JJ Husker
Donor
It's only a stereotype if it's applied to all poor people. It's reality when used on those who it actually applies to. They do exist, probably fewer than some of us imagine and more than others think.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- Thread starter Making Chimichangas
- Start date
It's only a stereotype if it's applied to all poor people. It's reality when used on those who it actually applies to. They do exist, probably fewer than some of us imagine and more than others think.
LumberJackSker
Active member
Those are some nice ideas but she won't accomplish any of that. The US is still a long ways away from viewing things like access to quality healthcare and quality public schools as a right and not a privilege.
She might find it easier to move to some where in Scandinavia.
She might find it easier to move to some where in Scandinavia.
Landlord
Banned
Who determines who is or isn't willing to work, and how do they determine it?
Sometimes. Maybe most of the time. But not for everybody - not by a long shot. I know dozens of people with better work ethic than me who are worse off than me. People who have worked their tails to the bone and not been able to show anything for it.
You are arguing simply for the sake of arguing.....and it's not something that appeals to me.
commando
Active member
lol....you never do answer. you just state something and never answer anyone who questions your statement.
I fully realize it's an internet message board and we all "know people" who are the exception.
My original statement was chopped anyway......I said capitalism provides an opportunity. I did not say "if x, then y".
Does a socialistic system offer incentive for productivity? That's probably my main question.
Making Chimichangas
Banned
To the first part: Give someone a job and you'll find out pretty quick if they're actually willing to work.
To the second part: That literally describes me. I have busted my hump my whole life and things just never seem to pan out. Everything I have tried to move up the economic ladder, to make my life better, has failed. It is frustrating beyond belief. So yeah.
Landlord
Banned
Making Chimichangas
Banned
To the first bolded part, I full quoted you...I just bolded the part I specifically wanted to comment about.
To the second bolded part: The answer is no. However, in a capitalist system, there is usually no incentive for productivity for people within an organization either. What I mean is, in many jobs it doesn't matter how "productive" you are, you're going to be paid whatever your hourly rate or salary is.
To use a funny movie analogy...It is like Peter in Office Space tells the "Bobs" [paraprasing]: Say I bust my hump and Innatech ships 10 extra units, they see additional profit, but I don't see any extra in my paycheck. So you know what that does? It makes me work just hard enough not to get fired.
Capitalism only rewards those who have money in the first place.
And here in America, we're already more "socialist" than one might think. We educate our kids, build/maintain our roads and infasfructure, have cable and satellite programming packages, social security, medicare, medicaid, health insurance in general, etc. In all of those things I just mentioned, we all pay into a pool and that money is used for the things I mentioned. We pay into things like roads even though there are roads we may never drive on. We pay into a health insurance pool because not everyone will need or use the benefits but they are there if we need them. Satellite and cable subscription packages have countless channels I will never watch: religious, info-mercial, Lifetime, Oprah's channel, etc.
All that ^^^^ is a form of socialism. Socialism just means we all pay into a pool because it is cheaper for everyone rather than paying for everything on your own.
We have to somehow get past this notion that "socialism" is a four letter word.
In your analogy, Peter isn't leveraging a marketable skill. Doing just enough to not get fired isn't exactly driven......
I disagree that capitalism only rewards those who already have money. Let's just say I know a guy who that isn't true about.
Danny Bateman
Donor
My girlfriend was listening to a podcast this morning discussing the concepts of socialism vs. capitalism in the American economy. They made a really good point which is similar to the thoughts I had reading through this thread.
People like to argue about whether an American capitalist or, for some more recently, socialist economy would be better for us as a country. The truth is the economy is ultimately mixed - it's got aspects of both. They said we thrived from the middle of the 20th century up until about Reagan because both beasts were well-fed. Well, since then, they've done their best at starving the socialist side of the equation. Only Obama since then tried to stimulate it at all with the ACA and a lot of people think that was a compromise half-measure.
But its not like most, if any, of these more socialist-style programs would just be straight giveaways. I think it's fair to put to rest concerns about welfare queens and lazy people who won't work. Most of our socialist programs now already have similar checks on them. You have to be 65 to get Medicare. You've got to be in your 60s to collect Social Security. You've got to prove financial hardship and/or be looking for work OR working to get unemployment or Medicaid. I've always found the complaints about people cheating the system a bit overstated.
Similar checks would be implemented with new programs as well. It's simply impossible, short of a Dem supermajority in both houses of Congress, for such programs to pass without fiscal conservatives having some input, meaning those checks will be in play. These programs may wind up being more targeted than Dem Socialists like AOC may care for; regardless, they would still represent massive steps forward for progressivism in the U.S.
People like to argue about whether an American capitalist or, for some more recently, socialist economy would be better for us as a country. The truth is the economy is ultimately mixed - it's got aspects of both. They said we thrived from the middle of the 20th century up until about Reagan because both beasts were well-fed. Well, since then, they've done their best at starving the socialist side of the equation. Only Obama since then tried to stimulate it at all with the ACA and a lot of people think that was a compromise half-measure.
But its not like most, if any, of these more socialist-style programs would just be straight giveaways. I think it's fair to put to rest concerns about welfare queens and lazy people who won't work. Most of our socialist programs now already have similar checks on them. You have to be 65 to get Medicare. You've got to be in your 60s to collect Social Security. You've got to prove financial hardship and/or be looking for work OR working to get unemployment or Medicaid. I've always found the complaints about people cheating the system a bit overstated.
Similar checks would be implemented with new programs as well. It's simply impossible, short of a Dem supermajority in both houses of Congress, for such programs to pass without fiscal conservatives having some input, meaning those checks will be in play. These programs may wind up being more targeted than Dem Socialists like AOC may care for; regardless, they would still represent massive steps forward for progressivism in the U.S.
Big Red 40
New member
In a purely socialistic system maybe not as much, but that's really not what Cortez, or anyone else is proposing. Democratic socialism still leaves plenty of room for the same small minority of people who got rich using capitalism to succeed.They may not to the extreme degree were seeing now, and they would have to contribute more back to the greater good of this country, but the incentive is still there.. Democratic Socialism does however do a much better job of providing a safe, dignified , happy life to millions of people who go to work every day. Capitalism really doesn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Making Chimichangas
Banned
I think you missed the point of my "Office Space" analogy and now you're moving the goalposts.
1) My Office Space analogy demonstrates that people within an organization are usually not rewarded at all for being more productive, or harder working, than their co-wokers. So in this capitalist system, what incentive do average workers have to be more productive? None.
2) Now you're moving the goalposts and saying it's about leveraging a marketable skill. No, we're still talking about productivity and how it is NOT tied to financial incentive for the average person.
And your guy that you know? That's why they're called exceptions and not rules.
Here's the one concept that rich people just can't seem to figure out: paying people at the bottom more ultimately makes them way more money. Why? Because when people at the bottom make a comfortable living and have extra discretionary income, they spend it. They go to movies, out to dinner more frequently, take more expensive vacations, spend more at Christmas time, etc. That's what drives our economy...consumer spending. When us at rhe bottom have more money those at the top benefit more because they own practically everything.
Big Red 40
New member
Lots of talk here about financial aspects of Cortezs proposals, but i was noticing a few that wouldn't cost a thing. They are just common human decency.
Making Chimichangas
Banned
Exactly. In Democratic Socialism there is still plenty of room for people to acquire and have wealth. And you hit the nail on the head with the statement that in democratic socialism wealthy people will be required to put more back in than the zero they do now. (Okay "zero" might be hyperbole, but not by much.)