Capitalism versus Socialism

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: MrFingers belfastuniguy,

I am strongly against the national minimum wage, simply because it hurts most the people it is trying to help. Very simple supply and demand. When you introduce a price floor, you create a gap between demand and supply. hence there is less labour demand, and more labour supply. and that equates to people out of work.quote>

So would you say that supply and demand should control the minimum wage?

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: beebs

So would you say that supply and demand should control the minimum wage?

quote>

Yes, the price mechanism (capitalism) should control the labour force.  Not the minimum wage, there should be no minimum.  only a meeting of what people are willing to pay for labour and what people are willing to work for.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

They are forced to work their by their economic circumstances. I am not sure how anyone can say they aren't forced to work there. Believe it or not, there are a lot of poor people in the world. Why are they poor? Likely because their family was poor, they probably could not afford to go to college, and they probably lived in an environment that no one can comprehend unless they go through it. It's kind of like dismissing gang warfare when you never lived in Compton.

quote>

Forced to work?  We are all "forced to work", only in socialist countries can people get away with doing nothing with their lives.  But even poor people have a choice of where to work.

Go to Oklahoma, my friend. Drive around a bit and you will find a nice, little small town where Wal-Mart employs 90% of the population. The rest work at the post office, the bank and the school.

quote>

90% is not the whole town.  And I find 90% highly unlikely given that walmart is simply a service industry and therefore not a reason for a town to exist.  besides that, people have the choice to move.  Show me this town please.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I'm not sure why we have focused so much on Walmart employees, I think the major issue is not the are paid a low wage but the social support systems in the United States is awful compared to Europe. I'm not a socialist but I do agree with social support, Free health and free education. This does not exist to a degree but the social institutions are underfunded and seen as unimportant. Maybe if the US had developed and well funded social support then the wage issue would not be a great as it is. quote>

Those support systems should only go to those willing to work for it...unless you are physically disabled or have other limitations to your job or contribution to the country, you should work..

And NOTHING in life is free (well..with the exception of those free samples at Wal-Mart or Sam's). Europeans are taxed to death to pay for the lazy man's (those who refuse to work, yet are capable) health and education..

[bixel 1,228]

not this debate again - this is almost as bad and atheism vs Christianity.

[MrFingers 0]

yeah, this idea that education and health care in europe is free is just plain wrong. We pay out of our noses for it with some of the most economically strangling taxes in the world.  And these public services are hugely inefficient compared to the private sector.  The idea that they are "free" is really foolish.

[xiziz 11]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Forced to work?  We are all "forced to work", only in socialist countries can people get away with doing nothing with their lives.  But even poor people have a choice of where to work.

quote>

Il make a better second-first post later, i just thought this quote looks fun.

In a socialist state, a member whom isnt working isnt part of the society, actually, in a socialist constitution every able member of society has to work, IE its illegal not to work. If you dont want to work, move, quite simply put.

In Social Democracies it ofc is handled different, beeing unemplyed isnt illegal here. And people sitting around in a cold appartment with 6 other people "sucking" society is a problem.

Usually you have to be written up in a register to get your unemployment-check, this also means that if you decline a job you loose your check.

A solution as i see it is having the unemployed people get employed at small-companies, where help is needed, with the exception that they work only halftime, and get their pay from the state, rather than from their emplyer. This gives them a LOT of free time to look and apply for jobs, not to mention work experience, which is usually a merit when applying for a job.

Il see if i can choke up some time to come up with a real post, on my views and such. As you may already know, i am a socialist, but i thought id explain why i am such. ^__^

//Edit, fixed the quote... missed to remove a /Q marker

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

They are forced to work their by their economic circumstances. I am not sure how anyone can say they aren't forced to work there. Believe it or not, there are a lot of poor people in the world. Why are they poor? Likely because their family was poor, they probably could not afford to go to college, and they probably lived in an environment that no one can comprehend unless they go through it. It's kind of like dismissing gang warfare when you never lived in Compton.

quote>

Forced to work?  We are all "forced to work", only in socialist countries can people get away with doing nothing with their lives.  But even poor people have a choice of where to work.

quote>

Poor people can choose to work whereever they want. Whether they get hired is a completely different matter. Quite often people with limited incomes are there because they are unable to purchase (not get.. purchase) a higher education. For someone counting the pennies to feed their family, that's not exactly a feasable option. Is it a reasonable option to tell little johnny that he can't eat tonight, daddy has to go to school? Heavens no!

