Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I can also agrue that the capitalist system is not capable of providing adequately for everyone. In fact, maybe you would like to show me when it has ever done so.

First I think no one here claimed capitalism was prefect, but its the best system we got that works to date. Most people under this system if they work hard enough can make it and not live in proverty for the rest of their lives. In fact very few people live in porverty in the US. Of course their are many reason for proverty, some are that they lack skills to find a better paying job, so they are stuck working minum wage jobs. Anther is that US many people are fleeing Mexico to come here to try to make a better life for themselves, some come legaly some come illegaly. When you can't speack any english, here illegaly and have very little education you end up having to take minum wage jobs.

Then their is homeless, but most of these people etheir have drug or other realated problems or metal problems which prevent them form being able to live a normal life, and thus end up on the streets.

This really has nothing to do with capitalism, since we do offer free education, and in many states if someone lives in proverty they can get a free education in the numerous community collages in the states. With the homeless this is more a mental health issue then anyone being oppressed, and would you say that someone who does simple task for about $6.00 an hour should be paid 30K a year for it simply because they are poor? Yes people should help them, but doing this would hurt more people them it would help. You know why? It would cause inflation, thus prices would go up and people buying power would go down and far more people would end up in proverty or close to it. The best thing is to teach them skills, which to many they can do it in the current system, since their are numerous programs for this in place.

On the other hand if you look at Soviet Union or anther other example of communism in the world, it has failed to provide a high standard of living to most of its people, expect of course for the party eliet and their friends.

[Kidicious]

Suicide and Unemployment


Unemployment was associated with a doubling of the suicide rate in data from the Office for National Statistics longitudinal study

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
In fact very few people live in porverty in the US. Of course their are many reason for proverty, some are that they lack skills to find a better paying job, so they are stuck working minum wage jobs.

22 million people live in poverty in the US, and that's an industrialized country. Did you think about the world poverty numbers?

Originally posted by Jack_www
Then their is homeless, but most of these people etheir have drug or other realated problems or metal problems which prevent them form being able to live a normal life, and thus end up on the streets.

Unemployment causes drug abuse and mental problems as well as many other problems including homelessness.

edit: make that 31 million people living in poverty in the US. There are 22 million families living in poverty.

Poverty

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious

22 million people live in poverty in the US, and that's an industrialized country. Did you think about the world poverty numbers?

Unemployment causes drug abuse and mental problems as well as many other problems including homelessness.

edit: make that 31 million people living in poverty in the US. There are 22 million families living in poverty.

Poverty

So that means 91 to 92% of US population dont live in proverty. That is pretty good numbers. As for people who unemployed or underemployed, the best way to deal with the problem is not to take drugs and try to escape the problem that way, but instead take it head on, and maybe that is why these people are unemployed in the first place. People have to take responsiblity for their actions, instead of trying to blame everyone but themselves. Yes we should help such people but these people most likely had these problems in the first place and whne they lost their jobs it just got worse. ALso their are treatments for all most all mental illiness if people just go and get that help before it is too late.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Jack_www


Then their is homeless, but most of these people etheir have drug or other realated problems or metal problems which prevent them form being able to live a normal life, and thus end up on the streets.

Here in NY, I'm seeing a lot of middle class people geting evicted from their apartments because of the economic downturn. People who lost their job two years ago and ate up all their savings.

Sure, the economy may turn around someday, but tell that to the family living in a damn shelter because they lost their tech jobs. And so what if the economy turns around but the tech sector doesn't for these people. What, should they be forced to work a McJob and live in section 8 housing because the skills they invested heavily in acheiving aren't of so much value? These are human beings damn it, who worked hard, studied hard,did everything the US said would bring success. The market told these people to invest in a comp sci education or an engineering education. Well, if the market doesn't need so many any more, then the winners should pay the losers for allowing the invisible hand to push the losers into career paths the winners later eliminated to maximize profits.

Tell that to the guy whose lived in section 8 housing his entire life and can't afford to both eat and get an education to improve himself. The guy who was born into poverty and doesn't have sufficient resources to pull himself out.

Until capitalism can ensure the people will be treated with dignity and that labor is not treated as an "investment in a skill" to be disposed of as the market changes, count me out.

This really has nothing to do with capitalism, since we do offer free education, and in many states if someone lives in proverty they can get a free education in the numerous community collages in the states.

Yeah, go get a job with a community college education and get back to me. Furthermore, most capitalists benefit from having an educated labor force. I don't see Bill Gates setting up shop in Guatemala. These ****ers need to pay their damn share.

