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.
All these pages later, and there are still two things socialism cannot find a way to circumvent or eliminate - human nature and scarcity.
the reason capitalism as an economic system works is because human nature and scarcity are each gears that make that machine go. Where socialism needs to deny/eliminate the two to function properly, capitalism requires the two.
All these many pages later and your focus is on socialism as the only alternative to consider?
I for one certainly don't advocate the end of capitalism, or for socialism, but I can easily see the significant problems with both and in particular with capitalism, how some of those problems can be mitigated, better addressed. What I like to call "managed capitalism." Better managed anyway. Something like breaking a horse so it will accept a saddle and better serve it's master...
There's a registration form one fills out to register to vote, or alternatively, it can be done online. All one has to do is provide a name, address, and say they're a US citizen. No ID required.
There's no way I believe that a state-issued ID is required to get food at a food pantry but none is required to vote.
And what do you think this "registration form" is all about?
You just fill in whatever you like, state whatever you like with no proof, and then show up at the voting polls with (yet again) no proof whatsoever establishing your identity?
Do you think that the State governments are THAT stupid?
Here is yet again for you the requirements for BOTH registration AND voting process, state by state.
( Hint: if you don't supply the required information first time around, during registration, you will be still required to bring it to the voting stations.)
When you'll start distinguishing hype from reality, may be then you will understand why the government ( be that state gov. or federal gov.) requires IDs (AND SS cards,) when it's involved in food distribution or any type of benefit disbursements.
All these many pages later and your focus is on socialism as the only alternative to consider?
I for one certainly don't advocate the end of capitalism, or for socialism, but I can easily see the significant problems with both and in particular with capitalism, how some of those problems can be mitigated, better addressed. What I like to call "managed capitalism." Better managed anyway. Something like breaking a horse so it will accept a saddle and better serve it's master...
The "horse" in your example being human nature itself. So call the ending economic/government system whatever you want, but your proposals/solutions/suggestions will always involve some form of forceful "breaking" of human nature to accept the saddle that is your socioeconomic goal.
The individual may have thinking that does not comport with your agenda, and we must break them of that thinking for the good of the collective. Does the label applied to that process really matter, or is being pedantic a way to avoid discussing what it is you are really after where the individual's free will and basic human nature are concerned?
See, an outcome gap is a perfectly natural occurrence with such a vast gap between inputs. What you seek is a way to subvert nature to your will to achieve a specific outcome or at least move in that outcomes direction. Well, in any other system where nature is somehow overcome, circumvented or otherwise "broken to saddle" what is required for that change to occur? Force.
In the case of "rich vs poor" you will need to apply force against the natural process of infinitely variable humans achieving widely disparate outcomes in the key socioeconomic areas of life. Since government cannot do anything without first taking from the citizenry, every action will require force, simply by definition.
If you give money, material and/or opportunity to the poor, you a) first have to take from everyone to fund all that and then b) actively discriminate against the non-poor when exercising your power. If you want to reduce the rich person's "richness" again, apply force via the various taking machinery the government specializes in, while again, actively discriminating. If either group finds individual ways around your various external force applications, apply violence to them as both punishment to them and reminder to others to stop trying to reject that saddle.
Bottom line, human beings need to be reconditioned to think and behave as you wish them to, and force/violence is the catalyst agent that makes that possible.
All you need to do now is hammer out the particulars of how much force you need to apply to "break" the citizen of their individuality and accept your collective saddle.
But stop trying to virtue signal like you're doing the world a favor. You want to break rich people of their individual behaviors and actions that make them more successful than poor people. Teaching/helping/gifting poor people hasn't achieved your goal in the 50+ years of the War on Poverty, so clearly, you're gonna need to close that gap from the other direction and simply punish success and break those bucking bronco rich folks to the saddle.
I'd argue so much less with you people if you could simply be intellectually honest about your goal and how you are going to set about achieving it.
You can look up the data for each state and each county separately, so I have no idea what in the world you are talking about.
We're talking about ethical behavior.
Your government does not include Alaska and Hawaii in its data, because they are statistical outliers.
Ethical researchers and economists reporting financial or economic data for individuals or households do not include Alaska and Hawaii, because they are statistical outliers.
The woman who runs the web-site for you link engages in unethical behavior, because she deceitfully includes Alaska and Hawaii in order to artificially inflate the Cost-of-Living and skew the data to say what she thinks it should say.
That's what we're talking about.
If you don't understand the importance of ethical behavior in science or the social sciences, then contact your local university and ask a dean, or professor, associate professor, teaching assistant or research assistant to explain it to you.
Or you can read the link below at the government web-site:
There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. First, norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize error.
As I said, if anything, HC related costs listed are too low. As you might know, the average HC spending per capita in this country is 10k (probably more at this point) a year.
