The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't speaking with you.

That never stops me, commie breath!

 

[PureX]

Some have said that it's the workers and labor unions who are greedy and selfish, but they might say "Yes, we are, and so what? We just want our fair share." As for what is determined to be fair, that becomes a matter of negotiation and collective bargaining.

Wanting their fair share is not being greedy nor selfish. It's being reasonable and just. But capitalism pits the owner/investors against everyone else involved in and effected by the business enterprise invested in to gain the maximum return on the capital invested. And it gives the owner/investors complete control over the enterprise. And thereby, control over the well-being of everyone else involved in and effected by that enterprise. And that IS not only greedy and selfish, it's a recipe for abuse and ultimate disaster.

If we gave complete control over the business enterprise to labor THEY would be just as greedy and selfish as the capitalists are now. And if we gave total control to the consumers, THEY would be just as greedy and selfish with that control as the capitalists or labor would be. Because we humans are greedy and selfish. And the only way to resolve this problem is to spread the control of the business enterprise out among all those humans being effected by it. That is among the capital investors, the laborers, the consumers, and the community. And that solution is called 'socialism'. (Contrary to the litany of lies the capitalists keep telling us about it, ad nauseam.

The key here is to understand that this is about sharing control more than it's about sharing the profits. Do the former, and the latter will follow.

In the end, it's merely a question of who should get the lion's share of the produce in a human endeavor or enterprise: Those who produce the beans or those who count the beans? Capitalists believe that those who count the beans should earn more, since they're so good at counting. Those who produce the beans get much less by comparison. As much as capitalists like to pretend otherwise, people do notice these disparities.

Everyone involved believes THEY should get more, no matter how much they get. Which is why no one person or group should ever have total control.

I think the alternatives lie in making incremental changes to policy which can gradually make things better, but it's when capitalists stubbornly oppose even minor changes that causes the level of political entrenchment which can lead to instability and potential upheaval. Even things that capitalists in Europe might accept, like better wages, better benefits, free healthcare, more safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged - these are things American capitalists fight tooth and nail against. It seems that the smart business people are those who are willing to accept more liberal and progressive policies - not because they're bleeding hearts - but because they're smart business people who recognize the consequences of not doing so.

The capitalists oppose any change because they see it as encroaching on their near total control, and thereby on their profit margins.

Every country in the world that has set up universal health care realized that they had to cap prices because health care is an automatic monopoly (literally, it's "buy or die"). And that meant that the suppliers would inevitably price-gouge the consumers for every penny they have because the alternative is suffering and death. But the idea that the government would begin setting price caps sent U.S. capitalists into a tizzy. Because that would take away their control over pricing (and price-gouging), and if it starts with the medical suppliers, maybe it would be the energy suppliers, next. Or the insurance vendors. or, ... who knows? So the bribe money was just a-flying in the halls of the legislature until they managed to kill any hope we as a nation might have had for universal health care at a reasonable cost. The capitalosts killed it because they desperately feared the government taking control of pricing away from them.

It's ALL ABOUT CONTROL. The capitalists have it and they have no intention of giving any of it up. And they have every intention of using it to bilk the rest of us out of every penny we have. Because the capitalists are greedy, selfish, arrogant, entitled parasites. Just like the rest of us would be if given the same chance. And that is why the control has to be spread around.

 

[PureX]

Still, their obsessive quest for the profit maximization has been pointless, worthless and destructive.
And that will be written in history.

Someone better write it soon, because the damage is getting worse year by year.

 

[MikeF]

I wouldn't say that it's "built into" the system.

Certainly you can deny it. In my view, however, if the system has differential compensation, that meets my definition of "build in".

As for your last two questions, we should ask what we're really saying here? The guy that holds the traffic flag during road construction is doing a job, and so is the heart surgeon doing a job. If one earns $400 while the other earns $15, this is an indication that society believes that the heart surgeon is doing work which is 26.67 times more valuable than the traffic flag holder. Is there some mathematical formula we can utilize to determine how such figures are reached and calculated?

