The Economist directs its attention to the success of Israeli economy:
"But for all its success the Israeli boom nevertheless raises a number of troubling questions."Isn't curious that Israeli success raises "troubling questions" instead of some positive observation? The Economist finds it very troubling that we are prospering when in their book we should be failing.
The Economist analysed Israeli economy and found its weak point:
"It lies in its failure to assimilate into its business culture both Arab-Israelis and ultra-orthodox Jews".It cannot be denied, The Economist has a valid point. We are unable to turn the Beduins (IQ 78) into rocket scientists. May be The Economist knows how to do it. We also hesitate in forcing ultra-pious men and women, with their large families, into the labor market. The Economist suggests that the low participation of the Arab and the ultra-religious sectors, will cause Israel's economic demise.
"Mejor esperen sentados" (take a seat while waiting, as we used to say in the barrio). Ill.: Waiting for Godot.
20 comments:
OT:
Leftist Moroccan vs Kahanist Moroccan
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4009123,00.html
hmmmm.
This is just standard modern leftist journalistic technique - the "but". It signifies no special anti-Semitism, just standard negativity toward any successful endeavor. Pay no attention.
K
I should add, regarding the Orthodox, that the Economist makes a valid point. It was one thing for Ben Gurion to support a few hundred ragged yeshiva bochers as a remnant of all that had been destroyed. It is another to have a large and ever growing % of the population as non-working parasites supported by the rest. As the haredi replace the non-reproducing secularists, it will be increasingly unviable for the few remaining secularists to support them and they should be planning for the day when they will have to support themselves. Rabbis traditionally had other occupations - torah study was an avocation, not a vocation. Orthodoxy is not incompatible with work. With technology it is even less so. Yeshiva bochers would make excellent computer programmers, for example, with the proper training - they are used to sitting indoors and poring over texts. People respond to (dis)incentives - the current situation is not the fault of the recipients but of the givers and they are doing the recipients no favors in the long run.
K
Isn't it true ? your education is inversely related to family size and directly related to international mobility so all the Arabs have to do is what they are doing right now development is a great contraceptive. All that is needed K is a dire threat breathing down their necks for motivation probably an aggressive advancing techo-military equal to Izzy, the Arabs are clearly not contenders
I know a fair amount of chasidim here in Seattle who work in programming. So, while it remains to be seen whether Reform or Conservative Judaism is compatible with genetic survival of their carriers' descendants as Jews, Orthodoxy is definitely compatible with work. J has already pointed out that at least some of their children also frei out and become "productive citizens". So, anyway, I wouldn't worry about them; I'm sure that as (if) subsidies decrease, they will adapt by working more (AFAIK, many work illegally already-how hard can a transition be?)
Naturally, nobody despises traditional Jews like a Jew who's adapted secular ideology as his guiding star-in this regard, the gentleman in the article is like Trotsky and friends. I wonder if anything twinges inside him when he's apologizing to the Moroccans for the behavior of his relatives in their country.
No one denies orthodoxy chaps can work in fact they are usually rather disciplined and businesslike the kink is that mindsets tend to remain fixed (living old holy books)You do that you stagnate think Meiji japs "commmie" china they all worked hard but massive strides came only when the orthodox was overthrown. Israel has massive lead although arabs probably do work hard
We have not seen the end of this story yet. The birthrates of modernized Japan and China have plummeted below replacement rates, and show no sign of stopping. When you stop worshipping the old holy books and start worshipping the new gods of granite counter-top wealth, fashion and science at their gleaming academic and media ziggurats, you might be walking down the road of death. There are always short-term incentives, of course; you think the millions of high-IQ cougars dying alone and forsaken by all except their cats wouldn't trade in their careers and credentials if they could do it all over again?
Isn't civilization a sine wave self correcting when troughs are reached so fewer people equals less wealth and security heightening fertility vice versa ad infitum. Orthodoxy distorts the cycle so wealth stagnates but numbers do not. Without wealth rather ruthless predators move in(conquistadors slavery IMF janjaweed et al)
I see Orthodox Jews in the street and in business, they are busy, very busy. Tending to a large family is in itself a job, even if the children live in "pnimiot" and come home only for the weekends. They do work but are afraid of doing it over the table, as that may put in risk their social security subsistance allowance. And also the heads of the yeshives who are always under suspicion that they inflate the numbers of their students, are unwilling to certify their yeshive-bocher condition if they are absent most of the time. It is quite a difficult life and many leave it.
B is so right. People with high fertility are doing useful work therein. And the Russian fertility incentives have apparently worked.
I have had a look at fertility programs in various countries. In European and NE Asian populations the cost in subsidies of getting birthrates up to an appropriate level (a bit below replacement) is not that huge. Looks like it may be about 0.6 to 2.0 * (GDP/capita-year) per child. (Though many of the programs seem to pay more for the second child and more still for further ones.) The cost is of course highest in NE Asian peoples, who fare worse in spontaneous fertility under present conditions.
Suppose every child past the first is worth 1.5 *(GDP/capita-year) in Israel. Then for a couple with 5 children, the value (to society) of the reproduction is 3.0 work years' worth, per parent. Not bad considering that the average healthy person (when we include non-working or part-time-working mothers) may work only 30 years or so. But, not really in the league of the value of one lifetime of work. Of course, I realize that the way I'm defining value is somewhat arbitrary, but you can see why it's useful.
