Bangladesh migrants, the citizens of no man's land

[Mad Indian]

Just to make it clear, I am not in favor of bangladeshi immigrants for political and social reasons and not for economic reasons. I would support immigrations from any country whose citizens wont pose a social/political risk to us- like say Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Tibet etc

 

[Mad Indian]

I recommend you guys to play Victoria 2 with all its expansions, by Paradox games. It is an awesome economic simulator. You will get a better understanding of a lot of things regarding economics

 

[pmaitra]

OK i think you are right in most of your assumpitions- except on the part of productivity of low skilled people. Anyperson who can support his own weight in any economy should be logically a benefit in that economy is what I am arguing- be it a high productive one or a low productive one(obviously the high productive one is more valuable but that does not mean low productive one , so long as he does not smooch off others is a bad thing on the economy)!

Coming to my argument, for example, hypothetically, let us say tomorrow, a huge invention takes place and we have robots like that in the I Robot movie, which does all the low level manual Human work like carpenting, works in agriculture, coal fields for 50% of the cost of employing human labor, would you accept such robots into our country or not. Will it be beneficial to our country or not? Explain why?

Your hypothesis should be applied to India.

Does India have a huge population that is unskilled or low-skilled? If yes, then they are a burden. It is true that many of these people are not employed. Only when we reach a point that we have a lot of low-skilled jobs, and we have absolutely no local supply of labour, can we think of importing unskilled or low-skilled labour.

Today, we can mechanize our agriculture industry, but, if we do that, can you imagine how many people will be jobless? Refer to what @Bangalorean already stated.

 

[Mad Indian]

Your hypothesis should be applied to India.

Does India have a huge population that is unskilled or low-skilled? If yes, then they are a burden. It is true that many of these people are not employed. Only when we reach a point that we have a lot of low-skilled jobs, and we have absolutely no local supply of labour, can we think of importing unskilled or low-skilled labour.

Today, we can mechanize our agriculture industry, but, if we do that, can you imagine how many people will be jobless? Refer to what @Bangalorean already stated.

To make it clear, you are arguing that robots, if they are found to be a cheaper labor than Humans, will cause unemployment and therefore will lead to poverty and hence will be bad for India? Is that what you are saying?

 

[pmaitra]

To make it clear, you are arguing that robots, if they are found to be a cheaper labor than Humans, will cause unemployment and therefore will lead to poverty and hence will be bad for India? Is that what you are saying?

No, I am not arguing about robots. The most powerful intelligent machine ever built has the intelligence of that of a cockroach. We will never be able to replace humans with robots. Come out of your sci-fi world.

 

[Mad Indian]

No, I am not arguing about robots. The most powerful intelligent machine ever built has the intelligence of that of a cockroach. We will never be able to replace humans with robots. Come out of your sci-fi world.

Dude, wth? I already said it is a hypothetical question. Answer my question, tomorrow, hypothetically speaking, we have a new robot which does the manual labor at half the cost of Human labor. Will that robot be bad or good for the current Indian economy?

 

[pmaitra]

Dude, wth? I already said it is hypothetical question. Answer my question, tomorrow, hypothetically speaking, we have a new robot which does the manual labor at half the cost of Human labor. Will that robot be bad or good for the economy?

It would be bad for the economy, because, millions of people will become jobless, and the government will have to give them social security benefits, food stamps, blah blah blah, for which, those profitng from the use of robots will be heavily taxed.

So, no, it ain't as simply as you think.

 

[Peter]

I recommend you guys to play Victoria 2 with all its expansions, by Paradox games. It is an awesome economic simulator. You will get a better understanding of a lot of things regarding economics

I have played it and have even completed many games with uncivs like Punjab,Siam,Ethiopia etc.
You can check out an awesome Vicky 2 player on youtube by name of Shenryyr2.


Now coming back to the topic, you will probably be saying that in Vicky 2 more pop means more of everything. More soldiers for conquests,more workers for factories etc. However vicky 2 does not take into account many factors. The first thing is that how easily one can get access to better tech by researching that tech. In real world that is not the case, better technology cannot be obtained so easily by clicking a button.

