This is my second time posting on the off-topic forum, so I'm kinda new to discussing something else than W40k here. Forgive my English, it's late and I'm not a native English speaker.
A little context.
I'm 28 years old. Up till recently, I was a teacher. And I lost my job because of budget cuts and I seriously doubt I'll ever teach again.
Big deal you must think.
But here's the thing. One of my friend, an engineer working on contract didn't got another one for next year. So he's out of job for now. And his wife is giving birth to their daughter as I am speaking.
My brother in law is an electrician but can only find part-time jobs.
My father (62 years old), who was an inhalation therapist just got transferred to a less paying sector.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
When I was a kid, adults kept saying me that working hard, studying and getting a degree would give me a full-proof access to an easy life.
Yet I keep looking around me. All I can see is mediocrity.
The economy rarely seems to go well, and when it does, it doesn't really affect my life or the life of the people around me.
Whenever I watch tv, look at journals, or use FB to get my news, the world always seems to be on the verge of collapse.
Social media shows us the worst the human mind has to offer.
Every politician promise us salvation, but in the end, it's always a bitter disappointment.
When young people ask me for advice on what to do about their future, I can't give them an answer, for nothing seems secure.
Everything seems to be a gamble, with high risk, low rewards.
When I look at history books covering the post WW2 period, everything that happened after seems so bright and easy. Most of my former senior colleagues (when I was a teacher) tell me that it was easier back in their days.
Are our societies, in the Western World, seeing the end of a Golden Age ? If yes, what is there left for us ? Wherever I look, all I can see is disease, stupidity, ugliness, mediocrity and no chance for a better future. Is this it ? Is this the life we will live ? In mediocrity ? If yes, what is the point ?
Not necessarily. It's certainly a rough time, and the end of the myth of Hard Work and Making Your Own Success and all that. Wealth inequality is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, and may even become a fatal one if we don't do anything about it. But it is possible for these problems to be overcome. It will take a willingness to accept that modern capitalism is not sustainable and replace it with a socialist/communist system that incorporates a guaranteed standard of living for all people, but that is a thing that can be done.
Peregrine wrote: Not necessarily. It's certainly a rough time, and the end of the myth of Hard Work and Making Your Own Success and all that. Wealth inequality is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, and may even become a fatal one if we don't do anything about it. But it is possible for these problems to be overcome. It will take a willingness to accept that modern capitalism is not sustainable and replace it with a socialist/communist system that incorporates a guaranteed standard of living for all people, but that is a thing that can be done.
To be honest, my biggest fear is that this rough time equals the duration of my lifetime.
It's selfish, of course, but if it's true that happiness has an intrisic value that each individual should be free to pursue, then I feel kinda cheated.
OF course I will completely disagree with Peregrine on his post (no surprise there, we rarely ever agree on anything) I dont believe we are much worse off now than before, just now we have more rapid communications and people are more into the "moment" I don't believe "income/wealth inequality" is a "thing" and I am absolutely against socialism or communism in any form,. The world really isn't any more (or less) violent really, but the world never had instant news or things like "twitter" or "facebook" before. There is also much less interest in history (especially history that has not been sugar coated or distorted too severely by one ideology or the other, the whole "my lies are truths and your lies are lies" mentality) I do believe we have some real issues in the world, but I am also relatively certain that there is a lot of scapegoating by the powers that be. We tend to talk at each other a lot more and to each other a whole lot less, but again, that's nothing really new either. Hard work and effort on your part will in some ways pay off, but on the other hand, if your passion is for something that others dont place much value in, then you arent likely to make much. Teachers have for the most part always been underpaid and under appreciated. nothing new there.
Peregrine wrote: It will take a willingness to accept that modern capitalism is not sustainable and replace it with a socialist/communist system
Right, because those always work out so well!
In the Western world you may not be able to get a job... in Venezuela you can't find a scrap of food in a trash can. And you only get to the famine part if you're lucky enough to make it through the purges and genocides that usually accompany the Glorious Revolution.
Massive wealth inequality clearly exists. It's also pretty easy to explain, and free-market capitalism doesn't have much to do with it. The U.S. government spends more money on corporate welfare than it does on social welfare. When you prop up entire corporations and industries to the point where you can't allow them to be negatively affected by market forces because they're now too large a part of the economy, that is not capitalism. It's some bastard form of mercantilism.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?
Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits. It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that. It is not a matter of "equality". burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages, the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts. that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them. The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.
thekingofkings wrote: Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits.
No, it is indisputable fact. There is no disagreement allowed here, the division of wealth in this country and in the world in general is massively unequal. It's a question of simple numbers, not your opinion of how the world should work.
It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that.
That's a rather cold-blooded way of looking at things. Personally I think that people should not be left to starve to death, even if they fail to negotiate for sufficient wages to survive. We, as a society, owe a basic standard of living to everyone.
burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages
Wait, I thought we were talking about a situation in which there is nothing more than an agreement between an employer and an employee. Why are you talking about what someone "deserves" to have?
the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts.
You're right, it's nuts that people are trapped in minimum wage jobs for their entire working lives. But that's the reality of the situation, and it's only going to get worse as improvements in automation and AI make more and more jobs irrelevant. More people will be limited to working jobs that are barely sufficient to survive and of limited value to society, and vast numbers of people will be literally unemployable. The idea that you can simply will yourself to advance in life by sheer hard work and determination needs to die. There are not enough good jobs for everyone, and the situation is never going to get better.
that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them.
Of course it is bad. Even setting aside the moral questions it's bad from a practical point of view. Being able to inherit large amounts of wealth discourages innovation and progress. If all you have to do to be rich is have rich parents and tell your financial advisor to keep the money coming you have no incentive to work. Money gets concentrated in people whose sole contribution is to have been born into the right family, while the workers and innovators of society are left with a smaller share of the wealth. Stagnation is not what we want, even if you argue that it's morally ok to have the vast majority of society's wealth concentrated in a few families.
The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.
Finally, something we agree on. Something must be taken from someone else, and we can start with the people who are way past the point of diminishing returns on being able to enjoy the wealth they are hoarding. The wealthiest people can settle for having a single private jet and a couple of vacation homes instead of a dozen billion-dollar mansions, and people who are currently struggling just to survive can improve to a more secure and stable life.
thekingofkings wrote: Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits.
No, it is indisputable fact. There is no disagreement allowed here, the division of wealth in this country and in the world in general is massively unequal. It's a question of simple numbers, not your opinion of how the world should work.
It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that.
That's a rather cold-blooded way of looking at things. Personally I think that people should not be left to starve to death, even if they fail to negotiate for sufficient wages to survive. We, as a society, owe a basic standard of living to everyone.
burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages
Wait, I thought we were talking about a situation in which there is nothing more than an agreement between an employer and an employee. Why are you talking about what someone "deserves" to have?
the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts.
You're right, it's nuts that people are trapped in minimum wage jobs for their entire working lives. But that's the reality of the situation, and it's only going to get worse as improvements in automation and AI make more and more jobs irrelevant. More people will be limited to working jobs that are barely sufficient to survive and of limited value to society, and vast numbers of people will be literally unemployable. The idea that you can simply will yourself to advance in life by sheer hard work and determination needs to die. There are not enough good jobs for everyone, and the situation is never going to get better.
that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them.
Of course it is bad. Even setting aside the moral questions it's bad from a practical point of view. Being able to inherit large amounts of wealth discourages innovation and progress. If all you have to do to be rich is have rich parents and tell your financial advisor to keep the money coming you have no incentive to work. Money gets concentrated in people whose sole contribution is to have been born into the right family, while the workers and innovators of society are left with a smaller share of the wealth. Stagnation is not what we want, even if you argue that it's morally ok to have the vast majority of society's wealth concentrated in a few families.
The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.
Finally, something we agree on. Something must be taken from someone else, and we can start with the people who are way past the point of diminishing returns on being able to enjoy the wealth they are hoarding. The wealthiest people can settle for having a single private jet and a couple of vacation homes instead of a dozen billion-dollar mansions, and people who are currently struggling just to survive can improve to a more secure and stable life.
no i most certainly can disagree on the first point, I completely reject this notion and yeah you are giving me your opinion of how the world should work. I earn money, it is therefor mine, if you dont earn as much that does not give you any right to take from me. the rich invest more, they take the risks, they should get the reward for their risk. It does not mean you get to take from others simply because they have more than you, or at least be honest about being a thief.This absolutely is in dispute, thats why we have such vehement disagreement and two pretty much diametrically opposed political parties.
The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.Sure there are people who are fabulously wealthy, whether they deserve to be or not is not up to us. some of the countries current richest people came up with their ideas as college students, innovation can come from anywhere, most of our best inventions have come from the poor or crazy trying to make things easier. as for inherited wealth, its their money and again noone has the right to take it from them just because they want to. There is word for this forced "redistribution of wealth" its called thievery. By all means if you find out and can prove in court that the wealth was illegally gained, confiscate it, by law. But if they get wealthy working the system legally, well good on em. while i dont like to quibble about words to make semantic arguments, I noticed you said "societys wealth" its not society's wealth, its their wealth, society has no claim on it.
the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another. I will gladly keep the ones I have now. It is unjust to covet the wealth of people like zuckerburg who simply made something everyone seemed to want and it made him amazingly wealthy and then want to take it from him, simply because he has it. I dont care that he may have dozens of mansions, that really doesn't affect me and my crappy little house. Hwe came up with a brilliant idea. good job! enjoy the rewards of your labor.
No you can't. This is simple numbers and indisputable facts, not moral opinions.
I earn money, it is therefor mine, if you dont earn as much that does not give you any right to take from me.
Sure it does. That's the entire concept of taxation. Unless you're arguing for a complete anarchist society with zero taxation (in which case you're a fringe extremist and not relevant to any political discussion) you accept the premise that your money is not entirely yours, and that society can take some of it from you.
the rich invest more, they take the risks, they should get the reward for their risk.
Not necessarily. Some rich people are rich because they took risks, but they very often aren't. Just take a look at things like the bank bailouts: the executives at those banks did not put their personal money at risk, would still have had comfortable upper-class lives even if they had risked the majority of their personal assets, and got the government to cover their losses when they failed. Our current society is full of examples of people who are rich because money was handed to them, and once you're rich even marginally-competent investing will ensure that you remain rich. If you inherit a billion dollars (remember, the statement about risk is in the context of inherited wealth) you will be rich for your entire life, even if all you do is sit around and enjoy your money, and you will likely pass on that same level of wealth to your children.
Meanwhile, if you want to talk about deserving reward for risk, why are military veterans paid so poorly? Surely if the "risk" of becoming slightly less wealthy because you made poor choices with your investments justifies being able to live a life of unimaginable luxury from your profits when you succeed then veterans who literally face death in service to their country have taken a greater risk and deserve greater wealth. The system is clearly not functioning as a risk vs. reward tradeoff.
The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.
So? The fact that progress has been made does not mean that we should stop making progress. In fact, by saying this you accept the premise of my argument: that taxation, and the things it produces, are good for the world. You just for some reason want to stop at what we have already achieved, instead of continuing the improvement.
the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another.
No, it's offering the choice of an overlord or death. The alternative to socialism/communism, in a post-AI/automation society in which the vast majority of people are literally unemployable, is to be murdered by the starving masses. You either accept the inevitable fact that only a small minority of people are capable of productive employment, and the rest will have to be taken care of through taxation and socialism, or you commit suicide and then everyone else builds the inevitable socialist society on your grave.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?
Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits. It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that. It is not a matter of "equality". burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages, the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts. that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them. The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.
Why do you believe it is nothing more than a cute buzzword?
BTW, governments do emphatically produce money. Look at a dollar bill if you doubt this.
