Portrait of a 47% moocher

[coloradoatheist]

Thank you for providing a convenient chart which proves a point I made earlier. Notice that vehicle deaths didn't just plunge after the 60s.

Another unintended consequence is that families do increasingly need two earners for a middle-class lifestyle, while only one was required for the 1950s' or 1960s' version. But here's the catch: Today's middle-class lifestyle is a lot richer. If people want to duplicate their parents' lifestyles, they can unplug their air conditioners, sell one of their cars, discard their [big screen HDTVs, end their cellphone service and dump the smartphone], and stop sending all their kids to college.

And if people in the 50s and 60s wanted to duplicate their parent's lifestyles, they'd have to get rid of the television altogether, as well as the refrigerator, trade their '57 Chevy for a Tin Lizzie, and instead of sending the kids to college send them off to work 12 hour days in a factory.


The idea that the reason we need two or more incomes to support a middle class family is because our lives are so much more lavish is bunk. The life of a middle class family living on a single income in the 60s is far more lavish than that of a middle class family living prior to the Depression.

How are you defining lavish? Did the families back then have multiple Ipads, TVS, gaming systems, computers per person in the household? For the people who had healthcare was it better? Did they survive heart attacks in better numbers? Was cancer survival rates better? Did they have bigger houses back then with more amenities like bigger fridges, freezers, microwaves and ovens?

- - - Updated - - -

Who are you defining as the capitalist here? The CEOs, stock holders, or the bankers lending them money?

Stock holders are not capitalists unless they own enough to control something.

They are contributors to the capitalist system, but all they are doing is handing over money and hoping things work out. And with the bursting of the economic bubbles that constantly arise many of these stock holders lose everything.

A capitalist is somebody who uses money to exploit something for their gain, be it some natural resource or human beings.

There is no requirement that these people have any leadership abilities. All they need is money and personal greed.

- - - Updated - - -

Amazing how you filter everything through your preconceived notions and fail to understand the message.

I said the house was smaller than anything I see being built these days. How do you get "slightly" from this? Our first house was 50% larger, our current house is more than twice as large. (We both have more home-office needs than my parents did not and we have space for her parents.) And did you not notice that I said they were both professors? (Admittedly, she was part time.)

If only the world revolved around you and your incredible rise.

That's a very strange definition of capitalism. By your definition there aren't many capitalists in the US so you shouldn't have to worry.

 

[ksen]

Those "very few capitalists" take home half the income and own 3/4s of the wealth and have the ear of the government. Why shouldn't we have to worry about that?

 

[untermensche]

That's a very strange definition of capitalism. By your definition there aren't many capitalists in the US so you shouldn't have to worry.

The problem is the concentration of wealth in the hands of so few.

Present day capitalism is how it happens. It is the facilitator of the problem.

The system is the problem.

Not the apes running it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Those "very few capitalists" take home half the income and own 3/4s of the wealth and have the ear of the government. Why shouldn't we have to worry about that?

Not using unter's definition of capitalist. A CEO that makes that much isn't a capitalist by his definition.

The problem isn't the ear of the government, the issue is with government.

 

[untermensche]

Those "very few capitalists" take home half the income and own 3/4s of the wealth and have the ear of the government. Why shouldn't we have to worry about that?

Not using unter's definition of capitalist. A CEO that makes that much isn't a capitalist by his definition.

The problem isn't the ear of the government, the issue is with government.

Why is he not a capitalist if he is exploiting his workforce for personal gain?

The CEO lives incredibly large by making workers live as small as possible.

Which today means living somewhere in China.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Not using unter's definition of capitalist. A CEO that makes that much isn't a capitalist by his definition.

The problem isn't the ear of the government, the issue is with government.

Why is he not a capitalist if he is exploiting his workforce for personal gain?

The CEO lives incredibly large by making workers live as small as possible.

Which today means living somewhere in China.

A CEO is leading an organization that provides a good or service to consumers in a manner that provides value to the consumer. His/her direction is to provide the returns to the stockholders of the company.

 

[untermensche]

A CEO is leading an organization that provides a good or service to consumers in a manner that provides value to the consumer. His/her direction is to provide the returns to the stockholders of the company.

He is also extracting as much from his workforce as possible to provide that return.

Even if that means moving the whole thing to China.

He lives as large as possible by making many live as small as possible.

 

[ksen]

Those "very few capitalists" take home half the income and own 3/4s of the wealth and have the ear of the government. Why shouldn't we have to worry about that?

Not using unter's definition of capitalist. A CEO that makes that much isn't a capitalist by his definition.

The problem isn't the ear of the government, the issue is with government.

I didn't realize unter's definitions were the gold standard for this discussion.

 

[untermensche]

Not using unter's definition of capitalist. A CEO that makes that much isn't a capitalist by his definition.

The problem isn't the ear of the government, the issue is with government.

I didn't realize unter's definitions were the gold standard for this discussion.

It's actually a pretty broad definition.

To exploit something for personal gain is pretty broad.

It is the only way a concept like profit can even arise.

If we had the idea that the money generated by some group engaged in an enterprise belonged to the people in that group then the idea of profit doesn't even exist.

But when you exploit some in the group and say that the money generated does not belong to everybody the idea of profit can arise.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A CEO is leading an organization that provides a good or service to consumers in a manner that provides value to the consumer. His/her direction is to provide the returns to the stockholders of the company.

He is also extracting as much from his workforce as possible to provide that return.

Even if that means moving the whole thing to China.

He lives as large as possible by making many live as small as possible.

CEO has to manage all the pieces to provide the value to the customer and drive efficiency. Not something that workers like and why unions don't like it. If it takes one person to change a light bulb that's what is done, not the 3-5 that workers want.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I didn't realize unter's definitions were the gold standard for this discussion.

