Bernie Sanders Thread

#979
#979
Mtntrout said:
socialism is completely separate from totalitarianism and communism, which are also two separate ideas. A completely capitalist structure would not necessarily be anarchy. The words get thrown around so much that we are losing the ability to distinguish between some of them.
Click to expand...

An anarcho capitalistic economy is what I'm talking about, where all things (roads, military, education, etc.) are provided by private means only. The completely "free market"

Of course that sort of country could easily slip into totalitarianism as well.

A completely "socialist" country, as people generally recognize the word, would be one where all aspects of the economy is controlled by centralized planners, similar to North Korea today or the USSR during the Cold War. But even they have/had black markets that aren't/weren't controlled by central planners. We usually put the totalitarian label on these sorts of countries because we probably haven't seen an anarcho capitalistic society in any of our life times.

I did simplify things too much haha
 
#982
#982
The reason why people support unions is because half a century ago the largest private-sector employer in the U.S. was GM, whose full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50 (adjusted to inflation).

Today, our largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns a little under $9 an hour.

Walmart's CEO made 18 million a couple of years ago, and each of Sam's children inherited billions.

I understand that some unions jave abused their powers, but so have politicians and executives. That doesn't mean we exile them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#983
#983
Kingston Vol said:
And organizations being anti-union have the audacity to say, "we'll pay you what we want - no negotiation."

America! It's easy to see how Donald Trump has gained so much momentum.
Click to expand...

Except that Trump is generally pro-union and supports trade protectionist policies like tariffs.
 
#984
#984
DC_Vol said:
Yeah, this is what I feel like when discussing with you. Can you please point out where I said anything you attributed to me above?
Click to expand...

You took part in an exchange yesterday in this thread. You claimed socialism has never done anything but drag people down. Someone else asked for a list of successful socialist countries, which I provided. I asked for a similar list, no one responded. I merely responded to your demand for someone to answer your question with a reminder that no one answered mine.

If you knew that there were no western nations that were free of socialist policies, it is curious you (1) didn't say anything to correct the flawed nature of the question asked yesterday and (2) said socialism has done nothing but drag people down as an absolutist statement while having no way of demonstrating it by pointing to a particular country or system that is pure. Regardless, you really can't get too huffy about me "attributing" something to you when you had just asked me to move on and answer a question you had asked someone else, yourself.

So it goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#985
#985
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
An anarcho capitalistic economy is what I'm talking about, where all things (roads, military, education, etc.) are provided by private means only. The completely "free market"

Of course that sort of country could easily slip into totalitarianism as well.

A completely "socialist" country, as people generally recognize the word, would be one where all aspects of the economy is controlled by centralized planners, similar to North Korea today or the USSR during the Cold War. But even they have/had black markets that aren't/weren't controlled by central planners. We usually put the totalitarian label on these sorts of countries because we probably haven't seen an anarcho capitalistic society in any of our life times.

I did simplify things too much haha
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with how you apply those terms. How does North Korea have a system where the means of production and distribution are owned by the whole community? They don't. There's nothing socialist about it. If you have a dictator, you aren't socialist.
 
#986
#986
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
The reason why people support unions is because half a century ago the largest private-sector employer in the U.S. was GM, whose full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50 (adjusted to inflation).

Today, our largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns a little under $9 an hour.

Walmart's CEO made 18 million a couple of years ago, and each of Sam's children inherited billions.

I understand that some unions jave abused their powers, but so have politicians and executives. That doesn't mean we exile them.
Click to expand...

Much of Detroit is still unionized and the average hourly wage is between 16 and 20/hour (under the newest contracts).

I believe forming a union is legal in all 50 states, so I fail to see what the issue is. Unless I'm in the dark here, unions aren't exiled and nobody is working to do so.

And what is the problem with the bolded statement? That the CEO earned 18 million dollars, that the family inherited the family fortune, both?
 
#987
#987
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
The reason why people support unions is because half a century ago the largest private-sector employer in the U.S. was GM, whose full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50 (adjusted to inflation).

Today, our largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns a little under $9 an hour.

Walmart's CEO made 18 million a couple of years ago, and each of Sam's children inherited billions.

I understand that some unions jave abused their powers, but so have politicians and executives. That doesn't mean we exile them.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize General Motors was the largest private sector employer back then.
 
#988
#988
Do Socialists shop at WalMart or other chain stores? Buy IPhones? Have a car? Do they donate their hourly pay above $10.00 to their fellow coworkers?

Just how strong are their convictions?

Is socialism preached but not practiced in their personal lives?

Anybody know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#989
#989
Mtntrout said:
You took part in an exchange yesterday in this thread. You claimed socialism has never done anything but drag people down. Someone else asked for a list of successful socialist countries, which I provided. I asked for a similar list, no one responded. I merely responded to your demand for someone to answer your question with a reminder that no one answered mine.

