Intelligent Design?

[jayleew]

The United States has, in general, a terrible social welfare system, compared to most first-world countries. The people at the bottom end, working for the big corporations, are not joyously happy because market forces are looking after them. Rather the opposite, in fact. These people often are forced to work two or more jobs, with long hours, just to get by. The state doesn't help them to any significant extent, and the companies pay them the lowest possible wages. These people do not have the bargaining power to talk up their wages when they deal with General Motors or McDonalds or whatever. They are easily interchangeable as far as the corporations are concerned. If one person leaves because of poor conditions, well, there are plenty more people scraping buy who desperately need a job.

What company pays minimum wage anymore? They will not attract any employees, unless they go to high school! McDonalds starts over the minimum and so does WalMart. KayBee Toys starts over the minimum, gas stations, Pizza Hut does too. They pay an average of 2-4 dollars higher than minimum.

People are not as expendible as you may think. It is expensive to train. This market is driven by employees, and that is why we see Mexican's picking the cotton, instead of Americans. Americans don't want low wages, so the companies either have to relocate outside of America, or bring in immigrants. All you are seeing is from the employees' perspectives. If you were in management in any time of your life, you would understand the value of an employee in America, but we are starting to choke the corporations and scare them off to foreign countries and find ways to do business cheaper just so that they can make it. We are our own worst enemy. In many respects, closing the borders will help this economy.

My wife and I have two kids, I have two jobs and she has one. Together we only pull around $50,000 and we are going from paycheck to paycheck, scraping by, behind on many bills, and all!

What can the government do to help me out? Lower my taxes, and let me keep more of the money that I bust my butt for! How do we pay for it? Cut government programs! What the heck is NASA good for? Privatize space exploration, there is money to be made there. Let the rich dump millions of dollars into the economy for a trip to the moon, or a weekend getaway. Build a stinkin hotel on the moon! Give incentive for the rich to spread the wealth in a healthy way by offering new products and services like this.

Meanwhile, the executives at the tops of these corporations are being paid obscene sums of money, in the tens of millions of dollars per year. Somebody (perhaps you) said above that this works out to $12 an hour, once you take in all the long hours the poor overworked executives put in. You do the math, with a salary of $10 million, say.

You have a point about this. I don't know how some execs sleep at night on their lush weekend home, when the grunt is sleeping on a hard floor and eating macaroni and cheese. It is their money, but corporations should maybe make some upper exec cuts before the grunts. If they get ticked about it and leave, good! That leaves room for someone who will do the job and a fair wage.

The assumption by many in this thread that rampant capitalism is necessarily good in and of itself amazes me. I suppose it's strongest in those who remember the cold war, when any hint of communism was considered a danger to the American way of life. There seems to be a great faith that if you let the Market or the Economy rule, everybody will be happy. Forget social welfare. Forget giving people a hand up. Forget free education. If people born into poor circumstances can't drag themselves up out of poverty

Rampant capitalism is bad and the only way to stop it is to either become more socialistic, or to have more personal responsibility. You can't make people be responsible, so we have to alternative than to become more socialistic, don't we? Religion (Christianity) is not doing its job anymore and teaching responsibility, so what can we do to replace it, because attitudes begin at home. This should be a more free market, but it will only work if massive consumption/rampant captialism takes a back seat. I believe that people can wake up and become the America we were hundreds of years ago. I'm not talking about slave labor, I'm talking about the people who abolished slavery. The people who had a dream that we can be a great nation and willing to do what it takes to contribute to the dream, even if it means working the factory until the day you die so that your children can have a better life, and not expect the government to fix things! It begins with the American people's attitudes.

