Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So you tell me why people should not recieve an income for their worth to society.

The question is how are you going to determine the right value without using market forces? Are you just going to arbitrarily say that everybody is worth $100,000 or $30,000? Who decides? Should the government decide?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
DESPITE the fact that Capitalism has moved on.

That may be your perception. Actually capitalism is moving backwards. The minimum wage may be increasing about as fast as inflation, but capitalism is working its way to the extreme exploition that it enjoyed before the Great Depression. It's called deunionization. The capitalists have been able to break the backs of the unions in the name of producivity. As a result real wages have been flat, working conditions have gotten worse, and unemployment has increased. And it's all because of extremists who do nothing but go on and on about individualism.

[Velociryx]

The question is how are you going to determine the right value without using market forces?

Obviously the answer here is that Kid should decide. He has a degree in economics, and he intuitively knows what each person is worth....you should simply trust his judgement. If you don't, then clearly you're so full of bullshite that your teeth are brown....

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The question is how are you going to determine the right value without using market forces? Are you just going to arbitrarily say that everybody is worth $100,000 or $30,000? Who decides? Should the government decide?

Stop compensation people based an the marketablilty of their skills. Do the best you can to create equality of results while providing incentives that will be beneficial to everyone.

[Berzerker]

Here's what cracks me up!

From Kid:
I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

2002 PPP Adjusted Avg. Annual Income in the US:
$34,280

But "the majority of Americans" are being exploited.

[Velociryx]

No, actually I use facts and figures to back my arguments up. I see you don't yet have a snappy comeback for this:

From Kid:
I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

2002 PPP Adjusted Avg. Annual Income in the US:
$34,280

But "the majority of Americans" are being exploited.

...but that's okay, I was fully expecting you to ignore it, because it shoots a giant hole in your entire line of thinking.

Individuals are what MADE this country. That's a far better thing, IMO, than having everybody move into the Borg Collective and looking to Kiddero to tell them what's best for them.....

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
We DO have a welfare system in this country that pays people who cannot work. Now, you may argue that what they get paid is insufficient, and that's a valid argument. But the system is working now as you describe. What it does NOT do is pay people what they "say" they're worth, or what they want to be paid.

-=Vel=-

I can also agrue that the capitalist system is not capable of providing adequately for everyone. In fact, maybe you would like to show me when it has ever done so.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Here's what cracks me up!

From Kid:
I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

2002 PPP Adjusted Avg. Annual Income in the US:
$34,280

But "the majority of Americans" are being exploited.



-=Vel=-

You are talking about the per capita income, not the median income. There is a BIG difference.

[Velociryx]

I can also agrue that the capitalist system is not capable of providing adequately for everyone. In fact, maybe you would like to show me when it has ever done so.

I'm not going to do your debating for you....maybe you can show me a system (ANY system) that has a proven track record for doing better?

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Velociryx -

I daresay that Marx would scarcely recognize capitalism as it exists today in the most successful countries that make use of it. It is a far cry from the brutality he saw in its earliest days of widespread use.

Marx came to his conclusions about "capitalism" after living in London. That wasn't a capitalist system, it was a caste system.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I can also agrue that the capitalist system is not capable of providing adequately for everyone. In fact, maybe you would like to show me when it has ever done so.

I'm not going to do your debating for you....maybe you can show me a system (ANY system) that has a proven track record for doing better?

-=Vel=-

There is no system that has failed more times than capitalism.

[Velociryx]

Interesting point, Berserker!

And Kid: You're right, there IS a big difference! I was using the lower of the two values. If I use median income, it's even higher, and would look like this:

From Kid:
I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

2000 Data, US Median Income: $50,046

We can use whichever number you prefer, but I thought that using the lower value would help you save at least a little bit of face....

-=Vel=-

Link to the first site I saw with the data:
http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/ind...tml?Id=44&G=37

[alva]

Vel : nice post nd you won't hear any 'I don't agree's from this side' (at least not in spirit of the post).

(IMO, the best example of this resides in Canada, but Europe has some highly attractive models too, and America is slowly shifting in that direction as well).

