better wages needed? for not reproducing

5.22: co.g'+/pol/purges/unemployment/
we need more than better wages:

Sheila Nagig:
The trouble nowadays is that
nobody has much in the way of disposable
income to spend on much beyond the necessities of life.
It's why furniture stores go out of business in a recession.
I was wondering if you could undepress me;
I was sure the trouble nowadays was that our overpopulation
is finally colliding with our capitalistic value enhancements .
. the republicans don't believe in job creation either;
they just solidly reject the other myth:
that socialistic handouts can save the
bottomless pit of population expansion that we are .
. can you show me how I'm deluded?

Sheila Nagig 9:13 PM
A living wage would be a start, +Philip Torrance.
Of course, the "job creators" and their elected flunkies
scream bloody murder anytime someone suggests it.
Valkyrie Page 9:18 PM +1
+Philip Torrance, Bit of a straw man there
since no one brought it up until you did.
"The other myth..."? There are a lot of myths.
+Valkyrie Page sorry if I appeared to bring it up
and then straw man whatever;
+Sheila Nagig mentioned that
"( The trouble nowadays is that
nobody has much in the way of disposable income );
all you hear in the news is that
repub's can create jobs if you give them a tax break;
and that gov'handouts will only make jobs scarce .
. but this isn't a recession;
this is your job on automation and globalization;
yet the population keeps expanding,
the dem's keep feeding poverty,
and the repub's keep imprisoning poverty .
. I believe the only help for increasing jobs and income
is to make people scarce by paying them to stop breeding .
Trent Isaacson8:03 AM +1
Thing is a welfare state depends on a constantly growing
working population. Without that,
it eventually runs out of money needed to support itself.
Valkyrie Page8:36 AM
Which is one reason we don't have a welfare state.
We can't support it. We can't afford wars either.
a welfare state depends on a
constantly growing working population?
that used to be the case, but as we
get deeper into automation and underemployment
all these extra people
are more likely to need prison ($20k/yr/person)
cheaper to pay them not to breed .
Valkyrie Page9:18 AM +2
Plus, they charge prisoners for the room and board.
. I guess the solution to huge prison expenses is to just
charge prisoners for the room and board;
but most of the unemployed sent to prison
don't have any money;
although, I guess we could save some jobs for them
so, automation, outsourcing, and now insourcing
are causing major unemployment faster than we think .
5.24: Valkyrie PageYesterday 2:38 PM +1
Prisons are being privatized, however,
and so the private companies that run them
are hiring out prisoner labor to corporations
as well as charging the prisoners for their room and board,
so that isn't our expense.
We've now made it profitable for people to be imprisoned,
and sure enough judges have taken bribes to
convict people to improve prison profits.
So just be careful not to get into a situation where you
could be convicted and imprisoned.
Now, corporations can let more people go because
prison labor is oh so much cheaper.
Sheila NagigYesterday 2:53 PM
Exactly. Minimum wage doesn't apply to prison labor.
It essentially works out so that prisoners can be made to
work to pay for their room and board
without anyone actually paying them.
The prison profits,
and the corporation using them for labor profits,
but the people who are imprisoned
never get anything,
because what they earn is
automatically taken away from them.
They essentially become indentured slaves,
a captive work force.
They can't even really call in sick
or ask for safe or fair working conditions.
They don't get a retirement plan or health insurance
or vacation days.
so if I could summarize:
without being able to coax the public into
down-sizing their reproduction output,
we will be paying slave wages for labor
even when robots could do it cheaper
-- thereby taxing the consumer
(not to mention abusing the poor desperate thief)
. we are definitely being taxed by overpopulation .
Sheila Nagig10:30 AM
We wouldn't have to coax the public into
downsizing the reproduction output.
We'd just have to make it easier for them to do it.
What with the active efforts of the politicians
to make it harder to get birth control cheaply,
I'd say that they're working against us on every level.
Valkyrie Page10:31 AM
+Philip Torrance Are you leading by example?
. I'm not sure what "(leading by example)
means in this context;
I do practice "(let the rich do the breeding)
if that helps;
but, the most urgent problem is
getting masses of people to realize
that overpopulation really is a problem,
and there may be new worlds to save us
like America saved us,
but crime and suffering is going to get worse
long before the technology lets us live in the oceans
or whatever new world we manange to find
after America is completely owned by stock holders .
5.24: Sheila Nagig10:47 AM
Okay, +Philip Torrance, I almost never
have to come out and say this to someone,
but I think you're full of it.
You're being an apologist for the man.
Valkyrie Page11:55 AM +1
+Philip Torrance Leading by example would be
not breeding yourself.
I may be "(full of it);
if someone could show me
we're[where] I don't make sense;
I'm not sure how I'm an "(apologist for the man).
. my position is that {repub's, dem's}
have a lot of complaints,
but they can't touch the real issues here:
overpopulation is eroding our standard of living .
. this conversation continues as part of
who's economy? obama's or private parenting? ]