It's May Day: Let Us Praise Socialism

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@magellan01

Wait, I thought there were food banks?

Are there no workhouses? I hope nothing has happened to stop them in their useful course.

[XT]

@Blalron

Working at starvation point is ultimately just as coercive as working at gunpoint.

Who are you talking about who is working at ‘starvation point’?

-XT

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Algher

People have that (and in some cases less, as I did) BECAUSE they work. If they could get all of that withOUT work - I think that many would stop working.

We can see this in some of the areas of the nation that have endemic multi-generational welfare (as it used to be called) families.

If I had a choice of stock shelves at Wal Mart to get myself (and my kids) a private room, food, AC, clothes, TV and internet and not doing a damned thing and getting all of that too - I might just stop working at Wal Mart.

My point, dear Algher, is not: you think X and I think Y and I guess were at at a standstill, because everyone is entitled to is opinion.

It is rather that you think X and I have shown X to be demonstably false. Your position that if we provide people with a bare minimum standard of living, then most people will withdraw from the labor force is manifestly untrue: people work at levels far exceeding what they need to do if they would be content to just have that minimum. There is no reason to suppose that these people, who already work in excess of the amount needed to maintain a meager lifestyle, would cease to do so if that were provided to them for free.

Notice also that this argument had nothing at all to do with what you personally might choose to do in such a scenario. So I’m not sure what you suppose your remark about your relative preferences about working at walmart is supposed to prove. Although, I might note, you yourself also work at a level well beyond that needed to provide yourself with a bare minimum of goods. So, while you might imagine you would opt for the free trailer, your actual behavior shows even this to be untrue. If that were so, why is that you earn for more than necessary to attain that level of a lifestyle?

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Captor

It does not describe the United States, we have pretty much dismantled what social safety net we had, not that it didn’t suck.

I call bullshit. Unless you got some cites.

And I wish to praise the socialist aspect of social democracies, the caring about others, the sense of social cohesion, the sense that everybody might have something of value to contribute to their society.

That sounds more like religion to me.

[Evil_Captor]

@ITR_champion

Eh, I view any capitalism vs. socialism debate as kind of like an argument about whether it’s better to have your kneecap shattered or your kidney removed with no anaesthetic, but I do have to say one thing about this argument.

Don’t you think it’s a little bit strange to be arguing, right now, that the European approach to economics will “triumph”? Surely you’re aware of what’s happened and is still happening in Europe.

A) If you have a better economic/social system than capitalism or socialism I would love to hear about it.

B) Sure, but is the problem socialism or the Eurozone? What I heard was that the Eurozone opened up European markets to Germany, which got rich exploiting said markets, much to the disadvantage of the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain). Now that the weaker economies are collapsing, spurred by bad planning and unwillingness to take responsibility on the part of their governments (and by widespread corruption and tax evasion in Greece).

Saying what’s wrong is Europe is “socialism” is simplistic. It’s like saying what’s wrong with America that led to 2008 is “capitalism.”

[Evil_Captor]

@Algher

You have more faith in people than I do. I think that if you provided all of that, we would have a significant percentage of the population happily living on the dole for life. Hell, that describes something BETTER than I had until my mid-20s. Prior to that I had no TV nor did I have a private room. Food was only acquired through this thing called work.

I disagree, it’s not FAITH. It’s CYNICISM. I think Americans will want that great big flat screen TV. I think Americans will want Ipods and Ipads. I think Americans, ESPECIALLY female Americans, will want nice clothes. I think Americans will want to eat out instead of having another plate of rice and beans. They would want a nice big house with full kitchens. I think they will be willing, nay eager, to work to get those things. Sure, there will be some percentage of Americans who would just sit at home and eat their beans and watch their 19 inch TV set and play video games and otherwise do nothing, but I just don’t think they will be a large portion of Americans. Even slackers eventually get jobs.

Given the ability of many to try to stretch out various government support payments through multiple generations, I think that the negative incentives of your program would quickly sink the economy of our nation.

I get the impression you think practically no one would work. I disagree, as I have said. I think work would be a LOT more attractive to most Americans if it invariably resulted in Americans getting things they wanted, rather than just helped them barely maintain themselves in a manner not as good as the one I am proposing.

You claim that we have dismantled so much - while there is much to be done, Medicaid, Social Security, TANF and other programs still exist. Free public schools, Head Start, lunch programs are still offered. Families making under $100k can send their kids to Stanford for free. It is not like the entire welfare apparatus of the US has been dismantled - the main attack was the Welfare to Work shift that happened under Clinton and the Republican House.

