The labor scarcity argument - how to disprove it?

[MyLibertyStuff]

I have a friend who is a "critical thinker", which (in his case) really means he just tries to disprove everything I say until he gets something I cant argue against exactly. His argument about big government is that due to technology, labor scarcity is being removed from the economy, and as such we need to support those in the out with government jobs and welfare. Now I can answer this with history, the fact that it has yet to happen despite all the technological advancements, the fact that new markets are created when old ones are destroyed, the fact that all the technological advancements in history just show a higher overall standard of living and increase in production, etc...

I would really like to slam him into the ground though, as this is like his last stand. Could anyone give me some ideas on how to disprove his argument, preferably with sources?

Love you guys ;)

[LATruth]

Someone watched Zeitgeist 2 to many times.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Someone watched Zeitgeist 2 to many times.

I havent seen that yet, but you are the 3rd person today to mention it to me. I havent even heard of it before today. Could you link me to a good version if you have it handy?

[LATruth]

I have it on my website:

Zeigeist Addendum (part II) (http://latruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=33)

[MyLibertyStuff]

I have it on my website:

Zeigeist Addendum (part II) (http://latruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=33)

Awesome Ill check that out tomorrow and bookmark your site :)

[nayjevin]

Also see what G Edward Griffin has to say about Zeitgeist Addendum:

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=zeit_addendum

small excerpt:



Jonathan, I don't like to criticize anything that is helping to spread the truth about the Federal Reserve and 9/11 but I must agree with the substance of what you have said about this video. I watched it two nights ago and was deeply disturbed by its message. At first, I thought it would be best to just let it play itself out in expectation that most viewers would cross it off as whacky. However, the production value is high, the effects and sound score are compelling, and there is enough truth embedded in the beginning to capture the attention and possibly the trust of many within the freedom movement. So here are my comments on a few items of concern:

[nayjevin]

as to the OP,

I would say something along the lines of,

Do you trust government to decide where labor is best placed? Because I don't -- I think that people out of work tend to try and find a way to make their own money in some way they enjoy.

If there are no jobs out there, it forces me to try and find a good new product or service that will increase the power of the economy!

[LATruth]

Yes, zeitgeist addendum does go off on a one world Utopian agenda which ruins the series for me.

The 1st one was amazing.

[MyLibertyStuff]

as to the OP,

I would say something along the lines of,

Do you trust government to decide where labor is best placed? Because I don't -- I think that people out of work tend to try and find a way to make their own money in some way they enjoy.

If there are no jobs out there, it forces me to try and find a good new product or service that will increase the power of the economy!

Very true. That was in my mind, but was hard to put into words on the spot :-\

[nayjevin]

I have a friend who is a "critical thinker", which (in his case) really means he just tries to disprove everything I say until he gets something I cant argue against exactly.

BTW, I know the type! Often I think these types believe you more than themselves. I think these types sometimes are open to changing their minds, but would never ever show you that on the spot, for fear of some perception of weakness.

I know this because I have it myself to some extent :)

[nayjevin]

Yes, zeitgeist addendum does go off on a one world Utopian agenda which ruins the series for me.

The 1st one was amazing.

oh yes, excuse me, those were comments on the addendum. will edit above.

I am skeptical of the original Zeitgeist too,myself, but it raises points few other videos have.

[MyLibertyStuff]

BTW, I know the type! Often I think these types believe you more than themselves. I think these types sometimes are open to changing their minds, but would never ever show you that on the spot, for fear of some perception of weakness.

I know this because I have it myself to some extent :)

Dont tell me youre a philosophy major :p
Every philosophy major I talk to prides themselves on being a critical thinker, but they do it to the extent where they dont really have an argument or point, they just try to prove you wrong. When you disprove them on that, they keep trying until they land one thing you cant answer completely. Then they try to make it seem that since they found that one little thing, your argument is false and the exact opposite of it is true.

Grrrrrr

[LATruth]

I can't tell you how may people I have shown the original zeitgeist to and it was THE catalyst for their awakening.

I know some of the subject matter is questionable, but you can not walk away from that movie without some sort of lasting effect.

Its the ultimate seed planter.

