Jump to content
cladus

Capitalism vs Communism vs Socialism

What do you support?  

123 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Considering that my neighbor gets more money from wellfare than my dad from his job... (My dad has low qualifications though, and he's only been at this job seven years, which I think is small?)

 

However, I do agree. Humans my be naturally lazy, but we also have a drive to have more than the minimum can give. They're still more likely to fall towards lazy than hard working

 

Our culture as of late kind of encourages that (not referring to wellfare, I mean actual culture, especially American)

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone does want to live on minimum work. It's human nature and unavoidable. We don't work unless we're given the incentive to do so, and oft not even then

I don't really think that's human nature. I think that may be more of a cultural thing. And even then it passes over plenty of people. I'm lazy, yeah, but I like having something to do. When I have no work, I either end up doing nothing and feeling crappy for it or I make myself something to do so I can feel productive.

 

I like working a little harder for more, so I can have a nice little bit extra. It's why I'm happy to work extra shifts, or stay later, or go in earlier almost whenever they ask at work.

 

Considering that my neighbor gets more money from wellfare than my dad from his job... (My dad has low qualifications though, and he's only been at this job seven years, which I think is small?)

The way I see it, that's not a problem with welfare--that's a problem of wages/hours being far below what they should be to be a livable wage.

 

A minimum wage job should allow at least one person to provide for themselves at a basic level without needing to add welfare into it.

 

 

Personally, I don't expect people to help me--hell, I often get uncomfortable when they do--but I like to help other people when I can.

Share this post


Link to post

If you can give, you should give SOMETHING.

True enough. I wholeheartedly agree. Now explain to me why the government should force me to do that.

 

I'm all for forcing businesses to pay their workers at a rate that will allow them to live at a basic level. If you want to get above that? Then work harder for it, earn your raises, go for a better job, educate yourself so you can be paid more. But you should be able to support yourself, at the very least, on a single minimum-wage job.

 

And I argue that as somebody who, if those regulations would be enforced, would very likely find my job gone--since, y'know, people with crazy-high salaries can't stand to take in a little bit less money to help out their employees.

 

But, somebody elsewhere said this and I fully agree (though it's paraphrased a bit)--"if your business isn't viable in a world where you have to pay your workers a livable wage, then your business isn't really all that practical."

The problem is that businesses don't decide what a "livable" wage is. They decide what wage they can pay per worker according to their desire for workers and the productivity of each individual worker. Again, the government can't make someone's labor worth more than it already is by brute force. That's determined by the market. There is no way around the fact that a higher minimum wage can never be economically productive. If set below equilibrium, it will do nothing. If set above equilibrium, it will cause a surplus of laborers, leading to unemployment.

 

If you want the market equilibrium wage to be a "livable wage," the key is to stop causing inflation and unemployment by ridiculous regulation that is economically detrimental and logically backwards. Raising the minimum wage will inevitably lead to an increased reliance on technology to replace the worker (a true Marxist nightmare).

 

Again, working two jobs isn't bad--HAVING to work two jobs is bad. If you want to work two jobs because you want the money, or you need the money to further your position in life more power to you.

 

But people shouldn't HAVE to work two jobs to make it at a basic level.

Why not? I'm not saying I disagree, but you're making value judgments, not economic judgments. Why should people not have to work multiple jobs? What standard says that such a thing is "wrong," or even undesirable?

 

Honestly, I'd rather see two people working one job and making enough to support themselves at just above the poverty level.

The majority of people working minimum wage jobs are not at or below the poverty line, because the majority (85%) of minimum wage earners are not the sole income source in their family. Less than one third of people below the poverty line hold a part-time job. 2/3 of minimum wage workers receive a raise within one year. It's not as if a minimum wage job is a one-way ticket to poverty, even in our current terrible system.

Also:

People are already working hard. People are not living on such low wages because they don't know the value of true work. They are already working hard, but the system is skewed against them. And people want to work hard because, guess what, people actually want to do something with their lives.

About two-thirds of adults living below the poverty line don't work.

Key Facts About the Minimum Wage

Basically most people who earn minimum wage are young, in school, or a supplemental earner to a spouse/family member who earns better wages. So, raising the minimum wage will only make it more difficult to get entry-level jobs, while simultaneously accomplishing basically nothing for those below the poverty line. How is this supposed to help exactly?

 

I don't see what's so difficult about letting the market work itself out. We just feel the need to introduce heavy-handed regulation that completely screws up the balance of an economy that functions on human choice and natural self-interest.

