Communism or capitalism?

[invaderyoyo]

100% just because you are lucky...if you provide no value then you will be dropped. There are many people willing to that their spot.

Even then, you'd still have to prove your competency.

Sure, but there are people who don't get that chance. Only looking at the people who managed to go forward is basically confirmation bias.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Alright, now that I've got more time, here's the comic I was referring to earlier

Spoiler: High-res images

Source: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Sure, but there are people who don't get that chance. Only looking at the people who managed to go forward is basically confirmation bias.

I think @Memoir's idea is that rather than looking at higher education, assess how they do in on-site training and the first few weeks

 

[Kioku]

Sure, but there are people who don't get that chance. Only looking at the people who managed to go forward is basically confirmation bias.

That same logic could be applied to those who cling to their "unfortunate circumstances", no?

 

[TotalInsanity4]

That same logic could be applied to those who cling to their "unfortunate circumstances", no?

I wouldn't call it "clinging" if it's a legitimate roadblock, but I get what you mean

 

[lexarvn]

If you have skills people want people will pay you. You are competing in a market that has determined the value of your skills. If you feel like you are not getting paid enough up your skills or go somewhere were you will be paid what you think you are worth.

I understand how expensive homes are. Yeah homes are way overvalued.

You are right about being competitive. Most of my friends are insecure so they don't like to take risks and are very non-competitive, but I don't think that should prevent someone from earning a fair wage. I would actually argue that the reason most millennials seem to not be paid well is not because they can't do skilled jobs, but because they've been taught that they are worthless with unpaid internships, and entry level positions being filled by experienced people so they are only able to get simple jobs like flipping burgers or working retail, which confirms their insecurities so they don't want to risk losing the job they have.

Not saying that people shouldn't be competitive. I certainly am, which is why I am pretty well off. But being competitive should be the difference between mediocracy and affluence, not poverty and affluence imo.

This also doesn't change the fact that most of my friends live in a city though with very high cost of living and are being paid the same amount they would be for the same job in a rural area with less than half the cost of living. Even though most of them are making double or more than poverty level income so are technically not in poverty, not being able to afford a decent place by yourself is still poverty imo.

 

[Kioku]

I wouldn't call it "clinging" if it's a legitimate roadblock, but I get what you mean

It being a legitimate roadblock is a subject on its own. I'm more referring to the people that believe they HAVE to work the low end jobs because it's "what pays the bills". That logic is lowbrow, detestable and arguably wrong.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You are right about being competitive. Most of my friends are insecure so they don't like to take risks and are very non-competitive, but I don't think that should prevent someone from earning a fair wage. I would actually argue that the reason most millennials seem to not be paid well is not because they can't do skilled jobs, but because they've been taught that they are worthless with unpaid internships, and entry level positions being filled by experienced people so they are only able to get simple jobs like flipping burgers or working retail, which confirms their insecurities so they don't want to risk losing the job they have.

Not saying that people shouldn't be competitive. I certainly am, which is why I am pretty well off. But being competitive should be the difference between mediocracy and affluence, not poverty and affluence imo.

This also doesn't change the fact that most of my friends live in a city though with very high cost of living and are being paid the same amount they would be for the same job in a rural area with less than half the cost of living. Even though most of them are making double or more than poverty level income so are technically not in poverty, not being able to afford a decent place by yourself is still poverty imo.

Things like unpaid internships are the biggest insult to the working class. Oi...

Cost of living is a true to life issue as well. In some areas you can make 80k+ a year and still be considered within the poverty level. Doesn't that just speak for how poor our economic systems are?

 

[lexarvn]

Cost of living is a true to life issue as well. In some areas you can make 80k+ a year and still be considered within the poverty level. Doesn't that just speak for how poor our economic systems are?

Yeah, and those places still need burger flippers, janitors, garbage collection services, etc. That is also my one problem to just blanket change minimum wage to $15/hr. It really should be scaled against cost of living where the business is since workers should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. In some places, $7/hr probably makes sense as minimum wage, others places, $25+/hr might make more sense. It's a very location specific problem.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Yeah, and those places still need burger flippers, janitors, garbage collection services, etc. That is also my one problem to just blanket change minimum wage to $15/hr. It really should be scaled against cost of living where the business is since workers should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. In some places, $7/hr probably makes sense as minimum wage, others places, $25+/hr might make more sense. It's a very location specific problem.

I think that roughly $10/hour is the absolute minimum for any location in the US. I live in the Midwest and $7.25 an hour isn't enough to survive off of, even in our rural area. Fortunately most places pay at least $8.50 an hour, since they know that if they don't then they'll lose workers to detassling companies over the summer. It's not ideal, but it's a start

 

[invaderyoyo]

That same logic could be applied to those who cling to their "unfortunate circumstances", no?

I didn't say ignore the cases where people got ahead.

Most people don't "cling" to shitty jobs. They're stuck there. Occasionally through no fault of their own.

