Two vastly different views of an expensive home

[NotreDame]

At one end is the plantation or gulag, at the other end is paying your employees so little that they still qualify for govt provided benefits for low income people.

And yet you’ve provided no metric to guide anyone to recognize the phenomenon of being underpaid or underpayment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

Canada is a democracy w/o slavery. Can you give me a capitalist country (a stretch) that pays their labor a living wage?

Canada is a democracy w/o slavery. Can you give me a capitalist country (a stretch) that pays their labor a living wage?

Great. And Athens was a democracy with slavery. What was your point again referencing Canada? Oh, the U.S., a representative democracy and republic, had slavery.

And I am not entertaining your tangent of “pays their labor a living wage.” You said capitalism means paying lowest possible wage. It doesn’t.

Furthermore, you treat capitalists as a monolith with the phrase of “capitalist country.” But a “capitalist country” refers to the economic system that is made up of millions of individual actors in the economic system. Might there be some actors in a capitalist regime laying their employees a “living wage”? Maybe, depending on the meaning of living wage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

since wages lower profit, lower wages by definition impact profit, I'd be interested in any examples of a capitalist economy paying labor a living wage

I’m glad you’re here to tell us these things. I had no idea. I’m intimately familiar with how profit works. But how profit works isn’t the discussion.

You said capitalism means paying the lowest wage possible. It doesn’t.

Now you shift focus to a living wage, something different.

And the phrase “capitalist economy” is an odd phrase. A capitalist economy paying a living wage is an odd phrase. A capitalist economy is made up of many individual actors, operating as capitalists. They aren’t a monolith. Might some capitalists pay a living wage? Maybe, if I knew what was meant by “living wage.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dairyair]

That's one of the beauties of capitalism. Practically speaking, no, there isn't. Compare today's homes to homes from a few decades ago, for example, and you will find they are much larger, better constructed, and have far more amenities. The average middle class family today lives like the upper middle class family of yesteryear, and lives better than the wealthy family of the eras before that.

Heck. I have a Garage. Know what a Garage is? It's a second house that I keep for my stuff.

Yay, Capitalism.

Yep. Today's liberals were yesterday's conservatives. The world continues to progress on and on.
Slavery gone.
Women's suffrage over.
Gays can marry.
Progress.

 

[dairyair]

In the capitalist world, everyone would be working for as close to ZERO as possible. To maximize profits.
There'd be no one able to afford an expensive home, unless, they were the 1%.

In the socialist world, everyone would be making $100/hr.
So, the best is when the too systems work together.

 

[smallvoice]

Good god, you are just being an ignoramus for the fun of it at this point huh?

"OTOH a capitalist says it would be great if <b>everyone could live in a home like that. And they work toward that happening.</b>"

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Your last paragraph said nothing like what the OP wants. It is exactly what we all want, so I suppose you are a capitalist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smallvoice]

America is in a much worse place today than this time four years ago
even a cursory glance at the news will convey that to an objective, rational person

yet you would support the person who has placed our nation in this inferior situation

BS. Nothing more needs to be said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[weaver2]

I’m glad you’re here to tell us these things. I had no idea. I’m intimately familiar with how profit works. But how profit works isn’t the discussion.

You said capitalism means paying the lowest wage possible. It doesn’t.

Now you shift focus to a living wage, something different.

And the phrase “capitalist economy” is an odd phrase. A capitalist economy paying a living wage is an odd phrase. A capitalist economy is made up of many individual actors, operating as capitalists. They aren’t a monolith. Might some capitalists pay a living wage? Maybe, if I knew what was meant by “living wage.”Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, a living wage is hard to define, but a non-living wage is obvious. When a corporation can call a 35.5 hours/week job, part time so they don't have to pay any benefits, can assign random work days and hours, can fire at will, and presents each new "part time" employee with a company brochure listing the local and state welfare offices, food pantries and Goodwill stores you know you are not looking a a living wage. And the corporation also knows it is not paying a living wage. When a person works what is essentially a full time job they ought to be able to live on that wage.

 

[Aurora]

Would you please, for the enlightenment of us Democratic Party members, who are completely in the dark, tell us all about our communist programs and platforms.

Progressive is polite speak for socialist / communist.

 

[NotreDame]

True, a living wage is hard to define, but a non-living wage is obvious. When a corporation can call a 35.5 hours/week job, part time so they don't have to pay any benefits, can assign random work days and hours, can fire at will, and presents each new "part time" employee with a company brochure listing the local and state welfare offices, food pantries and Goodwill stores you know you are not looking a a living wage. And the corporation also knows it is not paying a living wage. When a person works what is essentially a full time job they ought to be able to live on that wage.

