Socialism -- where's the incentive?

[robtherich]

I really don't know what point you are trying to make here, unless it's slanted through a particular personal experience you've had.

yes, i'm speaking from a personal experience, as opposed to talking out my ass. my point is that in the last decade, it has become increasingly harder for people from other countries to immigrate here (and not just terrorists who hate our freedom). it is my opinion that this is to the detriment of our society. people that would come to america and do great things no longer feel it's worth the incredible amount of effort it takes. and we lose the benefit from the great things they would have offered us.

The difference between you and me is that I see the possibility in the human spirit, and you endeavour to crush it -- "there's no way you can overcome your environment, so don't bother trying" is basically what you are saying.

not even going to dignify that.

if you can't see that the financial situation that you are born into offers you advantages over other people or creates obstacles that other people don't face, hence creates inequality, then there's no point in arguing further.

[KungFooMasta]

simply talking to people for a day

So by taking a day to talk to people, one can really understand how hard somebody has worked? With hard work you can get what you want, and if you can't, its because you aren't working hard. My mom came to the country in her late teens. I know tons of family relatives and friends from all across US that have started with nothing and ended up with a good education and high paying job. Its not the same as seeing some bums on the street who say they work hard, and then thinking US sucks because these people "worked so hard" and ended up with nothing. Give us an example of this "hard work" you speak of.

If these immigrants aren't gaining anything from moving to the US, why do all they bring their families over to live here?

[xavier]

Equal opportunity means the chances should be equal. They aren't. You named a few reasons but these are not the only ones. Economical differences are obviously there too and they do affect opportunities.
This is plain evidence, that there is no equal opportunity.

By your claim, those born poor have no opportunity to better themselves, because they were born poor. I just want to be clear, that this is what you mean?

The problem, at least as I see it, is that the delusion that everybody has equal opportunity prevents this problem from being tackled. "Problem, what problem? Nothing to fix.."

You have to be aware that opportunities are not equal. And there is an ongoing effort to fix this.
For instance by easing college level education for poorer people.
So in USA, most important, as far as I can tell from the outside, are private scholarship programs. In Germany we have a public system for this.

I have to call you out on your ignorance on this topic, and for now will leave aside the recurrent general socialist arrogance you are expressing here. While I do not have the link handy to prove this, I will tell you now that the largest financial backer of education in U.S. is the United States government, between grants, social programs, and direct and indirect student loan availability, and probably many more options I don't know about.

So yes, not only do we have mandated public education K-12 (leaving out Head Start and publicly-subsidized preschool), anyone from any part of society not only is encouraged, but more than enabled, to pursue post-high-school education, either 100% (or more) on the public tab, or with public loan backing (which was the opportunity made available to me, which I took).

So, if someone chooses not to avail themselves of all of this free public education from birth to degree, then yes, that is their fault, not mine.

If opportunities really were equal, why such programs? Why fix something that isn't broken.

Because we in the United States want each citizen here to make the best and the most of themselves, regardless of their origins. Here in the United States not only do we believe in equal opportunity, it was the opening statement in the formal reason given for our very existence.

[xavier]

if you can't see that the financial situation that you are born into offers you advantages over other people or creates obstacles that other people don't face, hence creates inequality, then there's no point in arguing further.

Funny, so I should be relegated to making $19/hour as a union asbestos worker with a family of 5, because that's the financial situation I was born into?

Or maybe I achieved the position I now hold because my family valued education and hard work as the means to get ahead in this world, and that they are proud that I have given myself the opportunity for a better life than they had?

Which is it? Either you believe in a caste system (which it sounds like you do) or you believe in equal opportunity.

The difference between you and me is that I see the possibility in the human spirit, and you endeavour to crush it -- "there's no way you can overcome your environment, so don't bother trying" is basically what you are saying.

not even going to dignify that.

You say you won't dignify it, because you can't deny it?

[Kencho]

Warmi, those statistics about cancer recovery and survival are quite good. But how many people there can afford the treatments? Because they're quite more expensive than here in Spain (and probably many other EU countries), and on top of that you have to pay all those expenses yourself, right? So maybe those statistics are about people who were detected a cancer, that is, people that could pay the analysis (unless I'm wrong and all that is paid by the government, what you repeatedly denied in earlier posts). So yes, the quality of the treatment is higher, but not everyone can access even the cheapest treatment there. Here we're paying through the taxes the treatment that some other citizen will get. And I don't mind not getting a PS3 if that will save a person who can't pay a cancer treatment. That's called solidarity, and that's goooooood, not baaaaaad.

