New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High CycleBridge

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:17:31 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/11/2015 6:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:32:05 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/29/2015 3:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 05:50:50 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/28/2015 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:

Not really. Pass a law that says that an individual that hires an
illegal worker is subject to 5 years in jail and a fine of 10,000
dollars, and a company that employs them is subject to a 100,000
dollar fine.

There was a program like that in the U.S.. The corporations that benefit
from illegal immigration fought e-Verify with a passion because they
would not be able to hire and exploit enough low-wage workers. Right
wingers didn't like it because a lack of illegal workers would drive up
wages. Progressives didn't like it because they would rather have
employed illegal immigrants than unemployed illegal immigrants, for
obvious reasons. I think that the program still exists but it is ignored
by those that benefit from ignoring it and there is no constituency with
any power that wants it enforced.

Of course it is possible to rationalize all kinds of excuses not to do
something but in reality the solution is quite simple, enact a law
penalizing the individual who does the deed and enforce it.

The solution is not simple. Anytime anyone tells you that there is a
simple solution to a complex issue do not believe it.

Sorry, but the solution is simple.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H. L. Mencken

I hate to defame Mencken but Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest
answer is also likely the correct one :-)

--


Ocam's Razor tells us that given more than one solution, the simplest
solution is the correct one. Not exactly the same thing. A solution
not being just an answer but a correct answer. g

In this case though, I think your suggested solution ignores most of the
problem. In many cases I'm happy that it is NOT so simple to enact a
law and enforce it.

While passing a law may be a complex matter solving a problem is
usually simple. However, solving a problem in a manner that satisfies
everyone in the world is difficult and likely won't make anyone
completely happy.

For example, satisfying those who like to ingest recreational
chemicals is certainly simple.... just legalize it. After all,
ingesting at least one recreational chemical has been legal for
thousands of years, so why not one more?
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:39:09 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/11/2015 9:27 AM, sms wrote:
On 11/30/2015 5:17 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Ocam's Razor tells us that given more than one solution, the simplest
solution is the correct one. Not exactly the same thing. A solution
not being just an answer but a correct answer. g

In this case though, I think your suggested solution ignores most of the
problem. In many cases I'm happy that it is NOT so simple to enact a
law and enforce it.

The "simple solution" usually ignores the total problem and doesn't

snip
I don't like the word "usually."

It depends on what you mean. Computer science is pretty much based on
finding the simplest solution. A problem's complexity is relative to
the difficulty in finding a simple solution but it doesn't mean that one
doesn't exist.

Pascal supposedly apologized that a letter was too long because he
didn't have time to shorten it.

The problem here with "les functionaires" (civil servants) is that there
are too many people working on any problem and many of them have no
valuable understanding of the problem so they tend to bloat every
project and still miss the issue in the end.

I would add that in a field where success is not based on simple
physical facts, i.e., how many acres of wheat or trees can one cut in
a day, that "success" may well have a totally different meaning. For
example, success in drawing up a new law may have less to do with
making a fair law and more to do with making a law that doesn't upset
too many people, thus allowing the "Chiefs" to be re-elected.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:04:01 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:59:07
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:27:57 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/30/2015 5:17 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Ocam's Razor tells us that given more than one solution, the simplest
solution is the correct one. Not exactly the same thing. A solution
not being just an answer but a correct answer. g

In this case though, I think your suggested solution ignores most of the
problem. In many cases I'm happy that it is NOT so simple to enact a
law and enforce it.

The "simple solution" usually ignores the total problem and doesn't
evaluate the unintended consequences. Not taking a big picture view of
things is the cause of a lot of policy failures. Even when those making
the bad decisions are advised of the likely negative consequences they
often ignore them because they have other goals. W was advised of what
was likely to happen in Iraq and the middle east if he invaded Iraq, but
he ignored that advice. The rise of Al Qaida and ISIS was not unexpected
to foreign policy experts, but the decision to invade Iraq was not based
on logic, it was based on manufactured "intelligence."


You are dancing all around the problem and not facing facts. The rise
of the fundamentalist Islamic movement is not a problem in the sense
that it is difficult to understand and has rather simple causes which
anyone that understands the Middle East can enumerate. But the second
invasion of Iraq certainly was apparently based on ignorance and one
might even suggest on reasons far removed from any Islamic
consideration.