If you knew that there were no western nations that were free of socialist policies, it is curious you (1) didn't say anything to correct the flawed nature of the question asked yesterday and (2) said socialism has done nothing but drag people down as an absolutist statement while having no way of demonstrating it by pointing to a particular country or system that is pure. Regardless, you really can't get too huffy about me "attributing" something to you when you had just asked me to move on and answer a question you had asked someone else, yourself.

So it goes.
Click to expand...

I wasn't involved in any discussion from where your unanswered question came. I didn't realize I'm responsible for answering other people's questions, correcting their misstatements, affirming all that I agree with, or disavowing that which I disagree with.

And you didn't really give a reminder that nobody answered your question. You specifically attributed it to me below with the "yous".

Mtntrout said:
So what was with wanting a list of socialist countries that were successful, if youknew full well every western nation has elements of socialism? Were you just hoping no one really knew what the word meant, and only with how it is used as a boogeyman these days?
Click to expand...

I only share this to point out how difficult it is to have a reasonable conversation when I am asked to defend things I didn't say (and now it seems to chime in on whether I agree or disagree with what other people say).

I'm genuinely interested in socialists' motivations. I haven't really hidden the fact what I believe those motivations are.

I also think it should be pointed out that your argument above in no way invalidates a position against socialism. It's a bogus argument that in no way strengthens your position.

It can be taken down by pointing out all successful nations have an element of "X", so doubling down on it must be a good thing.
 
#990
#990
Kingston Vol said:
And organizations being anti-union have the audacity to say, "we'll pay you what we want - no negotiation."

America! It's easy to see how Donald Trump has gained so much momentum.
Click to expand...

The individual has the right to negotiate their own compensation in non-union companies. What more do you need?
 
#991
#991
DC_Vol said:
Much of Detroit is still unionized and the average hourly wage is between 16 and 20/hour (under the newest contracts).

I believe forming a union is legal in all 50 states, so I fail to see what the issue is. Unless I'm in the dark here, unions aren't exiled and nobody is working to do so.

And what is the problem with the bolded statement? That the CEO earned 18 million dollars, that the family inherited the family fortune, both?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, I think I read somewhere that GMs entry level pay was $19+ an hour.
 
#997
#997
DC_Vol said:
hah you're wasting keystrokes.
Click to expand...

Some other numbers I found interesting.

Pre bankruptcy the average labor costs of the big 3 auto makers in the US was 73$ (+/-) an hour

Post bankruptcy (followed by the bailout) its 54$ (+/-)

And from the sounds of it, at least Ford and GM are trying to get it even lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#998
#998
BeecherVol said:
Some other numbers I found interesting.

Pre bankruptcy the average labor costs of the big 3 auto makers in the US was 73$ (+/-) an hour

Post bankruptcy (followed by the bailout) its 54$ (+/-)

And from the sounds of it, at least Ford and GM are trying to get it even lower.
Click to expand...

Most of the work is done with robotics and the human interaction is what some might call minimally skilled, basically becoming like that game infants play where they put the square block in the square hole.

Reducing labor would be good because I don't see how some of these American companies charge the prices they do for their garbage vehicles.
 
#999
#999
Mtntrout said:
I strongly disagree with how you apply those terms. How does North Korea have a system where the means of production and distribution are owned by the whole community? They don't. There's nothing socialist about it. If you have a dictator, you aren't socialist.
Click to expand...

Equal distribution of misery and poverty.

And I was talking about how extreme "socialists" have hijacked the term to mean many different things. The Chinese, Nazis, Soviets all considered themselves socialists, but weren't technically. Just like how people who say they're free marketers aren't really that either because they enjoy true socialist ideas, like public education, roads, etc. A pure socialist society, in reality would be an equal distribution of all resources among all people, and even that is a terrible utopian idea.
 
#1,000
#1,000
DC_Vol said:
Much of Detroit is still unionized and the average hourly wage is between 16 and 20/hour (under the newest contracts).

I believe forming a union is legal in all 50 states, so I fail to see what the issue is. Unless I'm in the dark here, unions aren't exiled and nobody is working to do so.

And what is the problem with the bolded statement? That the CEO earned 18 million dollars, that the family inherited the family fortune, both?
Click to expand...

The problem is that those same jobs were close to $50 (in today's dollars) back then, and the average worker production and efficiency is much higher now than then (due to specialized training and technology).

So workers are paid less despite more production, while CEOs are making out like bandits in comparison to what they made back then.

Both sides agree that the middle class is struggling. Is it not apparent that the above might be SOME of the cause?

As for the CEO making 18 million? As long as his workers have been seeing their wages increase at the same rate as he has seen over the past few decades, that's totally fine. But they aren't. Average worker wages have stagnated or shrunk and executives have seen their pay skyrocket (as seen above with current pay being between $16-20 an hour)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top