Capitalism v Communism

[FAST6191]

This railing against company owners and higher paid employees still seems bizarre to me. Even leaving aside the expense vs income generation thing then I am not sure why employees should be mandated to, or expect to, earn proportional to their income generation for a company.

If someone risks the time, money and effort in starting a business and it takes off then seems reasonable that they extract what they can from it, or at least can live handsomely if that is how it rolls.

If someone wants to trade some earning potential for some security and presumably less hassle than managing a business (which is tedious and distracts from getting stuff done) then their risk assessment to make and path to take.

If someone has a rare skill then provided said skill is in demand it will tend to drive up price of said skill until it becomes easier to train yourself up at it, train someone else, build a robot to handle it or do without. This seems obvious.
The reverse (a readily replaceable worker with a line out the door ready to take their place) will tend to see the price others willing to do it go down so they can get at least something, at least until it hits a floor there.

If someone has kids they can't afford (230000 USD to raise a kid to adulthood, possibly more if you are conned into a pointless degree https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child . Abortions are cheap, condoms are cheaper/free, tubal ligations and vasectomies amortised over instances used/trauma saved probably cheaper still), lives beyond their means (too large a house/expensive a place to live, luxuries consumed, were stupid enough to get married/divorced...) then sucks to be them but beyond maybe ensuring they don't starve then resources better allocated on other things and why a company gets to fund that lifestyle when there are others balancing a book. Maybe teach their kids better risk management.

On companies doing record returns. This would be the technology/communications revolution -- my factory might make 10000 widgets (which is far better than skilled labourer/knitting circle doing local crafts) but it needs a proportional number of people, 10000 downloads or 10000000 needs about the amount of people to handle and is often quite lucrative (especially if those downloads are tied to people that still price things according to their basic senses of money and money they care to lose vs cost of running the service). Even those still shipping physical products have better/cheaper robots, better logistics, concepts like just in time manufacturing... to make it better than it was before and drop those overheads down further.
https://spendmenot.com/blog/best-performing-stocks/
https://compoundadvisors.com/2020/the-top-30-stocks-over-the-last-30-years
There is a reason most of those are tech companies, and why companies want to appear as tech companies (see the wework fiasco), and what few aren't tend to be healthcare which is not much better in a lot of ways.

The economy is not a zero sum game. Both sides benifit. You pay them money and you get goods and services in return. You both benefit.

While value added manufacturing is indeed good stuff I do have to play the hippie card and note that there is quite often a cost, and that cost is often the environment. Of course the answer there is usually more science so eh.

 

[Foxi4]

You have no idea whether that's often or not and what kind of character fits the bill really. What's the point of this statement anyway? Cause I can only re-construct it as "if you are poor you probably got what you deserved" - hope I misunderstood.

Poverty is very sad and nobody "deserves" to be poor. That being said, it is often a direct result of poor life choices. The Brookings Institute published three relatively simple rules that allow one to prosper in society - this was done after years of research, and Brookings is not a right-wing institution by any stretch.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

Graduate from High School, don't have children before the age of 21 and out of wedlock (or a very stable relationship, at least), find a full-time job (or equivalent). Do this, and you will not be poor.

How much poverty is caused by alimony? 25% of American children are raised in single-parent households, be it because "things didn't work out" or due to divorce. Do you think living on a single parent's wage has something to do with poverty too? Are you aware of the percentage of the homeless addicted to alcohol or illicit substances? According to SAMHSA, 64% of the homeless had drug-related issues within the last 30 days, 38% had alcohol abuse issues - some of that is a consequence of poverty, but in many cases it is the cause. Did you know that the prevalence of gambling among the homeless is 16 times that of gen pop, sitting at 11.3%? Do you think betting your life's savings on the horsies might have something to do with poverty? I could go on and on.

Not sure what you "understood" or "misunderstood", what I actually said was that poverty is often times a consequence of poor life choices. It can also be bad luck, it can be unmanageable medical debt, sure. It can also be gambling, substance abuse, poor spending decisions, credit card debt and a variety of other things that the person in question had control over and made a poor choice that affected the rest of their life. I didn't do that, capitalism didn't do that, they did that. It is very unfortunate, and we should help them however we can, but they can't all be helped.

 

[Xzi]

Whatever is left at the end of that transaction belongs to them, since they created the enterprise that generates said revenue. Nobody is being robbed - you guys are the ones trying to rob people.

Gaslighting at its finest. A higher and higher percentage of income goes to the upper class every year. Any major corporation in America could afford to pay its low-level workers $30 an hour and still rake in record profits. The problem is greed, pure and simple.

I advocate against you. That's a very specific thing.