I’m amazed that a teacher losing their job can’t find work, or that they could afford to be cut in the first place. Most countries are crying out for teachers, it’s absolute desperation in the UK. My department has had at least one supply teacher in it since I started a few years ago, the last one left and to my knowledge they’ve not found someone for January. And we’re a good school, the tough ones must have a hell of a job attracting people.
I couldn't do my job and pursue the career I fell into without my education. My state education. I didn't pay for it. My parents contributed to it via their own taxes, but they didn't carry the whole can.
I've been patched and sent on my way multiple times by the NHS - all through illness and accident, none of it self inflicted.
I benefit greatly from living in a low crime area, where the worst thing that can happen is having to tell the odd oik to eff off before he gets hurt.
Around 2000, I was involved in a house fire. I owe the Fire Brigade who came and put it out.
The roads I use to get to work, I owe for those.
The trade deals the government have arranged on the country's behalf? I owe for them.
But most of all, I owe it to my fellow man to ensure the social services can lift as many people as possible out of poverty, and get them instead engaged and invested in the economy beyond subsistence living.
As for 'my company doesn't owe me anything'. That's race to the bottom logic - and that strikes can cripple industry points to the fallacy behind your logic.
Yes, some people are job creators. But if they want proper efficiency, they need to attract and retain suitable staff. Pay them peanuts, deny them holidays and other perks, and you can't retain any but those on the lowest rung.
More importantly, why should anyone in full time work have to struggle to make ends meet?. Why should someone busting their hump 40 or more hours a week only get the merest sliver of the money their efforts generate?
The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.Sure there are people who are fabulously wealthy, whether they deserve to be or not is not up to us. some of the countries current richest people came up with their ideas as college students, innovation can come from anywhere, most of our best inventions have come from the poor or crazy trying to make things easier. as for inherited wealth, its their money and again noone has the right to take it from them just because they want to. There is word for this forced "redistribution of wealth" its called thievery. By all means if you find out and can prove in court that the wealth was illegally gained, confiscate it, by law. But if they get wealthy working the system legally, well good on em. while i dont like to quibble about words to make semantic arguments, I noticed you said "societys wealth" its not society's wealth, its their wealth, society has no claim on it.
the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another. I will gladly keep the ones I have now. It is unjust to covet the wealth of people like zuckerburg who simply made something everyone seemed to want and it made him amazingly wealthy and then want to take it from him, simply because he has it. I dont care that he may have dozens of mansions, that really doesn't affect me and my crappy little house. Hwe came up with a brilliant idea. good job! enjoy the rewards of your labor.
The issue arises that you don't become wealthy or maintain wealth by being benevolent in most cases. The government needs to stop people from , oh let's say dramatically inflating the price of life saving medication, as Martin Shrkeli did, or as the manufacturers of the stable, mature technology of the epipen have done. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-drug-high-price/index.html . That's how you get the extra billions.
Or let's even go to something as mundane as a landlord/tenant relationship. The predatory loan practices of our banks are well known, but to be fair our housing bubble crash didn't kill anyone. The poor of London were not so lucky, when their hive tower went up like something out of Judge Dredd. http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-tragic-story-of-the-grenfell-tower-inferno/ .
In a move which foreshadows many of the fears of net neutrality, it was recently proved, and Apple admitted that when they release a new phone they start deliberately making the old phones slower to encourage you to upgrade. Thank goodness Apple can degrade my product's performance to shore up their profit margin and encourage me to update. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/21/technology/apple-slows-down-old-iphones/index.html
The poor die to make those fortunes. Then, the corporations that profit from them alter the laws to improve their profits further by cutting safety margins and restrictions.
To go back to the original question, there are in my opinion two answers.
The first is that the Golden Age started to fall into decline with the advent of neo-liberalism in the early 1980s. Since then it is obvious that while the world as a whole has got much richer, much more of the riches have gone to the already rich, at the expense of the bottom half of the population in countries like the USA.
The global financial crisis was caused largely by dodgy credit engineering designed to enrich banks without the effort of "producing money". It failed because reality caught up, as it alwasy does in the end.
The fall-out from this episode magically avoided the rich, and settled elsewhere, thus increasing misery and discontent. But some social or psychological process has led a lot of the afflicted to blame foreigners, socialists, immigrants and so on, instead of their own government policies.
All this being said, the Western World, consisting of western Europe, the USA, Canada, and natural allies like Japan and New Zealand, is still the most democratic, liberal bloc in the world and possesses immense stores of wealth, technology and so on.
Thus, I do not believe we are at the end. We are possibly at a turning point. If people continue to follow the illiberal policies of (fopr example) Trumpism , there will be further decline. But we can turn the corner if we can get people to open their eyes.
This is my second time posting on the off-topic forum, so I'm kinda new to discussing something else than W40k here. Forgive my English, it's late and I'm not a native English speaker.
A little context.
I'm 28 years old. Up till recently, I was a teacher. And I lost my job because of budget cuts and I seriously doubt I'll ever teach again.
Big deal you must think.
But here's the thing. One of my friend, an engineer working on contract didn't got another one for next year. So he's out of job for now. And his wife is giving birth to their daughter as I am speaking.
My brother in law is an electrician but can only find part-time jobs.
My father (62 years old), who was an inhalation therapist just got transferred to a less paying sector.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
When I was a kid, adults kept saying me that working hard, studying and getting a degree would give me a full-proof access to an easy life.
Yet I keep looking around me. All I can see is mediocrity.
The economy rarely seems to go well, and when it does, it doesn't really affect my life or the life of the people around me.
Whenever I watch tv, look at journals, or use FB to get my news, the world always seems to be on the verge of collapse.
Social media shows us the worst the human mind has to offer.
Every politician promise us salvation, but in the end, it's always a bitter disappointment.
When young people ask me for advice on what to do about their future, I can't give them an answer, for nothing seems secure.
Everything seems to be a gamble, with high risk, low rewards.
When I look at history books covering the post WW2 period, everything that happened after seems so bright and easy. Most of my former senior colleagues (when I was a teacher) tell me that it was easier back in their days.
Are our societies, in the Western World, seeing the end of a Golden Age ? If yes, what is there left for us ? Wherever I look, all I can see is disease, stupidity, ugliness, mediocrity and no chance for a better future. Is this it ? Is this the life we will live ? In mediocrity ? If yes, what is the point ?
In a word, yes. But the decline will be slow and steady. And we are the ones cutting our own throats.
But when the West bottoms out, the rest of the world WILL be affected.
This guys makes a few forecasts about the coming global shift (politically, economically, and socially), most of it focused on 2018. It's not really in-depth, and doesn't touch on everything. But it's still an interesting watch.
Depends on what you consider a Golden Age. I am pretty sure their were plenty of citizens who missed out on the "Golden Age" by being a minority, immigrant, woman, wrong economic class, bad location, etc.
That being said, we will be seeing HUGE changes in our society in the next two generations as automation reaches a critical mass. Eventually our society will need to adapt to the new realities that mass automation will have on ur social, cultural, and economic world view. I expect we will have some major instability and social unrest until a new equalibrium will be started and the new "Golden Age" will begin (for some).
It’s a question that two Bank of Italy economists, Guglielmo Barone and Sauro Mocetti, attempted to answer. Focusing on the wealthiest families in 15th-century Florence, they compared newly digitized records of Florentine taxpayers way back in 1427 to those from 2011. By comparing the wealthiest people centuries back to those with the same last names today, they found that the richest families in Florence mostly remain the same.
In other words, these families have kept their grip on wealth — and presumably the prestige and power that accompanies that wealth — for 600 years.
If you do think this is in any shape or form fair... well I don't know what to say. As everything, the Mark Zukerbercs are a minority that to be honest has had the chance to sucess only because of the advent of internet. Internet is right now like the colonization of america. The first to come becomes rich.
Things are definitely going to change. But the West will stay the wealthiest and one of the most influential regions of the world, I am sure of that. I do think the West is in decline though, and conditions when I grow up or when my future kids are going to grow up are probably not going to be as good as those that the generations before me grew up in. Golden ages are by their very nature always followed by periods that are less good.
But after that we get robot communism. Definitely robot communism. Robots are going to be doing all the work for us. And then we will all become cyborgs ourselves and have eternal life. Praise our robotic saviours. Amen.
Easy E wrote: Depends on what you consider a Golden Age. I am pretty sure their were plenty of citizens who missed out on the "Golden Age" by being a minority, immigrant, woman, wrong economic class, bad location, etc.
That being said, we will be seeing HUGE changes in our society in the next two generations as automation reaches a critical mass. Eventually our society will need to adapt to the new realities that mass automation will have on ur social, cultural, and economic world view. I expect we will have some major instability and social unrest until a new equalibrium will be started and the new "Golden Age" will begin (for some).
That is the same thing for every golden age for every region in every period in world history. What matters is the perception of the majority.
Easy E wrote: Depends on what you consider a Golden Age. I am pretty sure their were plenty of citizens who missed out on the "Golden Age" by being a minority, immigrant, woman, wrong economic class, bad location, etc.
That being said, we will be seeing HUGE changes in our society in the next two generations as automation reaches a critical mass. Eventually our society will need to adapt to the new realities that mass automation will have on ur social, cultural, and economic world view. I expect we will have some major instability and social unrest until a new equalibrium will be started and the new "Golden Age" will begin (for some).
Edit: Your avatar scares me!
Yeah, assuming a "golden age" ignores the fact that it was very selective and concentrated wealth into largely the same hands as the colonial and mercantile systems before the modern age. Even in western nations, there are huge disparities in wealth, with majority being aggregated in the hands of very few. It amazes me how arguments justifying such inequalities seem to mirror justifications for imperial and totalitarian systems- essentially that those at the top are better.
The problem with modern western prosperity is that it is largely built on the back of exploiting others. The trend has been for greater equality, but still large corporations and the very wealthy seek to maintain their "kingdoms" and exert tremendous influence on governments in various ways. And while there has been a strong push for more egalitarian systems, the erosion of older institutions and changing conditions has produced a fair amount of resistance. So, at the same time you see continued violence in some of the poorest and most unstable regions in the world, you also see hostilities from the former beneficiaries of exclusionary systems in in the more developed nations. Rather than focus on internal corruption and exploitation, stagnant wage growth etc., entrenched interests attempt to redirect hostility towards external threats- immigrants, foreigners, terrorists, etc. or reframe reform movements as attacks on cultural values.
None of this is new, of course. Humans justifying their actions and dominance of others is as old as civilization. It's why kings proclaimed themselves gods (or god's vessel) and the modern proclaims themselves the gods of economic growth- it puts them above accountability. Likewise, ignoring the struggles of others while seeing ones own struggles as somehow unique or paramount is typical of human perspective. It is a fundamental reason why these systems remain broken and leaders can continue to exploit divisions.
I don't think the west is in decline, and even if it was, who would replace it? Its certainly not Asia if you are looking there.
There has been major changes to the economy in the last 100 years. In the US, the vast majority of workers were White males. Now with movements to create a more 'diversified' workplace, more women and minorities are taking up positions that were once held by, well, like baby boomer fathers and the greatest generation grandfathers (thought there was another name for them but can't remember it). Yes technology and automation has changed many fields, but new fields are created and people rotate into those. I am not sure when you can look back into history and say that any time period was better. Better for who? Wherever there is a winner, there is a loser. Its always been that way, and always will be that way.
I am not a socialist either. I have never lived in a socialist society either. But I have been to 30 or so countries, and I prefer to live in the US (although I imagine there are a few places I would enjoy living, but they have more to do with geography than economics). Yes, we have our problems in the US, but please. The last two countries I visited was India and China. You have no idea what over-population looks like if you have never left the US/Canada. Concrete jungles, slums, etc, all massive. And it will not go away. There will always be a sizable proportion of the population in those areas what will be well off, and others that are not.
