RussSchultz said:
And isn't that the BEST thing about multi-cultural cities?
A damn good point made by Maddox
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
And isn't that the BEST thing about multi-cultural cities?
RussSchultz said:
Not all people want, to integrate, however. Many make the move hoping it will be temporary, and that eventually they'll be able to move back home, (And I think this is more true for refugee communities than it is with other immigrants, (Chinatowns probably being the largest exceptions)). Many people move here because they have to or they feel they have to. People should have every option to integrate if they choose to, but in general I am against forced assimilation.
Clashman said:
Depends what you mean for "integration/assimilation". Of course i wouldn't want, say, Iraqi people to come here and "become" western, listening to Brit Pop (now THAT's torture...), wear skimpy outfits and such. However i used feel a bit amazed when my former mainly-Turkish clients (Law firm in London) who had been in this country for more than 10 years, could NOT speak nor understand one word of english. And i'm not even exaggerating.
LOL did youguys read the "A Tribute to real men"
That one was funny as crap.
edit:
Overall though the page is not that exciting.
Russ do you like vietnamese food then? (Houston has the 2nd largest amount of vietnamese people in the US, the 1st is in CA somewhere). Austin has to have some decent restuarants, and if not at least you have the green belt houston doesn't have anything like that.
That one was funny as crap.
edit:
Overall though the page is not that exciting.
Russ do you like vietnamese food then? (Houston has the 2nd largest amount of vietnamese people in the US, the 1st is in CA somewhere). Austin has to have some decent restuarants, and if not at least you have the green belt
houston doesn't have anything like that.When I worked at NASA, we had a good Indian, a good Vietnamese, a good Sushi restaurant right outside the back gate.
In Austin, you have to trek across town to find good restaurants, unless you're aiming for Mexican food.
In Austin, you have to trek across town to find good restaurants, unless you're aiming for Mexican food.
pax said:
Huh?! In a strange way, this post seems to make the crazies on freerepublic and elsewhere look sane through collaborating their theories. Since when has the UN tried "social engineering" and who has vetoed it? Whoever votoed it deserves a medal, because lord knows great things always happen when powerful elites try to reorganize society based on their own desires.
Clashman: If Chinese labor is cheaper (per work-unit not per hour) why would they even bother with the American labor in first place? Why not move the jobs as soon as possible to take advantage of the savings? As for people having "their" jobs threatened with cheap labor, that's what's called a free market. Besides, what's wrong with third worlders getting "American" jobs; that's an ugly nationalistic sentiment coming from you Clashman.
As for unions and like providing for improvements in wages, standards, etc., again, that's just another free market process, that of free negotiation. The reason this didn't happen elsewhere (as you say) is because of government intervention. I.e., that of the colonial power which interferred in the free market to prevent this from happening. Time and time again, examples have proved that nations succeed or prosper to the extent that they use truly free-market (not corporatist or socialist) policies.
Humus: Agree totally about tariffs, I wish these idiots in Washington would do the same. But the calculus of dispersed benefits/concentrated costs usually guarantees that things only get worse.[/b]
I didn't say to come here. I said to be part of this country i.e citizenship and all that comes with it like liscenses and voting and owning property.Clashman said:
Its messed up when I go to a store in america where the countrys languge is english and the people in that story speak spanish. That is wrong and is not exceptable. Same with china town where they can't speak to me because they only speak chinese .
Clashman said:
You don't loose your past by learning how to live and comunicate with americans using our primary languge . My father didn't loose anything. He gained alot though. He is now able to comunicated with the majority of this country.
Now if your an illegal you should get put back on your boat and pushed out into the ocean again .
jvd said:
At my university we got a bunch of american professors and teachers that don't know Swedish. Never have I felt the need to complain about that, or that their lectures are in english.
Yes, I do think the society should offer immigrants courses in the language of the country, but I have no problem with that there are subcultures in society where another language is spoken.
jvd said:
Who says English is "the countrys" language? Last I checked there were people here before the English came, and many since, who've spoken a multitude of languages. Why can't you learn Spanish or Chinese? Like I said, I live in a very diverse neighborhood, and the fact that there are plenty of people here who can't speak English doesn't get in the way of my daily business. So I don't see why anyone should HAVE to learn English. If they want to, fine, and I'm all for making every resource available for them to do it, but I don't feel that it should be forced.
