View Full Version : J. Stiglitz: The American Dream has become a myth
Skybird
10-02-12, 06:21 PM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/inequality-in-the-us-interview-with-economist-joseph-stiglitz-a-858906.html
Stiglitz: In the last decades, income and wealth disparity have grown dramatically in this country. Let me give you an example: In 2011, the six heirs to the Walmart empire commanded wealth of almost $70 billion, which is equivalent to the wealth of the entire bottom 30 percent of US society.
SPIEGEL: The US has always thought of itself as a land of opportunity where people can go from rags to riches. What has become of the American dream?
Stiglitz: This belief is still powerful, but the American dream has become a myth. The life chances of a young US citizen are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in any other advanced industrial country for which there is data. The belief in the American dream is reinforced by anecdotes, by dramatic examples of individuals who have made it from the bottom to the top -- but what matters most are an individual's life chances. The belief in the American dream is not supported by the data.
I sometimes think Stiglitz is a good diagnostic. But with his recipes for healing that he prescribes, I often found myself having problems with.
Cybermat47
10-02-12, 06:24 PM
Oh dear.
Well, I don't like to brag or anything, but it looks like Australia's becoming the 'Land of Oppurtunity'.
Oh dear.
Well...it IS called a 'dream', and not everyones dreams come true. In fact, it's a pretty rare event.
Honestly though, compared to other nations, Americans, even those at the lower end of the scale, still have it damn good. To an Afghani, Somalian or Mexican, America is still the place of 'The American Dream', even a Harlem slum would be (just about) better than a house in Kabul, and your chances of being killed on the way to the shops are marginally less in Harlem...only marginally though.
It's population shift, people will always look for somewhere that is better than where they are, be it inside their own country or, if they are able to, outside of their country.
After all, how many people seek asylum from the US? :03:
After all, how many people seek asylum from the US? :03:
Just 1, Assange!:haha:
Sailor Steve
10-02-12, 06:38 PM
After all, how many people seek asylum from the US? :03:
Back in the Cold War days, I heard someone pretty much finish an argument with the simple statement "America is the only country I know of that builds walls to keep people out."
Yours is quite good too. Thanks.
"The life chances of a young US citizen are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in any other advanced industrial country for which there is data"
What data? I really dont see how anyone can messure that with any degree of accuracy..
Takeda Shingen
10-02-12, 06:45 PM
After all, how many people seek asylum from the US? :03:
Back in the Cold War days, I heard someone pretty much finish an argument with the simple statement "America is the only country I know of that builds walls to keep people out."
Yes and yes.
AVGWarhawk
10-02-12, 06:48 PM
Not every American share the same dream. To some, having a 4 slice toaster is living the dream. I guess the article is under the assumption that everyone has the dream of home ownership or something of that nature. It is not entirely true. My one coworker has no desire to own a home. Riches are not always a dream.
NeonSamurai
10-02-12, 06:51 PM
Pretty simple actually, you can do it from tax return data. Look at what the parents made, then look at what their kids make. With census data and other stuff you can build a pretty decent picture of a family's socioeconomic status.
Anyhow I don't think the American dream was ever true to be frank. More a mythology that is effective in keeping the lower classes working, by convincing them if they work hard enough they can make it. Problem is almost all of them are very hard working (many I know personally often work 3 jobs or more 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week). We like to think that those people on the bottom deserve their fate, they are lazy freeloaders and don't try hard enough. Nothing could be further from the truth in most cases, they just don't have any chance and never did.
Pretty simple actually, you can do it from tax return data. Look at what the parents made, then look at what their kids make. With census data and other stuff you can build a pretty decent picture of a family's socioeconomic status..
True, but doesnt that just prove that those who had parents with more money received a better education? Isnt that pretty much a just a cycle you'd expect?
Also there are many successful entrepeneurs in America, its not like having a masters and getting into someone else club is the only way up.
soopaman2
10-02-12, 07:08 PM
I just want to make enough to eat, love my wife, and not have to worry about tomorrow.
Sounds alot like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.
Americans seek security.
But what we have is uncertainty, as we have all our wealth flowing upwards. Most of us, worry about our jobs, or we lose vacations and sick days, so the boss can get a raise....
Thank goodness, I am in one of the few professions that cannot be outsourced. Don't mean they do not strip us to barebones benefits in the process.
I shoulda became a government worker,dammit I had my chance too...They never gave back, they always took more, while we all took less in sacrifice to the bad economy.
Skybird
10-02-12, 07:50 PM
If more and more of the national wealth is accumulated in few and fewer hands, then this means problem in any country, no matter which political and economical system it runs by. There is also a problem of increasing power in few hands, and collapsing checks and balances. Money is influence, money actively creates opportunity to bypass checks and balances, and rules. The system gets eroded from inner self-dynamics. It is said that everything that exists, already carries the germ of its own destruction within itself. Its true, I think.
Wealth increasingly accumulating at the top creates self-dynamic accumulation effects from generation to generation. The problem worsens constantly. The debt crisis is an expression of that, and on multiple levels.
Every nation has its founding myths by which it runs and to which it's self-assessment returns when it meets trouble. Like a child meeting something frightening and then runs home to mama. In modern Germany there are two such myths: that all people must be made equal (not equal chances or equal rights, but must be made equal) and that Germany must dissolve to unite all Europe into one Germany-less entity. In America it is the fairy tale of from-rags-to-riches and melting pot. It seems to me for every little detail that supports any of these, there are a dozen details that contradict them, and every single case where an individual's life reflects these myths, there are a hundred or more, who lose, or fail to function according to the myth's definition or expectation. And the scissor opens wider and wider.
Capitalism seeks monopolism, and interest-based money lending increases circulating ammount of money without that additional money being covered by a matching increase in real value. Which inevitably runs the constant devaluation of money due to rich people saving money, and make profit from lending it. That money is either uncovered by real value, or is missing where it is needed - amongst those who are not rich. So they must borrow. The rich have, and become richer, the poor have not, and loose even more.
Stealhead
10-02-12, 07:51 PM
I just want to make enough to eat, love my wife, and not have to worry about tomorrow.
Sounds alot like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.
Americans seek security.
But what we have is uncertainty, as we have all our wealth flowing upwards. Most of us, worry about our jobs, or we lose vacations and sick days, so the boss can get a raise....
Thank goodness, I am in one of the few professions that cannot be outsourced. Don't mean they do not strip us to barebones benefits in the process.
I shoulda became a government worker,dammit I had my chance too...They never gave back, they always took more, while we all took less in sacrifice to the bad economy.
What is your trade Soopa cant you work for yourself or have a few partners get yourself a contractors lic. I do commercial refrigeration myself and just recently started a small business with another HVAC guy its just the two of us and two trucks and the gear and helpers when needed.
Anyway the "American Dream".
Dream seems like a poor choice of words to me a dream is something surreal something in your subconsciousness that rarely directly reflects reality.You have a dream where your teeth fall out it is because you fear failure not because you want to become a dentist.
People have wants and goals and ideas not dreams.
AVGWarhawk
10-02-12, 08:27 PM
Comparing apples to oranges when comparing parents and their kids socioeconomic status. Monthly expenditures of people today are much more than their parents endured. Expenditures I'm speaking of are items like cable TV. Cellphones. Internet charges. Quite frankly I spend $400/month on these services. Hard to achieve the dream when your wallet is getting raped monthly by services you need. Daily activity is based on the services. Free TV is basically zero channels that require a set top box to receive the signal. Kids homework is based on internet access. Not to mention buying the hardware to connect the net.
Do the math. 1980:land line per month $9.00 includes long distance.
Computer: huh?
These items enrich our lives but at a cost. The dream scattered because of these wonderful enrichment. The dream is harder to obtain because of these type things but I do believe the dream is obtainable.
Stealhead
10-02-12, 08:48 PM
That seems like a lot of money for the cells tv and web but the charges must be alot higher up there perhaps.I also only have myself and a super basic plan for my daughter my wife has a business cell.That and we only get basic cable no real big tv viewers here.I just go to my friends for any Sunday Ticket games I want to see.
Anyway what really effects lower class and middle class is the cost of the things you must have/use just to get to work to have any money at all.
soopaman2
10-02-12, 09:22 PM
What is your trade Soopa cant you work for yourself or have a few partners get yourself a contractors lic. I do commercial refrigeration myself and just recently started a small business with another HVAC guy its just the two of us and two trucks and the gear and helpers when needed.
Heavy machinery driver for a road crew. But that also means jackhammer expert, shovel monkey, and occasionally a coffee boy at 3am.:D
I always wanted to be independant, I honestly think it is fear of stepping outside of what is consistent money in order to get trained, then having to start over from the bottom.
Plus explaining to my wife why I would give up a good high paying job with benefits to take a risk in a bad economy is a hard sell. It's fear, and financial stability that keeps me from learning another trade.
The world needs ditch diggers too, that is literally what I do.
I applaud your balls and hard work, more folks like you, and less mercedes benz driving welfare queens, and we could be great again!:salute:
At the age of 18, I was sleeping under the boardwalk on the beach, and eating out of garbage cans. I am not as bad as some considering where I been.:D
Maybe that explains some of my sympathetic views towards the poor, and my so called liberal disease. (still my favorite thread ever made:D bless you yubba)
the_tyrant
10-02-12, 09:33 PM
I would say that the big rags to riches situation is not the norm.
Every day, there are people succeeding in a rags to riches story, in every field and industry. However, the "American Dream" is simply because at the time, there is a better chance of a rags to riches transformation in the United States.
However, I personally do not associate rags to riches with the US specifically, I associate it with the discovery of a "new frontier"
The new world offers more opportunities, simply because it is new. I would say that the "American dream" started off with Cortez and Columbus, they started the "rags to riches" trend in the new world.
it started with the Conquerors and explorers, than it went to the pioneers and settlers, than it became the industrialists, and now, the rags to riches stories occur in the IT industry.
