Don’t worry about it. These creationists always just walk in, cast doubt on every piece of supporting evidence in the massive pile all at once, act shocked when they spot what they think are small anomalies that require prerequisite knowledge to understand, and then walk away triumphant in their beliefs yet again.
That pretty much sums up what I see. I actually find it kind of amusing that anyone would imply that my beliefs on this subject are based on blind faith, when it is obvious that I am not the one lacking facts or logic.
That is actually a pretty good challenge. I would be interested in seeing a comparable success story anywhere and any time. It can even be a somewhat smaller example.
it seems to me there’s a certain blurring of the line between personal responsiblity and social responsibility going on here.
I consider it my personal responsibility to take care of myself and my family as best I can no matter what kind of social system I find myself in, by working, trying to make money in biz, selling my abilities at the best price, whatevre. Even if I’m in the worst kind of social system featuring the worst kind of economy – a demand economy under a malevolent dictator, which pretty much describes Soviet Russia under Stalin – I still consider it my responsibility to do as well as I can.
That said, I still consider it reasonable to look at the society around me and see if it’s optimized. A malevolent dictatorship is the bottom of the barrel, get rid of the boob and see if you can get an oligarchy that will at least be value-neutral where regular folk are concerned. Even better, a society which vlaues regular folk.
I see unfettered capitalism as strongly favoreing those who are already wealthy, value-neutral where the middle class is concerned, and malevolent toward the poor. So the first thing you do is get some kind of social safety net so the poor can at least survive the malevolence of capitalism. Since there is, as John Mace points out, a lot of churn between the poor and the middle class, this isn’t all that tall an order. Setting up some knd of pipelilne to turn the poor into productive middle-class workers would make it even easier. In fact, that’s the best way to combat poverty, keep the middle class growing and the giant sucking sound you will hear will be the middle class hovering up all the poor who are capable of being hovered up.
The rich? They can take care of themselves, with all the advantages that capitalism confers n them. They don’t NEED help, in fact, the best thing you can do for the rich is hinder their ability to cannibalize the middle class, which they will do by reflex if not prevented from doing so. And an unhealthy middle class makes for an unhealthy economy, makes for poorer rich people, overall. Thus, any system that keeps the middle class healthy will keep the wealthy healthy.
Likewise, those of us who DO believe in wage controls and labor laws are sick and tired of being accused of being communists.
Tit for tat.
OK, socialists, then, if that word carries less baggage for people. What do you think communism is?
I should have fleshed my comment out more. What I consider myself to be is a capitalist. “Capitalist” is a value-neutral description of the economic system I believe works the best. If I call someone a “communist” I consider that to be a value-neutral description of the economic system THEY seem to subscribe to. I don’t mean for it to be a perjorative. Applying a character trait to me such as “lacking in human compassion” is an ASSUMPTION made about me by people BASED on my belief in capitalism. If I ascribed negative character traits to you based on the economic system you subscribe to, then you would have an analogy. I believe that you base your belief in wage controls on your intention for a better outcome for all. Unfortunately, folks posting here do not give me the generosity of coming to the same conclusion about what I base my beliefs on, and for no good reason that I can see.
But such is the nature of economics, no? It isn’t so much a science as it is a study, it cannot have the advantages of experimentation and falsification, mass human interactions bugger all precision and make hash of irreducible “principles”. The American Enterprise Inst. hasn’t any difficulty at all summoning a battallion of academics to nod in sage and sombre agreement with their editorial stance. A stance which is in exact opposition to the opinions of one such as Paul Krugman, who is rumored to have some expertise in the field of economics (teaches, I hear, at some backwater New Jersey school…).
To progressives, the fundamental issues aren’t centered on method so much as will, the committment of a nation to extend economic equality matters far more than the practical means to accomplish it. But a simple and abundant faith in the “free market” and a principled resistance to any controls contradicts that committment. It is like committing to progress, so long as it doesn’t involve any actual change. American history has already seen a full flowering of an unhindered “free market” and a toxic blossom it was, too.
Seems to me that the Earned Income Credit is modestly successful, as well as perhaps upgrading Nixon from Coach Hell to Business Class Hell. Who knows how many more such experiments remain to be made? And, really, after all, a “free market”? Has ever been, could ever be? Someones thumb is always on the scale, isn’t it?
Communism is an EXTREMIST form, where the government controls EVERYTHING. Have you no sense of moderation, or do you think everything is all black or white?
Until harvest, to be sure. Soylent Gold must have the very creme de la creme, don’t you agree?
Yes, the benign hand of Providence is attached to the politician who thought it would be a good idea to pay people to breed. Institutional welfare created a non-working class of citizen with no ethics or skill. Self-sufficiency cannot be passed down if it does not exist in the family structure.
The concept of a living wage has no basis in logic. The need to earn a suitable wage has no connection to the ability to generate enough profit to pay that wage. McDonalds cannot provide the service it does while paying a “living wage”. There is also no moral reason to do so. It’s not McDonald’s function to provide a living. It’s their function to provide hamburgers. They cannot be compelled to pay a higher wage because consumers cannot be compelled to purchase a more expensive product. The function of earning a desired wage is the responsibility of the wage earner.
Like I said, Socialism, then.
