Need a job?

https://www.capitalpress.com/newsletter/daily/
(The West's AG website)

JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press

Immigrant farm workers' challenge: Take our jobs

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a tongue-in-cheek call for immigration reform, farm workers are challenging unemployed Americans: Come on, take our jobs.

Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the United Farm Workers, says workers are tired of being blamed by politicians and anti-illegal immigration activists for taking American jobs.

Now the UFW is challenging the nation's unemployed citizens to apply for some of the thousands of agricultural jobs posted with state agencies. The group says all applicants need to do is fill out an online form and they will be trained and connected to farms.

According to the Labor Department, more than half the nation's farm workers are illegal immigrants.


To drive the point home, Comedy Central's "Colbert Report" plans to feature the "Take Our Jobs" campaign on July 8.
___

https://www.takeourjobs.org

If that were to actually happen, the price of food would quadruple overnight.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

https://www.capitalpress.com/newsletter/daily/
(The West's AG website)

JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press

Immigrant farm workers' challenge: Take our jobs

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a tongue-in-cheek call for immigration reform, farm workers are challenging unemployed Americans: Come on, take our jobs.

Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the United Farm Workers, says workers are tired of being blamed by politicians and anti-illegal immigration activists for taking American jobs.

Now the UFW is challenging the nation's unemployed citizens to apply for some of the thousands of agricultural jobs posted with state agencies. The group says all applicants need to do is fill out an online form and they will be trained and connected to farms.

According to the Labor Department, more than half the nation's farm workers are illegal immigrants.


To drive the point home, Comedy Central's "Colbert Report" plans to feature the "Take Our Jobs" campaign on July 8.
___

https://www.takeourjobs.org

---

I filled out the form, if the county would look the other way like they do with migrants and let white people have migrant shelter or campgrounds to live in while working, I could work and enjoy it If I wasn't subject to being the only white person on the crew. If my shelter didn't cost so much then my hourly wage becomes more, If I pay less for food because its being prepared by those who know how to cook and supplies are bought in larger quantities then my hourly wage goes up some more. If I don't have to drive to work and ride with more people perhaps not even needing a car, the insurance, the registration, the gas, my wage goes up some more.

This is the math to work with for the future, bring the costs of living down and you don't need as much of a paycheck to work hard enough to do the work and keep the job. A person gets a good wage and they will work harder to keep it. If by all the above the wage stays the same but the costs goes down that's the same thing as a raise.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

If that were to actually happen, the price of food would quadruple overnight.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

... I could work and enjoy it If wasn't subject to being the only white person on the crew. ...

---

Umm Thad,

Just what do you mean by that? Because on a first read, it sounds kind of ... racist?

Your point about reducing living costs increasing income is well taken. Been practicing that off and on for years.

My bad if that comes off racist but In common banter what is usually inferred in this context of (unemployed Americans) are whites who find it beneath them to work the fields or other jobs for the wage that's offered,

I am a carpenter and enjoy a fast pace and physical work and will do many other things when not employed in my trade. I always work up to the wage whatever I decide to work for.

But the things that makes me a less desirable worker in this context is that my life here has a need for a higher dollar to afford the "American Way" than those who are here for a fast buck and a quick departure. I know I have laws on my side to see to my interests, I have a knowledge of what fair wage is, I am not afraid to speak up for myself for fear of attention and that I have a hope for something that extends further than season to season and is based here.

Labor contractors rely on the ignorance and fear of undocumented workers or the desperate to pay the least and slave the most and the rest of the society is quite happy to go along with this parasitic relationship.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Umm Thad,

Just what do you mean by that? Because on a first read, it sounds kind of ... racist?

Your point about reducing living costs increasing income is well taken. Been practicing that off and on for years.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

I filled out the form, if the county would look the other way like they do with migrants and let white people have migrant shelter or campgrounds to live in while working, I could work and enjoy it If wasn't subject to being the only white person on the crew. If my shelter didn't cost so much then my hourly wage becomes more, If I pay less for food because its being prepared by those who know how to cook and also bought in larger quantities then my hourly wage goes up some more. If I don't have to drive to work and ride with more people perhaps not even needing a car, the insurance, the registration, the gas, my wage goes up some more.

---

I counted 5 if’s in the above part of your statement, none of which would be guaranteed.

