Question. If a country has a limited amount of jobs and a surplus

File: 1487261399762.png (351KB, 473x414px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 473x414px

>>130693278
Most underrated post of all time

If the country is heading in the direction of automation, would population density even matter?

>>130693278
>Then why would you increase the amount of people in the country without addressing the job problem first?
Your motive would be to destroy that country.

>>130693278
Because having a surplus amount of workers, and a lack of jobs creates conditions that force people to compete for being allowed to work. This helps to drive down wages, and restrict the workers' rights by giving the employers a leverage over the employees. This is why large corporations support immigration.

The elite, the mostly Jewish elite to be specific, is also dreadfully afraid of nationalism, because it is a kind of cohesive force, that is if strong enough, would naturally result in the expulsion of these parasites from society, simply on an ethnic basis, as it happened in Nazi Germany and her allies.

(I equate surplus people with immigrants, because as we all know, white birthrates are down)

>>130693278

Because the purpose is to encourage the development of factory serfs, not general improvement. Oligarchal equivalent of lords and peasants.

File: 1488989123793.jpg (59KB, 575x431px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 575x431px

>>130693543
You might be on to something. I suppose we should all just sign up for gibmedats and let the corporations and rich pay for us all.
>should work out fine

This kept me up at night. I've always wondered if the robot population would have to fully support humans in the future, meaning socialism or even communism will be inevitable. I dont want this to happen though. Thoughts?

>>130693278
Jobs aren't decreasing over time because of automation. Certain types of jobs are decreasing over time

Because it's antisemitic not to have open borders for undocumented citizens, goy!

>>130694344
So like the kind of jobs we don't need low iq third world day laborers for?

>>130694293
You've got two choices.

Communism.

Massive unemployed population on state wealthfair with low dollar value as a result because the state is having to inflate it's own dollar value to support this population.

This model would be poor as there are very few who have a large income.

Capitalism.

Massive unemployee population with mass slums as there's little work, massive crime as a result and small percentage that owns the means to produce eg. robots

This model would collapse as there are few buyers.

>>130694344
>>130694831
Jobs in the US hasn't gone up since the 90's.

>>130694021
i have been explaining this to leftie fags for years now, they never listen.

>>130693278
>Then why would you increase the amount of people in the country without addressing the job problem first?

Because Gerrymandering. Labour in the UK for example were losing votes, so they decided to import pajeets and achmeds family members, who were always loyal voters.

It's easier to get brown people whipped up and say it's whiteys fault. Take a look at that fire in london, authorites didn't want to say a number because they needed time to confirm dead, but they took it as some sort of secret plot because niggers are stupid cunts.

>>130693278
You wouldn't want to drastically increase people because of the risk of overpopulation and an increase of the lower class, but a constant flow of immigration is nice to allow competition. Also you wouldn't want to force immigration. Immigration should occur naturally and the market would correct the influx one way or another. Automation would be to the benefit of mega corps if it did save them money, but again the market could easily self correct this by people embarking on ventures that hire for human employees as a sort of protest against the machines. People look st this sort of thing as inevitable but it's not, it could easily be avoided or revolted from peacefully through the free market.

>>130694922
I know, I was merely addressing other anons point. Immigration at this point in time is the most ridiculous meme. We'd all be living extra comfy if we weren't weighed down.

>>130694831
It's also a fallacy that you need to be smarter to do these jobs.

For example when computers first came out programming was extremely complex.

Now we have simplified languages, or even programs that allow you to make programs without knowing any code whatsoever. You just need to know how to use the program that someone else who actually knows real programmming made.

File: IMG_0380.png (247KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 750x1334px

>>130694922
Not true.

File: immigrant-welfare-use-4-11-f1.jpg (82KB, 650x537px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 650x537px

>>130693278
They also take more welfare per capita, truly a genius move by the (((intellectual))) ruling class

>>130693278
You wouldn't want to drastically increase people because of the risk of overpopulation and an increase of the lower class, but a constant flow of immigration is nice to allow competition. Also you wouldn't want to force immigration. Immigration should occur naturally and the market would correct the influx one way or another. Automation would be to the benefit of mega corps if it did save them money, but again the market could easily self correct this by people embarking on ventures that hire for human employees as a sort of protest against the machines. People look st this sort of thing as inevitable but it's not, it could easily be avoided or revolted from peacefully through the free market.

File: immigrant-welfare-use-4-11-t6.jpg (100KB, 650x504px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 650x504px

>>130696092
>1 lost manufacturing job is worth it for 2 gained fast-food jobs
Total employees is meaningless, low-info argument.