Share this post


Link to post
True enough. I wholeheartedly agree. Now explain to me why the government should force me to do that.

Basically - because you will, being a decent person - BUT - in today's me me mine all mine me society, where we are encouraged to be thoroughly selfish and ACQUIRE Things to keep the rich earning even more money by selling them (Thatcher did that to the UK mad.gif ) far too many people would refuse to do anything for anyone else.

 

BTW someone mentioned Warren Buffet. Who feels very strongly that disgustingly rich (HIS words not mine) people like him should be paying a LOT more tax and all tax loopholes should be closed.

Share this post


Link to post

So many interesting ideas in this thread.

 

I have to say none of the three are best for society. All of them are flawed in some way that keeps us from evolving to a new stage where better things can happen.

First issue that must be taken in consideration would be the "leader", the person, or individuals, that have the leading role.

 

I personally believe communism was, in theory, one of the best socioeconomic system, that could have changed everything, but those that applied it, ruined its potential to great results.

 

As best example I have my own country, that now its a ruin, yet in time of communism it had a huge burst of advancement, and a better way of living for everyone. The problem was that the leader blocked information and connection with other countries, thus "rumors" of a better life from the rest of the world, brought the revolution.

 

Another example would be China, where a somehow better form of communism is promoted, and they have the greatest curve of advancement of all world countries.

 

Either way, let me make bring my opinion regarding a better system:

 

What do we need?

An outer competitor.

 

What that means?

Until this day most of our society evolution is based on power. Thus most of the bad things in this world happened because of this. We do not help ourselves, we always seek to compete in terms of power. Wars, lies, money and every bad part of our society is happening because of this!

To actually get out of this problem, we need a bigger problem to consume the current one. And that would be something from beyond EARTH.

I know my theory is SF, but its the only one that would make a difference, and I strongly believe at some point it will happen.

 

There will never be a perfect system, yet I think the best thing for us, would be unity, and to have a reason, value and a role in "the grand scheme of things"(even the smallest), regardless if other problems would appear with this. Now everything its chaotic, and our only role is to live while we make another richer.

 

Having an outside problem would require the best of us to handle it, and this way our potential could be used. People would start to value their "gifts" and knowledge. At this moment most of us are "dead". With no actual reason to try. We loose our perspective and our potential from schools where teachers just work, they don't actually sharpen our minds, and eventually we end up like them, working to live, with close to no passion in our work.

 

There would be tons to say regarding the best system that we could have.

I don't see money or the socioeconomic economic system to be the main problem, but the REASON and WILL to do what we do in life to be the actual issue.

 

For those that believe money are a problem, I recommend you try to play Path of Exile, where a economy its promoted. Currency is made of items with use, not paper or shiny metal. There is no difference, what you have has value, regardless of its shape. So the power problem still remains.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Basically - because you will, being a decent person - BUT - in today's me me mine all mine me society, where we are encouraged to be thoroughly selfish and ACQUIRE Things to keep the rich earning even more money by selling them (Thatcher did that to the UK mad.gif ) far too many people would refuse to do anything for anyone else.

 

BTW someone mentioned Warren Buffet. Who feels very strongly that disgustingly rich (HIS words not mine) people like him should be paying a LOT more tax and all tax loopholes should be closed.

So if I ought to do something, if I have a moral obligation to do something, that necessarily means the government should force me to do it?

 

I think we'd better start by working out a foundation. By what standard do you say I have a moral obligation to help the poor? I believe I do, but that comes directly from a command of God to love my neighbor as myself. IIRC, you don't hold to my religious persuasion, so I wonder where your moral obligation comes from?

 

Also, as a footnote... you seem generally pessimistic about the ability of humans to be altruistic. You don't trust most people to do what's morally right with their money, because they're selfish, greedy, etc. But you trust those same people to guide a powerful centralized government in a benevolent manner? Those of us who are pessimistic about human nature have a dilemma in that the government is made up of humans.

