Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Prince Charles Openly Endorses New Draconian Population Study

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agarta
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


I have one question in regards to your post. Although I agree with your statement that the survivors would be more expensive to maintain on an individual level, one thing I know is that the top classes never do the accounting for an individual. They look at the combined bottom line. So with that in mind, we do the math. You have 50 people working for $10 and hour vrs. 10 people working for $20, $500 pay out vrs. $200. They are indeed paying out more to the individual but at the same time saving $300(simplified numbers of course but you see my point). By eliminating the majority of the higher paid Middle class and paying the survivors more it actually comes back to the top classes as a savings or more profit, does it not?
edit on 27-1-2013 by Agarta because: (no reason given)


Again, look at the post-Plague middle-ages in Europe or some of the African countries where the AIDS epidemic has killed 1/3 of their population and another 1/3 is infected but still alive. There aren't enough trained people to fill the jobs and they can't train new people fast enough before they die from AIDS.

If they kill off the "middle class" or even the lower classes they will run out of people to do the jobs. The global economy would collapse and all their source of power would crumble too. If you can't have consumers that buy and manufacture stuff then you don't have a profit. Also poor people have nothing to lose so there would be massive unrest and crime rate increases - so the power of the Rich or the State wouldn't be feared as much when all they can take from you is your freedom cuz you already live on the streets. On the other hand, people who have it all - a home, car, big screen TV and nice vacations would certainly do anything they can to keep that!

Why do you think Ford started paying his employees more money and give them healthcare when every other industry tycoon was just exploiting their employees? Because Ford realized the simple principle that if the workers can afford to buy the fruits of their labor then they would do a better job and the products would sell to an ever-growing middle class.

So to conclude... if you kill off the population you end up with less skilled workers who are more expensive and can't replace the output of the lost workforce, also less consumers to buy your product, and less people to exert power on. It's a lose-lose situation for the Rich.




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


with modern technology human labor is no longer as important as in the past, much industrial is produced by robots, also agricultural is becoming more mechanized.

and customers can be governemental or corporate, not just citizens.

so, imo, fewer people would not be a problem, since reduction would be gradual.

and the wealthy overclass consumes much in every sector, along with fat government and corporate employees.

the bigest problem is what to do with the unwashed masses, thus reduction.

the british empire emptyed out scotland of people to replace them by sheep.

but now there is nowhere to send the surplus of humanity.
edit on 29-1-2013 by citizen6511 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen6511
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


with modern technology human labor is no longer as important as in the past, much industrial is produced by robots, also agricultural is becoming more mechanized.

and customers can be governemental or corporate, not just citizens.

so, imo, fewer people would not be a problem, since reduction would be gradual.

and the wealthy overclass consumes much in every sector, along with fat government and corporate employees.

the bigest problem is what to do with the unwashed masses, thus reduction.

the british empire emptyed out scotland of people to replace them by sheep.

but now there is nowhere to send the surplus of humanity.
edit on 29-1-2013 by citizen6511 because: (no reason given)


If you think robots can replace humans, then just try doing that with agriculture. There are several US states that have made it very hard for illegals to get low paid agricultural jobs and the crops ended up rotting in the fields. And that's just one example. You will always need low skilled labor unless they come up with Data-like androids that can take over human tasks completely without guidance. Even then, those robots would need repairs.

Govt & corporations can't consume a lot of the manufactured goods. Unless you want to end up with an 1984-like world where everything is rationed or produced only as needed you will need "consumers" who are able to buy the goods manufactured by corporations. And I'm pretty sure those in power love the profits that come from selling a lot stuff rather than having to wait for a need to start producing anything.

Gradual reduction in population is needed, but it's mostly in the third world and possibly some first world countries like the UK and Japan. Since most people are in the third world, these programs tend to try to educate and empower women to control their reproduction in those parts of the world. Once we reach negative growth and start having more (old/sick) people die than are born then we're on the right path.

However there's always a need for a balance. If you have too few new births then you'll have too few new workers to pay taxes and support the social safety nets of the elderly who get to retire so the reduction has to be very gradual in countries that have such systems in place (mostly first & second world).





new topics
 
28
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join