Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Entitlements - what's so bad about them?
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 62 of 138 (723841)
04-09-2014 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NoNukes
04-09-2014 10:23 AM


When the division I worked for in one company was sold to another company, the second company labeled us all 'managers' so we couldn't join the union.
Mind you, my compensation is such that I don't mind, although I really did not like being trained to be a scab when the various union contracts were up (never had to actually BE a scab). But, I thought being labeled as a manager was a bit sly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2014 10:23 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 63 of 138 (723842)
04-09-2014 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Larni
04-09-2014 3:17 PM


One problem is that a lot of jobs in my industry are being put 'off shore'. I know one person who got laid off, and they hired two people to do his job in India. They could not handle the workload, so they hired 4 more! That's six people in India to handle 1 person in the u.s. job, and they can't even do it right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 04-09-2014 3:17 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Larni, posted 04-11-2014 6:25 AM ramoss has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 64 of 138 (723847)
04-10-2014 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote
04-09-2014 12:31 AM


I'm really interested in knowing who the "productive" are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2014 12:31 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 04-10-2014 8:49 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 138 (723849)
04-10-2014 12:55 AM


I can't claim to understand much about economic theory, but I do think some words are getting misused on this thread. I think "productive" from the capitalist point of view refers to those who GET wealthy from CREATING wealth, as from inventions or developing resources or basic things like that, it has nothing to do with how productive (how good a worker) an employee is or anybody on a salary. The idea is that capitalism PRODUCES wealth and the nation as a whole benefits from the production of wealth. This is why America has been the wealthiest nation in history and had the highest standard of living for our poorest. And the incentive to create wealth requires a free market. People here try to say that the wealth so created isn't being created but is being taken from others. I don't see how you get that idea. The wealth that is created is used to pay employees, it puts people to work, it creates all kinds of enterprises that provide all kinds of work for people to do. Sure you need laws to guarantee a fair wage and all that, but the money doesn't already belong to everybody, it does belong to those who create the enterprises. And communism only succeeds in making everybody poor except the governing class, and doesn't inspire invention or any kind of ambition,
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2014 12:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2014 6:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2014 9:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 80 by Larni, posted 04-11-2014 6:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 138 (723850)
04-10-2014 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
04-10-2014 12:55 AM


Sure you need laws to guarantee a fair wage and all that, but the money doesn't already belong to everybody, it does belong to those who create the enterprises
Sounded good up until that point. You certainly have explained why people who never lift anything heavier than a crayon deserve lots of money. But the idea that the people actually sweating do not is quite beyond belief or serious consideration. Perhaps you should try again...

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 04-10-2014 12:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(13)
Message 67 of 138 (723855)
04-10-2014 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
04-10-2014 12:55 AM


Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
In order to get wealthier in a capitalist economy all that you need is capital (i.e. money) to invest. You don't have to be personally entrepreneurial or innovative or even particularly clever (if you have enough money you can pay others to invest it cleverly for you). You just need money and the more of it you have to invest the more wealthy you are likely to become.
Now at it's best a market based capitalist economy will marry up those who have the ideas, innovations and entrepreneurial flair with those who have enough money to invest such that both the investor, the innovator and those actually doing the physical production all get wealthier and society at large benefits from the innovations in question. Technological advancement, job creation, wealth creation etc. Innovation, investment, competition, risk, entrepreneurship, jobs, growth etc. etc. etc. These are the hallmarks of capitalism working well. At it's best it has demonstrated itself to be a very dynamic system of technological advancement and wealth creation.
The problem is that increasingly this isn't really what we have. For the above to work there needs to be a fairly delicate balance between wealth accrued from investment, wealth accrued from providing the innovation in which investors invest and wealth accrued from wages earned producing the actual goods in question.
What we have at the moment is declining/stagnating wages and ever increasing corporate profits paid to those who are not actually providing much innovation at all. The balance between capital and labour has been tipped very much towards the investor side and that is having some fairly stark social consequences.
Add in the fact that increased wealth provides greater political influence and we come to the situation where not only are those with the most capital (i.e. the wealthiest) apportioning themselves the greatest benefits from any economic growth - We also have the cartel like situation whereby huge corporations can privatise massive profits for the few at the top and nationalise their losses such that we have to pickup the pieces when their financial risks don't pay off (i.e. bail-outs).
The idea that Coyote and you seem to have of the self-sufficient country folk being robbed blind by the state demanding taxes bears no relation to the fact that the richest in society are increasingly a city dwelling elite who neither produce nor innovate but who game the financial system to their own ends through the disproportionate political influence their money can buy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 04-10-2014 12:55 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2014 9:29 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 75 by marc9000, posted 04-10-2014 8:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 138 (723861)
04-10-2014 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Straggler
04-10-2014 6:21 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
You don't have to be personally entrepreneurial or innovative or even particularly clever (if you have enough money you can pay others to invest it cleverly for you).
Thanks. I was just going to talk about that. What the heck is productive, inventive, or innovative about Bank of American. As best as I can tell, the only thing they've ever invented are ways to dip into each of my accounts once per month before I finally moved them to a credit union.
I just don't get the mindset that working hard does not earn you anything. We used to suggest that owners were taking all of the risk and could possibly lose everything, while workers always get paid. But I don't recall any Big Bank execs losing anything, while plenty of their associates were dumped out on their butts during a recession.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2014 6:21 AM Straggler has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(7)
Message 69 of 138 (723862)
04-10-2014 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
04-10-2014 12:55 AM