And as for the free-market, economic nationalism argument: I'll get to that later, as it will take me awhile, and I have a dinner date. It'll be good, though,
.jvd said:
Issues like this are not worth getting upset over jvd. In Toronto, which is most likely the most multi cultural city in the world, I could take you to countless stores and restaurants where you would not hear a word of english. I think its kind of cool. The language issues disappear after one generation and cultural baggage usually diminishes after time. I am sure if read the names of the people who work at ATI's Toronto office you would think that you are reading off the names of the U.N. General Assembly. Being exposed to so many different cultures really just shows us how much alike we all really are, expect for food.
akira888 said:
Well, for one, many of the companies had their origins in the U.S. They became some of the biggest companies in the world under U.S. labor. Up until recently there were serious logistical difficulties with moving your operations from one country to another. Setting up a factory in another country is still expensive, and real integration with the world market wasn't really feasible until the invention of the shipping container. It still happened, yes, but not on anywhere near the scale it does now.
Who's saying they aren't now?
First off, who's to say the fully "free market" economy is the best thing to have? In a fully free market economy, free from government intervention, I should be able to sell germ bombs to Al Queda if I want to. I should be able to peddle kiddie porn to rapists. Hell, "if there's a market for it", than I should be free to sell it, right? I don't believe it is right. I think there are regulations in place, in certain instances, that are in fact good things, that serve the vast, vast majority of people in the world. One of these things are generally labor regulations. They have been hard fought and won in countries all over the world to try to ensure that peoples lives aren't regularly destroyed by the company they work for. But hey, if you want a total "free market" in terms of labor, we've had that before. Back when they used to give jobs to toddlers because "Hey, children will work for less than adults. And it is in fact a free market." Many children in the countries we move our labor to will face the same problem, (and in fact do already).
And as I already mentioned before, I'm not looking at this simply as a "They're taking American jobs argument". What I'm more concerned about is how jobs are created in 3rd world countries, under what premises, and with what intents. Companies don't move overseas in some humanitarian mission to develop the economy, they do it to make as much money as possible. Coca Cola doesn't set up shop in Colombia because they give a shit about the Colombian people, they did it because as soon as their workers start demanding their rights, they can come and have paramilitaries murder their union leader. Similarly, when a company sets up shop in China, they do so because they know that they will be able to keep wages and conditions at their own preference as long as they want. Furthermore, moving jobs overseas removes much of meager amounts of accountability to their workers that companies had, (especially if the country you move to is not a democracy). Which is primarily what I want both in an economy and a democracy, actual control and accountability of political and business elites to the vast majority of their populations, be they "citizen" or "worker".
First off, that is just plain not true. Even if you could find an example of a country reaching Western standards of living without a strong labor movement or government management, (and I would really be interested in seeing your examples), I could find you a dozen examples to the contrary, namely the U.S. and every single Western European country.
If there was an abscence of government intervention, I fail to see how that would have changed anything. You speak about corporations as if were it not for government they would behave as benevolent worker Utopias, laboring hand in hand with their workers to bring about a better life for all, when the fact of the matter is that this just isn't true. The United States spent a long, long time in a relatively laize faire state of being, and in abscence of government, companies tend to act like oppressive figures of authority in the abscence of anyone else doing it for them. It is only when people work to organize themselves that companies have shown any marks of civility.
Once again, I would love to see your examples. I've seen plenty of examples of where opening yourself up to the "free market" has meant economic disaster.
Edit: nelg, as much as I love Canada, I don't think there's any way anyone in their right mind would give the title of "Most multi-cultural city in the world" to Toronto over New York City, (which is the actual, and not figurative, location of the UN General Assembly). But I digress.
Just a bit of contention on this
It was really difficult to find comparable statistics between the two, (partially because defenitions of race and ethnicity change so much from place to place), but I'll show you what I found:
Toronto:
http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/table1.pdf
New York:
http://urban.nyu.edu/research/immigrants/
Key points:
Toronto:
Between 55-70 percent white.