The rags to riches stories are more likely to happen in a breakthrough, a new frontier. America was once the new frontier, than many subsequent breakthroughs happened in the US.
The "rags to riches" stories mostly happened in the US, because it was the "new frontier" in most of its history. Than, many subsequent breakthroughs occured in the united states.
this is the classic mis-interpretation of a relationsip. The breakthroughs happened in the US, thus you were more likely to "strike it rich". But you were likely to strike it rich because of the breakthrough developments, not because there is something interent about the United States that makes it more like for a poor man to suddenly strike it rich.
Rags to riches stories are most likely to happen when new trends and breakthroughs appear, there is no geographical relationship. In fact, there has been many success stories within the last few years in Somalia of all places. Pennyless fishermen who took up piracy ended up as millionares. That is the classical "american success story", they took a new emerging trend, ran with it, and got rich. Geography had nothing to do with it.
soopaman2
10-02-12, 10:12 PM
I am a rags to riches story.
I am not a millionare, but I own my house,2 cars, 2 cats, a dog, and a woman who tolerates me. My pets and my wife is all the wealth I need, the rest is all just nice to have.
The dream is there, but it is fleeting, becoming harder to hold onto that dream, and harder for future paupers to do the same.
I think one of the hardest things to do as a human being is to be satisfied with what you have...it's something that as a race we have refused to do over thousands of years...and thankfully so otherwise we'd still be huddled in caves...but it's a double-edged sword, the drive to have a better life because what a better life is, is different to every single person. To someone in California it might be buying a new car, to someone in Addis Ababa it might be clean water, both mean the same thing to that person and yet in a rational mindset, one is quite clearly a much greater need for survival than the other.
When you throw society into the mix, then it gets even worse, the same media that is used to bring us pictures of those worse off than us, also brings us things like 'Celebrity cribs' or even just pictures of someones new computer setup. We look at screenshots of people running a graphics intensive game on full graphics settings and think "Man, I wish I had a rig that could do that", unlike that person in Addis Ababa, we are much more aware of what we don't have, than we are of what we do. Of course, there are exceptions, and they are mostly those who have built what they have from scratch, working up that ladder, like Soopaman, however if the opportunity came for advancement, they would not pass it by...and I don't blame them.
The problem comes when peoples drive leaves them up the ladder further than they can cope with being, and then they find themselves run ragged trying to cope, and stress pulls in, family life suffers and they die of a heart attack before they are fifty.
Finding that balance between personal happiness and personal advancement is, I think, one of the keys to a happy life.
Winning the lottery helps too.... :O:
I think you people are confusing an opportunity with a guarantee. The American dream has always been about having a chance for success, something not found in the countries our citizens left to come here but it is certainly no promise of success.
People love to bitch about their position in life but rarely do I see the effort put in to improving it than I see in our local immigrant entrepreneurs. Those people know how to work, and they also understand the power of family. Mom, dad, sons, daughters, grandma, uncles and aunts all working together to build a business that supports them all. When I see these folks I think to myself that this is really what the American dream is all about.
soopaman2
10-02-12, 10:35 PM
Exactly August, I am not advocating a free ride, but advoacating that the poor, and less wealthy have a chance.
Like if you want welfare, you have to work community service, and pee in a cup. (I can tell you stories, most already read them from me)
I can ask my rich daddy for trade school or college money. (not me, but alot, the born rich are typically lazier anyways)
But what chance does Tyrone from some craphole project has? A loan he can never pay back (if he even gets it), just feeding the banking beast.
He may want to change, but his lot in life is based on how he was born.
Kinda like what we fought against when we kicked britain out of here. (the new monarch is now the dollar, and it is infallible over all human life )
We may as well be India, with the Caste system, modern paupers have zero shot... This is not the 50s, and American exceptionalism is long long dead.
Kptlt. Neuerburg
10-02-12, 10:41 PM
A decent example of what some would consider the "American Dream" is the story of one of the greatest comedians who ever lived and that is Groucho Marx. He was the son of German-French parents, was born and raised in New York, eventually he and his brothers hit it big in Vaudeville and finally got into early film. The thing I have to admire the most about Groucho and his brothers is the fact they where not only the sons of immigrant parents, not only did they survive the hard and hectic world of Vaudeville, but the fact that he was able to find the one thing he was really, really good at and that was entertainment. There are a lot of people who dream, few will ever realize that dream.
Also even though he's passed away, Happy 122nd Birthday Groucho!:cool:
Nout sure the dream ever existed but it sure is not the case now. I would add for many places not just the USA.
Penguin
10-03-12, 06:14 AM
An empirical study, which started as far back as 1968, confirms Stiglitz' line of thought: Exceptional upward mobility in the U.S. is a myth, international studies show (http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2012/research/exceptional-upward-mobility-in-the-us-is-a-myth-international-studies-show/)
As much as the American Dream turns out to be a myth, it has one positive side-effect: Imo, the respect for people who come from the "lower castes" and work their way up and also the acceptance for folks who switch their career paths even at higher ages, is much greater than in Germany.
A German friend of mine, who currently works in GB, thinks the perpetuation of the class system is even worse over there.
Catfish
10-03-12, 10:11 AM
[...] I am not a millionare, but I own my house,2 cars, 2 cats, a dog, and a woman who tolerates me. [...]
Hahaa that sound familiar minus one cat and one dog :D
Honestly i think this all one needs, and good health -
But what chance does Tyrone from some craphole project has? A loan he can never pay back (if he even gets it), just feeding the banking beast.
He has the same chance for advancement that Americans have always had. The problem nowadays is that we set unrealistic expectations for ourselves. If we can't go from a craphole to a mansion by the time we turn 30 then many of us don't even try.
The folks who manage it, via sports or acting or just plain good luck, they are the ones we see on TV that everyone looks to and says "that's what i'm gonna do", well you can't. The truth is that very few people can go from the bottom of the barrel to the top in one lifetime. Maybe one in a million.
Instead of taking loans to get some useless degree that he can't capitalize upon, Tyrone would be better off getting training in something he can, like a trade. If, in the course of his life he can get his family out of the craphole and into a modest home then he has realized the American dream. His kids will be able to take it to the next level and their kids yet another.
You build upon what you start with and your sons and daughters build upon that and so on and so on. That's why a functioning and cohesive family environment is so important and it's something I see immigrant families do well and many of us natives do not.
Betonov
10-03-12, 12:29 PM
Let's say I move to the US of A:
5 years ago I was 21. No work experiance and a high school education that no-one wants to employ in this country. The American dream would be a myth for me. At best I'd work as a field hand or taxi driver. I'm too ugly for a waiter.
Today I am 21. Same education but 5 years experience in boat construction and plastic working. I'd get a job in plastic or boat industry and slowly work my way up. The American dream would be a reality, but I'd have to swim in sweat to get there.
If I had gone into study of public relations, management or some other over saturated profession I'd have to rely on my experience in plastic and still had to work my ass off. I'd be an educated manual worker (obicni fizicki radnik as we say here)
When I graduate in nautical engineering I'd find a decent payed job at sipping companies and work my way up. The American dream would be a reality and wouldn't need that much sweat since I have an education that job markets are looking for.
The American dream is not dead. You just have to work hard and work SMART on it.
AVGWarhawk
10-03-12, 12:48 PM
The American dream is not dead. You just have to work hard and work SMART on it.
The same formula that has worked for decades.
Sailor Steve
10-03-12, 01:08 PM
I think Mr. Stiglitz misunderstands what the 'American Dream' is. It was never about making it from the bottom to the top, as he puts it. What it has always been is the ideal of being the best you can be, and the freedom to do so. Two hundred years ago every European was born into a class, as they had been for the thousand years before that, and they were a part of that class and could never be otherwise. A nobleman couldn't become a peasant any more than a peasant could become a nobleman. In America if you didn't like the job you had you could learn to be something else. It may not have raised your social position or made your life better, but if there was something else you wanted to do you were guaranteed the freedom to do it.
Most of Europe learned from that example, and when Mr. Stiglitz points out that many Europeans have it better today it is because they were intrigued by what had happened in one country and strove to emulate it. It has always been rare for someone born poor to become rich, but it did happen, and still does. It's true that most of us will never be a famous actor, rock star or software developer, but people do still achieve those. On the other hand it's not uncommon for people to rise to the top of the jobs they do have. The dream exists because in the 'Old Country' there was a time when you couldn't do that. There are still places in the world where you can't, and for the people there the American Dream still lives, though these days it has become a dream that can be fulfilled in much of the Western World, which makes America not stand out as it once did.
I say that's a good thing.
Anyhow I don't think the American dream was ever true to be frank. More a mythology that is effective in keeping the lower classes working, by convincing them if they work hard enough they can make it. Problem is almost all of them are very hard working (many I know personally often work 3 jobs or more 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week). We like to think that those people on the bottom deserve their fate, they are lazy freeloaders and don't try hard enough. Nothing could be further from the truth in most cases, they just don't have any chance and never did.
Concerning the 'American Dream': When I was a student, I've read "My American Journey" from Colin Powell.
Powell describes very well his raise and his constant fear of being not the best in his course etc. because that could have meant that he cannot escape his original social status and cannot have the live he wants to have.
Powell is an extraordinary person but 99% of the people do not have that power, this iron will and these capabilities.
So this 'dream' may be valid for 5% of the people, who had a bad start in life for various reasons.
U.S. and Germany could learn from Scandinavia (e.g. Sweden and Finland), which are no faultless countries but addresses some key problems, especially in the area of education. Both countries are constantly on the top 5 positions of the hit-list, which compares the economical competitiveness of all countries in the world. So, they are no 'socialist' countries by any means.
Frankly - related to that discussion - I have never understood the discussion in the US. about the health insurance for 'everybody' and why that would be a 'socialist idea'. I've thought that getting (standard) health care is a human right for everybody and has the same priority than getting basic food and be equal at the court.