The fact that a sane level of reproduction is affordable only underlines, for the 28th time, how deeply crazy some of our governments are. The USA and Israel are not unsound on this point since they have stable populations. But Taiwan, with a completed fertility not far from 1.0, is now seeing significant net 3rd-world immigration, which is surely related to the poor fertility. They're latching on hard to the crazy 'solution' instead of the sane solution. Japan, even if it doesn't follow that path, will probably still suffer a good deal more than it would by being smart now. Singapore may have a problem too.
USA and Russia have rather high wealth concentrations so there are pools of poor with high birth rates within fissures ditto some European countries joints like japan with near 100% post secondary education and low gini have none. Subsidies have asymptomatic curves relative to birth rate past as per cap increases, whats a 1000 dollar subsidy for parenting which is demanding when you earn enough sate your whims and save leftovers
Mr. Simon,
It is the contrary. Historically, fewer people equaled a higher living standard as per Malthus. Now, more people might equal more wealth per person, or it might not.
I do not have faith in the positive effect of reproductive subsidies. Israel, with its class of scholars who are poor by choice, is an exception. Mostly, the hereditary poor are poor because they are too dumb to improve their condition. A subsidy will disproportionately incentivize them to have more children, who will be just as dumb. An additional $15K a year will not make a difference in the living standard of a high-IQ DINK couple making $100-200K a year sufficient to offset the loss of income and quality of life that comes with having kids, nor will $60K a year, but it will sure as hell get the dumbass proles crankin' 'em out. Do I want to subsidize the birth of those who are going to jack my truck in 20 years? Does Bill Gates want to shit in a hole in the woods? We see this in effect today, actually, what with our stable population figures supported by an influx and high reproductive rates of dumbasses from down south, supported by socialist incentives, and a declining fertility of those with brains. As the problem is not financial (the high cost of reproduction) but moral (the fact that a nice ride and granite countertops are valued more highly by the secular majority than a big family,) a financial solution will be counterproductive.
One last thing. Most wealth that is created is quickly consumed. This applies disproportionately to wealth created by manual labor. One Vilna Gaon thinking about something in his spare time from Talmud studies has a higher potential to create LASTING wealth than a village of peasants does in a century. Likewise, the one freier coming from a chasidic family of ten kids is a lot more likely to create something of lasting value than ten thousand unskilled laborers imported from across the border. If you are concerned about wealth/population ratios, this is something to consider; the effects of population growth on wealth are disproportionately linked to the intelligence of the population.
B - the line about the cat is particularly poignant. What is it about cougars and cats? My wife had some friends that never married and inevitably they had cats (to which I am deathly allergic). One of them (in addition to the cats) did adopt a Paraguayan Indian girl as a baby and she raised her without the presence of men (and the mother was herself a man-hater and sexless). So naturally when the girl went off to college (although she was not really college material in terms of IQ) the first thing she did was to sleep with every male she could find. In a better world she would have 11 little papooses by now but she learned that much from her mother and is sterile so far. But still one of God's little jokes.
K
K,
They like having a ruthless predator which has been castrated, declawed and otheriwse crippled into a total dependence on them around.
Me, I like cats as close to their feral state as possible, where they only take a break from killing shit to come in and socialize with you for a bit.
Every time I've fucked a girl who had housecats, I've always made a point of doing it where the cat could see and hear. Usually, the cat will be too terrified of you afterwards to do some sneaky cat thing like shitting in your shoes.
The Economist may or may not be anti-Semitic, but it is certainly not pro-Semitic, and categorically not pro-Israel.
But never doubt this: it is in the vanguard of the War on the West, along with the BBC, the Guardian, and the NYT.
On the matter of incentives, the only way to "encourage" rich people to reproduce is to punitively tax the hell out of them if they are childless, and to give the $ to people who will or do have children, IN THEIR SAME TAX BRACKET.
Everybody will scream about this, which is how you know it is right.
And it will work.
Anon.
These Brit Nords and their friends have a lot of nerve to whinge about relatively minor, really unavoidable sub-optimal acts of Israel... it's not in the best of taste. I guess they think penniless Jews fleeing European mass murder should have gone to an unoccupied place, e.g. Antarctica, the Sahara, the Moon. The permanent Arctic ice - the ocean floor, for that matter. Atlantis. The molten iron core of the earth. Mars. Alpha Centauri, not that far away. If you believe it, you can achieve it.
I definitely think pro-natal payments should be combined with a societal recognition that women should be proud of having lots of kids. Payments aren't instead of that, but in addition to it. That kind of recognition probably exists somewhat in some of these places with these problems.
Certainly, payments are dysgenic. I was thinking it could be undone later - we need to be saved from mass immigration or whatever right now. In the long run you just have to practice eugenics, or else regress to a pre-1850-like society where the large majority die prematurely. I mean, smarter, more conscientious, better looking people could start having more kids than the poor, due to some unforeseen change... it's just highly unlikely, that's all.
-RS
> punitively tax the hell out of them if they are childless, and to give the $ to people who will or do have children, IN THEIR SAME TAX BRACKET.
Holy smokes, that is truly a masterstroke. Diabolical!
-RS
I'm against the idea of convincing those who are not sure they want children to do so. Better they die out and take whatever defect it is that denies them the most basic human emotion with them. The chasidim, mormons, etc. will fill the gap. I just don't want us to subsidize the amoral unthinking underclasses to take up their place, but with the impending bankruptcy of our more socialist states, the probable inflation and collapse of social spending, that will probably take care of itself.
Punitive taxes were tried in the past by the Greek and the Romans. Augustus forced all unmarried Roman patricians to attend his lectures about their patriotic duty to marry and reproduce. The Spartans had a law that unmarried males had to cede their seats in the amphitheater to married folk. They had special taxes and other public shaming customs too.
Nothing worked. Only religion does.
Post a Comment