How does the Canadian model work btw. I have a vague notion of it but really don't know anything about it.
-
So America is going socialist too héy, tssk tssk tssk

capitalism requires private ownership, so it has rejected the notion of the state controlling everything,

The latest trend/line of thought here is to keep certain area's state controlled (or try to buy them back, even against european regulations. It's not going to happen soon though).
An example would be mass-transportation which has almost proved not to be working under private contract. (Look at britains train system.)
I'm certainly not against those being state controlled as they are supposed to be providing a service and not to make profit.
If you can do both, even better of course.
-
The one thing I don't really agree with are the sweatshopps though

which is why, going back to the earlier example of the sweatshops in SE Asia, the answer is in strengthening the laws in those countries, not tearing down the system).

By strenghtening their laws, they would throw their only good card they have away, they nothing else to offer, no infrastructure, no skilled labour.
All they have is cheap labour.
You can't ask them to do something about it, however, the compagnies can, but why would they.

But this isn't really part of the discussion, so..

Anyway, good thread

[Kidicious]

Here we go with the numbers.

Median family income = $42,228
Mean family income = $58,208

This includes families with two earners.

[Kidicious]

My numbers come from the US Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h09.html

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Did anyone mention that the net profits should be shared between the investors or the company and the workforce 51:49 (without the directors taking the whole 49% ), just distribute equally among all the workers what was left, CEO and someone who has been employed for 12 months lets say, both get the same share of that part (everything else stays the same, management bonuses payment structure, divdends etc...) Noone looses, that would be investment into the compay, many companies have profit share schemes, I just feel they are too low in overall scheme of things.

that is about all that I would change (for the companies listed on the stock market only, like one of the requirements...

That's all, investors would still be able to make good returns, and I am pretty certain it would not wipe out the benefits of listing on the stock exchange.

That's about it, a lot of the workforce would be much better off, and you would inject more spending capital into the society...

well this might be shallow and it will never happen, but somehow I like the idea as I don't think that most of the capital accumulated is efficiently spent, or to say that it would be better for the society overall if the workforce would get 49% of the pie per quater (or year) for listed companies

not to mention that it would seriously address the differences in payment structures for the offices in third world countries, it would be a great driver for a more economically balanced world.

[Berzerker]

Kid, don't those numbers just refute your argument even more effectively?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
just distribute equally among all the workers what was left, CEO and someone who has been employed for 12 months lets say, both get the same share of that part (everything else stays the same, management bonuses payment structure, divdends etc...)

Prediction: You will work for 11 months and 29 days. They will fire you and hire you back the next day.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid, don't those numbers just refute your argument even more effectively?

No, because there is a smaller percentage of families that recieve the mean income than that don't. The median income is right in the middle. 50% of the families get more and 50% get less.

[Velociryx]

Alva: Yep, it feels like we're really covering some good ground in this, our third thread on the topic!

With regards to sweatshops...yes and no. Consider that the companies in question have invested heavily IN those countries (the physical plant obviously cannot be moved, and although the physical equipment can be relocated, that, on top of the training expense for a new crop of workers AND the construction of a new facility to house it all would make it prohibitively expensive to do so.

Plus the fact that the wage protection need not be implemented in one step. A phased approach would generally work best (and also consider that the cost of living in these countries is dramatically lower, such that two dollars an hour in the states would be a criminal wage, while that same two bucks an hour in some SE Asian nations would be QUITE well to do!

Kid: And those numbers help your argument....how exactly? Given that there is no indication what percentage of the households in your figures have two wage earners, I don't see how any strong conclusions can be drawn from them, save for the fact that household-by-household, we already are above the 30k threshold you specified.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: And those numbers help your argument....how exactly? Given that there is no indication what percentage of the households in your figures have two wage earners, I don't see how any strong conclusions can be drawn from them, save for the fact that household-by-household, we already are above the 30k threshold you specified.

-=Vel=-

I'm talking about individuals. I suggested that each individual might recieve 30k/year. That would mean that a married couple would recieve 60k together.

You're just trying to set up another strawman anyway, and doing a very poor job I might add . I'm not claiming to know the exact amount that would be affordable.

[Velociryx]

Hey....no strawman here....YOU specified the numbers, not me. And what on EARTH are you doing talking about individuals! It's the "whole group" that matters, as you have stated repeatedly!

So....we're looking at the numbers of the "whole group" and what do we find? That the average lies above the threshold specified BY you.

But of course, you'll refute that too I suppose....