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

90% is not the whole town. And I find 90% highly unlikely given that walmart is simply a service industry and therefore not a reason for a town to exist. besides that, people have the choice to move. Show me this town please.quote>

Well, I am a guilty exaggerator, but there is never a 100% of anything. It has been a long time since I was back in Oklahoma and I am sure things have changed. If you substitute Wranglers for WalMart and go to Tecumseh, you will see what I mean. Or go to Duncan, where Halliburton is the main employer. Anyhow, my point is that when big business comes in, it is very hard in a small community to NOT have to work for them. As for moving... choice is not the right word. It can cost an arm and a leg to uproot and move somewhere else, especially when you support, for example, a family of 4 on minimum wage and carry more than one job.

Barbarossaquote>

It doesn't make sense to have a minature town economy supported solely by a tiertary sector industry.  think about it.  You've got the vast majority of the income coming from one entitiy, and the vast majority of money being put back into it.  the net is zero, but then you have to factor in all kinds of things like taxes etc.  it just doesn't work.  Walmart would be making a serious loss.

And ultimately these people can move.  We put alot of effort into enabling labour mobility for a reason.

[Zelgadis 638]

One of the reasons why the poor stay poor is limited means. It's easy to say "move." But moving is expensive. You need means by which to move your stuff. You need to be able to find an apartment which will take you. That's not easy if they think you're too poor to support yourself.

And it's also easy to say that you can choose your workplace. But in practice, if you're poor, it's not so easy. Many poor people don't have cars and public transportation in many places is dismal at best. So these people are limited to workplaces within walking distance. And then limited to workplaces which will actually hire them. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to save for a car when you're making $8 per hour and perhaps raising kids. And more difficult still since the cheapest apartments are usually far outside of town.

Public transportation also must be a priority in any socialist democracy. The efficient moving of people is not only good for the economy, but good for the environment as well.

ISF

[neder 2]

One of the areas where I think state control is vital is education. It's ok to have private schools too, but you should have the possibility to get an equal education even if you can't afford to pay the fees. I see education as a necessity for a working democracy. If people are not aduquatly educated they can't make an educated choise when they vote. That means they will vote for whoever is more charismatic and politics have very little to do with charisma in my opinion.

As for health care I think either system works, but I think all people should have rights to get treated equally.

I see healthcare and education as basic human rights and something that should be available to anyone regardless of income or social status.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MrFingersI am strongly against the national minimum wage, simply because it hurts most the people it is trying to help. Very simple supply and demand. When you introduce a price floor, you create a gap between demand and supply. hence there is less labour demand, and more labour supply. and that equates to people out of work.quote>

Well, the reason a minimum wage was imposed in the first place was because you had a problem where big businesses basically controlled a huge portion of the employment in entire cities, and they could get away with paying their employees dirt because no one was offering any better. No matter what company you worked for, the management would always be looking to pay there employees as little as possible because that increased profits. And, due to high imigration rates, there was never a shortage of workers, which meant employees were powerless to improve their condition since, if every single worker in a factory went on strike demanding higher wages, they'd all just be fired immediately and it would be no skin off the company since there'd be more than enough workers eager to take their places.

In other words, the free market meant that the big bosses ended up with all the control, and due to the almighty dollar, they are perfectly willing to cheat, lie, and treat their employees like crap if it means more money for them. You may not have noticed, but basically every big business leader in history has had a history of using such methods. Cheating, undercutting the competition, squelching the competition... it seems immoral to the average person but the fact is that's what it takes to get ahead in the world of big business. ... either that or having had a father, grandfather, etc. that did it so you could inherit  their success. If you try to be completely honest and moral in how you do business, you can forget about ever hoping to become one of those billion dollar CEOs. It's harsh, it's mean, it's unfair, but it's reality.

So, minimum wage and employee treatment laws are necessary because without them thing would default back to how they were at the beginning of the 20th century. They're law which are necessary to protect some basic human rights and decency.

---------------------------------------

Now, most people in my family avoid shopping at Wal Mart not because they object to their treatment of employees or business policies but for another reason. Everything there is made in China, and shopping there thus supports the outsourcing of jobs, bolstering China's economy while weakening ours. I know my father will intentionally pay extra money for products that were made in the US instead of buying ones made in China... or, if that's not an option, he'l at least look for Japan, Singapore, or some country other than China.

The fact of the matter is, China is quite an up and coming country and while it isn't so now, on the horizon they are a definite threat to our status as a world superpower. They have over three times the population we do, and their military is several times larger than ours, too. The idea of the US ending up in a war with China within the next 50 years is quite possible. The most probable causes would be over Taiwan, Tibet, or North Korea. Now, our military technology currently surpasses theirs on most counts, but they have nukes.... and they also have no formal policy of not using them from the beginning. Which means that that war with China may very well be a Nuclear War. Is your fallout shelter still ready to use?