 

I agree that tax loopholes are silly, but excuse me if I don't take authoritative economic advice from someone who could buy a fleet of lamborghinis without losing a zero in his bank account. Saying that he should "pay more" is cheap rhetoric when paying more means basically nothing to him. His interest and dividend earnings probably outpace any taxes he has to pay. His opinion on what the rich should pay doesn't help the economic side of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

@Kagesora

My dad gets a perfectly liveable wage. He's paid a perfectly fine amount. We're only struggling because of debt (which we're in because of bad financial choices, not low income) When we want something extra (or he's gotten fast food one too many times) he gets some overtime to compensate

 

My neighbor broke her foot and lost her job a few (eight, I think? It could be as few as five though) years ago, and has been living on welfare since

 

Her level of living is about the same as ours, except that she has twice our food budget

 

I think that's right, there might be some other things she's got over us. And she doesn't have access to extra since she can't work extra, so it isn't all upsides

 

 

 

Anywhales~

Everyone, at least in the US, has a right to the minimum in food, water, and shelter that they need to live. Anything above that should either be earned or given willingly

 

Basically, for me, it all comes down to this:

I'm not going to help people, because I don't want them to help me. And I don't want either of us forced to help the other

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not going to help people, because I don't want them to help me. And I don't want either of us forced to help the other

Agreed.

 

Forcing your values on others is intolerant and - honestly - just rude. Regardless if giving to poor/needy is morally "right", no one should be forced to do so. Plus, you open up a whole 'nother can of worms; who's to say what's morally right? There are so many different sets of morals out there that picking one and saying "this is the one true set of morals! And it dictates XYZ! So now you all go out and do XYZ, or else, because we said so!" is just plain unfair; it's unfair to the people forced to act that way, and it's unfair to the 10000000+ different sets of morals that exist that you ignore.

 

To quote Shakespeare;

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd"

Altruism is best conducted NOT at gunpoint.

Share this post


Link to post

So then taxes should not be paying for school or other public services like roads, etc, because that's still helping others and thus altruism that is forced.

Share this post


Link to post

If we didn't have roads, the country itself would collapse due to people being incapable of relatively cheap quick travel (a better example would be if gas companies were government controlled and regulated) If we didn't have public fire departments, entire cities would burn. If we didn't- Well, no, we could orobubbly do without public snail mail. Email and UPS would be fine. But I'm not opposed to it either. Because all those things assist all people -- rich or poor

 

I am opposed to taxing people differently for services that they recieve equally, though

 

I'm all for privatization of the school system. But that's unrealistic without ecenomic stability to allow for people to pay for it

 

Also, Max, it's ~7 billion different sets of morals if I had to guess

Share this post


Link to post

So then taxes should not be paying for school or other public services like roads, etc, because that's still helping others and thus altruism that is forced.

In theory, yes. An ideal world would have no income taxs (or Social Security pay-in, or other such stuff where you are forced to pay in). But it's obvious the USA/Canada/many other large nations will never achieve this state, so it's rather pointless to argue for no taxes, as that's not gonna happen.

 

Consider the Cayman Islands. No direct taxation is imposed on residents or local companies; the government receives the majority of its income from indirect taxation, specifically goods tax, especially higher-ticket items (imports of expensive cars, etc). Makes sense because you can sort of 'choose' your tax; you're pretty poor and/or don't feel like paying that tax? Buy staples or various tax-exempt items. You want to throw a huge party with champagne and caivar? You're gonna get taxed. There are no taxes on profits, capital gains, income or any withholding taxes charged. There are no estate or death duties payable on Cayman Islands real estate or other assets held in the Cayman Islands. Alright. Sooooo......because there's no taxes they must have a terrible healthcare system with locals dying in the streets, right?

 

Nope! Caymanian children are entitled to free primary and secondary education. There's a public hospital on the islands and, in 2003, the Cayman Islands became the first country in the world to mandate health insurance for all residents. Hm. Also, their GDP/Purchasing Power per Capita is the 14th highest in the entire world. Link Also, Caymanians have the highest standard of living in the Caribbean (average income of around KYD$47,000).

 

TL;DR: A government can function without taxes. There can be no taxes and public/free schools, roads, police, etc can and will still exist.

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, no income tax is a thing? Cool. Remind me to move somewhere like that if I ever manage to have more than $200 to my name

 

I'm curious though, what's sacrificed? What you describe seems pretty perfect, but there is always a catch. So what is it?

Share this post


Link to post

"The analysis of our illustrations has taught us another incidental lesson. This is that, when we study the effects of various proposals, not merely on special groups in the short run, but on all groups in the long run, the conclusions we arrive at usually correspond with those of unsophisticated common sense.

