|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Has a middle-class person approached you asking for money recently? (middle class = judging by the type of clothing and not being unkempt) And were you asked for money in an unusual place, like a middle-class shopping center?
I’m in Southern California, and people are asking me for money every time I leave go out. What is startling to me is that it’s happening in unusual places, even when I’m sitting in my car. And people ask for specific things, like bus fare or food for “me and my wife” (and the wife is there).
Just wondered if it’s just me or is this happening to other people? And, if so, why is it just in the last few weeks that I’ve experienced this?
As you probably know billy I live in the UK, on occasion I dealt with a persistent beggar through the 1990's and well into the 2000's. I met him again in 2010 and we enjoyed a pint of beer in one of the bars in the city, he told me that although he was moved on constantly as I had done to him he still made around a £1000 a week. I asked him what he did now and he told me he had retired at 50.
I was amazed at what he told me because my idea of a beggar was a dirty unwashed drunk or druggie, he maintained he was neither a drunk or a druggie but just viewed his begging as a job.
My friends in the police force have told me that they have a problem in the city at the moment with Romanian begging gangs who rake in thousands by using children and old women to court sympathy.
It seems begging has become a profession for professionals too.
Maybe the people you have encountered have realised its a fast and easy way to make a buck as you Americans say.
No. I have not in particular but everything new hits California, first. JK, not. Many people are really struggling and need help. There are days I was so poor in the last few years it easily could have been me asking.
I never have asked on the street or parking lot because I trust in God and He provides my needs. I am humbled on my knees and He has always come through. Those asking for money are hurting in some way to ask for a help. Even if they are pros they are hurting!!! For me I am happy to help out. No matter low class, middle class, clean, dreadlocks or updoo, believer, not believer, tattoos or not I can always fish in my purse and find a couple dollars if it is a broke day. A sign of the times. God tells us to help the poor. He will repay the blessing. The hurting are many more than we might suspect. God Bless you. He is the way truth and life. John 14:6 Love never fails. Skye
I have seen women at shopping centers with children or holding a sleeping child in a blanket… asking for money.
I also see guys and their disabled, or sleeping dog near freeway on-ramps.
(So Cal location, as well.)
I have seen middle-class guys selling bottles of water.
Yes, it appears this is becoming common place in some areas. Even middle class suburban neighborhoods. There are folks who seem to approach it like a job. Typically fairly well dressed, polite, having a story...just needing gas money, bus fare, dinner, whatever. We have a few local Wal-Marts where you can pretty much count on being approached from dinner time through the evening.
One interesting thing I have noticed is that these particular panhandlers are very stealthy. It is a challenge to see where they come from and go, (typically operating at dusk or night time). They must quickly hop out of and back into a car, because you see them walking away among cars, then they are gone.
I have also noticed they choose to approach you when you are leaving and about to get in your car. After disappearing from your view, they must wait for you to go before approaching someone else. Even when hanging around for awhile, making a call or whatever, I never see them approach anyone else while I am still there. Not sure what any of that means or why it matters, they are just observations I have made after many encounters.
I've not seen more "middle class" individuals asking for money, but I've seen more down-on-their-luck folks. Some are panhandlers, I'm sure, but I keep a clip in my dashboard with whatever bills I can spare to help out when asked. What I noticed most recently (I'm in the Midwest) was people sitting on the ground near exits of supercenters (like Walmart) and malls. right by the street.
I've never begrudged anyone who asks for help and I don't avoid them. If I have the opportunity, I'll strike up a conversation and try to feel out what the real problem is. Other times, I give them a bit of cash from my clip.
When I read stories about how someone found a desperate family living in destitute conditions, little children nothing more than skin and bones, but the parents too proud to ask for help, it angers me. I think, "Why didn't you ask for help? If not for you - then for the little ones."
And that's probably the reason I try to help the most - for the little ones.
I've had people tell me I shouldn't because the panhandler will just go and spend it on booze. But, the truth is - no one really knows that and I'm not willing to make a judgement call that might result in kids going hungry.
I can't say I've seen beggars who are middle class. I can say that my school district's free-and-reduced lunch count skyrocketed to an astounding 87%, and many of these parents are middle-class parents. They now receive government assistance to feed their child/children each day. Now we even offer free breakfast and free lunches during the summer. All you have to do is claim to be poor, and you receive free food with absolutely no questions, no accountability, and no verification of income.
Are you telling me children are going to be able to eat instead of trying to study hungry? Oh the horror.
Children shouldn't be going hungry just because their parents spend money unwisely.
We agree for once Josak. All children should get a free school meal. it should be high on the list of what schools spend money on.
In my own experience schools seem to think how cheap can we do it when they should be thinking how good can we do it regards nutritional value and appeal.
But everything has a price on it these days. Appealing meals cost money.
Do they really!
Not enough money to buy books, not enough money to employ high class teachers, not enough money to maintain their buildings, but plenty of money for meals! I think not.
What could you do with 40p a day?
The education system in the UK has had more money pumped into it in the last 20 years than at anytime during its history.
New schools being built, new equipment, more teaching staff and assistants, more backroom staff all equals more money.
The school I worked at 5yrs ago spent £50000 on a tent to cover the playground area so pupils wouldn't get wet at break time, when I mentioned about the money being spent differently I was told it came out of a different budget and had to be spent on these things or they would have to give it back to the local authority. I must say it is the only school I have heard about that served breakfast to pupils for free so maybe they wasn't all that bad I suppose.
It would be advantageous both to the schools and pupils if they spent the money in a different way sometimes.
The college I now work at has just spent £40000 on new chairs to match their colour scheme, the old ones were fine but they still went in the skip.
Plenty of money in the education system john.
All children should get a free meal? Would you give a free lunch to children whose parents are wealthy?
Yes. As in the main they pay taxes too. Should we discriminate agains children because of who their parents are?
So should the government discriminate against the children because of who their parents are?
Will a rich parent get a tax rebate if their children doesn't get school meals?
Are you saying that all or no children should get a free lunch, in the interest of being fair? What, exactly, are you advocating?
How many rich parents even have their children in public schools? Do rich parents get a rebate when they pay taxes and then put their child in a private school?
How many rich parents are worried about two dollars?
How many rich parents even have their children eat the hot lunch? It's generally disgusting.
Let's get serious. This is not a real issue for wealthy people. You're manufacturing this issue.
What you're are advocating is that the ones who pay for the poor children to have the free lunch should have their children excluded from that lunch unless they pay even more money.
What I am saying is that all children should get a free lunch because its about the children and not their parents.
Oh heck, here we go again, is it you taking the tablets or me? +1
Of course the rich will have to pay more to get their kids a lunch. Whether it's a "free" lunch within the program (paid for by the "rich") or paid for at the time of use (by the "rich"), the same people will be paying for it. Not the poor, in other words.
The only difference is whether the "rich" with kids will have their kids subsidized by the "rich" that do not have kids. "Rich" being anyone paying income taxes.
Obviously many of them are if a couple of dollars in tax has them foaming at the mouth.
No, the government should make sure that people who truly need assistance get assistance.
Does a rich person get a rebate when a poor family gets food stamps? By the logic you are using, everybody would be on food stamps.
My logic is about a child getting a meal at least once a day and making sure that child gets a meal, it has nothing to do with the rich feeding the poor.
Can you absolutely be certain without a doubt that all rich kids get a nutritional meal everyday?
