Socialism -- where's the incentive?

[xavier]

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.

And the quality of that education? Define "similar"...

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.

Come to beautiful California, where tuition at Stanford (as well as at Harvard on the east coast) will be free for qualifying students starting next year....and you can thank the capitalist society that created the wealthy benefactors of Stanford University for that.

BTW, "qualifying" starts with families making $100,000 or less -- and room-and-board are tossed in as well if your family makes less than $60,000.

As for "commonly available", well, if you can afford it you have to pay for it, but if you can't, chances are you can get it (college education) for free. Are you bemoaning the fact that the wealthy can't get a free pass to college?

[edit: noticed I missed the names of the universities in the first mention above]

[mr. iknoweverything]

entirely possible, and actually happening. however, when you boot those off, you also boot of those who really need it. plus, im not too sure those guys arent just that kind of losers who would love to achieve, but just dont know how. i just cant imagine how somebody would live off the backs of everybody would do so voluntarily.

[mr. iknoweverything]

you just need to provide of minimum level of support for people to be able to rise. how is a worker supposed to get the know-how when he has to work in crappy jobs 24/7 just to fall into his bed tired when he's coming home?
granted, hell have more free time than the hard working populace with the support, but hell get a clue. i bet my ass in the long run it's more productive for the whole of society. you can only develop in your free time.

[johnhpus]

Capitalism is an engine of money. What makes it so effective is that it harnesses the natural greed of humanity, and turns it into something that's generally productive. When a little socialism can dip into the pot (taxes) and help out the least fortunate, it can work out really well.

Welfare isn't just for the good of the people who receive it. It's also protects the people who do have money. Cut off government support of the poor and they'll just take what they want.

Maybe I watched too much Star Trek as a kid, but I wish that Socialism could work. I think that a country where everyone was comfortable and taken care of, and no one was privileged above the anyone else, would be ideal. But we've already been shown that that's impossible.

[KungFooMasta]

We believe in free thinkers, educating people to be responsible and make decisions for themselves. We do not want to spoon feed and hold hands for people so they don't have to worry about themselves. All I see is a lot of talk about how we have to help people who can't help themselves.

how is a worker supposed to get the know-how when he has to work in crappy jobs 24/7 just to fall into his bed tired when he's coming home?

If we send this worker to Germany, will he/she get the know-how?

[Jabberwocky]

And the quality of that education? Define "similar"...

Hmm, I guess "similar" means curriculum and access to educational facilities.

Are you bemoaning the fact that the wealthy can't get a free pass to college?

Definitely not!

Come to beautiful California, where tuition will be free for qualifying students starting next year....and you can thank the capitalist society that created the wealthy benefactors of Stanford University for that.

BTW, "qualifying" starts with families making $100,000 or less -- and room-and-board are tossed in as well if your family makes less than $60,000.

As for "commonly available", well, if you can afford it you have to pay for it, but if you can't, chances are you can get it (college education) for free.
Are you bemoaning the fact that the wealthy can't get a free pass to college?

Education for those who can't afford it is great! Hats off to Stanford for providing this.

Personally, I'd prefer affordable education to be institutionalized rather than relying on rich benefactors who make it available at the occasional university.

Where I lived in Boston, everyone I know who graduated from university did so with insane debt. Some people avoid university for this very reason. There were no "free university" programs I was aware of, so your Stanford example may be more the exception than the rule.

[mr. iknoweverything]

But we've already been shown that that's impossible.

well, kind of. im not too sure the last word's been spoken on that one though.

[xavier]

Where I lived in Boston, everyone I know who graduated from university did so with insane debt. Some people avoid university for this very reason. There were no "free university" programs I was aware of, so your Stanford example may be more the exception than the rule.

Chances are those you knew in Boston went to private schools or expensive public schools, and were deemed at application time to have been able to afford the debt.

Stanford and Harvard are definitely the exception, but the point about those was that it is entirely private money that made that happen...not the public teat.

See, this is the major problem I have with the general idea of a welfare state -- the idea that it's the government's job to make one's life cushy and easy. That's probably because I was born and raised in the United States, which has a long history of distrust in its government (200+ years ago we had to run a war to rid ourselves of the one we had, and we haven't trusted another one since). And that's probably also the reason that capitalists and socialists are never going to see eye to eye on this -- socialists prefer the "Robin Hood" model of social welfare...while capitalists call that "theft".