Yeah? What if someone could “live” with the job you described above? Are you saying it is impossible for anyone to “live” with the job you’ve described above?

And if you have to resort to telling people what’s “obvious,” then you may want to rethink your argument. Unless of course there’s no possible reasonable disagreement, that your view is utterly ineluctable.

When a person works what is essentially a full time job they ought to be able to live on that wage

“Ought to”? “Ought to” according to whom? According to what?

And what does “live on that wage” mean? Does it mean a house in Beverly Hills, with an Ashton Martin parked in a four car garage? That is perhaps every janitors dream.

I have some thoughts, grandiose ideas of what “live on that wage” means.

How many varied understandings of the phrase “live on that wage” might exist in the U.S.? Whose understanding counts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[D_NATURED]

You seem to struggle with reading comprehension. Not shocked.

Its ****ing hilarious watching leftists talk about "marketing dumb ideas and hatred." That mindless bull**** completely represents the entire last 4 years for the American leftist.

Well, the fascist ass wipes on the right have been proudly selling out this nation for the last 40 years to the profoundly stupid, INSANE policy of trickle down economics and they don't quit no matter what the harm. Their failure is so complete and has so thoroughly bound the hands of justice and charity that we are forced by debt and hopelessness to accept their inhumanity as normal. And, with each wound they deliver to the heart of democracy these misguided ****tards celebrate the efficacy of their incompetence.

You HAVE had dumb ideas and hatred marketed to you by unscrupulous elitists and you've lapped up their sickness like starving dogs. Four years of Trump is like a four year root canal that costs you everything.

 

[VanceMack]

Well, the fascist ass wipes on the right have been proudly selling out this nation for the last 40 years to the profoundly stupid, INSANE policy of trickle down economics and they don't quit no matter what the harm. Their failure is so complete and has so thoroughly bound the hands of justice and charity that we are forced by debt and hopelessness to accept their inhumanity as normal. And, with each wound they deliver to the heart of democracy these misguided ****tards celebrate the efficacy of their incompetence.

You HAVE had dumb ideas and hatred marketed to you by unscrupulous elitists and you've lapped up their sickness like starving dogs. Four years of Trump is like a four year root canal that costs you everything.

You have your entire comments and thought process ass backwards. It’s the people on the right that have been CARRYING the pathetic leftist ****wits in this country at EVERY level. And while you **** yourself...again...over Trump you completely ignore the FACT that the rat party and the morons that vote for them have been in power in every major city in the country for decades and completely ****ed them over...and people like you think that’s not only a good thing but you can’t wait for more of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jotathought]

Living on a diet of processed 2 for a $1.00 gas station hot dogs and big gulps because that's all one can afford and has access too is the same thing as starving.

Meanwhile .. said individuals are using their smart phones to rally an anti-police mob ... made available by capitalism -- including the phone, network and infrastructure to support the text messages.

 

[justabubba]

Ya think? Yes it is, but what you are remiss in acknowledging is that part of capitalism doesn’t necessitate paying the lowest possible wage. Paying the lowest possible wage isn’t capitalism as lowest possible wage isn’t a fundamental feature of capitalism. Paying a lowest possible wage is how some have acted in a capitalist regime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

aren't prices for services determined by competition in a capitalist market?

then why would labor services not also be subjected to price competition?

 

[justabubba]

BS. Nothing more needs to be said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

only because you have shown yourself unable to refute my argument

 

[weaver2]

Yeah? What if someone could “live” with the job you described above? Are you saying it is impossible for anyone to “live” with the job you’ve described above?

And if you have to resort to telling people what’s “obvious,” then you may want to rethink your argument. Unless of course there’s no possible reasonable disagreement, that your view is utterly ineluctable.


“Ought to”? “Ought to” according to whom? According to what?

And what does “live on that wage” mean? Does it mean a house in Beverly Hills, with an Ashton Martin parked in a four car garage? That is perhaps every janitors dream. I have some thoughts, grandiose ideas of what “live on that wage” means. How many varied understandings of the phrase “live on that wage” might exist in the U.S.? Whose understanding counts? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...ngs-Metro_low-wage-workforce_Ross-Bateman.pdf

Good article and by a think tank that is not known for for it's endorsement of progressive politics

 

[Aberro]

But there is a limit on the number of "expensive" homes that can be built so how could everyone have one? You're essentially suggesting everyone should be above average.

“ And they work toward that happening.”

Key word there, “WORK”.

 

[HonestJoe]

“ And they work toward that happening.”

Key word there, “WORK”.

That still isn't the blocker, it is basic practical reality and logic.