Keep in mind that China's rise is going to plateau here in a bit, then have some major issues. Massive debts, automation, housing prices, and more are all going to rock China's society. The next place to boom will be India, but it too, will face the same issues China will have when it begins to eventually plateau out as well.
And I think about this all the time, with global warming, huge population increases (Africa is going to explode this century), and the massive amounts of waste we will produce, let alone the energy we will need, mankind is going to take a massive dump on this planet. Far worse than what is going on now. I am glad I was able to visit many places as I did as a kid, and have seen some things you only see on NatGeo or the Discovery Channel in person, as I don't think many places will be left in their natural state by the end of this century. The biggest problem with Earth, is the growing population of mankind.
And what typically happens when you have an abundance of unemployed males?!? Historically, you send them off to war.
Khornate25 wrote:When young people ask me for advice on what to do about their future, I can't give them an answer, for nothing seems secure.
The point of life is to live it to our best. Our western society does not encourage us to explore it, everything needs to be standardized. We have a set of standards about standards. We constantly seek security and doing so unknowingly cultivate fear.
"Oh I can't go into writing/art, everybody knows you can't make money out of that". "My music just isn't good enough to compete with established artists".
I don't think I'd go into engineering, if given another chance. Who knows what sort of a writer I'd ended up? It's not as if education in engineering opened doors for me either. I'm writing this because I do wish more people would realize that very few things are set in stone. What sort of problems would you like to solve, what would get you out of bed in the morning? As a teacher I don't think you can do anything more than guide your students, they alone must walk their path.
It sounds really nice to give everyone a universal basic income so we can all be painters and writers and live in a socialist utopia, but has anyone advocating this ever done any math to try and see how feasible it is?
If you gave everyone in the U.S. a basic income of $15,000 a year, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.55x10^12. That's close to the number of miles that light travels in one year, in dollars. You could take ALL of the money away from the richest 20% and it wouldn't even cover that.
Luciferian wrote: It sounds really nice to give everyone a universal basic income so we can all be painters and writers and live in a socialist utopia, but has anyone advocating this ever done any math to try and see how feasible it is?
If you gave everyone in the U.S. a basic income of $15,000 a year, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.55x10^12. That's close to the number of miles that light travels in one year, in dollars. You could take ALL of the money away from the richest 20% and it wouldn't even cover that.
Well, the working population of the US is somewhere in the vicinity of 200M people from a quick search (people aged 15-64, specifically). Multiply that by 15k, and you'll get approx 3 trillion dollars. In perspective, the US defense budget amounted to 500B.
The top 1% hold roughly 40% of the wealth in the country, and wikipedia says the total household wealth of the country is in excess of 55T, giving the 1% at least 22T. Take 15% of that, and you'd be able to pay for the 3T for UBI.
Rough napkin math of course, and never likely to happen, but the money is there.
How long would you be able to pay for UBI that way? How long until the wealthy either run out of money or move it somewhere else? What is going to happen to the economy when you have 200 million "novelists" doing nothing but subsisting on UBI? How is it going to affect prices and inflation? Is no one concerned about the power the government will have over society and individuals when it is the sole employer and source of income for hundreds of millions of people?
It's a pretty big leap to say social injustices exist, therefore socialism. In my personal experience, pretty much no one who proclaims themselves to be a socialist has done their homework. Although as I stated above, I have a much bigger problem with corporate welfare than I do social welfare. I think more capitalism would solve a lot of our problems, but we at least share common problems and a common "oppressor" in the first place, and that is a corrupt oligarchy created by the marriage of government and corporate powers.
Luciferian wrote: It sounds really nice to give everyone a universal basic income so we can all be painters and writers and live in a socialist utopia, but has anyone advocating this ever done any math to try and see how feasible it is?
If you gave everyone in the U.S. a basic income of $15,000 a year, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.55x10^12. That's close to the number of miles that light travels in one year, in dollars. You could take ALL of the money away from the richest 20% and it wouldn't even cover that.
Well, the working population of the US is somewhere in the vicinity of 200M people from a quick search (people aged 15-64, specifically). Multiply that by 15k, and you'll get approx 3 trillion dollars. In perspective, the US defense budget amounted to 500B.
The top 1% hold roughly 40% of the wealth in the country, and wikipedia says the total household wealth of the country is in excess of 55T, giving the 1% at least 22T. Take 15% of that, and you'd be able to pay for the 3T for UBI.
Rough napkin math of course, and never likely to happen, but the money is there.
No the money isn't there. Wealth and money are two different things. A person or business can be wealthy without having much liquidity. To pay every working age person in the USA $15k a year would require an expenditure of $3 trillion dollars from the Federal government. That's a lot of money, that's almost same amount as the Federal government spends in a year already.
In fiscal year 2016, the federal government spent $3.9 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $3.9 trillion, over $3.3 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount ($585 billion) was financed by borrowing.
To get enough money to pay the $15k/person UBI the Federal government would need to double the amount of tax revenue it collects or reduce all other spending by 75%.
No you can't. This is simple numbers and indisputable facts, not moral opinions.
you say its indisputable, that doesn't make it so. I reject your argument here.
I earn money, it is therefor mine, if you dont earn as much that does not give you any right to take from me.
Sure it does. That's the entire concept of taxation. Unless you're arguing for a complete anarchist society with zero taxation (in which case you're a fringe extremist and not relevant to any political discussion) you accept the premise that your money is not entirely yours, and that society can take some of it from you.
I am not arguing about removing taxation. the key here is that the wealthy are a part of this tax code and accept it as it is, so they dont simply take their money and leave,. what I am arguing against is this idea that its ok simply to keep taking from them because they have more. that is immoral and unjust. There is a point where its no longer taxation based on rule of law and it becomes punitive seizure. What I believe you and like minded individuals are condoning is helping yourselves to as much of their money as you want in the spirit of "equality" which is in itself immoral and unjust. We already have a "progressive" tax code in the US, a "Equal" tax would be a straight %, which of course would allow the rich to keep an even greater share of their wealth and require the poor who already get more back in returns then they pay in to have to shoulder their "fair share" which I have never heard a liberal want to do.
the rich invest more, they take the risks, they should get the reward for their risk.
Not necessarily. Some rich people are rich because they took risks, but they very often aren't. Just take a look at things like the bank bailouts: the executives at those banks did not put their personal money at risk, would still have had comfortable upper-class lives even if they had risked the majority of their personal assets, and got the government to cover their losses when they failed. Our current society is full of examples of people who are rich because money was handed to them, and once you're rich even marginally-competent investing will ensure that you remain rich. If you inherit a billion dollars (remember, the statement about risk is in the context of inherited wealth) you will be rich for your entire life, even if all you do is sit around and enjoy your money, and you will likely pass on that same level of wealth to your children.
I will concede the argument on this, you have convinced me to a degree on it.
Meanwhile, if you want to talk about deserving reward for risk, why are military veterans paid so poorly? Surely if the "risk" of becoming slightly less wealthy because you made poor choices with your investments justifies being able to live a life of unimaginable luxury from your profits when you succeed then veterans who literally face death in service to their country have taken a greater risk and deserve greater wealth. The system is clearly not functioning as a risk vs. reward tradeoff.
I am a military retiree, I believe I am given an almost ridiculous level of compensation, I get virtually free healthcare (free to me personally, not the state) for life, I get 50% of my base pay, for life, I get to use tax free shopping on base for life. I cant think of many professions that receive that, let alone the college benifits I was given .
The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.
So? The fact that progress has been made does not mean that we should stop making progress. In fact, by saying this you accept the premise of my argument: that taxation, and the things it produces, are good for the world. You just for some reason want to stop at what we have already achieved, instead of continuing the improvement.
The progress of the quality of life of the poor shows that while there are people who have more than they "need" that does not mean the rest of the people are living in squalor, poor people have many advances and conveniences. they are "poor" in relation to the rich, but are still well off, in the west the poor are in many cases better off than the "middle class" of many other areas. We are not living in a time of a handful of scrooges hoarding everything while the rest starve.
the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another.
No, it's offering the choice of an overlord or death. The alternative to socialism/communism, in a post-AI/automation society in which the vast majority of people are literally unemployable, is to be murdered by the starving masses. You either accept the inevitable fact that only a small minority of people are capable of productive employment, and the rest will have to be taken care of through taxation and socialism, or you commit suicide and then everyone else builds the inevitable socialist society on your grave.
I dont agree here at all,. machines break, people will need to build them and repair them, machines are not all terrain nor all weather, the nature of employment will have to change,. what you are basically advocating is the enslavement of humanity from the "evil captalist" to the "good socialists". while I dont believe you are "Threatening" with this last I have noticed that almost every time this comes up, it is violence that socialists have to threaten to get their way, doomsday scenario and all (I am used to your "belligerent" sounding tone so generally wont take offense) but if this system is so good, why is it always accompanied by force?
Kilkrazy wrote: Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?
Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits. It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that. It is not a matter of "equality". burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages, the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts. that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them. The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.
Why do you believe it is nothing more than a cute buzzword?
BTW, governments do emphatically produce money. Look at a dollar bill if you doubt this.
the mint prints the physical currency, thats not the same thing, the govt taxes its citizens it does not just print what it wants.
The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.Sure there are people who are fabulously wealthy, whether they deserve to be or not is not up to us. some of the countries current richest people came up with their ideas as college students, innovation can come from anywhere, most of our best inventions have come from the poor or crazy trying to make things easier. as for inherited wealth, its their money and again noone has the right to take it from them just because they want to. There is word for this forced "redistribution of wealth" its called thievery. By all means if you find out and can prove in court that the wealth was illegally gained, confiscate it, by law. But if they get wealthy working the system legally, well good on em. while i dont like to quibble about words to make semantic arguments, I noticed you said "societys wealth" its not society's wealth, its their wealth, society has no claim on it.
the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another. I will gladly keep the ones I have now. It is unjust to covet the wealth of people like zuckerburg who simply made something everyone seemed to want and it made him amazingly wealthy and then want to take it from him, simply because he has it. I dont care that he may have dozens of mansions, that really doesn't affect me and my crappy little house. Hwe came up with a brilliant idea. good job! enjoy the rewards of your labor.
The issue arises that you don't become wealthy or maintain wealth by being benevolent in most cases. The government needs to stop people from , oh let's say dramatically inflating the price of life saving medication, as Martin Shrkeli did, or as the manufacturers of the stable, mature technology of the epipen have done. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-drug-high-price/index.html . That's how you get the extra billions.
Or let's even go to something as mundane as a landlord/tenant relationship. The predatory loan practices of our banks are well known, but to be fair our housing bubble crash didn't kill anyone. The poor of London were not so lucky, when their hive tower went up like something out of Judge Dredd. http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-tragic-story-of-the-grenfell-tower-inferno/ .
In a move which foreshadows many of the fears of net neutrality, it was recently proved, and Apple admitted that when they release a new phone they start deliberately making the old phones slower to encourage you to upgrade. Thank goodness Apple can degrade my product's performance to shore up their profit margin and encourage me to update. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/21/technology/apple-slows-down-old-iphones/index.html
The poor die to make those fortunes. Then, the corporations that profit from them alter the laws to improve their profits further by cutting safety margins and restrictions.
as for your first, Shrkeli was nabbed on securitues fraud, not raising his prices,. epipen is a brand, there are generics., they simply lack the reputation and ease.
land lord/ tenant relationships are always tricky situations, but again, the property belongs to the landlord,. not the tenent if they raise the price too much, you may have to move. property taxes can force landlords to raise their prices, landlords are required to keep their properties in certain shape.