And the society pays a high bill for having a heavily fragmented society: Be it the criminal activity or the loss of income, since a lot of human capital is not used.
Sailor Steve
10-03-12, 01:27 PM
Frankly - related to that discussion - I have never understood the discussion in the US. about the health insurance for 'everybody' and why that would be a 'socialist idea'. I've thought that getting (standard) health care is a human right for everybody and has the same priority than getting basic food and be equal at the court.
This is changing the subject somewhat, but you've brought it up, so it has to be answered.
The reason it's considered socialist is simply because it is not a 'right' at all. You have the right to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the right of anyone else to do the same. You said that basic health care is a right. You have the right to obtain that care. You do not have the right to force someone else to provide it for you. You have the right to put food on your own table. You do not have the right to make someone else put it there for you. Being equal at court is different. If someone forces you to go to court you have the right to representation. There is no guarantee that said representation will be of the same calibre as the rich guy can pay for.
Yes, we should take care of our poor. The 'socialist' cry comes when you want to force someone else to do it. If you can't see that difference then you don't understand what 'right' actually means.
Yes, we should take care of our poor. The 'socialist' cry comes when you want to force someone else to do it. If you can't see that difference then you don't understand what 'right' actually means.
I just refer to that :
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Sailor Steve
10-03-12, 01:41 PM
Yeah, I've read that. Are you trying to say the UN isn't a socialist organization?
Frankly, your definition of human-rights seem a little strange to me or I just do not get it.
So, for you human-rights are only valid if they do not 'force' others to contribute eg. via public taxes?
So, does that mean if you would have the power, you would stop all government-paid 'forced' welfare systems, even the basic emergency ones ? Or what's the difference ? I have a job and why do I have to pay my taxes for welfare but I can refuse paying for a 'socialist' health care system?
So, a 12 year old boy, who has only a mother, which drinks and is no help for her son: So, this boy should not get a fair chance because we do not want to force the society to help...so just bad luck for him?
Or is all dependent on voluntary services so that we force nobody? But is the access to voluntary services not random, also?
No, I do not want to have this society. Call me socialist or whatever....
Skybird
10-03-12, 03:16 PM
the best, the very best part of the whole German constitution, is the very first sentence of the very first section if the very first article.
HUMAN DIGNITY SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.
An outstanding and absolutely remarkable sentence.
People now may want to discuss whether it leaves people their dignity to lead them into dependence from the state or leaving them the freedom to move themselves voluntarily into dependence form the state. Or whether helping a weak in despair or leaving him the perceived opportunity to try to seek himself is the option more in conformity with that demand, that human dignity shall be inviolable.
Forget politics and ideology for a moment, and ask your own conscience.
Everything that the ideal of so-called human rights is about, is included in and covered by those five words. Human rights, whether it be the right to breathe or the right to live or the right to eat, is about the basic and inalienable right for having your dignity. Because this dignity means that you are left the freedom to be what by your form and essence as a human being you indeed are, and to accept the biological conditions of your very existence.
Now, there are more complex implications then at first glance there seem to be. For example how to treat terrorism, and people denying others this recognition of dignity. Whether or not torture and execution is allowed or not. War. And how far the care of social wellfare systems shall reach, and this being seen in contrast with the idea of "survival of the fittest".
But any discussion of these issues is hopelessly in vain if not even this very basic fundament is agreed on in principle: human dignity shall be inviolable.
AVGWarhawk
10-03-12, 03:25 PM
Or whether helping a weak in despair
The weak in despair are helped with social programs. Some to good effect. Others not. Some programs abused.
leaving him the perceived opportunity to try to seek himself is the option more in conformity with that demand
What perceived opportunity? Perhaps we can ask POTUS if his opportunity was perceived or a dream that came true? :hmmm:
Skybird
10-03-12, 03:41 PM
What perceived opportunity? Perhaps we can ask POTUS if his opportunity was perceived or a dream that came true? :hmmm:
Perceived opportunity in the meaning of that what an unaffected bystander may perceive as an opportunity, to the people deeply engaged in that situation may not appear as an opportunity at all, but being exposed as a victim to situational factors one has no control over, and leaves oneself no options where one's own dignity is recognized anymore.
POTUS I did not mention anywhere. I was giving the above posting in a general sense, reacting to the little dispute between Steve and Hawk, to get some heat out of it.
Takeda Shingen
10-03-12, 03:46 PM
Perceived opportunity in the meaning of that what an unaffected bystander may perceive as an opportunity, to the people deeply engaged in that situation may not appear as an opportunity at all, but being exposed as a victim to situational factors one has no control over, and leaves oneself no options where one's own dignity is recognized anymore.
Metaphysics and social mobility aren't a very good match. Upward mobility is measurable; AVG could either afford that trip to Disneyworld by scrimping and saving or he could not. Perception and existence do not play into the matter.
Powell is an extraordinary person but 99% of the people do not have that power, this iron will and these capabilities.
So this 'dream' may be valid for 5% of the people, who had a bad start in life for various reasons.
Again Powell went from nothing to a 4 star Army General and US Secretary of State. That's not the American dream. That's the American wildest dream on steroids and Red Bull. It cannot be used as the measure of success.
Skybird
10-03-12, 03:56 PM
Metaphysics and social mobility aren't a very good match. Upward mobility is measurable; AVG could either afford that trip to Disneyworld by scrimping and saving or he could not. Perception and existence do not play into the matter.
For some people - usually people not needing to do that - it is fully okay to have Germans working for one Euro per hour. They furiously demand these slaves that they should do it indeed.
For others, exploiting the desperate situation of people who depend on even that pathetic and abusive loan, is a violation of human dignity.
Some people being offered such slavery jobs say they do not work for that pathetic one Euro, that it is abusive and is - against their dignity.
And some of those living on wellfare accept to get exploited, saying that nevertheless this way they have the feeling of contributing something to society, or that else their days would be boring.
One example situation. Four different perceptions of it.
BTW, one-Euro jobs are a reality in Germany. And they increase by numbers, frighteningly fast.
Takeda Shingen
10-03-12, 04:00 PM
For some people - usually people not needing to do that - it is fully okay to have Germans working for one Euro per hour. They furiously demand these slaves that they should do it indeed.
Is that considered dignified? No.
For others, exploiting the desperate situation of people who depend on even that pathetic and abusive loan, is a violation of human dignity.
Is that considered dignified? No.
And some of those living on wellfare accept to get exploited, saying that nevertheless this way they have the feeling of contributing something to society, or that else their days would be boring.
Is that considered dignified? No.
One example situation. Three different perceptions of it.
You are right about that it is one situation. You are wrong about three different perceptions. It is absolute. :know:
For some people - usually people not needing to do that - it is fully okay to have Germans working for one Euro per hour. They furiously demand these slaves that they should do it indeed.
Slaves, really? Sheesh, exaggerate much?
Sailor Steve
10-03-12, 04:17 PM
Frankly, your definition of human-rights seem a little strange to me or I just do not get it.
So, for you human-rights are only valid if they do not 'force' others to contribute eg. via public taxes?
I simply explained the difference between a 'Right' and a resposibility. I have no right to take from someone if he doesn't feel compelled to give. Doing so makes me a thief, no matter how I try to justify it. Would I steal to feed my family? Certainly. Does that make it my 'Right'? Certainly not.
So, does that mean if you would have the power, you would stop all government-paid 'forced' welfare systems, even the basic emergency ones ? Or what's the difference ? I have a job and why do I have to pay my taxes for welfare but I can refuse paying for a 'socialist' health care system?
Not all. Here in the U.S. we have a dichotomy. What the States can do, I would like to see them do. There can be Federal oversight, but the original plan for our National Government was that it would referee between the States and be in charge of foreign policy. I know that's a slightly different subject, and I'm not convinced I'm right (I never am). I only wanted to point out how I see the term 'Rights'.
So, a 12 year old boy, who has only a mother, which drinks and is no help for her son: So, this boy should not get a fair chance because we do not want to force the society to help...so just bad luck for him?
Yes, he deserves a fair chance. Should you take him into your home? Yes, you should. Do I have the right to force you to raise him and pay his way? No, I don't. Is there a difference between forcing you to raise him and taking some money from everybody to pay for someone else to raise him? If you take money against someone's will, it's stealing. There are two different moral standards at war here, and both are right.
Sailor Steve
10-03-12, 04:19 PM
Again Powell went from nothing to a 4 star Army General and US Secretary of State. That's not the American dream. That's the American wildest dream on steroids and Red Bull. It cannot be used as the measure of success.
Well put.
u crank
10-03-12, 04:33 PM
Honestly I think this all one needs, and good health -
Give this man a cigar! :D
Last fall my wife was rushed to the hospital by ambulance. Doctors told my daughter and I that she was in serious condition. Possible brain aneurysm. She was unresponsive and on life support. I called my son who was in Halifax and told him to come home immediately. Fortunately, it turned out to be an extremely severe migraine. But there was a moment there, a dark one when all else falls away. Glad to report that she is back to her very healthy self.
I believe that the American dream or in our case the Canadian one is falsely sold as being a material one. Money, cars, stuff. You can't put a value on health and a sense of security. I'm just a blue collar guy, wife's a receptionist. We're not wealthy but we have no complaints. Can you put a value on that? Happiness trumps all else.
Skybird
10-03-12, 04:51 PM
You are wrong about three different perceptions. It is absolute. :know:
That it is that is - your perception. As the examples illustrate, people differ in the assessment of whether it is dignified or not. The observers differ. The affected people differ.
Slaves, really? Sheesh, exaggerate much?
Not at all. Not. At. All. Obviously you do not know about the working conditions in some branches. Not all low-wage jobs are slavery. But some are, and their share is growing rapidly. Also, exploitation of the socially weak/dependent like this is growing, and it kills regular jobs and replaces these regular jobs with low wage jobs. a six-digit number of jobs. Per year.