 

[Kioku]

Yeah, and those places still need burger flippers, janitors, garbage collection services, etc. That is also my one problem to just blanket change minimum wage to $15/hr. It really should be scaled against cost of living where the business is since workers should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. In some places, $7/hr probably makes sense as minimum wage, others places, $25+/hr might make more sense. It's a very location specific problem.

+1.. Adjust wages and costs accordingly per economic needs for the location. $19/hr where I live is enough to live and afford a home. In some areas on the west coast it's enough to share a rundown apartment with a coworker or two. Makes me sad.

 

[Stercate79]

Nationalsocialism should work!

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Nationalsocialism should work!

Ha! Funny! Now leave.

 

[Deleted User]

In communism, Where is the incentive to excel? Before anyone else has the right to comment, refute that. Why be a doctor? Why rise to the top?

To get paid better. Second, we don't want full blown communism. when the left talks about nets and what not. It's intended to make it that they can't live forever on that net. And there are quite a few things that make NO SENSE. Like, why is America, the only THE ONLY country where you have to pay for your health care. And this leads into what I call the collage pay problem. that problem goes something like this. Government makes it so collages have to paid for/ funding doesn't go to collages. Government adds a lending system, aka student loans, collages then see all the money they can make. Collages then gouge the person going to that collage, making the price unreasonably high and people then have to be stuck in never ending debt, just to get a decent job. How do you fix that? Make the government either set the max a collage can cost, or, fund the collages themselves, which remove the whole debt situation, collages are getting their funding, and students aren't gouging their or their parents pockets. I don't think collages need all that money from every single person, the bar is raised so high that the poor will rarely ever make it. And scholarships sometimes won't be enough. So now lets apply this into healthcare. Somebody is piss poor, and is unable to afford insurance but a home, and he is going to die within the next 6 hours. But cannot afford the very surgery he needs to live without healthcare. So he asks for a loan, to pay for it. But because he doesn't have insurance, he has to gouge himself into a deeper hole than he already was in. Pay all that loaned money back.This person that got sick, could of been trying his entire life trying to get into a better situation. But it never improves because every single job he had worked, fucked him over, or, he never got a raise, not because he never asked, not because he wasn't a good employee. But because his employer wouldn't. So here is this man who literately cannot get out of the hole he digged by his own body, and he cannot do a thing to fix it, is that fair?
My point that I want to make is their still would be a structure, there still should be capitalism at it's core. But people have to gouging themselves to have a basic right to live? or a basic right to decent education? No. And not only that but, there still would be poor, there still will be middle class, (assuming the middle class isn't going extinct) and there will still be rich people. It's not a matter of evening the ground, it's about giving everyone a fair chance. I don't want the poor able to easily get what the rich has, but I don't want the poor to have no chance at all. And to rise to the top, that should be on you. If you don't like being middle class and you want to become, rich or have something expesnive. then your earn it. But the poor are more than kissing the pavement, scrapping their asses against the pavement not because they aren't good enough, or they have no work ethic, it's because they literately cannot since they are being smothered by the rich, and the rich continue to gouge them.

 

[weatMod]

I've always been a strong supporter of capitalism and have failed to see the beauty of communism as described by some people on the left. Communism has never worked and seems like a flawed system that could never be able to work. Also, it's been attributed to more deaths than fascism yet people constantly place Hitler as being more evil than Stalin or Mao.

neither

 

[Zhongtiao1]

First of all, Stalin and Mao weren't communist as it is defined, they just believed in some of the ideals.

Both of them were influenced by Marxist ideas, but both adapted it to their surroundings. Stalin adopted Marxist and Leninist ideals to make a Marxist-Leninist one party system. It was based around the working/labor class revolting against the empire. Mao flat out rejected the Leninist ideals that Russia had put in place and said that the peasants would revolt. Thus, Maoism formed.

Castroism, Juche and Hoxhaism are more isolated forms, but they are still lumped in with Communism, even though they are mainly based on a personality cult.

If you take a step back and actually look at what the world has done with "Communism" You will see that none of the governments are actually communist.

Communism as it is defined today mainly refers to a one party system with collectivization of industries by the state.


Capitalism mainly refers to how a country runs its economy and Communism is an ideology. I believe that a better comparison to make would be Communism or Representative Democracy.

 

[SG854]

Alright, now that I've got more time, here's the comic I was referring to earlier

Spoiler: High-res images

Source: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I think @Memoir's idea is that rather than looking at higher education, assess how they do in on-site training and the first few weeks

Some of the stuff in right column are common issues that affects all of us and we need to improve on. The underfunded smaller classes is a problem for everyone. Many people have been discussing to invest more in schools and reduce class sizes.

Also house full of people? Aren't humans social creatures meant to be around each other. And being around lots of people means lots of interaction for the kid which is essential for proper development, learning proper social skills and lower risk of depression. And what about going to a public school which every child gets exposed to way more people and the flu. And being exposed to dirt is good for kids, germs builds a stronger immune system because it gets practice. Kids also have less risk of developing allergies, asthma, and eczema. Humans evolved to live in much dirtier conditions. The guy on the left will realistically have more problems with a hyper sensitized immune system.