Also having more soldiers does not mean you can use them for conquest in the real world. In fact if that was the case China would be conquering everything. A large standing army doing nothing becomes a financial burden in the real world.

Also i have to add another point. In vicky 2 any action we take like say encouraging clergy to get more education results in our literacy increasing. In the real world there is always a chance our investment to a particular project may fail. Video games do not simulate the risk behind taking welfare schemes.

(Other things I would not point out liking just sliding a bar on the economy screen and making daily profit. If only real life governance and debt management were that easy.)

 

[Mad Indian]

It would be bad for the economy, because, millions of people will become jobless, and the government will have to give them social security benefits, food stamps, blah blah blah, for which, those profitng from the use of robots will be heavily taxed.

So, no, it ain't as simply as you think.

BY your argument, if the robots which are a cheaper source of labor cause poverty and unemployment, then mechanisation of the same thing, should have the same effect yes?

For example, the harvesters used for harvesting paddy employing just 10 people, costing only 50% of doing the same work by 100 manual paddy harvest workers then it should be bad for the economy, as it causes joblessness for the remaining 90 workers, on the same logic, yes?

Or better example, a power loom employing 10 workers, which can do the work of 100 handicraft looms manned by 100 handicraft workers, and costs only 50% of the cost of running a such a handicraft looms should be bad for the economy , as it causes joblessness for the remaining 90 workers, yes?

 

[Mad Indian]

I have played it and have even completed many games with uncivs like Punjab,Siam,Ethiopia etc.
You can check out an awesome Vicky 2 player on youtube by name of Shenryyr2.


Now coming back to the topic, you will probably be saying that in Vicky 2 more pop means more of everything. More soldiers for conquests,more workers for factories etc. However vicky 2 does not take into account many factors. The first thing is that how easily one can get access to better tech by researching that tech. In real world that is not the case, better technology cannot be obtained so easily by clicking a button.

VIC 2 is not a completely accurate representation of economics, but it is very close

It has a good representation of research output it in the terms of literacy right?

Also having more soldiers does not mean you can use them for conquest in the real world. In fact if that was the case China would be conquering everything. A large standing army doing nothing becomes a financial burden in the real world.

China is not advanced enough like that of US now is it. Why do you think US is shit scared of China now? May be that has something to do with its present population backed by its growing technological clout? Also in VIC 2, you can beat China, as a westernised Japan, because of the tech difference, which is quite accurate of the real world of that time

 

[pmaitra]

BY your argument, if the robots which are a cheaper source of labor cause poverty and unemployment, then mechanisation of the same thing, should have the same effect yes?

For example, the harvesters used for harvesting paddy, if it costs only 50% of what it does to pay for the workers it replaces, then it should be bad for the economy on the same logic, yes?

Or better example, a power loom employing 10 workers, which can do the work of 100 handicraft looms manned by 100 handicraft workers, and costs only 50% of the cost of running a such a handicraft looms should be bad for the economy yes?

Nope, not quite.

You said if we have a robot that does manual labour. You did not say this will do a part of the manual labour.


Here is what part of the manual labour means:

Robotic arm used in the automotive industry

Now, imagine, if everything required to make a car were to be done by robots.

Mining of iron ore, loading of iron ore, operating machines that make steel, converting steel into a car body, assembling the parts, growing and maintaining rubber tree plantations, extracting latex, making rubber, then making tires, and the list is very long. How many people will this make jobless? Moreover, this is not even possible. Heck, even a BMW assembly line needs to hire humans. I have been to one. You should too.

Your argument is a hypothesis, and it should be treated as such.

 

[Mad Indian]

Nope, not quite.

You said if we have a robot that does manual labour. You did not say this will do a part of the manual labour.