I agree above with the statement that if capitalists didn't provide some form of support for the lowest income bracket in society, that those occupying that bracket would just take what they wanted (well, they do now anyway, but that's another matter)...but isn't that just another name for a caste system? But didn't France run a revolution because of that elitist (or is it self-preservationist) attitude?

Complicated, complicated...I've got my answers on the incentive question, thanks all, but I still don't entirely buy it...Sweden (the model of social welfare for decades now) still suffers an unusually high level of unemployment -- perhaps that "personal desire to achieve more" isn't as strong as stated here, or maybe that Germany and other European nations don't have the all-encompassing programs that Sweden does (or did -- I understand they recently had to pare back the level of support and benefits because they couldn't afford it).

[mr. iknoweverything]

We do not want to spoon feed and hold hands for people

That's the fallacy! You've been spoon-fed by your parents and their ethics, your surroundings, your education.
Everything seemed so easy and "you just have to want to" to you, but that's just what's called hind-sight bias, and this standard argument is just a perfect case of it.

If we send this worker to Germany, will he/she get the know-how?

Here he has the chance. i dont know the statistics.

[jjp]

That's a start -- anyone else?

Actually unemployement is something many people are very afraid of around here. Companies do get away with lowering wages or paying less taxes for example if they promise not to "destroy jobs" in return. That isn't a whole lot different from over the pond I guess.

You should also understand that while practically the social systems allow anyone to survive that they are quite buerocratic and restrictive. I am simplifying here because explaining how things exactly work would take ages: if you loose your job you'll receive for a certain amount of time money depending on how much you made before. After that period of time you receive less and it is not any more based on your previous income. You get additional restrictions if you aren't showing that you try to find work. There are enforced job training programs and so on. And quite a lot more rules take effect.

Naturally there is a small minority of people who are comfortable with what they receive that way. They are despised by the majority, a common term for them is something like "social parasites".

For my part I don't feel bad about supporting these people. It is a small minority and their miserable situation mostly depends on the fact that they for some reason don't have the education to get a job, are considered by employers too old or have had real bad luck. You need to take into account that there are less jobs that don't require training around here.

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...

The thing is you get people who live on the streets that way. You get people who are really desperate because have nothing. In the end allowing for the possibility that a few will abuse the system pays through more security and less crime for example. I am throwing that figure up again - 1% male adult population in prison for the US. If you assume a lot of the smaller criminal acts that get people into prison are related to poverty you might find that having not enough welfare doesn't even cost you less money. A place in prison probably costs more than financing someone enough so he can survive somewhat in dignity whatever he does.

[Jabberwocky]

Chances are those you knew in Boston went to private schools or expensive public schools, and were deemed at application time to have been able to afford the debt.

My original point about university in Canada was this:

The average low income person, who is not a star athlete or intellectual rock-star, does not have the same opportunity for high quality low cost education in the States (more capitalist country) as Canada (more socialist country). Are you disputing this?

[xavier]

You should also understand that while practically the social systems allow anyone to survive that they are quite buerocratic and restrictive. I am simplifying here because explaining how things exactly work would take ages: if you loose your job you'll receive for a certain amount of time money depending on how much you made before. After that period of time you receive less and it is not any more based on your previous income. You get additional restrictions if you aren't showing that you try to find work. There are enforced job training programs and so on. And quite a lot more rules take effect.

This is the "strings-attached" 'gotcha' I was hoping someone would mention -- it's the same here in the States; if you partake in social programs, that participation comes with lots of strings attached, and you give up a lot of freedom in your choice for doing so. For example, you don't have a choice in hospital if you take part in the VA health care program. And Americans are rather fond of their freedom to choose, in all aspects of their lives.

[xavier]

Chances are those you knew in Boston went to private schools or expensive public schools, and were deemed at application time to have been able to afford the debt.

My original point about university in Canada was this:

The average low income person, who is not a star athlete or intellectual rock-star, does not have the same opportunity for high quality low cost education in the States (more capitalist country) as Canada (more socialist country). Are you disputing this?