20 percent Asian
6 percent African and Carribean
New York City
39 Percent white in 1996
26% Black
27% Hispanic
9% Asian
56% Foreign born or Children of Foreign born.
37.5% Foreign born by 2001
No ethnicity constitutes a majority in any of the 5 Burroughs except Staten Island.
It was really difficult to find comparable statistics between the two, (partially because defenitions of race and ethnicity change so much from place to place), but I'll show you what I found:
Toronto:
http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/table1.pdf
New York:
http://urban.nyu.edu/research/immigrants/
Key points:
Toronto:
Between 55-70 percent white.
20 percent Asian
6 percent African and Carribean
New York City
39 Percent white in 1996
26% Black
27% Hispanic
9% Asian
56% Foreign born or Children of Foreign born.
37.5% Foreign born by 2001
No ethnicity constitutes a majority in any of the 5 Burroughs except Staten Island.
Try LosAngeles area to, the ethnicity makeup would be quite diverse, as would houston, and seattle I imagine.
For Houston
http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/department/planning/download/demographics/2000census_race.pdf
White 31%
Black 25%
Hispanic 37%
Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander 5%
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn/20021121/diversity.html
For Houston
http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/department/planning/download/demographics/2000census_race.pdf
White 31%
Black 25%
Hispanic 37%
Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander 5%
Sxotty - those figures are for the inner city only. Where my parents and siblings live - miles from the city limits, looks a lot different to say the least. To my knowledge we're the only non-whites on the street (except for one Mexican-American woman married to a white guy).
I was responding to your point that companies use the threat of third world labor to "beat down" unions. My point was that if that was cheaper, why would they mess with the union in the first place? They would move those jobs to China immediately.
You're examples don't contradict my point. They both involve fugitives from the law being aided by a theoretical co-conspirator. As for child labor, do you believe that these parents who sent their children off to work were all evil child abusers? They all had reasons to place their children in these jobs, usually the family would starve otherwise. Also, for many third world children the choice is not between a comfy schoolhouse and labor but between prostitution and labor. Don't be a neocon and generalize from your American experience onto other cultures, as we see it doesn't always work.
Again, this is an argument against corporatist socialism, not free markets. Having the government police come in and murder one side of an economic negotiation is not "free-markets" in any sense of the word. And as for "worker democracy," all I will say is the last thing workers need is to have all of their stock as well as their employment in one basket. Such is a recipe for disaster.
Hong Kong. Singapore. Taiwan. Note that all of these nations reached first world status in a shorter period of time than did Europe or America, and now HK and Sing. are wealthier than Eur. or Amer.
www.cato.org/economicfreedom/
Note the almost direct correlation between economic freedom and prosperity.
There's no benevolence neccessary Clashman. The reason labor rates rise is not because of "kindness" but due to rises in productivity. As industrial productivity rises, labor's value to the businessman increases (since labor can now produce more). It becomes economically sensible to outbid on labor relative to competitors, and his competitors will be forced to follow suit. This isn't some ideological theory; this is standard textbook economics.
See above. And, as the above link shows, there's a strong positive correlation between openness to trade and economic success. While there will always be outliers in both directions due to various extrogenous factors, the general trend is extremely telling.
Clashman said:
I was responding to your point that companies use the threat of third world labor to "beat down" unions. My point was that if that was cheaper, why would they mess with the union in the first place? They would move those jobs to China immediately.
You're examples don't contradict my point. They both involve fugitives from the law being aided by a theoretical co-conspirator. As for child labor, do you believe that these parents who sent their children off to work were all evil child abusers? They all had reasons to place their children in these jobs, usually the family would starve otherwise. Also, for many third world children the choice is not between a comfy schoolhouse and labor but between prostitution and labor. Don't be a neocon and generalize from your American experience onto other cultures, as we see it doesn't always work.
Again, this is an argument against corporatist socialism, not free markets. Having the government police come in and murder one side of an economic negotiation is not "free-markets" in any sense of the word. And as for "worker democracy," all I will say is the last thing workers need is to have all of their stock as well as their employment in one basket. Such is a recipe for disaster.