With the homeless this is more a mental health issue then anyone being oppressed, and would you say that someone who does simple task for about $6.00 an hour should be paid 30K a year for it simply because they are poor?

Hmm, you pay some guy $6/hr and we have a problem. The guy won't be able to afford housing most likely. That means he'll need a section 8 voucher. Which means you and I get to pay for his housing in order to subsidize the company who can now pay a wage below living wage. Nice thinking Tex ...

You start talking living wage and I'll be happy to start listening about the benefits of capitalism.

On the other hand if you look at Soviet Union or anther other example of communism in the world, it has failed to provide a high standard of living to most of its people, expect of course for the party eliet and their friends.

Yeah, your average Russian would much prefer the old Soviet Union to the new Russia in terms of standard of living.

Look at Sweden, Finland, or even Belgium where the average standard of living is higher than in the US. All of our wealth and power and technology, and people generally live better in Scandanavia. Why should the average American even care about the benefits of the capitalist system when they never even get to see it - even after working two jobs with no vacation.

[Jack_www]

As for the rest of the World. Well the problem of proverty is not because of capitalism, it cause are different and Communist system of government would not solve these problems. Africa for example is torn by civil war almost all the time, so how can anyone make it in such an envirement? Most of the governments down their rather spend the little money they have on weapons then invest it in their cournty to make things better. Also they ignore problems such as ADIS, so no wonder they Live in proverty.

In South America and Mexico, most of these governments are corrupt and dont look after the interest of their people. Again this has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
So that means 91 to 92% of US population dont live in proverty.

The glass is half full, huh? **** the rest of them, huh? 32 Million is way too high. It's 32 Million too high. I'm sorry that you write them off.

Actually your numbers are a little high.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
As for the rest of the World. Well the problem of proverty is not because of capitalism, it cause are different and Communist system of government would not solve these problems. Africa for example is torn by civil war almost all the time, so how can anyone make it in such an envirement? Most of the governments down their rather spend the little money they have on weapons then invest it in their cournty to make things better. Also they ignore problems such as ADIS, so no wonder they Live in proverty.

In South America and Mexico, most of these governments are corrupt and dont look after the interest of their people. Again this has nothing to do with capitalism.

World poverty is caused by capitalism. We can end the wars and feed all the people, but first we have to take the pigdogs out of power.

[Velociryx]

Incorrect, Jack.

The state should assume full control. Obviously we frail, exploited human beings are incapable of making our own decisions, being responsible for our own successes, or taking responsibility for our own shortcomings.

Because of this, the state should assume full control and tell us all what to think, and how to live.

THAT is the mantra Kid is spouting, and he apparently believes it with every fiber of his being.

We are, you see, totally inept and incapable of having a clue on our own, and so therefore, one must be provided for us by a benelovent state.

That this flies in the face of logic is immaterial. That there is no economic theory in support of the argument he is putting forth is irrelevent. He is utterly convinced of the inevitibility of his revolution.

What he's supporting is not communism. I'm not sure what it is, but it's not communism as Che described it.

-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Jack_www


So that means 91 to 92% of US population dont live in proverty. That is pretty good numbers.

There are 300M people in the US according to the 2000 census. 22M Families in poverty is much more than 8-9%.

Lets be generous, lets say each of these poor families is a single parent with one child. That's 44M people in poverty (and that's not even counting impoverished single people). This represents approx. 15% of the population. My guess is treating 'family' as three people is more accurate, in which case 22% of the country is poor.

But I know, it's their fault for not studying hard, right. Same old blame the victim mentality.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by The Templar


Here in NY, I'm seeing a lot of middle class people geting evicted from their apartments because of the economic downturn. People who lost their job two years ago and ate up all their savings.

Sure, the economy may turn around someday, but tell that to the family living in a damn shelter because they lost their tech jobs. And so what if the economy turns around but the tech sector doesn't for these people. What, should they be forced to work a McJob and live in section 8 housing because the skills they invested heavily in acheiving aren't of so much value? These are human beings damn it, who worked hard, studied hard,did everything the US said would bring success. The market told these people to invest in a comp sci education or an engineering education. Well, if the market doesn't need so many any more, then the winners should pay the losers for allowing the invisible hand to push the losers into career paths the winners later eliminated to maximize profits.