Imagine there is a low-rent apartment block with a hundred families squeezed in there. You want to give them "expensive" homes so everyone puts in the effort to build a hundred grand detached homes with massive gardens, double garages and the like. The core problem is that would take require hundreds of times the amount of land to fit all those homes on. Multiply that by the billions of people living in the world and you very quickly run out of space.

 

[smallvoice]

only because you have shown yourself unable to refute my argument

When the position is BS, there is no refutation. Trundle along.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aurora]

But there is a limit on the number of "expensive" homes that can be built so how could everyone have one? You're essentially suggesting everyone should be above average.

You raise the bar on average.

 

[Aurora]

Hell yeah! those hungry 7 year old children should get off of their lazy asses and get jobs! Those lazy ass elderly folks living on a few bucks of SS a month, scraping by begging for change outside the grocery store should get jobs, those lazy bums!

Big hearted liberals will willingly give to the poor, not just demand government do it. It's easy to be generous with other people's

 

[justabubba]

When the position is BS, there is no refutation. Trundle along.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, you attempt to dismiss my argument because you are unable to refute it

 

[D_NATURED]

You have your entire comments and thought process ass backwards. It’s the people on the right that have been CARRYING the pathetic leftist ****wits in this country at EVERY level.

You're dead wrong. Now, I realize you're constantly patting yourselves on the back for being such great patriots but, objectively, it is the right who keeps electing draft dodgers and morons whose wealth kept them from harm's way while poor liberals died. And, though conservatives act like they are better fiscally (because they've stolen the most money), their policies are a PROVEN failure. Bigotry, theft and incompetence are the conservative legacy.

From just after the Republican Great Depression of 1929 to the early 80s, our nation had 50 years of democratic control of congress. During that period, we had NO bank runs or crashes, the standard of living for average people was the best it had ever been ANYWHERE in history. We fought several wars in that time, cut poverty in half and our national debt, when the fascist Reagan took office, was LESS than one trillion. After 40 years of fascist crooks running things, we've had to bail out banks, we've seen the economy inflate and burst several times and endless war has plagued our ability to respond to human need. Today, the fascists still threaten to cut revenue further for the sake of worshiping greed over good.

And while you **** yourself...again...over Trump you completely ignore the FACT that the rat party and the morons that vote for them have been in power in every major city in the country for decades and completely ****ed them over...and people like you think that’s not only a good thing but you can’t wait for more of it.

That's the dumbest thing you could have said. The cities where poor brown people live are the victims of republican incompetence and corruption, not an excuse for it.

I think you know I'm right, which makes your anger really just pitiful projection. The republican't party will be looked upon by posterity as an abject failure of the American people to stand up to the influence of oligarchs and demogogogues. As you lick their boots, they are busy stomping out the last embers of liberty for the poor and accountability for the wealthy.

The repub party is sanctuary for haters and traitors. Divide and conquer was their plan. Mission accomplished.

 

[weaver2]

Big hearted liberals will willingly give to the poor, not just demand government do it. It's easy to be generous with other people's

Being part of a democracy means we are all in this together. We can have differences , but we agree to work as a whole unit for the good of everyone. We have tacitly agreed that as a democracy we abide by the legal decisions which received the majority of votes. We support the projects and programs that benefit groups that we may not belong to with the understanding that others will contribute to what we need.

I live in the high desert of Oregon, flooding isn't one of our problem. We don't need levees or flood control but my taxes go to help those who need them. The farms that prosper along the Mississippi because of the levees don't need wild-fire protection but those taxpayers help pay for the smoke jumpers and the Hot Shot crews that we need when we can't put out a 50,000acre fire.

Nobody is being generous with other people's money. We are are supporting each other with our money. That's what real patriots do.

 

[Aurora]

Being part of a democracy means we are all in this together. We can have differences , but we agree to work as a whole unit for the good of everyone. We have tacitly agreed that as a democracy we abide by the legal decisions which received the majority of votes. We support the projects and programs that benefit groups that we may not belong to with the understanding that others will contribute to what we need.

I live in the high desert of Oregon, flooding isn't one of our problem. We don't need levees or flood control but my taxes go to help those who need them. The farms that prosper along the Mississippi because of the levees don't need wild-fire protection but those taxpayers help pay for the smoke jumpers and the Hot Shot crews that we need when we can't put out a 50,000acre fire.

Nobody is being generous with other people's money. We are are supporting each other with our money. That's what real patriots do.

Wealth redistribution is just that. levees as you mention are infrastructure projects. Because someone has a BMW and someone else takes the bus does that mean government will force the Beemer owner to give to the bus rider? Rather have the bus rider have the opportunity to advance to one day have a malibu.