I am not advocating a shift in conservative viewpoints, I am not advocating a shift to socialism, I am not advocating huge rises in taxation but what I am advocating is giving a child a meal at least once a day whether they are rich or poor, fat or thin, black or white, girl or boy, tall or short, bad or good.
Kids aren't in school during the summer. Would you advocate a free lunch then too? Are you saying that families who have children should receive free food but other families shouldn't? Isn't that discriminatory too?
Around me, that's when they expand the program. In the summertime when schools are out.
It has been expanded here too, in the past three years. Now, we too, offer free lunch in the summer. Do you know what the requirments are to get a free lunch in the summer? You show up. There is absolutely no verification of income or accountability. What if we ran our food stamp program like that? What if we ran our welfare program like that? Anybody who asks gets a freebee? Something is inherently wrong with that mentality; the people who abuse our generosity take away from those who truly need it.
Hmm. You don't want to change conservative viewpoints that people are responsible for themselves. You don't want rises in taxes and you don't want a shift to socialism where the state takes care of everyone.
You just want to give out (at least) 2.25 Billion free meals each month. Meals that don't require taxes to pay for, that is not socialistic and is not a shift towards a nanny state. and away from conservative views. Interesting spin!
Of course they shouldn't be hungry. Nobody is advocating that. I am saying that people are abusing the system, lots of people who do not need public assistance. The people who abuse the system take away from those who truly need assistance, and they cost the taxpayer.
Yes you are advocating that. That is the consequence of your belief.
If we judge it by income and their parents who exceed the income level spend money unwisely (or just have some emergency) that means the kid goes to school hungry so yes the direct consequence of your belief is children going hungry. It is what you are advocating.
YOU WANT TO KILL THE LITTLE STARVING CHILDREN!
They rallying cry for socialism. More share the wealth is always the only answer, isn't it? Now we're up to the poor subsidizing the rich man's table. Always, always, more forced "charity".
Nope I was just replying to his comment that he did not support that. Not believing in feeding kids who are hungry is a different discussion all together.
What I stated was simple fact.
But fine, Wilderness, do you support feeding kids who are going to school hungry through taxation? Yes or no will suffice.
Yup my desire will always be to help those who need it, the desires of some others (thankfully a minority) are a lot more self centered.
Wrong question. The right ones (2) are do you support forcibly taking money from people to satisfy your personal ethics (until they leave the country if necessary) and do you support reducing productivity (by taking income) to the point that the country returns to third world status or at a minimum lowers the standard of living for everyone and causes widespread hunger?
The only time I ever cornered a liberal into actually answering the first one he agreed he did, but was also honest enough to agree that he would not give me the same option. Of course the answer to the second is always "no", but with the caveat that unlimited sums can be taken without changing the incentive to produce. A fallacy that everyone but liberals and socialists are well aware of.
Actually those questions are implied in the very concept of taxation at any level whatsoever. After all any taxation at all is to achieve a purportedly ethical aim, ask an anarchist and they will tell you every single one of them is wrong.
So your questions are actually do you support taxation as a concept.
Of course factually the second is rubbish but that is besides the point. I won't bother elucidating however because I am sure I will get a reply of "well maybe but Norwegians own fewer boats" or some other ridiculous nonsense.
But what you did was not answer the question and answered a question with a question. Because you were too cowardly to answer it directly.
So my answers are: Yes I support taxation and all taxation is based on ethical cause, those taxes properly implemented attract people rather than drive them away, Norway has the highest number of immigrant application per capita in the world precisely because it's taxation system has created a society people want to live in.
And no because taxation does not reduce incentive when properly implemented. Being as we live in a low tax nation anyway it's not an issue we particularly have to worry about anyhow.
I could again establish the fact that there is actually a reverse correlation between tax rates and income/wealth people are wealthier in higher tax nations. But probably those nations eat french pasties on Tuesdays in larger quantity, which obviously make my statistics irrelevant any excuse to avoid facts right?
"After all any taxation at all is to achieve a purportedly ethical aim"
Not IMHO. Taxes should be to maintain the country, not simply to support any project that someone decides is ethical.
I didn't answer because you formed a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. Ask if I support specific programs, not general taxation and unlimited free money, and you will get a better answer. The DO YOU WANT LITTLE KIDS TO STARVE garbage belongs in file 13, not posted as an honest question.
If you find all taxation to be based on ethical causes, then you and I differ even more than I though. That is a blatant lie, created by big govt. lovers as a means to expand government and political power, not to provide for the needs of the country or it's people.
Because other nations have higher tax rates does not mean we should joint them, regardless of any spin that claims differently. High taxes without direct results to the payer are negative and DO reduce incentive - that means that "properly implemented" taxes do not simply share the wealth but give something to the one paying them.
You're right - any excuse to avoid facts. When you decide to be honest about standards of living, and produce figures comparing what US citizens value to other countries, we can talk about it. When you compare how socialist the countries are, with a built in bias towards socialism, I tend to glaze over rather quickly.
Name a single tax that does not rely on an ethical base. That is obviously false since anarchists consider all of them unethical.
I happen to think having an army capable of operating outside the US is immoral but most people disagree with me and so I help pay for it, willingly.
It's beyond obvious that every tax is to satisfy someone's moral base. You for example think people have the right to be protected by an army and police force even if others have to pay for it. Guess what that is an ethically based tax.
I answered your loaded question mine was just factual, the simple FACT is if you don't allow government programs to feed children in school some will go hungry, I am sorry reality is too loaded for you but that is how it is.
That's kind of what I said - to the liberal socialist the ONLY answer ever acceptable is to throw great gobs of money at it. Money taken by force under the guise of ethics and given to keep people enslaved.
Trust me on this one - there ARE other methods. Whether it be feeding hungry children, housing families that cannot do it themselves or healing the sick, there are better methods that forever reinforcing the entitlement philosophy that someone else has to take care of me. At the end of that road lies slavery and poverty, not utopia.
SO can't name such a tax?
And if all these other methods are so great how come they aren't happening? These systems weren't there for decades and decades of American prosperity and people still went to school hungry.
The sad reality is it became necessary because none of these theoretical alternatives occurred.
Conservatives are quite happy to sit back and watch that happen not out of some ideological motive but simply because helping might cost them a few dollars.
No, wrong, we are well aware that driving pay down below subsistence levels, where the pay needs topping up by the government really takes away the incentive to produce.
I'd say that only liberals and socialists are aware, or care.
So driving net pay down (by raising taxes to give more charity) too far needs made up by govt., requiring higher taxes and driving it down further.
Right, let's get this straight.
Government driving wages down by taxation is wrong.
Employers driving wages down below the level where taxes are paid is good.
Is that it?
Can't say as either is good (although that "level where taxes are paid is good" gives me a little pause), can you? Be honest, now, John - is taxing people a good thing for them? The taxpayer, not the welfare recipient?
I would rather be a tax payer than be paid so little that I was a drain on taxpayers.
And yes, by and large taxation is good for people. Think police, highways and bridges etc.
You do realise that those on low pay that receive subsidy from the government are welfare recipients?
Taxes are good for people. We agree, at least as long as they get something in return for their hard work - it's when that hard work goes for something that has zero benefit to the payer that I get a little squirmy. As with about 1/2 of the taxes I pay.
Yes, about half the US gets subsidized by govt, instead of helping to maintain the country. Better to have fancy, $100 per month, cell phones and multiple big screen TV's than to help build a road.
The problem is bureaucracy eats taxpayers money and that's aside from the waste the fraud and the bonuses for doing a job they are contracted to do.
So very true in education these days.