Well I was talking first off about most homeless people. Most of these people etheir suffer from Mental illiness or Drug addiction. As for a family that lost their job and cant find anther one, well that is not the main cause of homelessness. Sometime the field that you work in does not have that much demand and you have to start looking for work somewhere else. I mean that is what I would do anyways. Also in the US anyways their is always welfare and unemployment benifts to fall back on. And I like I said lots of programs for job training.

Tell that to the guy whose lived in section 8 housing his entire life and can't afford to both eat and get an education to improve himself. The guy who was born into poverty and doesn't have sufficient resources to pull himself out.

Yeah, go get a job with a community college education and get back to me. Furthermore, most capitalists benefit from having an educated labor force. I don't see Bill Gates setting up shop in Guatemala. These ****ers need to pay their damn share.

You know I am going to a communitry collage right now and I have been able to get a job, of course that is just me. But communitry collages do offer a quality education and in the US last time I check K - 12 grade education was free and community collage is cheep or free if you live in proverty. Also you can transfer to a 4 year school from a communitry collage and their is finial aid avaible to people. So if you want you can get an education in the US. I think the problem more has to do with people not knowing what is out their then the lack of it.

Hmm, you pay some guy $6/hr and we have a problem. The guy won't be able to afford housing most likely. That means he'll need a section 8 voucher. Which means you and I get to pay for his housing in order to subsidize the company who can now pay a wage below living wage. Nice thinking Tex ...

If he is just cleaning a toilet or floors and has not skills how much would you pay him to do it? And that is way again in US their is welfare and other saftey nets. Also you have to think what effect it will have on the entire economy.

Yeah, your average Russian would much prefer the old Soviet Union to the new Russia in terms of standard of living.

Look at Sweden, Finland, or even Belgium where the average standard of living is higher than in the US. All of our wealth and power and technology, and people generally live better in Scandanavia. Why should the average American even care about the benefits of the capitalist system when they never even get to see it - even after working two jobs with no vacation.

The problems in Russia are a direct result of the communist system that rulled that country for 70 years and turn into what it is today. You cant expect things to get better overnight.

[Velociryx]

First, let me be quick to say that this post is not a personal attack AT ALL. Simply a collection of observations based on the debate put forth so far. Having said that, and having had this conversation for well over one thousand posts now, the nearest thing I can equate what Kid is putting forth to us is simple anger.

From what I can tell (and he'll be very quick to point out that I don't know him, so I could well be wrong....just basing this conclusion on what I have seen thus far) -- He is angry at the system, and angry in general. He speaks from a perspective of a desire for justice and equality for all, but does not really know how to begin....only that there are inequities in the system and people are living in poverty. This chaffes at him, and he cannot find a cause, but it's easy enough to place the blame on those who "have more" and so this is done.

Never mind that more can be done by working within the framework of the existing system (which he has already admitted is the case). Immaterial. He is convinced that the "pigdogs" (of which I am apparently a member, having been so labelled earlier in this conversation) are directly responsible (having cobbled together a unique ideology by borrowing bits and pieces from a variety of different sources--some basic (misunderstood) economic theory, Marxist dogma, and other odd bits pulled together in an attempt to form a cohesive whole, and IN that cohesive whole, mass murder or deportation of the "pigdogs" to a modern-day Gulag is perfectly acceptable when the revolution comes, as their wealth is transferred to those who have less (and, with their deaths, there will be fewer people to spread the wealth around to). They are, in his definition, criminals anyway, and so a death penalty is an appropriate punishment for their supposed crimes against humanity.

This is hardly the same rational, well-considered argument that Che put forth this morning, it is simply misdirected anger.

I understand anger, and certainly hold no grudge against anyone for BEING angry. 32 Million in poverty is 32 Million too many, and that is a perfectly reasonable....perfectly *rational* thing to be angry about.

The solution, however, does not reside with a bloody revolution, especially given the fact that more can be done (and more quickly/efficiently) by using the existing system....but then, that is harder.

It is much easier to simply BE angry and take delight at the imagined pleasures of vigilante-style justice when the revolution comes, rather than putting nose to grindstone and making a difference in the here and now.

Hard truths, or a misunderstanding of what I have seen here so far. I don't pretend to know....merely pointing out what it looks like from this (INDIVIDUAL) perspective.

-=Vel=-

[Jack_www]

Velociryx I think you got it right on. I mean I dont deny that their are problems in this world, but the answer is not in the deaths of those you think are too rich and taking their things by force and giving to others.