Nah, bet it was the cigar-chomping labor bosses and their anarcho-syndicalist masters…
Such a class existed long before institutional welfare. They were called “rich folks”.
Oh. Well, then. That certainly settles that. Would that be Leviticus, or the Gospel of St. Ayn?
Really? Well, silly us. You mind if we just go ahead anyway, there’s a good fellow…
Unless, of course, a healthy worker is a more productive worker. I’d say that was a pretty good bet. Howzabout you?
MacGiver, you are a fount of certainties in a desert of ambiguity. But might it not provide a different service?
Yes, there is. They’re people, and the answer to Cain’s question is “Yes, you are”.
Nope. But if Miky D can’t function without exploiting its workers, its not a business, it is an incorporated vampire.
Certainly not. But they can be persuaded, rather than compelled. I myself wouldn’t be caught dead in a Starbucks until I heard about the innovations of its rather progressive CEO re healthcare. Now, they are my number one choice when I want to squandor good money on an absurdly complex cup of coffee.
And the duty to ensure that such is possible is ours. As in “we, the people”.
It’s from the Gospel of common sense and it’s written in a language that you will never understand.
To save time let respond to your next post.
Whatever
I didn’t particularly want to engage in the other battle going on right now, but I did want ot concur on that issue-- yes, I think the EITC (you left out “tax”, I assume) is a much more market neutral way of addressing poverty and something I favor. As I said above, let the market do what it does best (create wealth) and let government do what it can-- address the social problems that any large population of humans will have.
Emphasis added.
Socialism nowadays is pretty much massive taxation and the state calling everyone equal, with some state ownership throw in (which is where the taxation comes into play).
A command economy is a government planned economy which is communism, at least practiced by the soviets and the Chinese. Actual communism could never work.
For the moment, I’m going to set aside the debate about people who are forever stuck in poverty if our system remains the same. They’re out there and their numbers are great. I know plenty of people who are impoverished mostly because of choices they’ve made. They are also another debate.
I agree that a drastic increase in MW would not translate to ending poverty. I think it should be raised some, and probably more frequently than it is currently.
I agree with those who say the old welfare programs probably did more harm than good. People, referenced by **Magiver ** when he said "…Self-sufficiency cannot be passed down if it does not exist in the family structure… " are part of that group. But simply tossing them to the wolves isn’t the answer. Rather than falling back to the old ways of issuing checks, generation after generation, we need to concentrate on teaching the skills that parents were either unable or unwilling to teach in the first place.
It involves more than being able to physically do a job. The concept of the modern world and its intricacies can be daunting to someone who doesn’t see someone navigate it on a daily basis. You absorb much of that understanding by watching your parents work their way through it. You see your friends and family take strides and have setbacks and you watch how they manage those situations. If your window to the world lacks exposure to those scenarios, you will most likely be overwhelmed when faced with them yourself.
For starters, I think our schools fall short in teaching basic home economics. All they taught us back in the 70s was a little cooking and sewing. I think they need to teach kids how to open a bank account, how to balance a checkbook, how to set up a savings plan, how to provide nutritious meals, family planning and child development. They need to understand interest and how quickly credit card debt can screw up their ability to stay above water. They also need to provide this instruction to welfare recipients so they’re prepared when they’re mainstreamed into the working world.
There are all sorts of “soft skills” that need to be taught so a welfare-to-work person can function in the workplace. Discipline, punctuality, willingness to take direction, the ability to work with others…all these things are essential to the success of any individual in a work environment.
Workers also need to understand that their contribution is important, no matter how small. They need to know that they are needed to make the business run smoothly. This is something that needs to be reinforced by employers, as well. The best companies will recognize their employees as multi-dimensional people who are more than just a body performing a task.
I also think counselors should be available after a person goes out into the workforce so they have someone to turn to when they hit the bumps in the road. Often times there is no support system; families can’t provide useful advice because they’ve never dealt with those problems effectively themselves.
All of this requires funding. We need to reprioritize if we want to see welfare-to-work folks flourish.
Which is where we are getting to right now.
The thing that Guinastasia missed about my reference to communism is that I wasn’t calling anyone here a communist. What I had said was that IF we want to ensure massive wage increases to people in order to provide a “living wage” (which is what the OP is talking about), then I don’t see a way to do it without massivie inflation, which will lower standards of living until those who were making the living wage no longer are. The ONLY way I can think of to do this is to ALSO fix prices, which is where I said we would be heading into communistic territory.
Yes, of course you can.
Because working at a job offers opportunities for advancement that living on the dole does not. If you work, you can get promoted, gain seniority, change jobs based on your work history and make more, etc. This is neither guaranteed nor automatic, but no one ever moved into the working or middle classes - or the upper class - by living off welfare or because the government increased the minimum wage.
I’ll assume this means that you aren’t going to provide a cite that the numbers of people working for minimum wage in America are “great”, and that poor people are usually stuck in poverty for the rest of their life, and the only chance they have to escape is if the government increases the MV. Too bad - because both those statements are demonstrably false.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, but it’s invisible.
It’s not that we think you are communists. It’s that you fail to take into account the unintended consequences of actions that were supposed to help people. The economy consists of a variety of opposing forces in balance. If you change one, the others will adjust to compensate.