So what? NONE of those programs will allow people to live decent lives as far as staying fed, clothed and housed for more than a brief time. They are just peripherals, save for Medicaid, which I would gladly see replaced with more cost-effective universal health care.

[Evil_Captor]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

It’s true, is it not, that most people have more than meager means described in the program (a room to live in that has heat and air conditioning, enough food to keep you healthy, health care basic clothing and basic cable Internet and TV to keep you hooked into the culture) that you object to?

Considering that no one today is obligated to work for any more than this (or, indeed, work for even this little), doesn’t that suggest that your lack of “faith in people” is pretty much torn to ribbons by the fact that people conventionally do aspire to and work for and achieve more than this?

In other words, your premise—if we provide these basics, many people will not work at all—is discredited by the fact that many people every day maintain much more plentiful lifestyles by the sweat of their brow. Is it your contention that these people will stop if they knew they were guaranteed a trailer with AC and a teevee?

Very well put.

[Evil_Captor]

@Algher

People have that (and in some cases less, as I did) BECAUSE they work. If they could get all of that withOUT work - I think that many would stop working.

We can see this in some of the areas of the nation that have endemic multi-generational welfare (as it used to be called) families.

If I had a choice of stock shelves at Wal Mart to get myself (and my kids) a private room, food, AC, clothes, TV and internet and not doing a damned thing and getting all of that too - I might just stop working at Wal Mart.

Sure you would, but if your work allowed you to get all sorts of the neat goods and services that are out there, like dinner out at good restaurants, big screen TVS, a nice car, etc., you just might keep working!

[Algher]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

My point, dear Algher, is not: you think X and I think Y and I guess were at at a standstill, because everyone is entitled to is opinion.

It is rather that you think X and I have shown X to be demonstably false. Your position that if we provide people with a bare minimum standard of living, then most people will withdraw from the labor force is manifestly untrue: people work at levels far exceeding what they need to do if they would be content to just have that minimum. There is no reason to suppose that these people, who already work in excess of the amount needed to maintain a meager lifestyle, would cease to do so if that were provided to them for free.

Notice also that this argument had nothing at all to do with what you personally might choose to do in such a scenario. So I’m not sure what you suppose your remark about your relative preferences about working at walmart is supposed to prove. Although, I might note, you yourself also work at a level well beyond that needed to provide yourself with a bare minimum of goods. So, while you might imagine you would opt for the free trailer, your actual behavior shows even this to be untrue. If that were so, why is that you earn for more than necessary to attain that level of a lifestyle?

But it is not demonstrably false. The study linked above found that giving cash reduced the numbers of hours worked. We can find examples today of people who will only work the bare minimum to handle the bottom tier of Maslow’s hierarchy. We can also find examples of people today who make a rational decision to stay on TANF as long as possible rather than take a job that would only be an equal substitution.

Next, you seem to have missed that the proposal was for far more than mere substinence level of living. It was a for a private room for all family members, healthy food, clothing, heating and air conditioning, healthcare, television and internet. That is something that many people strive for, and work a full 40 hour week just to accomplish. If all of that were suddenly free for the taking under the Socialist utopia, the bottom of the labor market would drop out. This is simple labor economics - where the rational actor would look at gaining 40+ hours per week of free time in exchange for either keeping or even improving their current lifestyle.

I don’t oppose a social safety net. I think that Social Security is a good thing. I think that Medicaid is also good. I think that TANF is necessary, as is free schooling for all kids. Even our progressive tax system is OK, though I think we need to rethink much of our tax code for a variety of reasons.

But suddenly offering up a free decent lifestyle to all takers, with no means testing and no requirement to give back is a terrible idea.

[Algher]

@Evil_Captor

Sure you would, but if your work allowed you to get all sorts of the neat goods and services that are out there, like dinner out at good restaurants, big screen TVS, a nice car, etc., you just might keep working!

Sure- I will put in 5 hours this week to buy an Xbox. But hell, I have free tv and internet so I won’t do it during baseball season. Now - whats on the healthy free lunch list for today? By the way, the AC in my room is acting up - can you get it fixed please?

[Evil_Captor]

@XT

We spend more on our social safety net than many countries yearly GDP. What you really mean here is that, IYHO we don’t spend enough of our money on it, not the ridiculous hyperbole that we’ve dismantled the thing in any meaningful way, considering the staggering sums we pay for it as a nation.

Meaningless statement. Individual Americans make more than some countries’ GDP. Our economy is a LOT bigger than most countries’ of course our govt. programs outstrip them.

I think my program would ultimately be cheaper.

