Capitalism vs Socialism.

Economics and history say that a living minimum wage does a tremendous service in improving the overall economy, but conservatives are very poor students of both.

Economics says that as the salary floor increases, the rising tide lifts all boats, and wages increase throughout the workforce. This has different effects among the different economic layers. For the minimum-wage earners, it means reduced reliance on social programs, and increased self-sufficiency. They are more resilient to minor setbacks, like car trouble. For the rest of the workforce, increased wages means increased consumption, which improves the outlook for small businesses and big businesses alike. Henry Ford was a great proponent of this idea.

History shows that when the minimum wage was at its highest on an inflation-adjusted basis, the overall standard of living was at its highest, and has been falling ever since.

A mental health institution is not a prison. The government still retains the authority to institutionalize people whose mental health state is professionally evaluated to present a clear and present danger to themselves and/or others. We just don't do it very often, or for very long, because there are no budgets to support it.

1) Even if you personally lose, you benefit in ways that are difficult to quantify. Again, just the fact that seniors everywhere are living more independently means improved productivity from their children, which benefits the economy. Those seniors are, in turn, putting that money right back into the economy.

2) Except that the stock market can't guarantee you a positive return. You can think of your SSA tax as a no-risk investment that's an important part of any diversified portfolio.

3) Not really, because each case is individual. If someone dies before retirement age, their benefits go unclaimed. Illegal immigrants are paying taxes with no hope of claiming benefits, so theirs are also going into the pool. So if you think of people getting more in benefits than they paid in as "winners," and those getting less as "losers," then there are already some very big losers in the system. So long as the plusses don't exceed the minuses, the system carries on.

Also, whenever SSA revenue exceeds payments (which has happened through most of its history), the SSA invests the surplus in US treasury bonds, which provide interest income. So your tax isn't their only source.

Any person who is the intended recipient of said benefits, obviously.

I am not benefiting from capitalist greed when:

-Walmart pays such terrible wages to its workers that they become a drain on my tax dollars despite being gainfully employed to a company that makes billions each year in profit.
- General Electric games the tax system so it pays zero, leading to budget cuts that affect important services.
- Drug companies are charging me 10x what they make for the same drug in a neighboring country, with the overwhelming majority of that going to profit, not research, as they claim.
- When huge tax cuts for the wealthy lead to massive capital inflows into new and increasingly risky investment products tied to home mortgages, leading to a vicious death spiral of the economy that can only be halted via massive giveaways of my tax dollars to the very corporations whose recklessness cause the problem, whose executives have already pocketed outrageous sums and gracefully exited via their golden parachutes, and will face no criminal liability.

Etc., etc. History, recent and otherwise, is full of disasters (human loss of life or injury, environmental, economic, etc) caused by excessive capitalist greed. It was named as a deadly sin for a reason.

With that said, choosing government over the free market (as communism does) is a mistake of its own. It would be very much like choosing the Supreme Court over Congress. They each have their own role, and having the ability to check and balance each other is vital to the overall health of the economy.

In fact, there are three forces that very much check each other in the economic sphere: capital, government, and the masses. And the problem lately is that capital basically owns the government (thanks to outrageous campaign financing realities), and is therefore running roughshod over the masses.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 26, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 26, 2016 ---

Wrong.

"No business which depends for its existence on paying workers less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of a decent living." - FDR, the man who signed the federal minimum wage into law.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 26, 2016 ---

Again, that's communism.

Wages are a distribution of private capital, and by determining a minimum wage, the government is exerting limited control of that distribution.

 

I don't think you get this. There is no point in them getting money they already would have had.

The problem is that as soon as you get a return on it, it becomes a Ponzi scheme and won't be able to sustain itself, OR otehr people are losing money on it, which is bad.

And Liberals are very poor students of Logic and Finances

You're right. It's just an institution that inmates can't leave...

Exactly, they didn't get to use all the money they should have been able to use before they died.

Illegal immigrants who shouldn't even be here, aren't claiming social security benefits, but there's always welfare and other such programs. http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households

So the government is forcibly taking people's money, investing it, and then giving it back...?

So that means that they are deserving of my money?

Billion* 1.3 to be precise. And if you made them pay employees more, prices would go up, and you would be paying just as much money anyway,

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/

You know this how?