[alva]

He is angry at the system, and angry in general. He speaks from a perspective of a desire for justice and equality for all, but does not really know how to begin

It's called being young Vel, it called being young
(ah, those were the days )
-

32 Million in poverty is 32 Million too many

Is it realy that much..phew.. that is an awfull lot.

[alva]

but the answer is not in the deaths of those you think are too rich and taking their things by force and giving to others.

Certainly not, however I do think/feel some are just too rich to be hmm legal.
I'm not sure on how to counter that, a limit isn't gonna do any good as it will probable be backdoored before any such law is passed.
Still some action regarding this would be nice.

[Velociryx]

Indeed....but consider that the numbers can be misleading, and in fact, ANY TIME you look at such a large, diverse population as we have in the US (to say nothing of even more populous nations) looking at the whole never really tells the full story.

For example: The cost of living in NYC or most parts of California is DRAMATICALLY higher than where I live, in Columbia SC.

A friend of mine took a job in NYC that paid nearly 100k a year, and he could barely afford to live (the deposit on his Manhattan apartment was $9600....I saw the lease!), and his rent was several thousand a month. Contrast that with the $500 I pay here for my roomy townhouse, and it becomes clear that aggregate numbers do not tell the full story.

A significant portion of SC's population are technically living "below the poverty line" and yet, most folks here get along quite well (because the "poverty line" is just that....an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, whose point is chosen by some government yahoo. Again, since the cost of living is approximately half of what it is in California, for example, it makes the arbitrary "national poverty level" a bit silly (most of the southern states follow in this same pattern....they are among the poorest states in the union, in terms of absolute dollars earned, but then, the cost of living is significantly lower here).

So...do not read too much into the "poverty line" argument. I'm not saying that it is all smoke and mirrors (obviously, it isn't), but there are large areas of this country where living "below the poverty line" still means living quite comfortably!

-=Vel=-
(who was, until VERY recently, technically one of "the poor")

[Imran Siddiqui]

32 Million is way too high. It's 32 Million too high.

Seeing that it is only 11% of the population in 'poverty', I'd say it is pretty good. You will always have winners and losers in society (you give the losers enough to eat and have shelter, but aside from that they don't deserve anything else).... 11% seems like a very small number of losers to me. 32 million is pretty low to me.

Lets be generous, lets say each of these poor families is a single parent with one child. That's 44M people in poverty (and that's not even counting impoverished single people). This represents approx. 15% of the population. My guess is treating 'family' as three people is more accurate, in which case 22% of the country is poor.

Check the numbers. It says 31M is in poverty and 22M families. It gives percentages for each. 11.3% of people in poverty and 9.6% of families in poverty.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Indeed....but consider that the numbers can be misleading, and in fact, ANY TIME you look at such a large, diverse population as we have in the US (to say nothing of even more populous nations) looking at the whole never really tells the full story.

For example: The cost of living in NYC or most parts of California is DRAMATICALLY higher than where I live, in Columbia SC.

A friend of mine took a job in NYC that paid nearly 100k a year, and he could barely afford to live (the deposit on his Manhattan apartment was $9600....I saw the lease!), and his rent was several thousand a month. Contrast that with the $500 I pay here for my roomy townhouse, and it becomes clear that aggregate numbers do not tell the full story.

A significant portion of SC's population are technically living "below the poverty line" and yet, most folks here get along quite well (because the "poverty line" is just that....an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, whose point is chosen by some government yahoo. Again, since the cost of living is approximately half of what it is in California, for example, it makes the arbitrary "national poverty level" a bit silly (most of the southern states follow in this same pattern....they are among the poorest states in the union, in terms of absolute dollars earned, but then, the cost of living is significantly lower here).

So...do not read too much into the "poverty line" argument. I'm not saying that it is all smoke and mirrors (obviously, it isn't), but there are large areas of this country where living "below the poverty line" still means living quite comfortably!

-=Vel=-
(who was, until VERY recently, technically one of "the poor")

That is one of the reason by the way that I am most likely going to move out of California when I finish going to collage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you tell me why people should not recieve an income for their worth to society.

Because 'worth to society' is entirely subjective. Some people believe J.K. Rowling has IMMENSE worth to society, others think the opposite. You can't measure it, so you can't recieve an income for it.

[Velociryx]

I've got some friends who were house hunting in California.

As a comparitive example of how staggering the differences are, here are the results of our intra-state house hunting contest:

They (EDIT: Whoops....they were looking in Souther Cal, not the Bay area) found a nice, clean, 12 year old house, 1500 square feet, 3 bedrooms, garage (one-car), 1.5 bath home listing at just a shade over $300,000.