Households nowadays are richer than in the past because of 2 paychecks instead of 1. But they have more expenses. Maybe raise wages? But then you'll also have to raise wages for everyone else. Including high deadly jobs. A person working a high risk job will be pissed off that he's working an incredibly dangerous job putting his life on the line for his family and is getting same pay as a fast food place. Maybe he and lots of others will quite that job and work at a fast food place instead since much easier for same pay. But then you'll have too many people applying for that job, and not enough for the dangerous one.

And can start up employers keep up with higher pay? Many have shut down because they couldn't keep up. Small businesses provide 55% of all jobs, it'll affect many. Smaller buisnesses are expected to loose lots of money with a higher minimum wage. Lots of people are only focused on big businesses but not smaller ones. Maybe make it area specific instead of a federal level wage. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eshach...5-minimum-wage-new-site-reports/#6be368a711ad

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Ah, yes, typical conservative response. Playing the precious victim card.

Man, I'm a full-fledged liberal and progressive, but I hate both the far-left and the far-right, that's all. I have my card at LaREM's Macron's party. I am pro-business AND pro-humanity, that's all.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

What the hell is "pretend" about the 1% richest population, at least in America?

If you earn 2500 bucks a month you're in the world's 1%.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Some of the stuff in right column are common issues that affects all of us and we need to improve on. The underfunded smaller classes is a problem for everyone. Many people have been discussing to invest more in schools and reduce class sizes.

Since schools are tied to property tax, that won't happen until it's swapped over to federal. The system we're currently in inherently ties the quality of the education to the social class of the neighborhood

Also house full of people? Aren't humans social creatures meant to be around each other. And being around lots of people means lots of interaction for the kid which is essential for proper development, learning proper social skills and lower risk of depression.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here, unless you're implying that poor people with big families are less prone to depression, in which case I'd have to say that is categorically false...

And what about going to a public school which every child gets exposed to way more people and the flu. And being exposed to dirt is good for kids, germs builds a stronger immune system because it gets practice. Kids also have less risk of developing allergies, asthma, and eczema. Humans evolved to live in much dirtier conditions. The guy on the left will realistically have more problems with a hyper sensitized immune system.

I don't think that you realize that the guy on the left can AFFORD to get sick; if he's ill, he probably has great health insurance through his family and most likely has money saved up to cover time off. You saw what happens with the girl on the right when her DAD got sick, imagine what it'd be like for HER

Households nowadays are richer than in the past because of 2 paychecks instead of 1. But they have more expenses. Maybe raise wages?

Now you're getting it!

But then you'll also have to raise wages for everyone else.

Oh I'm so proud of you, now you're speaking like a true socialist

Including high deadly jobs. A person working a high risk job will be pissed off that he's working an incredibly dangerous job putting his life on the line for his family and is getting same pay as a fast food place. Maybe he and lots of others will quite that job and work at a fast food place instead since much easier for same pay. But then you'll have too many people applying for that job, and not enough for the dangerous one.

And if nobody is taking the comparatively low-paying "dangerous" job, the owner would have one of two options to entice potential employees: you wanna take a stab at what those are?

And can start up employers keep up with higher pay? Many have shut down because they couldn't keep up. Small businesses provide 55% of all jobs, it'll affect many. Smaller buisnesses are expected to loose lots of money with a higher minimum wage. Lots of people are only focused on big businesses but not smaller ones. Maybe make it area specific instead of a federal level wage. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eshach...5-minimum-wage-new-site-reports/#6be368a711ad

There's a saying going around that I heartily subscribe to, which is "if you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you can't afford to be in business," which is to say that if, to keep your business afloat, you have to pay people sub-poverty wages, then you're an incredibly unethical business owner and it's time to board up the windows

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Man, I'm a full-fledged liberal and progressive, but I hate both the far-left and the far-right, that's all. I have my card at LaREM's Macron's party. I am pro-business AND pro-humanity, that's all.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


If you earn 2500 bucks a month you're in the world's 1%.

Hilarious, since the countries bringing down that average are inherently impoverished themselves. However, you bring up a good point; the UN could probably use some more money from people who can afford it. Like AMERICA'S 1%

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Hilarious, since the countries bringing down that average are inherently impoverished themselves. However, you bring up a good point; the UN could probably use some more money from people who can afford it. Like AMERICA'S 1%

I don't support fucking with private property and stealing money. Also, no, the 1% can't afford anything. Bezos could afford paying 50 bucks to every inhabitant on the planet and then he'd already be broke. The amount of money possessed by people is ridiculously small compared to money flows and production. If the top 100 richest guys in the earth united, they could pay a low wage to every person on Earth for a month and then they would all be fucking pennyless.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also the "if you become rich you make other people poorer" theory is bullshit. You people act as if there was still the same amount of money in circulation in 2018 as in 1850.

 

[Cubuss]

Both