You advocate for keeping minimum wage below the poverty line. So you're advocating for taxpayers to continue making up the difference.

 

[_abysswalker_]

Your life is much better off because of it. You have a refrigerator, electricity, a TV. You are living a more comfortable life because of it. Again would you rather live in a cave 20,000 years ago or today? Or even live 200 years ago or today which is better?

It's a known fallacy to reflect on the past anachronistically and thus overestimate where we at today. We tend to confuse technological advancement with progress - if that's all it takes then things can only get better so we might as well sit back and enjoy the effortless ride to betterment.

Again would you rather live in a cave 20,000 years ago or today? Or even live 200 years ago or today which is better?

Have you even seen interviews of Aboriginal people? In comparison, the average modern man is monkey with grenade. We definitely lost something along the way.

 

[Foxi4]

Gaslighting at its finest. A higher and higher percentage of income goes to the upper class every year. Any major corporation in America could afford to pay its low-level workers $30 an hour and still rake in record profits. The problem is greed, pure and simple.

You advocate for keeping minimum wage below the poverty line. So you're advocating for taxpayers to continue making up the difference.

More specifically, I advocate for eliminating the minimum wage entirely - get it straight.

 

[Xzi]

More specifically, I advocate for eliminating the minimum wage entirely - get it straight.

And the only people who advocate for that are those that were dealt a winning hand from the beginning, people who know they won't be the ones working for five cents an hour. "I got mine jack" is a shitty philosophy to operate on, even more so when you try to apply it to the entire country's economy.

 

[_abysswalker_]

Not sure what you "understood" or "misunderstood", what I actually said was that poverty is often times a consequence of poor life choices. It can also be bad luck, it can be unmanageable medical debt, sure. It can also be gambling, substance abuse, poor spending decisions, credit card debt and a variety of other things that the person in question had control over and made a poor choice that affected the rest of their life. I didn't do that, capitalism didn't do that, they did that. It is very unfortunate, and we should help them however we can, but they can't all be helped.

.. it can be that you were born in Burkina Faso. It's more about equal opportunities, not choices.

 

[Foxi4]

And the only people who advocate for that are those that were dealt a winning hand from the beginning, people who know they won't be the ones working for five cents an hour. "I got mine jack" is a shitty philosophy to operate on, even more so when you try to apply it to the entire country's economy.

I came into this country with £500 in my hand and a stiff neck. I worked hard for a couple of years and now own property, stocks, I have a nice, growing retirement nest egg and pay my taxes like any good citizen would. I'm not rich by any means, but I consider myself well-off, and it didn't come easy to me - nobody served me success on a platter, I worked for every penny. Please don't give me sermons on who was dealt what kind of cards - I worked some pretty interesting jobs before I got to where I am, not all of them were glamorous.

.. it can be that you were born in Burkina Faso. It's more about equal opportunities, not choices.

That's a nice, if naive way to think about things. Yes, not everyone has the same opportunities. Everyone has the option to not do smack in their spare time. As I said, this isn't *always* the case, simply often - often enough to be statistically significant. I didn't make those numbers, numbers are numbers.

 

[Xzi]

I came into this country with £500 in my hand and a stiff neck. I worked hard for a couple of years and now own property, stocks, I have a nice, growing retirement nest egg and pay my taxes like any good citizen would. I'm not rich by any means, but I consider myself well-off, and it didn't come easy to me - nobody served me success on a platter, I worked for every penny. Please don't give me sermons on who was dealt what kind of cards - I worked some pretty interesting jobs before I got to where I am, not all of them were glamorous.

Okay, and would you have ever gotten to where you are now at five cents an hour? Hypothetical question obviously, the answer is no. If you spend every cent you make on food, clothing, shelter, and medicine, there is no opportunity to save money and get ahead. None.

 

[Foxi4]

Okay, and would you have ever gotten to where you are now at five cents an hour? Hypothetical question obviously, the answer is no. If you spend every cent you make on food, clothing, shelter, and medicine, there is no opportunity to save money and get ahead. None.

The worst-paying job I ever partook in paid the equivalent of £1 an hour, although admittedly that was well over a decade ago and in Poland, where wages are lower in general. I was also still in school, so hey. In regards to your other question, when I needed more earnings, I *worked more*. I have a little saying - "I like money more than I like myself". Imagine Uncle Pennybags, also known as the Monopoly Man. That's me. I was willing to grind hard in the present to have a little luxury in the future, and it paid off. Good for me, none of that belongs to anyone but myself. I'm sorry that my investment into my own future is so odd to you.