You're confused and so is she.
Healthcare spending per capita is not what people actually pay, rather it's what is spent.
The average amount spent per capita is $10,739, but $1.289 TRILLION was spent by Medicare and Medicaid, not individuals.
She unethically ignores that fact. Lest you forget:
For 2019 calendar-year plans using the federal poverty level (FPL) safe harbor to determine affordability, an employee's premium payment can't exceed $99.75 per month, up from $96.08 per month in 2018.
She unethically artificially inflates the costs by using $10,739 as the basis for her calculations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
Same with childcare - too low, but that category mentions using "the absolutely lowest cost option available".
Except that 2/3rds of families do not use childcare.
Again, she unethically artificially inflates her numbers by assuming 100% use childcare, when in fact they do not.
I could go on and on, but her web-site is nothing but propaganda.
And what do you think this "registration form" is all about?
A means to add people to the voter rolls. Again, there's no requirement for a state-issued photo ID to register to vote. How else do you think millions of out-of-state college students can register to vote in their college towns?
If you are poor, American taxpayers will pay your entire tuition for a 2-year community college program, by which you can earn an A.A. and a marketable skill!
But then they would have to work and we don't want that.
Short answer is not to think there will ever be a day when we don't have poor people and/or rich people, but there is what can be done to help limit the disparities of opportunity between those born disadvantaged vs those born with advantage.
A quick peek at another thread about Warren's proposed free child care immediately caused me to think people will either be for or against depending on whether they believe this effort to limit the above referenced disparities is appropriate for any society to work toward. Needless to say, better access to affordable child care, health care, education, nutritious foods and a safe environment - for as many people as possible -- rich or poor is how we best better provide opportunity for those born disadvantaged.
Some complain about all this "free stuff," as if there is no cost to America that comes from poverty. Do the math with respect to the cost of drugs, crime, poor health and all the rest compared to providing better access to all that helps mitigate the cost of poverty in America, and only then can you come to a better conclusion about how our tax dollars are best spent. Then too the question of who further up the economic ladder should pay what rate of taxes to support these efforts along with all the rest our government is more than happy to spend money on.
Far as you are concerned, should we bother with what I note in bold above? Why or why not?
Answer tends to determine whether you understand where people like Warren, Sanders, Newsom and other more progressive type thinkers are coming from...
Gov. Newsom proposing to expand services for babies and toddlers
Tie executive, managerial & supervisory pay to multiples of what the lowest paid workers in the company make. I've mentioned this before to crickets because people can't wrap their minds around it, I guess. Too complicated? I don't think so.
My way of doing it:
1) Would start by making the minimum wage $10.50/hour.
2) If the lowest paid worker makes between $10.50 - $10.99/hour the top executive would make a maximum of a multiple of 50 times the salary of the lowest paid worker based on 40 hours/week times 52 weeks/year. Lesser executive positions, managerial and supervisory salaries would have lower maximum salaries descending downwards the lower the position is.
Example: $10.50/hour x 2080 hours/year (40 hours/week x 52 weeks) = $21,840. $21,840 x 50 (maximum multiple the top executive could make = $1,092,000/year.
3) With every 50 cent increase in lowest paid worker hourly wage the multiple would increase. So at $11/hour the top exec multiple might be times 55. $11/hour times 2080 = $22,880. $22,880 x 55 = $1,258,400.
4) Once the lowest paid worker makes $15/hour there would be no cap on executive, managerial or supervisory pay provided the lowest paid worker receives all benefits others in the company receive. That would also help people working in lower level positions get benefits that have steadily been taken away by corporate execs, like holiday pay, sick days, vacations, health benefits, participation in a company's 401k program, etc..
If a company can't afford to pay employees a decent wage executive pay shouldn't be exorbitant like we see today in most companies.
To be clear, if the lowest paid workers work less than 40 hours/week their pay would be prorated at 40 hours/week for the purpose of creating the multiple that would determine the maximum salary for execs.
Do this and all those people who work but are so poor they qualify for food assistance, Medicaid & other benefits will greatly decrease. They'll be able to afford to support themselves.
Meh. Just outsource all low paid work and CEO magically can raise his pay.
Your system would also mean that capable people would avoid low wage industry and gravitate toward high wage services like software, electronics, etc. Only less experienced and less capable people would want to run a restaurant chain or grocery business.
Low wages are a result of excess labor in the market place. Deport a million or two illegals per year for a couple of years and watch labor availability tighten and wages increase.
If you are poor, American taxpayers will pay your entire tuition for a 2-year community college program, by which you can earn an A.A. and a marketable skill!
You don't need community college. You can learn most skills via online classes.
End high school at 11th grade and send kids out to be apprentices or go on to college. Works in Quebec.
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.
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.
