The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Koldo]

I guess we are not communicating. I have said numerous times I would not replace services with money. If we cut 15% across the board and give it to people in poverty that means everyone is above the poverty line and services have only been cut 15%, not 100%.

Cutting 15% across the board (which includes services) and giving it to people is equal to replacing a portion of those services with money.

Why can't they get a better paying job? They are out there.

Then why doesn't everyone have a better paying job? Obviously because there aren't better paying jobs for everyone.

No, we vote on taxes by voting for our representatives.

So what? How is that related to what I have stated?

 

[Koldo]

It means wealth is created. Most (60-80%) people who have a net worth over $1M created the wealth themselves. Do you not think poor people can create wealth over time? If we taught people how to create wealth, then we will need a lot less programs to give people money.

Once again, what do you mean by 'create wealth'? How do you figure they have done it by themselves? What does 'by themselves' even mean on this context?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Cutting 15% across the board (which includes services) and giving it to people is equal to replacing a portion of those services with money.

Yes, but 85% of the services will still be funded and everyone will be above the poverty line. Remember this conversation started as me giving a way to end poverty on the US. I am not advocating this way but it would end poverty.

Then why doesn't everyone have a better paying job? Obviously because there aren't better paying jobs for everyone.

This is a naive comment in my opinion. There are many reasons that people don't have a higher paying job. Some don't because of the choices they made. I know people that had parents that were doing well and they made bad choices and are making a low income. I know people that started with nothing and made good choices and were able to earn a decent life for themselves buying a home and raising a family etc. Some people do not want to work etc. Do you know the number one thing you can do to not be in poverty in the US is to get married and not have a child before you are married?

We need to educate our kids on how to create wealth instead of teaching them social justice etc.

So what? How is that related to what I have stated?

Not sure to be honest.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Once again, what do you mean by 'create wealth'? How do you figure they have done it by themselves? What does 'by themselves' even mean on this context?

I mean make money and keep it over time. It is not hard if you make good choices. By themselves I mean make choices to make money and save it for the future. Like invest, start a retirement plan, save a certain amount every month, create a company or whatever. No one is going to do it for you.

I was on my own at 17 with probably $200 to my name., I joined the Navy, got an education, got a I wanted, worked hard and made good choices with my money and I should be able to retire ok some day. This is what I am talking about by themselves. Who was going to do this for me? No one should do it for me, it was my responsibility to first support myself and secondly my family once I decided to have one. It is a moral obligation to support yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

We need to educate our kids on how to create wealth instead of teaching them social justice etc.

How about both?

 

[Heyo]

It means wealth is created. Most (60-80%) people who have a net worth over $1M created the wealth themselves. Do you not think poor people can create wealth over time? If we taught people how to create wealth, then we will need a lot less programs to give people money.

And they always try to tell us that we have unrealistic models ...

Just think about it, if everybody knew how to create wealth (i.e. create a company), who would work for them?
(Yep, here it is again, there need to be poor people to have rich people.)
And then, if everybody has a (successful) corporation, how much competition do you expect to have?

Capitalism is like the lottery, anybody can get rich - but not everybody.

 

[SarahJackson]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

 

[Koldo]

I mean make money and keep it over time. It is not hard if you make good choices. By themselves I mean make choices to make money and save it for the future. Like invest, start a retirement plan, save a certain amount every month, create a company or whatever. No one is going to do it for you.

So you mean that if my parents could afford to send me to Ivy League and I had amazing oportunities, OR if I was granted a huge chunk of money to start a business, that still counts as 'creating wealth by myself', right?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, but 85% of the services will still be funded and everyone will be above the poverty line. Remember this conversation started as me giving a way to end poverty on the US. I am not advocating this way but it would end poverty.

If you are above poverty line just because a social service was replaced with money, you are in the same situation as before. We have gone over this already.

This is a naive comment in my opinion. There are many reasons that people don't have a higher paying job. Some don't because of the choices they made. I know people that had parents that were doing well and they made bad choices and are making a low income. I know people that started with nothing and made good choices and were able to earn a decent life for themselves buying a home and raising a family etc. Some people do not want to work etc. Do you know the number one thing you can do to not be in poverty in the US is to get married and not have a child before you are married?


We need to educate our kids on how to create wealth instead of teaching them social justice etc.