That the German economy is still going, has its price. And the price gets payed by the employees: socially, financially, and time-wise.
Anyhow, 1 Euro per hour is exploitation equalling slavery if a company makes a business model from such working conditions. The difference to what the subject needs to live in a month, must be payed by the tax payer. The company abuses the tax payer as well, therefore., And then demands to not get stripped of these cheap slave workers, since paying them ordinary wages would mess up their finances, and that would cost "jobs".
Jobs. Calling such infamy "jobs", is the climax of cynism.
Takeda Shingen
10-03-12, 05:33 PM
That it is that is - your perception. As the examples illustrate, people differ in the assessment of whether it is dignified or not. The observers differ. The affected people differ.
Really? You're going to play that game? And here I was thinking better of you.
Not at all. Not. At. All. Obviously you do not know about the working conditions in some branches.
I seriously doubt that you do either. Can these workers be legally put in chains and sold? Can they be whipped or killed because their master wills it? If not they are not slaves.
Kptlt. Neuerburg
10-03-12, 05:57 PM
@ Skybird, I'd rather get one Euro an hour then none at all. Well in my case it would be one dollar an hour but its still better then nothing. I worked for a day just to help out my father a his job and I made 90 bucks out of it, it was loud,dirty and backbreaking then again what job in construction isn't?
As for your comparing getting one Euro per hour to slavery doesn't make much sence. I would agree that such a thing is exploitation but the worker is being paid, where as in slavery the worker doesn't get paid, they might but chances of that are slim to none.
Edit: are there even jobs in Europe that have such a low wage? Just wondering.
Tribesman
10-03-12, 06:39 PM
Edit: are there even jobs in Europe that have such a low wage? Just wondering.
Its the German version of workfare he is on about, people still get their existing unemployment benefits plus an additional 1 or 2 euros an hour tax free if they take the positions.
Skybird
10-03-12, 07:18 PM
@ Skybird, I'd rather get one Euro an hour then none at all.
See now what I mean about dignity, especially the dignity of work, Takeda?
If an employer makes his business happy by paying you one Euro for your hands' work, he spits in your face. That simple. He could as well give you a toffee by the end of the day, and a clap on the shoulder. Great.
Well in my case it would be one dollar an hour but its still better then nothing.
Wrong answer. Totally wrong. You must be kidding. You get treated like that, and you even excuse it? No dignity in that, man. No self-respect and no honor. You just allow yourself getting exploited and abused.
Or move a bit more far away. Workers in China's electronics factories. Sewers in Bangladesh. Shipwreckers in Karachi. Should they also accept to be told: better the hunger wages you get than getting nothing?
As for your comparing getting one Euro per hour to slavery doesn't make much sence. I would agree that such a thing is exploitation but the worker is being paid, where as in slavery the worker doesn't get paid, they might but chances of that are slim to none.
If soembody abuses the weak position of others to exploit them to the maximum possible, if he tailors hius business to have taxpayer paying social wellfare to his employees, becaseu he does not pay them himself, but gives them 14+ hours per day, bad work, and by the end of the day sendcs therm home with 1 Eurpo per hour, then this abuse compares to slavery. A slave you give bred and water so that he can work for you. Here, you give him not even enough money so that he can buy the bread and water he needs over a day and the shelter he needs for the night. Actually, slaves in ancient Rome and Greece often were parts of the household, integrated members of family structures, and not rarely got released when their master was kind and their service was well.
I talked about dignity. That some of you guys think they need to start a forensic examination between the juristic definition of slavery and exploitive work while I obviously was in generally pointing out a general problem spreading int the West, just illustrates my point that Takeda so far indicates to not having understood. Is the meaning of this word, dignity, so very different in the anglosaxon language and economic conception?
If you guys think it is okay if you bet payed extremely low wages for dirty and heavy work that you nevertheless must accept because there is no other available to you, then this is your problem. I say you are more like whining dogs wagging their tails when being kicked, and self-respect you do show not if you just accept to get sold dramatically under your value. The dignity of man should be inviolable. Even yours. If you do not care for that, then maybe you indeed have no dignity?
Fair wages for fair work. That's what it is about. You owe it to your own self-respect to not accept being treated like a piece of sh!t. If you do accept it, then you deserve it indeed, if Kant was right n his nice quote about worms.
Edit: are there even jobs in Europe that have such a low wage? Just wondering.
We have branches in germay with extremely low wages, of less than 5 Euros per hour. the 1-Euro job is a German speciality, unemployed people getting welfare can work such jobs if they do not get more money than 1 Euro per hour, else they lose welfare. The problem is that no longer only social welfare organisaiton who depend on voluntary work offer such opportunities to work, but that main business has jumped onto the waggon long time ago. They found companies that from all beginning on calculate with extremely low wages and later argue if they would be expected to pay fair wages, they would not survive and the jobs" would be lost. Exploitation as a business model, the social costs are payed by the tax payer. The government also argued that 1 Euro jobs were opportunities for people to get a foot ion the door and getting regular contracts later. But statistics prove with dramatical clearity that this is wrong. Almost everybody who falls through the net and ends as low-wage worker, never gets a chance to reenter the regular job market again. The number of low wage workers thus is dramatically expoloding in Germany. Today, every fifth already is like that. Hundreds of thousands of regular jobs were killed over the past ten years (the initiator has been a claimed socialist, ironically, Gerhard Schröder) and replaced with such low wages jobs. Of course you cannot make a living when beeing payed wages like that. The state has to pay welfare and come upo for the difference. So, private enterprise effectively sacks in the profits, but externalizes wages and fees for its employees to the public tax player.
It a very big social dynamite bar that gets planted there. People are unable to pay insurances. Investing into their future. Their age, pensions are planned to drop to almost only 40% by 2030. In one generation you will see millions and millions of extremely old people in germany who live in bitter poverty, while the small handful of working mid-agers and young ones must pay and pay and pay like crazy, because there will be so few people in working age, and so many old.
It is a premium recipe for complete social desintegration of a society.
My health is such that I can be optimistic to not be around anymore when the **** really hits the fan. The past four years so far - have been NOTHING.
There is no dignity if people get treated like dogs, and their weakness gets exploited as best as possible. No dignity there. None at all. It's bad enough if you are in a situation where you are defenseless against the fist beating you. But if you even take that fist and kiss it, then you are lost, and your life as a human being has been a waste.
soopaman2
10-03-12, 07:35 PM
My question is, can you live off 1 euro an hour in Germany.
In NJ our minimum wage is 7.25$
And with our extreme rents you are lucky to able to pay rent in a crime ridden cesspit, and have enough to eat. Mortgages are cheaper than rents in most cases, but a poor fool with a crap job can never get a loan.
Most the people who make that work only 20 hours a week, as they are part time.
The new thing with companies who offer benefits is hiring part time workers, and working them under the hourly limits on providing basic healthcare. Then slaving them in the process.
Ahhh, funny to all us with money. But not funny when they riot, because they are starving.
"Maybe they should work harder"
Maybe I should spit on you, and laugh...Spare me that one please.
Minimum wage jobs are not, at least in this country, intended to be jobs that provide enough funds to support a person to live on their own, let alone support a family as well. They're supposed to be jobs that a kid gets to pad out his allowance or the part time night job that someone takes to earn a little extra cash for Christmas or get the down payment for that new car. They are not intended to provide a living wage.
If a person expects to make more than that, if they expect to support a family then they need to have a marketable skill. Even a college degree is useless if it isn't in a needed discipline.
Kptlt. Neuerburg
10-03-12, 09:53 PM
You get treated like that, and you even excuse it? No dignity in that, man. No self-respect and no honor. You just allow yourself getting exploited and abused.
1. In America you can have self-respect and still have a crappy job.
2. No company I know hires employees based on that persons honor, dignity, or self-respect let alone care two cents about it.
3. I never said that I would excuse getting treated in such a way. But if its the only job I had would I want to risk pissing off the boss and getting fired?
If soembody abuses the weak position of others to exploit them to the maximum possible, if he tailors hius business to have taxpayer paying social wellfare to his employees, becaseu he does not pay them himself, but gives them 14+ hours per day, bad work, and by the end of the day sendcs therm home with 1 Eurpo per hour, then this abuse compares to slavery. A slave you give bred and water so that he can work for you. Here, you give him not even enough money so that he can buy the bread and water he needs over a day and the shelter he needs for the night. Actually, slaves in ancient Rome and Greece often were parts of the household, integrated members of family structures, and not rarely got released when their master was kind and their service was well.
For the first bit of this I do agree that it is abuse, that it is wrong, but I disagree that it should be called slavery. As for the second part as a definition of slavery.
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."
The difference between what you are calling slavery and the true definition of slavery is:
1. The persons you are talking about aren't captured and held against their will.
2. Slaves don't get paid for their work.
I talked about dignity. That some of you guys think they need to start a forensic examination between the juristic definition of slavery and exploitive work while I obviously was in generally pointing out a general problem spreading int the West, just illustrates my point that Takeda so far indicates to not having understood. Is the meaning of this word, dignity, so very different in the anglosaxon language and economic conception?
As I stated before companys don't care about dignity. Dignity doens't exist in the economic volcabulary.
If you guys think it is okay if you bet payed extremely low wages for dirty and heavy work that you nevertheless must accept because there is no other available to you, then this is your problem.
I would think that there are some in America who would say "Well thats what imigrants are for." And I've seen with my own eyes imigrants from Centeral and South America who most likely are paid less then the average American worker doing the same job, but they work harder and in some cases do a better job then that of their higher paid counterparts.
Fair wages for fair work. That's what it is about. You owe it to your own self-respect to not accept being treated like a piece of sh!t.