Hong Kong. Singapore. Taiwan. Note that all of these nations reached first world status in a shorter period of time than did Europe or America, and now HK and Sing. are wealthier than Eur. or Amer.
www.cato.org/economicfreedom/
Note the almost direct correlation between economic freedom and prosperity.
There's no benevolence neccessary Clashman. The reason labor rates rise is not because of "kindness" but due to rises in productivity. As industrial productivity rises, labor's value to the businessman increases (since labor can now produce more). It becomes economically sensible to outbid on labor relative to competitors, and his competitors will be forced to follow suit. This isn't some ideological theory; this is standard textbook economics.
See above. And, as the above link shows, there's a strong positive correlation between openness to trade and economic success. While there will always be outliers in both directions due to various extrogenous factors, the general trend is extremely telling.
I think you missed alot of the points I was trying to make.
First off, people try to form Unions in China and Colombia. Because the state does not intervene on behalf of the workers, companies are allowed to "beat down" those unions. In states with strong worker protections, cracking down on a union is much more difficult to do.
No, in fact they do. Laws both against Al Queda and kiddie porn are state restrictions on the prospective markets for germ bombs and kiddie porn. Likewise, making Opium illegal in China was a severe restriction on what had been an otherwise profitable market. But personally, I feel it is a good idea to keep these things illegal, as their legalization would likely have very detrimental effects on the citizens of their respective territories. Likewise, I was not referring to parents of child workers as being evil. Rather, it is a perfect example of what you call "free negotiation", and what I refer to as a "Patron-Client Relationship". It is a free labor market that forces children into work, (or prostitution, as you pointed out). Creating liveable wage and child labor laws help to alleviate or eliminate those problems through state intervention, decided upon democratically.
First off, it doesn't have to be government police that do the murdering. It can well be hired Pinkertons. There are in fact actors independent of the state who work to break unions. There's nothing "socialist" about it.
The stocks comment was a hypothetical suggestion. The point I was driving at is that people's workplaces, (independent for the most part of the state), should be democratic institutions. And when I say that I generally exclude small, locally owned and family owned businesses.
Well, Tiawan in particular did in fact have a highly managed economy. And both Singapore and HK have been around for at least 150-200 years as financial centers. Most states in the Union haven't been around nearly that long, and most of Western Europe was destroyed twice over by world wars and is still comparable. More over, developing the economy of what is basically a city in Hong Kong and Singapore is a far easier task than doing so over a large territorial area. But just for comparison's sake:
Hong Kong Pop. 7,394,170 GDP $198.5 billion.
Singapore Pop. 4,608,595 GDP $112.4 billion
Taiwan Pop. 22,603,001 GDP $406 billion
California Pop. 35,000,000 GDP $900 billion
Seems pretty comparable to me.
That only works when the corporations in question are relatively stationary. What happens now is that if wages rise above a certain point in one country, the company can simply move operations to another, where they are cheaper. When wages rise there, move somewhere else. Because of this, states have a vested interest in keeping labor costs low and as repressive as possible, gutting environmental regulations, etc, so as to attract foreign investment. In places like Taiwan, they got around this by managing who could come in, what industries were invested in, and under what terms. They were then able to build infrastructure without ceding control of it to foreign multinationals, as they would have in a "free market" or "free trade" system. This is also the route places like Mainland have taken, as opposed to the more open system which has led to economic disaster in Ethiopia, the former Soviet Bloc countries, (China excepted), and Latin America, which is certainly more indicative to me of world trends than three tiny but wealthy island nations.
akira888 said:
First off, people try to form Unions in China and Colombia. Because the state does not intervene on behalf of the workers, companies are allowed to "beat down" those unions. In states with strong worker protections, cracking down on a union is much more difficult to do.
No, in fact they do. Laws both against Al Queda and kiddie porn are state restrictions on the prospective markets for germ bombs and kiddie porn. Likewise, making Opium illegal in China was a severe restriction on what had been an otherwise profitable market. But personally, I feel it is a good idea to keep these things illegal, as their legalization would likely have very detrimental effects on the citizens of their respective territories. Likewise, I was not referring to parents of child workers as being evil. Rather, it is a perfect example of what you call "free negotiation", and what I refer to as a "Patron-Client Relationship". It is a free labor market that forces children into work, (or prostitution, as you pointed out). Creating liveable wage and child labor laws help to alleviate or eliminate those problems through state intervention, decided upon democratically.
