Acceptance

[bobjustbob]

This whole socialist complaint is to do less to get more. "I don't get what I deserve because I think the upper people don't work as hard as I do. All they do is give orders." Bunk. Once you become a manager you have more responsibilities. That goes up the line. At the low end there less responsibilities. You bring the shit to the truck and your job is done. How it gets onto the truck and gets to it's destination is not your problem. The people that are selling that stuff have to make sure it has a place to go. If they can't sell it then what good are you? Those salesmen are responsible to keep you guys moving shit to be trucked. Do you want to to be paid as much as the guys risking their asses to keep you employed? Go take their jobs and see how good life is for you. 2 or 3 weeks and you would want to be back for your lower wage without the headaches.

 

[vodkazvictim]

This whole socialist complaint is to do less to get more. "I don't get what I deserve because I think the upper people don't work as hard as I do. All they do is give orders." Bunk. Once you become a manager you have more responsibilities. That goes up the line. At the low end there less responsibilities. You bring the shit to the truck and your job is done. How it gets onto the truck and gets to it's destination is not your problem. The people that are selling that stuff have to make sure it has a place to go. If they can't sell it then what good are you? Those salesmen are responsible to keep you guys moving shit to be trucked. Do you want to to be paid as much as the guys risking their asses to keep you employed? Go take their jobs and see how good life is for you. 2 or 3 weeks and you would want to be back for your lower wage without the headaches.

Oh horseshit, do be quiet.

 

[mikexmoran]

This whole socialist complaint is to do less to get more. "I don't get what I deserve because I think the upper people don't work as hard as I do. All they do is give orders." Bunk. Once you become a manager you have more responsibilities. That goes up the line. At the low end there less responsibilities. You bring the shit to the truck and your job is done. How it gets onto the truck and gets to it's destination is not your problem. The people that are selling that stuff have to make sure it has a place to go. If they can't sell it then what good are you? Those salesmen are responsible to keep you guys moving shit to be trucked. Do you want to to be paid as much as the guys risking their asses to keep you employed? Go take their jobs and see how good life is for you. 2 or 3 weeks and you would want to be back for your lower wage without the headaches.

Yes.

Is it that life isn't fair or it isn't equitable? The market tends to compensate based on the value that you're able to provide and obtain. Not everyone has equal value to offer and not everyone has the knowledge or ability to capitalize on that.

Do we really have to have the Communism argument. It kills motivation and lowers that standard of living for everyone. You want to be pissed at the 1%? Well, Communism would reduce that, so you wold be pissed at a few number of people, living in a lower standard of living yourself, if that would make you feel better.

Show me the model where communism works. I can show you the model of how what we have today works.

I don't think lower income people are intrinsically better or worse than people who have a higher income. I think greed is part of human nature and it can lead to bad things. However, you have to look at this thing at a macro level or your proposing quite a bit more suffering than what our imperfect model provides today.

 

[Shindekudasai]

Do we really have to have the Communism argument. It [...] lowers that standard of living for everyone. You want to be pissed at the 1%? Well, Communism would reduce that, so you wold be pissed at a few number of people, living in a lower standard of living yourself, if that would make you feel better.

I am not defending Communism over (in a certain degree regulated) capitalism here, but that is just not true. Several calculations by scholars have shown (for Germany at least), that the medium income and standard of living would increase up to 10% and the income and standard of living of the lower class would even increase up to 20% if we were to divide the aggregate national income equally amongst all citizens. And mind you, dividends on stocks and stuff like that are not even factored in this calculation.
If in the US everyone would have the same income, that income would amount to 48,000 dollars a year after taxes. And that is for everyone, mind you, even the people that currently unemployed.

And bobjustbob's responibility argument doesn't fully count either. There are a lot of jobs with responsibility that pay pretty bad. And the higher up the corporate ladder you go, the more responsibility get's delegated so that there's alway the possibility to create a fall guy. And have you ever heard of a low level employee who screwed up and had to go but nonetheless got a year's salary and a nice stock portfolio as a severance package?

