America 1950 vs. America 2012

[onlyrp]

$10,000 does not buy you a whole lot of freedom. This is the difference between our form of capitalism and pure communism. You would think there would be more of a difference. If our economy was truly capitalist and we only netted $10,000, I feel like we've been scammed. If thats the case, I really don't see much of a difference between capitalism and communism.

You already admitted what you cant deny, that it's quite useful for people who don't have student debt. For a person without a home, it's a good 3 years of $10 meals, or a car to be used for shelter. For me, it's 2 vehicles for 10 years, that's $20,000 I saved against you. I've already shown you the difference between capitalism and communism, you admitted no communist country does better than the US, and you admit you look at communism only in theory. So that's the difference, capitalism, no matter how bad, beats communism in reality, you also admitted you can't find me ONE COUNTRY you're willing to move to despite hating this one so much. I don't care about your stupid subjective complaint that $10,000 "doesn't buy you a lot of freedom", it's more than nothing and i've already shown what it CAN buy, you are free to live with your parents and stay unemployed if that makes you feel better, but don't try to equate capitalism with "I get to net $100,000 each year just because I am successful in school".

I don't care what you call the system we live in, I know it and use it quite well. You can keep complaining about it though, keep telling yourself that you're owed a better job or cheaper housing or you can't be free if you're living with your parents. Ever consider that your profession and skill isn't valued in a market where people can choose? Want to tell me what the government has done to stop you from selling yourself to consumer? (You can't, but you can sure tell me you're not willing to sell low, because capitalism in your mind means big money, not adopt to the needs of buyers)

 

[tttppp]

You already admitted what you cant deny, that it's quite useful for people who don't have student debt. For a person without a home, it's a good 3 years of $10 meals, or a car to be used for shelter. For me, it's 2 vehicles for 10 years, that's $20,000 I saved against you. I've already shown you the difference between capitalism and communism, you admitted no communist country does better than the US, and you admit you look at communism only in theory. So that's the difference, capitalism, no matter how bad, beats communism in reality, you also admitted you can't find me ONE COUNTRY you're willing to move to despite hating this one so much. I don't care about your stupid subjective complaint that $10,000 "doesn't buy you a lot of freedom", it's more than nothing and i've already shown what it CAN buy, you are free to live with your parents and stay unemployed if that makes you feel better, but don't try to equate capitalism with "I get to net $100,000 each year just because I am successful in school".

I don't care what you call the system we live in, I know it and use it quite well. You can keep complaining about it though, keep telling yourself that you're owed a better job or cheaper housing or you can't be free if you're living with your parents. Ever consider that your profession and skill isn't valued in a market where people can choose? Want to tell me what the government has done to stop you from selling yourself to consumer? (You can't, but you can sure tell me you're not willing to sell low, because capitalism in your mind means big money, not adopt to the needs of buyers)

At the rate China is going, they are going to be vastly superior to the U.S. pretty soon. Thats one country that is better than the U.S. ...and they are considered "communist".

 

[onlyrp]

At the rate China is going, they are going to be vastly superior to the U.S. pretty soon. Thats one country that is better than the U.S. ...and they are considered "communist".

Soon, not now, when they do, you are free to move there. Again, I don't care what you call China, or any country, I just wanted a feel of what you view as an acceptable or ideal living space. BTW, why is China successful? Because wages are low, so it goes against your wishes to have either higher wage, or less work for more. Although they may balance it out with lower cost of living (which is not where you'll choose to live, since you already live in a relatively expensive and dense area today)

 

[tttppp]

Soon, not now, when they do, you are free to move there. Again, I don't care what you call China, or any country, I just wanted a feel of what you view as an acceptable or ideal living space. BTW, why is China successful? Because wages are low, so it goes against your wishes to have either higher wage, or less work for more. Although they may balance it out with lower cost of living (which is not where you'll choose to live, since you already live in a relatively expensive and dense area today)

Its only a matter of time for wages and working conditions to go up in China. Thats why I said they WILL be better than the U.S. Its debatable which is better now. But at the rate things are going, China will get a lot better, and the U.S. will get worse.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Per capita they have a very long ways to go to match the US. In terms of what people own and rights they enjoy they also have a long ways to go to match the US.

 

[anaconda]

In 1950, you could buy a first-class stamp for just 3 cents.
In 2012, a first-class stamp will cost you 45 cents.

To be fair and balanced, the nominal wage has also increased dramatically. This is always omitted in these types of arguments.