I dont have a cell phone or iphone or what have you, I have a landline so i have no idea on your last.
good luck everyone on the great wall of text. If I didnt address or respond, hit me up (hopefully without the massive wall of quote) I got a feeling this thread (if we dont get locked) is gonna grow quite a bit.
In the automated future, what will wealth even mean? The only limit will be the energy production to fuel the robots and the natural resources to make the stuff.
However, in the far future; most "stuff" will be "fake stuff" as it will only be code data.
Luciferian wrote: and that is a corrupt oligarchy created by the marriage of government and corporate powers.
Yes, capitalism. Those who own have used the wealth and de facto power of this ownership to purchase political and legal power, protected by the violence of the state monopoly.
A "marriage of government and corporate powers" is inevitable under a system of private ownership of the means of production. If you think that you can have government and corporations somehow eternally at odds with eachother without either ever gaining the upper hand and achieving victory, you're naive.
Luciferian wrote: and that is a corrupt oligarchy created by the marriage of government and corporate powers.
Yes, capitalism. Those who own have used the wealth and de facto power of this ownership to purchase political and legal power, protected by the violence of the state monopoly.
A "marriage of government and corporate powers" is inevitable under a system of private ownership of the means of production. If you think that you can have government and corporations somehow eternally at odds with eachother without either ever gaining the upper hand and achieving victory, you're naive.
yeah its a pretty bad system, unfortunately the alternatives are far worse.
Luciferian wrote: and that is a corrupt oligarchy created by the marriage of government and corporate powers.
Yes, capitalism. Those who own have used the wealth and de facto power of this ownership to purchase political and legal power, protected by the violence of the state monopoly.
A "marriage of government and corporate powers" is inevitable under a system of private ownership of the means of production. If you think that you can have government and corporations somehow eternally at odds with eachother without either ever gaining the upper hand and achieving victory, you're naive.
No, not capitalism. It's only possible with the interference of the government. If you think you can skip the in between and hand the means of production directly over to the government, with its violence of state monopoly, and have that turn out any better, you're naive.
You can't look at the futures economics in the same way as you look at them now. In this century we will see a rise of automation and computerized intelligence that is going to increase humanities abilities beyond anything we can imagine.
No, not capitalism. It's only possible with the interference of the government. If you think you can skip the in between and hand the means of production directly over to the government, with its violence of state monopoly, and have that turn out any better, you're naive.
Capitalism does not exist outside of a government that can guarantee private ownership.
What defense does socialism have except no true Scotsman?
Every socialist or Marxist-Leninist economy ever has either resulted in failure, or evolved to incorporate aspects of market economies. History has soundly refuted Communism and socialism time and time again.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why do you refuse to believe that massive wealth inequality exists?
It exists. But for a reason.
In any society, there will always be "haves" and "have nots". There will always be the successful and the failures. And there will always be those who experience 'good times" and those "down on their luck".
It's the way of the world. And barring any utopian fantasies of "post scarcity" or "real communism", it will always be that way.
Nobody is entitled to wealth. But those who think that people are entitled to such are the same ones that have rejected the egalitarian notion of "equality of opportunity", for that bit of class envy known as "equality of outcome". They tend to confuse the two, unfortunately.
Luciferian wrote: What defense does socialism have except no true Scotsman?
Every socialist or Marxist-Leninist economy ever has either resulted in failure, or evolved to incorporate aspects of market economies. History has soundly refuted Communism and socialism time and time again.
Yeah but the USSR hymn was the best one in history.
Take that, capitalists.
Luciferian wrote: What defense does socialism have except no true Scotsman?
Every socialist or Marxist-Leninist economy ever has either resulted in failure, or evolved to incorporate aspects of market economies. History has soundly refuted Communism and socialism time and time again.
To be fair, by this same token, every capitalist market driven economy has failed or evolved to incorporate Socialist aspects as well.
Every developed nation has totally or extensively socialized aspects to large sectors of the economy, such as healthcare, education, the military, emergency services, transit and transportation, scientific research and exploration, etc, and incorporate a significant Public presence in things like housing, the arts, food provision, utilities provision, telecommunications, and more, while at the same time being a significant consumer of almost everything.
In any society, there will always be "haves" and "have nots". There will always be the successful and the failures. And there will always be those who experience 'good times" and those "down on their luck".
It's the way of the world. And barring any utopian fantasies of "post scarcity" or "real communism", it will always be that way.
Nobody is entitled to wealth. But those who think that people are entitled to such are the same ones that have rejected the egalitarian notion of "equality of opportunity", for that bit of class envy known as "equality of outcome". They tend to confuse the two, unfortunately.
You can huff hot air like this all you want and it won't do a single thing about the fact that once the "have nots" reach sufficient numbers there will be too many people with nothing to lose for the "haves" to handle. Aside from the moral arguments of societies having responsibilities towards their inhabitants, there is the very deeply practical argument that a society that creates growing numbers of the deprived will one day reach the point where its rulers get their heads lopped off.
Luciferian wrote: What defense does socialism have except no true Scotsman?
Every socialist or Marxist-Leninist economy ever has either resulted in failure, or evolved to incorporate aspects of market economies. History has soundly refuted Communism and socialism time and time again.
Every single socialist country has been marked for destruction by the capitalist powers. Every single socialist country has been marked for death squads, assassinations, invasions, bombings, sanctions and sabotage.
The defence that socialism has is that it, unlike capitalism, does not discourage the reproduction of the species.
Maybe we should, I don't know, return to the topic at hand rather than getting bogged down in the weeds about capitalism/communism?
Regardless of what we should do in the future, in the present a lot of current western counties ARE flailing about and we should be doing SOMETHING abut that, but as this topic shows we'd rather just swing our ideological dicks around than coming together to solve the problems. We've put "being right" above "doing good".
I don’t know about capitalism enough to bash or praise either way. I do know I lost the job I love(ceramics prof) due to corruption. I worked as an adjunct prof for 5 Years, then they brought in a guy who is lesser than my skill level, I know this because he came in visiting doing demos showing what he is capable of, the dept decide to let me go and hire him, then they move him to assistant prof after a year. A year or two later the university(UTRGV) was put on notice by the board, a few other tenured prof sued the university as they were let go without just.
Worked for frontline gaming painting minis for a year before doing it on my own as we had some miscues, they being the middleman do not allow any direct contact with the client. A disapproval I was not aware of was withheld, mishap in shipping cause delay. I think the true reason we parted was due to my inexperience in airbrush.
I live fine, I share a condo with a friend, my income does not allow me to buy the typical house with picket fences. I have been applying for other assistant ceramics prof jobs, but am unlucky, then I see the places I applied for a year later seeking the same position, I laugh as they definitely didn’t hire the right person. Too many job hirings are based on who you know(connections) rather than your abilities.
Every single socialist country has been marked for destruction by the capitalist powers. Every single socialist country has been marked for death squads, assassinations, invasions, bombings, sanctions and sabotage.
The defence that socialism has is that it, unlike capitalism, does not discourage the reproduction of the species.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Maybe we should, I don't know, return to the topic at hand rather than getting bogged down in the weeds about capitalism/communism?
Regardless of what we should do in the future, in the present a lot of current western counties ARE flailing about and we should be doing SOMETHING abut that, but as this topic shows we'd rather just swing our ideological dicks around than coming together to solve the problems. We've put "being right" above "doing good".
Well said.
No one can catually decide what that SOMETHING should be though.
Every single socialist country has been marked for destruction by the capitalist powers. Every single socialist country has been marked for death squads, assassinations, invasions, bombings, sanctions and sabotage.
The defence that socialism has is that it, unlike capitalism, does not discourage the reproduction of the species.
Now that's no true Scotsman.
conspiracy theory to mask the abject failures of socialism and communism, oddly enough socialist/communist countries are often the most repressive and aggressive regimes. generally the scandinavian countries are not (since the running joke here is with socialism they are docile, without it they go viking again) but they are also the likeliest targets for russian aggression.
Every single socialist country has been marked for destruction by the capitalist powers. Every single socialist country has been marked for death squads, assassinations, invasions, bombings, sanctions and sabotage.
The defence that socialism has is that it, unlike capitalism, does not discourage the reproduction of the species.
Now that's no true Scotsman.
conspiracy theory to mask the abject failures of socialism and communism, oddly enough socialist/communist countries are often the most repressive and aggressive regimes. generally the scandinavian countries are not (since the running joke here is with socialism they are docile, without it they go viking again) but they are also the likeliest targets for russian aggression.
What? I am not sure if Poe's law is in effect here or not... This thread is weird.
Every single socialist country has been marked for destruction by the capitalist powers. Every single socialist country has been marked for death squads, assassinations, invasions, bombings, sanctions and sabotage.
The defence that socialism has is that it, unlike capitalism, does not discourage the reproduction of the species.
Now that's no true Scotsman.
conspiracy theory to mask the abject failures of socialism and communism, oddly enough socialist/communist countries are often the most repressive and aggressive regimes. generally the scandinavian countries are not (since the running joke here is with socialism they are docile, without it they go viking again) but they are also the likeliest targets for russian aggression.
What? I am not sure if Poe's law is in effect here or not... This thread is weird.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont agree here at all,. machines break, people will need to build them and repair them, machines are not all terrain nor all weather, the nature of employment will have to change,.
Those are engineering obstacles, nothing more. Machines will continue to improve, and jobs that are currently done by humans will continue to be replaced by machines. But yes, there will still be some jobs. That's why I mentioned 95% of the population being literally unemployable, not 100%. There will still be a few jobs for things like product design engineers, robot operators, etc. But that factory full of human workers? Replaced by a bunch of machines, and one guy watching over them in case anything goes wrong. All those truck drivers? Replaced by self-driving trucks with one "driver" in a central location keeping an eye on them. Etc.
what you are basically advocating is the enslavement of humanity from the "evil captalist" to the "good socialists".
Calling any form of government "enslavement" is a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
while I dont believe you are "Threatening" with this last I have noticed that almost every time this comes up, it is violence that socialists have to threaten to get their way, doomsday scenario and all (I am used to your "belligerent" sounding tone so generally wont take offense) but if this system is so good, why is it always accompanied by force?
It's (potentially) accompanied by force for the same reason that it took a war to end slavery: there are people who benefit from the system, and don't care how many people have to suffer as long as they're on top. And it's not a threat, it's a simple statement of what will inevitably happen. If the vast majority of people are unemployed, have no hope of ever being employed, and do not have enough of a welfare system to survive, they will inevitably choose violent revolution over starving to death. The only way to avoid a violent revolution is to voluntarily fix the problem and avoid having hundreds of millions of people with nothing left to lose. And the only solution that can possibly fix the problem is a socialist/communist state.
the mint prints the physical currency, thats not the same thing, the govt taxes its citizens it does not just print what it wants.
I don't think you understand how the money system works. The government can and does print whatever money it wants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldravenman3025 wrote: In any society, there will always be "haves" and "have nots". There will always be the successful and the failures. And there will always be those who experience 'good times" and those "down on their luck".
Yes, but that's not the issue here. There will always be people who do better than others, but the magnitude of the inequality is not some inevitable truth. A CEO making 10x what the lowest-paid worker in the company makes is still living a pretty comfortable life. Why do they need to have 100x, or 1000x that salary? Why do we treat it as some kind of inherent human right to hoard vast amounts of wealth, well beyond what any one person can reasonably gain any meaningful satisfaction from?
Xenomancers wrote: You can't look at the futures economics in the same way as you look at them now. In this century we will see a rise of automation and computerized intelligence that is going to increase humanities abilities beyond anything we can imagine.
Get rid of Social Security and Welfare.
Get rid of EITC and child tax credit
Get rid of standard deduction
Get rid of minimum wage (hey look...corporate profits went up thus higher taxes).
Plus raise taxes a bit. They are at a historic low as a % of GDP and are set to overall go down.