Ok, then let me rephrase the question. the Robots do "part of the work" of the work of the manual labour at half the cost of the whole thing being a manual operation, and of course it will replace the manual jobs. For ex, all the manual labors like coal mining , tilling and otherr hard labor and dangerous works are done by Robots, at half the cost of the manual labor. But some people are needed to maintain and superwise the robots- like say, instead of 100 manual workers in a iron mine, we have 100 robots manned by 10 Humans, But of course now, the cost of 100 robots(including the investment and running cost) along with the 10 superwisers is only 50% of the cost of employing all manual labour in the iron ore mining.

Now tell me, will that be bad for the country's economy or not? Please not that here, 100 workers are losing jobs and 10 superwisers are gaining jobs.. SO there is a net loss of 90 jobs here.

 

[Bangalorean]

OK i think you are right in most of your assumpitions- except on the part of productivity of low skilled people. Anyperson who can support his own weight in any economy should be logically a benefit in that economy is what I am arguing- be it a high productive one or a low productive one(obviously the high productive one is more valuable but that does not mean low productive one , so long as he does not smooch off others is a bad thing on the economy)!

Coming to my argument, for example, hypothetically, let us say tomorrow, a huge invention takes place and we have robots like that in the I Robot movie, which does all the low level manual Human work like carpenting, works in agriculture, coal fields for 50% of the cost of employing human labor, would you accept such robots into our country or not. Will it be beneficial to our country or not? Explain why?

Productivity of low-skilled people:

The goal is to improve the productivity of the economy and make sure people move up the value chain. A coolie wants his son to be a driver, a driver wants his son to be a bank clerk, a bank clerk wants his son to be an officer, an officer wants his son to be a well-paid high-flying engineer, etc. etc.

If everyone in the above list produces 10 kids, resulting in a total of 40 kids, you need to add enough jobs for 40 drivers, clerks, officers and engineers. If you add less engineer jobs, officer's sons would have to remain officers. If you add less officer jobs, clerk sons would have to remain clerks. If you add less driver jobs, coolie sons would have to remain coolies.

600 million Indians are currently coolies, to put it simply and crudely. You can say that they are "supporting their own weight" in the economy. But in reality, this is classic "disguised unemployment". Lets say, 100 coolies are necessary to tend to 5 fields of 1 acre each. If these 5 fields are consolidated, mechanization is introduced, yield increases greatly. And you need only 10 coolies. Remaining 90 coolies will "move up the value chain" due to getting absorbed in industry, services, etc.

If you don't pull the coolies out and up the value chain, you can say that they are "supporting their own weight", but the goal of improving the productivity of the economy and making people move up the value chain is not happening.

 

[Bangalorean]

Ok, then let me rephrase the question. the Robots do "part of the work" of the work of the manual labour at half the cost of the whole thing being a manual operation, and of course it will replace the manual jobs. For ex, all the manual labors like coal mining , tilling and otherr hard labor and dangerous works are done by Robots, at half the cost of the manual labor. But some people are needed to maintain and superwise the robots- like say, instead of 100 manual workers in a iron mine, we have 100 robots manned by 10 Humans, But of course now, the cost of 100 robots(including the investment and running cost) along with the 10 superwisers is only 50% of the cost of employing all manual labour in the iron ore mining.

Now tell me, will that be bad for the country's economy or not? Please not that here, 100 workers are losing jobs and 10 superwisers are gaining jobs.. SO there is a net loss of 90 jobs here.

The question that I have to ask here is: do you have alternative employment for those 90?

In my "move away from surplus agricultural labour" model, I say that the surplus labour will be absorbed in industry and services. Actually, it will happen the other way round - as jobs are created in industry and services, the agricultural sector will face shortage of labour, which will lead to less people owning the same land, consolidation of landholdings, greater profits for those few (10% of population) who remain in the agricultural sector.

 

[Mad Indian]

@Bangalorean You dint answer my question on the robots .Please answer my question on robots in India

Ok, then let me rephrase the question. the Robots do "part of the work" of the work of the manual labour at half the cost of the whole thing being a manual operation, and of course it will replace the manual jobs. For ex, all the manual labors like coal mining , tilling and otherr hard labor and dangerous works are done by Robots, at half the cost of the manual labor. But some people are needed to maintain and superwise the robots- like say, instead of 100 manual workers in a iron mine, we have 100 robots manned by 10 Humans, But of course now, the cost of 100 robots(including the investment and running cost) along with the 10 superwisers is only 50% of the cost of employing all manual labour in the iron ore mining.