Farm Laborers n $7 to $8 an hour versus $14 to $15 per hour in industry n Farm workers average 24.4 weeks of work per year for a total of $5,500 n High unemployment-15% in summer, 40% in winter n Only 12% speak English, 85% have not finished high school www.csustan.edu/AgStudies/documents/AGST_3000/AgriculturalLaborImmigrationIssues.ppt

Generally speaking immigrant farm workers have large families. Depending on the situation, some of them stay in Mexico or somewhere south of the border while others work here in the USA.
They don't all live in so-called farm labor shelters because there is not really that many of them in actual existence.

n 800,000 people hired to work on California farms yearly n There are 2,100 family housing units in 26 centers and each houses fewer than two workers n An additional 1,044 centers will house five or more workers leaving the remaining workers to find housing from private sources n Government agencies and NGOs; subsidized housing through government grants and loans n 13% on employer provided housing, 37% live with family members, 50% pay an average of $238/mo. rent www.csustan.edu/AgStudies/documents/AGST_3000/AgriculturalLaborImmigrationIssues.ppt

It was all they could do to get some employer’s to supply the port a potty’s.

n Less than 1/3 of workers have CA driver’s licenses n 70% pay an average of $5 per day for transportation to work n 97% say they pay for their own tools even though the employer is required to pay n Lack of health care n Inadequate sanitary facilities n Little opportunity for upward mobility

Also, the large immigrant families that come to the US to work usually rent motels or houses, and populate them quite densely; like 16 people in a four bedroom house for example. That definitely lowers the cost of per person, housing. Frequently that dwelling consists of more than one family.
A single person would not have a chance of cutting their costs for rent that much without having a already paid for RV that they could park somewhere in one of those camps that you mention that don't really exist in very many places.
Most employers of farm workers will not or can not because of Zoning Codes, supply the land where facilities it takes for one of those places to exist on or near the farm in the first place.

There have been more places like that closed down and/or taken out of operation for a various number of reasons then were opened in the recent past; (State parks, County campgrounds, and trailer courts).

as we seem to have stated and I agree that; a single person would be lucky to break even on the expenses if they were to try to do some farm work on their own without the support of the greater community of seasonal farm workers, some kind of governmental subsidies, or both.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

This is the math to work with for the future, bring the costs of living down and you don't need as much of a paycheck to work hard enough to do the work and keep the job. A person gets a good wage and they will work harder to keep it. If by all the above the wage stays the same but the costs goes down that's the same thing as a raise.

---

If the wage stays the same as? what about the need for a home?
How much do you think the average farm worker makes?
I can tell you that it is minimum wage or not very much above that:

The FLSA provides for the employment of certain individuals at wage rates below the statutory minimum. Such individuals include student-learners (vocational education students), as well as full-time students in retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education. Also included are individuals whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by a physical or mental disability, including those related to age or injury, for the work to be performed. Employment at less than the minimum wage is authorized to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment. Such employment is permitted only under certificates issued by Wage-Hour.

Also you can forget about the eight hour per day , and the five day per week schedule, it's more like 12 to 14 hours a day (sometimes 16 hours per day six or seven days a week with no overtime pay).
Also you can forget about being paid overtime because agricultural workers are exempt; Note: “exempt” in this case means no overtime pay required by law.

Exemptions from Overtime Pay Only Certain commissioned employees of retail or service establishments; auto, truck, trailer, farm implement, boat, or aircraft salesworkers, or parts-clerks and mechanics servicing autos, trucks, or farm implements, who are employed by nonmanufacturing establishments primarily engaged in selling these items to ultimate purchasers; Employees of railroads and air carriers, taxi drivers, certain employees of motor carriers, seamen on American vessels, and local delivery employees paid on approved trip rate plans; Announcers, news editors, and chief engineers of certain nonmetropolitan broadcasting stations; Domestic service workers living in the employer's residence; Employees of motion picture theaters; and Farmworkers. https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-benefits/employment-employer-benefits-wages-flsa%281%29.html

Oh, if you can't hack those long hours, you will either get fired or get piecework pay instead, which can (legally) be less than minimum wage, and you will more than likely have to walk out of the field on your own because, you will not be able to use the shuttle that other farm workers use because it won't be there until the end of the work day. Also keeping track of what you do when you do piecework is sometimes extremely difficult to keep track of and odds are, you will very likely get ripped off sometimes, that happens frequently.

Or, of course, you can raise your expenses and bring your own vehicle somewhere in the area somewhere near the starting point in the morning where you're working. But you could end up being shuttled miles away to another place. Or you can walk a couple of miles to your car and go there if, it's okay with the employer in which sometimes it is not.

All that being said, the reason I stated that the cost of food would go up four times almost overnight is because 1- there will be a shortage of capable labor force meaning lower production yields, which translates to higher unit costs to the consumer.
2- those employers will be required to file completed tax forms and withhold all the required fees and taxes from the pay stubs, which means more expenses incurred onto them because it is likely that they would need to hire somebody to do that, of which cost (of) will be forwarded on to the consumer,
3- because of those 2 reasons mentioned above and others I have not elaborated on, and the obvious ramifications of (if) that were to occur (the unemployed folks of now, that are used to working for more pay and those folks end up doing agricultural labor instead); the culture of farm/agricultural labor itself will change towards more compensation for the individual laborer and other details like for example; the facilities for the temporary living needs will have to be met by stricter standards than what exists today. To accomplish that, if the agriculture industry is required to do so, the cost of food will inevitably and unavoidably go up.

