McDonalds shows how you can live on minimum wage -- Oops! Maybe not

So it's just socialism then? No matter how hard you work, everyone has the same amount of money? (Or a little bit more that you 'allow' me to have.)

You're utopia sounds like a government controlled dictatorship.

Have you read any dystopian stories? They all have this same premise and it always end up badly.

 

He may fall over from shock, but I have to agree with JJ here. I just don't think human nature is capable of going this route. Someone is always in power. Power always corrupts.

 

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]: Having read your posts on other things, and knowing you are very right wing, I am completely unsurprised with your opinion. And of course, you have every right to it! In todays world, people who don't have health, money, family support or a win in a postcode lottery are suffering (a majority). In my proposed system, everyone who is extremely greedy will suffer because they can't indulge their greed. Is that really so bad? At least they'll have their basic human rights respected, and live in a cleaner, better world with less crime becuase there's less under-privilege, which breeds crime, violence illness etc (this is proven in psychiatry since the 1960s, and it's been validated in a hundred different ways, so it's a fact, not a theory).

I answered your "dictatorship" comment in my reply to Liz, but suffice it to say, perhaps you should read more sociology and even sci-fi and less dystopian or anti-communist propaganda literature I am not advocating communism or even socialism. I have no issue with private property, I just want to see it capped, so one person, or a corporation or a family can't hog trillions of pounds while people are starving on the streets. I don''t have a name for the new system, but I'm sure eventually, someone will come up with one.

In short, the greedys will have a thousand times better quality of life under the empathic system, than the underprivileged have under the greedy system. That in itself is an indication of which idea is better. And since people are a herd, and easily convinced of anything, I'm sure that given half a chance, they'd be rooting for the empathic system at least as much as you are rooting for the greedy one.

[MENTION=38553]chicagoliz[/MENTION]: I disagree, as you can imagine. In my experience, vast majority of people embrace the idea of a more equal society. However, as a race we are plagued by psychopaths, who make up approximately 2% of any population. These people intrinsically lack empathy, are cruel and exploitative, glib, superficial, greedy and lazy and pathological liars. They also tend to aim for and successfully occupy positions of power. And then you have the mentality of the herd, where the herd tends to side with the most violent or powerful (or both, as they often go hand in hand) individual, because they don't want to be their target. It's a complex interplay of motivations, defence mechanisms etc, and it's all been debated and analysed for years. But if you learn from your mistakes, put safeguards in place and remain vigilant, you might get a couple thousand years of progress with that new system, until it gets too corrupted (like the one we have did) at which point I'm sure there'll be new and improved ideas.

My idea might be impossible, but a version of it won't be impossible for long. And "being in charge" doesn't mean it has to be the same person, or one person or any current two-party dictatorship we misguidedly call a democracy. Democracy was possible only in slavery, where only the patricians had any power and pleb didn't. It's exactly the same today, so we shouldn't be surprised. But to claim that an ancient system of government is somehow superior or even adequate in this day and age is a lie. Like I said before, if someone can't or won't get out of the box, thinking-wise, they also can't imagine things changing significantly.

 

The issue is I don't agree with your presuppositions:

• Money is bad.
• Rich people are evil.
• It is spiritual or noble to be poor.
• Underdogs and the little guys are good, big entities are bad.
• You have to sell your soul to get rich.
• Rich people have lots of money, but they also have many additional problems. Being rich isn't worth it.
• Money causes good people to go bad.

This is a mentality that is usually ingrained in our minds at a very early age, and then it is bolstered by movies and TV, which make the rich out to be evil.

A few years ago, I studied the people on the 100 richest people in America and what I found were a lot of good, successful people that started something small, and it grew into a large profit. Most of the time, these people sacrificed everything they had, worked 80 hours a week and suffered multiple setbacks on the way to the top. These people are happy that their hard work paid off, and now their children and their grandchildren never have to worry about where their next meal is going to come from. These are not evil people. These are hard-working, self-sacrificing Americans.

Even Sam Walton, founder of Wal-mart had an idea in 1945. He was working for J.C. Penny and he thought that he could operate with less profit and pass the savings on to the customer in the form of low prices. Obviously, making things more affordable to people made his company extremely profitable.

But none of these people were out to make money, rather, they were striving to achieve the things money can buy, such as financial security and legacy.

I believe that we are all created equal by God, that we all start from the same place in life. Naked and screaming. After that, it is up to us to make the most of our lives, no matter what that dream happens to be.

Frankly, I think you put too much worth on money. As Tolkien said, 'Not all who wander are lost' and not everyone who is poor is suffering. Things like love, family, friendship and spirituality operate outside of monetary margins.

Think about it.


The system in America may have flaws, but it's the best system that humans have created.

 

Do you really believe that?

Do you class 'flaws' as basic errors or fatal mistakes?

 

No, it is the best system on the planet, although it is not perfect.

Seeing how humans are imperfect, any system that involves them will be imperfect.

Democracy and capitalism are the twin pillars of a free society that uses the natural tendencies of humans to give the most benefit to the most people.