Now tell me, will that be bad for the country's economy or not? Please not that here, 100 workers are losing jobs and 10 superwisers are gaining jobs.. SO there is a net loss of 90 jobs here.

If you answer my question, I can show how population growth is not necessarily linked with economic mobility as you have claimed in your post

 

[Bangalorean]

@Bangalorean You dint answer my question on the robots .Please answer my question on robots in India



If you answer my question, I can show how population growth is not necessarily linked with economic mobility as you have claimed in your post

Here, in the previous post:

The question that I have to ask here is: do you have alternative employment for those 90?

In my "move away from surplus agricultural labour" model, I say that the surplus labour will be absorbed in industry and services. Actually, it will happen the other way round - as jobs are created in industry and services, the agricultural sector will face shortage of labour, which will lead to less people owning the same land, consolidation of landholdings, greater profits for those few (10% of population) who remain in the agricultural sector.

 

[Mad Indian]

In my "move away from surplus agricultural labour" model, I say that the surplus labour will be absorbed in industry and services. Actually, it will happen the other way round - as jobs are created in industry and services, the agricultural sector will face shortage of labour, which will lead to less people owning the same land, consolidation of landholdings, greater profits for those few (10% of population) who remain in the agricultural sector.

You are right . I am disputing it on any level. I agree with your stance in this 100%.

The question that I have to ask here is: do you have alternative employment for those 90?

Lets say that the robots work the same way the mechanisation of the textile industry lately has been working, ie, replacement of handlooms with powerlooms manned by fewer people than be other wise employed in the handlooms. I think instead of this robots, I should have gone with the power looms/handilooms example, but then i would have a hard time making the follow up argument

Now give a straight answer to my question , and half the debate on this issue would be over! Please- will such robots be good or bad for the present Indian economy?

 

[pmaitra]

Ok, then let me rephrase the question. the Robots do "part of the work" of the work of the manual labour at half the cost of the whole thing being a manual operation, and of course it will replace the manual jobs. For ex, all the manual labors like coal mining , tilling and otherr hard labor and dangerous works are done by Robots, at half the cost of the manual labor. But some people are needed to maintain and superwise the robots- like say, instead of 100 manual workers in a iron mine, we have 100 robots manned by 10 Humans, But of course now, the cost of 100 robots(including the investment and running cost) along with the 10 superwisers is only 50% of the cost of employing all manual labour in the iron ore mining.

Now tell me, will that be bad for the country's economy or not? Please not that here, 100 workers are losing jobs and 10 superwisers are gaining jobs.. SO there is a net loss of 90 jobs here.

A thorough market analysis is required.

Even if part of the labour can be done by robots, if it is profitable, those robots will be used. Very simple. That is why we have robotic arms in factories. What we have is what we have. If we do not have anything more than that, that is because, either such an intelligent robot does not exist, or even if it exists, it is too expensive to procure than to employ manual labour.

Bottom-line is, water will find its own level.

 

[Mad Indian]

A thorough market analysis is required.

Even if part of the labour can be done by robots, if it is profitable, those robots will be used. Very simple. That is why we have robotic arms in factories. What we have is what we have. If we do not have anything more than that, that is because, either such an intelligent robot does not exist, or even if it exists, it is too expensive to procure than to employ manual labour.

Bottom-line is, water will find its own level.

But i have already given you the market analysis- the cost of employing the robots/superwiser combo is 50% cheaper than cost of employing a fully manual labour(inclusive of all the cost of development, production, maintainance)

SO Now, tell me will such robots be beneficial or detrimental to the economy!

 

[Mad Indian]

Here, in the previous post:

I am sorry I missed it. I have replied for it in post #97