Once again I do agree with fair wages for fair work. You say a thing like that to Mr. Trump, chances are he would give you a strange look and then laugh in your face.
And I will also take a passage or two from the book The Age of Napoleon, page 99 about econmic ideas that are from the 1800's but are very well and alive today.
" Owen was a new kind of man, such as the eighteenth century had not known. A saddler's son, he began to work in a cotton mill at the age of ten. In those times a working day of fourteen hours was standard. Young Owen not only worked but also managed to read practically everything that was written in the past hundred years; he not only read but also managed to rise from the ranks, and at the age of twenty-three he owned one of the most profitable cotton mills in Manchester. The facts suggest that Robert Owen was a remarkable lad. Among prosperous cotton manufacturers he was particularly remarkable in that he did not reguard the wretched lot of his workers as the necessary reward for their sinful and brutish ways. At his mills at New Lanark, Owen build a model industrial community, with decent housing for the workers, schools, sanitation, and non-profit making stores. In the factory working conditions were, measured against the prevailing standards, almost humane. To the consternation of of his fellow manufacturers, far from being ruined by such extravagances, Owen made bigger profits then ever."
And from the end of page 99 " While Owen tried to improve the workers' lot (the passing of the Factory Act of 1819 was largely to him), Jeremy Bentham proved mathematically that the workingman's happiness was best promoted by the industrialist's self-interest; Thomas Malthus argued that any attempt to feed the starving masses only incresed the masses and their misery; and David Ricardo demonstrated that it was no use to increase the workers' wages. Like Jacobin radicalism, these doctrines rested on eighteenth century assumptions, but the conlusions derived from them were more pleasing to the wealthy and well-born."
We have branches in germay with extremely low wages, of less than 5 Euros per hour. the 1-Euro job is a German speciality, unemployed people getting welfare can work such jobs if they do not get more money than 1 Euro per hour, else they lose welfare. The problem is that no longer only social welfare organisaiton who depend on voluntary work offer such opportunities to work, but that main business has jumped onto the waggon long time ago. They found companies that from all beginning on calculate with extremely low wages and later argue if they would be expected to pay fair wages, they would not survive and the jobs" would be lost. Exploitation as a business model, the social costs are payed by the tax payer. The government also argued that 1 Euro jobs were opportunities for people to get a foot ion the door and getting regular contracts later. But statistics prove with dramatical clearity that this is wrong. Almost everybody who falls through the net and ends as low-wage worker, never gets a chance to reenter the regular job market again. The number of low wage workers thus is dramatically expoloding in Germany. Today, every fifth already is like that. Hundreds of thousands of regular jobs were killed over the past ten years (the initiator has been a claimed socialist, ironically, Gerhard Schröder) and replaced with such low wages jobs. Of course you cannot make a living when beeing payed wages like that. The state has to pay welfare and come upo for the difference. So, private enterprise effectively sacks in the profits, but externalizes wages and fees for its employees to the public tax player.
It seems quite obivious that the German government and/or economists should have a look at such low paying jobs and figure out a way to improve conditions in favor of the workers and the company that employs them.
It a very big social dynamite bar that gets planted there. People are unable to pay insurances. Investing into their future. Their age, pensions are planned to drop to almost only 40% by 2030. In one generation you will see millions and millions of extremely old people in germany who live in bitter poverty, while the small handful of working mid-agers and young ones must pay and pay and pay like crazy, because there will be so few people in working age, and so many old.
It is a premium recipe for complete social desintegration of a society. So then shouldn't that society look for a way to make it better and equal for all instead of making better for the few?
There is no dignity if people get treated like dogs, and their weakness gets exploited as best as possible. No dignity there. None at all. It's bad enough if you are in a situation where you are defenseless against the fist beating you. But if you even take that fist and kiss it, then you are lost, and your life as a human being has been a waste.
Please see earlyer replys about diginty and companys.
Tribesman
10-04-12, 03:06 AM
My question is, can you live off 1 euro an hour in Germany.
Soopa, they don't exist so the question makes no sense. It is one euro an hour on top of all the payments you already recieve.
And with our extreme rents....
The rent subsidy would be one of those payments they already recieve.
Don't get me wrong, the is a good arguement behind what skybird is trying to get at, but as usual he dresses it up as something it isn't and invents "facts" to fit what dress he wants to put over the basics.
Skybird
10-04-12, 03:42 AM
Minimum wage jobs are not, at least in this country, intended to be jobs that provide enough funds to support a person to live on their own, let alone support a family as well. Oh, it was not intended to become like that over here, too. But it did, because regular employers accepted the invitation. Per year a six-digit number of regular jobs gets destroyed and reestablished as low wage jobs. It goes like that since over ten years. Two or three low wages is cheaper for a company than 1 regularly payed worker/employee. Low wagers also do not show up in unemployment statistics - that's why the government for years supported the development, and why Schröder in the first initiated it: "we have battled unemployment!"
Yeah. Sure. And taking a chocolate bar away from one starving man to give it another starving man battles hunger in the world.
Skybird
10-04-12, 04:22 AM
1. In America you can have self-respect and still have a crappy job.
2. No company I know hires employees based on that persons honor, dignity, or self-respect let alone care two cents about it.
And if it abuses people like discussed here, that is not a problem, and a shame anyway...?
3. I never said that I would excuse getting treated in such a way. But if its the only job I had would I want to risk pissing off the boss and getting fired?
Thank for illustrating right the points I am about.
For the first bit of this I do agree that it is abuse, that it is wrong, but I disagree that it should be called slavery. As for the second part as a definition of slavery.
"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."
And before you said "But if its the only job I had would I want to risk pissing off the boss and getting fired?", and in general you gave the impression earlier that treating people like sh!t and sending them home with a symbolic pocket money after a 14 hours shift is nothing ypou worry too much for,m that it does not violate a person'S dignity. You really refuse to see the relation? When you depend on a slave job to get along by th eend of the month, and cannto defend yourself against that due to no other jobs available, then you are a slave to the situation and the employer. And like a slave you swallow what he is throwing at you, since you have no other alternative. And despite all your formalistic hair-splitting - that I call slavery, abuse, exploitation.
The difference between what you are calling slavery and the true definition of slavery is:
1. The persons you are talking about aren't captured and held against their will.
2. Slaves don't get paid for their work.
To 1. in the situation you have desribed yourself, you are capturede in it and cannot escape. To 2., slaves get payed, though not in money. They are kept alive and what is needed to keep them alive. That is what a low wage job does, too. It keeps you alive for the monet. Not more. As I said, in ancient era slaves could even win their freedom, and often were more a member of the household than a slave in the later underdstanding of blacks in North America.
We can split hairs until all heaven falls.
As I stated before companys don't care about dignity. Dignity doens't exist in the economic volcabulary.
And again: that is okay? Terms like "human capital" and "processing mass" to describe employees ready to work are no degrardation of humans?
I would think that there are some in America who would say "Well thats what imigrants are for." And I've seen with my own eyes imigrants from Centeral and South America who most likely are paid less then the average American worker doing the same job, but they work harder and in some cases do a better job then that of their higher paid counterparts.
And that is not violating to their dignity as human beings? Thats is not unfair? Ethically criminal, and maybe also criminal according to the laws? Agaion that simple question: that is okay?
Once again I do agree with fair wages for fair work. You say a thing like that to Mr. Trump, chances are he would give you a strange look and then laugh in your face.
He is not alone. All globalization of Western economies was about shifting jobs into countries were the people are so poor and depending on jobs that they could not afford not to accept being underpayed and treated badly. Globalization was avoiding regular payment obligations at home. Different to all their other claims and announcement of international cooperation, balance and helping other countries to get on their feet, cost reduction was the driving motivation behind it.
But on their feet they got. And now they eat us in quite some branches: computer electronics, textiles and clothes, steel... Gotta love globalization.
It seems quite obivious that the German government and/or economists should have a look at such low paying jobs and figure out a way to improve conditions in favor of the workers and the company that employs them.
So then shouldn't that society look for a way to make it better and equal for all instead of making better for the few?
Please see earlyer replys about diginty and companys.
I cannot escape the impression - here and at earlier situations - that the mere observation of that capitalist economy management at the same time serves as an excuse not to adress it's excesses were it violates human rights and human dignity. Now you say one should do it. And ask at the same time wether one should really do it. Well, what shall it be now for you? Is exploitation of the weak laborforce and the intentional increasing of low wages jobs for regular jobs something that is ethically acceptable or not? Should it be attacked, or not? I also would like to hint out that "low wage work force" not automatically means "proletariat" where social low class meets a family tradition of being simple workers (in factories, mines, docks etc). We see - statistically proven - a higher - and growing - number of academics loosing their jobs and falling down the social ladder. Mid-class families. And by far not all of them were in exotic subjects, at least as long physics and mathematics, teachers and chemists are not seen as exotic nowadays. People with specialised job trainings, and university diplomas. "Low wage" and "low qualification", as well as "low status in social hierarchy" and "family origin in social hierarchy" should not be taken as synonymous. It is by far no longer only the social low class being effected. Which makes it all even more threatening for society, since it erodes the very vital basis of its existence, and strips the state off tax income.
P.S.
Statistically, females get for the same work they do or the same job, posting, office, seat they hold, on average 20-30% less payment than males - from blue collar workers to seats ion the board of directors. That is sexual discrimination, and and of course a violation of human dignity. I am not for all that gender engineering madness going on, and I oppose the new insurance tarrifs in the EU that sees women and men having different different health risks and different life expectancies, but now both paying the same for health and life insurances. That is absurd and a denial of biological realities (but what do I wonder - all gender engineering is a denial of biological and psychological and social realities). But paying women less for the same work because they are female - that is not acceptable. And a 25% difference is far beyond any random fluctuation. Difference seems to be the higher the more upwards the job is seated, so in parts it can be explained by psychological differences - women may negotiate their directors wages differently and less "pushing" than males. But in ordinary jobs where wages are not negotiated individually, but are prefixed, the difference between male and female behavior cannot explain or excuse such differences.