In terms of illegal immigrants, it's not too hard to predict what some
of results would be if employers were not able to hire them. Food costs
would increase of course, and it would be increases on many of the
healthiest foods--vegetables and fruit, as well as on meat. Less healthy
food that could be harvested more cheaply would become a larger part of
people's diets, so there would be increased obesity, diabetes, etc,
raising health care costs. Deported illegals with legal children would
leave their kids in the U.S. to be taken care of, so now the U.S. would
have the expense of taking care of the kids, but without collecting the
taxes and the adults were paying.

But the solution to the "problem" simple. Just penalize those that
utilize the illegal workers.

You are adding all kinds of complexity to a simple problem. Why, for
example, should anyone simply born in the U.S. be a citizen? I know of
no other country that awards citizenship on the physical location of
birth.

And yes, I can understand the reasoning in the mid 1700's but the same
conditions do not exist today, in fact one could argue that quite the
opposite is the fact today.

On the plus side, wages for farm labor would go way up so legal
residents doing farm labor would have increased income.

Your argument lacks basis in logic. Farm labour in, say the grain
business is largely legal, in the dairy business largely legal, in the
beef business, in the horse business ( a far larger business than most
people realize), in the cotton raising business, in the chicken and
egg business largely legal. In fact, it is likely that illegal farm
labour is probably a very small percentage of the total U.S. farm
labour costs.

Maybe we could combine the proposals for "free college" with a
requirement that students spend 240 hours per year picking crops in
exchange for their "free" education.

And why not? After all I have a good friend who grew up in Hungary
under the Communist government. His education, from primary through
collage was totally free and in return the State designated what field
he would work in. The system does work.

The reason for our long school holiday being in late summer was
historically so that children could help with the harvest.

Still true in some countries :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 12/2/2015 3:17 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:04:01 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:59:07
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:27:57 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/30/2015 5:17 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Ocam's Razor tells us that given more than one solution, the simplest
solution is the correct one. Not exactly the same thing. A solution
not being just an answer but a correct answer. g

In this case though, I think your suggested solution ignores most of the
problem. In many cases I'm happy that it is NOT so simple to enact a
law and enforce it.

The "simple solution" usually ignores the total problem and doesn't
evaluate the unintended consequences. Not taking a big picture view of
things is the cause of a lot of policy failures. Even when those making
the bad decisions are advised of the likely negative consequences they
often ignore them because they have other goals. W was advised of what
was likely to happen in Iraq and the middle east if he invaded Iraq, but
he ignored that advice. The rise of Al Qaida and ISIS was not unexpected
to foreign policy experts, but the decision to invade Iraq was not based
on logic, it was based on manufactured "intelligence."


You are dancing all around the problem and not facing facts. The rise
of the fundamentalist Islamic movement is not a problem in the sense
that it is difficult to understand and has rather simple causes which
anyone that understands the Middle East can enumerate. But the second
invasion of Iraq certainly was apparently based on ignorance and one
might even suggest on reasons far removed from any Islamic
consideration.

In terms of illegal immigrants, it's not too hard to predict what some
of results would be if employers were not able to hire them. Food costs
would increase of course, and it would be increases on many of the
healthiest foods--vegetables and fruit, as well as on meat. Less healthy
food that could be harvested more cheaply would become a larger part of
people's diets, so there would be increased obesity, diabetes, etc,
raising health care costs. Deported illegals with legal children would
leave their kids in the U.S. to be taken care of, so now the U.S. would
have the expense of taking care of the kids, but without collecting the
taxes and the adults were paying.

But the solution to the "problem" simple. Just penalize those that
utilize the illegal workers.

You are adding all kinds of complexity to a simple problem. Why, for
example, should anyone simply born in the U.S. be a citizen? I know of
no other country that awards citizenship on the physical location of
birth.

And yes, I can understand the reasoning in the mid 1700's but the same
conditions do not exist today, in fact one could argue that quite the
opposite is the fact today.

On the plus side, wages for farm labor would go way up so legal
residents doing farm labor would have increased income.

Your argument lacks basis in logic. Farm labour in, say the grain
business is largely legal, in the dairy business largely legal, in the
beef business, in the horse business ( a far larger business than most
people realize), in the cotton raising business, in the chicken and
egg business largely legal. In fact, it is likely that illegal farm
labour is probably a very small percentage of the total U.S. farm
labour costs.