Dear Faith, and Coyote, and Marc9000 ...
... The idea is that capitalism PRODUCES wealth and the nation as a whole benefits from the production of wealth. ...
When that new wealth is properly shared.
... I think "productive" from the capitalist point of view refers to those who GET wealthy from CREATING wealth, as from inventions or developing resources or basic things like that, it has nothing to do with how productive (how good a worker) an employee is or anybody on a salary. ...
This is backwards: getting wealthy doesn't mean you actually did the work to produce that wealth. Let me tell you a personal experience:
I used to work for a plant making a set of products. I was the designer of all new products, and working with crew leaders I also designed the assembly lines that were used, how stations set up for workers, with consideration of the ergonomics of their placement, orientations and usage of tools (which I also specified) and the time needed for each task during the production process and the bill of materials to be used.
While I worked there the company went from local state distribution to international distribution, and I have seen MY designed products in Canada, Puerto Rico, California and points between. The product was known for quality construction and attention to customer needs.
It was a family operation, and the owner\CEO of the company knew every employee by name and the names of their children and their ages. The plant was filled with happy workers, there were bonuses every year reflecting the success of the company.
Then Charlie retired, he was bought out by Johnson Worldwide, for several million dollars (he said it was an offer he could not refuse), and Charlie also shared that with the employees generously.
Johnson Worldwide decided they did not need a design department or new products, and I moved on to other employment (Michigan is a "right to work" state*). A year after that I happened to visit one of the dealers up in Maine, and asked her how the product was. She said the new product was crap and she couldn't sell it anymore. She showed me some samples, and it was obvious to me that the company had started using thinner material in production and quality control was lousy. Parts buckled because the thinner material was not stiff enough.
Bean-counter managers had made a decision based on increasing profits without having the design parameters checked. If you take 10% out of the thickness of a material you can save a bundle in costs, but the stiffness is proportional to the thickness cubed ... so it is now only 73% as stiff.
In two years the company was bankrupt, the people were laid off and the assets were sold to other companies.
Johnson Worldwide is not a small fly by night company.
So I ask you who produced the wealth, who were the innovators, who developed the resources and designed how they were used ...
... and how did the people that were taking wealth out of the company (CEO top management etc) contribute to the production of that wealth? You have two examples from the same company, and the wealth taken out of the company (by CEO top management etc) increased under the second example. Did the second example produce more wealth?
Be reasonable.
* right to work is orwellian speak for no worker rights ... it means you have the right to work elsewhere when your services are no longer needed or if you don't like your current employment ... a right you've always had

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 04-10-2014 12:55 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by marc9000, posted 04-10-2014 9:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(4)
Message 70 of 138 (723873)
04-10-2014 11:33 AM


a quote from somewhere....
"Whenever I hear of someone attributing their financial success to 'hard work,' I have to wonder whose hard work they are referring to."
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(4)
Message 71 of 138 (723892)
04-10-2014 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote
04-09-2014 12:31 AM


I was raised out in the hills, where people tended to take care of themselves. Many who are criticizing me were raised in cities and expect others to take care of them.
People are working 2 jobs at minimum wage to get by. Do you really think they would work 2 jobs if they expected other people to take care of them?
The Progressive mindset is not "sit at home and rake in the welfare". I don't know why you insist on mischaracterizing it in this way. The Progressive mindset is that trickle-down economics doesn't work. Concentrating wealth at the top doesn't work. Giving tax breaks to billionaires does not create jobs.
What I would like to hear from you is what happens when the wealthy have taken all of the money from the middle class. What then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2014 12:31 AM Coyote has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 72 of 138 (723911)
04-10-2014 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NoNukes
04-09-2014 12:02 AM