 

[mikexmoran]

I am not defending Communism over (in a certain degree regulated) capitalism here, but that is just not true. Several calculations by scholars have shown (for Germany at least), that the medium income and standard of living would increase up to 10% and the income and standard of living of the lower class would even increase up to 20% if we were to divide the aggregate national income equally amongst all citizens. And mind you, dividends on stocks and stuff like that are not even factored in this calculation.
If in the US everyone would have the same income, that income would amount to 48,000 dollars a year after taxes. And that is for everyone, mind you, even the people that currently unemployed.

And bobjustbob's responibility argument doesn't fully count either. There are a lot of jobs with responsibility that pay pretty bad. And the higher up the corporate ladder you go, the more responsibility get's delegated so that there's alway the possibility to create a fall guy. And have you ever heard of a low level employee who screwed up and had to go but nonetheless got a year's salary and a nice stock portfolio as a severance package?

Could you cite your source where Communism has, in fact, delivered the metrics you posted?

 

[bobjustbob]

Oh horseshit, do be quiet.

Oh please let me come in and talk.

 

[georges]

That we embrace Socialism or Communism.

Two failed theories from the past

 

[Shindekudasai]

Could you cite your source where Communism has, in fact, delivered the metrics you posted?

Pfffuuu... can you read German? I picked that stuff up at the university in Germany and as far as I remember it was all in German. But your question shows a certain misunderstanding of what I said. Communism never actually delivered those metrics. It's a theory based on calculations made using for example the Lorenz curve and the Gini coefficient and doesn't necessarily have to be implemented in a Communist system. A Communist system would be ideal because the political framework would make it easier. But back to your question: one guy's name was Kleinewefers, he wrote a book about welfare economics where he discusses this briefly but dismisses it because he believes it couldn't be implemented in a capitalistic democracy. And I believe Robert Möske talks about it in his book about happiness and the taxation and redistribution of income. I think the book's title even is "Happiness and Taxation" or something like that. It's a pretty recent book.
But you can do a simplified version of this calculations yourself. All you need is the aggregate national income and the income per capita (carefull that certain things like taxes and subsidies have to be factored out), the income distribution (income has to include rent, lease, interest, income upon investments etc.) and simple percent calculation.

 

[mikexmoran]

Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch. Most good economic books are translated.

I forgive the condescension. We'll get past that because we are both naturally stating our cases in the way we believe them, not being bound to each other's definition. So, distribution and dispersement within theoretical models are different then how they are implemented in the wild. The very point I make.

With your statement, "Communism never actually delivered those metrics.", I believe we're pretty much in agreement. The book you refer to speaks to the studies that found people whose incomes face progressive tax rates tend to report better feelings of well being. Kleinewefers views on welfare economics are pretty thought provoking and I've included those thoughts in discussions. Moske is tougher. Not that he is wrong, but there is a cultural aspect to it that is easier to discuss with people who have not lived their whole life in the U.S.

If you're familiar with U.S. politics, don't confuse me with a Republican (I'm not a Republican) that declared economic victory when the Soviet Union collapsed. I think I've even posted on this board before, I'm a Dorothy Parker type Catholic (she is one of my heroes). What party did she support (gasp!)?

I think your last post was very good. Now, I'll say it again, Communism doesn't work. It has been tried in cultures that are open to it. History has shown what human nature does to it. On top of human nature (which I believe spans the globe), there are cultural differences of countries and size differences.

The GDP per capita in Switzerland is significantly higher than in the US, but the median disposable income in the US is significantly higher. (Not as dramatic for Germany and the US) Is that better? Many Tea party people would say yes! Many people who have been to Switzerland would say, "No", look at the wonderful services and quality of life that exists in Switzerland. I say, apples and oranges. You can argue happiness all you want (and it is important), but because of culture and the size difference in the economies you can overlay models quite so easily. From a size perspective, you should compare the EU to the US. The landscape changes when you do that, right? Now, mix in the cultural aspects. The U.S. has for a century positioned itself as the enemy of Communism. Was it just a year or two ago if the President burped, the idiot on Fox News would whiteboard something to show how that meant he was a Communist? ...and that means evil in the U.S., right?

So, if you're saying that Communism is valid in theory. I'll help you support that claim. If your telling me that Communism has a proven track record and that you've cited sources to show that, you haven't.

I will not bother to cite sources that show that capitalism works. Just use your own search engine. It is not perfect and there are inequities. It does not work in every culture, but in different forms it works in many countries.

I think your motives are good. Fight the good fight.