The house I bid on is 1896 Square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths (no garage....not terribly common 'round here), listing at 108k.

As housing prices go, so goes the rest of the local economy, so do the math.... I can live "in poverty" in this state just fine!

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Kid -

I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

Not if I lived in NYC. But aside from how you define "satisfaction" for most people, we thought you were talking about families. Would that include children (so a family of 4 get $120,000)? Also, you decry capitalism for not providing this $30,000 to each person, but you're looking at income numbers in a mixed economy, not a true capitalistic system. And because of that mixed economy, taxes are much higher than they would be under capitalism. So you have to add in all the money we lose from our incomes because of an ever growing assortment of taxes and regulations.

Btw, since it's more expensive to live in NYC than where I live, I don't need as much money. Will you take from my $30,000 and give to the New Yorker? On a sidenote (of sorts), the lower wages paid in "sweatshops" are paid in a place with a much lower cost of living just as I can live on less than a New Yorker. Besides, "capitalism" is just getting into SE Asia ( a land given to traditional living, i.e., farming and fishing) which has been dominated by an assortment of dictatorships. What were SE Asians getting paid before the sweatshops arrived? Just like the west, SE Asia will develop thanks to the introduction of "capitalism".

No, because there is a smaller percentage of families that recieve the mean income than that don't. The median income is right in the middle. 50% of the families get more and 50% get less.

And the median was above $30k, so what is the actual percentages of families below your goal? Also, why cite a stat about families when you were talking about individual income? Maybe that's why we got sidetracked...

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Because 'worth to society' is entirely subjective. Some people believe J.K. Rowling has IMMENSE worth to society, others think the opposite. You can't measure it, so you can't recieve an income for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To add on to that quote, Berz, in a market, people can vote on her product's worth, by buying her book. She gets paid for her economic worth. It doesn't matter if she's a very nice person (which she is), you can't measure that, so how would you decide what to pay for that?

[alva]

The house I bid on is 1896 Square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths (no garage....not terribly common 'round here), listing at 108k.

Wow, that's even cheap compared with 'old' europe prices.
(yeah, just has to sneak that one in somewhere, couldn't resist )

My rent is around 400$ for 2 people appartment (1 bedroom, but more then big enough, not a studio by any means).
Average pay here is around 1000$/ month net (we don't do the year thingy, but take this x15 and you should have an idea on an average netto income.)
(The one thing different is that people earn the same wages no matter where they live, which has it pros and cons)

[Velociryx]

I'm a nice guy too! I want a cut! Me! Me!

-=Vel=-
(who dearly wishes that his books were anything NEARLY as close to hers in popularity)

[Velociryx]

Alva...yep...that's what I mean...so being "below the poverty line" in SC is not nearly the same thing as being below that same line and living in NYC. It would be crushing there, and it means that you only have one car, instead of two here, so again, take that 32 Million number with a grain of salt. I'd not be surprised if nearly half that number lived in southern states.

-=Vel=-
(and it should be noted that, having had dinner at friends' homes who live in state-subsidized housing, they eat better, and drive a fancier car than I do!)--of course, I'm Mr. Practical....Hunter Green Ford Ranger for me...nothing fancy here!

[cinch]

Velocyrix:

I daresay that Marx would scarcely recognize capitalism as it exists today in the most successful countries that make use of it. It is a far cry from the brutality he saw in its earliest days of widespread use.

True, Marx would probably marvel at the wonderful standard of living we have in USA/Canada/Europe, but once he saw the sweatshops and factories of East Asia that fuel our economy, he'd recognize capitalism in an instant.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Among them are: The rise of labor unions, innumerable laws protecting the workers, vacation time, and a strong-and-growing socialization of some (not all, but some) sectors of the economy, most notably in welfare programs and health care.

Do not act as though these things arose without feirce resistence upon the part of the ruling class. It took over one hundred years for labor unions to become legally accepted in the US, and even now, most companies fight like hell to keep unions out. The sucess of the union movement is heavily reliant upon the existence of the Marxist movement, both in that Marxists invariably built and led the unions, and two, that the capitalists were so frigntened of the possibility of revolution, as exemplified by the existence of the USSR, that they gave in more readily once workers actually took power somewhere. All of these benefits were forced from the capitalists by threat of revolution, and now, with the collapse of the Communist alternative, these benefits are ever more under threat, even in the social democracies of Western Europe and Canada.

