Communism or Capitalism?

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom

The logical conclusion of this train of thought: mandatory sterilization of the low income demographic. At best you're proposing genocide by attrition.

So the logical conclusion to your logic is that a couple who agrees they should wait to have kids, until they are better off financially, is endorsing mandatory sterilization and genocide? I'm proposing people be responsible, nothing more. What I said was not a train of thought. It's one thought that some people should consider, and it's pretty far from mandatory sterilization.

Anyway, I trust what you've said is abstract and intellectual, not something you'd actually wish for anyone in the real world. We may be capitalists, but first of all we're human, right?

What are you talking about? You think it's inhumane to wish that a couple would consider their financial situation before have children? I didn't suggest forcing anything on anyone, you brought that into it. I don't care how many kids people have, but when tax dollars are used to support them, it reaches a point where we should consider where the tax dollars are going. We shouldn't reinforce irresponsibility.

 

[thestonesfan]

BURDENS TO SOCIETY?! How can you call a human child a burden to society?!!!!

When it takes government aid to raise it, it's pretty easy.

Can't afford kids so shouldn't have them?! It's a lot more complex than that.

Not really. Women who aren't ready for children shouldn't chance getting pregnant. I don't imagine anyone would have too much trouble with that logic.

Well, potentially thats the fault of the society they live in just as much as it is their fault.

I say potentially because I do not personally know them, so cannot pass my own judgement.

I think society has far less an influence on people's decisions than you give it credit for. People make bad decisions because of bad judgement, not bad society.

Perhaps I over reacted with my initial post, but In general I do belive that most of the time it is not indvidual descions that leads to soemone being 'poor'.

That's fine. I disagree. In the United States, I don't believe that is the case.

 

[test_specimen]

In most West European countries birth rates are stagnating at best. At the same time they have pension systems based on a stagnating or growing population. Since the outlook is bad, and the number of workers that support one retired decrease, most countries have instituted financial aid for poor families that have kids. They encourage those families to have kids, even though they have to cut back on their expenses for leisure and whatever they want. The other option for an increase in population would be to weaken immigration law, which is opposed by most right wing and even left wing governments for populistic reasons.

Sure a couple should consider their financial situation when having kids, but since those kids will have more or less the same chances, whether their parents are rich or poor, it will only play a role to a degree. The parents don't have to think, that their kids will never have the chance for a better life, just because they are poor.

Off course the situation in the US is different, the classes, like Mojo said, are set, though they are still flexible. But if your only chance on a decent life depends on the goodwill of some schoolboard or some rich benefactor, would you count on that? If you are born poor, you have to work 100 times as hard to get rich as someone born middle class.

So the social services do encourage or discourage, at least considerate parents, to have or to have not kids.

 

[Greadius]

@Vrylakas- maybe I used too many commas or something, but I don't think we actually disagree.
To be rich is a measure of being poor. If no one is poor, we lose our standard of what it is to be rich. Like I have said many times... America's poor have 3 or 4 times the standard of living as the world AVERAGE. Poverty has always been a relative measure.

Originally posted by test_specimen
Off course the situation in the US is different, the classes, like Mojo said, are set, though they are still flexible. But if your only chance on a decent life depends on the goodwill of some schoolboard or some rich benefactor, would you count on that? If you are born poor, you have to work 100 times as hard to get rich as someone born middle class.

Well Mojo was WRONG
Well, kind of wrong. We don't live in a class-less society, we live in a class-flexible society. Class isn't very important in America... amatterfact its not that important at all. I don't know anyone who defines themself by their wealth (though they often do by their job, but then most Americans have several different jobs in a lifetime and changes careers at least once. So, still flexible).

However, the only chance at a decent life isn't dependant on a schoolboard or a rich benefactor, and your figure of working 100 times harder is completely superfluous. People outside the system have NO IDEA how much money floats around educational institutions for people who aren't that well off. I come from a lower-middle class and have had my entire living and University expenses paid for with plenty of money left over WHILE still living a pretty opulant lifestyle... is there something special about me? I filled out the form. And I think THAT is the difference. If a University is free, it becomes an entitlement. If it costs money, but you can get that money recovered if you can't afford it, the burden lays upon the individual and not society to make it happen.

