By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Stagnant Working Class

DonFerrari said:
The class that benefited most from capitalism is the working class.

Going from needing to work 16h a day just to eat to 8h and have plenty of luxure is a great bonus

Regulated capitalism indeed,whenever it is free it tends to abuse/drain people to get as much as possible.

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
Chrkeller said:
Mostly because the point of the video is silly. A process showing improvement isn't indicative of an optimal process. Correlation doesn't necessary equate to causality.

The point of the video is that "things are getting worse for the working class" is a myth.  In that, it's quite correct.

What you're arguing is the next point.  One thing at a time guys.

But it isn't a myth entirely, but rather is driven by specificity in terms of end market. 

Look man, the video is stupid.  It is shallow and not well thought out.  So I'll get to the point. 

"Things aren't getting worse because cell phones" has nothing to do with college continually becoming out of reach financially.  Same goes for medical expenses.  People having cell phones has nothing to do with the income gap increasing exponentially.  

There are real problems facing the working the class that directly impacts their ability to move up is social class and directly impacts their health.  Wanting to improve those areas isn't a bad idea, because "cell phones."

Additionally, and this is what makes the video beyond stupid, the same "logic" can be applied to China.  China's general population has more technology in the home today when compared to 100 years ago.  Proof communism works, am I right???

Technology is one aspect of "being better off" and cannot be used to extrapolate to a completely unrelated metric.  That is like me performing a biologic survey, I count the number of birds and conclude the reptiles are healthy....

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 14 July 2019

Video is simplistic and was designed to pander to a certain demographic

tsogud said:
Snoopy said:

Republicans, in general, want a smaller government and believe the role of the government is to protect our rights and nothing else. Roe vs Wade already passed and you can get an abortion in most states. The argument is they want to protect an "innocent baby's life". It's a bit of a gray area. I don't mind abortions personally unless it's way late in the cycle such as 36 weeks. Not to get off subject, I do think the government should be interfering with some of these states that think it is okay to kill a baby after it is born. That is just messed up and shouldn't be a Republican/Democrat thing at that point.

Military protection isn't socialism at all. It is something we need to protect our rights. The technology is just a great benefits thanks to military spending. Which is why i don't mind it.

What??? Where are you getting this info? Not one state thinks it's okay to kill a baby after it's born. And late abortions aren't even legal.

So you don't mind the government interfering if you determine the situation is "messed up" according to what you've said. Well I agree, I think it's "messed up" that so many Americans can't afford healthcare or education or housing. The government should step in and create a safety net because what is going on is "messed up."

The military is a socialism. They have free food, healthcare, and education all paid for by our taxes and orchestrated by our government. I agree it is something we need but let's not pretend it isn't a social institution. Here are a couple of articles on the matter.

It is happening and there are many horror stories about it.

Americans can't afford health care and education because of the government is involved. Look how cost of college went way up when the federal government got involved.

The military isn't socialism because we all know it is something we need to protect our rights. 

In reality, most of those arms production means are provided by private citizens/companies who compete with each other in free market competition. Lockheed will be an example. Being government-funded doesn't automatically make something socialist. National Defense is considered a basic, reasonable function of government. To put it simply, the government can't function without the military.  Therefore not socialism.

Where is the discussion on the stagnant worker class?

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

Healthcare and college have increased in cost because both are viewed as billion dollar industries, as opposed to services to better society.  Places like Yale have endowments large enough to give kids free education for over a hundreds years.  But Yale continues to charge 50k because money.  Same is true with healthcare.  I remember a doctor charging me $686 for 2 minutes of his time, he confirmed that my incision wasn't infected...  which I could have done myself.  Children's Hospital in Cincinnati, I used to work there, is worth billions.  They idea they have to charge an absurd amount because of government is absolutely a false narrative.  In fact the head of Children's is an ex-VP from PF Changs...  because that makes sense.  Well it does, if a hospital, which is classified as non profit, wants to optimize profits at the expense of the sick.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 14 July 2019

People in this thread need to understand the difference between the colloquial term for socialism and actual marxist/socialist theories.

