Why Socialism Fails...

In the 80s and 90s we lived in the projects. (Thank god we got out). My kids grew up there. Once when I went my son and daughter at the community play ground because it was dinner time. When we were going home I heard there friends talking. "Who's that guy?" "That's their dad. He's home from his job." "Man that's real old school."

When I was forced into retirement due to health reasons 9 years ago, it drove me nuts sitting at home doing nothing. I started a small business just to keep busy. Didn't make a lot, but I could work around my disability better than an hourly job. If I was unable to make it to the store, sales were covered.

Yes, you'll always have those that refuse to work, and there's not going to be anything to change that. I grew up a welfare kid, and realized that if I wanted anything worth having, I'd have to work for it.

Not really sure who you are addressing the comment to. Part of it sounds like you disagree, yet part of it you are making my point.

It's kind of hard to respond to a blanket statement like this. When do people decide that they're better off on the dole than actually working. I'm not talking about the slackers that are refuse all work: I'm talking about the general population. If the very basic needs are not met by working, the only options are charity/government handouts or a criminal career. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, but it's standard material not only for psychology classes, but for business classes at the college level. The most basic needs such as food, clothes, shelter, and health. If working can't cover those basic needs, then it's up to the community to pick up the slack of the low prices they pay for the goods and services from that employer. I'm not talking McDonald's or Walmart, but there are several, what you might call, mainstream employers, that shirk on wages. Good example: when we moved here in 2000, I landed a job that, while the pay wasn't great, was a lot better than fast food or service work. It was unskilled labor, and I took it. When I got laid off, (very common in this area anyway) I had a guy offer me a job as a saw operator because I was an experienced sawman that could use a radial arm saw and I still had 99.999% of my fingers. So, what did he want to pay me for 10 years experience? $2 an hour less than I was making unskilled labor. Thanks, but no thanks. I went back to my unskilled labor, although the next job was a dollar an hour less.

Right now, workers are starting out in semi-skilled jobs in this area anywhere from $1 to $3 an hour less than they need to meet the bottom tier of Maslow's Hierarchy. And businesses are crying for employees. Totally the opposite of what it was 8 or 9 years ago.

So, would you work for less than what it costs you to live?

The flaw in your argument is you are pitching "theory" with "reality." Anyone with basic understanding of these issues agree things like communism and socialism are great in theory, I do to and always have even before your post. But in practicality, they never work. You said, "You haven't observed many people have you?" Yet you replied with your own personal experience followed in this post with "another guy I know." I was expecting some sort of statistics and analysis. Your reply is a logical fallacy.

The flaw of theory vs reality is the misinterpretation of humanity. Humanity by nature is lazy, greedy, and always looking out for #1. For socialism to work, it requires the change in human nature to care about one another, which is unnatural and is a learned trait and pretty much impossible to do if you look at the whole human history and their struggle with morality and ethics. I mean, to be blunt, it is what created holy wars.

When we look at nations like Venezuela and North Korea, you can see socialism is a complete fail. You would argue they're not really socialism b/c you have a top tier elite wealth class and everyone else in a socialist poverty. But that's the point. No one can establish a perfect socialist nation b/c human beings will always follow their nature to look after oneself, to fulfill their greed, and to corrupt, lie, and steal.

Let's not look that far. Let's look at America's socialist, Bernie Sanders. This goon owns 3 houses, wife under investigation for a $10 mil fraud loan, etc... He belongs in an upper wealth class. Do you actually believe he is serious about redistribution of wealth? Do you actually believe he gives a damn about the quality of life of the lower class? Bernie Sanders is looking out for Bernie Sanders and he sold out his supporters for a $600k lakehouse.

Seattle is another fine current example. When the minimum wage was raised, workers cut back their hours. Why? Well first of all, making more means it pushes them into higher tax brackets. Making more also means they no longer qualify for many of the "social" services, welfare programs. So these people are looking for themselves. With a higher pay, they will only work a certain number of hours just enough so they will continue to receive their government benefits. It doesn't work.