 

[onlyrp]

Its only a matter of time for wages and working conditions to go up in China. Thats why I said they WILL be better than the U.S. Its debatable which is better now. But at the rate things are going, China will get a lot better, and the U.S. will get worse.

If working conditions improve and wages increase, how will China continue to be successful? They'll lose the only edge they have against US workers, making there no incentives for hiring foreigners. China will become the US you hate today. And if US "gets worse" and if by that you mean we'll have lower wages or less regulations on working conditions, it'll mean US takes the turn to take jobs again. So, I'm totally lost on what you mean by US "will get worse". If you're talking strictly GDP, that too will not go one direction indefinitely.

 

[onlyrp]

To be fair and balanced, the nominal wage has also increased dramatically. This is always omitted in these types of arguments.

What a surprise that conspiracy theorists and anti-bankers cherry pick their facts. Do they consider : there's more millionaires today? How about computers being higher efficiency? Is the fact people don't need to leave home for the same amount of goods and services a bad thing (or do they completely forget of it)? Did they notice we have eye corrective surgery today which frees people from glasses and contact lenses? (Try that with herbal supplements). Do they even consider that the fact people today can eat themselves to sickness and death is a GOOD THING, because it shows how abundant foods and sugars are, whereas people had to work and fight to survive in the past (while they criticize people who are aware of overpopulation).

 

[tttppp]

If working conditions improve and wages increase, how will China continue to be successful? They'll lose the only edge they have against US workers, making there no incentives for hiring foreigners. China will become the US you hate today. And if US "gets worse" and if by that you mean we'll have lower wages or less regulations on working conditions, it'll mean US takes the turn to take jobs again. So, I'm totally lost on what you mean by US "will get worse". If you're talking strictly GDP, that too will not go one direction indefinitely.

The U.S. will not lower regulations. 99% of the time, when there is a downturn in the economy, they place tons of bs regulations then say they solved the problem. If you think the U.S. will lower regulations, you are really lost.

China doesn't need low wages to be successful. They have far less regulation and government involvement, as long as they continue that they will be successful.

 

[onlyrp]

Per capita they have a very long ways to go to match the US. In terms of what people own and rights they enjoy they also have a long ways to go to match the US.

Not according to these guys

Since rights are no more and the economy is in the shitter, right now is worse than 1950 when part of the population had rights and the economy was better. I never said it was an ideal time for blacks to live in, but neither is right now.

or tttppp : "We might as well be communist" "We are communist today" "Only you think we're under capitalism"

 

[onlyrp]

The U.S. will not lower regulations. 99% of the time, when there is a downturn in the economy, they place tons of bs regulations then say they solved the problem. If you think the U.S. will lower regulations, you are really lost.

China doesn't need low wages to be successful. They have far less regulation and government involvement, as long as they continue that they will be successful.

So how is US going to "get worse"? by more regulations? And how is China getting better? By more regulations? Are you telling me working conditions and wages will improve without higher and stricter government regulations?

Wrong, the only reason China is in business today is their lack of regulations, whether on work conditions, environment, or wages. You are correct that they currently have less intervention, at least in industries where they take up foreigner's labor. They cannot "continue" this path if wages increase, because that is counter to efficiency and competitiveness.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

 

[tttppp]

Not according to these guys


or tttppp : "We might as well be communist" "We are communist today" "Only you think we're under capitalism"

What is the point of this post?

 

[tttppp]

So how is US going to "get worse"? by more regulations? And how is China getting better? By more regulations? Are you telling me working conditions and wages will improve without higher and stricter government regulations?

Wrong, the only reason China is in business today is their lack of regulations, whether on work conditions, environment, or wages. You are correct that they currently have less intervention, at least in industries where they take up foreigner's labor. They cannot "continue" this path if wages increase, because that is counter to efficiency and competitiveness.

Less regulation equals higher competition equal higher wages and better working conditions. They don't need regulation to do that. Once wages increase, instead of just being a manufacturing economy, they will be a consumer economy.

The U.S. will get worse by higher regulation, as I explained, like the U.S. always does.

 

[anaconda]

What a surprise that conspiracy theorists and anti-bankers cherry pick their facts. Do they consider : there's more millionaires today? How about computers being higher efficiency? Is the fact people don't need to leave home for the same amount of goods and services a bad thing (or do they completely forget of it)? Did they notice we have eye corrective surgery today which frees people from glasses and contact lenses? (Try that with herbal supplements). Do they even consider that the fact people today can eat themselves to sickness and death is a GOOD THING, because it shows how abundant foods and sugars are, whereas people had to work and fight to survive in the past (while they criticize people who are aware of overpopulation).