If it's built into the system, then someone should be to come up with some sort of formula or scientific method to be able to determine the exact value of someone's work within the context of society as a whole. Otherwise it just comes off as whimsical and arbitrary.

Hmmm. Are you being purposefully disingenuous? Let's look at your approach below.

However, I can see that there are some differences which can account for disparities. A brain surgeon obviously has to go to school for a lot longer than a traffic flag holder, so we can account for that, calculating it based on the number of years of schooling. Assuming the traffic flag holder has a high school diploma, then that's 12 years of schooling. The brain surgeon would have that, plus four years for a bachelors, another four years of doctorate, and two years of residence, for a total of 22 years. 22/12 = 1.8333, so that's how much higher of a salary the brain surgeon should get over the traffic flag holder. That's almost twice as much, so it should be good enough. Does that seem fair to you?

Your first mistake is that while many a traffic flag holder may have a High School diploma, it is by no means a pre-requisite for the job. In fact, I would think it wouldn't even require an elementary level education or even literacy. If society allowed, children as young as 8 or 9 can likely manage.

Next we have the reality that while just about everyone can manage as a traffic flag holder, not everyone will be equally adept at heart or brain surgery. The work differential involved in qualifying even to go to college, let alone medical school after that, probably can be said to begin in middle school. Given the high stakes involved in heart and brain surgery and the limited number of each needed by society, we want to attract the most capable into these jobs, not merely those willing to go through the motions during the requisite years of training. High grades as the measure of high competency are required necessitating higher effort starting in middle school. This high work demand continues through college and into medical school and then into residency. Each level requiring a record of high achievement and an interview process for entry into the next level, with the number of available slots diminishing at each successive level. As to medical residencies, surgical specialties require 5-7 years of residency, 7 would be the number for our brain surgeon. So if we count schooling required after 6th grade, we are talking an additional 21 years for our brain surgeon. But let's take your number of 1.8333 * $15 to equal a wage of $27.50 per hour for the brain surgeon.

You expect someone to go through all that hard work and competitive stress for 21 years to only earn $27.50 an hour? No one we want doing those surgeries is going be remotely interested in such a compensation scheme.

If you consider your suggestion as remotely plausible, we can leave the discussion here and agree to disagree.

ETA: I forgot to highlight that after all that hard work to become a qualified heart or brain surgeon, the job itself entails long hours, the stress of peoples lives on the line, and the continual requirement of study to stay abreast of changes and improvement to the medical field. Much different than that of our flag holder.

There is a saying, "You get what you pay for." I would think about that in this context.

 

[MikeF]

But what is the reality here? Are the needs of all the people being met? Do they all have good jobs with good working conditions and good pay? Do they live in decent housing with access to decent healthcare and their kids attending good schools?

See, I think you can build a consensus around these goals and that these goals are achievable. This can be done regardless of how wealthy the wealthy are. The differential does not matter if these goals are met.

I am not saying that the wealthy should be immune from any taxation. I am more than happy to remove tax laws that unfairly advantage those with established wealth over those who do not. But fairly and appropriately taxing high income individuals is not the same as saying there should be no high income individuals or those with a high net worth.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I have no problem (in the words of English politician Peter Mandelsohn) with people getting rich - so long as they pay their fair share of taxes. I’m not convinced they are, in general. And whilst I’m not actively disputing your figures, I’m not persuaded of their accuracy either tbh.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2023 Update

The latest IRS data shows that the U.S. federal individual income tax continued to be progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

taxfoundation.org

Europeans and Americans generally have very different ideas about wealth and it’s distribution. I see wealth as something communities hold in common; when societies become nothing more than atomised groups of disparate individuals, with no sense of responsibility to each other, they are at risk of breaking down. Which is what seems to be happening all round the developed world at the moment.

You cannot have liberty or a working society with communal wealth. The constitution was written for the individual not a common society.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2023 Update

The latest IRS data shows that the U.S. federal individual income tax continued to be progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

taxfoundation.org

You cannot have liberty or a working society with communal wealth. The constitution was written for the individual not a common society.

If course you can have liberty in a commonwealth. But yeah, your country and it’s constitution places great emphasis on the rights of the individual, arguably at the expense of the wider community and it’s wellbeing.