:hmmm: :thinking: :goodpost:


Your grasp of things could provide a diagram I am not able to come up with having that would let other arguments naturally settle to their appropriate strata and yield much more in their coursing

but imagine a pie chart of what it should naturally cost in time in a percentage of a day of all the functions required to live at a base condition of comfort in shelter, food, clothing, hygiene, entertainment to live in a sensible world,

Including for those who could outfit a camp as comfortable as the high dollar approach

Good Exchange Hotspring44 and Thad, (Although Thad, I still find it difficult sometimes to interpret your prose...)

Tangentially, I was talking political shit with my brother the other night, something we are want to do, and he opined that the illegal immigration / undocumented worker issue is likely to be settled in our country like it was in 1922; locking down the borders, flushing everyone they can round up, and restricting incoming legal immigration. This due to the "Great Recession" we are caught up in.

He pressed me to make my own prediction, I averred at first because I'm no soothsayer, and Social Science is not an exact science. But he flattered me about my close reading of the news and I ended up saying that I probably agreed with his prediction.

I don't endorse it of course, as anyone paying attention knows. But if I look at the way the forces of reaction, resentment, fear and self-interest are aligning, I'd say it's not a bad guess.

Except, our system is dependent on cheap, affordable labor. All the posturing about, "They broke the law!", and its opposite, "You stole our land!", is irrelevant for the most part. Neither position is a basis for rational discussion, or conflict resolution. Let alone public policy.

Powerful economic interests have a huge investment in the status quo. People in general benefit from the low cost of food and other basic services. The reason laws against hiring undocumented workers are not enforced, or even in place, is because those in power, who profit from cheap, exploitable and easily disposable labor, are the ones who make sure which laws are written and / or enforced, to their own benefit. That ain't going away anytime soon. More's the pity.

The discussion with my brother was prompted by a recent editorial by Rubin Navarrette that he'd read. As a voice for the mainstream U.S. Latino community, Navarrette endorced stricter enforcement of immigration laws, an amnesty for those here ten years or more, if they left the country and bought their way back in, and an increase from 1 million legal immigrants a year, to 3 million.

That last bit was the sticking point, as my brother sees it. Neither party is willing to endorse a three fold increase in immigration during an economic downturn with high unemployment and no sign of near term recovery. That's why he sees a big crackdown coming. I find it hard to argue with his logic.

He also made the point that U.S. wages have been stagnant since the seventies, and a significant reason for that is the suppressive effect from undocumented workers who are willing, and able, to work for less than others. I don't think that's the only reason. Exporting jobs and industries has as much, if not more, to do with it. But cheap, willing and skilled illegal labor is an important factor. You'd have to ask a labor economist to crunch the actual numbers, but anyone working with their hands and backs over the last forty years, knows it from direct experience.

What a crackdown on those without papers means for the price of food, employment opportunities for displaced American (U.S.) workers, whether citizens, legal residents or elusive non-legal residents, has been pretty much alluded to in these discussions, in this thread by Hotspring44's posts.

For intelligent and useful commentary about macroeconomics and national fiscal policy, I still highly recommend the commentaries of Paul Krugman. I''m not a liberal, mainstream thinker, he is. I recommend him because he advocates the best case scenario that could happen within the bounds of political possibility, given the status quo ante of our times.

He's not too optimistic given the fiscal conservative wave of anti-deficit spending that dominates our established political culture. But he has good arguments as to why the only way to work ourselves out of this hole we're in - of serious unemployment, deindustrialization, a consumer economic base dependent on foreign imports and the globalized market - is to go further into debt to create jobs, replace crumbling infrastructure and develop new sustainable industries. The alternative is further stagnation, decay, suffering, strife and decline.

I'm not as optimistic as Krugman, since my understanding of history leads me to conclude that the systemic flaws of capitalism lead inevitably to economic and social suffering, degradation of most humans and the ecological destruction of the planetary biosphere. Tinkering around the edges with limited reforms, may delay the end, but it won't prevent it.

Still, if I was drowning, I wouldn't question the source of the lifeline someone throws me.

And if done effectively, a massive public investment in a stagnant economy, leading to renewed hope and a modicum of prosperity for many people, wouldn't be the first time it's happened in the U.S.A.

Call it what you want. Socialism, communism, fascism, state capitalism, pump priming, Keynsian economics, The New World Order, machinations of the Bilderberg cabal, whatever.

This shit ain't working the way things are going now!

