Socialism -- where's the incentive?

[xavier]

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.

[robtherich]

come on!
you really believe that everyone in america, if they only have the proper motivation, can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and that the massive economic inequality gap is only because poor people are too lazy and rich people are just that hard of workers?

i'm not saying that everybody should have everything handed to them regardless of how much or little they work, but there are huge obstacles that are in place which keep poor people poor, and huge advantages which help rich people to stay rich.

this idea that in america, out of the womb everybody has completely equal opportunity to do whatever they want with their lives is a myth, pure and simple.

[warmi]

I would disagree with the implied claim above that everyone in the United States does not have the same chance as everyone else

Exactly.

People can accomplish just about everything they can dream of.
The difference is that there is a certain risk associated with every dream and if it takes a loan to accomplish it ( as it would take in the case of education) it also implicitly requires a lot of effort and wise choices to pay it of.

This is a great combination of incentive and risk, which keeps people focused and makes failure a lot more costly to the individual in question.

On the other hand with so called "free education" one can freely burden the society with costs without giving anything in return ( so called brain drain should ring a bell )

if they only have the proper motivation, can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps

Baring a major disaster in the form of a devastating illness or something alone these lines, yeah , pretty much.
I got news for you .. there is a lot of inequality because people do differ.
Some care, some don't .. others care just enough to get by.

[xavier]

come on!
you really believe that everyone in america, if they only have the proper motivation, can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and that the massive economic inequality gap is only because poor people are too lazy and rich people are just that hard of workers?

Actually, yes, it happens every day. Immigrants to this country show up with the clothes on their back and somehow they work their way up to owning a house and running their own business.

And yes, out of the womb every single person in this country has the same level of opportunity as everyone else. What they do with it is the difference -- whether they make the decisions that lead to a successful life, or whether they make decisions that limit themselves, either as a result of their own perception and decision-making, or by negative pressure from those around them (including yourself).

[jjp]

And yes, out of the womb every single person in this country has the same level of opportunity as everyone else.

How come you propose that? You really think that the kid born into a ghetto has the same opportunity as the one with wealthy parents?

It has been said already, but in large the chances to make it literally from "rags to riches" are poorer for the US than for many other places in the world where the state is a bit more "socialistic". Yet the US is the place where belief in this ideal is the strongest. I find that to be a very interesting paradox. Same goes for freedom - there isn't any place in the world where so many people have no freedom at all as they are in prison. Yet the value of freedom is perceived to be a lot more important than anywhere else in the world.

I am not suggesting that any actual welfare state in the world even comes close to being ideal or actually succeeds providing equal chances to anyone. Even with way stronger social systems there are still people who are at a disadvantage because of relative poverty or other reasons. But I think the reason for the huge social gap, the fact that 1% of the male adult population is in prison (which is substantially more than even in totalitary countries like China) and some other social problems that are by some degree stronger in the US lies within the fact that social security and actual equality of chances is so low compared to other places in the western world.

[haffax]

And yes, out of the womb every single person in this country has the same level of opportunity as everyone else. What they do with it is the difference -- whether they make the decisions that lead to a successful life, or whether they make decisions that limit themselves, either as a result of their own perception and decision-making, or by negative pressure from those around them (including yourself).

You contradict yourself here. Perceptions, pressure, etc are different, thus opportunities are different.

And the odd success story is no evidence for a general rule. It is the carrot on a stick you can hold in other peoples faces to tell them their misery is solely their own fault.
If opportunities really were the same, and we assume poor people don't bear stupid children genetically, then we should assume that income of parents shouldn't matter for people's income in general. But this is not the case, thus what you say is untrue for a fact.

[xavier]

And yes, out of the womb every single person in this country has the same level of opportunity as everyone else. What they do with it is the difference -- whether they make the decisions that lead to a successful life, or whether they make decisions that limit themselves, either as a result of their own perception and decision-making, or by negative pressure from those around them (including yourself).

You contradict yourself here. Perceptions, pressure, etc are different, thus opportunities are different.

And the odd success story is no evidence for a general rule. It is the carrot on a stick you can hold in other peoples faces to tell them their misery is solely their own fault.
If opportunities really were the same, and we assume poor people don't bear stupid children genetically, then we should assume that income of parents shouldn't matter for people's income in general. But this is not the case, thus what you say is untrue for a fact.

Actually, what you say here makes the case for me -- everyone from the womb is born equal with equal opportunity. It's what happens to them in their immediate environs after that, that changes what they *think* are the avenues available to them.

There is a subtle but very very important difference there -- to say that people are not born equal with equal opportunity is a caste system. In America, you are not born a commoner and therefore have no chance ever of becoming a noble -- that's not the way it works here. If you are born a "commoner" in America, you have all of the same opportunities available to you that every other person (of any heritage) has.

And if you believe otherwise, it's because you believe the limiting rhetoric with which those around you have assaulted you, not because you are limited by the society at large.

[jjp]

I don't get what you are saying? Of course people have the same legal rights. But that doesn't mean there is an equal chance for everyone.

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?