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

Hehe

Again, you claim excessive capital greed. Tell me what that is.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     
     
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism

But it doesn't choose who to pay it to, or where it goes, and is therefore not controlling it.

 

Look at France's economy right now. America is trying to model after them, socialist. Now look at Germany. They have a flourishing capitalistic society with a great economy. There are modern examples of this not working and what I think it should be, working!

Henry Ford had an amazing idea of capitalism, not socialism. He was successful because of his assembly line, not because he paid his workers nicely.

FDR is often times described as a socialist, so it only makes sense that you agree with him. So my minimum wage job as a teen should pay me enough not only to support me, but be a decent living. Are you serious? The problem is that minimum wage is too often nowadays seen as a goal job. Like I said before, however, if you are able to hold a steady job, you will probably get promoted. If you can't, you need to develop work ethics, and your lack of this is what led to the situation you are in. Work ethics are required to function successfully in society, and those without just slow down progress by not carrying their own weight. This may be harsh, but despite the rainbows and flowers world socialist think they live in, life is not nice to those who fail. On the other hand, if they have an actual mental disability on the other hand, that is a completely different story... I hope this clears up my view

 

Just how capitalistic is Germany? It's a pretty liberal country.

You're pretty right about the minimum wage, though. People trying to get $15/hr for flipping burgers are insane.

 

Im sorry, I was misspoken. Germany has captalistc ideals when it comes to work. Atleast moreso than the US. Their workforce is much smaller but more efficient than our own.

 

Obviously it is sustaining itself, and we've already talked about that, so you're just talking in circles now. As for "money they already would have had," anyone planning on retiring in 2008 has something to say about that. All their free market investments evaporated. At least they still has social security.

LOL. Look at what has happened with the federal debt since 1980, note which party had the White House each time it ballooned and shrank, and tell me who is bad at finance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/His...ercent_of_GDP_by_President_(1940_to_2014).png

Throughout the Reagan-Bush-Bush years there's nothing bit steady climbing, and in the Clinton era is the only time it decreases. Obama's era must be measured by the fact that he took over during an epic global financial collapse, largely due to conservative policies. A similar mess was created by conservatives for FDR to clean up.

Your own article backed up what I already said about medical and free education, and the SNAP and other food benefits are, as the article says, related to their legal children.

LOL force. Why are conservatives always so paranoid? It's a program that was voted into existence just like any other. Its chances of being repealed are practically nil, as it is an extremely popular program.

According to the law, yes. Your personal feelings are immaterial, seeing as how it would be impossible to survey each taxpayer on an individual case before proceeding.

So it would be totally unpossible for them to share another 10% of profits with the employees who created it in the first place, and accept a mere profit of $1.17B?? THE HORRORS!!

GE provides no information disputing that it paid $0 federal income tax, which was the basis of the original claim. Payroll taxes don't count, as they ultimately come from employees.

Were you not paying attention when we covered this in depth? Reread this thread.

So the top 10%, who control over 75% of wealth in the US, only pay 68% of the federal taxes. Yep, that sounds right. Transferring the burden to the middle class.

Your article does bemoan the fact that under Obama taxes have gone up on the rich, but mostly that was accomplished by allowing Bush's tax breaks (aka Fat Cat Giveaway) to expire.

I'm pretty sure I gave several examples in that last post, oh yeah, there they are. If you want a simple definition, how about "causing great harm to others in the pursuit of profit."

Key word in definition 1: "regulated"

The second definition relates to communism. You should be aware that socialism has come a long way since Marx, who saw capitalism as an enemy to be destroyed. Since his time, a middle way between communism and capitalism has been successfully navigated by several countries, and predictably, they enjoy the highest standards of living in the world.

Again: regulating.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 29, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 29, 2016 ---

You have literally no idea what you're talking about here.

History says you're wrong: http://www.npr.org/2014/01/27/267145552/the-middle-class-took-off-100-years-ago-thanks-to-henry-ford

If you were doing it 40 hours a week, yes. Nobody expects a teen to be putting in those hours, though.

FDR is among the top three presidents in US history, so more socialists, please.