Oh, it was not intended to become like that over here, too. But it did, because regular employers accepted the invitation. Per year a six-digit number of regular jobs gets destroyed and reestablished as low wage jobs. It goes like that since over ten years. Two or three low wages is cheaper for a company than 1 regularly payed worker/employee. Low wagers also do not show up in unemployment statistics - that's why the government for years supported the development, and why Schröder in the first initiated it: "we have battled unemployment!"
Yeah. Sure. And taking a chocolate bar away from one starving man to give it another starving man battles hunger in the world.
Well whose chocolate bar is it anyways?
I see a lot of immigrant families over here working for low money and in low profit businesses but they work hard and know how to save and how to pool their resources. It doesn't take them very long to earn enough to to put their kids through college and instead of liberal arts degrees (code here for 4 years of partying) they'll be engineers and architects and scientists with a bright future.
That is the American dream, not sitting on your butt thinking that the world owes you a candy bar and whining when you don't get it.
Kptlt. Neuerburg
10-04-12, 10:31 AM
And if it abuses people like discussed here, that is not a problem, and a shame anyway...?
Yes it is a problem, it is a shame, it is wrong. That being the case then why don't the majority i.e the Workers tell the minority i.e the Rich people what they want and if they don't get it they would do something like go on strike, or better yet bring the problems to the attention of a person and/or group that is pro workers rights, since striking could lead to them getting fired from that job and also losing their welfare or whatever source of income in the process.
And before you said "But if its the only job I had would I want to risk pissing off the boss and getting fired?", and in general you gave the impression earlier that treating people like sh!t and sending them home with a symbolic pocket money after a 14 hours shift is nothing you worry too much form that it does not violate a person's dignity. You really refuse to see the relation? When you depend on a slave job to get along by th eend of the month, and cannto defend yourself against that due to no other jobs available, then you are a slave to the situation and the employer. And like a slave you swallow what he is throwing at you, since you have no other alternative. And despite all your formalistic hair-splitting - that I call slavery, abuse, exploitation.
Either you missunderstood or misinterpreted what I ment. I DON'T repeat DON'T think its right to treat a worker like they are dirt or as you put it "sh!t". And I do understand what your getting at but I think you don't get what I'm trying to get at. If its so wrong than why isn't there some law that would fix it? I'll tell you why, the laws have been and will be more benifical toward the rich while appering to be benifical toward the working class. There for the "system" if one could call it that is rigged, fixed, whatever so the rich make the maximum amount of profit while paying the minimum amount of wages.
The difference between what you are calling slavery and the true definition of slavery is:
1. The persons you are talking about aren't captured and held against their will.
2. Slaves don't get paid for their work.
To 1. in the situation you have desribed yourself, you are capturede in it and cannot escape. To 2., slaves get payed, though not in money. They are kept alive and what is needed to keep them alive. That is what a low wage job does, too. It keeps you alive for the monet. Not more. As I said, in ancient era slaves could even win their freedom, and often were more a member of the household than a slave in the later underdstanding of blacks in North America.
We can split hairs until all heaven falls.
Agreed.
And again: that is okay? Terms like "human capital" and "processing mass" to describe employees ready to work are no degrardation of humans? For the perspective of the working man no, it is not okay. For the perspective of the CEO, it is okay. Plain and simple.
And that is not violating to their dignity as human beings? Thats is not unfair? Ethically criminal, and maybe also criminal according to the laws? Again that simple question: that is okay?
Again simple answer, no it is not okay. Is it unfair? Yes it is unfair. It is corruption which is in my mind is quite criminal. But in responce to the question of human dignity I respond with the following.
1. Are the workers called by numbers and not names?
2. Are they forced to work against their will?
3. If they do a bad job in the eyes of their boss, supervisor, ect are they beaten to a bloody pulp? Are the familiys of the workers threatened?
These are examples of violation of human rights in the eyes of the law in most cases.
He is not alone. All globalization of Western economies was about shifting jobs into countries were the people are so poor and depending on jobs that they could not afford not to accept being underpayed and treated badly. Globalization was avoiding regular payment obligations at home. Different to all their other claims and announcement of international cooperation, balance and helping other countries to get on their feet, cost reduction was the driving motivation behind it.
But on their feet they got. And now they eat us in quite some branches: computer electronics, textiles and clothes, steel... Gotta love globalization. Its not just cost reduction its greed, its all about how much more money an already rich person can make. Also think about this for a moment: India was a "third world" nation with extreme levels of poverty. Now India is slowly becoming a global super power, it will take a long time but it is the result of globalization. Will poverty in any form go away though? It could happen but it is doubtful.
I cannot escape the impression - here and at earlier situations - that the mere observation of that capitalist economy management at the same time serves as an excuse not to adress it's excesses were it violates human rights and human dignity. Now you say one should do it. And ask at the same time wether one should really do it. Well, what shall it be now for you? Is exploitation of the weak laborforce and the intentional increasing of low wages jobs for regular jobs something that is ethically acceptable or not? Should it be attacked, or not? I also would like to hint out that "low wage work force" not automatically means "proletariat" where social low class meets a family tradition of being simple workers (in factories, mines, docks etc). We see - statistically proven - a higher - and growing - number of academics loosing their jobs and falling down the social ladder. Mid-class families. And by far not all of them were in exotic subjects, at least as long physics and mathematics, teachers and chemists are not seen as exotic nowadays. People with specialised job trainings, and university diplomas. "Low wage" and "low qualification", as well as "low status in social hierarchy" and "family origin in social hierarchy" should not be taken as synonymous. It is by far no longer only the social low class being effected. Which makes it all even more threatening for society, since it erodes the very vital basis of its existence, and strips the state off tax income.
I am not, nor in anyway suggesting that someone should run a company at the expence of human rights or human dignity. In fact I was doing what I do best: look at an arguement from both sides, i.e in this case looking at it from the perspective of the worker and of the CEO. Your agrument though be it a very good one, is also very one sided. I have found that it is always better to look at such a thing from more then one side.
P.S.
Statistically, females get for the same work they do or the same job, posting, office, seat they hold, on average 20-30% less payment than males - from blue collar workers to seats ion the board of directors. That is sexual discrimination, and and of course a violation of human dignity. I am not for all that gender engineering madness going on, and I oppose the new insurance tarrifs in the EU that sees women and men having different different health risks and different life expectancies, but now both paying the same for health and life insurances. That is absurd and a denial of biological realities (but what do I wonder - all gender engineering is a denial of biological and psychological and social realities). But paying women less for the same work because they are female - that is not acceptable. And a 25% difference is far beyond any random fluctuation. Difference seems to be the higher the more upwards the job is seated, so in parts it can be explained by psychological differences - women may negotiate their directors wages differently and less "pushing" than males. But in ordinary jobs where wages are not negotiated individually, but are prefixed, the difference between male and female behavior cannot explain or excuse such differences.
Now this is something that I need no reminding of, in fact I've been reminded of it on a constant basis by my mother, who experianced exactly what you're talking about and I quote, "I was a supervisor with five employees under my supervision. A new male employee under my supervision was earning more then I was." And yet again I do agree that paying a women less becuase she is a women, while a male counterpart makes more because he is a male is just plain wrong, it is also very stupid. I belive that a women should have equal pay for doing the same work as a man does.
@August your post is something I really agree with.
Hottentot
10-04-12, 12:00 PM
liberal arts degrees (code here for 4 years of partying)
I participated in partying last time two years ago. When I graduate, I will have qualifications for three different job fields, all of which I have chosen to do extra work to acquire instead of just being a generic master. I feed myself plus a medium sized dog by working at the same time and use the rest of the time for volunteer work in order to acquire job experience from one of those fields.
I wish there had been someone to set me straight when I began studying. Obviously I went wrong somewhere.
I simply explained the difference between a 'Right' and a resposibility. I have no right to take from someone if he doesn't feel compelled to give. Doing so makes me a thief, no matter how I try to justify it. Would I steal to feed my family? Certainly. Does that make it my 'Right'? Certainly not.
Not all. Here in the U.S. we have a dichotomy. What the States can do, I would like to see them do. There can be Federal oversight, but the original plan for our National Government was that it would referee between the States and be in charge of foreign policy. I know that's a slightly different subject, and I'm not convinced I'm right (I never am). I only wanted to point out how I see the term 'Rights'.
Yes, he deserves a fair chance. Should you take him into your home? Yes, you should. Do I have the right to force you to raise him and pay his way? No, I don't. Is there a difference between forcing you to raise him and taking some money from everybody to pay for someone else to raise him? If you take money against someone's will, it's stealing. There are two different moral standards at war here, and both are right.
Ok, I can follow your point a little now, although I have not the same opinion or the same understanding of 'Rights' and 'Responsibility' as I described above.
For me all people have simply the right to have same starting conditions as practical matters allows. Else individual life is a lottery, like it is in both countries (U.S. and Germany) to a considerable degree.
Same starting conditions does not mean that the outcome is equal (or in theory like in communism). If somebody is constantly lazy and fortifies his given chances, then it is perfectly fine that his living standards are at a minimum.
If somebody has brilliant ideas, works hard etc. it is perfectly fine that he get rich like J.Stiglitz outlines.
You and August have misunderstood, what I wanted to express with Powell's life. The chances that he got even a medium-ranked officer in the army was a couple of factors more worse compared to his 'competitors'. Just read his book.
Armistead
10-04-12, 03:09 PM
Most considered the dream being part of the middle class, owning a home, benefits, a pension. That dream came true as we built a strong middle class for a large percent of Americans.
Sadly, we're waking a up to a future that will be absent a middle class. I don't think we've seen the worse, it's coming in the next few decades.
AVGWarhawk
10-04-12, 03:40 PM
Most considered the dream.... owning a home.....