The incentive to better yourself remains the same. If you take the initial example: the engineer still has a lot more money than the janitor and leads a more comfortable life. But the janitor doesn't have to be afraid of e.g. being ruined by getting sick and needing expensive care. He doesn't need to fear that his kids can't go to the same school, or can't afford to go to the same university as kids of richer people.

[CaseyB]

I think that I've figured it out! I think the xavier and I believe that anyone can do or become anything because we grew up in a capitalist society where you are rewarded for your hard work and people can go from being poor to living a comfortable life, or even being rich!

jjp grew up in a more socialist society where there are really no great incentives for working harder! People are really stuck in the situation they are born in!

So really we are all correct! We are accurately describing the situation in which we live!

[jjp]

Man, do you read what people write ? I am repeating myself: more people go from being poor to being rich or at least moderatly wealthy in other countries than in the US. Look for "social mobility".

[Kencho]

Actually, yes, it happens every day. Immigrants to this country show up with the clothes on their back and somehow they work their way up to owning a house and running their own business.

It happens here every day too.

I don't think there's equal chances for everyone at all. If you're born in a ghetto, statistically speaking, you'll get enrolled in a street band, even if it's just for pure survival, and most probably becoming a thug or a drug dealer (not to mention to die at a young age during a fight or because of an overdose). And that happens in the US, EU, and everywhere.

[CaseyB]

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?

[jjp]

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

[warmi]

Less of what ? As far as GDP and basic standard of living US has more than great majority of other western countries.

Yeah, that is true. If you measure how much people can afford and how much they own ( cars, tvs , computers, dishwasher etc) - US has simply more of this stuff per family.

Hell, forget TVs and cars .. even cancer surival rates are higher in US than in EU ..

Are you gonna deny that ?

The only time others come up on top if you go into some fuzzy UN style "index of well being" or some such nonsense which basically measures how much stuff is provided to people by the state so yeah, that will come in favor of EU.

There you go ...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

That is a truly strange statistic for a country that has supposedly crappy health-care system, don't you think ?

Check this out .. .from the article ..

Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.

Whoa .. it turns out that a significantly higher survival rates in US stem from the fact that 70% of women in US undergo a mammogram test ... a lot more than in socialized and people-friendly Europe.

Where does that come from ? There you go ,cold hard facts ... you asked for them.

[CaseyB]

Less of what ? As far as GDP and basic standard of living US has more than great majority of other western countries.

Yeah, that is true. If you measure how much people can afford and how much they own ( cars, tvs , computers, dishwasher etc) - US has simply more of this stuff per family.

Hell, forget TVs and cars .. even cancer surival rates are higher in US than in EU ..

Are you gonna deny that ?

The only time others come up on top if you go into some fuzzy UN style "index of well being" or some such nonsense which basically measures how much stuff is provided to people by the state so yeah, that will come in favor of EU.

Thank you!

[jjp]

Less of what ? As far as GDP and basic standard of living US has more than great majority of other western countries.

The GDP is a very outdated way of measuring wealth. For example more crime leads to a higher GDP. But does more crime equal more wealth? Most importantly it doesn't tell anything about the distribution of wealth. You might have e.g. 10 super-rich people and 10000 super-poor people and the GDP still tells that that country is more wealthy than another country where there are some rich people, no super-rich people but also no super-poor people. There is a reason why more fuzzy and complicated methods to measure whealth have been introduced.

On the cancer survival rates: I don't have any explanation to offer there. My guess is people are more aware of this issue and let themselves get tested more often. How cureable cancer is mostly depends of how early it gets detected. But the numbers seem more extreme than they actually are, from the statistics I can see so far the absolute number of cases of cancer is higher for the US. So the absolute numbers of people who die from cancer might be closer to each other than the relative survival rate. After all the available treatment for cancer is about the same.

EDIT: if you are interested in social statistics, and so on take a look at this or just search google for relevant terms

http://www.csls.ca/iwb.asp
http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/Inte ... bility.pdf

And to clarify again: I am in no way proud of the system I live in. Things go wrong here as well. The social gap is widening, not enough is spent on education and the medical care system is fucked up in a very different way than in the US (even though it is at the moment still very secure for people who get sick) - if nothing changes we're gonna run out of doctors. I think the next few decades won't look as good as the second half of the 20th century for any of the "industrial states".

[robtherich]

I think that I've figured it out! I think the xavier and I believe that anyone can do or become anything because we grew up in a capitalist society where you are rewarded for your hard work and people can go from being poor to living a comfortable life, or even being rich!

i live in a your capitalist society, and i see what you describe, but i also see people struggle every day to make ends meet, and are never able to achieve this comfortable life. i also see people given everything (trust fund babies) and they contribute absolutely nothing to society, and in fact detract from society because they are given opportunities (grants for instance) which they don't need, but will take, so it looks like they are supporting themselves.

i'm not saying that america is or isn't the best (or whatever bumper sticker you want to quote), but to say that hard work is all it takes is so naive, i can't even comprehend. to have so little understanding of the struggles of people that are in a different situation than the one you are familiar with. it really isn't difficult to gain this understanding. simply talking to people for a day, and learn why they can't seem to get ahead even though they work two jobs. that is if you cared...