Way too much gets "stuck" at the bureaucratic administrative (pencil pushing) level and way too little gets to the classroom teachers and students.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with including a free meal for every child in school. If a child's parents want to send him or her with a bagged lunch instead, so be it. I would rather make sure all the kids in the classroom have full bellies to learn.
I am very proud of the elementary school my youngest attends....80% of the children attending are of the free and reduced lunch category...and though they do not yet provide free for all lunch, they do provide free for all breakfast. I find that admiralable since research has proven that children who eat breakfast have higher scores. Some children may not have a food hardship at home but a time hardship with both parents or single parents who must rush to work and this program covers both hardships.
It's call the nanny state. Since neither children (for obvious reasons) nor the parents tasked with their care are competent to feed them, the state must do it. Lots of people really, really appreciate the nanny state.
Others, not so much.
So interesting that feeding children is a nanny state but subsidizing oil companies is job creation...I believe feeding children is job creation and subsidizing big business is a nanny state and I don't care for it,
Personally, I find both to be creations of the nanny state. Both have specific people responsible to take care of them (kids and oil companies); when society must do it instead it becomes the nanny state.
That is, of course, assuming that the oil companies actually needed a subsidy. Most companies do not, and those that do should almost always be allowed to go under. It is also assuming that the "subsidy" to the oil companies was not instead a purchase of specific actions by that company. Hiring from a particular group or locale, for instance.
I think what many refer to as a nanny state is instead a social responsibility issue. For instance, if companies were being subsidized in order to pay higher wages for employees and say the agricultural subsidies were actually passed on to consumers then food assistance programs would be unneeded and unnecessary.But such is never the case, only the top sees a salary growth and profits grow forcing subsidies be found on the back end to feed hungry families existing on low paying low skilled jobs.
"if companies were being subsidized in order to pay higher wages for employees "
I'm sorry, Tammy, but that statement is about as foolish as it comes. It comes straight from the socialist mind set that society is the nanny; that no one will be allowed to make their own decisions.
Just who do you think is going to pay the taxes to support the company subsidy to have higher wages? The people that are already struggling to make their way, that's who! The ONLY result is to provide less net income for them while fattening politicians and growing their hold on the citizenry!
right... so our money goes to the government which then doles it out… the 'ol dole…
However, where does most of the money end up going?
I understand your points wilderness, however, exactly the way insurance works for instance, a large tax base such as the good ole USA spreads out the cost per person...and those same taxes are spent on infrastructure which benefits the businesses who can afford better wages and it all comes full circle.
If I'm understanding you, you're exactly right. Spread that subsidy into infrastructure and all business becomes more efficient. They can produce more with less, meaning that they can now afford to give a raise without destroying profits. Profits that may be a nasty word but are necessary to have a business.
But if you just hand the company that tax money to give back to those that paid it...well, I said already what that accomplishes.
I wonder where Bill Gates would be now if his parents hadn't had the resources to feed him properly as a child and I wonder how many Bill Gates have been lost to humanity due to lack of proper food as a child?
(Mind you, a lack of Bill Gates would not be the worst thing to happen to humanity)
Are you sure that the implied assumption (that Bill's parents not only had resources to feed him but did indeed do so) is true? Or just making a guess?
His father was a lawyer - know any poverty stricken lawyers?
Not just a lawyer. A senior founding partner in a large, successful, and influential firm.
Sorry John, I guess I was just too cryptic.
The point is that, just like Gates, The parents of nearly all children in this country have the resources at home to feed their child each day. They just don't choose to do so.
Now, before you scream, those resources can come from work, from charity, from gardening or (most often) from welfare programs of the govt. The point is that they are there, just as they were for Gates.
His parents were very wealthy and his father actually bought him the patent that allowed Microsoft to exist.
No, it is not. Don't tell me what I believe.
I believe that children should have a lunch. I beleive that there should be a program in place to make sure that children who have poor parents can get that meal. I believe that there should be income verification, something we don't have. Right now, you can claim to be poor and get free food for your child with absolutely no accountability. Nobody even asks questions. That's wrong, and it hurts the poor kid more than anybody else.
I'll tell you what hurts the child more than any thing else and that is being exposed as having parents who cannot afford to buy their dinner. Give all children free dinners and you remove that flag.
I work with kids. I am a teacher. I work in a district where eighty-seven percent of the children receive a free lunch! You don't know what you're talking about. Many parents are bilking the system.
We both agree that poor children deserve a chance, a lunch. It's wrong for middle-class and wealthy parents to lie about their income so they can get a free ride for their child. The government has an obligation to feed poor children; the government has an obligation to protect use our hard-earned taxes to do the most good. When our government gives money away, without any accountability, that's a waste of our money.
What's next? Are you going to advocate that anybody who has a child must be on food stamps, so that child/children will have food? Are you going to advocated that anybody who has a child must have government assistance for housing, because that's what's right for the children?
OK, so let the higher paid parents pay for their children's food through taxes.
Are you sure you're a teacher? Not of English certainly. Having had children I'd argue your point that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Please elaborate about your "not of English" statement.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm a teacher.
Wilderness, I would hate to inhabit your world. It would be full of feral children and criminal adults.
Oh sorry, it is already despite our best efforts.
So it is! In spite of ever increasing socialism and sharing the wealth, and it gets worse every year. Instead of learning, we always say "Well, that didn't work, do it again and harder this time".
The result of the endless do-gooder that thinks ethics trumps reality. They just don't learn, forever ready to steal and give, steal and give. Repeating a cycle that has never worked and never will, no matter how much we wish it would.
Ever increasing socialism!
Don't you mean "as capitalism gets its claws deeper into us all". The reality is that for as long as our countries are run by people who put profit before everything else then things will continue to get worse.
Welfare for work isn't a socialist creed, it is pure capitalism.
Of course its capitalism John because under socialism those who wont work will starve. I suppose those who wont work will be coerced into working though.
Think of a newly planted shrub. We are willing to help it grow by watering it, but when it's roots find their own source of water, we are ever so thankful and relieved! I think John considers it injustice, when the water source is cut off due to drought. He is right is is not fair… but who said life is fair… just ask the now-dying shrub!
Yes, when the water source is cut off by drought we think nothing of tipping water over it to help it to survive until the drought ends..
Unless, of course, the well has gone dry, too...
But it is still a long way from drying up isn't it?
You still have plenty of money to interfere in world affairs, oh sorry, maintain world peace.
Oh, I understand now. You weren't talking about using your water, were you? What a surprise.
Sorry, what comes out of my well belongs to ME. Not some radical liberal that wants to use it all to water a garden somewhere across the country. I will make the decision as to where it goes; maybe that far off garden, maybe my own, maybe my neighbors, but I will decide.
Are you a god?
How exactly does that water belong to you?
Sorry, but I think we both have a good, hard understanding of personal ownership. I own the land the well is built on, I own what comes out of it. I've paid the price for the ownership whether it was blood, sweat or the fiction of "money" and I OWN it.
Now look, I too have a bore hole into the very same aquifer and I own it so stop stealing my water or else . .
*sigh* If you want to get into water rights there are a whole raft of them in my area. Right up to the point no one can take water above a certain temperature out of the ground.
But that really has nothing to do with the concept of ownership, does it? The legal specifics of individual cases can be worked out later, after we decide that it is ethical to own anything at all.
Good. Then do we need to go into how power gives me ownership? How I can and will use the force of the nation to enforce what I (and that nation) accept as my ownership rights?
Or do we both understand that ownership cannot come from ethics, but ultimately only from the power to enforce it?