ROFL

Ah, the mythology of hard work. All you need is hard work and you can make it to the top. Well, hard work plus:

- A high quality education, including secondary
- An already reasonably high quality of life, so you can focus on education
- Good health for you and your whole family
- A family life free of major disruptions (divorce/death/disaster/etc.)
- A social network to provide plum opportunities
- An already well educated family that can teach the untaught lessons about wealth (as opposed to this nonsense the plebs are taught about hard work and adherence to rules)
- A big fat inheritance (over 60% of the Forbes 500 came from privileged backgrounds)

 

Great harm defined as? Like, if you're slaughtering people or doing something like that, I'd agree with you that it's excessive. But if you're talking about paying 10$/hr, then I'd have to disagree...

Yeah that's a lie.

Actually, you can, surprisingly, make it to the top without an education. If you want, look at Ted Williams (a bit of an unusual example, I'll admit, but it works nonetheless). He never went past High School. http://listverse.com/2013/01/20/10-poorly-educated-but-incredibly-successful-people/

Of course, individual cases do not a rule make, but it shows that you don't absolutely need an education to be successful.

Not necessary; you don't need to be educated.

It helps if you don't have cancer or anything, but...

http://www.inc.com/steve-blank/why-dysfunctional-families-produce-great-entrepreneurs.html

I'm not sure what you mean by social network...

Again, education isn't necessarily necessary.

And 40% didn't, therefore not necessary.

No, it doesn't. What sounds right is: any given person pays a set percentage (say 20%) of their income. Rich people still pay a hell of a lot more, but at least it's 'fair'.

Okay... Still went up...

For the present. I would note that that's the way all things like this go, that is how they happen. If they failed immediately, we wouldn't be talking about it, right?

They would have had it

Do tell

Not savings though

and their savings. Normally by the time you retire, you have low-risk investments, because, well, you can't afford to lose big. That's for when you're young, and can still recover.

This is paranoia how, exactly?

Well, I mean, you could always get thrown in prison for tax evasion, so I guess it's not force...

Good. Yours are too, so the fact that you think that others need my money is immaterial, and we can get rid of the whole system.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 2, 2016 ---

I was. You make the claim that the companies don't use the money for what they say they use it for, and since nobody can know that except for the companies, and they aren't saying, you claim has nothing to back it up.

Not true. Though the assembly line would have made him successful regardless, his paying workers more in relation to other companies helped. This is because everyone wanted to work for him, and he got the best employees.

 

I will again refer you to the several examples I already made in this thread, please read and stop ignoring.

Exactly, which is why I'm not going to bother addressing each of your exceptions, because while you can find an exception to every rule, as a rule, the wealthy in this country share a set of traits, and "hard-working" isn't necessarily one of them.

Connections. Or as the old saw goes, "It's not what you know that matters, it's who you know."

Maybe if the rich also spent the same percentage of their income as the poor do on things that fall under the classification of "not dying" (food/drink/shelter/medical care/etc.), it would be fair. But since the wealthy enjoy large percentages of income and wealth that fall into the category of "could be sucked up into a cyclone and I'd hardly notice it was gone," it's perfectly fair to tax them more. Also, the wealthy benefit from tax-funded services much more than the rest of us... I know that I personally am just as unlikely to send a fleet of massive trucks over the Interstate system as I am to visit the US Embassy in Morocco.

Even when taxpayer dollars are directed to social welfare (which still represents a much smaller slice of the budget than corporate welfare), the wealthy still benefit more - see Walmart and their profits while their underpaid employees turn to Food Stamps. Also, if people have to steal for survival, it makes more sense and is more conscionable to rob rich people.

What's the average life span of a pyramid scheme? 3mos-5years? Sounds about right to me.

Social Security is 80 years old, and even the most dire predictions have it making it to nearly 100 before the trust fund runs dry, and even then it would be able to pay out reduced benefits from incoming receipts.

Such predictions of its imminent collapse have been made since at least the 1980s, so take it with a grain of salt.

I thought we'd established that you're currently a student, which, according to your laissez-faire capitalist philosophy, means you're currently mooching off the welfare state (public education) and need to go out and get a job.

Or you could look at it another way: humans are capital, too, and the public is currently investing in you, with the hopes of greater returns in the future. This second one is a socialist view.

Please be less vague. There have been a number of claims in this thread, many supported with data, and I have no idea which one you're talking about.

You seem to be ignoring the point in the article about how other employers noticed what happened at Ford, wages went up across the labor market, and this created a new, "middle" class that was able to purchase Ford's products. There's no point in improving output if there's nobody out there to buy the product. In attempting to improve productivity, he accidentally created a whole new market for his wares.

