Thanks for responding, PH. At this point, I'm afraid that our perspectives on things, based on our experiences, our understanding of history etc. are so different, that I'm not sure it's worth discussing this any longer. But, I can't help myself so i will say a few more things.
Comparing slaves to people who work for a living, even if their salary is lower than it should be, it's simply wrong, imo. I've worked with many women who were worth far more than what they earned. They could change jobs whenever they felt like it. They always had enough food, clothing, cell phones, and a roof over their heads. Their children went to public schools along with the children from other classes of people. While I strongly believe they should have earned more money, that in no way equates them with slaves. In fact, making that comparison is a great insult to people who were or are actual slaves.
I almost always made well below the average that a professional nurse could make. The reason is because I chose to work in areas that didn't pay the most. In return I had more freedom, enjoyed my work more and had less stress. I wasn't a slave. If money was more important to me, I would have gone back to school and become an NP or worked in an ICU where my pay would have been much higher. In return for that higher pay, I'd have a lot more responsibility and/or a lot more stress at my job.
Slaves are people that aren't ever provided with the basics needed to live. Slaves have absolutely no freedom. They are forced to perform work that they never chose. We do have women who are trafficked illegally to do sex work. They are slaves, but working for low wages is not the same as slavery. Most people can change jobs or return to school and train for something better. The most basic example I can think of is one that I used to encourage my coworkers to do. The women I worked with weren't even CNAs. ( Certified Nursing Assistants. ) Most of them had no credentials and some had very little experience. They were started at 7.50 an hour, which I think is deplorable. But, when I encouraged them to become CNAs, which only takes about 2 months and is very inexpensive if done at our local community college, they always had excuses as to why they couldn't do it. If they obtained the CNA, they could have almost doubled their hourly rate but the environment they worked in would likely be more stressful and demanding. I know of one who did go and get her CNA. Two years later she returned to work at the facility where I worked for very low pay. Why? Because she liked the work better.
One more example. My husband, who is a degreed industrial engineer had to take an IT job when so much manufacturing left the US. He made a much higher salary in IT than he did in engineering. His IT job became very demanding as the years went by so he left it. He was able to find a job as a manufacturing engineer in a smaller corporation that was privately owned. His pay was far less then he made in IT, but he loved his job. His boss was wonderful and he found the work far more rewarding than he did IT work. Point being, that people often take a lower stress, more enjoyable job for lower pay. It's crazy to think that everyone should make the same or similar salary. When that's happened in socialist countries, it's ended with a lack of new innovation, stagnation and massive poverty. The leaders of such countries have always ended up corrupt and dictatorial. People should have equal civil rights, but how much we are paid should be based on things like experience, education, and ability. If someone wants to open up a food truck, which is an example of capitalism, because they enjoy having their own business instead of working for someone else, why would you object? If someone else enjoys the better security of working in a corporation that gives them a steady paycheck and decent benefits, why shouldn't they have that choice? Or, if another person has a government job, which usually pays lower but they like the working conditions, why shouldn't they have that choice? Obviously, not everyone will ever get their first choice of jobs.
Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I don't see government being the solution anymore than I see private business being the solution to climate change or any other problem. I suggest that you do a little research on Costa Rica. That very tiny country of 5 million people has been better than most at trying to conserve their environment. They have a green plan that they hope to establish by 2050. They've already gotten their power through solar, geothermal and hydrothermal, but they still have huge problems with transportation that they are trying to tackle. People there prefer driving because it's much easier than taking public transportation, or so some claim. The country is attempting to improve their public transportation but there are many obstacles in the way. Costa Rica has UCH and some things that are better than what we have here, but it's still an economy where capitalism survives along side these socialist programs.
If somehow Bernie were to become president, he will have to compromise and track toward the middle or nothing will get done or we will likely be worse off than we are now. His cult like base will be very disappointed, just like many were with Obama, when he realized that he had to do a lot of compromising to get things done. There is no utopia and it may be too late to save much of the planet from the consequences of what humans have done to it. Even if by some miracle the US could get moving toward a very dramatic green plan, without a huge global plan, we're not going to accomplish very much.
My generation had hope in that great liberal politician George McGovern, who despite our enthusiasm, activism and optimism, lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide. But, as much as I liked and respected McGovern, he too would have to have done a lot of compromising if he had become our president in 1972. Sadly, the country has tracked further to the right than it was in the late 60s and early 70s. McGovern's loss was a loss to the country, and I think he had a lot more credibility than Sanders does. Nixon was flawed, but he wasn't that bad if we compare him to what we have now. We just need to get Trump out of office and we need a candidate that has the ability to pick up swing states and keep states that the Dems win by small margins.
Now, you can go argue with the poster, who I won't mention by name, in the other thread that believes we need a totally free market without constraints. The two of you are even further apart than you and I are.
Seriously, I do appreciate your attempts to sway me, and I hope you are open minded enough to consider the opinions of others as well.