So you are saying ownership the basis of the entire capitalist system has no ethical basis and is simply force exerted... Interesting.
Crudely put, yes. There are no ethics involved, for or against, in ownership. At most one might claim that something they produced with their two hands is theirs, but even then another can take it as long as they have more force. And it is central to capitalism.
It is also central to socialism, mind you, but in the opposite direction. The socialist finds no ownership possible; everything is available for taking by the central committee called "government" to be used as they see fit. Individuals in the system retain the concept of ownership, but the government denies it completely and only leaves the individual what it does not want or cannot use.
So in the long run, the capitalist living in reality will allow the govt. to take what it needs to survive, and the socialist will retain what the govt. decides he needs to survive. Plus a little more in each case; it is the real world here, not some make believe fairy tale.
No... Socialism does not hold ownership non existent.
It just has a different concept of what people own.
I don't think you have read the socialist foundational texts much.
The socialist holds that what is created by labor belongs (in value anyway) to the laborer. Labor being directly not by investment. In a fully fledged socialist system taxation does not exist except for those who are profiting without direct labor.
Like it or hate it is a different discussion but that is the fact.
You are "creating" a socialism that does not exist, cannot exist and contains built in methods to destroy the concept in any case.
But every country taxes labor - no socialism. Yet a great many countries are consider to be socialistic.
"Value" determined by committee - always artificial, always false, and giving rise to taxation on anything above value.
No intellectual effort as it isn't "labor". The labor in pushing a pencil is negligible; all secretaries taxed at investment rates. Ditto for research. The value of the work of a ditch digger far surpasses that of an artist, surgeon or rocket scientist.
Building a machine to do your job results in taxation as the production of the machine (which you labored hard to make but received no pay for) isn't labor. Smart system, here, that gives incentive to stick with manual labor rather than automation.
Sorry, you do nothing to promote the concept. Just to run away as fast as possible.
No Wilderness, it is you who is creating a socialism that does not exist and cannot exist.
A country having some socialist policies does not make it a socialist country when the capitalists are still at larger in that country.
Values decided by capitalists are always false, based entirely on what they think we will pay for their latest gizmo.
Your ideas on how work would be valued are, at best, amusing, certainly not real. The idea that people would receive no reward for their labour is equally laughable.
No, values decided by capitalists, based on what people will pay (not on what they think people will pay) are the only real ones. Pretending that you can assign value by what it takes to make a product, what a politician thinks it should be worth, or how badly someone (that can't afford it) wants it does not. Only what people will pay for it.
And the same goes for the value of the product called "labor". It is worth what someone will pay for it, not some inflated amount that you want or that a third person declares the worker needs to live on. Neither your desire for money nor your need for it determine the value of your work. Only what you can get for it.
"The idea that people would receive no reward for their labour is equally laughable." That's true - even slaves are fed. What is your point?
What was your point - you raised the matter.
Building a machine to do your job results in taxation as the production of the machine (which you labored hard to make but received no pay for) isn't labor.
You misunderstood. If I go into my garage and design/build a robotic law mower, then rent it out to mow lawns for a fee, it isn't labor and income will be taxed where income from manual labor will not.
Even though it was built from my labor but not paid for by anyone, it will be taxed as investment, not labor.
Wrong on all counts.
Labor absolutely does include "pushing a pencil" or doing research not just physical work.
Value determined by the market (Wow right? a socialist said market! Read a book).
Building a machine obviously is labor.
The socialism we live in is transitional, some things we have to accede to capitalist means on, like taxing labor (another example being welfare that we have to support morally but fully plan to get rid of.) We do these things slowly, that is part of why we support progressive taxation, it takes more of the burden off the laborer and puts more on the investor (in general, there are some who definitely labor for their million a year).
The thing is you don't actually know what socialism is.
Tush Josak, of course he knows what socialism is, it's been explained to him by capitalists and they undoubtedly have a far better idea of it than your or I.
They must; certainly the two of you can't agree at all!
Example: John is quite happy with a person accumulating capital and has said so. Josak will take it away and distribute it.
John is quite happy with a person using their accumulated capital to open a business. Josak will grudgingly allow it, but will tax it to death in a punitive action because only govt. can have a business.
About the only place I've seen real agreement between you two is that both quickly go quiet when asked who will value products or services, particularly labor. Josak now says the market will, but I suspect that "market" means govt, not the free market settling out on it's own with no interference from the govt.
Josak will tax a machine's production as not being labor even though the machine itself was the "payment" for the work to make it. What about you, John; is the income from spending capital somehow valued/taxed differently than income from manual labor?
I agree with both of those, are you referring to not gaining interest on funds not specifically for certain things? Because that is very different.
I have no problem with small business being privately run, sure the part of their owners profit which is not directly labored for should be taxed but I don't think John disagrees with that. There is no reluctance in private ownership of small business btw. I own a business for Christ's sake.
uhh...I do not understand what "I agree with both of those, are you referring to not gaining interest on funds not specifically for certain things" means. Just dense tonight, I guess - can you explain further?
Small business is OK to be owned? Not just ran, but owned? How can you own a business when you cannot collect capital to build it? Because you are most definitely on record as saying one cannot collect capital (or at least that's what I understood back then).
I simply do NOT understand this insistence that investment be taxed but not labor, as if using hands makes the money earned somehow magical. The owner of that investment capital has undergone hardship and done without to accumulate it while the worker earning a similar amount had fun and spent all his. That does NOT make his income magical or more worthwhile somehow; it just means he was shortsighted and greedy. All that extra taxation does is reduce any incentive to save or to build a business - to provide jobs in other words. Absolutely counterproductive in any society where business is privately owned or any society where individuals are responsible for their own needs. Although I would disagree with it in principle, investment income (outside of stock value increases - that's a whole different kettle) should be taxed LESS than manual labor in an effort to provide more investment.
"Small business is OK to be owned? Not just ran, but owned? How can you own a business when you cannot collect capital to build it? Because you are most definitely on record as saying one cannot collect capital (or at least that's what I understood back then)."
I specifically said that there would be exception for starting a business, buying a home etc. and I never said people could not collect capital I said that there should be no interest on capital they collect thus incentivising immediate re-use of funds into the community, interest would be given if you are for example saving to build a business because that has an obvious value to the whole society.
Yes I support private ownership, I own a business and people creating businesses is obviously good for everyone.
There are a variety of reasons we believe you can only earn by producing directly, I won't explain all but here are three major ones.
#1) We believe the public can control investment better than individuals (and that the public controlling them has a huge list of advantages), individuals control investment for their own benefit not the good of the whole country/society, since we believe the public can control those funds better we don't really see a need for private investment (outside of small business where the huge numbers just make public management unfeasible). We also believe that private investment often does the wrong thing byt he laborer who is the real producer of wealth.
On the other hand the state cannot be the laborer there is simply too much so the worker is essential.
#2) We believe that much investment is not actually producing wealth. I had a friend who was a commodities trader, a very good one, he made money by buying up huge stocks of resources when they were cheap, storing them and then selling them on when the price rose (partially because he and others like him were reducing the supply) his "job" adds absolutely no value to the economy, all he does is increase the price of resources and profit off that, same can be said for short selling stock etc.
We oppose this.
#3) We believe that there is dignity in labor (when properly paid and treated) and it gives a real connection to wealth. That real connection keeps people grounded and makes them much more sensitive to what wealth is. We can see the reverse of this phenomenon at work in parts of the capitalist system, traders whose complete disconnect with the realities of actually producing wealth has led to blind ambition, soaring white collar crime etc.