 

[_abysswalker_]

I
That's a nice, if naive way to think about things. Yes, not everyone has the same opportunities. Everyone has the option to not do smack in their spare time. As I said, this isn't *always* the case, simply often - often enough to be statistically significant. I didn't make those numbers, numbers are numbers.

I could definitely be naive. But at this moment I believe you're too self-consumed to admit any error in your statements. I'll let others pick up.

 

[SG854]

It's a known fallacy to reflect on the past anachronistically and thus overestimate where we at today. We tend to confuse technological advancement with progress - if that's all it takes then things can only get better so we might as well sit back and enjoy the effortless ride to betterment.


Have you even seen interviews of Aboriginal people? In comparison, the average modern man is monkey with grenade. We definitely lost something along the way.

Not really because new innovations aren't going to invent themselves. We can't just sit back. Advancement happens because of all the contributions people do and continue to do. This can't stop.

Factually we are better off today and it is not a fallacy to compare the progress over the years. Especially to analyze what systems works best. And so to see how we can improve. There is always room for improvement.


Not all people are crazy. Not all people in the modern world is a crazy grenade person. We are relatively safer then in the past. Crime overall has gone down. We are making progress and continue to do so.

 

[Foxi4]

I could definitely be naive. But at this moment I believe you're too self-consumed to admit any error in your statements. I'll let others pick up.

I look at statistics, I draw a conclusion. The data is what it is, I didn't research it, social scientists did. I'm just presenting the data to support my point - people who are poor are often times not poor because "the system screwed them over", they're poor because they do things that make them poor, and continue doing them up to the point of homelessness. I feel for them, but I'm not responsible for them.

 

[Xzi]

The worst-paying job I ever partook in paid the equivalent of £1 an hour, although admittedly that was well over a decade ago and in Poland, where wages are lower in general.

So roughly 20x the amount provided in my hypothetical, and at a time when the dollar/pound/Euro had more buying power. Not that you should've been made to work at that low of a wage regardless.

In regards to your other question, when I needed more earnings, I *worked more*. I have a little saying - "I like money more than I like myself".

So you worked probably more than 40 hours in some weeks and probably didn't even get paid overtime for it. You got exploited, that's not something to be proud of, it's something to be angry about. But Stockholm syndrome sets in easier for some of us than others I guess. All I'm suggesting is that anyone working a full-time job be paid enough to live on, which is probably already the case in Poland. It's definitely the case in a lot of other developed countries. For some reason too much to ask for in America, though.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

I'm not gonna get into long winded arguments here considering how many here have their heads up their behinds despite being shown how communism doesn't work, instead I'll take this opportunity to plug this very interesting docu-mini-series related to this that's posted on youtube.



Take out two hours of your time or take breaks in between watching parts, but I highly suggest watching it. And if you don't wanna, your choice. I won't force you to watch like a communist dictator would

 

[_abysswalker_]

Not all people are crazy. Not all people in the modern world is a crazy grenade person. We are relatively safer then in the past. Crime overall has gone down. We are making progress and continue to do so.

Our perception of progress is quite different. It's a Brave New World - I'm just a savage.

I look at statistics, I draw a conclusion. The data is what it is, I didn't research it, social scientists did.

What statistics man the article you linked only refers to US. One can only wonder how the numbers will change if we include Latin America or Africa.

 

[Foxi4]

So roughly 20x the amount provided in my hypothetical, and at a time when the dollar/pound/Euro had more buying power. Not that you should've been made to work at that low of a wage regardless.

Your hypothetical is not realistic, nobody is paying anybody in pennies. I also wasn't "forced" to do anything - I happily agreed, and enjoyed it. It's always nice to have pocket money, the job was easy and had some other benefits. Working at a brewery? 10/10, especially when the big man isn't home. Liquid gold straight from the tap? Yes, please.

So you worked probably more than 40 hours in some weeks and probably didn't even get paid overtime for it. You got exploited, that's not something to be proud of, it's something to be angry about. But Stockholm syndrome sets in easier for some of us than others I guess. All I'm suggesting is that anyone working a full-time job be paid enough to live on, which is probably already the case in Poland. It's definitely the case in a lot of other developed countries. For some reason too much to ask for in America, though.

Is this a counselling session now? I assure you, I was not exploited - I was happy to do it, job was a lot of fun. It also wasn't out of line compared to other jobs in the sector, and the wage wasn't unusual for someone in my age group. It's simply funny to think about when compared to my current earnings which are obviously many orders of magnitude higher. Different economy, different standards. Poland is still recovering from all the "communist prosperity", even today - the UK doesn't have that problem. It's good to remember where you came from - it's humbling, and it lets you enjoy the finer things in life so much more. I was also always paid handsomely for overtime, which I was very keen on. Thanks, but I don't need any "help" - I know how to read a contract. 40 hour work weeks, oh boy, you underestimate what a greedy Polish man can achieve when they have a goal in mind. I'm very proud of all the work I've done throughout my life - there's no shame in it, no matter what the job is. Productivity is a virtue.

