Nobody Wants to Work

[Alien826]

"You didn't build that.
Somebody else made that happen."

That quote has always bothered me, as it makes more sense to say "You didn't build that on your own". Here's the full text.

Obama, July 13: There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

It makes more sense in context, right? And he might just have been referring to the "roads and bridges", I don't know.

 

[Alien826]

We don't need socialism at all.
Just use tax money generated by
capitalism to fund social goals.

That's socialism, sort of.

You use "socialism" to refer to authoritarianism,
economic lethargy, foreign military adventurism,
& government controlling the means of production?

That's an inaccurate definition, & even more severe
that the ordinary dictionary definition that I favor.

OK, loosely phrased.

You read my post, right?
Did I say that?
I don't know what problems it has these days.
My last experience with it was about 1978.
It was minimal then.

Maybe it was the derogatory use of "Canuckistan" that made me think that.

Universal health care isn't in the definition of
either capitalism or socialism. Government
can provide it (or not) in either economic
system. Canuckistan, as I said, is a capitalist
country that provides it.

Not directly I guess. But capitalism definitely doesn't include it. As you said, it's an economic system, and only part of how a country can be organized. Agreed that a country that has a capitalistic economy can do other things that are not to do with capitalism, like imposing taxes and providing benefits. Socialism (your definition) on the other hand, tends to be seen as a system that is set up to remedy the defects of capitalism, like the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. Not such a big step to universal health care is it?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Or maybe they just don't want to do low-paying, underappreciated jobs where they're abused and treated like dirt. Of course, it's not as bad as it used to be.

I don't really quite know about that line, about things be 'worse' before. A number I heard, is that only 40 percent of millennials, who are now middle-aged, actually own houses. I think that property ownership had to be generally more secure, for working class people in most other times in history. On top of that, the economy switched its foundation to tech work, which is obviously unprecedented, and yet the State has not provided a sufficient basic education to follow that trend

Then don’t. Others will.

Just remember, that actions have consequences. You alone are responsible for your own choices and actions.

Choices and actions in the context.

 

[Shaul]

Wall Street numbers aren't much good too. Can't trust what the corporations are telling us, either. And now we can't trust this financial report. Or the president. Or congress. Or the house.

Is there anyone I should be listening too? Politicians, I'm assuming only the Conservative ones? Or is there something more trustworthy?

The Wall Street numbers are a more reliable indicator of a recession. However I don't think I agree with the assessment that they are good. The stock markets had a terrible year in 2022 with the Standard & Poors index down over 20% for the year.

As far as who you should listen to, you should listen to a wide spectrum of voices. But you should do so with a discerning critically-thinking mind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or do they?

Can't speak for anybody else, but I'll be 75 on April 1, and I still go to work every day.

I do it because I want to -- I can't stand the notion of not having something useful to get up in the morning and go do. I have quite enough money to retire comfortably, but I wouldn't be comfortable being retired.

Okay, I'm strange, but there it is....

 

[Yerda]

The state uses taxes that we pay for infrastructure,
defense, & the machinery of government. So you
could say that capitalism "underlies & underwrites
pretty much all of what we call" the state.

You could. It would be partly true as well.

In all applications of socialism, it's always been
government that does the controlling of the
means of production. After all, a crowd can't
do that job, so it's up to their representatives,
ie, government to represent the workers / people.

That's a fair enough point.

Out of curiosity, if a system existed where all productive capacity was collectively owned by workers or by the public but what they produced was traded on an open market, would it still be capitalism in your opinion?

Under capitalism, workers have the right & ability
to start or buy companies that they can run. They
do this as much as they want to & are able to
compete with other companies.

They do. This is the freedom that capital offers to those who can afford it and also the root of the discontent and suffering it brings to those who can't. If you can own things you can live of the work of others.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't really quite know about that line, about things be 'worse' before. A number I heard, is that only 40 percent of millennials, who are now middle-aged, actually own houses. I think that property ownership had to be generally more secure, for working class people in most other times in history. On top of that, the economy switched its foundation to tech work, which is obviously unprecedented, and yet the State has not provided a sufficient basic education to follow that trend

I was thinking more in terms of 100-150 years ago. But you're right that 50-75 years ago might have been relatively better, at least in some ways. In the post-war boom, there was more affordable housing available so that working people could move out of tenements and into suburban homes. Of course, people still had to work hard; it was no picnic and no free lunch. But it seems that people were more properly rewarded for their hard work back then.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I was thinking more in terms of 100-150 years ago. But you're right that 50-75 years ago might have been relatively better, at least in some ways. In the post-war boom, there was more affordable housing available so that working people could move out of tenements and into suburban homes. Of course, people still had to work hard; it was no picnic and no free lunch. But it seems that people were more properly rewarded for their hard work back then.

And on that point, I have some suspicion that the price of property and housing is inflated. I suspect that housing, like other technology, has modernized, becoming cheaper and quicker to construct, and probably more efficient, in terms of efficiency of utilities. And also most obviously, because it is seen as a product as opposed to a right, and all products have some arbitrary factors in their pricing. But the point on materials and building costs, relative to the past, should especially be investigated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't wanna work. I wanna be rich and live off the work of others. Like a big time CEO or something cushy like that.