Yes. Anyone can go to any college they want, and there are nearly infinitely more opportunities available for low-income individuals than for high-income (who are expected to be able to pay their own way).

Not only is the federal government falling over itself to give away cash for college, there are innumerable private grant, scholarship, fellowship, loan, you name it, programs to meet (and often, exceed) the costs of higher ed. If you just walk up to the window and expect that you have to pay "list price", well, I can understand how you would come by this misconception.

[Jabberwocky]

Yes. Anyone can go to any college they want, and there are nearly infinitely more opportunities available for low-income individuals than for high-income (who are expected to be able to pay their own way).

Well, we could argue over this point.

But lets say for the sake of argument you are correct. Then this government assistance for education in the US would fall squarely in the category of a socialist program, which for the theme of this discussion, I agree is a good thing.

[FrameFever]

From another thread:
I would disagree with the implied claim above that everyone in the United States does not have the same chance as everyone else -- what you do with that chance is the discriminating factor in this country.

what for chances do you mean?
The same level of education?

Of course, I think everybody can achieve this goal, if he or she is smart enough.
But for some things you have to pay much money in amercia. as far as I know, is this for example the college.
And when you are not a genious, and don't get a scholarship. you have to pay.

I know from Austria, everybody, which parents, don't have enough money, get the college paid (and I mean ALL paid, this can mean 600€ a month, in germany you have to pay this money back). But of course you have to make a Matura (college entry qualification) to start a study.
Is there also an college entry qualification in US, I don't know?

maybe this only works for small countries like austria, but hey, it's nice to have. isn' t it?

[jjp]

This is the "strings-attached" 'gotcha' I was hoping someone would mention -- it's the same here in the States; if you partake in social programs, that participation comes with lots of strings attached, and you give up a lot of freedom in your choice for doing so. For example, you don't have a choice in hospital if you take part in the VA health care program. And Americans are rather fond of their freedom to choose, in all aspects of their lives.

I guess it is mostly a matter of degree. The fundamental difference is that we don't have a limit on the time you can receive welfare. But I've eleborated that point in the posting above.

I am beginning to suspect the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have an entirely different meaning to Americans than to people from other places. Lastly, I am still puzzled by how strong the belief in the American Dream still is

[haffax]

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?

Huh? No opportunity? I never said that and you know it! Is opportunity some kind of boolean, that only is either on or off?
There is less or more opportunity and not none at all or all. What is so difficult to understand here, I am sure I made it plainly clear in my post.
Don't meddle with what I am saying please.

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.

I already acknowledged my ignorance on the details and it is beside the point. The details of organization are meaningless. The point is they are there, which they wouldn't need to be if there were equal opportunities which there aren't.

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.

"We" are "you" unless you all are mindless zombies with exactly the same interests, which I doubt.
Believing in equal opportunity is not the same as having it or striving for it. You can close your eyes and believe everything you want, you won't make it happen, unless you see the situation as it is and work with it.

And, you seem to believe I am taking part in a USA<->Europe dispute. I'm not, but nevertheless I have to say, that I feel insulted by your strawman attacks on what you believe to be the typical European POV. I'm not your typical European communist, nor do I consider you to be the typical US libertarian. Stereotypes don't help in this individual discussion.

All I care about in this discussion is the equal opportunity delusion. We're not there. Neither in USA nor anywhere else in the world. And dream it up all you want, but I believe actively working to achieve it is the better solution.

[tau]

From another thread:

In Germany, the engineer will have to pay much more taxes than the janitor, and you forgot that the janitor also will get a lot of things maybe payed by the engineer! It's a society where nobody has to suffer and where everybody has (nearly) the same chances.

So, where's the incentive to better oneself? Is this not a recipe for exerting the minimal level of effort, if you will always receive the same benefit as the person making the most money in your society?

I would disagree with the implied claim above that everyone in the United States does not have the same chance as everyone else -- what you do with that chance is the discriminating factor in this country.

An example: even a middle class person in America can become a poor man overnight if he/she has to pay unforeseen medical expenses, and it's the majority of the cases, however, in Germany there is no such problem.