It's actually a pretty broad definition.

To exploit something for personal gain is pretty broad.

It is the only way a concept like profit can even arise.

If we had the idea that the money generated by some group engaged in an enterprise belonged to the people in that group then the idea of profit doesn't even exist.

But when you exploit some in the group and say that the money generated does not belong to everybody the idea of profit can arise.

But you are then deciding what you think is personal gain. By your definition a worker to can be an exploiter too. I hire a babysitter so I can go to dinner with my SO, that's a capitalist too.

 

[ksen]

Ahh, I get it now. The "women getting back into the kitchen" derail petered out so now we're onto this one.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Ahh, I get it now. The "women getting back into the kitchen" derail petered out so now we're onto this one.

So threads never change direction?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Stock holders are not capitalists unless they own enough to control something.

They are contributors to the capitalist system, but all they are doing is handing over money and hoping things work out. And with the bursting of the economic bubbles that constantly arise many of these stock holders lose everything.

A capitalist is somebody who uses money to exploit something for their gain, be it some natural resource or human beings.

There is no requirement that these people have any leadership abilities. All they need is money and personal greed.

So here is a scenario.

In location A you have the raw materials, a tanner who makes and sells leather.
In location B you have the skill set, a cobbler who turns leather into shoes.
In location C you h ave the market, people who want to buy shoes.

The tanner would love to sell his leather to the cobbler, but the cobbler doesn't have enough money to make the initial investment. He has skills but no resources. He asked the tanner for credit, explaining that if the shoes do sell at location C he'll have enough to pay back the tanner. The tanner refuses saying that it is too risky and asks who will cover the transportation costs. There is a driver that goes between towns A, B, and C, but he only drives when hired and doesn't invest in goods in any location.

Along comes an entrepreneur. He sees this mess and say "I will use my personal money to cover these transactions. I will purchase the leather at point A, hire the driver to transport the leather to point B, hire the cobbler to work the leather into shoes, hire the driver to transport the shoes to point C, and sell the shoes at point C. If I guess correctly there is a market at point C and I will recoup my investment and also make a profit. If I guess incorrectly, I am the only one who loses money; the tanner, the driver, and the cobbler all get paid."

Who is being exploited and who is doing the exploiting?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Stock holders are not capitalists unless they own enough to control something.

They are contributors to the capitalist system, but all they are doing is handing over money and hoping things work out. And with the bursting of the economic bubbles that constantly arise many of these stock holders lose everything.

A capitalist is somebody who uses money to exploit something for their gain, be it some natural resource or human beings.

There is no requirement that these people have any leadership abilities. All they need is money and personal greed.

So here is a scenario.

In location A you have the raw materials, a tanner who makes and sells leather.
In location B you have the skill set, a cobbler who turns leather into shoes.
In location C you h ave the market, people who want to buy shoes.

The tanner would love to sell his leather to the cobbler, but the cobbler doesn't have enough money to make the initial investment. He has skills but no resources. He asked the tanner for credit, explaining that if the shoes do sell at location C he'll have enough to pay back the tanner. The tanner refuses saying that it is too risky and asks who will cover the transportation costs. There is a driver that goes between towns A, B, and C, but he only drives when hired and doesn't invest in goods in any location.

Along comes an entrepreneur. He sees this mess and say "I will use my personal money to cover these transactions. I will purchase the leather at point A, hire the driver to transport the leather to point B, hire the cobbler to work the leather into shoes, hire the driver to transport the shoes to point C, and sell the shoes at point C. If I guess correctly there is a market at point C and I will recoup my investment and also make a profit. If I guess incorrectly, I am the only one who loses money; the tanner, the driver, and the cobbler all get paid."

Who is being exploited and who is doing the exploiting?

I say they are all exploiting each other. It's a transaction that benefits everyone.

 

[ksen]

In Jason's scenario, do the tanner and cobbler have to get food stamps and other government aid in order to survive?

 

[coloradoatheist]

In Jason's scenario, do the tanner and cobbler have to get food stamps and other government aid in order to survive?

And all three could need food stamps too. So we have a scenerio of A and B having no skills so on their own we have to provide them full benefits, or if D comes around and now society has the shoes and A and B only have to be given half the welfare by the state, which scenerio is society better of in?

 

[dismal]

In Jason's scenario, do the tanner and cobbler have to get food stamps and other government aid in order to survive?

I think most cobbler and tanner jobs have been replaced by more efficient modern processes.

What are you proposing we should do about it?

Provide anyone who want to be a cobbler, tanner, typesetter or elevator operator a free house, car and 2.3 kids to continue cobbling, tanning, operating and/or typesetting?

At most points in history if we had frozen people into existing professions we'd all be farmers. Maybe a few herders and berry pickers.

 

[ksen]

In Jason's scenario, do the tanner and cobbler have to get food stamps and other government aid in order to survive?

And all three could need food stamps too. So we have a scenerio of A and B having no skills so on their own we have to provide them full benefits, or if D comes around and now society has the shoes and A and B only have to be given half the welfare by the state, which scenerio is society better of in?

Except that 40 years ago A and B were able to pay their own way with their work. Now it is extremely difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

In Jason's scenario, do the tanner and cobbler have to get food stamps and other government aid in order to survive?

I think most cobbler and tanner jobs have been replaced by more efficient modern processes.

What are you proposing we should do about it?

Provide anyone who want to be a cobbler, tanner, typesetter or elevator operator a free house, car and 2.3 kids to continue cobbling, tanning, operating and/or typesetting?

At most points in history if we had frozen people into existing professions we'd all be farmers. Maybe a few herders and berry pickers.

Take it up with Jason, he chose the scenario.

 

[Jayjay]

In Jason's scenario, do the tanner and cobbler have to get food stamps and other government aid in order to survive?

Does it matter?