excessive rents subsidized by a soaring housing benefits bill.
    But would investing not create a demand in the economy, that being my point.And also labour is NOT the high per unit cost issue that they would have you believe ( in some industries). productivity does not just shrink the labour market, it also reduces the need to expand, often at massive expense.It is also used to shut other plants, outlets etc.

    Having said that, My question as to why the stimulus favors the rich was somewhat rhetoric. It is that many people do not get it that frustrates me.
    Also can someone please answer my 1st question. the 8th post on page 1 about debt. thank you.
Back to Top