Now looking from the egoistic point of view. A friend of mine told me just this afternoon. In our model, you pay a percentage of your income to ensure a future health care for you. There you save that money on your own risk, so you can pay the treatment yourself in the future. Which one is better? As I assume you'll answer "the great american way!!", I'll tell you to consider twice. The fact is that money lose its value over time. A decade ago, an apple didn't cost the same it does now: it was cheaper. The costs have risen, and the salaries too. As a result, saving your money or that future health care may mean you can't pay it with that money if the money value falls too much. By paying health care taxes, the government is assuring you that when you need a treatment, you'll get that treatment (the quality might not be the best, but you at least have some)

[robtherich]

You say you won't dignify it, because you can't deny it?

yup, you got me figured out. i relentlessly endeavor to crush the human spirit. all this talk about how it's harder for certain classes or races of people to get ahead than it is for others is all part of my agenda to make you have a shitty day. now that i've been so cleverly called out, i must come up with a new plan.

i only wonder, how did you so effortlessly discover my intentions...
oh well, now i know better than to tangle with such a sharp intellect.

good day to you all!

[xavier]

As I assume you'll answer "the great american way!!"

*sigh* again the European arrogance that makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion about this.

I still haven't got an answer to the original question:

What about a socialist system provides the incentive to better oneself?

[xavier]

Man, do you read what people write ? More people go from being poor to being rich or at least moderatly wealthy in other countries than in the US.

If you really think that's the case then why do you continue to say that people have unequal opportunity?

Seriously, I don't think you read what I write. I am saying that the purpose of a more "socialist" system is to come closer to the ideal of equal opportunity. That is what the US has less than other western countries. Thus leading to people in the US being less equal in opportunity than at other places. It is not what I believe, there is a lot of research on that topic. Please. Educate yourself

Please! Educate us! Post links to this research! Answer my question!

Seriously, there is a lot of "cannot see the forest for the trees" going on in this thread. You believe that a socialist system is best, because that's what you know. I believe that a capitalist system is best, because that's what I know (and apparently the Chinese believe so too, having obviously failed with a try at communism as they move inexorably towards capitalism).

Hell, for that matter, at least with communism your take is based on your give -- so again, what is it about socialism that makes you want to advance your position in society? Or is the fact that regardless of your effort, you always will have the same access to benefits that the richest in your society, make you more or less content with wherever you are?

And maybe the problem is that to socialist European nations, "benefits" == "opportunity", whereas in the United States, we call that "welfare", and it's generally looked down upon and seen as something to avoid, and the opportunity to get oneself out of that situation (which accurately can be categorized as "ward of the state"), which is available to all equally, is seen as the driving force in self-betterment.

In fact, some situations are more equal than others. Those on welfare in the United States, have such a huge number of social programs available to them to get them out of a state of poverty that it can be seen as a gluttony from any objective standpoint. In the United States, we so much want you to succeed for yourself that you actually have to work to avoid succeeding -- you actually have actively to ignore all of the public help and assistance available to you. None of that is available to those who already are out of a welfare situation.

Before I forget, in general in this thread and others, the subject of medical care has come up. In the United States, in fact (and once again, a case of more-equal-than-others), we have a social medical-care program called Medicare. And further, no one in this country is turned away from any hospital for lack of insurance. Like it or not, it's completely false to claim that the United States has segments of its society that have no access to medical care.

[mr. iknoweverything]

As I assume you'll answer "the great american way!!"

What about a socialist system provides the incentive to better oneself?

"stream - social status rules everything around me"

diploma on the wall yaaall

[xavier]

As I assume you'll answer "the great american way!!"

What about a socialist system provides the incentive to better oneself?

"stream - social status rules everything around me"

diploma on the wall yaaall

Did this post have any conventional meaning? This is not a forum for random drive-by spam. Speak intelligently or don't participate, thanks.

Given your claimed location, and based on what I can understand of this post, I'll chalk you up in the "content with my social situation" column.

[mr. iknoweverything]

as a matter of fact, the people from the "gutter" i got to know would love to rise in society. they just dont know how to. no parents to show work ethics, no clue how to acchieve success, no education, hell, i can understand where the feeling of resignation comes from. you dont need incentives, the incentives are hardcoded. what you need is the knowledge how to rise up, and, of course, for you it seems pretty easy to do so. that's called "hindsight bias", especially unfair when you didnt figure the tricks out yourself but sucked them up with your milk/from your parents.

[mr. iknoweverything]

Did this post have any conventional meaning? This is not a forum for random drive-by spam. Speak intelligently or don't participate, thanks.

as a matter of fact i take pride in thinking that one up as extraordinaryily witty, so you not getting it makes me wonder about the "speak intelligently thing" you mentioned

[xavier]

as a matter of fact, the people from the "gutter" i got to know would love to rise in society. they just dont know how to. no parents to show work ethics, no clue how to acchieve success, no education, hell, i can understand where the feeling of resignation comes from. you dont need incentives, the incentives are hardcoded. what you need is the knowledge how to rise up, and, of course, for you it seems pretty easy to do so. that's called "hindsight bias", especially unfair when you didnt figure the tricks out yourself but sucked them up with your milk/from your parents.

Awesome study on the problems with poverty in America -- the part about "don't know how to" is spot on, and is by far the hardest problem to solve (if it can even be solved). The most we can do external to that individual's situation is give them as much of a hand-up as we can, and in America, that's what we do.

[xavier]

Did this post have any conventional meaning? This is not a forum for random drive-by spam. Speak intelligently or don't participate, thanks.

as a matter of fact i take pride in thinking that one up as extraordinaryily witty, so you not getting it makes me wonder about the "speak intelligently thing" you mentioned

Can you explain it for the stupid among us then? I suppose we are all to dumb to understand your wit...