My dream is to have a start up that gets bought up by a giant corporation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That isn't so in countries where government is either
unable to prevent starvation (eg, N Korea, Afghanistan)
or unwilling to prevent homelessness (eg, USA).
Moreover, USA (both Dems & Pubs) actually foment
homelessness, eg, making encampments, tiny houses,
& other alternative homes illegal.

Exactly. The cause of homelessness and starvation is no longer a lack of resources (we have easily enough food and housing for everyone on earth), but lack of access TO the resources. The mechanisms through which this is done are multitudinous.

 

[PureX]

That isn't so in countries where government is either
unable to prevent starvation (eg, N Korea, Afghanistan)
or unwilling to prevent homelessness (eg, USA).
Moreover, USA (both Dems & Pubs) actually foment
homelessness, eg, making encampments, tiny houses,
& other alternative homes illegal.

Yes, if we would just let them call their tents and cardboard boxes "home" there would be no more homeless people.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I just asked a question, and I still haven't got an answer yet. I've noticed that capitalists never answer questions directly. I wonder why.

Ask it again.
It can be hard to discern what questions are
rhetorical. And sometimes the answer is missed.
There are other flaws with questions too, eg,
loaded questions unworthy of answering.

You won't have any question that "capitalists"
fear answering....you're just not that challengine.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Yes, if we would just let them call their tents and cardboard boxes "home" there would be no more homeless people.

I suspect technology for things like tiny houses is getting better, and I also suspect that general modern construction is cheaper than in the past, it's just that the price of property and houses is inflated, because they are considered products. But what I think, is that people should have a right to property. There's a notion of something called 'land reform,' that maybe we could one day vote on, where in theory, the individual could own a piece of land, without it being revoked, or having to be rented from a higher authority.

 

[Revoltingest]

That quote has always bothered me, as it makes more sense to say "You didn't build that on your own". Here's the full text.



It makes more sense in context, right? And he might just have been referring to the "roads and bridges", I don't know.

Oh, I know the context & full quote.
The real mischief is in Obama's seeking to minimize
the contributions of people in business, & embiggen
people who've never succeeded financially. He'd
make success too much about luck & government
doing things for us. The unsuccessful are just unlucky,
& deserve a share of the wealth of others.
Obama is just a clumsy speaker...not vulnerable that
speech was to criticism, both correct & otherwise.
And so that dumb quote became immortal.

 

[Stevicus]

You won't have any question that "capitalists"
fear answering....you're just not that challengine.

And I thought I was the greatest challenge you have ever faced.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's socialism, sort of.

It's....
Definition of capitalism | Dictionary.com
and....
social welfare meaning at DuckDuckGo

Not...
Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com

Maybe it was the derogatory use of "Canuckistan" that made me think that.

Derogatory?
Ha!
It's every bit as cromulent as "Ameristan".
If I stopped using these terms, @Evangelicalhumanist would give me the stink eye.

Not directly I guess. But capitalism definitely doesn't include it. As you said, it's an economic system, and only part of how a country can be organized. Agreed that a country that has a capitalistic economy can do other things that are not to do with capitalism, like imposing taxes and providing benefits. Socialism (your definition) on the other hand, tends to be seen as a system that is set up to remedy the defects of capitalism, like the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. Not such a big step to universal health care is it?

Whatever economic system we choose,
be it capitalism, socialism, communism, or feudalism,
providing social welfare is a separate issue, one that
government will address well, poorly, or not at all.

I'm a fire breathing running dog of capitalism.
But like many others of my ilk, we favor social
programs for various reasons. I'm pragmatic,
favoring them primarily because they enhance
political stability.

 

[Revoltingest]

Out of curiosity, if a system existed where all productive capacity was collectively owned by workers or by the public but what they produced was traded on an open market, would it still be capitalism in your opinion?

When people voluntarily form collectives,
this is capitalism, & not socialism because
ownership isn't by the "people" as a whole.
Just the workers there own it.
I highly recommend that workers do this.

They do. This is the freedom that capital offers to those who can afford it and also the root of the discontent and suffering it brings to those who can't. If you can own things you can live of the work of others.

Even living off the work of others requires work.
An asset not carefully managed will evaporate.
In business, the wolves are always at the door.
Who here remembers ITT Corp?

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly. The cause of homelessness and starvation is no longer a lack of resources (we have easily enough food and housing for everyone on earth), but lack of access TO the resources. The mechanisms through which this is done are multitudinous.

The cheapest (of among many) solution
is very often for government to just get
out of the way, eg, less restrictive zoning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, if we would just let them call their tents and cardboard boxes "home" there would be no more homeless people.

If someone has only a tent or box, would you
take that from them, & give them nothing to
replace it? That's how it goes now.
So until you provide an alternative, don't
deny people what they're able to get.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I thought I was the greatest challenge you have ever faced.

Immortality is my greatest challenge.
(The battle isn't going well.)