 

It would not occur to anyone unacquainted with the prevailing economic half literacy that it is good to have windows broken and cities destroyed; that it is anything but waste to create needless public projects; that it is dangerous to let idle hordes of men return to work; that machines which increase the production of wealth and economize human effort are to be dreaded; that obstructions to free production and free consumption increase wealth; that a nation grows richer by forcing other nations to take its goods for less than they cost to produce; that saving is stupid or wicked and that dissipation brings prosperity....Depth in economics consists in looking for all the consequences of a policy instead of merely resting one’s gaze on those immediately visible." - Henry Hazlitt

 

^ relevant for the whole of this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

I myself am capitalist. You earn your own money. If I am a doctor, i don't want to be payed he same amount as someone who is a farmer. Maybe i believe this way because I live in a capitalism country. ~CLICK SPAM REMOVED~

Edited by Shiny Hazard Sign

Share this post


Link to post

I am technically a capitalist, but I consider all 3 of the above options as well as any other to be equally flawed. The problem doesn't stem from the systems themselves, so much as it stems from people's greed. Corruption and exploitation of the system will always be a problem so long as there are greedy scumbags in office.

Share this post


Link to post
I myself am capitalist. You earn your own money. If I am a doctor, i don't want to be payed he same amount as someone who is a farmer. Maybe i believe this way because I live in a capitalism country. ~CLICK SPAM REMOVED~

Without the farmer, you won't have anything to eat. You won't get far without the farmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Without the farmer, you won't have anything to eat. You won't get far without the farmer.

Recognizing that farmers will not get paid as much as a doctor does not mean that we don't want farmers to exist. I have been a farmer. But each doctor's labor is worth more than each farmer's labor because of field entry barriers and educational requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Recognizing that farmers will not get paid as much as a doctor does not mean that we don't want farmers to exist. I have been a farmer. But each doctor's labor is worth more than each farmer's labor because of field entry barriers and educational requirements.

Not at all, but sometimes it seems like the poor (or rather, not rich, so middle class or lower) are spited because they're poor, but the poor are the main source of commerce. If everyone were a doctor, we would really need to compensate for the lack of certain lower jobs. I think that's what $ins was trying to say.

 

Not that it's the same argument at all for what Bubba was saying, though...

Share this post


Link to post

My point is that whether one is more skilled or not, or takes more education or whatever, we need to have both. They should be compensated more than they are.

Share this post


Link to post

My point is that whether one is more skilled or not, or takes more education or whatever, we need to have both. They should be compensated more than they are.

Well, considering that currently we don't have a shortage of farmers (and we're needing fewer farmers due to automation of farming and increased use of machines), and that farmers are accepting the wages they currently get and not leaving the industry, I don't see a problem. Why should they be compensated more than they currently are if the market won't bear it (i.e. equilibrium wage is below the "ideal" wage) and there's no problems right now? We have farmers. They get paid. A large majority are not leaving the farming industry. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Well, considering that currently we don't have a shortage of farmers (and we're needing fewer farmers due to automation of farming and increased use of machines), and that farmers are accepting the wages they currently get and not leaving the industry, I don't see a problem. Why should they be compensated more than they currently are if the market won't bear it (i.e. equilibrium wage is below the "ideal" wage) and there's no problems right now? We have farmers. They get paid. A large majority are not leaving the farming industry. *shrug*

Just saying, judging conditions by the amount of people leaving the industry isn't really a good or accurate way of doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
My point is that whether one is more skilled or not, or takes more education or whatever, we need to have both. They should be compensated more than they are.

Why? Who determines the compensation amount? If consumers are making free choices regarding food purchases, farmers will be paid exactly how much their labor is worth. If you artificially inflate their prices, how is the consumer going to afford the increased prices? Will you increase their wages as well? But if their wages are increased, they will have greater purchasing power, and businesses will adjust their prices to match, so prices will go up again. Will you prevent businesses from raising their prices? Then there will be a shortage of goods. Value judgments about what someone ought to be paid cannot change the objective consequences of playing with the economy.

Share this post


Link to post

Re: Farming - as a profession it has one of the highest rate of suicide going. Farmers can't exactly walk out of their jobs because it's not just a job, it's their *home* too. They're also not employed by someone else - it's *their* business. If it goes under, they lose everything.

 

Supply and demand is also a little broken when it comes to farming, because by-and-large farmers don't get any say in the price of what they produce. It's the supermarkets - the big buyers - dictating the prices. And, in some cases, those prices are actually *below* the cost it's taken to produce something. How many other manufacturers do you know that are effectively forced to sell everything they make at a loss?