[robtherich]

Actually, yes, it happens every day. Immigrants to this country show up with the clothes on their back and somehow they work their way up to owning a house and running their own business.

and it also happens that immigrants are thrown out of the country because they were unable to take care of the tremendous amount of bureaucratic red tape it requires to get a green card. primarily because they were unable to afford a lawyer to take care of it for them.

and here's the rub. enjoy our place of dominance in the world while it lasts, because i predict over the next few decades we are going to become more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world. when you don't value an immigrant population, and you don't value education, your society suffers. and we don't value either of those things, at least based on our current laws.

[warmi]

My guess is people are more aware of this issue and let themselves get tested more often.

That's my point.
I am not trying to suggest that Europe is wrong in its approach but rather that this commonly held view that the US medical care is a wasteland in terms of providing health-care for its citizens is wrong.

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.

[xavier]

Actually, yes, it happens every day. Immigrants to this country show up with the clothes on their back and somehow they work their way up to owning a house and running their own business.

It happens here every day too.

I don't think there's equal chances for everyone at all. If you're born in a ghetto, statistically speaking, you'll get enrolled in a street band, even if it's just for pure survival, and most probably becoming a thug or a drug dealer (not to mention to die at a young age during a fight or because of an overdose). And that happens in the US, EU, and everywhere.

But that is not the same as saying "people are born unequal", which is the claim I am hearing from our European kindred. If that were true, then there would be no need to qualify with "statistically speaking", since the chance of bettering yourself is zero if you are 'born in the ghetto'.

[xavier]

Actually, yes, it happens every day. Immigrants to this country show up with the clothes on their back and somehow they work their way up to owning a house and running their own business.

and it also happens that immigrants are thrown out of the country because they were unable to take care of the tremendous amount of bureaucratic red tape it requires to get a green card. primarily because they were unable to afford a lawyer to take care of it for them.

and here's the rub. enjoy our place of dominance in the world while it lasts, because i predict over the next few decades we are going to become more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world. when you don't value an immigrant population, and you don't value education, your society suffers. and we don't value either of those things, at least based on our current laws.

How can we not value an immigrant population? I don't know what life is like for you there in New York City, but here in California, this place runs on the sweat of the immigrant population. The United States in fact quite values its immigrant population (illegal or otherwise). 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.

[xavier]

I think that I've figured it out! I think the xavier and I believe that anyone can do or become anything because we grew up in a capitalist society where you are rewarded for your hard work and people can go from being poor to living a comfortable life, or even being rich!

i live in a your capitalist society, and i see what you describe, but i also see people struggle every day to make ends meet, and are never able to achieve this comfortable life. i also see people given everything (trust fund babies) and they contribute absolutely nothing to society, and in fact detract from society because they are given opportunities (grants for instance) which they don't need, but will take, so it looks like they are supporting themselves.

i'm not saying that america is or isn't the best (or whatever bumper sticker you want to quote), but to say that hard work is all it takes is so naive, i can't even comprehend. to have so little understanding of the struggles of people that are in a different situation than the one you are familiar with. it really isn't difficult to gain this understanding. simply talking to people for a day, and learn why they can't seem to get ahead even though they work two jobs. that is if you cared...

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.

Again, it's the choices we make early in our life that more or less set the path we will take (and the opportunities open to us) later in life. If you (meaning the individual) made choices early in life that close doors later in life, there's not much that anyone else can do (or should do, if you want my honest opinion) about that. And if their choices are based on what people around them are telling them, that's their fault, not mine. I've made the choices early in life that allow me to succeed and better myself here later in life.

[haffax]

Actually, what you say here makes the case for me -- everyone from the womb is born equal with equal opportunity. It's what happens to them in their immediate environs after that, that changes what they *think* are the avenues available to them.

Did you really read what I wrote? Because this has nothing to do at all with my points.

In case I didn't make my point clear, I try to phrase it better:

The chance of failure for someone who has rich parents and is not half stupid is quite low. He/she will go to college, he/she will get a good position somewhere and so on.
Someone from a poor family will have to put much more effort into getting up than someone already being up staying there. If he/she wants to go to college, the parents can't afford it. And, to counter your point here, the parents don't just think they can't afford it, they really can't.
There is a chance that this person gets a scholarship of course, but it needs more efford and luck and you must not be intellectually challanged and and and..

Of course there are eager individuals who are smart and determined and get up, but this is an individual personality question.

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.

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.

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

But maybe the problem is your definition of opportunity? If opportunity means there is a chance > zero, then, yes, you are right. If it means something else, I can't make head nor tails of it.

[jjp]

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.

Seriously, you are giving empty phrases now. Where did he say there "is no way to overcome your environment"? It is that people do try, and they fail. While other people don't have to try that hard because they get a head start due to wealth and they succeed. They might even be not as smart or able as other people who fail because they were born into bad circumstances. What the hell does that have to do with the possibility in the human spirit?

[warmi]

You might have e.g. 10 super-rich people and 10000 super-poor people and the GDP still tells that that country is more wealthy than another country where there are some rich people, no super-rich people but also no super-poor people.

That’s right . But this so called “economic well-beingâ€