How about a standard of living for everyone that is commensurate with what they earn. Some people don’t want to put in the work to have a decent standard of living and therefore do not deserve one.
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
How about a standard of living for everyone that is commensurate with what they earn.[/quote]
It is like that in Norway, a country many Americans would call socialist.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
How about a standard of living for everyone that is commensurate with what they earn.[/quote]
It is like that in Norway, a country many Americans would call socialist.[/quote]
Really?? Everyone gets a pension, whether or not they earn it. Everyone gets medical care, whether or not they earn it. The earners have to pay 50%+ of what they earn (but cannot keep)so everyone else can ride on thier coat-tails.
Still, there is a huge difference between the poor and the rich.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Still, there is a huge difference between the poor and the rich.[/quote]
Which, I’d wager is a result of the difference between the willing and the un-willing. Still your systme carries the un-willing at the expense of the willing.
If will was the only factor it would be easy to regulate. There are leeches, I agree, but still some people cant do the work despite willing to.
Personal example, I am buying a new place to live these days, because I WANT a bigger more modern living space. The consequence is I have to work more. That is OK because I both have the will and ability. A less fortunate person will not have the ability or drive to work, and has to live in a more modest place.
I am not saying our system is perfect, but everyone getting the same regardless of effort is quite far from the truth.
[quote]Redmond6376 wrote:
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Yes but why should labourers be paid $1, well under the minimum wage? If they are slacking then they should be fired but this is all about maximising profits by driving wages down. Tata are asset stripping and looking for any excuse to do so. I admit they should be able to talk to someone on 330 on an afternoon though.[/quote]
Minimum wage where? That’s where the socilaism comes in. Gov’t mandates a ‘minimum wage’ so business just moves where they can get better value for thier money. Then all the minimum wager-ers are unemployed.[/quote]
Would you do your job on 20 times less the pay?
It’s not as if people working in factories here in the UK have disposable income. Costs have rocketed. Food is up. Fuel is up - petrol in some areas is the equivalent of $12 a gallon. Utility bills are up. The country’s economy is stagnant. Social inequality is at its highest level in a generation. Wages in real terms have remained stagnant since 2004, becuase of the Labour party’s principle of importing immigrants from third world countries who undermine labour and union laws that have taken over a century to set up - brilliant for business profits but the average punter has seen nothing of ‘trickle down’ economics - it’s squirrelled away in off-shore banking accounts and bonuses. Some parts of the UK are booming - walk around the financial districts of London or Edinburgh, but then try visiting many of the cities in the North. It’s a completely different story. “Better value for money” in your case means paying workers a wage that they simply cannot live on in a developed society
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Would you do your job on 20 times less the pay?
[/quote]
It depends.
It is really hard to compare wages from one place to an other because it depends on the purchasing power of the currency which is related to the amount of employable capital and the totality of end goods and services in the economy – i.e., the quality of life.
The company I work for employs 8 people that do what I do in India for the same wage as me. In India the people that get paid 1/8 of my wage live like kings. It’s all relative. Whether or not the quality of work they do is the same remains to be seen.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
^I think that in a ideal world with better distribution of wealth that would be self-evident. I am not gonna start to disgress on this. We have different ideology, I think that economy should serve the quality of life of the most people and you believe in something else. Therefore I think we should share the wealth.
Just how rich this tata guy is and how poor the people are in india? Yes I know considering this as a problem is grossly out of fashion.But that’s just the way it is isn’t it.
On a side note you don’t have to be an oracle to see that in our countries this quality of life is going to deteriore itself greatly in the future mainly because of overpopulation. [/quote]
Says the guy who made squat last year. And by the way why is it always the people who don’t have two nickles to rub together that want to “Share the wealth”. Oh wait never mind, we already know.
I would (and do) do my job for what the free market has determined it’s worth. If I decide that’s not enough, it’s encumbent upon me to make myself more valuable. An employer does not care how much it costs to live, thier only concern is what the position costs, and how much value it brings. The reason ‘cheap labor’ is imported is because unions have driven wages up beyond the value the job brings to the employer. And that is Socialism’s eventual result.
Sirs,
When there is not a fairness in the system and a huge disparity between rich and poor, you get revolution. The corporate-controlled media in the US and UK has held off the revolt for 10 years or so, but the rage shows up eventually.
In the US, our media and the GOP try to say that the misery of the working poor is caused by the weakest among us. They use race and religion to divide us. EVENTUALLY it will be impossible to hide anymore.
This is what happened in Tunisia, Egypt and now happening in Syria and so on. It will happen in Ireland and the UK, to a lesser degree.
Redmond, I’ll bet that you are not just a right-wing, greedy Republican–but also a gun owner and self-proclaimed moralist and “family values” christian. Well, it may not happen today, but perhaps in your lifetime you may very well need your god and your gun. Because either the poor will revolt while you are on this Earth (collecting SS and Medicare, mind you), or when you die and meet your god, you will account for your greed and selfishness toward your fellow man.
Gonna be hard to collect social security soon now that more money is going out than in…
Thats really witty, as it always is the classic comeback of the rich when confronted with the truth. “You’re a damn commie!” Right? But what caused the Communist Revolution? No middle class!
By the way, since the fall of communism, the poorest populations in the world have seen their standard of living decrease by 20%.
I do not advocate communism, is it ends up being totalitarianisam. People who work and pay taxes just want their fair share–and want everyone else to pay their fair share. Like the rich and especially corporations like GE who paid NO taxes in 2010 or Google who payed 2%. Somehow that logical, American idea gets called Communist or Socialist.
LOL at the concept of “fair share”. A fair share is only fair if one doesn’t get it from stealing it from someone else first.
So corporate welfare and tax loopholes for the rich are ok then? That is NOT stealing, though right?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Holy shit, Ryan’s back and he moved from TN to PA. Awesome![/quote]
Hahaha, the resemblance is uncanny!
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Thats really witty, as it always is the classic comeback of the rich when confronted with the truth. “You’re a damn commie!” Right? But what caused the Communist Revolution? No middle class!
By the way, since the fall of communism, the poorest populations in the world have seen their standard of living decrease by 20%.
I do not advocate communism, is it ends up being totalitarianisam. People who work and pay taxes just want their fair share–and want everyone else to pay their fair share. Like the rich and especially corporations like GE who paid NO taxes in 2010 or Google who payed 2%. Somehow that logical, American idea gets called Communist or Socialist.[/quote]
Fair share??!! The top 1% of income earners make 22% of all income and pay 40% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners make 12% of all income and pay 3% of all taxes. The achievers are getting screwed so the slackers can slack. How about everyone pay the same percentage? And by the way genius, corporations never pay taxes. Ever. They just passs that additional cost on to the consumer.
(I finally found my original username…)