Plus money in the hands of the lower class multiplies more than money in the hands of the rich since the lower class spends it and the rich save it. (Spending is good for the economy. Saving is bad for it Recessions are caused by money not being spent thus not being multiplied).
Every single socialist country has been marked for destruction by the capitalist powers. Every single socialist country has been marked for death squads, assassinations, invasions, bombings, sanctions and sabotage.
The defence that socialism has is that it, unlike capitalism, does not discourage the reproduction of the species.
Now that's no true Scotsman.
conspiracy theory to mask the abject failures of socialism and communism, oddly enough socialist/communist countries are often the most repressive and aggressive regimes. generally the scandinavian countries are not (since the running joke here is with socialism they are docile, without it they go viking again) but they are also the likeliest targets for russian aggression.
You know that most European countries are pretty socialist? Socialism has been no more or less successful than capitalism. There are no pure, free market capitalist countries, and capitalism may not end in state aggression or repression, but does end up with poorer countries being used and the poor being neglected. Does it really matter if you live in misery and die because your government is too controlling or because they don’t care and you live in abject poverty open to exploitation and abuse? The result is the same. There is not much difference between being poor in China or India. The only difference being that in China the state will abuse you, in India it is the rich.
Plus money in the hands of the lower class multiplies more than money in the hands of the rich since the lower class spends it and the rich save it. (Spending is good for the economy. Saving is bad for it Recessions are caused by money not being spent thus not being multiplied).
Even money sitting in a normal bank account contributes to the economy - banks can loan money based on deposits, after all. The real problem lies in the offshore bank accounts where the very wealthy simply 'park' money. This money doesn't get loaned out, in fact, it costs money to park it there, but the very wealthy can afford that loss in order to put it out of reach of governments they fear might take it away - often because it's money that evaded taxation in one manner or another. It's cheaper for them to evade taxes and pay negative interest on that money.
Money that is borrowed and used counts as money spent and not as saving. However, there is also saving by buying non-IPO stock. Saving isn't just putting money in the bank.
Get rid of Social Security and Welfare.
Get rid of EITC and child tax credit
Get rid of standard deduction
Get rid of minimum wage (hey look...corporate profits went up thus higher taxes).
Plus raise taxes a bit. They are at a historic low as a % of GDP and are set to overall go down.
Plus money in the hands of the lower class multiplies more than money in the hands of the rich since the lower class spends it and the rich save it. (Spending is good for the economy. Saving is bad for it Recessions are caused by money not being spent thus not being multiplied).
Even all of your proposals together wouldn’t slash Federal expenditures by $3 trillion or increase federal tax revenue by $3 trillion you would t even get to $3 trillion combining revenues and decreased expenditures. $3 trillion equals 100% of current federal revenues and 75% of federal expenditures.
If you removed welfare, minimum wage, child tax credit and EITC and replaced them with an annual lump sum payment or monthly payments totally $15k you’d be leaving millions of people worse off. How do poorer people spend more money to help the economy?
$15k isn’t a living wage it’s what you’d make working a full time job at $8/hr which is about what people earn at places like Ealmart. Of course currently those low paid employees qualify for state and federal assistance programs and tax credits to make their income a livable wage. You want to eliminate those programs in order to pay them $15k annually. If those people are receiving greater than $15k worth of assistance then eliminating the benefits makes the UBI payment affordable for the govt but leaves the people worse off. If those people receive less than $15k in assistance then eliminating the assistance payments and tax breaks won’t cover the cost of UBI.
$15k a year isn’t enough to live on so you still have to find a job to earn an income to survive which leaves us back where we are now people working low wage jobs that are difficult to move up from and can only survive on this jobs with the addition of govt assistance.
You know that most European countries are pretty socialist? Socialism has been no more or less successful than capitalism. There are no pure, free market capitalist countries, and capitalism may not end in state aggression or repression, but does end up with poorer countries being used and the poor being neglected. Does it really matter if you live in misery and die because your government is too controlling or because they don’t care and you live in abject poverty open to exploitation and abuse? The result is the same. There is not much difference between being poor in China or India. The only difference being that in China the state will abuse you, in India it is the rich.
European countries are not socialist, they are still driven by capitalism they just have more government intervention. But it is true there have never been "true" socialist or "true" capitalist societies. The USSR devolved very quickly into an oligarchy, same with China, led by their respective communist parties (Stalin and Mao were not the ones farming were they?). On the other side, the US is not completely free market since there are regulations on businesses (notably monopolies) but even then we are still plagued by elites and corporations running the show. Basically corruption will always ruin a good system and Socialism is just easier to abuse since everything is centralized. (Monopolies are already bad, giving the state a monopoly in everything is even worse)
Lastly, you say that the only difference is that in China the state abuses you whereas in India it's the rich. But in China, the state is run by the rich so now you have the rich using the state to abuse you.
thekingofkings wrote: Quite simply because its nothing more than a cute buzzword to scam people into believing that somehow those "evil greedy rich people" are to blame for everything and not paying their fair share or the even more ridiculous notion that because i work for a company that somehow entitles me to a share of its profits.
No, it is indisputable fact. There is no disagreement allowed here, the division of wealth in this country and in the world in general is massively unequal. It's a question of simple numbers, not your opinion of how the world should work.
It is really simple, you agree to work for someone and they agree to give you a wage for your work, companies do not owe their workers any more than that.
That's a rather cold-blooded way of looking at things. Personally I think that people should not be left to starve to death, even if they fail to negotiate for sufficient wages to survive. We, as a society, owe a basic standard of living to everyone.
burger flippers deserve burger flipper wages
Wait, I thought we were talking about a situation in which there is nothing more than an agreement between an employer and an employee. Why are you talking about what someone "deserves" to have?
the idea that working a minimum wage job is a career is also nuts.
You're right, it's nuts that people are trapped in minimum wage jobs for their entire working lives. But that's the reality of the situation, and it's only going to get worse as improvements in automation and AI make more and more jobs irrelevant. More people will be limited to working jobs that are barely sufficient to survive and of limited value to society, and vast numbers of people will be literally unemployable. The idea that you can simply will yourself to advance in life by sheer hard work and determination needs to die. There are not enough good jobs for everyone, and the situation is never going to get better.
that the rich get richer is not a problem, inherited wealth is not evil, bad, wrong or whatever and noone is entitled to simply take that from them.
Of course it is bad. Even setting aside the moral questions it's bad from a practical point of view. Being able to inherit large amounts of wealth discourages innovation and progress. If all you have to do to be rich is have rich parents and tell your financial advisor to keep the money coming you have no incentive to work. Money gets concentrated in people whose sole contribution is to have been born into the right family, while the workers and innovators of society are left with a smaller share of the wealth. Stagnation is not what we want, even if you argue that it's morally ok to have the vast majority of society's wealth concentrated in a few families.
The reality is that govts do not produce money, everything they give to someone must be taken from someone else.
Finally, something we agree on. Something must be taken from someone else, and we can start with the people who are way past the point of diminishing returns on being able to enjoy the wealth they are hoarding. The wealthiest people can settle for having a single private jet and a couple of vacation homes instead of a dozen billion-dollar mansions, and people who are currently struggling just to survive can improve to a more secure and stable life.
no i most certainly can disagree on the first point, I completely reject this notion and yeah you are giving me your opinion of how the world should work. I earn money, it is therefor mine, if you dont earn as much that does not give you any right to take from me. the rich invest more, they take the risks, they should get the reward for their risk. It does not mean you get to take from others simply because they have more than you, or at least be honest about being a thief.This absolutely is in dispute, thats why we have such vehement disagreement and two pretty much diametrically opposed political parties.
The poor people of the world are far better off than the peasants and serfs of before.Sure there are people who are fabulously wealthy, whether they deserve to be or not is not up to us. some of the countries current richest people came up with their ideas as college students, innovation can come from anywhere, most of our best inventions have come from the poor or crazy trying to make things easier. as for inherited wealth, its their money and again noone has the right to take it from them just because they want to. There is word for this forced "redistribution of wealth" its called thievery. By all means if you find out and can prove in court that the wealth was illegally gained, confiscate it, by law. But if they get wealthy working the system legally, well good on em. while i dont like to quibble about words to make semantic arguments, I noticed you said "societys wealth" its not society's wealth, its their wealth, society has no claim on it.
the idea that socialism or communism can fix or change any of this is simply saying to trade one overlord for another. I will gladly keep the ones I have now. It is unjust to covet the wealth of people like zuckerburg who simply made something everyone seemed to want and it made him amazingly wealthy and then want to take it from him, simply because he has it. I dont care that he may have dozens of mansions, that really doesn't affect me and my crappy little house. Hwe came up with a brilliant idea. good job! enjoy the rewards of your labor.
You cannot disagree with the first point, there is no opinion in maths, only right and wrong, they have a disproportionate amount of your countries money, this is a fact, how they spend that money and where they get it does not matter, 38% of the US's Wealth is owned by the top 1%, while the bottom 90% of the country owns 78% of its debt, the richest 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%, I dont care about your opinion on the morals of this, you cannot argue with the facts.
You know that most European countries are pretty socialist? Socialism has been no more or less successful than capitalism. There are no pure, free market capitalist countries, and capitalism may not end in state aggression or repression, but does end up with poorer countries being used and the poor being neglected. Does it really matter if you live in misery and die because your government is too controlling or because they don’t care and you live in abject poverty open to exploitation and abuse? The result is the same. There is not much difference between being poor in China or India. The only difference being that in China the state will abuse you, in India it is the rich.
European countries are not socialist, they are still driven by capitalism they just have more government intervention. But it is true there have never been "true" socialist or "true" capitalist societies. The USSR devolved very quickly into an oligarchy, same with China, led by their respective communist parties (Stalin and Mao were not the ones farming were they?). On the other side, the US is not completely free market since there are regulations on businesses (notably monopolies) but even then we are still plagued by elites and corporations running the show. Basically corruption will always ruin a good system and Socialism is just easier to abuse since everything is centralized. (Monopolies are already bad, giving the state a monopoly in everything is even worse)
Lastly, you say that the only difference is that in China the state abuses you whereas in India it's the rich. But in China, the state is run by the rich so now you have the rich using the state to abuse you.
Hmm, I live in the UK, the UK is pretty Socialist, let me check my map..... yep UK is in Europe, so got to say, yep, this European country is Socialist for the most part, would be pretty hard to hide our free healthcare and benefits system
yeah I can disagree, especially since the phrase here is disproportionate. having more money does not make it disproportionate. the argument is that there is an unjust distribution.
When I look at history books covering the post WW2 period, everything that happened after seems so bright and easy. Most of my former senior colleagues (when I was a teacher) tell me that it was easier back in their days. Are our societies, in the Western World, seeing the end of a Golden Age ? If yes, what is there left for us ? Wherever I look, all I can see is disease, stupidity, ugliness, mediocrity and no chance for a better future. Is this it ? Is this the life we will live ? In mediocrity ? If yes, what is the point ?
I was going to type something sarky and snappy. But then I reconsidered, because the main thing I get from your post is that you sound kinda depressed. And I can understand why, it's an uncertain time, the balance of power is shifting unpredictably in the world, and you're worried for the future.
Here's my suggestions to improve your outlook a bit:
Identify the causes you care about. Then do something about them. Volunteer for a charity. Donate to a cause you support, or do a sponsored event where you go hiking or parachute from a plane or take a bath in baked beans. Rally support for a political cause you think will make a difference. Do something other than fret and worry on the Internet, where you'll just meet other fretters and angry people. You're probably not someone with the power to change the world solo, so change a bit of it into something you like more, and trust that other people are also making an effort. If you look at global issues, of course you'll be daunted and confused, so work on a human scale.