 

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]:

JJ, these are your words, not mine. I never said any of those things, nor do I believe any of them. In fact, if I didn't encounter people with your beliefs and style of debating before (riddled with logical fallacies, perhaps you should re-read the very rules of logic and debate you posted on the forum not too long ago!) I'd be offended. So for me, this is the end of our conversation, I'm afraid. It was fun while it lasted, and I like talking to you, don't take me wrong. But if I start responding to false accusations, this will deteriorate below a level I like to communicate at. I hope you understand

 

So the American system just has a few imperfections? I'm not here to argue with you by the way. I used to float off from afar about the American Dream but I think I've grown out of it. American politics have completely clouded any rose tinted glasses I may have worn.

To hear you talking about giving most benefit to the most people makes you sound like a socialist even though from recent arguments I'd say you were about as socialist as Mitt Romney. If America's system is so beneficial to most people why hasn't Obamacare came in yet and why is half the country so dead against it?

 

It's your right to end the conversation, but understand that you can't say that your dream utopia not only punishes, but prosecutes accumulation of wealth, and then say you don't believe wealth accumulation is wrong.

You contradict yourself.

 

[MENTION=45548]Selbbin[/MENTION] and [MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]: I am pretty stunned how could you possibly see communist Russia in what I suggested? I actually based the credits idea on sci-fi novels by Peter Hamilton (I highly recommend the Void Trilogy, but also Mars Trilogy by Robinson, for good imagination regarding starting from scratch) because it sounded like so much fun. And obviously Star Trek, which determined my values as a human being more than anything else.

Trying to control uncontrollable greed (I am not against being rich, because one can be rich without being a menace to society) because that has just about destroyed our economy, is not destroying human rights. It's a pragmatic response to the problems we became aware of. If uncontrolled accumulation of wealth actually worked for our economy, I'd be supporting it. It doesn't, so I'm trying to philosophise a better way.

Heck, forget the credits and cap individual wealth to an arbitrary number, say 10 million US dollars equivalent, and stick to it. Can you honestly give me a reasonable example of an individual who needs more than that to live really comfortably? Remember, every member of family can have up to that, and still we'd liberate enormous amounts to cover the cost of a more human-friendly society. Severely disabled babies who'll need 24 hours nursing care for their entire lives, are awarded less than that to comfortably cover the lifetime costs of such complete care. Don't tell me that buying 16 Ferraris every year is a good enough reason for some old age pensioner to eat from rubbish bins because his medical bills bankrupted him at the age of 87. I just don't understand, where's the empathy gone, guys?

It just goes to show how deep anti-communist, anti-socialist paranoia goes in the western world You are seeing ghosts where they don't exist.

 

The problem is that you are putting limits on people. If it's one thing I can say about people and humanity in general is that we don't like limits and we certainly don't like ceilings on success.

And putting a 'cap' on success doesn't change the dynamic, it just lowers the ceiling. As the saying goes, 'In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.'

It's just against everything humanity stands for and it can't be helped. Sure, we can pass laws to protect the less fortunate, but not at the expense of the successful.

Also, I think you exaggerate the affect of the wealthy on our society and our economy. They are the engine of our economy and the standard-bearers of American freedom and the American dream. If every Facebook, Apple and Wal-mart left our country, we would be a destitute wasteland.

 

I'm not sure this is completely true, and something makes me also remember this is the plot of Atlas Shrugged.

There will always be someone in our economic system who wants to make money after all. Sure the economy might not be as good, but there will always be someone who has plenty of talent and good ideas, and wants to make money. It's just now they are being overlooked and haven't caught a break yet because of the prevalence of the more established. If someone ever pulls a John Galt then that could actually be what saves some current unknown's life and livelihood. Obviously I don't think pulling the big money out of any economy is a good idea but that's the problem I always have with that novel actually, what is it about the Dagny Taggart types that means they, specifically are the atlases of the world?

Also, the other thing I always have a problem with that novel with is that some jobs that are thought of as very basic and rather menial, are actually a lot of hard work and require a lot of hard work. I don't know, I just couldn't imagine anyone on the board of United Defense knowing how to properly farm and tend crops say. Also, when you read the bit about Galt's back story (somewhere around the end of part 1 and beginning of part 2, it is 10,000 pages or something) Galt's based his entire idea on what are said to be mere observations.

 

Whoa! "Atlas Shrugged" anybody?

I'm pretty sure you are making an unfounded claim.


Historically when the wealth gets too concentrated at the top, especially when the middle class deteriorates, societies don't do well at all. Social unrest and revolutions become much more likely. The strength of the US economy has always been the American Dream, everyone of every economic class has a chance at success.

But as the current effort grows to cut social safety nets, to cut money for health care, and especially cuts in funding for education, then the bridge to the top falls away. The poor cannot get the education, and do not have access to the means to become the next Henry Ford or Bill Clinton.