For California at least, this info has some answers to the pie chart and actual real term costs of living.
https://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2010/100624..._Ends_Meet.pdf

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

:hmmm: :thinking: :goodpost:


Your grasp of things could provide a diagram I am not able to come up with having that would let other arguments naturally settle to their appropriate strata and yield much more in their coursing

but imagine a pie chart of what it should naturally cost in time in a percentage of a day of all the functions required to live at a base condition of comfort in shelter, food, clothing, hygiene, entertainment to live in a sensible world,

Including for those who could outfit a camp as comfortable as the high dollar approach

---

well then we may just be paying what things really cost. An unbelievable amount of the American standard of living (read: low-cost lifestyle) is due to costs borne by the environment, the other parts of the world, or our descendants. I wish that was commonly acknowledged - I don't see how it can be denied. I don't expect Americans to stop taking advantage of their ability to pull that off; maybe that's why we're the "best country in the world". But it's really annoying whenever that argument gets trotted out.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

If that were to actually happen, the price of food would quadruple overnight.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

well then we may just be paying what things really cost. An unbelievable amount of the American standard of living (read: low-cost lifestyle) is due to costs borne by the environment, the other parts of the world, or our descendants. I wish that was commonly acknowledged - I don't see how it can be denied.

---

Those are good and valid point’s podfish. I think you are referring to the greater issue of ownership and control of resources.
Also there are multinational interests involved with the economy that have a great deal to do with the disparity issue within America and internationally. In the wide world of economics it’s not just Americans anymore.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I don't expect Americans to stop taking advantage of their ability to pull that off; maybe that's why we're the "best country in the world". But it's really annoying whenever that argument gets trotted out.

---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that in regards to this thread. Did I miss something or say something in this thread that annoyed you?



Could you extrapolate a little bit about that last statement?... …because I'm baffled. Thanks.

podfish wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...s/viewpost.gif well then we may just be paying what things really cost. An unbelievable amount of the American standard of living (read: low-cost lifestyle) is due to costs borne by the environment, the other parts of the world, or our descendants. I wish that was commonly acknowledged - I don't see how it can be denied.

This is what I was trying to get at when I said this Hotspring 44

"...imagine a pie chart of what it should ' naturally ' cost in time in a percentage of a day, of all the functions required to live at a base condition of comfort in shelter, food, clothing, hygiene, entertainment etc if one lived in a sensible world"

I have been trying to find and post an interactive chart that some how the dialogue would occur to flesh out what the ethical division of a day should be for one to live in a new way of thinking

somewhere between what the costs are now and the time of tribal life when medicine, shelter, food, childcare, entertainment, etc was done as a unit

2 people live cheaper than one, three people live cheaper than two and 5 people live cheaper than 3 and on up to the boundary number where familiar and strangeness are comfortably mixed. I would like to talk economics of 27 people as a unit and model that for these people coming there's only so much desperation that can be tolerated before landowners give up and say camp here, but lets see how smart it can it be. The people to attempt to change the paradigm are here and more are coming



Homeless numbers 'alarming' - USATODAY.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

Those are good and valid point’s podfish. I think you are referring to the greater issue of ownership and control of resources.
Also there are multinational interests involved with the economy that have a great deal to do with the disparity issue within America and internationally. In the wide world of economics it’s not just Americans anymore.




I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that in regards to this thread. Did I miss something or say something in this thread that annoyed you?



Could you extrapolate a little bit about that last statement?... …because I'm baffled. Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

This is what I was trying to get at when I said this Hotspring 44

"...imagine a pie chart of what it should ' naturally ' cost in time in a percentage of a day, of all the functions required to live at a base condition of comfort in shelter, food, clothing, hygiene, entertainment etc if one lived in a sensible world" ,

---

By putting the term “naturally cost” into the equation (to me it), becomes very complicated because of the fact that so many people live in large cities like Los Angeles for example.
People in places like Los Angeles are very dependent upon agriculture, (and a lot of other things too) done by somebody else, somewhere else and brought to them by some means or another.

So the term: “naturally” (cost in time in a percentage of a day) for me, when I think of the differences between a rural farming community, forest dwelling community, urban dwelling communities, and large metropolitan cities like Los Angeles area; it seems to me there would be many different types depending upon what each individual does for work as a trade that would cause a variance in the percentage ratio.

There are so many differences and have been for thousands of years between individuals.
That is why we have such diverse cultures as we do now. The fact that there is everything from Hollywood actors to professional sports to artists and mothers to fishermen to doctors, religious "leaders" etc.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

I have been trying to find and post an interactive chart that some how the dialogue would occur to flesh out what the ethical division of a day should be for one to live in a new way of thinking.

---

That is an extremely complicated thing to do considering the human population and resources.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

Somewhere between what the costs are now and the time of tribal life when medicine, shelter, food, childcare, entertainment, etc was done as a unit.

---

You mentioned entertainment that could mean a bunch of different things, but personally I am more concerned about my personal privacy. I would rather have what is comfortable for me in regards to privacy and have less entertainment than somebody that for example is addicted to watching television, going to movies, going to rock concerts, playing video games, etc. the list goes on.

What is comfortable to me in the amount of personal privacy compared to what may be comfortable or an acceptable minimum for entertainment for somebody else is going to vary.

Yet the trade, that I'm good at as far as working is concerned could make me end up in the middle of a large city where I could not psychologically survive. So I'm not so sure about how to be fair about things because some people that live in those big cities would feel very uncomfortable and psychologically unable to do farm work or something else in a rural setting for three or four months or more out of the year either; / for lack of entertainment as 1 example.