Essentially the private investor is an unnecessary middle man between the production of wealth (which the laborer must do) and society.
Some of this I agree with and some is just nonsense to me.
Capital and interest: No one stuffs their capital, their savings, in a mattress. They give it to a bank in return for interest, and the bank promptly invests it into the community. The talk about an incentive to re-invest is thus nonsense, just another attempt to grab money from the "rich".
Invest, however, does not IMHO include gambling in the stock market. Any increases in worth (capital) is paper worth only and does not correlate to anything in the real world. Having said that, your #1 is still of interest.
I am at a loss as to why anyone would think that a government can invest better than an individual. Not government has ever done so - every government "invests" in the best interests of the people running the government. The politicians, in other words, and not the people. And no, there is no reason to put forth the fiction that the people ARE the government; they are not.
Government has never accomplished anything at all as efficiently as individuals can; individuals that have a vested stake in the outcome. Committee rule is simply not the way to go.
The laborer is no more the "real producer of wealth" than anyone else is. Everyone involved has a part in that production and no one person can be set aside. All are necessary. The investor, the planner, the laborer, the supervisor; all have a part to play and all must play it well for success to come to any of them.
You own a business; without you there are no laborers. Without the investor (if there is another provider of capital) you will not have that business and there will be no laborers. If you are large enough to require additional supervisors, they are required and without them there will be no business and no laborers. All are required for a business to be successful, and the laborer is no more the "real producer of wealth" than your are as the owner.
#3, as near as I can tell, is a nice philosophical statement without much connection to reality. Getting mud under your fingernails doesn't connect you to wealth; if it did all ditch diggers would be rich. Nor is white collar crime all there is, although individual instances are usually much larger and do less damage to individual people. Let the plumber on a construction site, for instance run off with the gang box of tools from an electrician and the electrician has lost only a few thousand dollars; minor compared to typical white collar crime. He has also lost his ability to work, though, and likely does not have the capital to quickly replace it and that goes far beyond individual damage the management criminal does. There exceptions, of course, in the theft of huge savings funds of individuals, but while those get the publicity they are relatively rare.
Wow these are getting long I will try to be really succinct.
I already covered that for a variety of reasons banks do not reinvestment efficiently, a big part of which being that banks need to keep a significant portion of their money liquid to avoid rushes on the bank. They also often just invest this money overseas in horribly amoral ways.
OH I see well in the stock market sense we seem to agree to some extent, I find that interesting.
This is a simple matter of opinion, the Norwegian government runs "pound for pound" probably the most successful oil company in the world. Governments all round the world run healthcare more efficiently than our private system does, one of the most profitable airlines per investment in the world is owned by the New Zealand government etc. etc. etc.
I am aware that the US government has not always done so efficiently but limiting your belief on what governments can do to what the US government has done in the past is kind of daft.
As I explained the laborer is irreplaceable (until robotics advances significantly anyway) the investor is not. One provides an essential service the other is a middle man.
Yes I own a business, yes I employ people, I provided the investment, that would continue under a socialist system we already covered small business would continue.
Philosophical argument? Perhaps, nothing wrong with that.
I did not mean the ditch digger will be rich but most ditch diggers have an appreciation for what it takes to earn a buck and are thus more likely to feel bad taking it from another (that is the theory anyway) statistics do indeed bear out that the least criminal demographic is the demographic with a decent labor oriented job, that the very poor steal through necessity or desperation and the very rich steal because... well yeah.
More of the same; yes and no.
Banks reinvest, retaining a very small portion as liquid, yes. And do it again and again and again, all with the same $1 bill. And they are the ones with capital, not Joe with his $100 bill in his wallet. Seems good to me. Sometimes banks invest overseas, yes - did you not earlier say you would like to see our foreign aid increase? Seems to me that an investment in a new factory or desalination plant is far better than a ton of grain, quickly eaten and gone. Banks invest in horribly immoral things? Only according to you; are you saying that you should be the morality police of the world? That the bankers morals are necessarily less than yours or that you must not only control the morals but eliminate even the possibility that the banker could act immorally? I have quite a hard time with this one; it is not your position (or mine) to make that call as to what is moral in another country. It is CERTAINLY not a reason to deny banks an existence.
Although I'm sure there are a handful of government companies that are well run, I have a problem with them. 1) your examples are all from tiny countries, not much bigger than the large corporations we have. Are there any big countries that do well or are they all like the US? 2) I don't like govt., with it's tax dollar capital, competing with free enterprise and the ordinary people that supply the capital. If you DO allow that, companies need to be all like GM or WalMart, and then where does the small investor put his money to save for his elder years? The local McD franchise? Personally, I like big companies for stability, not little mom and pop stores.
No laborers are NOT irreplaceable, any more than any individual investor is. What are you trying say here? That Joe with the money can be replaced by Jerry with the money, but Sam is the only ditch digger in the country? Any laborer can be replaced with another one, just as investors can. And no total labor force can be replaced with nothing, just as there is no replacement for capital to start a business. You must have labor, you must have both start up and operating capital.
Your studies may indicate more criminal activity from white collar types, but I doubt it. Certainly far more of what I see, or what I see reported in local news, is blue collar. Minor theft, shoplifting, vandalism, grand theft auto, etc. are all blue collar. Only occasionally do I see reports of fraud, forgery, etc. - the white collar crimes. Although the white collar is normally considerably larger per incident it is also normally against large corporations that can afford to swallow it and move on. Not so with the firebug that sets a house afire or the drunk that smashes into you on the freeway and puts you out of work for a year.
So even the philosophy is twisted and slanted to make it sound reasonable when it really isn't.
Banks keep a large proportion in liquidity and do not invest with the public good in mind. Most bank investment is done directly into the stock market which you just said you opposed.
Banks invest overseas often specifically aimed at nations without the most basic of regulations to exploit them, I can post as many examples as you like. The morality of it is not in question as far as I am concerned, contaminating water sources, shooting unionists and aiding dictatorships are not on my list of ethical acts.
Government does not compete with the private sector, Government handles the means of production and exchange the private sector handles distribution. The US is the biggest economy in the world, but countries of millions of people are not to be ignored. Not that the size of a country has any impact on the ability to run a business, it's a ridiculous objection.
Laborers as a class of people (obviously what we are discussing) are irreplaceable, obviously laborers can be replaced by other laborers but there is no alternative to having a working class. On the other hand there is an alternative to having private investors.
White collar crime. According to the FBI there are over 180 arrests for white collar crimes for every 100 000 people, when you consider that white collar people are only a segment of the population that is a really high number, they also say that white collar crime is one of the hardest crime demographics to catch.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ni … rs_wcc.pdf
A large proportion. Federal reserve requires between 3 and 10%; neither is a "large" proportion to me. In addition, when that money is re-loaned, it will come back to the banking system again and again, each time 3-10% less, but over and over. The net result is that a deposit of $100 will produce loans of capital of $5,000 or more - something no private investor can accomplish.
?? First, ANY business transaction is exploitation, by definition. You needn't use it as a dirty word. Second, "the morality of it is not in question", but "shooting unionists and aiding dictatorships are not on your list of ethical acts"? Like it or not, you are setting yourself by as the Great Morality Guide when you would deny banks the right to invest in countries/projects you personally find immoral. This is something I fight within myself all the time - applying my personal ethics to peoples in other lands - as quite objectionable. I am NOT a God, supplying morals to people everywhere. I DO recognize that different cultures have different morals.
