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?

[Kidlicious]

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 bull****e that your teeth are brown....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

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=-

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Kidlicious]

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/indicator.html?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

[Kidlicious]

Here we go with the numbers.

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

This includes families with two earners.

[Kidlicious]

My numbers come from the US Census Bureau.

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