Share this post


Link to post

All of Europe is more or less socialist, and somehow middle class isn't dying in (especially Western) Europe.

 

Austerity Europe!?

 

 

I also believe that local solutions to poverty problems are best, not centralized solutions made by people who have no real connection to my community.

 

Besides the nonsense of fifty different solutions for everything, states are revenue constrained. Taxes by the US federal government, however, are obsolete for revenue purposes. In 1946, the chairman of the Fed Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, wrote this:

 

"...with an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."

 

Why not use this power? The federal government has monopoly power on its own nonconvertible and free-floating currency. With government spending not revenue constrained, the first function of taxation is to regulate the value of the currency, but there are other functions, too.

 

True enough. I wholeheartedly agree. Now explain to me why the government should force me to do that.

 

For a similar reason that is used to justify not paying a minimum wage (i.e. they’ll still do the job). Some jobs have enormous potential because of how scalable it is (finance, law, or management, for example). And these are not professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution. Income is arbitrary. In practice, a worker’s productivity is not an objective quantity that is plainly seen, and the relative power of different social groups often plays a role in which workers get what. The diversity of different wage distributions across nations at different times can’t be explained by theory of marginal productivity. It’s quite clear, too, with the rise of the “supermanagers”. Their compensation varies significantly among countries. What evidence is there that US executives contribute a greater marginal product than French, German, or Japanese executives? Even if this was conceded, it’s quite obvious that you could make them toil away for significantly smaller compensation packages without offsetting the marginal product. But the compensation of the supermanagers isn’t even the most significant issue. What’s more of an issue is the immense inequality of gains on capital.

 

user posted image

 

^ France As economic growth lags behind gains in capital, we’ll see inheritance as a proportion of national income increase.

 

It’s always amusing how people always focus on the people at the bottom. I can list jobs that garner significantly more benefits, yet had they paid the same as minimum wage, the people still would have wanted it (e.g. school librarian vs. a Walmart or fast food position). The problem with this is that there are barriers of entry. You need a masters degree in library science, yet even a high school graduate could do that work. The supply of these skills depends on the state of the educational system (look at inner-city), how many people have access to different tracks (more than 80,000 qualified nursing applicants get denied a seat each year), the standards set (i.e. is it excessive?), and other factors.

 

So what theory do you have that it’s all just and fair? In the public sector, it’s obvious there are problems with marginal productivity, but it is also clear in the private sector.

 

That's determined by the market. There is no way around the fact that a higher minimum wage can never be economically productive. If set below equilibrium, it will do nothing. If set above equilibrium, it will cause a surplus of laborers, leading to unemployment.

 

There’s a lot of evidence that increasing the minimum wage would help a lot of people out while having a small effect on the amount of jobs. We know the amount of jobs available is determined by macroeconomic policy and the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, so you can offset the job losses with good policy. Austerity and trickle-down aren't solutions.

 

What’s your evidence that it isn’t economically productive? Why would companies lobby for food stamps? Capitalism runs on sales. The food stamp program has a high multiplier effect. Austerity shrinks the economy.

 

Additionally, there’s a term called sticky wages or downward nominal wage rigidity. The Fed Reserve Bank of SF has a nice essay on it.

 

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/pub...ng-wage-growth/

 

Despite a severe recession and modest recovery, real wage growth has stayed relatively solid. A key reason seems to be downward nominal wage rigidities, that is, the tendency of employers to avoid cutting the dollar value of wages. This phenomenon means that, in nominal terms, wages tend not to adjust downward when economic conditions are poor. With inflation relatively low in recent years, these rigidities have limited reductions in the real wages of a large fraction of U.S. workers.

[…]

The inability or unwillingness of employers to reduce nominal pay is known as downward wage rigidity. When economic conditions are poor, this rigidity can disrupt normal labor market functioning, especially in a low-inflation environment.”

 

Right now it’s a problem in Europe. The Germans and the ECB are asking countries like Spain to get significant falls in nominal wages (to become competitive), which is difficult to achieve. The US has a flexible labor market, yet it ain’t falling. The strategy then is basically for debtor nations to achieve relative deflation through high unemployment.

 

If you want the market equilibrium wage to be a "livable wage," the key is to stop causing inflation and unemployment by ridiculous regulation that is economically detrimental and logically backwards.