Since when does govt. not compete? Any time govt. sells a product or service it is in direct competition with private industry. At least it is if that industry is allowed to exist. And I disagree that using the tax base as a source of capital to accomplish that competition is reasonable. Size of a country - not so much an objection as an observation to be considered. 100% of the countries you tout as successful socialism are tiny. Is that significant? Probably. 100% of the countries you provide as successful business operators are tiny. Is that significant? The primary reason for NOT being successful here is greed as opposed to caring. The more people available, the more people willing to skirt the morals and it only takes one. So a small country has 100 greedy people that as the ability to rise and negatively affect the business, while a big country has 10,000 greedy people that can do it. It only takes one person; which country is more likely to have a business being directed by a greedy person?
So maybe it's significant, maybe it's not. But it is something to consider and not automatically hide because it just might be true.
What is the alternative to having private investors? A group of investors? A govt. that has collected the funds from investors into one pot? Internationally provided investors? Whatever you call it, it's still money and still comes from private people. Let govt. print money indiscriminately to provide the funds and you will soon have none at all.
Good - you're halfway there. Now how many arrests for blue collar crime for every 100,000 people? It's great that your are providing hard numbers for comparison purposes, but where is the comparison?
Yep, while collar people are only a segment of the population. A segment considerably larger than blue collar people any more - the ration has been changing for a long time now and is weighted pretty heavily in favor of white collar jobs. Which is what I said - why would you insinuate otherwise?
Come on, now, this paragraph is again beneath you. You're trying to spin something (type of crime) into something it very definitely is not (white collar incidents being more common than blue) in a sad effort to show that blue collar laborers have a better grasp of ethics than while collar workers. It not only doesn't work but makes all your other arguments very suspect just by association.
Britain is the only country in Europe to have privately owned and operated railways.
It also has the most expensive and inefficient railways in Europe.
We certainly agree there! All I really have to go on for an understanding of socialism is you and John Holden; as the two of you have as differing ideas as two Christians it is a little tough.
The biggest things seem to be that all wealth will be shared according to some secret formula of the govt. That and govt. will make all the decisions for how to live right; the nanny state to the nth degree.
Of course there we pretend there IS no govt. but there obviously is. We just don't like to say so, so we'll pretend the people are the government just as we do in a democracy. Or capitalism or most every system of getting along there is.
No, we don't defer that much, only on some details. We don't march in unthinking lock step though, that's probably because we are allowed to think for ourselves rather than just recite from the book.
There is no secret formula and government doesn't have to redistribute wealth.
The nanny state is a product of capitalism.
I really would like you to read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, it's available to download at no cost and shouldn't take too long to read. It outlines the beliefs of Josak and myself for more coherently than can ever be achieved on a forum such as this.
Once you have read it you will be in a better position to argue against socialism than you are now with all your misconceptions.
"There is no secret formula and government doesn't have to redistribute wealth. "
Then how does the guy with 4 kids, wife and disabled mother at home survive on a minimum wage job? Require the company to pay 6 times what the work is worth (back to that secret formula maybe)? If you're not to give him money taken in in taxes, what ARE you going to do? Let him starve?
That's great that neither of us like the nanny state; no more need on either side for massive controls on people as everyone is responsible for their own decisions. We can depend on people NOT to take a job that won't support them, we can depend on people NOT to drink big soft drinks or go without health insurance. That's great!
Minimum wage jobs are purely a product of capitalism.
"Minimum wage jobs are purely a product of capitalism"
Not true. Josak says that:
"Value determined by the market"
Presumably including labor, although he did not specify that. If the market determines the value of labor, then there will most certainly be minimum labor jobs; there will in fact be jobs paying far less that that arbitrary "minimum wage" required by at least one capitalistic society.
I repeat: if there is no redistributing of wealth, and there is no minimum wage, with some jobs paying considerably less than that, how do you support the man with 4 kids, a wife and elderly disabled mother at home? Deny him that specific job? Are you claiming you will always have a job capable of supporting that family AND that that individual is skilled enough to fill?
And we haven't touched on support for the quadriplegic, severely retarded or mentally ill if there is no wealth redistribution...
The workers are the market.
The employers setting the wages are the equivalent of the nanny state telling the workers what is best for them.
So… to remedy this, the workers should NOT exist merely as an aspect of the market, as though they were slaves to be bought and owned! Furthermore, employers should not act like masters of their workers once they are hired, and should NOT be doing such a thing as setting their wages... as this is telling them what is best for them! After all, who are THEY to be telling the workers, (who by the way, are really NOT slaves, since they have not been bought and therefore cannot be owned,) what their wages should be! Why, to set their wages FOR THEM is the role of a of a NANNY!!!! It is indeed an outrage, John. I whole heartedly concur!
* Workers should be allowed to set their own wages!*
The workers are the market and determine the value of their work even though they are selling rather than buying. I see - I suspected it was something like that.
So people get to tell their boss what they will earn - how much their paycheck is. Because I know you aren't saying that the workers will not take a minimum wage job and therefore there won't be any - that is the epitome of capitalism, where competition is the driving force behind all values.
OK - that solves the problem of how that individual can survive, but does bring up the very valid question of how a company can stay in business when the workers, without care for costs or earnings of that business, set their own wage according to how much they would like to have. It can't be by govt. subsidy as there is no wealth redistribution - how is that done then? By companies setting pricing for their product according to market value, but with "market" defined this time as the company selling the product and with a mandate that everyone must buy that product?
I, for instance, will have to buy baby diapers at $25 per diaper and feminine hygiene at $50 per use? So that the company workers can earn $200 per hour sweeping the factory floor? This could all work, I think, for about 30 minutes until hyper inflation took hold and workers have to be paid hourly and given time off to stagger to the bakery with their hours wage to get a loaf of bread.
Help me out here, John; your mythical socialist society is headed for collapse at about 1,000 miles per hour. When workers set their wage according to what they want to be paid, and companies set the price of their product without regard to what people will pay, it isn't going to hold together for long.
Capitalist landlords quite happily set their rents without regard to what anybody can afford. but then that doesn't matter does it because to a capitalist the most important thing is profit.
Haven't been a landlord long, have you?
Go ahead; try and ask triple what all the other landlords are asking for and see how long it takes to rent out your own. Perhaps you will understand better then just how supply and demand works.
If that doesn't convince you, try renting a crappy house at 2,000 per month when the median wage in the area being served is 500. Then come back and explain again how all the other landlords there (that rented their house out) only cared about profit and not the ability to pay.
Come, come, John. No (competent) landlord is going to set rents without regard to the ability to pay of his targeted customer base. If he tries he will soon not have the house to rent; the bank will.
I've recently moved into a housing association flat. The rent is about 50% of that for a similar flat in the same area. The association cover their costs out of the rent received, they also employ many people and reinvest surplus income in more houses and flats.
In the UK private landlords are encouraged in their greed by a government that subsidises rents.
So what's new there? Any time government sticks it's fingers into economic matters the price goes up. It's a part of why I maintain that our new Obamacare will bankrupt the country. That one isn't just a flat on the market; it's health care. The highest cost bill ever passed in the world.
So you don't like the landlords charging higher rent? Quit subsidizing them. As soon as that happens the tenant can no longer afford the price and the cost will drop. Or else, like I said, the bank will own the complex.