Maybe we could combine the proposals for "free college" with a
requirement that students spend 240 hours per year picking crops in
exchange for their "free" education.

And why not? After all I have a good friend who grew up in Hungary
under the Communist government. His education, from primary through
collage was totally free and in return the State designated what field
he would work in. The system does work.

The reason for our long school holiday being in late summer was
historically so that children could help with the harvest.

Still true in some countries :-)

It's a system that has potential. But like many solutions, it's not
simple. It would raise food prices. It would raise taxes. It's
progressive. Many crops are not harvested in the summer, which is
actually a good thing since it could balance enrollment over all four
quarters, or three trimesters.

The Republicans would never agree to it.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:23:46 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 12/2/2015 3:17 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:04:01 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:59:07
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:27:57 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/30/2015 5:17 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

Ocam's Razor tells us that given more than one solution, the simplest
solution is the correct one. Not exactly the same thing. A solution
not being just an answer but a correct answer. g

In this case though, I think your suggested solution ignores most of the
problem. In many cases I'm happy that it is NOT so simple to enact a
law and enforce it.

The "simple solution" usually ignores the total problem and doesn't
evaluate the unintended consequences. Not taking a big picture view of
things is the cause of a lot of policy failures. Even when those making
the bad decisions are advised of the likely negative consequences they
often ignore them because they have other goals. W was advised of what
was likely to happen in Iraq and the middle east if he invaded Iraq, but
he ignored that advice. The rise of Al Qaida and ISIS was not unexpected
to foreign policy experts, but the decision to invade Iraq was not based
on logic, it was based on manufactured "intelligence."


You are dancing all around the problem and not facing facts. The rise
of the fundamentalist Islamic movement is not a problem in the sense
that it is difficult to understand and has rather simple causes which
anyone that understands the Middle East can enumerate. But the second
invasion of Iraq certainly was apparently based on ignorance and one
might even suggest on reasons far removed from any Islamic
consideration.

In terms of illegal immigrants, it's not too hard to predict what some
of results would be if employers were not able to hire them. Food costs
would increase of course, and it would be increases on many of the
healthiest foods--vegetables and fruit, as well as on meat. Less healthy
food that could be harvested more cheaply would become a larger part of
people's diets, so there would be increased obesity, diabetes, etc,
raising health care costs. Deported illegals with legal children would
leave their kids in the U.S. to be taken care of, so now the U.S. would
have the expense of taking care of the kids, but without collecting the
taxes and the adults were paying.

But the solution to the "problem" simple. Just penalize those that
utilize the illegal workers.

You are adding all kinds of complexity to a simple problem. Why, for
example, should anyone simply born in the U.S. be a citizen? I know of
no other country that awards citizenship on the physical location of
birth.

And yes, I can understand the reasoning in the mid 1700's but the same
conditions do not exist today, in fact one could argue that quite the
opposite is the fact today.

On the plus side, wages for farm labor would go way up so legal
residents doing farm labor would have increased income.

Your argument lacks basis in logic. Farm labour in, say the grain
business is largely legal, in the dairy business largely legal, in the
beef business, in the horse business ( a far larger business than most
people realize), in the cotton raising business, in the chicken and
egg business largely legal. In fact, it is likely that illegal farm
labour is probably a very small percentage of the total U.S. farm
labour costs.

Maybe we could combine the proposals for "free college" with a
requirement that students spend 240 hours per year picking crops in
exchange for their "free" education.

And why not? After all I have a good friend who grew up in Hungary
under the Communist government. His education, from primary through
collage was totally free and in return the State designated what field
he would work in. The system does work.

The reason for our long school holiday being in late summer was
historically so that children could help with the harvest.

Still true in some countries :-)

It's a system that has potential. But like many solutions, it's not
simple. It would raise food prices. It would raise taxes. It's
progressive. Many crops are not harvested in the summer, which is
actually a good thing since it could balance enrollment over all four
quarters, or three trimesters.

The Republicans would never agree to it.

Nor would California unemployed.

A good many years ago some "big Wheel" decided that letting all those
Mexicans into the country to harvest crops was foolish when there were
so many unemployed people in California who needed work. Unfortunately
the scheme didn't work as after the first day the numbers of
unemployed that were willing to work out in the hot sun diminished
rapidly. Although the day rate for picking crops was higher then the
unemployed payments they preferred to stay home and rest.

Apparently, in California, there is no dignity in labor. :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.