Okay, let's start off with the common misunderstanding that the US is a capitalist nation. Every program ever devised has, in the long run, been to support an ever growing oligarchy. While there are times that the general public benefited from the various "socialist" programs, more often than not, it was the "capitalists" that benefited. The very first social program in place was for the benefit of the corporate owned Crown of England: the postal service. While any person could benefit from sending a letter to their aunt in another colony, it was the business people that profited most from that. It still does. Compare the amount of personal mail you receive at home to the amount of business mail. While most businesses would like to send you their bills via text or email, they still do the USPS. I have never gotten an electric bill delivered by Fed-Ex.

There are other socialist programs, on the national basis, that even our founding fathers had a hand in. Socialized medicine? dates back to 1792 and, while the name changed, it's still going strong. It was put into place to help shipping companies get workers for their ships. Sailing companies could have done it themselves, but didn't want it to hurt their bottom line. And some of the people that voted for it, including the president that signed it in to law also signed the Declaration of Independence.

The socialist programs like SNAP, housing, and Medicaid? How do they benefit the oligarchy? When the draft returns, you'll understand. Can't win a war without strong, healthy bodies to fight it. What good is fielding an army if even the brightest minds can't pass the physical? Same with basic education. The oligarchy wants to win wars. Depending on what they want, they can't do it with the "cannon fodder" of the middle ages.

You're preaching to the wrong person. I already know USA is an oligarchy and is becoming more each year. However, socialism is not the solution. And again, if you want to go and become a preacher so you can go and tell everyone to love each other and help each other out, I support you 100%.

But fact is what works in America is our check and balance, which in recent times seems like it needs to be tweaked a bit. The reason check and balance work is because it is based on the fundamental truth that human beings are corrupt and needs to be kept accountable. Yes, it needs constant upgrade b/c people abuse loopholes and what not. But that's the point of life, a constant cat and mouse game. It is not a perfect system, but at the very least, it is built upon a solid foundation that recognizes human nature.

Socialism fails from the start b/c the premise is wrong. If you entrust your life to the good will of others, you will constantly be disappointed. Law and order is what keeps civilizations going, not good will. Already plenty of studies showing 3/4 men would rape if they knew they would get away with it. People behave because they fear the consequence of law, not because they're good.

Hawaii is another prime example. An unemployed mother of 2 can receive government help in forms of food stamps, cash, and services up to $60k a year. If she decides to work at McD instead, she will no longer qualify for most of those government assistance. She may still get some of it, but not all of it. In total, her salary plus services may only come up to $30-40k a year. Tell me, what is her incentive to work? When she can only make 1/2 as much as she would if she remains unemployed?

Your first comment supports my point. You were forced into early retirement and you found out the "incentives" for not work sucks. You were so eager to go back to work. I never said money, I said incentives. It is good you have personal incentives such as desire of self-fulfillment, purpose, being a part of a society. And since you didn't mention any financial trouble, seems like these are the only incentives you desire for working, correct?

Let's look at that unemployed mother of two in Hawaii. Let's start with the CATO institute study you quote. (https://lintvkhon.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf) The $60 annual amount is what a working person would have to earn to be equal to the $49K in welfare benefits because welfare recipients don't pay income tax on their benefits. So why is Hawaii so generous? First is the actual cost of living there. according to the Economic Policy Institute, the cost of living in Hawaii for the family you describe is $69,000 for a modest lifestyle. (use the their budget calculator to check out the cost of living where you live. http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/) I'll assume this even includes a little bit to go into a retirement fund, something welfare recipients, even scrimping as best as they can, are not allowed to have. Correction: they are allowed to have a maximum of $2000 in savings. No stocks, no bonds.

I just find it interesting that you chose the most extreme state in the country to point to. But you are trying to make a point, so extremism is understandable. I went more towards a mid-range area. Interesting, as my state, which has 4.6 times as many residents than Hawaii actually has the same percentage rate of welfare recipients that Hawaii does: 13%. but then, that's why Indiana ranks number 10 on the scale of dependence on federal money while Hawaii ranks 29. But then, where I live, the cost of living is just a bit over 1/3 of Hawaii.

It all boils down to where people live. Who are the people receiving Welfare. About 1/3 or them are native to the Islands, although there is a good size Pacific Rim population. The balance, for the most part, and very important, as they also represent a good amount of welfare recipients, are Americans based at Pearl Harbor.