But John, greed works both ways. You have refused to pay double the value of the flat - you are a greedy SOB for not helping the poor landlord out in their quest for even a minimal living. They have struggled for a lifetime to purchase that complex; the least you could do is help out a little by paying twice the value. Value, anyway, as determined by you, the buyer. Only the real value as determined by the seller.
Sarcasm of course, but a pretty good indication of what the "greed" thing is worth, as well as letting the seller determine value. We're all greedy, buyers AND sellers, and will take/give just as much/little as we can.
Please, read a little better. Last paragraph - you being greedy was sarcasm. You are not greedy for taking the lower price; you are smart. But it IS a matter of viewpoint; the landlords there will not agree and neither will they agree that THEY are greedy.
Sorry if I inadvertently offended; it was certainly unintended if I did so.
I did, didn't I? Offend, that is.
Truly, John, I did not mean to and I sincerely apologize. It may not seem like it at times, but I DO respect you and your thoughts. Whether I agree with them or not.
Good night, John - another day I will finish straightening you out on this matter.
John knows how to rock n roll! Only the British can do it right!
So does that mean that if I hire him to take care of the baby crib (or pram or whatever those crazy people call it) and rock baby to sleep the price will be too high? That as a buyer instead of a seller I would get no say at all in the price?
I'd better hire local, I think.
Oh yes, he'll show up with his English pram and rock and roll yer baby all right, and he'll definitely set the price! Might be hilarious and worth the price! On the other hand, if he turns out to be a slacker, there will be no recourse. Yes, Better hire locally.
Well, now wait just a minute. He says socialism isn't about a nanny state, but of course it is. And part of baby care is being a nanny and change diapers. I can probably assume he is really good at changing diapers!
Maybe I SHOULD hire him, and at his "sellers" price after all...
That is very interesting, I just rented a house that last year rented for 800.00 dollars a month it is now 1175.00. Its interesting because I live in an area of the country that has a great economy and is experiencing a housing shortage therefore creating a change in the market.
The market dictated housing prices.
And why would the landlord set a rent that nobody could afford? The point is to rent the property not prevent people from renting it.
Do you imagine that they would have dropped their rents quite so quickly if demand had fallen?
ETA to answer your edit. In this country the government will happily subsidise landlords.
Yes, I have seen that many times. Again, the point is to rent the property.
Er, when you have run-a-way housing prices it can be just as profitable, if not more so, to leave property empty.
Reduced property taxes, less wear and tear, less outright damage. No management fees and many more reasons.
The taxes stay the same irregardless if its empty or not, most properties still have a mortgage that has to be paid. Less wear and tear is neither a loss or profit. Grass still has to mowed, the sun and rain still beat down on the roof, maintaining the property is a must.
Tell that to the landlords who refuse to let their property.
I don't know of any landlords who refuse to let their property, in any event it is their right to do so but that doesn't make it profitable.
And, they wouldn't actually be landlords, would they?
And why wouldn't they be?
Think about it, a few years ago property was inflating in value at such a rate that the annual increase in value often exceeded the annual salary of the occupant.
Because a homeowner who refuses to let his home has no tenants, no tenants no landlord.
I'm sorry, you seem to have moved away from the landlord sets the rent based on arbitrary reasons to something else. Are you arguing just to argue?
Well do it, don't talk about it.
PS, a landlord owns 50 flats, all let to students who give up their leases in the summer leaving the landlord with 50 empty flats until the next term. If not a landlord during that period, what is he?
But he doesn't own the land that his flats are on.
I'm still waiting for your proof.
You didn't say that he didn't own the land. If it makes you happy then he is a property owner, however, we were originally talking about land/property owners who refuse to let their property. Now you have changed direction once again.
My proof of not arguing just to argue is my staying on topic.
Er, no it was you who started the argument about when a landlord is not a landlord.
It is not an argument when I point out that someone who refuses to rent their property is not a landlord. It is simply a statement of fact and common knowledge.
?? I didn't make up those foolish concepts, like workers determining their own wage - you did. All I did was follow it to the end, applying the same concept all along the line.
Doesn't work too well, does it? Maybe we need to stick some good old fashioned capitalism in there. As in letting the free market (the real one, not one defined as only the sellers) determine value. One where supply, demand and individual need play a part. And where actual people, not a faceless government or mythical concept, mutually agree as to value. Think it will work better than allowing sellers to determine all value without any of that other stuff like supply and demand?
No, you took the concept and related to it in a capitalist way.
I'm sorry but in your capitalist free market it is only the seller that determines the value. It is also the seller that creates the demand.
No, in your fairy tale land it needs only the seller to set the price. You said so, remember:
"The workers are the market.", referring to the value of labor.
In MY world, asking too much (as will always happen when the buyer is not considered as part of the equation) will always equal zero sales. (It will in yours, too, you just don't like to hear it). Only when buyer AND seller can agree to a price will the thing be sold.
Did you catch that difficult concept? That buyer AND seller be involved in setting value? The worker cannot set his own value (and thus price) without regard to what the company can and will pay.
No, it is you who cannot grasp the concept that as things stand at the moment it is the employer that sets wages and the employee can either take them or leave them.
When in an ideal world (or Germany) employers and employees can sit down together and each treat the other as equals then together they will work out the optimum wage, one that allows the business to function but which does not allow the workers to be exploited.
Actually, I understand and sympathize (somewhat) with what you say.
But I have, in my 50 years of working, seen both sides of the fence. I've seen the employer in almost total control (as they are now) and I've seen employees asking and getting far more than they would otherwise be worth because there weren't enough workers.
So I don't worry about short term variances. They cannot be controlled without upsetting the entire apple cart, so limit it a bit and let it happen. It will, whichever way is happening, correct itself in time.
And I'm sure that you, too, have seen both sides. And taken advantage of them when you had the chance, just as I have.
Working it out together; we can all do that, although it hurts sometimes. My second to last job I packed it in and left because we couldn't come together. The last one the boss increased wages when the economy grew and the unions tried to organize; we all understood when the industry tanked and job bids fell through the floor. We took a 25% pay cut but no one complained, no one left, and I truly believe that the company itself survived on just cash flow for 3 years. No profits at all and probably needed some subsidy from the bosses wife's work. I DID take a little offense as some workers left when some employers raised wages; the comeback was extremely spotty in my area and all it took was one good bid to put a company back in the black near the end. Greed, I guess, overriding loyalty.
So it can still work, but it takes risk and work on both sides of the table. Workers MUST be willing to leave. Not let fear take them, be willing to put it all to the test just as the boss did when he created the business, and walk away. They may lose everything, but if they never try they will never be free, either. They will always be tied to that stereotypical business you try to paint them all as.
- renters should tell landlords how much they will pay to rent out their flats. And the landlords must agree to whatever the renter is willing to pay. After all, the landlord does not OWN his renter! But, if the landlord does not agree to the amount the renter offers, he can ask nicely for the renter to please come up with a little more, through sitting down and having a beer over some friendly negotiating.
I don't think we're getting through. The hatred for anyone with money in capital amounts is just too great. It's almost as if the businessman providing a livelihood for the worker is ALWAYS wrong, ALWAYS evil and must ALWAYS be under strict control by the person unable to accumulate similar amounts.
No, my point was that the buyer (tenant) has absolutely no control over rents.
Of course they do! YOU didn't rent from the high dollar place did you? And the ones that did were not forced into it, either.
-what do you mean NO? That is exactly what I said!
You should be saying "Yes, that is exactly right Kathryn L Hill. At last someone gets what I am saying!"
Don't I get any points at all?
He seems unusually adept at picking up sarcasm (most of the time, anyway). Been around me too long, I reckon, and had too many conversations with me.