None of your posts answer my question however, so let me rephrase: if everyone in Germany is given all they need to survive, then why is Germany not a nation of janitors?

[mr. iknoweverything]

Awesome study on the problems with poverty in America -- the part about "don't know how to" is spot on, and is by far the hardest problem to solve (if it can even be solved). The most we can do external to that individual's situation is give them as much of a hand-up as we can, and in America, that's what we do.

but the same logic tells me that the actual rising isnt a monetary thing, it's really all about social status. socialism only distributes the money, the social status doesnt come for free.

[mr. iknoweverything]

Did this post have any conventional meaning? This is not a forum for random drive-by spam. Speak intelligently or don't participate, thanks.

as a matter of fact i take pride in thinking that one up as extraordinaryily witty, so you not getting it makes me wonder about the "speak intelligently thing" you mentioned

Can you explain it for the stupid among us then? I suppose we are all to dumb to understand your wit...

None of your posts answer my question however, so let me rephrase: if everyone in Germany is given all they need to survive, then why is Germany not a nation of janitors?

because janitors arent looked down on because they earn so few money, it's because they arent the kind of person with a skill set you'd like to have / not exactly a role model.

btw, i respect janitors

PS: it was a pun on the wu-tang track C.R.E.A.M. (cash rules everything around me, dollar dollar bill y'all)
thought it was kind of witty. well.

[xavier]

Awesome study on the problems with poverty in America -- the part about "don't know how to" is spot on, and is by far the hardest problem to solve (if it can even be solved). The most we can do external to that individual's situation is give them as much of a hand-up as we can, and in America, that's what we do.

but the same logic tells me that the actual rising isnt a monetary thing, it's really all about social status. socialism only distributes the money, the social status doesnt come for free.

Well define "social status". Do you mean the difference between peasant and noble, or the difference between someone who rents and someone who owns their home?

[jjp]

None of your posts answer my question however, so let me rephrase: if everyone in Germany is given all they need to survive, then why is Germany not a nation of janitors?

Because most people are not content with merely surviving. They want to achieve more. Are you just doing the minimum amount of work it takes to survive?

[xavier]

PS: it was a pun on the wu-tang track C.R.E.A.M. (cash rules everything around me, dollar dollar bill y'all)
thought it was kind of witty. well.

It might have struck a chord with those familiar, I suppose...

because janitors arent looked down on because they earn so few money, it's because they arent the kind of person with a skill set you'd like to have / not exactly a role model.

That's a start -- anyone else?

[mr. iknoweverything]

The thing that comes closest to a quantitative measurement i guess would be called "respect"
notice that respect strongly correlates with the amound of money people earn, but not necessarily so.

[Jabberwocky]

What about a socialist system provides the incentive to better oneself?

The incentive to better oneself in a socialist society is a combination of:

Desire for personal achievement.
This includes status and wealth - the same incentives you'd find in a more strongly Capitalist society. (Socialism is not the same thing as Communism. you're not confusing the two, are you?)

Desire for the wellbeing of my country.
The more I achieve personally, the more I achieve for my country. This link between citizen and country is more direct in a country with socialist leanings. Capitalism is more like the wild west, each man for himself, which has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Desire to help those less fortunate than myself
This is both an altruistic pursuit, and a practical one. Socialism helps avoid the kind of disparity which creates ghettos, crime, poverty, lack of education, and violence between the classes. A socialist will tend to believe his or her quality of life is affected by the quality of life of those around you.

-----------

Just as a data point, a post-secondary education in Canada is a fraction of the price of a similar education in the United States.

I think there are a lot of great things about the States (I lived there for over 5 years), but commonly available cheap university education is not one of them.

[xavier]

None of your posts answer my question however, so let me rephrase: if everyone in Germany is given all they need to survive, then why is Germany not a nation of janitors?

Because most people are not content with merely surviving. They want to achieve more. Are you just doing the minimum amount of work it takes to survive?

No, but then there is no promise to me that if I fail because of my own choices or actions, that I can have all of the same benefits as everyone else.

So that's an answer too -- anyone else?

BTW does it bother you at all that you have to support those who decides not to support themselves? I find that notion pretty repugnant, and this could be the reason socialists and capitalists never will see eye to eye...

[mr. iknoweverything]

BTW does it bother you at all that you have to support those who decides not to support themselves?

That's a mythical entity i yet have to encounter in real life welfare germany.

[xavier]

(Socialism is not the same thing as Communism. you're not confusing the two, are you?)

No, I was pointing out the instance of a rather large non-capitalist society (one who is closer in philosophy to socialism than it is to capitalism) moving clearly towards a capitalist system.

[xavier]

BTW does it bother you at all that you have to support those who decides not to support themselves?

That's a mythical entity i yet have to encounter in real life welfare germany.

But you do not deny that in your system, it is entirely possible for someone to live their entire lives as unproductive citizens? Hell, at least in the States you are booted off welfare after a few years...