This is part of the problem. The dream was offered up at the bequest of big government to have lenders like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac provide home loans to anyone with a pulse. Getting the American dream. We see where the forced dream came from. It was forced so hard it was regurgitated into what is called foreclosures, abandonment and short sales. Thus ended the American dream for many.
In the meantime I've read his book 'The price of inequality'...it is a really good book.
Apart from the inequality debate he shows and proofs that the whole economic could be far more efficient for the benefit of most citizens.
He also very clearly proofs how the the 'top 1%' tries and accomplishes to influence decision making in politics to guarantee their privileges regarding taxes, hidden subsidies and so on.
Catfish
03-30-13, 04:30 AM
As George Carlin put it, it is called American Dream "because you have to be asleep, to believe it".
:yep:
Certainly you have more 'opportunities' in the US, than in North Korea. But already compared to the new Russia, or other western countries ? :hmmm:
Like everywhere you have to know the right people, or have sheer luck. There's not much about knowledge or capability about it.
Onkel Neal
04-01-13, 08:05 AM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/inequality-in-the-us-interview-with-economist-joseph-stiglitz-a-858906.html
Stiglitz: This belief is still powerful, but the American dream has become a myth. The life chances of a young US citizen are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in any other advanced industrial country for which there is data. The belief in the American dream is reinforced by anecdotes, by dramatic examples of individuals who have made it from the bottom to the top -- but what matters most are an individual's life chances. The belief in the American dream is not supported by the data.
Disagree. The American Dream is still there, the system here allows for rags to riches with more ease than ever. Unfortunately, the growing socialist trends of our population are pushing the dream farther away. Why "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you can whine about discrimination and insist on receiving aid from the government.
There's a certain HBO series called 'The Newsroom' which has a good speech during its opening episode in it, but I cannot post a link to it here because it has words in it that will send Sailor Steve after me, but I think that is probably a good speech.
The American dream has not become a myth, it's just been buried by modern life.
Disagree. The American Dream is still there, the system here allows for rags to riches with more ease than ever. Unfortunately, the growing socialist trends of our population are pushing the dream farther away. Why "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you can whine about discrimination and insist on receiving aid from the government.
This ^
mookiemookie
04-01-13, 09:42 AM
the system here allows for rags to riches with more ease than ever.
The whole point of the article was how that's NOT the case. Granted, it's using inductive reasoning to reach the conclusion that the opportunities are not there as they had been in the past. But how else to explain the massive gap between the rich and the poor that becomes larger and larger? I don't buy the fact that it's because poor people are lazy. The gap is so huge and includes so many people that I just find it really hard to believe that there are THAT many people that are unwilling to work or better themselves. It's certainly the case in a lot of cases, I give you that. But I think you also have to acknowledge the fact that the deck is stacked against people when it comes to social mobility.
I mean think about it logically - if you were going to try and better yourself, how would you go about it? School? Higher education is more expensive than it ever has been, by a long shot. In the last 20 years, college tuition costs have tripled. Trade schools could be the answer, but for-profit colleges pile on the debt too.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14schools.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
Small business loans? Bank lending standards are still very tight. You can't just walk into a bank and get an SBA loan for an idea. Trust me, I sat on the other side of that desk and had to turn down person after person who couldn't show me anything more than a business plan.
The prison population has skyrocketed since 1980 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg/693px-US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg.png). What happened in the 70s and early 80s? Hint: rhymes with "Door on Wugs". So with mandatory sentencing guidelines for relatively minor drug offenses, many many more people have records for non-violent offenses than they did in the past. That's not good for someone's rehabilitation prospects. You can blame the individual in that case, and I agree with you, but you still have to deal with the fact that the problem exists.
Like it or not, there's indeed a class war going on and it's on the middle class. They're being squeezed out of the equation. And no one seems to want to see it or do anything about it.
There's a certain HBO series called 'The Newsroom' which has a good speech during its opening episode in it, but I cannot post a link to it here because it has words in it that will send Sailor Steve after me, but I think that is probably a good speech.
The American dream has not become a myth, it's just been buried by modern life.
Oh you big wussy. :O:
**Language Warning**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wTjMqda19wk#t=96s
It is true that some people lack motivation and thus invest not in themselves.
Stiglitz does not claim in his book that equality shall be reached...quite to the contrary...he also agrees to the fact that some inequality is necessary to motivate people to improve their life.
But the major problem is that the economy and a lot of laws, tax rules etc. are built for the top. So what he claims is that there is socialism on the top(my own words to describe this). Look how CEOs are paid...what they are paid for....what happens if they perform bad and so on. And this is just an example of many issues.
I've studied business, national economics and computer science and what I've learned in my studies from the beginning is that there are some key requirements necessary to make markets work. What Stiglitz just claims is not socialism but that in major economic sectors there are no functioning markets anymore due to the lack of competition, lobby-ism and so on. This is just a provable fact.
Even stock markets, in former times the major example for 100% functioning markets, does not meet anymore the requirements, defined by classic national economics definitions...since more and more only a fraction of people/organizations have the understanding how it works, due to the fact that is it is just complete in-transparent (in parts) and designed so by purpose. As an example: who knows the algorithms , used in stock market auto-transaction handling?
It is also a provable fact that the wealth in most Western countries is more and more concentrated. And very often this is not the case due to performance of individuals. Regardless of someones political affiliation, every person who is capable to do simple math cannot deny that this model will not work in the long run or we have not only a 'Arab Spring' but also a 'Western Spring' in the future...
Concerning the 'American Dream': I think it still works for very talented people - or people, which have sth to offer attracting the mass market (I do not judge this negatively ) like Justin Bieber. I also acknowledge that the vast majority of those people put a very high effort to make their dream reality, so it is a combination of luck + their own (big) investment.
But my point and the point of Stiglitz is that we cannot design a model for our economy to make 10% people very rich at the expense of the majority. That's it. Not everybody has the skills to study and have a good graduation and since in Western countries we have more and more the transformation from production to service-oriented economy, we have to find a answer for those people - now and not in some decades. The answer cannot be that those people are the looser or we have a ghettoization in our cities with all the consequences.
I can only everybody recommend to read this book. You do not have to agree on every argument, presented by him (nor do I) but reading his book gives you a broader and - in most parts- a provable understanding how current economic works.
Skybird
04-01-13, 11:43 AM
Unfortunately, the negative symptoms complained about are the logical consequence of any democratic system. This has been known by most of the famous and influential philosophers and thinkers since over 2000 years. Already the ancient Greek knew it, starting with Aristotle and Socrates, and later the Romans, mentioning Cato and Cicero as just two examples.
The following text is in German, unfortunately. It is a compact and imo extremely good summary that gives an overview on the roots of political terms and labels that we use today without knowing the original meanings and historic realities behind these terms. What we value today by describing something as "democracy" or "state", in the times when these terms were first used were only seen as reasons of mayhem and anti-social behaviour, they had anything but a good reputation and where seen as ideas and concepts which were to be avoided, if only that would have been possible. The more these ideas nevertheless got realised over the centuries, the more it meant degenration and fall for the hosting civilizations.
So, it does not need Hoppe to rip apart our cult about democracy. Other authors can do that, too. And very convincingly as well. The author of this text is Rahim Taghizadegan. I recommend to print it out for reading, it is 18-20 pages in Din A4.
!German!
http://www.d-perspektive.de/nc/zeitreport-online/kultur-und-geschichte/detailansicht/article/demokratie-eine-kritische-analyse-von-rahim-taghizadegan-institut-fuer-wertewirtschaft-452/nbp/96.html
To compare our understanding of democracy with that of the ancient Greek, and the European aristocracies and then the American founding father,s is most revealing and an intellectual enlightenment.
In our modern democracies, it is not only not surprising that there is the degeneration taking place that is destroying our civilizations. Thinking it through, like people like Hoppe or Taghizadegan did - or Erik Ritter von Kühnelt-Leddihn, another author I would highly recommend - not only tells you why this kind of self-destruction is taking place, but it also can explain why it is highly unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that in context of these political systems politicians will ever act differently than they do.
mookiemookie
04-01-13, 12:18 PM
It is true that some people lack motivation and thus invest not in themselves.
Stiglitz does not claim in his book that equality shall be reached...quite to the contrary...he also agrees to the fact that some inequality is necessary to motivate people to improve their life.
But the major problem is that the economy and a lot of laws, tax rules etc. are built for the top. So what he claims is that there is socialism on the top(my own words to describe this). Look how CEOs are paid...what they are paid for....what happens if they perform bad and so on. And this is just an example of many issues.
I've studied business, national economics and computer science and what I've learned in my studies from the beginning is that there are some key requirements necessary to make markets work. What Stiglitz just claims is not socialism but that in major economic sectors there are no functioning markets anymore due to the lack of competition, lobby-ism and so on. This is just a provable fact.
Even stock markets, in former times the major example for 100% functioning markets, does not meet anymore the requirements, defined by classic national economics definitions...since more and more only a fraction of people/organizations have the understanding how it works, due to the fact that is it is just complete in-transparent (in parts) and designed so by purpose. As an example: who knows the algorithms , used in stock market auto-transaction handling?
It is also a provable fact that the wealth in most Western countries is more and more concentrated. And very often this is not the case due to performance of individuals. Regardless of someones political affiliation, every person who is capable to do simple math cannot deny that this model will not work in the long run or we have not only a 'Arab Spring' but also a 'Western Spring' in the future...
Concerning the 'American Dream': I think it still works for very talented people - or people, which have sth to offer attracting the mass market (I do not judge this negatively ) like Justin Bieber. I also acknowledge that the vast majority of those people put a very high effort to make their dream reality, so it is a combination of luck + their own (big) investment.