Anyway, we would have to consider disabled people, old people, skilled people, educated people, etc. etc.
I think that chart would be so full of lines you couldn't see much detail of the lines because it would be a relatively solid block of lines, making more or less, one color in the chart.

I think there would have to be lots of charts and a way to put specific sets of charts together then, have a computer program crunch the numbers and make sets of charts or something like that because it is so absolutely complicated that all that we Internet friends can do is get ourselves overwhelmed over that huge amount of information.

I think I know what one of the big answers to the economic problem is. I'm sure it's not the only one necessary:
Somehow people worldwide need to do away with the robber baron situation that exists. Because the only other alternative is either more of what we have now (until it collapses like Rome did) or end-up with a higher ratio of slavery for the majority of individuals under the robber baron’s rule.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

2 people live cheaper than one, three people live cheaper than two and 5 people live cheaper than 3 and on up to the boundary number where familiar and strangeness are comfortably mixed.

---

Humans as a species are dependent upon other people; we could refer to it as their “tribes” or communities.
I think there are reasons, for example, gangs exist in the inter-cities because they feel so disconnected from the larger community that we could, would, or do refer to as “society”; so they form their own relationships and make their own set of rules and branch off.

There will always be divisions, and certain levels of conflict between peoples.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

I would like to talk economics of 27 people as a unit and model that for these people coming there's only so much desperation that can be tolerated before landowners give up and say camp here, but lets see how smart it can it be. The people to attempt to change the paradigm are here and more are coming. Homeless numbers 'alarming' - USATODAY.com

---

Here is a little historical info that may help you tune in to the robber baron situation similar to what is going on right now that caused the Great Depression in regards to the foreclosures, homelessness, and Farmland in America (our food supply):

City life during the Great Depression City Life During the Great Depression As the Depression deepened, cities attracted beaten people from all parts of the country. Farmers whose livelihoods had been foreclosed packed up their families and moved into the cities. Hoboes and other itinerants sought shelter in cities during harsh winters. City dwellers themselves were not immune to the rails of the nation. Thousands of unemployed residents who could not pay their rent or mortgages were evicted into the world of public assistance and bread lines. At the peak of the Depression, seventeen thousand families were put out on the street each month. Although residents were given priority over newcomers for local aid, there were too many other residents standing in the same lines waiting for a check or a bowl of soup. Municipal resources were overwhelmed quickly, and city agencies resorted to thinning relief payments to below the cost of living and watering down the soup to help more people over a longer time.

Family Farms and U.S. Trade Policy Family Farms and U.S. Trade Policy by Bill Christison - Rural America / In Motion Magazine U.S. family farm leader speaks to European farmers Introduction Part 1: The Impacts on Family Farms of 20 Years of Corporate Trade Agreements Part 2: Citizen Opposition to Corporate Domination of U.S. Trade Policy Based on the 1992 Agricultural Census there are 1.9 million farmers in the U.S. - that counts everyone who has gross sales of over one thousand dollars. This is out of a total U.S. population of 260 million people. That means that farmers account for less than 73 hundreds of one percent. The startling fact is that only 333,000 farmers, 13 hundreds of one percent of the population, is producing 83% of the food and fiber in the U.S. Remember, these are 1992 figures and the impact of our farm bill, vertical integration of the livestock industry, and trade policy mean even fewer farmers today.

It’s not like there is lots of individual farmers anymore.
Most of the farmland is being used to feed the masses of people and is owned and operated by very large and quite frequently multinational corporate entities.
If we Americans are not buying their product, because we do not have enough money and they cannot make a profit; they won't give 1/2 of a rat’s hind quarter about us at all!
If we are very lucky, the government will foreclose on them because they are largely, foreign interests. Yet we are in a bit of a bind because of the population. We probably could not have much of that Farmland go fallow, without actually literally causing famish for the less fortunate.

I just noticed how much of a rant I went on just now, I apologize for that, but I will end this rant with the following:
Sometimes there (surprisingly) is a one-size-fits-all fix for what seems like an incredibly difficult problem.
In this case it is giving the robber barons of today, the boot! Maybe even put some of them in the federal penitentiary, then I think that chart you are referring to that you would like to find could actually become something that would work, because otherwise a small group of 27 people would have a reasonable chance to succeed in that experiment.

:flame:




:felix:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

By putting the term “naturally cost” into the equation (to me it), becomes very complicated because of the fact that so many people live in large cities like Los Angeles for example.
People in places like Los Angeles are very dependent upon agriculture, (and a lot of other things too) done by somebody else, somewhere else and brought to them by some means or another.

So the term: “naturally” (cost in time in a percentage of a day) for me, when I think of the differences between a rural farming community, forest dwelling community, urban dwelling communities, and large metropolitan cities like Los Angeles area; it seems to me there would be many different types depending upon what each individual does for work as a trade that would cause a variance in the percentage ratio.