 

Inflation was just 1.5% in 2013. And that “inflation” would be lower than 1% had it not been for a foreign monopolist playing around with the price of oil.

 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8170

 

Even with all the Fed’s horses and all the Fed’s men to reflate the economy, inflation hasn’t appeared. What was needed was sound fiscal policy, but the Republicans didn’t want that. They’re still stuck on stupid thinking that limiting spending means growth or that we’re just around the corner from defaulting.

 

What regulations specifically? We still operate as if we’re under a gold standard, so we weren’t able to keep up with the credit structure that was created by what they call shadow banking (which basically isn’t regulated). They basically let the automatic stabilizers do the whole thing the way down.

 

 

Raising the minimum wage will inevitably lead to an increased reliance on technology to replace the worker (a true Marxist nightmare).

 

What's the point of work then? Shouldn't we strive to increase productivity? Who wants to spend their days as a bagger at a grocery store? Lower the minimum wage enough or get rid of it altogether, and we could have an army of mannequins!

 

The U.S. GDP is above $13.5 trillion, which is bit higher than what it was before the financial crisis. The issue is that we’re producing the same amount of goods and services as before with over 7 million fewer workers. That’s a lot less workers than what a modest increase of the minimum wage would result in, so that point is moot.

 

Look at this chart

Real GDP and Labor

 

It is real GDP divided by civilian labor force. Labor force participation is lowest since 1978, yet our economic output has never been higher. Fewer and fewer people are participating in the economy. Forbes had this news article title recently, "Phew, The Robots Are Only Going To Take 45 Percent Of All The Jobs" What do you do about it? Let them croak in the streets? Go with no medical care? No electricity, transportation, heat, etc.?

 

Why not? I'm not saying I disagree, but you're making value judgments, not economic judgments. Why should people not have to work multiple jobs? What standard says that such a thing is "wrong," or even undesirable?

 

"Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

 

Why would you want a large portion of the population miserable? Societies with more equal distribution of incomes have better health, fewer social problems, and are more cohesive than ones where the gap between the rich and poor is greater. The average well-being isn’t dependent on national income. It’s the differences of incomes between the people.

 

Income Mobility

 

Those, combined with other New Deal programs, arguably prolonged the depression, and at the least did nothing to really help.

 

The output gap was so big compared to the stimulus. At the bottom of the wiki article, it gives sources saying that taxes and a cut in spending occurred before the 1938 setback.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%9338

 

Oddly, you pointed out WWII spending. Why would it be different?

 

The majority of people working minimum wage jobs are not at or below the poverty line, because the majority (85%) of minimum wage earners are not the sole income source in their family.

 

That argument can be used to support taxing wealthier people more.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/articl...1954969,00.html

 

“The trend has a dark side, says Dalton Conley, social sciences dean at New York University. "High-income women marrying high-income men is one of the drivers of inequality," he says. "It affects the distribution of income between families." He notes that among college-educated high-income couples, the divorce rate is getting lower, while unmarried low-income men and women tend to partner up and then uncouple more rapidly. "This leads to family instability and a cycle of disadvantage," says Conley. Single parents often have trouble moving ahead in their careers, while low-earning parents have little income to save or invest. They fall further behind, while the families with two college-educated earners pull ever more ahead.”

 

Family Earnings of Children

 

Basically most people who earn minimum wage are young, in school, or a supplemental earner to a spouse/family member who earns better wages.

 

A little more than half of U.S. wage earners reported less than $30,000 in 2013. If you make more than $15,000, you earn more than almost a third, and we’re seeing an increase in temp agencies as more employers seek “just-in-time” labor. They suck.

 

Saying that he should "pay more" is cheap rhetoric when paying more means basically nothing to him.

 

Funny because one of the justifications for redistribution policies is diminishing marginal utility.

 

Recognizing that farmers will not get paid as much as a doctor does not mean that we don't want farmers to exist. I have been a farmer. But each doctor's labor is worth more than each farmer's labor because of field entry barriers and educational requirements.

 

It depends on the farmer. Some get over $100,000 in farm welfare subsidies each year. That doesn’t include crop insurance or CRP.

 

user posted image

 

Basically - because you will, being a decent person - BUT - in today's me me mine all mine me society, where we are encouraged to be thoroughly selfish and ACQUIRE Things to keep the rich earning even more money by selling them (Thatcher did that to the UK mad.gif ) far too many people would refuse to do anything for anyone else.

 

In economics, imports = user posted image, exports = mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.