-=Vel=-
(one trick pony? :hmm: )

[Velociryx]

and, in anticipation of the refutation sure to come, here's a quote from the Kid himself, in our first thread on this matter:

You can't look at the individual. You have to look at the whole group and draw general conclusions.



-=Vel=-
(except of course, when the Kid is desperate to make a point)

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And what on EARTH are you doing talking about individuals!

This would be more enjoyable if you and certain other people like-minded as you didn't act like you were incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

[Velociryx]

There is such a thing as simply cutting your losses, Kid.

YOU laid down the ground rules by saying that individual experiences or situations were invalid to the argument. We complied and stopped using them, going instead after information as it pertained to the "whole group" (your call, remember?)

And now, having lost ground in the debate and in a scramble to try and prove your point, you reverse yourself by talking about "individual" situations.

Which is it to be? I'll play the game either way you want, but at least have the good graces to be consistent!

Oh, and btw, here's another golden pair of quotes from you:

I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

and then, when THAT didn't work out....

I'm not claiming to know the exact amount that would be affordable.



-=Vel=-
(this would be more enjoyable if you would pick a position and actually stick with it.... )

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
There is such a thing as simply cutting your losses, Kid.

YOU laid down the ground rules by saying that individual experiences or situations were invalid to the argument. We complied and stopped using them, going instead after information as it pertained to the "whole group" (your call, remember?)

And now, having lost ground in the debate and in a scramble to try and prove your point, you reverse yourself by talking about "individual" situations.

Which is it to be? I'll play the game either way you want, but at least have the good graces to be consistent!

You obviously have a certain type of intelligence, and I'm not very articulate, but I find it hard to believe that you don't know what the difference is.

I wasn't using the experience of one individual in my argumment. I was using the term individual to describe the statistic. I really don't know how to explain the difference by saying anything that I haven't already said.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, and btw, here's another golden pair of quotes from you:

I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

and then, when THAT didn't work out....

I'm not claiming to know the exact amount that would be affordable.

Those are not contradictory.

[Velociryx]

God bless ya, Kid, but you are a riot! I have nothing further to add, on the thinking that you've done more than enough damage in one day to your own debate.

-=Vel=-
(I LOVE this guy!)

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Stop compensation people based an the marketablilty of their skills. Do the best you can to create equality of results while providing incentives that will be beneficial to everyone.

"equality of results" is just not realistic. Life is like a race. There are winners and there are losers. That is a fact. The problem with socialism is that it believes that it can and should artificially make everybody a winner. That is just not realitistic!

[alva]

"equality of results" is just not realistic. Life is like a race. There are winners and there are losers. That is a fact. The problem with socialism is that it believes that it can and should artificially make everybody a winner. That is just not realitistic!

It's not because it isn't, it can't ever be..

Life should definately not be a race.

[Kidicious]

Here's a report by the Dept of Public Advocacy.

The Economy-Crime Rate Connection and Its Effect on DPA Caseloads: Does Crime Pay When the Market Doesn't?

From the report

The notion that the crime rate in a country is affected by the state of its economy has a common-sense appeal to most individuals.... According to this instinctual approach and most of the "economic" models of criminology, a flagging economy leads to more joblessness, less money for charity and "safety net" programs, and greater difficulty for individuals trying to find or maintain income to sustain the basic needs of their families. As a result, those individuals will more likely turn to criminal activity as a means of income for these basic needs, since the benefit of lawful activity no longer outweighs the risks of criminal activity (these risks, such as injury at the hands of a potential victim, incarceration, social and familial pressures against crime, etc., are viewed as the "costs" of criminal activity in the economic models).

the majority of recent scholarly analysis has found that crime rates are directly related to the economy.

In their paper, "Crime Rates and Local Market Opportunities in the United States: 1979-1997," Gould, Weinberg, and Mustard concluded that both wages and unemployment are significantly related to crime, with wages having the stronger effect.

In their first paper on "Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime," Raphael and Winter-Ebmer found that the conventional wisdom on the effects of unemployment on crime (i.e., a direct relationship _ higher unemployment leads to higher crime and lower unemployment leads to lower crime) actually underestimates these effects.

A decrease in income and potential earnings associated with involuntary unemployment increases the relative returns to illegal activity. Moreover, workers who experience chronic joblessness have less to lose by arrest and incarceration. Unemployment is an important determinant of the supply of criminal offenders and hence, the overall crime rate.