economy and jobs scary article

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:You can't have the haves without the have nots. If you want to have more haves, you have to create a LOT more have nots.

First off, that seems like a totally defeatist conclusion, since technology should be increasing the amount of stuff we have, so the number of haves ought to be increasing. Second, we don't seem to be getting more haves, just watching fewer haves having much more of the stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't have the haves without the have nots. If you want to have more haves, you have to create a LOT more have nots.

No you don't. There is a big difference between "Have Not" and "Have Less".

As an employer, I can make a lot more money off of a higher quality employee. I would be happy if the average job candidate was on a better financial footing and better educated. And families with money problems bring problems into the workplace.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I'd like to see the world's economies ranked on output per hour.

We are behind Norway and 50 cents an hour ahead of France. Norwegians work 400 fewer hours per year than we do. The French work 250 fewer hours per year than we do.

Thanks! It occurred to me after I wrote that that I could just get the numbers and calculate it - thanks for doing the work.

So there you go - those inefficient Norwegian socialists produce more per hour than we do. And I can't help noticing some disadvantages there in natural resources, geography, and topography.

[Anonymous]

Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc. I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc.

Yeah, but I can't believe that can overcome the disparity in geographic, etc. advantages.

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

? - You think that the genetic and cultural stock would outweigh the national economic factors?

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc.

Yeah, but I can't believe that can overcome the disparity in geographic, etc. advantages.

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

? - You think that the genetic and cultural stock would outweigh the national economic factors?

check out the stats. white americans of northern european ethnic groups tend to do pretty well here too. as for geographic advantages, not sure what that means. Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil, has plenty of fresh water and fish, lots of land for its population, no deserts, no hurricanes of earthquakes. One of the better spots on Earth.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:? - You think that the genetic and cultural stock would outweigh the national economic factors?

check out the stats. white americans of northern european ethnic groups tend to do pretty well here too.

Not sure where I would find those - are you saying you have them? In this country, there are huge confounds, obviously.

If we look globally, I don't see how you could say that the national economic factors aren't the dominant issue. Stick a random Norwegian in a random African country and see how many dollars he makes per hour.

Anonymous wrote:as for geographic advantages, not sure what that means. Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil, has plenty of fresh water and fish, lots of land for its population, no deserts, no hurricanes of earthquakes. One of the better spots on Earth.

About average for Europe, but not as good as the U.S., and of course much better than the other continents. We have a better climate and an abundance of nearly every natural resource, not just a few.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:? - You think that the genetic and cultural stock would outweigh the national economic factors?

check out the stats. white americans of northern european ethnic groups tend to do pretty well here too.

Not sure where I would find those - are you saying you have them? In this country, there are huge confounds, obviously.

If we look globally, I don't see how you could say that the national economic factors aren't the dominant issue. Stick a random Norwegian in a random African country and see how many dollars he makes per hour.

Anonymous wrote:as for geographic advantages, not sure what that means. Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil, has plenty of fresh water and fish, lots of land for its population, no deserts, no hurricanes of earthquakes. One of the better spots on Earth.

About average for Europe, but not as good as the U.S., and of course much better than the other continents. We have a better climate and an abundance of nearly every natural resource, not just a few.

not too many scandinavians live in Africa. Millions live in the US, and their income levels are quite high. As for geographic advantages, you do not know what you are writing about. Their climate is ideal for economic growth. You think an agricultural based society and economy would produce higher incomes? Their short growing season means more industry, more high-tech, more innovation. Spend time in Norway, the technology just to heat your house is ridiculous.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:? - You think that the genetic and cultural stock would outweigh the national economic factors?

check out the stats. white americans of northern european ethnic groups tend to do pretty well here too.

Not sure where I would find those - are you saying you have them? In this country, there are huge confounds, obviously.

If we look globally, I don't see how you could say that the national economic factors aren't the dominant issue. Stick a random Norwegian in a random African country and see how many dollars he makes per hour.

Anonymous wrote:as for geographic advantages, not sure what that means. Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil, has plenty of fresh water and fish, lots of land for its population, no deserts, no hurricanes of earthquakes. One of the better spots on Earth.

About average for Europe, but not as good as the U.S., and of course much better than the other continents. We have a better climate and an abundance of nearly every natural resource, not just a few.

not too many scandinavians live in Africa. Millions live in the US, and their income levels are quite high. As for geographic advantages, you do not know what you are writing about. Their climate is ideal for economic growth. You think an agricultural based society and economy would produce higher incomes? Their short growing season means more industry, more high-tech, more innovation. Spend time in Norway, the technology just to heat your house is ridiculous.

You've walked by almost everything I said.

You continue to write about Scandinavians in the U.S., but don't tell give any cites and don't address the very obvious confounds. I assume that there aren't many in Africa, but that isn't the point. If you actually think that an average Scandinavian and his/her descendants would thrive in Burkina Faso as s/he would in the U.S., then say so, and then we'll worry about whether there are data.

Re the natural resources of Norway, I'm open to correction, but you haven't given me much so far. Being forced into a development direction isn't an advantage. And what about what I said about all of our other resources? You cite oil and fish - we have that and much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc. I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

Diversity is what made our country. If this nation was built out of white mayflower descendents, it would be mediocre. The ability to attract people with a strong urge to better themselves from around the globe is THE reason we are successful. And the proof is in the many capitalist successes who came from other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc. I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

They also didn't enslave a good portion of their citizens for a century or two. I suppose if you call slavery, then Jim Crow, then years of denied opportunity driven by legal housing discrimination "the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society" then you have a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc. I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

They also didn't enslave a good portion of their citizens for a century or two. I suppose if you call slavery, then Jim Crow, then years of denied opportunity driven by legal housing discrimination "the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society" then you have a point.

no question we are still paying the cost of slavery and will do so for decades more. Norway does not have that expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc. I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

Oh for cryin' out loud! That's it - Norwegians don't have many black and brown people - that's why they're successful!
Repeat after me: correlation doesn't equal causality. Correlation doesn't equal causality. Correlation doesn't equal causality.
A smart person understands that but you're obviously lacking in that category.
If you really believe that claptrap you're spouting, you are actually disproving your theory because you're pretty dumb for a white person!

[Anonymous]

They also didn't enslave a good portion of their citizens for a century or two. I suppose if you call slavery, then Jim Crow, then years of denied opportunity driven by legal housing discrimination "the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society" then you have a point.

Let's not forget dirt cheap labor. The south still hasn't gotten over that, but Rick Perry will make sure they get it back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Norwegians also do not, for the most part (recent horrible tragedies notwithstanding), have the social cost and expense of dealing with a multicultural society. Diversity is a noble goal, but for whatever reason, humans don't get along too well with each other. Much less crime rate, etc. I'm guessing scandinavian americans have a similar output rate as Norwegians.

Oh for cryin' out loud! That's it - Norwegians don't have many black and brown people - that's why they're successful!
Repeat after me: correlation doesn't equal causality. Correlation doesn't equal causality. Correlation doesn't equal causality.
A smart person understands that but you're obviously lacking in that category.
If you really believe that claptrap you're spouting, you are actually disproving your theory because you're pretty dumb for a white person!

its not black and brown people, its large minorities. show me a few countries that have large minority groups that are doing well. (i.e., the issue is not the ethnicity)