[LATruth]

Dont tell me youre a philosophy major :p
Every philosophy major I talk to prides themselves on being a critical thinker, but they do it to the extent where they dont really have an argument or point, they just try to prove you wrong. When you disprove them on that, they keep trying until they land one thing you cant answer completely. Then they try to make it seem that since they found that one little thing, your argument is false and the exact opposite of it is true.

Grrrrrr

I think they just rebut you because they are afraid of asking you questions for fear of sounding stupid, they want to be proven wrong or told new info.

[nayjevin]

Dont tell me youre a philosophy major :p
Every philosophy major I talk to prides themselves on being a critical thinker, but they do it to the extent where they dont really have an argument or point, they just try to prove you wrong. When you disprove them on that, they keep trying until they land one thing you cant answer completely. Then they try to make it seem that since they found that one little thing, your argument is false and the exact opposite of it is true.

Grrrrrr

sure was :D

but the good philosophers will concede a point when logic forces them too. sometimes it will take them awhile, and they will only concede it to themselves, without coming back to give you the satisfaction you probably deserve of having been right in the first place.

the slippery argumentation tactics are a self-defense mechanism, oftentimes, methinks - not necessarily evidence they will not accept your point sometime down the road, not even necessarily evidence they don't know you're probably right on the spot.

[Barackistan]

Now I can answer this with history, the fact that it has yet to happen despite all the technological advancements, the fact that new markets are created when old ones are destroyed, the fact that all the technological advancements in history just show a higher overall standard of living and increase in production, etc...

This is also mentioned in Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".

Even in Economics 101, professors teach you about the Production Possibilities Curve, which analyzes two different goods (i.e. Guns and butter), and what factors promotes or detracts from either of these goods to meet its fullest potential production. One of the factors for the Production Possibilities Curve to advance outward to produce more of the any of the two goods previously mentioned is technological advances (such as assembly machines, etc.).

The reason why technological advancements promote new markets is because someone created this new machine that assembles parts of a product quickly and efficiently. The jobs that were destroyed by this machine, such as the manpower required to make the initial products, was replaced by engineers and maintenance crews to produce and maintain the machine.

Hazlitt makes this same argument in the first chapter of his book, which talks mainly about broken windows and bakeries, but that's another story.

The main point that you may want to nail down is that labor is cyclical, and that labor scarcity often results in innovation. Labor scarcity results in unemployment, which results in the unemployed seeking alternative solutions to profit -- meaning one may invest his or her time and capital in investing in him or herself. Forms of personal investment may be going back to school in hopes of getting a better job, making a new business, or patenting a new invention. During this time period, others who are unemployed may become discouraged workers, and are replaced by those who invested in themselves previously.

It's all just a big cycle, really. I know my explanation is wordy, but I hope you get the picture.

[nayjevin]

I can't tell you how may people I have shown the original zeitgeist to and it was THE catalyst for their awakening.

I know some of the subject matter is questionable, but you can not walk away from that movie without some sort of lasting effect.

Its the ultimate seed planter.

I can't have an opinion on that. When I saw zeitgeist, it was not new information to me.

devil's advocate: the ultimate seed planter would have ZERO dubious information

consider this my last post about zeitgeist on a thread not about zeitgeist :)

[MyLibertyStuff]

I think they just rebut you because they are afraid of asking you questions for fear of sounding stupid, they want to be proven wrong or told new info.

Well it works then :p I give them all the new information I can think of

[Objectivist]

Here's a favorite argument of mine, see how it works out in your mind and then try it on someone. Remember there is no logical fallacy if we all agree that stealing is immoral. This is from another forum that I posted some time ago.......


Liberal Progressive Democrats, Ignorant or Immoral?
After the period of time I've been here I've come to one of two conclusions, It's what I do, find denominators. In the forums I've visited I have found LPDs stating they are for government programs to help those that are less fortunate, which is admirable if it is true. I think most of us step up to the plate as Americans when our fellow man is in dire straits. Some here will suggest that only 'they' are on the side of good.

Now if you have the capacity to determine where help is needed then why do you have a problem delivering that solution on your own? Why do you think the government needs to be involved? Because you can stand in line at the grocery store and donate to most charities, or spend 5 minutes online and you could donate to any charity or organization you so choose. Anything from the Red Cross to United Way or the Homeless Shelter or the SPCA. IS it that you are stupid or ignorant? DO you really not know which organizations need help? You do know that you can start your own charity rather simply by visiting a CPA and filing out some paperwork?