Ford didn't fire all his mediocre employees and replace them with the best, either. Paying people well immediately made them more invested in the company's welfare and made them more conscientious workers, elevating the performance of everyone.

 

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 4, 2016 ---

^^^^^ why socialism is a horrible idea.

 

Actually, he was successful for both. He payed his workers a lot so that he would have more people who wanted the job than jobs available, and could therefore choose the best workers.

 

read: great depression+world war 2

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016 ---

http://www.nytimes.com/column/ross-douthat

^ on a liberal newspaper, no less

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016 ---

sorry for the triple post but about henry ford---

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_06.htm

scroll down a bit

 

"According to the Census Bureau, the average wealthy household (defined by the IRS as the top 20% of income earners in the U.S.) worked five times as many hours as the average poor household. The cause of this, according to Census data, is due to:

• The high rate of single parent households among the poor – The poverty rate in single parent households is triple the rate of two parent households – 42% vs. 13%.
• Fewer workers in the household – 95% of poor households have only one worker. 75% of the wealthy households have two or more workers.
• Unemployment – 60% of poor households have no one working at all."-http://richhabits.net/the-rich-work-more-than-the-poor/
  
  
  No, it really isn't. If someone works for something, they should keep it. If someone works for something, and chooses to give it to someone, then said someone should be able to keep it. That said:
  
  Services such as? If you're referring to things like water, roads, etc., then... Well, we can't exactly say "Oh, well you can't drive."
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• But if you're referring to things like handouts, bailouts, etc., then I agree. We should get rid of said system.
  
  
  So just because you won't means nobody else should be able to? I, personally, am unlikely to go the oil business, therefore all oil production should be halted.
  
  
  Both forms of welfare should be eliminated.
  
  
  One of the problems of having more people than jobs: People compete for the job instead of the job competing for the people. When the latter happens, wages go up.
  
  Just to be clear, you're condoning the act of stealing from people who are better off than you are.
  
  
  Depends. Most can't pull on the resources the government can. Once they run out of incoming victims (we haven't yet; population still growing really quickly), they fall apart (like in Brazil and Greece).
  
• 
  

 

Neither of them work in any pure form. Like many things, a hybrid of both could provide real benefits to society.

 

^^^^
So in other words, when it dries up, we'll just be doing the reverse of welfare: taking from young people and giving it to old people.

I am indeed 'mooching' and as soon as this welfare stat stops requiring I meet my minimum volunteer hours, I actually do plan to get a job.

I am aware that this is a socialist view.

I believe I was referring to your claim that Pharmaceutical companies do not, in fact, spend their money on whatever it is they say they spend their money on, when nobody but the companies know what they actually spend it on.

I would expect underpperforming were fired by the managers of the plant.

True, which is why I think it's dumb of giant businesses to pay their employees minimum wage.

If you ever stop by California, I'd check out 2 burger chains: Jack in the Box, and In'n Out. At Jack in the Box, they employ (almost without fail) Adults that (almost without fail) speak Spanish as their first language, and speak very little English, and mess up the order about 40% of the time. They are payed minimum wage: $10.00/hr

In'n Out, by contrast, employs mostly teens (in or just out of highschool). They are ( without fail) good English speakers, respectful, and they have messed up my order precisely once (forgot my fries). When I asked, they took my at my work, apologized, and got me my fries. They are payed $10.50/hr. Just that much difference (which is $20/week, excluding taxes). Just this small difference invests employees in the companies success, AND allows them to choose the cream of the crop.

 

We already sort of have a hybrid.
Things like welfare, social security, Obamacare, public transportation, public schools, and even having a government-owned military are all elements of socialism. Anything that is run by the government but paid for by the people is socialism.

 

Yup, we're a hybrid of Democracy, Republic, and Socialism

 

Everything is correct except this. The military is not a socialist program.

 

None of these are related in any way (that is, there is no blend, because they're not on the same spectrum), so I don't know that it's necessarily correct to call us a hybrid...

 

All you have to look at is what system are countries that have a massive poverty problem choosing to use?

Look at India and China as shining examples of how effective Capitalism is.

 

China was communist for a while....

Look at the U.S. Capitalist from the start.