[coolotter88 2]

yes, I'm sure halliburton moved into a small town and squeezed out all the other mom and pop oil rig builders.

how does outsourcing hurt the economy? we remove the menial jobs from here like tech support and in accounting firms, tax calculation. The other parts of the companies are virtually untouched and therefore the companies are better able to serve their customers more efficiently (thus maximizing profits) and everyone gets rich...except the unskilled workers who get fired because their jobs got moved to india.

[Cody02 0]

If you all don't like capitalism... go live somewhere else! That is what this country was founded (the United States) and it will always stay that way. Although, I do think some restrictions are required in capitalism in order for companies not to become monopolies. Socialism is retarded and does not work as proven many times in history! Go free enterprise!

[KingSimCity 3]

Capitalism is better then socialism, If you look at Cuba(Socialism) and the US (Capitalism). In a socialism country a doctor will earn the same as the people who clean the steets. A doctor needs to study so much years so he can win the same as a steet cleaner. So less high tech jobs in a socialism country. Capitalism is the greatest story never told.

[Ryusuke516 1]

Capitalism all the way!!!!!

[coolotter88 2]

well, that certainly wasn't a very...good post....anyway, what's wrong with being displaced as a superpower? After WW2, britain lost " "superpower" status to us, you don't see the British complaining and saying they should go to war with the US.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: neder One of the areas where I think state control is vital is education. It's ok to have private schools too, but you should have the possibility to get an equal education even if you can't afford to pay the fees. I see education as a necessity for a working democracy. If people are not aduquatly educated they can't make an educated choise when they vote.quote>

Well, as I said before, the problem with any state run service is the accountability issue. I agree that everyone needs an education, but rather than having public shcools, I would instead privatize all school systems, and simply have the government pay the tuition for people who can't afford to send their kids to school, similar to how medicaid will pay your medical bills if you can't afford to do so yourself.

I see healthcare and education as basic human rights and something that should be available to anyone regardless of income or social status.quote>

Yes, but having the government offer those service directly is not the solution.

------------------------------------

Now, let me address the "poor stay poor" issue. In the past, what class you were born into is what class you were guaranteed to stay in the rest of your life. This is no longer true, however, for tow reasons. One is simply that marrying someone poorer than you isn't considered taboo like it used to be, so it's now possible to marry into money. The other is that sometimes, poor people really do rise above their status and grow up to bigger and better things. Both of my parents came from working class families. My father's father was a mason and my mother's father was a truck driver, and later a cop. My mom spent a large part of her childhood in public housing and both of them lived in neighborhoods which, while they weren't bad neighborhoods, were nevertheless neighborhoods full of working class people. But my dad's a doctor now, and we live off in the suburbs on an acre of land in our own house, among some of the most expensive places to live in the entire country. So while adults who are poor are likely to stay poor, their children most certainly can grow up to be much better off, and that happens more than you might think. Usually, the poorest people in this country are the people who've immigrated here the most recently. As such, the longer you're family's been here, the more of a chance you've had to climb the social ladder... and new immigrants come in and fill in the gap left by those who've gotten ahead. And this isn't a new pattern, it's been going on this way at least since the end of the 19th century.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

how does outsourcing hurt the economy?quote>

Because every job that's outsourced is one less job available to american workers

we remove the menial jobs from here like tech support and in accounting firms, tax calculation. The other parts of the companies are virtually untouched and therefore the companies are better able to serve their customers more efficiently (thus maximizing profits) and everyone gets rich...except the unskilled workers who get fired because their jobs got moved to india.quote>

You just answered your own question there. Outsourcing, while it benefits the company and the middle and upper classes, definitely hurts the working class, since rather than having their savings on purchasing or their profits increased, they're losing their jobs. So it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

what's wrong with being displaced as a superpower?quote>

If you were in a position of power, would you want to lose that position?

After WW2, britain lost " "superpower" status to us, you don't see the British complaining and saying they should go to war with the US.quote>

Well, part of that likely has to do with britain being more socialist... they don't mind playing second fiddle, they aren't power-hungry.

Also, keep in mind that the US and UK are allies, which work together on a lot of things. Were that not the case, you can be sure there would be a lot more resentment on the part of the british. And we were allies in WWII, too.

On the other hand, the scenario I mention has us losing power to what would be an enemy, not an ally. It's an entirely different story to pass the crown to a friend of yours than to an enemy of yours. We're allies, so we never used our newfound power to get back at and oppress the british. Whereas if we lost our power to China in a war, you can be sure that it would be an entirely different story. Especially since China has a communist-like government. They don't "play fair" like we do (or at least try to).

