U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-20-2011, 12:27 AM
 
1,736 posts, read 1,798,520 times
Reputation: 1135

Advertisements

People here are arguing from two different definitions of socialism. With different answers for the OP question depending on which definition you use.

Definition 1
: The book definition, the means of production are socialized, etc.
I don't know of any country that has been successful trying to enact that on a national scale.

Definition 2: Any policy or social program to the left of where America is at the moment. And most to the left of the republican party.
Of course, pretty much all western nations are to the left of the USA. And some western nations are still doing well, so there are plenty of examples for this definition of socialism. Basically any western country doing well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom9 View Post
If you pay for it it's not a gift from the government. If you don't want it don't pay for it.
You pay for all social policies through taxes. And they are all sustainable as long as people want to pay for them. In a democracy, they are also voluntary, in as far as the people can vote out high-tax politicians if they want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 12:36 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,453,756 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkT3 View Post
No. Not necessarily. I wouldn't cut anything. I would raise your taxes, because you are a Dem,
Despite the name, progressive taxation doesn't actually mean you tax progressives more.

Quote:
and make you pay for the social programs you want. I would expect a report on all those undereducated people who were unable to find work because of their being undereducated, and are now getting the education they wanted, and who are now ready to get back to work. You can call off the Occupiers and tell them they can now get that education they always wanted.
Want != need. Thirty years ago, people could get jobs with nothing more than a high-school education. Today, you can't get a job without some kind of post-secondary education, unless you have years of experience. Community Colleges are great, because they offer a number of vocational programs, but not everyone can afford them. Cutting the lifeblood payments of millions of impoverished Americans so Sammy Wallstreet can make an extra 2% on his dividends is asinine and destructive to the nation as a whole.

If you can pay for your education, fantastic. If you're struggling to keep a roof over your head because you can only find a 20,000 a year secretary job, we have a moral obligation to help them. And the government has the best non-discriminatory resources possible to do that.

Quote:
Also I would cut the corporate tax rate to create jobs so that you all can get back to work.
You'll have to explain to me how supply-side economic policies help a severe demand shortage.

Quote:
And I would add a surtax to go towards paying off the debt. I'm tempted to tax you more because you caused more of it.
You mean "you" as in the democrats? I've got news for you. The last time I checked, the last five Republican Presidents in office were residing during the greatest increases in our debt. 75% of it. If you want to try and claim that democrats are responsible for the debt, you'll have to do better.

Quote:
Also I would ban unions from the public sector, because it is the tax payer's money and government workers are overpaid already.
Why? I see nothing from you showing your claims that public-sector employees are overpaid, and these employees have everything to gain from better working conditions. Our government has no real mandated entitlements. The most any worker gets, legally, is unpaid leave for grievance and maternity. Unions have fought for everything else. Why should public employees be exempt from any kind of benefit, especially when they work just as hard, and often hard, than you? Or me? Or anyone else out there who is a member of the working class?

On the other hand, I might give everyone a raise. As long as it is your money I'm spending, I don't have a problem with that.[/quote]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,690,697 times
Reputation: 5661
If I may add to what Konraden said above. MarkT3, it is clear that you have picked up opinions along the way that you believe are facts, which are not facts. On is your belief that "government workers are overpaid."

Actually, the evidence suggests otherwise:
Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee (pdf)

In general, before making a statement as if it were a fact, try to find evidence confirming that belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 04:05 PM
 
29,920 posts, read 38,947,795 times
Reputation: 4795
Quote:
Series Id: CMU2010000000000D,CMU2010000000000P
Compensation Component: Total compensation
Employer/Employee Charac.: All occupations
Sector: Private industry

2011 Qtr 3
$28.24
Quote:
Series Id: CMU3010000000000D,CMU3010000000000P
Compensation Component: Total compensation
Employer/Employee Charac.: All occupations
Sector: State and local government

2011 Qtr 3
$40.76
Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You're going to have a hard time convincing people that government workers are more beneficial to the economy than themselves in the private sector to the tune of 44% more beneficial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
4,027 posts, read 7,171,998 times
Reputation: 1332
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You're going to have a hard time convincing people that government workers are more beneficial to the economy than themselves in the private sector to the tune of 44% more beneficial.
The private sector has many more very low paying jobs. The public sector has less jobs and therefore the ones at the top have more weight in determining those numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 05:09 PM
 
29,920 posts, read 38,947,795 times
Reputation: 4795
Total benefits for the private sector comes out to just over $8/he while total benefits for state and local governments comes out to just over $14/hr.

