Study analyzes the impact of minimum wage hikes in CA

[dilettante]

In a totalitarian system, such as what was in Cambodia, the workers have absolutely no say in major industries, so it wasn't socialism. It could better be described as government run capitalism.

Hah. Double-hah.

Can you cite any significant instance of socialism that did not involve central control of the entire economy coupled with authoritarianism to allocate resources and labor? As far as I can recall socialism has always gone hand in hand with totalitarianism.

 

[ElCastor]

A

Socialism is an economic system in which major industries are owned or controlled by workers rather than by private businesses. If you have a representative system of government that controls the means of production, that could be considered "socialism" since the workers would have a say in how businesses operate, even if they didn't work in that particular industry. Their say would come in the form of representatives.

Medicare insurance is a good example of socialized insurance. It's government run, but since our government is (theoretically) representative of the people, it's publicly controlled. Granted, the case could be made that our government is run by corporations, so that takes power out of the hands of the people.

Would the true socialism which you describe and approve of function well under the current Constitution, and representative government of the United States, and it’s current system of statehood?

Also, could you name a country, something more than a city state, in which your version of Socialism currently thrives?

 

[HermitHogan]

A

Would the true socialism which you describe and approve of function well under the current Constitution, and representative government of the United States, and it’s current system of statehood?

Also, could you name a country, something more than a city state, in which your version of Socialism currently thrives?

I didn't say that I approved of it. I prefer a mixed economy — one similar to what they have in Sweden.

Healthcare should be socialized. Your level of care shouldn't depend on your income level and profit potential shouldn't determine the type of care you receive. We currently have hospitals being bought up by private equity firms whose only objective is to increase profits. They couldn't care less about the patients' care or the doctors' or the nurses' compensation or working conditions. The only thing they care about is making money, and that's a dangerous way for healthcare to operate.

We're moving further and further away from capitalism because of corporatism and their monopolies or oligopolies. We need to bust up some of those trusts and move back to capitalism where competition allows entrepreneurs to thrive and where we have more choice and better products.

A few examples of a few companies owning and controlling industries are the media giants, where just a few own nearly all the tv and radio stations across the country, as well as news media. There are also just a few companies that own almost all the tool companies. Most grocery stores are owned by just three companies. And broadband... the only provider available in my area is Xfinity/Comcast, so they can charge whatever they want. There's no competition, whatsoever.

And then we have the military industrial complex, the education industrial complex, the aerospace industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and several others that receive well over a trillion dollars a year in government contracts.

We're moving further and further away from capitalism and instead towards corporatism — otherwise known as fascism.

 

[dilettante]

Sweden?

It's falling apart. Serious alcoholism and drug addiction. Very high cost of living. And high immigration infestation that has changed attitudes to far more vocal than anything seen in the US.

Sweden still has a lot going for it, but to a growing extent those things are in its past. Now they have to pay the piper and that isn't going down so well.

 

[Aunt Bea]

IMO the move away from capitalism is due to government intervention in almost every area of our lives.

 

[ElCastor]

I didn't say that I approved of it. I prefer a mixed economy — one similar to what they have in Sweden.

Oh, what is the minimum wage in a marvelous mixed economy like Sweden? Is there a minimum wage?

 

[Debrah N.]

I think it depends on what you mean by "fully employed." It means something entirely different from "out of the house 40 hours each week."

This isn't a Kindergarten no matter how much you might wish it was. Whether competition is the tribe up the river, the family down the street, or whomever we can't just hand wave it away. Cooperation also requires a return of proportional contribution.

You can't operate an economy on the assumption that everyone is or should be allowed to act as if incompetent. Feeble members of a society are carried on the backs of the able.

Surely this is all self-evident to anyone who hasn't enjoyed a free ride through life?

Competition will still happen even if people get a decent living wage. You still have the opportunity to work your way up (worker to manager) or move on to a different company with better opportunities. Justifying Walmart's business practise of underpaying employees while the rest of the public donates to food banks still just amounts to you and I paying part of Walmart employees salaries via food bank donations while we allow Walmart's rich corporate heads to bank millions that they'll just use as score keeper money or buying more fancy cars or bigger houses or another boat.....

And the idea that someone who believes in a fair living wage unlike you, means that person has enjoyed a free ride through life, really stinks. I'm going to take that comment really personally and I'll tell you why. My mom was a single mother, we had nothing when I was a kid and she worked her way out of poverty She worked her butt off and we did without for years.

And my husband who was a boys home resident for years because his parents were alcoholics, started his own business that we ran for 30 years. In the first years, we made very little except expenses, but paid our employees the same wage as union workers in similar industry in order to keep them happy and working for us. No free ride, and we still think everyone who has a job should get paid a fair wage.

 

[Debrah N.]

Employers pay as little as the supply and demand of workers will allow. Without a minimum wage, in tough times, they'd be paying slave wages, like during the Gilded Age. With the minimum wage, if that's more than they want to pay, they move their operations overseas where they can pay slave wages. It puts people here out of work.

What's the answer? Tariffs? Excessive profits taxes?

In Canada, employers are paying such a low wage to temporary foreign workers that they hire, that it has artificially forced wages down in multiple industries. Tariffs only make consumers pay more for the products they buy when retailers bring them into the country. Taxing corporate profits or the wealth of the rich would do a better job of evening the playing field if governments then used that money to support and develop infrastructure and meet people's needs. A country is only as strong as its weakest links and too many people seem to think the ultra rich should be getting a free ride.

When Warren Buffet laments that he, rich man that he is, pays less in taxes then his secretary or when Donald Trump, a guy who brags constantly about his wealth, goes years without paying any taxes, there's something definitely wrong with the system. And while the numbers might be smaller in Canada (how many ultra rich we have/the levels of their wealth), I suspect the story is the same.