 

[thestonesfan]

Graedius is right. Unfortunately, I didn't fill out the form, because I was lazy. So I didn't get any student aid.

If you can't get any student aid, the only person you have to blame is yourself. Well, I kind of blame my dad, since he didn't get his taxes done by the time I needed the info for the forms. That bum!

 

[test_specimen]

I did not know, that there were that many free university places in the US. I always thought that only a few students got scholarships due to sports or grades.

Originally posted by Greadius
Thats about all you can do. Development takes time. The U.S. was ahead of the curve when we were the laborers in miserable factory conditions for 80 hours a week, but our economy moved on... so will theirs.
We've seen in places like the Asian Tigers, the long term benefits of a liberalized economy allows them to improve their competitive edge and fit into niche markets vs. other wealthy nations. The standards of living skyrocket accordingly. The idea is that as more nations are capable of developing in a similar fashion, it will continue to push up the efficiency of the systems as a whole, and make those products continually dirt cheap.

But do you think that the time the system as a whole needs to adjust, i.e. bring better conditions to the workers, is prolongued more than necessary by (foreign) enterprises? After all, they lose their profit when prices and wages rise.

I don't think that capitalism brings an "instant" improvement of lifestyle to 3rd world countries,. But what happens, if wage levels will reach equal levels in those countries, that are safe to invest in or to set up a factory? If the system can keep going, this should proove that the West did not just profit from poor countries, if it collapses it prooves that the West lived on the suffering of the poor countries.

Has a "closed" capitalism ever worked in history? (I mean a capitalism without imports/exports from/to poorer countries.) I know this would be a long way, and is probably too optimistic, but a closed capitalism is the state the world would be in, if most of current visions would be pursued. I'm not sure if the cost of labour could be substituted by mechanization while at the same time having some standard of living for all.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Well, I kind of blame my dad, since he didn't get his taxes done by the time I needed the info for the forms. That bum!

Can't even do that. You can fill out the forms even if you parents have don't their tax returns yet and then turn them in later

Originally posted by test_specimen
I did not know, that there were that many free university places in the US. I always thought that only a few students got scholarships due to sports or grades.

There are two types of scholarships: merit and need based.

You're poor, you can get need based. You play sports, you can get 'merit' based. You're poor and play sports, you're into $$$.

Originally posted by test_specimen
But do you think that the time the system as a whole needs to adjust, i.e. bring better conditions to the workers, is prolongued more than necessary by (foreign) enterprises? After all, they lose their profit when prices and wages rise.

Which is why wages have to rise in relation to productivity. That means artificially inflating wages causes companies to leave, or lay off workers.

Originally posted by test_specimen
I don't think that capitalism brings an "instant" improvement of lifestyle to 3rd world countries,.

No, I would never claim that. In the long term it will, but not in the short term... the only thing that can help them in the short term is a miracle or free handouts. The tigers economic pursuit was called a failure for decades, then all of a sudden it took off, and has been sustained now for quite some time... they're even wealthier, per capita, than many of what people consider to be first world countries.

The sad thing is I think it went faster there because they're relatively small... the largest nation, South Korea (high population, though, still fairly small) still lags behind the smallest two.

Originally posted by test_specimen
But what happens, if wage levels will reach equal levels in those countries, that are safe to invest in or to set up a factory? If the system can keep going, this should proove that the West did not just profit from poor countries, if it collapses it prooves that the West lived on the suffering of the poor countries.

That is exactly what I said a bit earlier in the thread. That is the ONLY way I think is fair to find out... either the system works and they get richer, or they were right, we were ripping them off, and we lose our advantage.

Originally posted by test_specimen
Has a "closed" capitalism ever worked in history? (I mean a capitalism without imports/exports from/to poorer countries.) I know this would be a long way, and is probably too optimistic, but a closed capitalism is the state the world would be in, if most of current visions would be pursued. I'm not sure if the cost of labour could be substituted by mechanization while at the same time having some standard of living for all.