 

[Xzi]

Your hypothetical is not realistic, nobody is paying anybody in pennies.

That's what a lot of corporations pay for overseas labor, and it's what a lot of them wish they could pay here. But yeah, realistically even undocumented immigrants get about half of minimum wage under the table. Far too little to live on when even minimum wage isn't enough. So abolishing the minimum wage would quickly turn the US into a third-world country. Maybe that's something you'd like to see? IDK.

I was also always paid handsomely for overtime

Well that's good at least, and it sounds like you had more than enough money to live well on. But one shouldn't have to be young and fit, and go well beyond a standard week's worth of work to achieve the same. Corporations seize more and more control over the job market every year, they can afford to pay above the poverty line in every part of the country. Not to mention pay their fair share in taxes. Nobody's gonna feel sorry for Jeff Bezos if/when he can't afford his third leisure trip to space.

 

[Foxi4]

Well that's good at least, and it sounds like you had more than enough money to live well on. But one shouldn't have to be young and fit, and go well beyond a standard week's worth of work to achieve the same. Corporations seize more and more control over the job market every year, they can afford to pay above the poverty line in every part of the country. Nobody's gonna feel sorry for Jeff Bezos if/when he can't afford his third leisure trip to space.

I'm not envious of Jeff's fortune, that's his money. I applaud his ingenuity and commend his entrepreneurship. I'd like him a little bit more if AWS wasn't picky about hosting on the basis of the customer's political alignment, but ultimately it's his company. Amazon as a corporation is getting dangerously close to monopolising certain sectors of the market and perhaps should be broken up into smaller chunks in the foreseeable future, but that's Amazon, not Jeff Bezos the guy. It's also a state of affairs that, in large part, was directly caused by the government putting unnecessary road blocks in the way of smaller companies, preventing them from being able to compete with the big boys. Nothing new under the sun, really.

That's what a lot of corporations pay for overseas labor, and it's what a lot of them wish they could pay here. But yeah, realistically even undocumented immigrants get about half of minimum wage under the table. Far too little to live on when even minimum wage isn't enough. So abolishing the minimum wage would quickly turn the US into a third-world country. Maybe that's something you'd like to see? IDK.

I don't base my policy prescriptions on what illegal aliens do - they're illegal aliens, they shouldn't be in the country in the first place. I suspect that the market would normalise wages across the board to whatever it can bear, just like in any other industry that does not pay minimum wage. Perhaps it would put an end to 0-hour contracts and other assorted nonsense employers have to resort to in order to afford a workforce. I would much rather see a company employ one person full-time than two part-time. I also suspect it would cause significant growth, which opens more job opportunities. In regards to earnings in third-world countries, again, supply and demand. Different economy, different expectations in regards to wages.

 

[FAST6191]

Gaslighting at its finest. A higher and higher percentage of income goes to the upper class every year. Any major corporation in America could afford to pay its low-level workers $30 an hour and still rake in record profits. The problem is greed, pure and simple.


You advocate for keeping minimum wage below the poverty line. So you're advocating for taxpayers to continue making up the difference.

Can't bothered to go check that claim, though even assuming it is true it is not a bad thing from where I sit. Good for them.

Something is worth what someone is willing to pay.

If someone is going to keep giving me a 9 to 5, 5 days a week (or whatever) of useful labour for my offered wage (presumably as low as I can get it) then why would I argue if I am out to keep my costs low?

Okay, and would you have ever gotten to where you are now at five cents an hour? Hypothetical question obviously, the answer is no. If you spend every cent you make on food, clothing, shelter, and medicine, there is no opportunity to save money and get ahead. None.

Would someone take that job that pays the hypothetical 5 cents an hour and expect to live on it*? If the pay and conditions are not for you then don't go do it. People do have agency after all.
*there are plenty of things people did for some extra spending money, for something to do when retired, because they liked the field (met plenty of trust fund types that did art, archaeology, non profit stuff, weird aspects of law, for the travel, for the experience, hobbies into not quite vanity businesses but almost and so on).

There comes a point where intangible things and incentives other than money (the and conditions part is important there, or more generally why incentives is the term generally picked by those playing in the field rather than just money) which makes the calculation of minimums a non trivial task, even not withstanding unique conditions of the individual and psychology in general (even if I think this "company doing right ought to pay its employs a proportional amount of the earnings" is nonsense it is apparently a thing some think and thus gets to be factored into calculations somewhere).