Stop watching the news. Think about it like this, how many news stories in the last year did you really NEED to know about? As in, you personally would have suffered if you hadn't had that information within hours of it occurring? News is the business of anxiety, designed to focus around sensationalism and getting people angry, and social media has amped that up to 11. Here's another experiment, look up some papers from 10 or 20 years ago, and count the number of doomsday stories, grim predictions about the future or crises erupting in foreign countries. Then, check how they were actually resolved, or if the disasters actually happened. News is only interested in crises, and seldom follows up to say "Actually, it turns out that doesn't cause cancer." or "Actually, the war wound down, and the country is recovering well."
Try meditation. Taking ten minutes at the end of each day to flush out all the noise and static from my mind has really helped me.
Luciferian wrote: It also doesn't exist within a government that engages in selective protectionism and anti-competitive market practices.
Private ownership of property for the sake of generating profit is very much possible under those circumstances. It's quite handy for capitalists if they can reach such an arrangement.
Capitalism is not competition or barter. It's a specific set of relationships to the means of production and commodities.
Every single socialist country has been marked for destruction by the capitalist powers. Every single socialist country has been marked for death squads, assassinations, invasions, bombings, sanctions and sabotage.
The defence that socialism has is that it, unlike capitalism, does not discourage the reproduction of the species.
Now that's no true Scotsman.
Regardless of the truth of what I said, that is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. If you can't or don't want to argue a point then just don't post. If you object on ideological grounds then please have the guts to just say so. Dismiss my posts with courage or don't say anything at all.
You made an unsupported, unverifiable claim about an all-encompassing global conspiracy on behalf of capitalists to make socialism fail every time it is attempted. Since it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, the onus is not on me to do so. Also, I thought it was pretty clear that I object on ideological grounds and I didn't think I would have to spell that out.
You literally said that every single socialist economy that has ever been attempted failed or was destroyed as a result of outside influence, therefore no previously existing socialist economy can be judged on its own merits. That's about as no true Scotsman as it gets.
thekingofkings wrote: yeah I can disagree, especially since the phrase here is disproportionate. having more money does not make it disproportionate. the argument is that there is an unjust distribution.
Some may consider it unjust, but again thats opinion, disproportionate again has no other meaning that too large or too small compared to something else, this is that, a small amount of people own most of the wealth, that is by its very definition disproportionate.
thekingofkings wrote: yeah I can disagree, especially since the phrase here is disproportionate. having more money does not make it disproportionate. the argument is that there is an unjust distribution.
No it wasn't. The word "disproportionate" was not used in the original mention, you're making that part up. You originally said that wealth inequality doesn't exist (an easily-disproved false statement), then the word "massive" was attached to it (pretty easily proved to be true). None of that requires the moral judgement that you're trying to apply to the situation, it's simply a matter of numbers.
thekingofkings wrote: yeah I can disagree, especially since the phrase here is disproportionate. having more money does not make it disproportionate. the argument is that there is an unjust distribution.
No it wasn't. The word "disproportionate" was not used in the original mention, you're making that part up. You originally said that wealth inequality doesn't exist (an easily-disproved false statement), then the word "massive" was attached to it (pretty easily proved to be true). None of that requires the moral judgement that you're trying to apply to the situation, it's simply a matter of numbers.
semantic all you want, i stand by that this "inequality" is bs for exactly the reason I stated, the implication behind the "inequality" is that its unjust and that is just not true.
thekingofkings wrote: semantic all you want, i stand by that this "inequality" is bs for exactly the reason I stated, the implication behind the "inequality" is that its unjust and that is just not true.
IOW, just make stuff up and declare everyone else to be wrong because you know better than they do what they said. Wealth inequality is indisputable fact, whether you like it or not. Whether or not you believe it to be unjust is an entirely separate question.
thekingofkings wrote: semantic all you want, i stand by that this "inequality" is bs for exactly the reason I stated, the implication behind the "inequality" is that its unjust and that is just not true.
IOW, just make stuff up and declare everyone else to be wrong because you know better than they do what they said. Wealth inequality is indisputable fact, whether you like it or not. Whether or not you believe it to be unjust is an entirely separate question.
what i am trying to get across is its not "inequality" as its used by you leftists to justify the theft of wealth that belongs to others, simply because you want it. so no I do not believe in it, it is bs.
thekingofkings wrote: yeah I can disagree, especially since the phrase here is disproportionate. having more money does not make it disproportionate. the argument is that there is an unjust distribution.
No it wasn't. The word "disproportionate" was not used in the original mention, you're making that part up. You originally said that wealth inequality doesn't exist (an easily-disproved false statement), then the word "massive" was attached to it (pretty easily proved to be true). None of that requires the moral judgement that you're trying to apply to the situation, it's simply a matter of numbers.
semantic all you want, i stand by that this "inequality" is bs for exactly the reason I stated, the implication behind the "inequality" is that its unjust and that is just not true.
Again, opinion doesn't factor in, if one side has a disproportionate amount more, to the extent that it could wipe out the debt of the 90%, then it is also by definition, unequal, this is not semantics, this is cold hard maths.
Whether or not it is just is up to the individual and by extension the governments they elect and further, the morals governing the majority, and by these standards in this day and age it is unjust, go back to the 80's "greed is good" mentality and it's not, but that's a moot point at the end of the day, as capitalism will lead to its own downfall, then one of two things will happen, the 1% wins and status quo will continue (possibly in a different manner) or the 99% will win and things will change drastically (possibly leading to the same issue arising again in the future), history has taught us that if you are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to abuse the people too much, eventually they push back, which is good for no one.
The wealthy are the ones with the power to influence politicians and lobby governments, and they encourage policies that suit themselves only. This is why wealth and power are increasingly consolidated into a minority.
I wonder if someone refusing that inequality of this manner is unjust has experienced real poverty and exploitation caused by the more wealthy. This thread smacks of an ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude. It’s easy to sneer and tell others to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when you’ve not had to start from similar circumstances. Behind all the BS about self made people who bought their own house young and put themselves through college, etc, you have a family member lending them large amounts of money. Very very few actually start with nothing and achieve greatly, poverty limits access to education and healthcare, immediately limiting your options, but I guess these people just deserve burger flipping wages. If they don’t like it they should have been born to a wealthier family.
thekingofkings wrote: what i am trying to get across is its not "inequality" as its used by you leftists to justify the theft of wealth that belongs to others, simply because you want it. so no I do not believe in it, it is bs.
This is not something you get to have an opinion on, or get to disbelieve. It's indisputable fact when you look at the numbers. Any moral judgement you want to apply to the term "inequality" is your problem, not mine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the idea that taxation/socialism/etc are "theft of wealth that belongs to others" is completely absurd. Taxation is a fundamental part of every modern society. You pay some fraction of your wealth for the collective good, a belief that is universal across every relevant political party.
thekingofkings wrote: what i am trying to get across is its not "inequality" as its used by you leftists to justify the theft of wealth that belongs to others, simply because you want it. so no I do not believe in it, it is bs.
This is not something you get to have an opinion on, or get to disbelieve. It's indisputable fact when you look at the numbers. Any moral judgement you want to apply to the term "inequality" is your problem, not mine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the idea that taxation/socialism/etc are "theft of wealth that belongs to others" is completely absurd. Taxation is a fundamental part of every modern society. You pay some fraction of your wealth for the collective good, a belief that is universal across every relevant political party.
they already pay the taxes agreed upon by law, it doesnt matter how much they have, its theirs, they didnt steal it from us. You dont get to arbitrarily take even more just becuase you want to. this is nothing more than a power grab using "equality" to justify it.
And those laws change. Sometimes tax rates go up, sometimes tax rates go down. You seem to be thinking of some bizarre alternate world, where paying your 2017 taxes at X% of your income means that you are guaranteed that taxes will never exceed X%.
You dont get to arbitrarily take even more just becuase you want to.
There's nothing arbitrary about it, only a decision that the collective investment in the good of the country should be larger than it currently is. Raising taxes to help the poor is no different in concept from raising taxes to fund the military, or build a new football stadium, or whatever else the government (as directed by the voters) decides it wants to do. And in any of those cases you either pay your taxes, or go to prison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
it doesnt matter how much they have, its theirs, they didnt steal it from us.
I'll ignore the morally-loaded language of "steal" and simply point out that the wealthy did not magically get their wealth out of nothing. They benefited from the collective efforts of society in things like roads, schools, etc. They often have their wealth protected by things like IP law or exclusive contracts, where the government bans anyone else from competing with them and/or guarantees a certain level of profit. They often benefit from the government using taxpayer money to cover their losses, as in the bank bailouts. They often find their labor costs reduced by government laws interfering in the free market and making certain union activities, which often lead to higher wages, illegal and/or ineffective. Etc. They may not have "stolen" that wealth, but they certainly do depend on the rest of society to get it. Socialism is merely recognition of the same principle that creates public roads, schools, police, etc: that the wealthy gain the benefits of society, and have an obligation to pay for it.
thekingofkings wrote: what i am trying to get across is its not "inequality" as its used by you leftists to justify the theft of wealth that belongs to others, simply because you want it. so no I do not believe in it, it is bs.
This is not something you get to have an opinion on, or get to disbelieve. It's indisputable fact when you look at the numbers. Any moral judgement you want to apply to the term "inequality" is your problem, not mine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the idea that taxation/socialism/etc are "theft of wealth that belongs to others" is completely absurd. Taxation is a fundamental part of every modern society. You pay some fraction of your wealth for the collective good, a belief that is universal across every relevant political party.
they already pay the taxes agreed upon by law, it doesnt matter how much they have, its theirs, they didnt steal it from us. You dont get to arbitrarily take even more just becuase you want to. this is nothing more than a power grab using "equality" to justify it.
"They didn't steal it"
Again this is not true, how many of your CEO's went to prison for causing the world wide recession? How many people lost there homes and livihood due to the actions of these people? Have any of them been held accountable ?
Do you understand that your corrupt system is directly responsible for the plight of millions, don't talk about justification when a lot of People have genuine justification for wanting more equality, there is a genuine ingrained issue in our whole systems of government in the west (obviously not just us) that needs sorting out, every facet of our financial systems, democratic systems and legal systems, a balance need to be redressed, this doesn't neasarily mean taking from the 1%, but it does mean severely restricting there impact on our systems, it should be proportional and 1% should not have more power than 99%, its financial apartheid, which even the most die hard republican/democrat/labour/conservative can agree is morally wrong.
they already pay the taxes agreed upon by law, it doesnt matter how much they have, its theirs, they didnt steal it from us. You dont get to arbitrarily take even more just becuase you want to. this is nothing more than a power grab using "equality" to justify it.
I think you you would get along with andrey rian very well... You are not by any chance interessted in a property in rapture?
If socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production, there are no socialist countries in Europe.
However, most European countries are more or less social democracies, with a higher degree of government provision of services than you find in the USA.
There is an almost Pavlovian reaction in some people when social democracies are mentioned.
It goes something like; social = socialist = communist = evil.
thekingofkings wrote: what i am trying to get across is its not "inequality" as its used by you leftists to justify the theft of wealth that belongs to others, simply because you want it. so no I do not believe in it, it is bs.
This is not something you get to have an opinion on, or get to disbelieve. It's indisputable fact when you look at the numbers. Any moral judgement you want to apply to the term "inequality" is your problem, not mine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the idea that taxation/socialism/etc are "theft of wealth that belongs to others" is completely absurd. Taxation is a fundamental part of every modern society. You pay some fraction of your wealth for the collective good, a belief that is universal across every relevant political party.
they already pay the taxes agreed upon by law, it doesnt matter how much they have, its theirs, they didnt steal it from us. You dont get to arbitrarily take even more just becuase you want to. this is nothing more than a power grab using "equality" to justify it.