First off, it doesn't have to be government police that do the murdering. It can well be hired Pinkertons. There are in fact actors independent of the state who work to break unions. There's nothing "socialist" about it.
The stocks comment was a hypothetical suggestion. The point I was driving at is that people's workplaces, (independent for the most part of the state), should be democratic institutions. And when I say that I generally exclude small, locally owned and family owned businesses.
Well, Tiawan in particular did in fact have a highly managed economy. And both Singapore and HK have been around for at least 150-200 years as financial centers. Most states in the Union haven't been around nearly that long, and most of Western Europe was destroyed twice over by world wars and is still comparable. More over, developing the economy of what is basically a city in Hong Kong and Singapore is a far easier task than doing so over a large territorial area. But just for comparison's sake:
Hong Kong Pop. 7,394,170 GDP $198.5 billion.
Singapore Pop. 4,608,595 GDP $112.4 billion
Taiwan Pop. 22,603,001 GDP $406 billion
California Pop. 35,000,000 GDP $900 billion
Seems pretty comparable to me.
That only works when the corporations in question are relatively stationary. What happens now is that if wages rise above a certain point in one country, the company can simply move operations to another, where they are cheaper. When wages rise there, move somewhere else. Because of this, states have a vested interest in keeping labor costs low and as repressive as possible, gutting environmental regulations, etc, so as to attract foreign investment. In places like Taiwan, they got around this by managing who could come in, what industries were invested in, and under what terms. They were then able to build infrastructure without ceding control of it to foreign multinationals, as they would have in a "free market" or "free trade" system. This is also the route places like Mainland have taken, as opposed to the more open system which has led to economic disaster in Ethiopia, the former Soviet Bloc countries, (China excepted), and Latin America, which is certainly more indicative to me of world trends than three tiny but wealthy island nations.
Clashman said:
It all depends on what you mean. If you are referring to actual coercion then the nightwatchman state has a responsibilty to end that. If you mean "cracking down" by hiring replacements then that's a perfectably acceptable behavior in a free market.
Laws against al-Qaida are justified in a minimal state by the fact that it is an organization formed for the purpose of committing criminal acts. Laws against kiddie porn are justified by the fact that kids are not empowered to give consent to pornographers. Neither effect the freedom of consenting adults to be free from state intervention so long as they engage in peaceful behavior.
The "drug war" is a crime against humanity, now or in the past. They do nothing except make life harder for the addict and more profitable for the pusher.
How does the market "force" children to work? It's the parents who are putting these children to work, not some sociological abstraction. And I trust they have a good reason to do so. And "liveable" wages laws do nothing except push the price of labor above the market clearing price, thus creating a glut of labor since all prices above the market one create more supply but generate less demand.
When the state fails to prevent force it is "intervening" in a different manner but "intervening" none the less. The neutral minimal state stops all instigatory acts of violence.
Why should they be "democratic?" Would a "democratic" firm be competitive with a firm with strong leadership? I think not, but I won't argue this anymore since I lack evidence. I will say this however: If "democracy" were a better way to organize a firm "democratic" firms would have driven their competitors out of business long ago it seems.
Hong Kong was a destroyed backwater after WWII, so was Singapore, so your point is moot. To extend my argument - look at China versus India. China has been liberalizing their economy and society for the last 25 years (contra the neocon line on China) and has seen explosive growth. India is a "democracy" yet maintains a tight grip on its citizens - it has stagnated. India has, under the BJP, moved towards Chinese style economic policies and might now surpass China's growth rate.
What's true over a nation is true over a planet over a somewhat longer time scale. There's only so many places the factory could relocate to. Besides, why would these factory employees knowingly price themselves out of the market? It doesn't make sense in the least to demand a wage the market won't bear.
Hit "Submit" on this page - http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/ and see that Taiwan is better managed than any of the "more open" societies you mention. And the Eastern bloc - if you mean Eastern Europe - is anything but a disaster. Russia has its own problems and so does Armenia that have nothing to do with this issue.
Similar threads
