Definition of Socialism

[Guest]

No, workers compete for wages. The minute the same job comes into the market and pays higher wages, the employees already doing that job are going to go over there. If wages dropped so low that they're too low to live, nobody would take those jobs. The implication is total fantasy, that wages continue going down until what? Until they reach zero? When has this ever happened? All government does is set the bar and make people jump through hoops. If you can charge up to a maximum amount for a service rendered, don't be surprised when everybody charges the maximum. If you set a minimum wage to do a certain entry-level job by an unskilled worker who has no experience, don't be surprised when a company pays that minimum. Government is horribly inefficient; markets are efficient because they are highly competitive. You trust in the benevolence of government over the efficiency of markets. How can you not see the greatest evils throughout history are committed by governments before you figure out who you trust?

And they don't have any crystal ball in their marble hall to decide for everyone where those limits are. Why do you just agree with whatever lines the bureau comes up with? Why do you support chronic inflation which punishes the poor the most? Why do you support a long litany of stated and imposed policies from government? They're hideous!

The reality is that many employers are paying below a living wage and the Government is picking up the difference through welfare. Take away the welfare and the jobs would simply disappear rather then the wages rise.

The only sector where there is real wage competition between employers is in the executive range, in just about all other sectors there is what is termed the "industry rate" an effective cartel of agreement which no one questions and no one breaks.

The minimum we should expect is that the Government sets a lower celling on wages at what would be considered a "living wage" where by a person can survive on those wages without having to avail of welfare supplements.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

The reality is that many employers are paying below a living wage and the Government is picking up the difference through welfare. Take away the welfare and the jobs would simply disappear rather then the wages rise.

The only sector where there is real wage competition between employers is in the executive range, in just about all other sectors there is what is termed the "industry rate" an effective cartel of agreement which no one questions and no one breaks.

The minimum we should expect is that the Government sets a lower celling on wages at what would be considered a "living wage" where by a person can survive on those wages without having to avail of welfare supplements.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

There's too much hierarchy in management? Maybe if there were less chiefs then the indians would get paid more?

The markets saw the influx of middle-level managers in support roles in the '90s. It was the dawn of the working woman and Mr. Mom. All those short hairstyles of the 90s and all those grey business skirts come to mind. Back in the '50s, full employment might as well have been 50% employment.

But back in the '50s, we had both the highest wages and the cheapest goods in the world with far fewer regulations than we have today. So how were we able to do that?

"A lower ceiling on wages"? As opposed to what ceiling? I don't know what you're talking about. Probably a geographic disconnect.

[RavenHawk]

The reality is that many employers are paying below a living wage and the Government is picking up the difference through welfare. Take away the welfare and the jobs would simply disappear rather then the wages rise.

Well, if you take away welfare then the people would have to find some other source of lively hood. But how are those jobs going to disappear? Employers are still going to need to have certain jobs done. They ain’t going to go away. But if you don’t like the job you have, you can always create your own business and hire people to do those jobs that you say just went away.

[ninjadude]

Well, if you take away welfare then the people would have to find some other source of lively hood.

channeling Scrooge again I see

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?"

"Plenty of prisons..."

"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"Both very busy, sir..."

"Those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

[RavenHawk]

channeling Scrooge again I see

No, just your ignorance. So tell me. Who does more harm? Someone who believes that people should stand on their own two feet and has the capability to do so because they are human or those that take that ability away with welfare and tell them that only the government can take care of them?

[ninjadude]

No, just your ignorance. So tell me. Who does more harm? Someone who believes that people should stand on their own two feet and has the capability to do so because they are human or those that take that ability away with welfare and tell them that only the government can take care of them?

you create a strawman argument that does not exist.

[Gromdor]

That's the million dollar question. What is worse for society- Social Darwinism or a welfare state?

[RavenHawk]

you create a strawman argument that does not exist.

Yes, we are all aware of those things you believe that don’t exists.