Workers have high paying jobs

>workers have high paying jobs
>oh wow, I want to make more money by paying them less
>oh, I have a great idea, let's send those high paying jobs to the third world
>oh wow, looks all the money I saved by firing these high paying workers and hiring cheap thirld worlders
>yeah, lots of money
>oh, what's happening?
>why the people from the first world isn't buying my products (because they don't have a job)
>why the people from the thirld world isn't buying my products (because their wages are too cheap to afford the product)
oh wow, nice economic system you got there retards.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

This isn't English 101, pajeet.

Hey, I see you just watched the"Marxism 101" video on YouTube!
Good job, you can now buy your pair f glasses and scarf and be snob for the next few years.

>a real critique of the system is a meme
and I hate commies BTW faggot.

The system will reach equilibrium retard, globalisation is only starting

yeah, how do you solve when automatization makes 95% of the population literally unemployed because you don't need them to produce goods?

>but then we will implement universal neetbucks and we'll live in capitalist utopia
kys neet

This is nothing to do with faggy commie scum and everything to do with globalization being a kike scheme to ruin rich countries.

Not every social change made is going to be good, but modern progressivism refuses to admit it. There is no concept of rollback. You keep changing until it crashes.

Apply this line of thinking to technology post industrial revolution, and you get the same thing. Just because you can outsource all your work to Pajeet doesnt mean you should, and if you do, there are going to be large unseen social consequences years later that (A) you won't see until it's too late and (B) human society on the scale we have now is not equipped to handle massive social changes without catastrophic results.

What alternate solution would you propose fucktard?

>each equilibrium
Why is this a good thing? This is a horrible thing and against human nature. Robbing wealthy countries of their right to work because the underclass can do it better is a temporary gain of pennies for you that will cost society thousands.

>yeah, how do you solve when automatization makes 95% of the population literally unemployed because you don't need them to produce goods?

UBI is a bandaid.
Overpopulation is the real issue.
One way, but not necessarily the best way, is to ban automation.

the system will collpase at some point faggot.

literally google mice utopia experiment.

the world will never reach equilibrium because there are so many low iq shitholers that can't even be self-sustainable at the most basic level and go a year without starving and needing our aid. you're delusional if you think they can ever reach equality with the developed parts of the world.

Automation will make it better, don't worry.

>Reaching equilibrium is against human nature
What is the point of arbitrary borders that just border wealth? Also if you think it's against human nature you're completely wrong. Human nature IS reaching equilibrium, why do you think pajeets come to wealth countries but few people come to poor countries? Wealth distribution will reach an equilibrium in the near future

>Banning automation
Are you retarded brainlet?
First of all banning technology never works, second of all what you're thinking will not be followed, especially in poor countries which just enforces my point

Welgum to globul gommunism fayget

>automatization makes 95% of the population literally unemployed
[citation needed]

Santiago niño becerra, an economist from the european spic mexico.

Do you seriously think only low iq people live in shitholes? The distribution of iq is equal in poor and rich countries, people in poor countries are disadvantaged due to how shitty their government is, overpopulation and oher factors.

Imagine being this delusional and entitled. Just neck before your genes spread.

The mice utopia results lead me to read "industrial society and its future" and it was the worst thing I have ever read and we are so fucked.

>What is the point of arbitrary borders that just border wealth?
Borders border groups of people with similar racial heritage. Or they should. But the don't anymore.

>Human nature IS reaching equilibrium
Human nature is a constant struggle against each other and ourselves with the winner taking massive amounts of spoils. Equilibrium and equality are for losers and against everything life has done since it emerged. try telling protozao or monkeys to reach equilibrium.

>why do you think pajeets come to wealth countries but few people come to poor countries?
Because those countries are inherently shitty and overpopulated and a drain, and the marginal best try and escape.

> Wealth distribution will reach an equilibrium in the near future
No.

>First of all banning technology never works, second of all what you're thinking will not be followed, especially in poor countries which just enforces my point
I never said it was the only answer.

can you cite a study or something, I can't think of many jobs that will be easily automatable. will people automate their restaurants any time soon?

>why do you think pajeets come to wealth countries but few people come to poor countries?
if anything, this is counter productive to your goal. even if you unrealistically assume pajeets leave their countries randomly, losing population decreases wealth in their already shitty country. realistically, only the smartest and the most determined pajeets are allowed to migrate, making the situation in their home country even worse. you can't build wealth when the most intelligent people run away.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

It has been show animal societies stop breeding and simply collapses.

dude, they're making AI to make self driving cars, 30% of american workers are drivers.
what are u going to do?

also, they're now making AI that is even making art and making creative task.