[tau]

I am beginning to suspect the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have an entirely different meaning to Americans than to people from other places. Lastly, I am still puzzled by how strong the belief in the American Dream still is

JJP, you hit it in the eye!!!

Americans dont really understand (nor they want to) the true meanings of "personal liberty", "democracy", "socialism", "personal rights", "capitalism", "evolution", "global warming/climate changing". That was carefully transformed by propaganda and brainwashing...

I was lucky to spend a lot of time outside US, it really opened my eyes on many social problems while living in among other cultures.

[tau]

Chances are those you knew in Boston went to private schools or expensive public schools, and were deemed at application time to have been able to afford the debt.

My original point about university in Canada was this:

The average low income person, who is not a star athlete or intellectual rock-star, does not have the same opportunity for high quality low cost education in the States (more capitalist country) as Canada (more socialist country). Are you disputing this?

Americans dont have equal opportunity despite Americans' believes:
1) you cannot run for governor/president if you dont have a lot of money
2) you cannot go to college if you cannot meet big monthly payments and/or have a bad credit score (another point for not have an equal opportunities), and you dont have a scholarship even if you are smart
3) you will die without medication if you cannot afford it
4) you cannot go to your favorite doctor because your employer switch health care provider/insurance company and your doctor is out-of-network, which means it's too expensive for you (such point is a favorite defense for people against socialized/centralized health care system in USA - with centralized health care people "cannot" choose their doctors anymore, which is BS; if it's centralized, there is no reason you can go to another doctor)
5) etc...

[warmi]

tau
Again ...
Please speak for yourself and stop using generalizations.

Just because you think that Americans do this or do that ... it doesn't mean they actually do.

So please, speak for yourself.

It is not like you are the only one who have seen the world outside of US ... I wasn;t even born in US so please .. don't act as if we all were a bunch of blind idiots living under some sort of umbrella created for use by whomever you consider to be responsible for the latest attempt to keep the people down.

[Jabberwocky]

Not to get personal but when Sinbad writes stuff like

I say there's plenty wrong with both models - the US medical care system is completely f*cked up

That is a pretty darn strong statement suggesting that perhaps there is a lot of … hmm, ignorance about what goes on in US on the other side of the pond.

The opinion that the American health care system is f*cked up is very common among Americans too. So, I don't think you should be labeling this opinion as "ignorance about what goes on in the US on the other side of the pond". Go watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". You may not agree with him, but there are a lot of people who do, and it's a great example of how popular this opinion is among Americans that American health care sucks.

[warmi]

Go watch Michael Moore's "Sicko

Oh please, I could watch Star Trek and most likely get a greater dose of reality than this.

I cited hard statistics which clearly state that more people in USA get a quality health-care which allows them to prevent/survive life-threatening disease than anywhere else in the world, and you are sticking me with Michael Moore, an entertainer ?

If you can't respond with something serious .. don't.

[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?

Huh? No opportunity? I never said that and you know it! Is opportunity some kind of boolean, that only is either on or off?
There is less or more opportunity and not none at all or all. What is so difficult to understand here, I am sure I made it plainly clear in my post.
Don't meddle with what I am saying please.

I'm not meddling. I'm asking you to clarify this: "that there is no equal opportunity."

All I care about in this discussion is the equal opportunity delusion. We're not there. Neither in USA nor anywhere else in the world. And dream it up all you want, but I believe actively working to achieve it is the better solution.

And how does one actively work to achieve it?

[Jabberwocky]

Go watch Michael Moore's "Sicko

Oh please, I could watch Star Trek and most likely get a greater dose of reality than this.

I cited hard statistics which clearly state that more people in USA get a quality health-care which allows them to prevent/survive life-threatening disease than anywhere else in the world, and you are sticking me with Michael Moore, an entertainer ?

If you can't respond with something serious .. don't.

I'm sorry you aren't able to follow my argument.
I'll try to simplify it for you.

1. Sicko is a popular movie about the problems of the American health care system.
2. Sicko was made by an American, very popular in America, and its opinions are very popular among many Americans.
3. Thus this is an example of how critique of the American health care system is common among Americans.

Notice how this has nothing to do with your personal opinion of Michael Moore or his movies (and is totally irrelevant to this point), so try to get past that.