I think you got it backwards there. Since they do not get taxed on the $60k welfare, it means you have to get a job which pays $100K as equivalent, (given 60 cents per dollar). Also the standard of living argument is not valid b/c nobody said a mother of 2 who is unemployed deserves to live in a modest lifestyle. This is the same as the young graduate who worked at Yelp and was fired b/c she claims making $30-40k a year was not sustainable living alone in Manhattan and wanted a raise by her boss. As many commentators pointed out, a young graduate with her initial offer shouldn't be living in a single apartment in one of the most luxurious parts of New York, drinking wine every night. She should be living in a cheaper area and probably should get a roommate and earn her way up.

I listed that example b/c it was a well known heated debate a while back. However, if you want to look at stats, California is the #1 welfare state by numbers and #3 welfare state per capita, also ranked #44 in fiscal health in 2016. Why stop there? Bottom 10 worst fiscal states have 9 blue states including New York (#2 welfare state), Massachusetts, etc... many of the more populated and well known liberal blue states.

40 - West Virginia
41 - Maryland
42 - New York
43 - Maine
44 - California
45 - Hawaii
46 - Kentucky
47 - Illinois
48 - New Jersey
49 - Massachusetts
50 - Connecticut
---
Bonus, 51: Puerto Rico
Source: Mercatus Center - Fiscal Solvency, published June 1, 2016

No, I just double checked to make sure by going to the CATO Institute report. In 2013, a mother with 2 children receiving full benefits could get as much as $49,175 in a year's time. In comparing that amount to pre-tax income for work, it is the equivalent of $60,590. The key here, though, is full benefits. Many people that are "on welfare" only receive SNAP benefits. Housing allowances? Yes, some do get section 8. With the cost of housing in Hawaii, I'm surprised that most residents there, working or not, don't receive it. The biggest buggaboo of all, and mind you, the CATO institute points this out, is that their initial study was done in 1995, before the Welfare Reform act of 1996 was passed. That program had as it's base, a requirement for recipients to work. "Welfare to Work" was how it was touted. My daughter was on that a few years ago after her old man left town. She left because of all of the government bullshit involved in it, because, to take part in the program, the job types you had to take were restrictive of earnings potential. She was told she'd have to give up her truck driving job and get a factory job: A MAJOR cut in pay in the long run. Now she looks at her income and is glad she did. (she got that from me ;-} ) After taxes and everything, she makes a LOT more per year than if she'd taken the welfare department's advice. Now, she's off welfare, uses family support system (dad and her driving partner's wife) to take care of the kids when she's on the road.

The biggest problem I see with welfare is it's a trap. Unless you go into it with the focus that you want to get off of it as quickly as possible, you get sucked in. The bad part: many are not even aware of there being a better life.

I didn't really want to go into that whole min wage argument you brought up b/c it is actually a separate argument which has more to do with economy than government/psychology. Basically min wage jobs are not meant to be "careers." They were and had always been "high schooler" jobs for kids to earn extra cash, or college kids to pay their way through college.

The only reason they have become "living wages" is because of the double dip recession since 2008, forcing many college students to get menial jobs b/c they could not find real jobs in their major. It is also attributed to the fact we are saturating the student loan program, so college kids no longer take part time jobs. To further this, it is visible evident majority of say fast food places, the min wage workers are minorities, mostly illegals. These illegals are no unionized and demanding real wages despite the fact they do not pay taxes.

Raising min wage means it raises the min wage of all workers, including bagboys, cashiers, grocery loaders, etc... so McD, Starbucks' workers now have to pay more for food and other basic necessities, and so do their landlords, who will in term raise their rent. So raising the min wage only artificially increase the inflation. It doesn't work. I guess that is why Seattle is trying to implement a state tax, something they have not tried for almost a hundred years.

I mentioned it in passing, basically blowing it off, as we're talking careers. In fact, you'll notice that the actual instances I referred to were NOT minimum wage jobs. I was discussing factory work. As I pointed out, mind you, 2002, I was making $10 an hour doing general labor in a factory. Unskilled labor. Fresh out of high school labor although college was far behind me. (My ASc doesn't mean squat here) So, when I got laid off, I looked for another job. The job offer I got was from a guy that wanted an experienced saw operator. I had plenty of experience. Much more than he expected. What did he offer me? $2 an hour less than I'd been making for unskilled labor. It's not just Walmart and McDonalds that are low wages, but they are low. I turned him down. Other skilled labor jobs in this area have the same problem: Employers don't want to pay for the experience and skill.