"Marxism" is an economic system, referring to the macro-economy, in which - put simply - the means of production is held by the community - or state. However, welfare states and Keynesian economics - which are now colloquially termed as "socialist," refers to a system of institutions within the capitalist system. The Keynesian argument is that the market is volatile and should kept in check through institutions. Imagine public schooling is left to market dynamics - you would have people who then will not be able to become educated because they are outcompeted. Large uneducated sections of the population does not bode well for a society. So countries like the U.S. - bastions of capitalism - have public school systems because such things should obviously not be left for market dynamics to decide. Therefore, a state institution, by virtue of being owned by the public does not automatically make it "socialist" in the marxist sense. This includes schools, and so on. The fact that the United States has public elementary education does not make it a marxist country, does it?

When someone says that a certain institution and provision of goods should be provided by the state, as in education and health, they are not saying that "capitalism sucks" or that we need to have communism again. No, they are saying that a certain good should be left for community/state to provide rather than market dynamics. This is why healthcare is provided by the state and not left for market dynamics in all developed countries of the world.

It boggles me that the U.S. is left behind on such things. They were the ones who LITERALLY implemented "socialist" welfare nets into the capitalism system first. They provided universal schooling over a hundred years ago, during a time where this was unheard of in the world.

What happened now is that people have confused a pragmatic way to run markets into ideology. Get this - the guy who is regarded as the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, said HIMSELF that certain goods should not be left to market dynamics. These are health and education. He was proposing a pragmatic economic model, not an ideology. Capitalism is not an ideology. If one wants to have ways to manage it, to use it as the tool that it is, this does not make one a communist. Most importantly - it does not mean that they hate capitalism.

Take my computer. Let's say I want to change my graphics card because it is now not running optimally. My roommate, seeing this, is completely outraged and says that I hate computers. According to him, the internal components of the computer are designed the way that they are supposed to be, and that I am now a normie for wanting to interfere with them. What he does not understand, is that this computer is merely a tool for me to carry on with my life.

This video is stupid, and most discussions in this thread were cringe.

I'll say something more to further shed light on my point above.

The reason I believe that most people in the West - in particular the United States - have confused capitalism for an ideology instead of the simple, non-normative economic model that it is, is because communism became a thing. I'll get to that in a sec.

In short, communism/marxism is an ideology based on an economic system. Communism has an end goal - to create an equal utopia. Capitalism on the other hand, does not have an end goal (This is the main important thing that does not make it an ideology). Capitalism at its core simply describes how markets operate. It does not say much about what should be the case, or how society should look. That is why Adam Smith was an economist, not a political philosopher.

Now, the reason people started to think that capitalism is an ideology is because of the cold war. This is only because it was on the opposing side of Communism. They assumed, naturally, that they were opposing ideologies - and for every thing that communist had, capitalism had the opposite. But this is not really the case, while communism was a political-ideological-economic model, capitalism was just an economic model. Different forms of democracy was the political model, and the ideological models varied between different European and North American states. These were all rolled into one purely by the fact that there was an "other" that combined all sorts of thing into one that was Communism. Capitalism does not also mean freedom of religion, expression etc. That's liberal democracy, and a completely different thing.

Snoopy said:

It is happening and there are many horror stories about it.

That doesn't mean the stories are true.  

Snoopy said:

Americans can't afford health care and education because of the government is involved. Look how cost of college went way up when the federal government got involved.

Again.  Other country's governments have more involvement with their healthcare.  

And secondly, the government can get involved in a lot of different ways.  Not all of them have the same effects.  

If you can't go into any more detail than "government leads to higher costs", without even looking at the facts, then you can't make a compelling argument.  

Some of these reasons why universities have become so expensive, have nothing to do with government involvement increasing:

-A reduction in state government spending over the past 3 decades.  On this point, less government is literally leading to an increase in cost.  Contrary to your claim.

-Sports spending

The one point that does lead to an increase in spending because of the government has to do with how the government gives loans.  If you replaced loans with actual funding, universities would cost less.  

Snoopy said:

The military isn't socialism because we all know it is something we need to protect our rights. 

There are plenty of arguments that healthcare should be a right that is protected.  

The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is something written in the constitution.  Healthcare is a natural way to protect the right to life.  

So by your argument "medicare for all" isn't socialism because we all know it is something we need to protect our rights.  

NightlyPoe said:

Yeah, I suppose it's easier to dismiss something based on the people saying it that actually deal with the subject matter and point being brought up.

By all means, continue.

So what part of this:

the video is poking fun at the "hypocrisy" of the "liberals" who complain about capitalism while benefitting from the progress, the technological achievements and the wealth that it has given them.

do you find incorrect?