Total wages for the private sector is just under $20/hr while it's $26.57/hr for government workers.

Cost for health insurance in the private sector is $2.15/hr while it's $4.74/hr for government workers.

In every cat agony government workers are paid more than the people they're suppose to be serving. Meanwhile, the people that pay their salaries in taxes are more realistically compensated because of market forces.

In other words government workers are over compensated for their benefit to the economy. It's that simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
4,027 posts, read 7,171,998 times
Reputation: 1332
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Total benefits for the private sector comes out to just over $8/he while total benefits for state and local governments comes out to just over $14/hr.

Total wages for the private sector is just under $20/hr while it's $26.57/hr for government workers.

Cost for health insurance in the private sector is $2.15/hr while it's $4.74/hr for government workers.

In every cat agony government workers are paid more than the people they're suppose to be serving. Meanwhile, the people that pay their salaries in taxes are more realistically compensated because of market forces.

In other words government workers are over compensated for their benefit to the economy. It's that simple.
Maybe you missed my post that is right above yours so here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thePR View Post
The private sector has many more very low paying jobs. The public sector has less jobs and therefore the ones at the top have more weight in determining those numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 05:32 PM
 
29,920 posts, read 38,947,795 times
Reputation: 4795
Under your assertion there are not "big dogs" in the private sector that skew hourly average wages.

I explained why government workers are paid more and you come up with more nonsense. If anything the "skewing" factor you speak of would be far worse in the private sectors than in government. Even the top dogs in government are closer to the mean than the top dogs in the private sector. Then you have to factor in total benefits and health care cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 05:47 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,453,756 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Total benefits for the private sector comes out to just over $8/he while total benefits for state and local governments comes out to just over $14/hr.

Total wages for the private sector is just under $20/hr while it's $26.57/hr for government workers.

Cost for health insurance in the private sector is $2.15/hr while it's $4.74/hr for government workers.

In every cat agony government workers are paid more than the people they're suppose to be serving. Meanwhile, the people that pay their salaries in taxes are more realistically compensated because of market forces.

In other words government workers are over compensated for their benefit to the economy. It's that simple.
You can't just grab every job the private sector has, and every job the public sector has, lump them all together, and then claim private sector is worse off. There are many jobs the public sector performs that cannot and should not be performed by private hands. Likewise, there are a number of private sector jobs that are better off left in private hands.

If you want to make the claim that public workers are better off than private workers, compare apples and apples. Compare the salaries of public school teachers versus private charter scohols. Compare community college professors to that of private schools. State schools to private schools.

PMCs are an interesting new breed of private-sector jobs that really shouldn't be in the hands of the private sector. Compare PMC pay to corresponding pay for the U.S. military.

Compare the wage and benefits of a USPS driver versus that of a UPS, DHL, or FedEx driver.

Let's look at executive wages too. How much does the most powerful men in government make? Senators, Represenatives, the President? The top five hundred highest paid "executives" if you will, of the government?

Now the top five executives of the private sector. What is there wages?

Come back when you have any ground to stand on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
4,027 posts, read 7,171,998 times
Reputation: 1332
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Under your assertion there are not "big dogs" in the private sector that skew hourly average wages.

I explained why government workers are paid more and you come up with more nonsense. If anything the "skewing" factor you speak of would be far worse in the private sectors than in government. Even the top dogs in government are closer to the mean than the top dogs in the private sector. Then you have to factor in total benefits and health care cost.
If there were more higher paying jobs there would not be such a gap between the rich and the poor.

Also, not everyone in the public sector gets health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top