There are so many differences and have been for thousands of years between individuals.
That is why we have such diverse cultures as we do now. The fact that there is everything from Hollywood actors to professional sports to artists and mothers to fishermen to doctors, religious "leaders" etc.



That is an extremely complicated thing to do considering the human population and resources.


You mentioned entertainment that could mean a bunch of different things, but personally I am more concerned about my personal privacy. I would rather have what is comfortable for me in regards to privacy and have less entertainment than somebody that for example is addicted to watching television, going to movies, going to rock concerts, playing video games, etc. the list goes on.

What is comfortable to me in the amount of personal privacy compared to what may be comfortable or an acceptable minimum for entertainment for somebody else is going to vary.

Yet the trade, that I'm good at as far as working is concerned could make me end up in the middle of a large city where I could not psychologically survive. So I'm not so sure about how to be fair about things because some people that live in those big cities would feel very uncomfortable and psychologically unable to do farm work or something else in a rural setting for three or four months or more out of the year either; / for lack of entertainment as 1 example.

Anyway, we would have to consider disabled people, old people, skilled people, educated people, etc. etc.
I think that chart would be so full of lines you couldn't see much detail of the lines because it would be a relatively solid block of lines, making more or less, one color in the chart.

I think there would have to be lots of charts and a way to put specific sets of charts together then, have a computer program crunch the numbers and make sets of charts or something like that because it is so absolutely complicated that all that we Internet friends can do is get ourselves overwhelmed over that huge amount of information.

I think I know what one of the big answers to the economic problem is. I'm sure it's not the only one necessary:
Somehow people worldwide need to do away with the robber baron situation that exists. Because the only other alternative is either more of what we have now (until it collapses like Rome did) or end-up with a higher ratio of slavery for the majority of individuals under the robber baron’s rule.



Humans as a species are dependent upon other people; we could refer to it as their “tribes” or communities.
I think there are reasons, for example, gangs exist in the inter-cities because they feel so disconnected from the larger community that we could, would, or do refer to as “society”; so they form their own relationships and make their own set of rules and branch off.

There will always be divisions, and certain levels of conflict between peoples.



Here is a little historical info that may help you tune in to the robber baron situation similar to what is going on right now that caused the Great Depression in regards to the foreclosures, homelessness, and Farmland in America (our food supply):

City life during the Great Depression City Life During the Great Depression As the Depression deepened, cities attracted beaten people from all parts of the country. Farmers whose livelihoods had been foreclosed packed up their families and moved into the cities. Hoboes and other itinerants sought shelter in cities during harsh winters. City dwellers themselves were not immune to the rails of the nation. Thousands of unemployed residents who could not pay their rent or mortgages were evicted into the world of public assistance and bread lines. At the peak of the Depression, seventeen thousand families were put out on the street each month. Although residents were given priority over newcomers for local aid, there were too many other residents standing in the same lines waiting for a check or a bowl of soup. Municipal resources were overwhelmed quickly, and city agencies resorted to thinning relief payments to below the cost of living and watering down the soup to help more people over a longer time.

Family Farms and U.S. Trade Policy Family Farms and U.S. Trade Policy by Bill Christison - Rural America / In Motion Magazine U.S. family farm leader speaks to European farmers Introduction Part 1: The Impacts on Family Farms of 20 Years of Corporate Trade Agreements Part 2: Citizen Opposition to Corporate Domination of U.S. Trade Policy Based on the 1992 Agricultural Census there are 1.9 million farmers in the U.S. - that counts everyone who has gross sales of over one thousand dollars. This is out of a total U.S. population of 260 million people. That means that farmers account for less than 73 hundreds of one percent. The startling fact is that only 333,000 farmers, 13 hundreds of one percent of the population, is producing 83% of the food and fiber in the U.S. Remember, these are 1992 figures and the impact of our farm bill, vertical integration of the livestock industry, and trade policy mean even fewer farmers today.

It’s not like there is lots of individual farmers anymore.
Most of the farmland is being used to feed the masses of people and is owned and operated by very large and quite frequently multinational corporate entities.
If we Americans are not buying their product, because we do not have enough money and they cannot make a profit; they won't give 1/2 of a rat’s hind quarter about us at all!
If we are very lucky, the government will foreclose on them because they are largely, foreign interests. Yet we are in a bit of a bind because of the population. We probably could not have much of that Farmland go fallow, without actually literally causing famish for the less fortunate.

I just noticed how much of a rant I went on just now, I apologize for that, but I will end this rant with the following:
Sometimes there (surprisingly) is a one-size-fits-all fix for what seems like an incredibly difficult problem.
In this case it is giving the robber barons of today, the boot! Maybe even put some of them in the federal penitentiary, then I think that chart you are referring to that you would like to find could actually become something that would work, because otherwise a small group of 27 people would have a reasonable chance to succeed in that experiment.