>people in poor countries are disadvantaged due to how shitty their government is, overpopulation and oher factors.
Now we reach the difference! I think we see the world differently user. I have been to many poor countries and the people there are not disadvantaged from government. They are disadvantaged because they are genetically worse, less intelligent, etc than many/some Westerners. Culture and society doesn't emerge from a vaccum. It comes from the people that create it.

>losing population decreases wealth in their already shitty country. realistically, only the smartest and the most determined pajeets are allowed to migrate, making the situation in their home country even worse. you can't build wealth when the most intelligent people run away.
Every globalist, open borders, progressive, etc should read this. If you truly love the poor people and truly want them to succeed and want their countries to be equal, stealing the handful of capable natives they have (and underpaying them on H1B) is 100% opposite what you want to do. But that would require insight and they lack that. it's easier to cry crocodile tears chant "let them in!" and continue their countries decline because they can't admit some groups of people are better than others.

The third world shitters should demand higher pay then. They're already starving, just demand 3x what they pay now. The employer still pays less than they do here, but they'll have less incentive and the Pajeetas will have more money to fix their country.

Bubble pop when?

>Do you seriously think only low iq people live in shitholes?
not only, but on average they are less intelligent. we're talking about large groups of people here, bringing up absolutes like "only" when describing a large group is retarded.

>The distribution of iq is equal in poor and rich countries
really? do you have any study to support that all countries are identical intellectually?

i know it seems impossible, but try thinking for a second here:
What's more believable, that myriad different genealogies developed different strengths and weaknesses in order to adapt to their wildly different environments, or that they all turn out exactly the same apart from their skin colour?

judging by your post and overused talking points, it's very obvious your ideology takes precedence logic, biology, statistics and empirical studies.

I wonder how inflated that statistic is. I do field work, so technically I'm a "driver", but most of my work is in an office

>your ideology takes precedence logic, biology, statistics and empirical studies.
He's too far gone user. Race realism is too big a pill for some people to swallow, they literally short out. It's sad - rather than celebrate everyone, they pretend we are all equal and wonder why things don't work.

their wages are increasing, China and India now are starting to have to outsource to worse shitholes because they're now too expensive for some factory slave jobs.

At some point you will run out of poor people.

Sure you may be right to some extent but environment plays a huge part too. It's like a downward spiraling loop, shitty schools make dumb people, and it repeats. If we could flip a theoretical switch that transfers America's wealth to india (ignoring other factors) and it is used efficiently then sure in the short term no change will happen but over decades the population Iq will increase and the gdp will grow.

30% certainly isn't 95%, and I don't think other things like welding, plumbing, AC, etc is easily automatable either. I'm a computer engineer so if everything does go towards automation I'll have even more job opportunities though, so I'm not against it.

you can only grow GDP with more population or productivity improvements.

not everyone has the IQ to be an engineer retard.
Automating shit will make 90% of humans with IQ less than 120 literally unemployable.

we dont send the jobs to 3rd world countries
we send the jobs to emerging economies

I didn't say anything about people being an engineer, I'm just skeptical about your "95%" claim. I think it'd be closer to 15~20%.

>comparing America to India
that's a good comparison actually. when europeans came to america, it had almost zero wealth/prosperity compared to india, which is one of the longest continuous civilizations in the world. you really cannot bring these schools, hospitals and roads on ships.
america grew as the people (rapidly) produced wealth from scratch, india not so much.

inb4 slavery - most things are not made of cotton, caste system is pretty much slavery (or feudalism), and it still exists in india.

cultural diferences.

non western cultures don't have the cultural institutions to develop rational thinking.

Even europeans developed rational thinking after killing themselves for an entire century in the name of religion.

so how do you force your culture on other people? do you point a gun at them and demand to think rationally? make an example of a few of them, bomb them a bit?

i mean it works in europe, they cave in to the invaders easily.

Good analogy, op.

you do realize most of the countries on earth have been influenced by western culture in some point?

even african shitholes have some kind of european code laws and european style state, study clearly european math and science, their politicians clearly study western political theory, economics and philosophy, the most popular sport is an english sport and non soccer countries have some kind of european sport as their main entertainment, european musical theory is the basis of all styles in the world, european religions are like the most popular on every country.

What else do you want faggot?
If anything modern civilization (western civilization) is so pervasive and taken as the default around the world that whites believe they don't have an unique culture beyond wow, the basic global culture that everyone has.

If anything indigenous and non western cultures are at the risk of being exterminated.

wtf Im a commie now

One where we dont make humans obsolete you retarded cunt. Kill yourself