From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 29 2002 - 03:20:46 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Transhuman relevance? I actually think there is some here, but it is a
> bit hidden. If people are fundamentally passive entities that have to be
> taken care of by external systems or if they are active agents that can
> create their own support structures will ínfluence what kind of future
> society we strive for profoundly.
False dichotomy. The amount of control of their destiny that an
individual can exert is not without context of the surrounding
society and state of the world at that time.
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:07:25PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>Anders Sandberg wrote:
>>
>>>Prime minister G?ran Person told the media recently that he was all for
>>>labour immigration, but only after all Swedes and current immigrants had
>>>jobs. Which is a way of saying "never" that sounds nicer - but it is
>>>still both a stupid and immoral policy. The same goes for most other
>>>applications of "you can get X, but only after you have achieved Y".
>>
>>I disagree. I've seen estimates that due to the economic and
>>especially tech sector crunch there are on the order of half a
>>million highly trained American technical workers unemployed.
>>At the same time we want to increase the number of H1B visas for
>>lower cost foreign technical workers. Free trade is fine but
>>failing to take care of people or leave any room for them to
>>exercise their skills without vastly lowering their standard of
>>living leaves much to be desired in our so-called "progress" as
>>far as it is manifest at the social and economic level of
>>people's lives.
>
>
> Who creates jobs? If jobs are a scarce resource that is produced by some
> external agent then it might make sense to ration them (in Sweden the
There is no single "who" that creates jobs. Creating jobs
requires not only entrepreneurs but that the state of the
economy is reasonably sound so that there is any really capital
supply to fund new ventures and expansions of existing ones.
When this is not the case it is ridiculous to believe that more
jobs can be created indefinitely just out of "true grit". It is
also very questionable whether we can expect there to be jobs
for all adults of working age of the conventional kind as our
technologies become more and more efficient at producing the
real needs and wants of the people with less and less human
workers needed, even if this was the best of times economically.
It is not a simple problem.
> government is generally believed to be the agent that somehow creates
> jobs, not just jobs in the big government sector of the economy but also
> in the private sector). If jobs instead are something people create for
> themselves by starting businesses or making businesses interedted in
> hiring them, then the above strategy makes no sense. The more people,
> the more entrepreneurs - the government can help or hinder, but it can't
> really create the jobs (except of course by hiring a lot of people and
> financing it with more taxes).
>
> I would say the evidence is overwhelming for the last
position. And
> hence the idea of keeping others out so the locals can get
the scarce
> jobs will in fact keep everybody worse off (that is,
everybody except
> certain vested interests benefiting, in Sweden the labour
unions and
> their intimate friends the social democratic party).
It is not that simple. This is another false dichotomy. Please
take into account the full factors before continuing this
discussion.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:05 MST