I’m sure you THINK you do, but as John noted what you really like is a mixed economy, with capitalism doing the heavy lifting and making it work so you and your fellow socialist types can spend the money on more netting. If you took capitalism out of the equation then your socialism would fall flat on it’s face, since economically it sucks big donkey wankage and always has. You don’t like where the bar is set in the US (and that’s a valid beef), but instead of acknowledging that you want to try and use handwaving and eye watering hyperbole that isn’t related to reality. We HAVE your mixed economy, along with very expensive social safety net. We can afford it BECAUSE we have a basic, regulated capitalist economy. It doesn’t hum along as well as it could, IMHO due to folks such as yourself, but it works well enough to be able to, so far, afford all that social goodness you crave. Just like our European brethren and sistren, who have adopted a similar system. The only meaningful difference is where they set the various bars for taxation and safety nettage (and how much they are willing to pony up for the common defense of western civilization of course).

You conservatives crack me up. Any spending on social safety netting will break the bank, but hey, a needless war in the Middle East? A cake walk! Sorry, not buying it, buddy.

[Evil_Captor]

@XT

Unless someone is putting a gun to the heads of the employees, then SOMEONE thinks that their labor is worth the paltry pay. If not, then companies wouldn’t be able to keep people on for starvation wages and would be forced to either do away with the job (probably though automation or sending it overseas where someone else might make a different cost to benefit calculation) or increase wages to entice someone to take the job.

-XT

There is no effective difference between forcing someone to work for low wages with a gun to the head and forcding them to work for low wages because they have no other way to obtain food. It is EXACTLY the same thing.

[Evil_Captor]

@magellan01

And those who don’t want “something more” get to just sit on their lazy asses? What a brilliant plan! :rolleyes:

So fucking what? The food is available, but that’s not enough? You want delivery, too? Unfuckingbelievable. :rolleyes:

And how about if people want to work more hours to further themselves? Or does your little dsytopian dream not allow the desire to improve one’s lot in life. You know, you really should try to think this shit through at least a teensy weeny amount. :rolleyes:

I’ve already answered two of these points, I have to say, though, the rolleyes do nothing to add to your points and perhaps are not making you look very smart.

Well yes, it’s tough, but there it is, if employers have a way to make people work 60 hours a week for low wages, they will. Sorry about your imaginary friend, but against the widespread abuse your hypothetical person is just gonna have to suck it up and, you know, have a life.

[Evil_Captor]

@magellan01

So, let them contribute it, get fairly compensated and pay for their own existence. What is wrong with that?

A lovely sentiment, I fully support it. But that phrase “fairly compensated” … I believe that is one of the details the devil lives in.

[magellan01]

@Evil_Captor

Well yes, it’s tough, but there it is, if employers have a way to make people work 60 hours a week for low wages, they will. Sorry about your imaginary friend, but against the widespread abuse your hypothetical person is just gonna have to suck it up and, you know, have a life.

So, you really want to prevent people from having the opportunity to work more, which would allow them to better provide for things they want or need?

How in the world do you justify standing between a person and him bettering his, and his family’s, lot in life?

[magellan01]

@Evil_Captor

A lovely sentiment, I fully support it. But that phrase “fairly compensated” … I believe that is one of the details the devil lives in.

No, not really. “Fairly compensated” means what people will pay for it. Become a brain surgeon and you’ll find society values that quite a bit. Become a tambourine musician who likes to hacky-sack between sets and you might not to be thrilled with your level of compensation.

[magellan01]

@Evil_Captor

There is no effective difference between forcing someone to work for low wages with a gun to the head and forcding them to work for low wages because they have no other way to obtain food. It is EXACTLY the same thing.

Actually, no. It’s not exactly the same thing. And I think you forgot about food banks, not to mention food stamps and other forms of assistance. If anyone who is not mentally deficient or severely handicapped starves in America, good riddance. Because we don’t need that level of stupid walking amongst us.

[Evil_Captor]

@magellan01

Wait, I thought there were food banks?

Food banks aren’t doing so well,my friend.

[Evil_Captor]

@John_Mace

I call bullshit. Unless you got some cites.

You are asking me to prove a negative, John. If there is some welfare program that permits one to stay fed, clothed and housed for the long term, perhaps you could simply point it out?

That sounds more like religion to me.

Very liberal use of the term “religion” … caring about other human beings is a religion? Perhaps it is merely being human.

[John_Mace]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

My point, dear Algher, is not: you think X and I think Y and I guess were at at a standstill, because everyone is entitled to is opinion.

It is rather that you think X and I have shown X to be demonstably false. Your position that if we provide people with a bare minimum standard of living, then most people will withdraw from the labor force is manifestly untrue…

Except that isn’t his position (emphasis added).