Now that is something that is very much disputable and a matter of opinion. Something that is gained by exploitation is very much equal to theft in my opinion. And you can't just assume that everyone who is for equality actually just wants to seize power. There is nothing wrong with being cynical, and there will always be those that seek to abuse others to further their own gains, but that is just being cynical to the point of stupidity. There are plenty of people who do not seek power but who genuinely want more equality.
And even if people do use equality as just a power grab, that is nothing different from what capitalism is. The difference is that in socialism you need an excuse to abuse others for your own gain, while in capitalism such abuse is normal and even lauded.
The Panama Papers would like a word about that. The wealthy are VERY good at tax evasion, and have the influence on government to enable even more tax evasion.
it doesnt matter how much they have, its theirs, they didnt steal it from us.
Depends on your definition of 'steal'. For example, just recently, it came out that Loblaws (a grocery store in Canada) has colluded with bakeries to manipulate the price of - get this - loaves of bread. From 2005 to 2014, everyone was paying far more for bread than they should have. The oil and gas industry has REDUCED the number of refineries, year on year, to artificially boost the price of gasoline (less supply, more demand, price goes up!), because they're not competing. A barrel of oil is far cheaper than it was 5-6 years ago, but the price of gas has barely gone down. Never mind that oil should never have been that expensive, because rich oil speculators drove the price up artificially and the USA has so much oil in reserves that it's saving for the day the rest of the world runs out (capped wells). You pay more for gas because the rich oil barons are effectively hoarding oil and manipulating the supply of refined oil - they ARE STEALING FROM US. It's just the tip of the iceberg.
The rich are doing a lot of things that are illegal, but they have so many friends in government that no one is stopping them.
Steelmage99 wrote: There is an almost Pavlovian reaction in some people when social democracies are mentioned.
It goes something like; social = socialist = communist = evil.
It would be fun if it wasn't so sad.
There's only real world examples to use. The socialist civilisation that Marxist envisioned was one that evolved naturally from a capitalist society when it reaches some threshold of technological advancement. So far each attempt was a forced attempt, not a natural one. The impatience of some interpret Marxist writing to be "Now and by my hand". Which seems to keep turning into an authoritarian dictatorship since it's forcefully imposed. If Marxist is right in hi's vision then the world will have to wait, it's not ready yet.
Luciferian wrote: And you only get to the famine part if you're lucky enough to make it through the purges and genocides that usually accompany the Glorious Revolution.
Compared to the purges and genocide that happened/are happening right now in the name of capitalism? Been to Brazil or Peru recently? Colombia?
They stole it from somebody. Whether by butchering villages in South America, or by stealing land rights from Native Americans, or the use of slavery (either within the US before or Outside the US now), or ripping off smaller companies without the legal wherewithal to defend their rights, they stole it/are stealing it.
They stole it from somebody. Whether by butchering villages in South America, or by stealing land rights from Native Americans, or the use of slavery (either within the US before or Outside the US now), or ripping off smaller companies without the legal wherewithal to defend their rights, they stole it/are stealing it.
empty rhetoric, I am sure your Facebook account did none of this, nor did twitter, starbucks, etc...
Luciferian wrote: And you only get to the famine part if you're lucky enough to make it through the purges and genocides that usually accompany the Glorious Revolution.
Compared to the purges and genocide that happened/are happening right now in the name of capitalism? Been to Brazil or Peru recently? Colombia?
They stole it from somebody. Whether by butchering villages in South America, or by stealing land rights from Native Americans, or the use of slavery (either within the US before or Outside the US now), or ripping off smaller companies without the legal wherewithal to defend their rights, they stole it/are stealing it.
Don't forget the billions the bankers stole after they caused the financial crash, people lost there homes, jobs, some even lost there lives, and what happened? Nothing, across the western world next to no one was put in prison or had there assets seized to repay the loses, you know, the very things is peasants have happen to us if we do the same thing.... what do we call that
empty rhetoric, I am sure your Facebook account did none of this, nor did twitter, starbucks, etc...
Facebook and Twitter both take money from people who have (and worse, by their own admission, including North Korea). Starbucks has been guilty of billions in tax evasion.
Luciferian wrote: And you only get to the famine part if you're lucky enough to make it through the purges and genocides that usually accompany the Glorious Revolution.
Compared to the purges and genocide that happened/are happening right now in the name of capitalism? Been to Brazil or Peru recently? Colombia?
They stole it from somebody. Whether by butchering villages in South America, or by stealing land rights from Native Americans, or the use of slavery (either within the US before or Outside the US now), or ripping off smaller companies without the legal wherewithal to defend their rights, they stole it/are stealing it.
Don't forget the billions the bankers stole after they caused the financial crash, people lost there homes, jobs, some even lost there lives, and what happened? Nothing, across the western world next to no one was put in prison or had there assets seized to repay the loses, you know, the very things is peasants have happen to us if we do the same thing.... what do we call that
IIRC a grand total of like, 1 person went to jail, forget for what, but it wasn't directly because of the crash.
empty rhetoric, I am sure your Facebook account did none of this, nor did twitter, starbucks, etc...
A lot of these internet companies are all about selling your personal data. They are effectively stealing your privacy. They know where you live, who your friends are, what porn you surf for, what hobbies you have, what car you drive, where you vacation, and on and on.
Have you seen those Ancestry.com ads on TV? What a scam. They'll give you a general overview of your DNA's markers, and charge you for the privilege - and then they have your DNA effectively forever in their database to sell as they please.
As for Starbucks, who are they stealing from? For starters, their employees. With wages between $7.63 to $10.63, baristas aren't making a living wage. At top rate, they're barely above what's considered the poverty level for the USA. ($10.60). For a company with 2.88 billion in net income (i.e. after taxes and expenses), they can afford to pay better. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sbux/financials
Their clients, too. The prices they charge for the drivel they call coffee which is is only drinkable due to the heart-attack-inducing amounts of sugar in it are nothing short of daylight robbery.
empty rhetoric, I am sure your Facebook account did none of this, nor did twitter, starbucks, etc...
A lot of these internet companies are all about selling your personal data. They are effectively stealing your privacy. They know where you live, who your friends are, what porn you surf for, what hobbies you have, what car you drive, where you vacation, and on and on.
Have you seen those Ancestry.com ads on TV? What a scam. They'll give you a general overview of your DNA's markers, and charge you for the privilege - and then they have your DNA effectively forever in their database to sell as they please.
As for Starbucks, who are they stealing from? For starters, their employees. With wages between $7.63 to $10.63, baristas aren't making a living wage. At top rate, they're barely above what's considered the poverty level for the USA. ($10.60). For a company with 2.88 billion in net income (i.e. after taxes and expenses), they can afford to pay better. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sbux/financials
They are not stealing your privacy and you agree by using their products that they can sell your information. Ancestry .com using publicly available information that anyone can get, they are charging you for their effort in providing it. Starbucks, like Mcdonalds and other traditionally low wage jobs are not for and never have been for a "living wage" they are meant for high school kids and whatnot to make some pocket cash, they are not careers and never intended to be.
empty rhetoric, I am sure your Facebook account did none of this, nor did twitter, starbucks, etc...
A lot of these internet companies are all about selling your personal data. They are effectively stealing your privacy. They know where you live, who your friends are, what porn you surf for, what hobbies you have, what car you drive, where you vacation, and on and on.
Have you seen those Ancestry.com ads on TV? What a scam. They'll give you a general overview of your DNA's markers, and charge you for the privilege - and then they have your DNA effectively forever in their database to sell as they please.
As for Starbucks, who are they stealing from? For starters, their employees. With wages between $7.63 to $10.63, baristas aren't making a living wage. At top rate, they're barely above what's considered the poverty level for the USA. ($10.60). For a company with 2.88 billion in net income (i.e. after taxes and expenses), they can afford to pay better. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sbux/financials
Starbucks, like Mcdonalds and other traditionally low wage jobs are not for and never have been for a "living wage" they are meant for high school kids and whatnot to make some pocket cash, they are not careers and never intended to be.
You got proof of that? Because they pay the minimum wage which is meant to be a "living wage" for the people there. They are careers and that is what they are intended to be. That is why you have to click the "careers" button to put in an application.
thekingofkings wrote: would you consider research like what the chicago tribune has done as "proof"
?
Since establishments like Sheetz actually pitch their job offers as 'Careers' I'm gonna have to say that they claim they are, regardless of the reality.
thekingofkings 747122 9759073 wrote:Starbucks, like Mcdonalds and other traditionally low wage jobs are not for and never have been for a "living wage" they are meant for high school kids and whatnot to make some pocket cash, they are not careers and never intended to be.
Exactly. These are not real jobs, they're training opportunities for kids to learn basic skills and get a little money for their fun expenses. That's why businesses like McDonalds are closed during the hours that high school students are normally in class or sleeping.
Ye, you can’t say any job is “intended” for any group unless it is very clear. There are plenty of adults working in McDonalds and Starbucks. To claim any job is “meant” to be low wage and aimed at a section of society that can get away with low wages is demeaning to those who do these jobs, and these jobs trap people. When you all the work you can get is in a low paid service job and you have to work long hours it leaves no time to do anything else, like education and training. Even if you start with an education and have to take a low paid job (for example to fit round school or childcare needs, or because you were employed by a major employer that has closed, as an example see Detroit) after a year it can be hard to convince employers that you can return to an old job. It took me 7 years to work back to a graduate level position after having to take a low paid job in a shop for a year.
And you can't just say it's the low skill and low knowledge jobs that are minimum wage. I prepare taxes for people. Every year, the pay structure has gotten worse and worse and it's not to the point that I make minimum wage doing that. And I'm not even close to the only one.
(It's actually less than minimum wage as we have to do 18 hours of unpaid training to work there, which we have to pay for...)
skyth wrote: And you can't just say it's the low skill and low knowledge jobs that are minimum wage. I prepare taxes for people.
Minimum wage is standard for us (various higher education levels, from STEM to social sciences). In practice, your wage and hours will correlate with how indispensable the leading person sees you rather than the merit of your work. It's sort of paradoxical, at one hand it's rather common to hear the HR crying that they need people in various departments but they're simply not willing/allowed to hire or train anyone. It has become somewhat a standard practice to employ people on a limited contract and simply cycle through the list of candidates until they find someone who's capable and desperate enough to go through whatever the company needs and is willing to pay him/her for it. I'd like to point out that it's rather frequent that the company/leadership doesn't know what it needs and even less of an idea of how it should be achieved.
I find it ironic that a man posting with a name Thekingofkings would make the true King of Kings balk at the sheer abusive nature of his writing.
I am a janitor. I make bairly above minimum wage and I scrape by every pay. It's nice to know I'm doing a job that doesn't deserve any respect.
People like you are the worst sort. The first to scream if your fastfood order is wrong, last to say thank you when extra care is taken in cleaning your office.
A lesson my dad taught that you desperately need. "I do not look into my neighbors bowl to see if he has more than me, I look to see if he has enough."
They are not stealing your privacy and you agree by using their products that they can sell your information.
Actually, they don't tell you they sell your information. They mention in their data policy https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/ that they 'share' or 'transfer' data with third parties. but the worlds 'sell for money' don't show up. Mostly (that we know of) Facebook uses that info to sell targeted ads, but that database is too valuable to not sell for other purposes.
Ancestry .com using publicly available information that anyone can get, they are charging you for their effort in providing it.
Ancestry.com is providing a service, yes (checking your DNA costs money), but the upshot is that now Ancestry.com HAS YOUR DNA. And yes, you can pry it out of their hands if you need to (no idea how difficult that is, but they mention up to a 6 month persistence of data), assuming they actually delete the data - how can you prove that without successfully taking them to court? All they have to do is anonymize the data and it'll be basically impossible to prove anything.