Also, nobody's threatening jihad against China, so they would have no use of superpower status other than to throw their weight around. Whereas our superpower status is vital to our ability to fight terrorism. Though, admittedly, our superpower status is indirectly why we have a terrorism problem to begin with...

...still, that problem wouldn't vanish if we lost that status.

[poops2u 2]

This is off topic from the title but has been broght up in a few posts...

I don't quite understand how the minimum wage hurts people. I reason that it should not affect lower level employees. Top executives, making millions and millions of dollars, should take the pay cut instead of lower level workers getting the boot.

-P2U

[football_fever 6]

First, I'd like to say that China won't want to fight a war with the US because like you said, everything at Walmart is made in China. If you made something...anything...say...pet rocks, and you found someone that would come buy one from you every day, would you punch him in the face? No...you'd want to keep selling him pet rocks.

@beebs - "Purchase a higher education" haha...from someone that couldn't finish school because I can't afford it...that describes it perfectly

@zelgadis - You hit it right on with the means to move. It's easy to say "if you don't like it move". The person would need 1. money for a new apartment 2. money to actually move all their stuff 3. time off work to be able to perform the move...all of which they most likely can't afford

@Cody02 - "Socialism is retarded" That's an incredible, well thought out argument. You should join the debate team.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: poops2u This is off topic from the title but has been broght up in a few posts...

I don't quite understand how the minimum wage hurts people. I reason that it should not affect lower level employees. Top executives, making millions and millions of dollars, should take the pay cut instead of lower level workers getting the boot.

-P2Uquote>

 

Labour demand and supply in theory should be the mechanism that determines the wage that people are paid. This would result in equilibrium, meaing that there would be excess labour (unemployment) and fair wages for the job,

The reality is very different, in a perfect world mininium wage would not exist, or at least it would not be imposed by a government. It has good and bad points, I prefere for market mechanisms to determine wage, but in some case the mininium wage is needed to prevent the abuse of workers by those that wish to do so and that's why we have, the government wishing to protect employees, though this can lead to small businesses going out of business, and of course this has happened becuase the economic aspect was not adhered to. It  can get very complicated really.

[Goldfish4209 9]

Originally posted by: Cody02go live somewhere else!quote>

If it takes 6+ years to get permanent residence for the US, I don't want to know how long it takes to get permanent residence for anywhere else.

Easier said than done.

[coolotter88 2]

still outsourcing only helps, it doesn't hurt that much. if outsourcing can raise GDP, what's so bad about it?anyway, the displaced workers are unskilled workers, there are many unskilled jobs out there.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 still outsourcing only helps, it doesn't hurt that much. if outsourcing can raise GDP, what's so bad about it?anyway, the displaced workers are unskilled workers, there are many unskilled jobs out there.quote>

Incorrect.  Many jobs that moved over-seas where jobs that required skilled labor.  And outsourcing jobs is never a good thing for the people who were outsourced. Companies do it to save money.  They aren't doing it to help their employees or raise the GDP.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[coolotter88 2]

really doesn't take much skill to answer the telephone as "fred" and fix your antivirus. They do the same things over and over again. The guys in bangalore just say do this, if it doesn't work, do this, if that doesn't work, do this. I think most of the time, they're reading from a book or a website.

Edit: anyway, there is low unemployment in the united states, those displaced by outsourcing can easily find another job. also, many jobs are being "insourced" to the United states. outsourcing also means higher efficiency resulting in cheaper products/services for the customers. not only that, outsourcing helps small businesses because it increases efficiency and reduces costs. outsourcing also helps the countries the jobs are outsourced to. It increases the standard of living in  developing countries such as India and China because the workers are getting paid more than before.

Only the "unskilled" (I say unskilled because they require little training) jobs are outsourced to other countries. The "skilled" jobs, say, ones where experience in the field is necessary to better serve the customer such as an accountant that will minimize tax payments to the government, are still retained.

[UltraGIR XL 3]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 I believe they are not mutually exclusive. you can have a mix which is probably the best way to go. pure socialism doesn't work well because it is much too expensive (imo) OTOH, capitalism does leave certain people behind. with a mix, you can give those not so well off a swift kick in the behind to get moving and we can keep the rich happy.quote>

This is the first time I've ever agreed with you, hah.

I agree, capitalism can work, but we need some socialistic elements to prevent the upper-classes from oppressing the lower ones. A safety net, if you will, to make sure that hitting rock-bottom doesn't spell the end.

Welfare money needs to be tightly monitored, too. You lose your welfare if you spend it on liquor and don't bother finding a job or school.