SO if you are not stupid and are capable of sending funds to any charity of your choice or forming one of your own, then you would be immoral to force other free people to do it in your name. Isn't that what you are doing in fact, immorally taking(by force if needed)money from one person and then pretending it came from you or your group? That's what it looks like when you force another to contribute against their will and then the leaders of your group take credit for it, in your name. Immorality at it's peak and definitely not freedom loving people.

I'm only left with two conclusions on the issue of government assistance in the realm of welfare or social spending programs, either LPDs are ignorant or immoral. Which is it? Because I've laid out the options that are available to you with todays technology and I cannot come up with another option at the base. Unless you think you are more ignorant than the politicians you elected as the leaders of your group? I wouldn't guess that for most LPD that I've run into, there are some though.

.........I can apply this to any number of LPD programs and seeing that 69 million people voted for BO, why don't they pool their resources and start their own damn healthcare system? Blue Cross has 100 million customers and many would switch to the BO Plan if it looked good, wouldn't they?

Note again I asked a question about being ignorant or immoral, not a statement.

[nayjevin]

Dont tell me youre a philosophy major :p
Every philosophy major I talk to prides themselves on being a critical thinker, but they do it to the extent where they dont really have an argument or point, they just try to prove you wrong. When you disprove them on that, they keep trying until they land one thing you cant answer completely. Then they try to make it seem that since they found that one little thing, your argument is false and the exact opposite of it is true.

It may help to have the specific fallacies memorized that your opponent frequently uses. Then, just point him to a philosopher that debunked that fallacy. Very humbling to a philosophy major.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Here's a favorite argument of mine, see how it works out in your mind and then try it on someone. Remember there is no logical fallacy if we all agree that stealing is immoral. This is from another forum that I posted some time ago.......


Liberal Progressive Democrats, Ignorant or Immoral?
After the period of time I've been here I've come to one of two conclusions, It's what I do, find denominators. In the forums I've visited I have found LPDs stating they are for government programs to help those that are less fortunate, which is admirable if it is true. I think most of us step up to the plate as Americans when our fellow man is in dire straits. Some here will suggest that only 'they' are on the side of good.

Now if you have the capacity to determine where help is needed then why do you have a problem delivering that solution on your own? Why do you think the government needs to be involved? Because you can stand in line at the grocery store and donate to most charities, or spend 5 minutes online and you could donate to any charity or organization you so choose. Anything from the Red Cross to United Way or the Homeless Shelter or the SPCA. IS it that you are stupid or ignorant? DO you really not know which organizations need help? You do know that you can start your own charity rather simply by visiting a CPA and filing out some paperwork?

SO if you are not stupid and are capable of sending funds to any charity of your choice or forming one of your own, then you would be immoral to force other free people to do it in your name. Isn't that what you are doing in fact, immorally taking(by force if needed)money from one person and then pretending it came from you or your group? That's what it looks like when you force another to contribute against their will and then the leaders of your group take credit for it, in your name. Immorality at it's peak and definitely not freedom loving people.

I'm only left with two conclusions on the issue of government assistance in the realm of welfare or social spending programs, either LPDs are ignorant or immoral. Which is it? Because I've laid out the options that are available to you with todays technology and I cannot come up with another option at the base. Unless you think you are more ignorant than the politicians you elected as the leaders of your group? I wouldn't guess that for most LPD that I've run into, there are some though.

.........I can apply this to any number of LPD programs and seeing that 69 million people voted for BO, why don't they pool their resources and start their own damn healthcare system? Blue Cross has 100 million customers and many would switch to the BO Plan if it looked good, wouldn't they?

Note again I asked a question about being ignorant or immoral, not a statement.

Good points. I like to subscribe to the line of thought that if anyone wanted to help people, they would be free market advocates, and to want a welfare state would be contradictory.

[nayjevin]

Good points. I like to subscribe to the line of thought that if anyone wanted to help people, they would be free market advocates, and to want a welfare state would be contradictory.

That's a powerful thought.

Free-marketeers are educated empathists
Free-marketeers are knowledgable volunteers
A young liberal is uneducated, an old liberal refused his education

governments don't help people, people help people

[Barackistan]

^ Nature versus nurture. Nature always wins.