You may not find many more Sam Waltons when college becomes too expensive to borrow and work your way through it. Current debt for college loans exceeds that of credit card debt in this country. You can't start up a WalMart when you start out with huge debt right out of college. Zuckerberg was attending Harvard when his business took of and Microsoft and Apple founders also started out with access to an education in technology. Gate's family was wealthy before Microsoft was founded. Wozniak and Jobs had jobs at HP in high school!

It takes a good economy to create very many of these rags to riches stories. It takes access to resources and education. When the wealth is too top heavy, consumption slows and the economy slows with it.

What the US needs is a strong middle class. 'Too many WalMarts' is not such a good thing.

 

But our safety nets have become safety hammocks and are bloated out of proportion, unregulated and abused.

Food stamps is a joke, welfare is rediculous and more and more people are just sitting back and living off the government teet.

And as much as jazzabel thinks it, the US economy is not just located between Canada and Mexico anymore. We are far closer to a worldwide economy than we are a US economy.

There are so many factors as to the decline of the middle class and the accumulation of wealth by the few at the top is far, far down the list.

The number one reason for the decline of the middle class, in my opinion is the decline in morality and responsibility, and the government has its hand in furthering both of those in the wrong direction.

 

Hey there forum-goers;

I'll preface my post with the admission that I haven't read every single post in this thread yet (I've read ~ the first 5 pages so far) but... I haven't seen anyone make mention of the invisible elephant in the room: overpopulation. I know it can turn into a contentious topic, and I actually don't intend to stick around squabbling over the drama bomb that it may set off, but when you strike down to the root cause behind (take your pick: war, poverty, famine, crime, child abuse, human trafficking, enslavement, etc.) I at least come time and time again to one and the same factor: overpopulation. Anyone who has traveled to India or throughout much of southeast Asia (or lives / lived there) should have a good idea of what I mean.

Just wanted to throw that out as some food for thought.

Cheers;

- Alexandria de Loraine

 

Only for those feeding at the corporate trough.

You rarely (if ever?) post supporting evidence for your beliefs, JJ, and many of us have come to different conclusions when we look at the evidence in front of us.

I think the number one reason is the the lack of wage increases in every income group except at the top. Huge increases in top management pay and a flat curve for everyone else despite the fact production is up has led to a leveling off of demand. You can't concentrate all the money at the top then expect that money to circulate in a healthy economy.

There is no evidence people are becoming lazy takers as the more extreme right wing narrative would have people believe.

 

When economies improve, and after a lag of about a decade, population increases decline markedly.

There is obviously a potential point of collapse as the world's overall population continues to increase. Oil can't last forever, regardless if we've reached 'peak oil' or not. And the even more ominous shortage threatens to be a water crisis, especially as mountain glaciers, the source of water for much of the world's population, dry up.

I just don't know how critical the population crisis currently is. We grow more food with modern technology. As oil is used up alternative energy can be expected to be developed, and desalination technology is going to have to improve. But the planet can probably tolerate population growth and it may not be a foregone outcome that the population always continues to grow.

 

To postulate that government has enough personnel to properly administer the social programs is just silliness.

Unemployment Insurance has little to no oversight. Food Stamps allows you to buy cake, candy and soda pop. Welfare is given to people with HD televisions.

How can you say these programs are working? The government is simply pouring this money out into the country hand over fist and it is bankrupting our country.

Funny, I saw jazzabel make some fantastical statements as truths and you were silent. I suppose your quest for truth in reporting only applies to your detractors. Not surprised.

Unfortunately, our nation is spiraling out of control morally. Out society is veering away from traditional values and is finding itself paying the piper.

Our marriage rates have dropped almost 70% over the past 50 years. More and more women are becoming single mothers due to promiscuity and this leads to a poor outlook for the children.

Without the benefits of an intact family, children born and raised outside marriage are 82 percent more likely to live in poverty and tend to fare worse on a wide range of economic measures. In their teens, they are more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as becoming sexually active, engaging in substance abuse, and exhibiting anti-social behavior. They fare worse on emotional and psychological outcomes and have lower levels of academic achievement and educational attainment.

...and yet we ignore that and instead blame the successful people for the failures of our younger generation.

Why not? Stay home and watch TV or go to work? Which is better? As long as the government keeps handing out free money, the people are going to keep taking it. We need to stop the money and let people fail. This boat is taking too much water and we need to stop it soon or it's going to be too late.

 

Did you totally misunderstand my post? Because your answer makes no sense to me.

Unemployment is covered by insurance payments. It's not a welfare program. And as long as unemployment rates are high, I think abuse makes up a pretty small percentage of the payments.

Again with the claims and no data.

Answered in a PM.

This is just crap. Society has no obligation to meet your moral standard.

Have you considered your assumptions about cause and effect are flawed? My son, raised by a single mother because his father left after a 6 year relationship when I got pregnant, just got his master's degree. I couldn't have asked for a nicer more well behaved kid (clearly didn't take after his mother, raised in the perfect middle class, two parent home and out of control from the age of 12 until several years on my own). Yes that's an anecdotal argument, but it still challenges your cause and effect assumptions.

Common fantasy not supported by evidence.