i respect the fact that you presented sound counters to my last point. you without question put more intelligent thought into your statement than i did in mine. it had the terminator and forest gump quoted in it after all.
my ''deadliest catch'' stuff was reference to the points made about those Louisiana fisherman who use instinct to fish, though thats really different philosophizing about intelligence/whatever/blah blah blah
my core point is... people mistakenly argue that we need this cheap illegal labor or else prices will skyrocket and everything will turn into mayhem. all i really want to submit to this discussion is the notion that "capital investment" (i.e. guys buying or developing new mechanical equipment) serves as a substitute for labor.
from an economic perspective the argument that we need deflated-wage'd jobs outside of labor laws to be an efficient country makes me upset with such ignorance, hence why i mirrored that argument to a hypothetical mid 19th century one on slavery. (obviously that isnt considering varying magnitudes between 'voluntary' illegal labor and slavery).
anyway, off to bed... hope this response is sufficient to present my stance in a moderate and quazi-rational light
basically, we dont need this illegal labor, its presence via lack of law enforcement is what has enabled and forced it to become industry standards.
when that cheap labor no longer exists and every employee is protected by minimum wage laws, then mechanization will compensate for increased labor costs supplementing workers
enough of beating a dead horse, i gotta get to bed and its just diluting my argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by g6civcx
I'm not attacking you so don't take this personal.
You first said this:
Then you said this:
I am having problems following your argument.
Are you commenting about simple tasks in general? strawberry picking in particular? all tasks?
It seems like your first statement was talking about strawberry and orange. Your statement was also very open ended because you didn't say that there are tasks that cannot be mechanized.
At best, you said that jobs would be eliminated to be replaced with other jobs. You never actually said that some jobs cannot be eliminated.
Now you say that you're not talking about deadliest catch guys.
I'm having trouble following your logic.
1. What task(s) do you think can be mechanised?
2. What task(s) do you think canNOT be mechanised?
3. If you gave an answer for #2, does this answer contradict with your original statement:
|