---

oops! My bad; I made 1 typo error on my previous post that grammatically ended-up having the opposite meaning of what I meant.
It said:

"I just noticed how much of a rant I went on just now, I apologize for that, but I will end this rant with the following: Sometimes there (surprisingly) is a one-size-fits-all fix for what seems like an incredibly difficult problem. In this case it is giving the robber barons of today, the boot! Maybe even put some of them in the federal penitentiary, then I think that chart you are referring to that you would like to find could actually become something that would work, because otherwise a small group of 27 people would have a reasonable chance to succeed in that experiment."

in the last sentence I meant to have said:
..."because otherwise a small group of 27 people wouldn'thave a reasonable chance to succeed in that experiment."

:beg:Please pardon my typo-blunder:pray:.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

:flame:




:felix:

---

The work to do and the job at hand. :tourch: Isaac Asimov writing in response to the collapse of Empire indicated there needed to be a core example of what humans could be together, and what that looked like so that in the midst of the fallout there could be a beginning of something new instead of the blind effort to resurrect and patch together the very thing that led to the collapse.

The title was introduced "PsychoHistorian"

This is the job

to find the root of chaos

and to be its exact opposite

:hmmm:, :thinking:, :dunno: I am not so sure if chaos even has roots.:idunno:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

The work to do and the job at hand. :tourch: Isaac Asimov writing in response to the collapse of Empire indicated there needed to be a core example of what humans could be together, and what that looked like so that in the midst of the fallout there could be a beginning of something new instead of the blind effort to resurrect and patch together the very thing that led to the collapse.

The title was introduced "PsychoHistorian"

This is the job

to find the root of chaos

and to be its exact opposite

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

I am not so sure if chaos even has roots

---

Come, come... Everyone knows that chaos is rooted in the laws of physics and mathematical probability. Just because there is no way to control it (other than contributing to making it happen) doesn't mean we don't understand it in the abstract.

"You can't step in the same river twice." Heraclitus

And if my claim above is "correct", I'm afraid Thad's prescription would require us to find the opposite of physical and mathematical (is there a difference?) reality. Good luck with that,

It all depends on the realm of which the definition of “chaos” is referred to as to what it may mean.
If you are a mathematical purest then have at it; as I am not.

If you are into philosophical including the philosophical realm of physics without the heavy math, puritanical crunching of numbers, figures and quantum physics as a university level mathematician, then I may be more able to cope. Otherwise I am out of that one.

chaos - definition of chaos by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. chaos n 1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion. 2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters. 3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe. 4. Mathematics A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions. 5. Obsolete An abyss; a chasm.

And/or:

Noun 1. chaos - a state of extreme confusion and disorder bedlam, pandemonium, topsy-turvydom, topsy-turvyness confusion - disorder resulting from a failure to behave predictably; "the army retreated in confusion" balagan - a word for chaos or fiasco borrowed from modern Hebrew (where it is a loan word from Russian); "it was utter and complete balagan!" 2. chaos - the formless and disordered state of matter before the creation of the cosmos physical phenomenon - a natural phenomenon involving the physical properties of matter and energy 3. Chaos - (Greek mythology) the most ancient of gods; the personification of the infinity of space preceding creation of the universe Greek mythology - the mythology of the ancient Greeks 4. chaos - (physics) a dynamical system that is extremely sensitive to its initial conditions natural philosophy, physics - the science of matter and energy and their interactions; "his favorite subject was physics" dynamical system - (physics) a phase space together with a transformation of that space Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

(Etc.).

This thread started out as: “Need a job?”; So I'm guessing it's more a philosophical discussion based on human sociology more so than a puritanical, mathematical characteristic, other than the computer crunching numbers based on what the input is in regards to that aforementioned chart that was previously discussed.

As far as mathematical probability is considered and how it relates to human psychology and understanding it in the “abstract” is concerned just reminds me of why the word chaos was conjured up in the first place.

In other words the word chaos is a relative thing within the realm of any particular discussion as far as I can tell.

Also, just because something appears to be mathematically probable, does not necessarily mean that it has a predetermined future.

Anyway I think the “root” of so-called Chaos depends upon one's philosophical belief system.

Therefore it could actually mean the opposite depending upon what belief systems it is being presented in.

In other words for me to claim that I have knowledge of what the root of chaos actually is, would be conditionally arbitrary at best.
So therefore by its very nature I cannot positively identify the existence of any singular system of a “root”.

I also believe that mathematicians do not own the meaning of chaos.

So there you have a partial explanation why I am not so sure chaos even has any roots in an absolute sense.

Just for fun, I will elaborate a little more here.

Some people believe there is no such thing as chaos because they are convinced within their own minds that there is, absolute perfect order for everything, regardless of how scrambled or jumbled it seems to be, meaning (other) humans have not yet discovered (come to realize) that which they believe they already know.

Not only that, “order” also has its preconceived meaning/s.
so whether it's mathematics, philosophies, or the alphabet; chaos vs. order, just might be another arbitrary conundrum; for having or not having figured that one out to the satisfaction of whomever (yet?).