Given this, is it not possible that the revolution will not be a "revolution" at all, but an "evolution," and that it is already well underway, with the end result being a synthesis of the best aspects of both systems?

There are socialists who argue that. My argument is that as long as capitalists exist, they will try and undermine the social gains of the working classes. We have seen it everywhere in the world in the last two decades. Socialism and capitalism cannot exist in equalibrium.

The crux of your definition of exploitation seems to center around this phrase: Human labor-power is a unnique commodity, in that it is the only commodity that can create wealth. IIRC, it is a Marxian phrase, and IMO, it is incorrect. I would put forth that humans are not unique in their ability to create wealth, but that they are unique in their ability to put wealth to any sort of use.

Our own history is rife with examples that bear this out, and some of them are: (examples deleted for space)

Animals do not create wealth. At best, they are tools, used by humans. It is the humans who create the wealth, because on their own, monkeys would not throw paint on canvas, oxen would not pull plows, and chickens would not sort pills. A man can create more wealth with a tool than without. A man can break more rock with a jackhammer than with a sledgehammer, but we wouldn't say that the jackhammer creates wealth.

If you add up the wealth generated by the average worker (ie -- the value of the stuff he makes), subtract the cost of the raw materials used in production, and the wages necessary to keep the worker and his family alive, what you end up with is product sitting in a shop floor, because that equation does not take into account any of the following:

Most of the examples you listed are examples of further labor. Can the value of a commodity be realized while it sits in a factory? No. It requires the labor of others to move it, to sell it.

Interests:

Interest is definately taken from the surplus value of a product. While it may be considered a cost in terms of accounting, it plays no part in either creating value or realizing the value of a commodity. It is simply rent upon capital.

The definition also does not take into account willing workers.

It certainly does. Serfs willingly worked for their lords and bishops (mostly). This didn't mean they were not exploited. Willingness has nothing to do with exploitation. The fact that in capitalism, this exploitation is entered into more or less willingly doesn't mean there is no exploitation. Bosses only rarely employ those off of whose labor they cannot profit. As long as the capitalist ends up with more money afterwards, exploitation takes place.

Berzker, what we are talking about is socially-necessary wages. The "needs" for recouperation and reproduction very from age to age and grow. The average worker "needs" more to get by today than he did 100 years ago. We have certain social expectations as to what we need: a clean place to live, a tv, a car, helathy food, etc.

And yes, it is possible for the workers themselves to appropriate part of the surplus value they create. The whole point of the class struggle is the fight over the surplus value. Each class wants as big a part of the pie as they can get. Ultimately, we hope to abolish the unnecessary class, so that for the first time in history, those that do the work will get all of the surplus value they create.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Indeed....but consider that the numbers can be misleading, and in fact, ANY TIME you look at such a large, diverse population as we have in the US (to say nothing of even more populous nations) looking at the whole never really tells the full story.

For example: The cost of living in NYC or most parts of California is DRAMATICALLY higher than where I live, in Columbia SC.

A friend of mine took a job in NYC that paid nearly 100k a year, and he could barely afford to live (the deposit on his Manhattan apartment was $9600....I saw the lease!), and his rent was several thousand a month. Contrast that with the $500 I pay here for my roomy townhouse, and it becomes clear that aggregate numbers do not tell the full story.

A significant portion of SC's population are technically living "below the poverty line" and yet, most folks here get along quite well (because the "poverty line" is just that....an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, whose point is chosen by some government yahoo. Again, since the cost of living is approximately half of what it is in California, for example, it makes the arbitrary "national poverty level" a bit silly (most of the southern states follow in this same pattern....they are among the poorest states in the union, in terms of absolute dollars earned, but then, the cost of living is significantly lower here).

So...do not read too much into the "poverty line" argument. I'm not saying that it is all smoke and mirrors (obviously, it isn't), but there are large areas of this country where living "below the poverty line" still means living quite comfortably!

-=Vel=-
(who was, until VERY recently, technically one of "the poor")

That's true, but your friend paying $9600/month could be close to poverty too. Kidding of course, but a lot of people who have to pay high rent don't really have high salaries.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

So you tell me why people should not recieve an income for their worth to society.

Because 'worth to society' is entirely subjective. Some people believe J.K. Rowling has IMMENSE worth to society, others think the opposite. You can't measure it, so you can't recieve an income for it.

So tell me why objective worth should be compensated and not subjective worth.