(PS Do you really think he read the same book Josak read??)
No, they most definitely did NOT read the same book. Those two versions are miles apart. John says that although not in lockstep they are quite similar, but I sure don't see it.
I happen to know we did read the same book. Well one of anyway Since he is suggesting you read it.
Ah I should have made clear that labor is an exception (already is) obviously I support a minimum wage.
But having a minimum wage does not explain how that man will support a family while earning only that much. Without wealth redistribution, which John says is forbidden.
He never did answer that before bedtime, so I guess the man, his kids, wife and mother are all destined to starve. Care to take a shot at saving his family without "redistributing" some of societies tax base to him?
Sorry given there is a decent minimum wage and work how and why is he starving?
Because his work is not valued by the free market as much as his necessary support for his family is. That should be obvious. He is unskilled, he is stupid, he is lazy - who knows why, but the work he can (or will) do is of little value.
Do I deduce from your question that the answer to the question is to raise the minimum wage, doing away with the free market concept and ignoring what companies can afford to pay for his work, until it is high enough to support the largest family, with the most disabilities and needs, in the country?
Disabilities, widows and widowers and other needs are covered separately. That is the basic responsibility of a civilized society.
I did cover before that if it is still not enough then there would be welfare to cover the difference but I honestly think this would be incredibly rare. If two people working a job full time (I mean actually working slacking off at work is not work and we don't cater to that) are not producing enough value to feed their family then either their family is just monumental (which would fall under the rare part) or that job should not exist since it's just not profitable enough to justify it existing.
Just like now, employing people to pick up and sell aluminium cans for example is not sufficiently profitable to be justifiable.
Disagree. Mom can't work; she is unskilled and has two small children at home. Day care eats up more than she earns.
Dad works, but flipping burgers (or other typical minimum wage jobs) just don't cut it. The problem here is that you are assuming that "decent" minimum wage means $50,000 per year and it doesn't. It means, at most, $15,000 - enough for a single person to live on and not much more.
And, for now at least, this is not unusual; there are still lots of people stuck in that minimum wage, entry level job that is intended for a teenager.
So how do you support him without welfare, welfare that John says is not available for an able-bodied person?
Well first off as as socialists we believe in subsidized day care, day care without a profit margin does not cost more than a person makes working full time
#2 I would yes raise the minimum wage some, remember also that the laborer keeps much more of his value in a socialist system, at the moment a company might pay a burger flipped 15 000 but make 45000 off him. But let's say we raised minimum wage to 20 000 yearly (just as an example) (far less price parity wise than it already is in most of the first world.) That is 40 000 for the household, most can do just fine with that.
#3) Ah but this welfare is not for the able bodied person, as you said minimum wage already covers his needs it's for his children and children are not (in the laboring sense) able bodied. Again I think this instance would be rare and limited to cases where there were just lots of children to a family but we have no objection to giving aid to a child.
Two comments: 1) you are back in your fantasy world again and 2) you are still proposing more and more "share the wealth", which John absolutely insists will not be done.
Day care: My wife ran a home day care and I will absolutely guarantee that her profits from multiple children were NOT more than the parent makes. Taking away 100% of day care profits (and putting millions out of work in doing so) will NOT pay for a single parent's wage. She probably averaged less than $50 per week per family in profits (still very good for home day care 15 years ago) and that will not make it viable for a mother of 2 to work minimum wage. There are costs associated with even a home day care, let alone a professional one, and those costs must be covered whether state owned or not. In any case, you are not allowed to subsidize such things with welfare or any other kind of subsidy in feeding this family.
There is not a company in the country that earns 45000 net profit from a 15000 employee. Not a single employee producing that kind of profit from that kind of wage. Typical net profits range around 3-5% of costs - if you own a business you know this. A single minimum wage employee might produce a profit of $3,000 at best.
Raising the minimum wage to $20,000 means the family of 4 must live on $20,000. Not $40,000 because Mom can't work without being subsidized (share the wealth). And the business that had 20 minimum wage employees, earning $60,000 per year from them, just went broke, putting them all out of work. Their labor costs, after all, just climbed $100,000. For society as a whole, then, that seems a losing proposition. Better re-think the concept of forcing business to pay employees half again what their value is.
Society is not the primary care giver of children; parents are. Society does not feed, clothe and house children; parents do. And if society is forced to do it anyway, it is welfare, welfare given to the parents. Welfare that is not allowed when workers are available.
No cheating, Josak! John says no welfare, that means no welfare. We can discuss feeding the disabled another time; this one is about a man meeting his obligation to his family without society doing it for him.
Holy cow these are getting long.
Accusations of "fairy land" are the mark of a closed mind, a hundred years ago people said the same of universal healthcare, free university education etc.
Your wife ran a daycare that without accounting for profit cost 20 000 a year for a customer?
Sorry I don't buy it.
Those jobs are not lost btw they are just run publicly without a profit margin.
Who said we couldn't subsidize anything, subsidies are major part of socialism.
The quantity was purely demonstrative, I was not arguing the specifics.
We already covered that mum can work (yes subsidized child care is fine lots of countries do this already).
Society has a role to play in child welfare, simple as that.
There is no complete elimination of welfare, helping t he sick and disabled is welfare for example and not a single socialist will disagree with it. What the socialist does not believe in is welfare for an able bodied person capable of working, his children are another mater.
The government says it belongs to him if it was pumped from his well. Are you saying that the government is wrong?
It's interesting to see you use God in your argument. We don't typically see people who are as liberal as you do so. It's kind of refreshing.
Have a good day.
Sorry do you think being a socialist means we can never disagree with a government...?
I am seriously baffled by that comment.
No, I don't think you can't disagree with government, but it is nice to hear you say it.
Wilderness, (good afternoon) you are trying to fit socialism into a capitalist mould. It isn't a more caring form of capitalism or anything like that, it is entirely different.
Go and ask our leaders! I have never been asked for money, but being the person I am I would give it. I remember a woman with 4 kids (1993) with a sign, "will work for food" my heart broke. I stopped my car got out, took them into McDonalds and fed them. I asked her how she got into this situation, long story short, her husband walked out on her and left her and her children penniless. I asked what she did for a living, unbelievably she was an art teacher and no one would hire her because she was homeless. So, I took her to my church, they found her a home and gave her a job at the church school. There is always a reason a middle class person asks for money and you would be surprised at the reasons when you ask. It is a random act of kindness. Someday, (god forbid) if you find yourself there, you will understand. Until then have the kind of heart that serves those in need. It will come back to you, it has to me.
by Eaglekiwi9 years ago
See here's the thing.Begging for money even a dollar is not as common from where I come from ( yes occasionally) but its laughed at or openly scorned at so for whatever reason its just not common.I have lived in the USA...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Why middle, upper middle, and upper class children will be more successful in life than children whocome from lower middle to lower socioeconomic backgrounds? It has been substantiated repeatedly that...
by mio cid3 years ago
Income inequality has been growing for decades . Do you consider it a problem ? If so , how would you fix it ?
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
What are the differences in child rearing practices between lower middle class and upper middleclass parents?
by lady_love1587 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/ … class.htmlIt should be obvious to everyone now that the left is intent on destroying the middles class. Worse they do this while claiming their policies are to protect...
by Goodpal3 months ago
Why everything in society gets decided by the rich?Will the rich any importance left if suddenly all the poor people vanish from the societies? In fact, poor people work at cheaper wages to create wealth for the rich....
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.