But my point and the point of Stiglitz is that we cannot design a model for our economy to make 10% people very rich at the expense of the majority. That's it. Not everybody has the skills to study and have a good graduation and since in Western countries we have more and more the transformation from production to service-oriented economy, we have to find a answer for those people - now and not in some decades. The answer cannot be that those people are the looser or we have a ghettoization in our cities with all the consequences.
I can only everybody recommend to read this book. You do not have to agree on every argument, presented by him (nor do I) but reading his book gives you a broader and - in most parts- a provable understanding how current economic works.
Well said. Very well said.
To further your point about stock markets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_liquidity
The markets aren't even pretending to be transparent anymore.
Armistead
04-01-13, 01:13 PM
One only has to compare wealth. Before the global economy, mass shifting of jobs overseas, other rules and regs that promote the elite, about 60% of Americans held 80% of all real wealth. Today, about 10-15% hold all real wealth.
Americans fought hard for rights, decent wages, protections, etc. for years and wealth became more balanced. We're losing all of that because our jobs can be shipped out. Course, we still vote in the same fools, but the elite own the political system as well, so what do you do?
Fact is, both parties support the elite, bail out the elite and stack laws in favor of the elite. The only trickle down effect is overseas. Today, the stock market soars, unemployment is going up.
Gates, Trump, Buffet all agree the future for the US is a two class system.
AVGWarhawk
04-01-13, 01:19 PM
Armistead:
We're losing all of that because our jobs can be shipped out.
Bottom line.
Armistead
04-01-13, 01:42 PM
We fools ourselves today that we have a middle class, most have a few things but are in debt to their necks and really have no wealth.
Tribesman
04-01-13, 02:15 PM
We fools ourselves today that we have a middle class, most have a few things but are in debt to their necks and really have no wealth.
You have a middle class, the issue with the "disappearing" middle class is that lots of working class people got convinced that they were somehow middle class.
Platapus
04-01-13, 03:29 PM
Not every American share the same dream.
:yeah:
Before we can discuss whether the American Dream is or ain't a myth, we need to understand what that term really means.
I always liked this quote as it, to me, represents the American Dream
The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the terms and conditions of labor, which is the chief element of wealth, directly in the interest of the common good.
The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare. Understand what I say there. Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try to carry him; but if he is a worthy man, try your best to see that he gets a chance to show the worth that is in him. -- some old dead guy
Skybird
04-01-13, 06:11 PM
"The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted."
That is not the American Dream. That is communism. And it leads to social degeneration and cultural collapse, for it discourages everything that is of value and is noble and creative and proud and strong in man, and it motivates what is of laziness, apathy, parasitic greed and envy, anti-social nature, and denial of responsibility.
The American Dream is more about to grant protection of private property without allowing the majority vote to regulate how the private owner may or may not use that wealth of his, by that he is owner and master of what is his and he can use it the way he wants, voluntarily, as long as he does not use it in any way that limits the right of somebody else to own and use his property.
What that is all about? It is about freedom. The freedom to own what nobody else has claimed and thus is claimed first by yourself. The freedom to produce on the basis of this originally owned property. The freedom to trade either the original property or the newly produced goods by conditions bilaterally negotiated and agreed upon by the two partners, without any state interfering, and without any anonymous majority demanding to have a word in that. The freedom to be your own fate's creator.
That is the American dream. Public regulations of an ever growing bureaucracy, socialist redistribution in the name of the canaille and political opportunists, taking more and more rights of owners of something of value away and giving the majority the right to claim it for itself instead - that is freedom NOT, that is the American Dream NOT.
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3497/55922010151320142193082.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/33/55922010151320142193082.jpg/)
There are excesses by the ultra-rich, no doubt, and they did and do a lot of damage, absolutely. But that they are given the chance to run these excesses and to abuse society and the institutions of the state has different and much much more profound and basic reasons than just lacking regulation of wealth - and that there is a strong central state and government is one of these very reasons. What they do, is an abuse of freedom. Destroying freedom even more in order to reduce the abuse of freedom is like killing the patient in order to cure his disease.
Oh you big wussy. :O:
**Language Warning**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wTjMqda19wk#t=96s
Now if I had posted that I'd have been infracted before you could say Aaron Sorkin. Who do you pay off? :hmmm: :O: :haha:
mookiemookie
04-01-13, 10:16 PM
"The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted."
That is not the American Dream. That is communism. And it leads to social degeneration and cultural collapse, for it discourages everything that is of value and is noble and creative and proud and strong in man, and it motivates what is of laziness, apathy, parasitic greed and envy, anti-social nature, and denial of responsibility.
The American Dream is more about to grant protection of private property without allowing the majority vote to regulate how the private owner may or may not use that wealth of his, by that he is owner and master of what is his and he can use it the way he wants, voluntarily, as long as he does not use it in any way that limits the right of somebody else to own and use his property.
With all due respect...what do you know about the American Dream? Have you lived here for any lengthy period of time?
Sorry if I come across as harsh, but when you dog Teddy Roosevelt, who is one of my historical heroes and someone that I feel really "gets it" in terms of what America is all about, you get my dander up.
Sorry to sound like August here, but I think you're out of your depth and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Aramike
04-01-13, 11:45 PM
With all due respect...what do you know about the American Dream? Have you lived here for any lengthy period of time?
Sorry if I come across as harsh, but when you dog Teddy Roosevelt, who is one of my historical heroes and someone that I feel really "gets it" in terms of what America is all about, you get my dander up.
Sorry to sound like August here, but I think you're out of your depth and you have no idea what you're talking about.Not to defend Skybird here, Mookie, but the American dream has been shared by many an immigrant well before they'd ever set foot on our shores. "Shining city on a hill" and all that jazz that I happen to whole-heartedly believe in. I guess I'm just asking you to rebuttal the argument and not the person, because I believe that who we are as a nation stands for far more people than those who merely reside within our borders.
mookiemookie
04-02-13, 06:23 AM
Not to defend Skybird here, Mookie, but the American dream has been shared by many an immigrant well before they'd ever set foot on our shores. "Shining city on a hill" and all that jazz that I happen to whole-heartedly believe in. I guess I'm just asking you to rebuttal the argument and not the person, because I believe that who we are as a nation stands for far more people than those who merely reside within our borders.
You are indeed correct and I humbly stand corrected. I blame the wine!
To rebut the argument - that is absolutely not communism. It's patriotism. It's a nation coming together and people pursuing their goals and the whole nation becoming ever stronger for it - becoming more than a sum of the parts. It's about everyone getting a fair shake. It's about the rising tide lifting all boats. It's about recognizing the need for both capital AND labor and recognizing the symbiotic relationship between them, and realizing one would not exist without the other and to that end ensuring that the system doesn't unjustly favor one at the expense of the other. Wealth comes with privilege, and that privilege can be used to exploit those without wealth. Necessary structure is required to ensure that the system continues to benefit everyone equally.
I suppose someone that came from a part of the world where communism was a very real fact of everyday life not so long ago might be inclined to see it as communism, but there's a distinct difference in TR's words that may be too subtle to grasp for someone looking from the outside in.
Skybird
04-02-13, 07:35 AM
With all due respect...what do you know about the American Dream? Have you lived here for any lengthy period of time?
Sorry if I come across as harsh, but when you dog Teddy Roosevelt, who is one of my historical heroes and someone that I feel really "gets it" in terms of what America is all about, you get my dander up.
Sorry to sound like August here, but I think you're out of your depth and you have no idea what you're talking about.
The American Dream is a term common in literature that can objectively discussed on the grounds of history, politics, economics and more - without needing to live in America or holding American citizenship. You could as well question the wisdom in discussing for example Keynesian economics as long as you have not lived in Britain or Roman law without having lived in the Roman empire or the idea behind the the era of German romanticism without being German. Same is true for the pursuit of happiness - you can discuss its content and meaning and vision like you can discuss the premise of the German Basic Law that the dignity of man is untouchable.
and I stick to it, the basic idea of changing society according to socialist and communist ideas is redistributing wealth from private owners to everybody. Any government claiming the right to regulate wealth, interferes with the basic freedom of citizens, and the more a state or government is being left with the power not only to financially live by the people, but to even regulate how much people have to give away, the more such a govenrmet will want in taxes, redistribution, and control of people'S freedom. In other words, after private property gets ordered to be turned into property owned by all (regulate wealth), democratic governments turn into tyrannies themselves. In principle, democratic governments are tyrannies from all beginning on - already for the only reason of that they do exist.
BTW, I knew by whom the quote was, I have read it before. Still, I call it the operation manual to run communism.
The US were founded as a lose union of sub-national entities with a very weak - intended - government, the foundign fathers explciitly tried to prevent that America would turn into a democracy. It was Andrew Jackson, the sixth or seventh president, who started to inject the idea of a stronger national centralism in government, and to demand that the basis of political power should become a justification founded in the idea of democracy. With it, there came the American so-called spoils system, the birth of massive economic lobbyism, and all the aberrations and distortions that democracy unavoidably comes along with and that the founding fathers wanted to prevent. And it took a civil war to enforce the strong central government against the bitter opposition of a significant part of the american people. The end of slavery was just only aspect of it all. The change from an aristocratic to a democratic republic was far more decisive a consequence of the civil war, like later in Europe the first World War marked the change from monarchic systems to democratic republican system.
One must not live in America or be American to talk about this, Mookie. Both conditions do not guarantee education on these things, btw. What really is far ire important is: to have access and to read some books, or use other sources of education on something.
I do not claim to be an expert for American history. But I constantly learn about it in context with the political themes I am interested in. I have great sympathy for the ideas and worries of the original founders of America, and their vision of what the country should be like, and led by what sort of ethical yearning. But I have not much sympathy for what the US today is, and how it has changed for the worse since then, and how it has deformed its original nature and spirit. America today and the America that once was meant to be - are lightyears apart. All my criticism of of America today must always be seen in the light of this basic opinion of mine: the difference between how it was meant to be, and how it really is today.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.