I'm not suggesting that the central bank isn't a total ripoff tool for the elites (I too am a conspiracy theorist), but the analysis is a bit more complex than "the dollar has lost 98% of it's value!" One of the problems is that the real wage for skilled vs. unskilled labor previously rose together. But more recently the two wages began to diverge and the skilled labor became better off in the U.S. and the unskilled workers got worse off.

 

[onlyrp]

What is the point of this post?

That you don't know what you're talking about, and barely make your complaint based on selective facts, which is why it's so easy for me to correct you and get you to admit either what you don't know, or what you ignore.

 

[onlyrp]

I'm not suggesting that the central bank isn't a total ripoff tool for the elites (I too am a conspiracy theorist), but the analysis is a bit more complex than "the dollar has lost 98% of it's value!" One of the problems is that the real wage for skilled vs. unskilled labor previously rose together. But more recently the two wages began to diverge and the skilled labor became better off in the U.S. and the unskilled workers got worse off.

Skill labor wages increase, unskilled decrease, that's GOOD for capitalism, right?

Also, I agree it's definitely more complicated that "OMFG! The dollar is only worth 2 cents today!" Just for knowing that, I would not generalize you along with the others who either gather soundbytes or have no impulse control.

 

[Stupified]

I had to respond to a few of these great points.

In 1950, gum chewing and talking in class were some of the major disciplinary problems in our schools.

In 2012, many of our public schools have been equipped with metal detectors because violence has become so bad.

Hey, give us a break. At least back in the 50s, (white) schools didn't have to worry about black children being disruptive.

In 1950, about 13 million Americans had manufacturing jobs.

In 2012, less than 12 million Americans have manufacturing jobs even though our population has more than doubled since 1950.

...because of technological progression. What are we, the Vatican from the 1500s?

In 1950, the entire U.S. military was mobilized to protect the borders of South Korea.

In 2012, the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada are wide open and now there are 1.4 million gang members living inside the United States.

Okay, Gingrich.

In 1950, corporate taxes accounted for about 30 percent of all federal revenue.

In 2012, corporate taxes will account for less than 7 percent of all federal revenue.

Yeah, let's tax our corporations even further.

In 1950, many Americans regularly left their cars and the front doors of their homes unlocked.

In 2012, many Americans live with steel bars on their windows and gun sales are at record highs.

Many Americans also had bricks thrown through their house and car windows because they were the wrong skin color.

In 1950, the American people had a great love for the U.S. Constitution.

In 2012, if you are “reverent of individual liberty“, you may get labeled as a potential terrorist by the U.S. government.

In 1950, we had the government blacklisting and imprisoning American citizens for subscribing to a different political philosophy. Or, you know, just making a movie that good ol' Joe didn't approve of.

In 1950, the median age at first marriage was about 22 for men and about 20 for women.

In 2012, the median age at first marriage is about 28 for men and about 26 for women.

So people are being more responsible and waiting to get their finances in good order before marrying now? And this is somehow a bad thing?

In 1950, many Americans dressed up in suits and dresses before getting on an airplane.

In 2012, security goons look at the exposed forms of our women and our children before they are allowed to get on to an airplane.

I can't believe the author of the list just added goddamn fashion to the argument.

 

[onlyrp]

Less regulation equals higher competition equal higher wages and better working conditions.

Less regulation means high competition, agreed. How how can higher wages and better working conditions mean high competition?
Am I missing something that makes higher wages and better working conditions "lower cost"? If they are "higher cost", they're going to be lower competition, lower appeal, and most likely due to higher regulation. (Employers have no reason or incentive to improve work conditions or pay more, unless they were forced to).

They don't need regulation to do that. Once wages increase, instead of just being a manufacturing economy, they will be a consumer economy.

Who is the manufacturer by then? Who is going to be the new China? Who lets them consume if there isn't a replacement sweatshop country?

The U.S. will get worse by higher regulation, as I explained, like the U.S. always does.

If so, then at least it'll mean we'll consume less (if consumption is a good thing, you can't say we're bad now, is consumption is a bad thing, it'll be better later, make up your mind already)

 

[Anti Federalist]

The only difference is that in the 1950s the government and megacorporations could lie to your face and you'd have no way of knowing they were lying. Now, they cannot hide it anymore.

Yeah, and boy howdy, did that shut them down and put a stop to the lying and corruption.

/s/