Starbucks, like Mcdonalds and other traditionally low wage jobs are not for and never have been for a "living wage" they are meant for high school kids and whatnot to make some pocket cash, they are not careers and never intended to be.
It's that kind of sentiment that makes the exploitation so easy. Their labor isn't valuable? Last I checked, these companies make billions in profits. Paying a living wage isn't going to make Starbucks UNprofitable, just less insanely profitable.
Don't forget wage theft for how a lot of employers take from the low income earners, illegally too. Wikipedia has this pegged at over 19B in the US, and a detailed study shows that 2.4M workers in 10 states have had 8B stolen.
You know that most European countries are pretty socialist? Socialism has been no more or less successful than capitalism. There are no pure, free market capitalist countries, and capitalism may not end in state aggression or repression, but does end up with poorer countries being used and the poor being neglected. Does it really matter if you live in misery and die because your government is too controlling or because they don’t care and you live in abject poverty open to exploitation and abuse? The result is the same. There is not much difference between being poor in China or India. The only difference being that in China the state will abuse you, in India it is the rich.
European countries are not socialist, they are still driven by capitalism they just have more government intervention. But it is true there have never been "true" socialist or "true" capitalist societies. The USSR devolved very quickly into an oligarchy, same with China, led by their respective communist parties (Stalin and Mao were not the ones farming were they?). On the other side, the US is not completely free market since there are regulations on businesses (notably monopolies) but even then we are still plagued by elites and corporations running the show. Basically corruption will always ruin a good system and Socialism is just easier to abuse since everything is centralized. (Monopolies are already bad, giving the state a monopoly in everything is even worse)
Lastly, you say that the only difference is that in China the state abuses you whereas in India it's the rich. But in China, the state is run by the rich so now you have the rich using the state to abuse you.
Hmm, I live in the UK, the UK is pretty Socialist, let me check my map..... yep UK is in Europe, so got to say, yep, this European country is Socialist for the most part, would be pretty hard to hide our free healthcare and benefits system
From Investopedia:
"The standard spectrum of economic systems places laissez-faire capitalism at one extreme and a complete planned economy (like socialism or communism) at the other. Everything in the middle could be said to be a mixed economy. The mixed economy has elements of both central planning and unplanned private business. By this definition, nearly every country in the world has a mixed economy, but contemporary mixed economies range in their levels of government intervention. The U.S. and the U.K.. have a relatively pure type of capitalism with a minimum of federal regulation in financial and labor markets, sometimes known as Anglo-Saxon capitalism, while Canada and the Nordic countries have created a balance between socialism and capitalism. Many European nations practice welfare capitalism, a system that is concerned with the social welfare of the worker, and includes such policies as state pensions, universal healthcare, collective bargaining, and industrial safety codes."
Universal healthcare by itself does not make a nation socialist any more than public education does. The economies of European countries still rely on capitalism to grow.
"In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines output and pricing levels of these goods and services."
Long story short, the vast majority of countries operate under a mixed economy; excluding Cuba, Venezuela and a few others. Which is why it's important to really define exactly what policies you want.
There is not much difference between being poor in China or India.
It is not all true to say they are the same. As it happens, in India something like 40% of the country's population has to poop outside on the ground. In China only about 2% don't have sewerage.
In China this is possible because China is a socialist country that can make social decisions. They have decided that in twenty years, they won't have gasoline powered cars. They have decided that they are going to reduce average individual meat consumption. They can do these things because the people own the controlling shares in the largest companies. The party has cadres on the board. They can decide that something is good for the people and make it happen. In most of India there is no such thing except! bizarrely, in West Bengal/Kolkata and Kerala, which are at least notionally coontrolled by elected communists.
Long story short, the vast majority of countries operate under a mixed economy; excluding Cuba, Venezuela and a few others.
Venezuela is the epitome of mixed economy. Seventy percent of companies are private, most people are employed by private companies, most economic output is private. Chavez was elected in a multi-party liberal democracy, and he did not expropriate most companies from their owners like Cuba did, and he definitely didn't jail them or kill all the landlords like revolutionary China. They elected a socialist party, but we have elected both republicans and democrats and in that time they have managed to ban neither guns nor abortion. PSUV, the Venezuelan socialists, have been just as unsuccessful in banning rich people.
You know that most European countries are pretty socialist? Socialism has been no more or less successful than capitalism. There are no pure, free market capitalist countries, and capitalism may not end in state aggression or repression, but does end up with poorer countries being used and the poor being neglected. Does it really matter if you live in misery and die because your government is too controlling or because they don’t care and you live in abject poverty open to exploitation and abuse? The result is the same. There is not much difference between being poor in China or India. The only difference being that in China the state will abuse you, in India it is the rich.
European countries are not socialist, they are still driven by capitalism they just have more government intervention. But it is true there have never been "true" socialist or "true" capitalist societies. The USSR devolved very quickly into an oligarchy, same with China, led by their respective communist parties (Stalin and Mao were not the ones farming were they?). On the other side, the US is not completely free market since there are regulations on businesses (notably monopolies) but even then we are still plagued by elites and corporations running the show. Basically corruption will always ruin a good system and Socialism is just easier to abuse since everything is centralized. (Monopolies are already bad, giving the state a monopoly in everything is even worse)
Lastly, you say that the only difference is that in China the state abuses you whereas in India it's the rich. But in China, the state is run by the rich so now you have the rich using the state to abuse you.
Hmm, I live in the UK, the UK is pretty Socialist, let me check my map..... yep UK is in Europe, so got to say, yep, this European country is Socialist for the most part, would be pretty hard to hide our free healthcare and benefits system
From Investopedia:
"The standard spectrum of economic systems places laissez-faire capitalism at one extreme and a complete planned economy (like socialism or communism) at the other. Everything in the middle could be said to be a mixed economy. The mixed economy has elements of both central planning and unplanned private business. By this definition, nearly every country in the world has a mixed economy, but contemporary mixed economies range in their levels of government intervention. The U.S. and the U.K.. have a relatively pure type of capitalism with a minimum of federal regulation in financial and labor markets, sometimes known as Anglo-Saxon capitalism, while Canada and the Nordic countries have created a balance between socialism and capitalism. Many European nations practice welfare capitalism, a system that is concerned with the social welfare of the worker, and includes such policies as state pensions, universal healthcare, collective bargaining, and industrial safety codes."
Universal healthcare by itself does not make a nation socialist any more than public education does. The economies of European countries still rely on capitalism to grow.
"In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines output and pricing levels of these goods and services."
Long story short, the vast majority of countries operate under a mixed economy; excluding Cuba, Venezuela and a few others. Which is why it's important to really define exactly what policies you want.
So most countries have a mix of socialist and capitalist policies then? Which is exactly what I was saying. You can’t say socialism has failed and capitalism has won. Most countries have a mix of socialist and capitalist politics that keep them growing but also working for the good of their people.
Hmm... it seemed to me that you were calling European countries socialist which is why I felt the need to clarify. I just see people throwing the word "socialism" around a lot without realizing its nuances in particular the part where the state owns all the industries. It's therefore important to specify exact policies instead of saying "socialism works!" or "socialism is garbage". Each case is unique.
I tend to lean on the side of less intervention because I'm extremely unimpressed by the government's fiscal responsibility, and I dread the thought of corruption in such a powerful entity.
BUT, I really like public services (schools, police, courts, ...) and regulations of the market to reduce abuse and monopolies as well as encourage safety. So, allowances must be made.
Dandelion wrote: I tend to lean on the side of less intervention because I'm extremely unimpressed by the government's fiscal responsibility, and I dread the thought of corruption in such a powerful entity.
BUT, I really like public services (schools, police, courts, ...) and regulations of the market to reduce abuse and monopolies as well as encourage safety. So, allowances must be made.
The old chestnut is that government is supposed to do what the people cannot do for themselves (individually or in small collectives). Regulating large businesses is one of those things that individuals simply cannot do.
Most governments are terribly corrupt. Up here in Canada, we've got plenty of problems with government crony-ism (most government contracts go to people with friends in power), but mostly it's a matter of getting something done for more than it should cost, and it still gets done (I could list examples of where this has failed, there are plenty). Sometimes it's just bureaucratic inefficiency, sometimes it's a change of government priorities, sometimes it's plain old corruption. Governments are inefficient, and get more inefficient the bigger they get...but we still need them to do stuff we can't do on our own.
OTOH, I look at the US government right now, and you yanks are -screwed-. Trickle down economics didn't work for Reagan, and if the 2018 elections don't go well you might have full on class warfare if the American populace finally decides to get of its butt.
Dandelion wrote: I tend to lean on the side of less intervention because I'm extremely unimpressed by the government's fiscal responsibility, and I dread the thought of corruption in such a powerful entity.
BUT, I really like public services (schools, police, courts, ...) and regulations of the market to reduce abuse and monopolies as well as encourage safety. So, allowances must be made.
The old chestnut is that government is supposed to do what the people cannot do for themselves (individually or in small collectives). Regulating large businesses is one of those things that individuals simply cannot do.
Most governments are terribly corrupt. Up here in Canada, we've got plenty of problems with government crony-ism (most government contracts go to people with friends in power), but mostly it's a matter of getting something done for more than it should cost, and it still gets done (I could list examples of where this has failed, there are plenty). Sometimes it's just bureaucratic inefficiency, sometimes it's a change of government priorities, sometimes it's plain old corruption. Governments are inefficient, and get more inefficient the bigger they get...but we still need them to do stuff we can't do on our own.
OTOH, I look at the US government right now, and you yanks are -screwed-. Trickle down economics didn't work for Reagan, and if the 2018 elections don't go well you might have full on class warfare if the American populace finally decides to get of its butt.
There has been a class war going on for decades. unfortunately, only the top realized it. What do you think reviving Reagan's failed policies, creating an entire media wing to sell "conservative news", and pushing a scam artist billionaire who suddenly finds "Christian values" is all about? Even that "socialist" Obama made sure the top were doing great while the middle and lower classes continued to be man the wars. The United States economic boom has not diminished the wealth gap. The top has been strangling the golden goose for decades while trying to keep the focus on those lazy poors and dangerous immigrants/Muslims/others of generally darker skin tone.
Crazyterran wrote: There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.
So, soon then? What with the repeal of Net Neutrality laws and all, the big telecoms are slavering to jack up the price of everything internet related.
Crazyterran wrote: There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.
So, soon then? What with the repeal of Net Neutrality laws and all, the big telecoms are slavering to jack up the price of everything internet related.
You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.
Crazyterran wrote: There wont be any class warfare as long as most people arent starving and have television or internet.
So, soon then? What with the repeal of Net Neutrality laws and all, the big telecoms are slavering to jack up the price of everything internet related.
You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.
Show us on the doll where the evil Government touched you?
Relatively speaking it is getting a bit worse. In a good deal of the Western world the 'baby boomer' generation has lived on checks that will have to be cashed by their children. Its an unpopular opinion amongst the obvious parts of society, but all the hard work you do gets you (far) less in life than it did your parents. Yeah sometimes that sucks, but our lives will still be generally enjoyable if a bit more modest, but who knows what technology will bring us in the future.
totalfailure wrote: You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.
This comes across as more of a "back in my day we could just say [this or that slur] without repercussions, kids these days!" then anything else..
You won't have to worry about that, since freedom is a thing of the past in Canada. The Canadian Thought Police will be at your doorstep to haul you into court if you dare step out of line and disagree with the socialist-progressive narrative. Canada's 'Human Rights Code' will make you feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe from bad people with different ideas. I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs in the future of Canada, running 'diversity' courts and reeducation camps.
How's that baker vs gay couple supreme court case going in the USA? Since you've brought up Thought Police...