Well, there is no way to predict that... like I said, its based on optimism or pessimism of basically, the growth rate of technology.

A closed capitalist state hasn't really existed, though some came pretty close with tarriffs and such, and it didnt' work. But, I think the logic is kind of silly, since we can't expand past the world anyway, there really isn't much more of a choice. I don't see why the existance of, say, North Korea or Cuba, makes the U.S. any better off. The theory is heavily dependant on two things: economies of scale and their efficiency, and specialization based on local conditions. Its impossible to guess how big an economy of scale has to be for economic efficiency, and how the distribution of competitive advantage will fall (for example, the country that is best at producing wheat will produce pretty much only wheat and export most of it, for say, microprocessors, which it can't produce at all).

 

[Mojotronica]

Greadius -

What?!? I am wrong?!? How dare you post this deeply offensive material! Send in the Mod! I am wounded. Wah.

Seriously:

I could be wrong. Greadius certainly has more data to back his opinion. (In the sense that he actually HAS data, whereas my POV is based on my gut-feeling about the situation.)

Anecdotally, in my life I have gone from being middle-class to welfare-poor to working-poor to middle-class to upper-middle-class to working-poor to middle-class again. Certainly my life experiences don't support my supposition -- at least not short-term. But I feel like my situation is exceptional when compared to others. I was impoverished as a little boy (age 2 to 12,) when I didn't notice it as much.

(Pathetic lifestory 101:
We were on welfare until I was five years old, but Mom worked constantly under the table to make ends meet. (MOST welfare Moms work under the table, BTW. It doesn't pay enough to support a family.) We also cultivated friends and connections in church. We shared housing w/ lots of different people, men and women. We moved a lot. I was unsupervised much of the time, a latchkey kid and taking buses by myself f/ age 7. I got my first job at age 8 (a paper-route) and have only been unemployed briefly since then. We didn't own a car. We didn't own a TV until I was 9 -- a hand-me-down B&W that was melted because it had been through a fire. I bought it for $15.)

My parents all emerged f/ middle-class homes, and I feel that over the long-term we have remained in that class of people. I feel that if Mom did not have a middle-class background she would not have appealed to my Step-Dad, who's influence on our lives helped elevate us f/ poverty when I was 12. Thus, Mom (and I) have been MORE inclined to remain in the lower-class, financially.

I believe that a lot of people are raised in toxic families, and their prospects are undermined early on because they are raised with emotional problems -- a lack of hope is the single-strongest determiner of failure, in my opinion. I think that a lot of people grow up without any at all. And because it is easier (and apparently cheaper) to pretend that everyone has the same psychological constitution, many buy into this delusion.

We do not all have the same level of emotional support, and this is why some people fail again and again, while others seem to succeed despite set-backs.

I actually don't think it's cheaper to ignore the problem, because hopelessness leads to violent crime, and dealing w/ violent crime is VERY expensive but socially and economically.

My solution to gun-violence, for example, would be to keep guns legal but to try to attack the problem of violence. The anti-gun lobby would better spend it's time focusing on their anti-poverty agenda, while gun-rights advocates often completely ignore poverty as a problem. Both sides would benefit by alleviating poverty, yet (often) they are so focused on WINNING and making the other side LOSE they are (often) oblivious to this solution.

I don't know if hopelessness, and therefore poverty, is a problem that can be fixed by any kind of gov't program, but I'm open to ideas. I think we can do better. I think that a preventative care type approach would be better and cheaper in the long-run.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think society has far less an influence on people's decisions than you give it credit for. People make bad decisions because of bad judgement, not bad society

My meaning was more that society pushes thigns like drugs and alcohol upon people, with costant advertising and so on, so people who are depressed or so on kind of get pressured into becoming an alcoholic etc.

I think it depends on how you view the advertising/tobaco/alcohol industries.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
I think it depends on how you view the advertising/tobaco/alcohol industries.