marc9000 writes:
What do you think is the reason that non-creationists tend to be liberal? Is is due more to lack of religious belief, or to scientific discoveries?
Neither, I would think. I don't see any evidence that studying science makes you liberal. I think it more likely that people with liberal mindsets gravitate towards science and away from creationist beliefs.
I agree, but why?
There is also the fact that people have defined science based mindsets as liberal.
There has to be a reason for it. I can think of only one, that liberal mindsets, as well as science mindsets, are united in opposition to the claim that we were "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights". I'm sure most here don't agree, but I'd like to see an equal or better explanation for it. Creationists are usually conservative, evolutionists are usually liberal. I realize that Coyote is an exception to the rule, but very small percentages of exceptions to rules don't change those rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2014 12:02 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2014 9:38 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 82 by Larni, posted 04-11-2014 7:06 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2014 12:20 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 73 of 138 (723914)
04-10-2014 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
04-09-2014 2:30 AM


marc9000 writes:
it's always interesting to see non-creationists discuss politics!
You should try it, basing concepts on rational thinking instead of old dead dogma.
It's not dead dogma to recognize the fact that today there are "wars and rumors of wars", and there were wars and rumors of wars in Biblical times. Some things don't evolve, including the ways populations of established countries/civilizations react to actions of government.
But having a level playing field is both a right and (thus) an entitlement, what you do from that point is what you achieve. Getting just treatment is also both a right and (thus) an entitlement. Basic human rights exist regardless of what the constitution or any law says.
Who defines exactly what a level playing field is, or what basic human rights are? There are countless different opinions of it - are politicians perfect enough to make the determination?
And some 75% of Americans, liberal and conservative support a living minimum wage
What special interest makes that claim? The fact is, a very low percentage of the population (especially heads of households) make the minimum wage, most all workers with more than 6 months or a year of experience make significantly more. A huge percentage of your 75% who support a drastic increase in the minimum wage will feel good about themselves for only a short period, (especially those lower income ones, the ones making only a few dollars more than the minimum wage) when they suddenly find themselves paying $25.00 for a happy meal, that used to only cost them $8.00. It won't go up that much just because of minimum wage increase you say? It could, after the CEO gives himself a fat pay raise at the same time he's complying with minimum wage laws. CEO's are clever like that - they almost always find a way to personally benefit when the government meddles in their business.
Creationists tend to be conservative so that skews the rest of the population making non-creationists mostly liberal by default. Liberal and conservative are relative terms so the dividing line is 50-50 split with where the line is drawn moving. if 10% of the conservatives are creationists that leaves a majority of non-creationists being liberal.
But I'd still like to see your opinion on why creationists are conservative. It's not because they are somehow in love with the top 1% income bracket.
And if you truly want smaller government get rid of the military-industrial complex and stop subsidizing big corporations.
I agree those can be problems. But they are a tiny percentage of the overall picture of today's multi-trillon dollar U.S. government.
Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2014 2:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2014 10:19 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 74 of 138 (723915)
04-10-2014 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by roxrkool
04-10-2014 12:14 AM


I'm really interested in knowing who the "productive" are.
The productive are EVERYBODY who isn't on a government handout program. They ALL pay for any type of redistribution of wealth. Don't agree?, because they're not targeted to pay, only the fat cats are targeted? The fat cats find a way to make those below them pay. They're WAY smarter than the politicians who propose ways to get their money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by roxrkool, posted 04-10-2014 12:14 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 04-11-2014 8:32 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 75 of 138 (723916)
04-10-2014 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Straggler
04-10-2014 6:21 AM


Re: Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism
What we have at the moment is declining/stagnating wages and ever increasing corporate profits paid to those who are not actually providing much innovation at all. The balance between capital and labour has been tipped very much towards the investor side and that is having some fairly stark social consequences.
Very true, and what is a significant contributor to the "tipping"? Government meddling? If profits are being paid to those who aren't providing much innovation, (or anything else) it's largely because they're protected by a thing called "corruption".
There's less corruption in small government. Redistribution of wealth, corruption anyone? There's a lot of anger in this thread towards the top income earners, any anger against....George Soros? Al Gore?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2014 6:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2014 1:08 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 76 of 138 (723917)
04-10-2014 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
04-10-2014 9:38 AM


Re: Dear Faith, and Coyote, and Marc9000 ...
... and how did the people that were taking wealth out of the company (CEO top management etc) contribute to the production of that wealth? You have two examples from the same company, and the wealth taken out of the company (by CEO top management etc) increased under the second example. Did the second example produce more wealth?
The second example; that top management lost their jobs just like everyone else. Only if they owned the building, had a lot invested in tools and equipment, they lost a LOT more than employees who lost their jobs. Sure if it was a really big company, some big government corruption probably allowed them some kind of golden parachute. But that's not what happens to small businesses ( a couple hundred employees or less) that go under because of poor management.
Your first example, a good businessman, redistribution of wealth penalizes him for things that aren't his fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2014 9:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2014 8:35 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024