So if anything, the roots would be everywhere where we don't have a complete understanding of something.
If everything really does have a perfect order, then there is no such thing, because somehow in all ways everything is in perfect order in an absolute sense.

Which way it (chaos/order) goes at a certain point, could be the explanation, of whereas; a “root” (meaning) is that there are roots of chaos effectively anywhere, then maybe we're expecting “order” nowhere and our universe is (actually) in order by its very existence within a paradoxical “perfect order" of all possibilities of chaos exist.

Chaos = anything that can possibly happen within the absolute constant of continuous change. Is that the root?

Reality is that everything must and does change; if not sooner then later, and of course neither sooner or later, applies to why because, in actuality it's in an absolute constant state of continuous change. Is that the root?

Or are all things actually in absolutely perfect order and therefore chaos is only an ill-conceived conception within people's minds. Is that the root?

Anyway, I could probably go on and on way too much so I'm ending this post/reply here. :):

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Come, come... Everyone knows that chaos is rooted in the laws of physics and mathematical probability. Just because there is no way to control it (other than contributing to making it happen) doesn't mean we don't understand it in the abstract.

"You can't step in the same river twice." Heraclitus

And if my claim above is "correct", I'm afraid Thad's prescription would require us to find the opposite of physical and mathematical (is there a difference?) reality. Good luck with that,

---

Oh. Too easy. They called it "Dreamtime" in Australia. Other original people from many places have other names for it as well. It's the place where all the inexplicable stuff happens, where the things we can't explain by means of science originate. Synchronicity, strange coincidences and plain FM (as in f*-in' magick). For a start, how about the Global Consciousness Project?

Now. About that job as a PsychoHistorian. I suspect at times that my entire life has merely been preliminary training for the position. Further info, such as where one should go to apply, might be appreciated. Thanks. :):
Caroline aka MissElaineE

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Come, come... Everyone knows that chaos is rooted in the laws of physics and mathematical probability. Just because there is no way to control it (other than contributing to making it happen) doesn't mean we don't understand it in the abstract.

"You can't step in the same river twice." Heraclitus

And if my claim above is "correct", I'm afraid Thad's prescription would require us to find the opposite of physical and mathematical (is there a difference?) reality. Good luck with that,

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

It all depends on the realm of which the definition of “chaos” is referred to as to what it may mean.
If you are a mathematical purest then have at it; as I am not.

---

Hotspring44,

Thanks for your quite extensive, and very reasonable reply. No, I'm in no way a mathematical purist. In fact math was my second least favorite subject in school. My response to Thad, was with my tongue gently pressing against the inside cheek of my mouth. I.e. Kidding!

It did imply my bias, which is for positive change, rather than stasis, as your response addressed. Plus I'll take any chance to quote Heraclitus, my favorite Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. The fact that there is very little of his work preserved, makes him quite accessible. But also I found myself siding with him and the other atomists against the Pythagorean camp (if I remember correctly, wouldn't be surpised if I have it completely wrong, a lot of river water has flowed past since fall of 1975) who thought that the true nature of the universe was static (stasus?) when taking Philosophy 1A.

The only sense in which my little riff was serious, is that if one is to identify the source, cause or "root" if one prefers, of Chaos, I'm of the opinion that that wouldn't do much good for planning a just society. Since, by definition, social chaos isn't subject to human control. Except in the sense of trying to suppress it, and I'm not a big fan of police states.

Perhaps my bias in favor of freak culture is showing. A full discussion of this subject would require more time and effort than I'm willing to expend here. And I've gone through it several times in my years reading and discussing Political Philosophy. Anyone interested should just go find some articles about "Chaos and Social Theory", I guarantee there's been plenty written about it.

Read an article on Slate.com this afternoon in which one of the regular columnists (Rosenberg?) juxtaposed Agnosticism, to true believer Atheism. The readers then proceeded to tear him a new one. That discussion reminds me a little of this one!

To paraphrase Slick Willy, it all depends on what you mean when you say what it means.

Finally, my quip about reality and math being one and the same was inspired by a great line in the religious thriller/horror movie "The Prophecy" in which Christopher Walken, playing a malevolent angel Gabriel, tells a group of elementary school students, "Study your math, kids. Key to the Universe." Not sure if that's true, but I suspect quite a number of professional physicists think that it is.

And on the actual topic of this thread, when my unemployment runs out in fifteen months, I'll be desperate for work. But I doubt I'll be applying to work in the fields of the Central Valley. Aside from my general health, due to my sedentary lifestyle, I'm, as I like to quip, a Super Juero. I'd last in the heat and sun for maybe two or three hours, then I'd be dead.

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Hotspring44,



...To paraphrase Slick Willy, it all depends on what you mean when you say what it means.

Cheers,

---

Yup! :thumbsup:

The Psychorians are returning from their missions

It was rough work and their all returning

From points of History where the record was misreported

they have brought their findings.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

Yup! :thumbsup:

---