My personal view is that in a free society, people are responsible for their own actions. Advertisers and peer pressure do not change that.

 

[test_specimen]

ComradeDavo, sometimes I try to guess what books people must have read to get to some opinion. I bet you read "No Logo".

What you did not admit when it came to the question of having children or not in a poor environment, you propose here: that poor people can't think for themselves. That they are likely to give in to any kind of peer pressure or marketing. "No Logo" is based on the idea that by doing just enough marketing you can sell everything, even things no one could possibly afford/want otherwise. I'm sure this is true for kids, but if you're grown up, you really have to make your own decisions, just like Switch said.

Mojo, what does "working under the table" mean?

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by test_specimen

Mojo, what does "working under the table" mean?

I used to know this girl...........................

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by test_specimen
Mojo, what does "working under the table" mean?

Have a job 'unofficially'. Working under the table means being paid under the table, that is, off the ledger, tax returns, ect. It can be used, of course, to avoid laws such as minimum wage, and to avoid paying payroll taxes.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I'm proposing people be responsible, nothing more.

Not so much a capital "R" Rule as a credo. That's cool. Alas, spreading your ethic by example alone is a serious bummer. So you voice it. Fair enough.

For years I thought, "Oh no, I just don't have enough stuff yet to give a child a good home. Let me do some more furniture shopping first. Let me arrange for more time off work first. What if my baby needs expensive medical treatments or special schooling - am I prepared? Etc." Then I began to interrogate parents of my parents' generation, and I learned that most of them - comfortable now - were seriously poor back then. I remembered the coffee table when I was a toddler: an old electrical spool with a coarse plywood top. I remembered the LP shelving made of concrete blocks and planks. I remembered watching road though the rusty hole in the floor of my dad's car. Then I looked at my own insatiable standards, and knew it a game I played with myself. I realized I would never feel "ready" to have kids.

A lot of people share your credo, thestonesfan. A lot of people will never be parents because they're too thoughtful.

***

Kids as burdens to society. Well of course. Getting help raising kids is nothing new. Kids have always been a burden to the community, or extended family. Lately, we've seen families broken up into smaller and smaller units, so now a typical family doesn't contain the available support for childrearing. In this day, it's not some auntie who helps raise kids (she's out earning a paycheque); it's the greater public that helps, through public schools, daycares, subsidized housing, etc. That's the price we pay for our individuality, our equal opportunity, our nomadic freedom. The greater public replaces the extended family.

***

Super post, Mojotronica. The forum software needs a post rating system so ones like that can pop up again from time to time.

Originally posted by Mojotronica
I don't know if hopelessness, and therefore poverty, is a problem that can be fixed by any kind of gov't program, but I'm open to ideas. I think we can do better. I think that a preventative care type approach would be better and cheaper in the long-run.

All I can think of is highschool counselors. They can't do much, not really knowing the kids thoughts or their unique situations outside attendance records and such. I guess exposing kids to play a variety of positive roles, up to adulthood, would help prevent them falling into some default failure identity. In a welfare state like Canada, a perceived danger is that some people may never grow up and rather take on a victimized child-parent relationship with government. But then I also see immature dependency in people with jobs. These people then try to raise kids who are supposed to become responsible themselves, by some miracle. At least they have confidence in themselves, or a sense of entitlement anyway.

So many components needed to make one functional adult.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by test_specimen
ComradeDavo, sometimes I try to guess what books people must have read to get to some opinion. I bet you read "No Logo".

What you did not admit when it came to the question of having children or not in a poor environment, you propose here: that poor people can't think for themselves. That they are likely to give in to any kind of peer pressure or marketing. "No Logo" is based on the idea that by doing just enough marketing you can sell everything, even things no one could possibly afford/want otherwise. I'm sure this is true for kids, but if you're grown up, you really have to make your own decisions, just like Switch said.

Mojo, what does "working under the table" mean?

I have NOT read No logo.

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo

I have NOT read No logo.

Lucky I didn't bet money.