A point I think you may be missing; pretty much everyone pays tax, certainly where I come from. I’d personally be willing to pay more, to fix our crumbling schools, invest in public services, and preserve the National Health Service, which despite what you may have heard to the contrary is the jewel in the crown of the U.K.’s civil society. I don’t see paying tax as an imposition, I see it as an investment in my community and it’s stability and decency. Everyone puts into the pot, and it different times in their lives, everyone benefits in multiple ways. It’s how civilisations are built and maintained.

 

[Koldo]

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2023 Update

The latest IRS data shows that the U.S. federal individual income tax continued to be progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

taxfoundation.org

You cannot have liberty or a working society with communal wealth. The constitution was written for the individual not a common society.

Why is it always americans thinking of their country as the center of the universe?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is it always americans thinking of their country as the center of the universe?

Cuz we're in the center.

 

[Koldo]

See, I think you can build a consensus around these goals and that these goals are achievable. This can be done regardless of how wealthy the wealthy are. The differential does not matter if these goals are met.

I am not saying that the wealthy should be immune from any taxation. I am more than happy to remove tax laws that unfairly advantage those with established wealth over those who do not. But fairly and appropriately taxing high income individuals is not the same as saying there should be no high income individuals or those with a high net worth.

How would you ensure that low income individuals have access to a good quality of life though?
Because if there are high income individuals, then there must be low income individuals.

 

[Firenze]

Still, their obsessive quest for the profit maximization has been pointless, worthless and destructive.
And that will be written in history.

Who is ‘they’ in your scenario? Only billionaires? If not, please note that although I am semi-retired, I still work a 5 day week at $15/hr because I still have this obsessive goal to leave more to my kids and grandkids than I currently have.

 

[Revoltingest]

At this point, we've established that
favoring capitalism is indeed explicable,
even if some dislike it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At this point, we've established that
favoring capitalism is indeed explicable,
even if some dislike it.

Except we're reaching a point where technology is rendering capitalism obsolete and if not replaced will lead to a very ruined economy where robots do most the work and labor while very few people have money. A universal income won't solve the issue that capitalism is industrial and we are moving away from that.

 

[Estro Felino]

Who is ‘they’ in your scenario? Only billionaires? If not, please note that although I am semi-retired, I still work a 5 day week at $15/hr because I still have this obsessive goal to leave more to my kids and grandkids than I currently have.

I am speaking of those banking dynasties who cannot breathe unless they gain one million dollars a day.
So if they gain less than that, they go crazy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except we're reaching a point where technology is rendering capitalism obsolete....

Capitalism responds....
Reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If course you can have liberty in a commonwealth. But yeah, your country and it’s constitution places great emphasis on the rights of the individual, arguably at the expense of the wider community and it’s wellbeing.

I disagree

A point I think you may be missing; pretty much everyone pays tax, certainly where I come from. I’d personally be willing to pay more, to fix our crumbling schools, invest in public services, and preserve the National Health Service, which despite what you may have heard to the contrary is the jewel in the crown of the U.K.’s civil society. I don’t see paying tax as an imposition, I see it as an investment in my community and it’s stability and decency. Everyone puts into the pot, and it different times in their lives, everyone benefits in multiple ways. It’s how civilisations are built and maintained.

I agree with this. But how are the rich not paying their fair share. Again, the top 1% pays 40% of the total income taxes while the bottom 50% pays 3%. Top 10% pays 50% of the income taxes. Why is this not sufficient?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why is it always americans thinking of their country as the center of the universe?

I never said it was.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Capitalism responds....
Reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

Capitalism needs people to have money. People needs jobs to have money. Robots are taking those jobs amd eventually will replace most of us.

 

[MikeF]

Because if there are high income individuals, then there must be low income individuals.

I was sorely tempted to just ignore this post. The term or phrase "low income" does not refer any income level lower than some other, it specifically refers to being lower than some socially agreed minimum standard.

 

[Koldo]

I never said it was.

Then why did you feel the need to bring the (american) constitution (which you didn't even the feel the need to specify) to this conversation?