Minimum wage? My daughter's house mate was director of Nursing at a local nursing home. For a certified CNA, somebody that has paid to be trained and certified in the field, she had trouble filling the positions. Why? Because when an applicant discovered how much the nursing home was willing to pay, they turned the job down, flat. Burger King was paying more than that, and threw in a meal as well. Yeah, they had a highly trained staff there.

You are under the mistaken impression of many people about minimum wage: “The minimum wage was never intended to be a ‘living wage,’ on which one could support oneself let alone a family,” opined Lowell Kalapa, President of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, in an op-ed a few years ago. But that is not what history tells us.

In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

"Employers don't want to pay for the experience and skill. "

Yes, that was the whole problem. College graduates with engineering degrees could not get a job b/c employers rather hire someone with 10 yrs experience at the same entry level price. Downturn of the economy forcing many young grads into menial jobs. However, raising the min wage of these jobs only makes things worse. If anything, it is an acceptance that the economy will not recover and they need to settle for these jobs. I'm pretty sure many of the college graduated Starbucks employees would like a higher salary working as a barista paying off their student loan. But this solution is a temporary solution that will actually worsen the long term economy. It doesn't work and has been proven again and again and again it does not work. If the economy is broken, this economy needs to be fixed, not raising the min wage. This is like how some countries in the past just "print more paper money" when there aren't enough money to go around. The point is not about "money," but about the "value" in which the money represents.

"In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt"

Again, you're arguing theory vs reality. I'm not saying min wage job "should" be just for temp jobs and college jobs. If I did word it that way, I've mistaken. I mean that during the time when the economy was good, people do not "have to settle" for min wage jobs. The fact that we have people cramming into the min wage job area is because the downturn of the economy.

You have a patient that is very sick. You can treat the symptoms, but it is only a temporary measure. If you do not diagnose the cause, the illness, then it doesn't really matter how much effort you treat the symptoms, the patient will die. The solution is not trying to make min wage livable or luxurious, the solution is fixing the economy so people do not have to settle for min wage jobs.

I wasn't aware that we are in an economic downturn today. 10 years ago, yes, but not at this time. Still, with a labor shortage in my area, and I'm not talking skilled professionals like engineers, I'm talking rank and file laborers, the problem still exists. Many of the local employers are still asking for the experience and not wanting to pay for it.

Your comment about everything going up if minimum wage goes up is theory. One reason I chose the above cartoon. It's the same argument that's been used since the minimum wage was set back in 1933. Every time it's raised, what happens is that employees can afford more. They can actually afford to reward themselves for their labor. Reality shows that raising the minimum wage is the best stimulus for the economy. Personally, I'd like to see the minimum wage tied to the cost of living, just like Congress' pay is. Instead, it's been a decade since congress voted to raise the minimum wage, and it took three years to fully implement. If you look at the cost of living index, the same one used to by the government to calculate the COLA increase for Social Security recipients, you'll notice that the Minimum Wage moved to $7.25 an hour in 2009. The COLA for 2009 and 2010 remained at zero. Kinda shows that raising the minimum wage destroys our economy. Still, the minimum wage should be tied to something concrete, such as the COLA.

Is that similar to when monkeys fly?

There all also many economic resons it doesn't work aswell, for instance if the government made all beach front property free this wouldn't change the amount of beach front property so it would either have to be divided into unrealistically small plots or the propertys would only be available to people who have connections. The same applies to food. So in other words even with a totally virtuous population socialism still wouldn't work.

not getting paid is a reason not to work lol silly fascists

I'm sure Venezuela and North Korea is giving their people a reason to work.

Oops.

#SupportTheTroops its better than college lololol

Not really sure what does that have to do with either your op or my reply, but ok. You might also be interested to know both NK and Venezuela are military fascist nations. In fact, socialism and fascism usually go hand in hand. Can you actually name a socialist nation current or in history past which is not a fascist nation? Not North Korea, Venezuela, and not the National Socialist German Workers' Party.