It is not naive, it is a matter of fact: there are not high paying jobs for everyone. Period.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How about both?

When they teach both let me know.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So you mean that if my parents could afford to send me to Ivy League and I had amazing oportunities, OR if I was granted a huge chunk of money to start a business, that still counts as 'creating wealth by myself', right?

Depends on what you do with the opportunities.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If you are above poverty line just because a social service was replaced with money, you are in the same situation as before. We have gone over this already.

I know, you don't seem to understand that I am not proposing just replacing social services with money. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Generic Budget:
Item A - $1000
Item B - $500
Item C - $2000
Social Services - $3000

I need $975 to raise everyone's pay to above the poverty line, so I propose 15% cuts to all items:

Item A - $1000 * 15% = $150
Item B - $500 * 15% = $75
Item C - $2000 * 15% = $300
Social Services - $3000* 15% = $450

$150+$75+$300+$450 = $975

Final budgets:
Item A - $850
Item B - $425
Item C - $1700
Social Services - $2550
Social Services 2 - $975

So people are above poverty line $975 + social services at $2550 = $3525 total.

It is not naive, it is a matter of fact: there are not high paying jobs for everyone. Period.

What do you consider high paying? Who should have a high paying job? What is naive is thinking that everyone will do the work to get a better paying job.

 

[Koldo]

Depends on what you do with the opportunities.

Can you kindly explain how exactly doing something with a massive support from someone else constitutes doing something by myself?

 

[Koldo]

I know, you don't seem to understand that I am not proposing just replacing social services with money. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Generic Budget:
Item A - $1000
Item B - $500
Item C - $2000
Social Services - $3000

I need $975 to raise everyone's pay to above the poverty line, so I propose 15% cuts to all items:

Item A - $1000 * 15% = $150
Item B - $500 * 15% = $75
Item C - $2000 * 15% = $300
Social Services - $3000* 15% = $450

$150+$75+$300+$450 = $975

Final budgets:
Item A - $850
Item B - $425
Item C - $1700
Social Services - $2550
Social Services 2 - $975

So people are above poverty line $975 + social services at $2550 = $3525 total.

If you needed 975 to raise people above poverty line and you cut how much they got from social service 1, now you no longer need 975, rather you need 975 plus whatever you cut from social services 1.

What do you consider high paying? Who should have a high paying job? What is naive is thinking that everyone will do the work to get a better paying job.

I have never said that everyone will do the work to get a better paying job. The problem is that even if they do, there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. There simply isn't a demand for so many of them that would justify their creation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Can you kindly explain how exactly doing something with a massive support from someone else constitutes doing something by myself?

Does Microsoft exist without Bill Gates? Does Amazon exist without Jeff Bezos, Does FedEx exist without Frederick Smith? I would say no.

You act like the employees were not paid for their services. They were paid and received benefits but they did not take the massive risk to start the company. I am not saying employees do not contribute but they are not the reason the company exists. Most employees are replaceable.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If you needed 975 to raise people above poverty line and you cut how much they got from social service 1, now you no longer need 975, rather you need 975 plus whatever you cut from social services 1.

Yes, and that is from the other items.

I have never said that everyone will do the work to get a better paying job. The problem is that even if they do, there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. There simply isn't a demand for so many of them that would justify their creation.

So what is your solution?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, and that is from the other items.

Yet the math doesn't add up.

So what is your solution?

There are multiple different solutions, but they all revolve around the employers being forced to pay higher wages.

 

[Koldo]

Does Microsoft exist without Bill Gates? Does Amazon exist without Jeff Bezos, Does FedEx exist without Frederick Smith? I would say no.

Are they the only persons working in their companies?

You act like the employees were not paid for their services. They were paid and received benefits but they did not take the massive risk to start the company. I am not saying employees do not contribute but they are not the reason the company exists. Most employees are replaceable.

The massive risk of the capitalist is to become an employee.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yet the math doesn't add up.

Can you show me how?

There are multiple different solutions, but they all revolve around the employers being forced to pay higher wages.

Ok, I would not support that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Are they the only persons working in their companies?

No, but like I said the employees are compensated and work there voluntarily. The company would not exists without the founders.

The massive risk of the capitalist is to become an employee.

How so?