There is no such thing as a "free education" Someone is picking up the tab, instead of that person working the factory to get the education. You only fail when you fail to try again. We have trained the poor to get handouts, instead of giving them a job. What happens when you keep feeding that squirrel outside your house? Eventually that squirrel may die if you stop feeding it. They can't drag themselves out of poverty if they stop trying. You can do anything you put your mind to. That is the attitude we've lost, and it will be the end of America as we wanted it to be if we don't wake up. We will have no choice, but to become socialist. That may not be a bad thing, but I don't want it if we can help it!

 

[jayleew]

Just look around you. Not all societies are selfish to the core. They made you selfish. Now you think it is normal. It is not.

It is human nature, but we need to repress it for the good of society if we are a moral people, right?

 

[spidergoat]

www.thepaincomics.com

 

[Raithere]

Big business is not always good to employees. And the market economy is not always the best way to give people a fair go.

And you're missing my point entirely. Most corporations are not just big business. Most corporations are small businesses owned by an individual or a small group of individuals often doing well enough just to get by. But people don't tend to think of this when they hear about the government giving corporations a tax break or some other consideration. They don't think about the fact that 75% of new jobs come from small corporations.

Someone say's corporation and it's immediately assumed to be owned and run by a handful of super-rich assholes who skim off all the profit and are only interested in their own pocket books. The reality of the situation is quite different, even for the giant corporations. Owner ship, in most cases, is largely public. And what do you think pension funds invest in? Public companies. Where is your 401k invested? Public companies.

The United States has, in general, a terrible social welfare system, compared to most first-world countries.

And I agree that we need reforms and improvements in these areas, where have I said otherwise? Primarily the problem is poor organization and horrific inefficiency on a governmental level; special interest groups have far too much influence, financial responsibility does not exist, and real-world results are entirely ignored as people vote according to partisan alliances and ideological hogwash. The political mantra is always "more money"

The people at the bottom end, working for the big corporations, are not joyously happy because market forces are looking after them. Rather the opposite, in fact. These people often are forced to work two or more jobs, with long hours, just to get by.

No shit. It takes hard work to succeed. What is it that you think everyone is entitled to? I'll give you my short list: food, shelter, medical care, primary education. Everything else is gravy. Aside from medical care, the rest is being provided for. And the problem in the medical industry is not the corporate sector and it's not the medical professionals, it's the insurance companies and the government.

Meanwhile, the executives at the tops of these corporations are being paid obscene sums of money, in the tens of millions of dollars per year. Somebody (perhaps you) said above that this works out to $12 an hour, once you take in all the long hours the poor overworked executives put in. You do the math, with a salary of $10 million, say.

Yes there are overpaid executives. That's something for the owners to figure out, which in most cases means the general investing public.

But you're not really reading what I've said, try again. 99% of businesses are small companies. Most of these people make nowhere near $10 million or even 1/4 million. Most make a moderate wage, say around 50k, maybe a few 100k if they're really sucessful.

I have two jobs. One of them is a VP and Office Manager for a small company. You know what I earned in the last two years as VP and Office Manager? Nothing, Nada, zip. My wife pulls a moderate salary from the company, less than she could earn working for someone else. We put up a ton of money and took out some major loans to accomplish this. We employee 5 people and pay them above the going rate. We're taking the risk. We're working our asses off for very little compensation. So if we do manage to become very successful who do you think should get the proceeds? How do you think we should distribute the profit?

Now, it is possible that Americans will complain about conditions to the government, and sometimes the government might listen to them, if it means votes.

You're suggesting what? Salary caps for the general public? Move actors can't earn more that 200k per year? Michael Moore needs to turn his millions over to his employees? Bill Gates needs to give back his billions? Where then is the incentive to take any risk? What will drive the economy? Who will fund R&D? Why would anyone take the risk and do the work to start a new business?

So, the big corporations use offshore labour instead, and pay those people even less than their American employees.

And in the process they raise the standard of living in the country where they're hiring. This is universal. Westerners cry that the company is only paying the poor employee a tenth of what their Western counterparts are making without understanding that the wage is 5 times, 10 times, 100 times the prevailing wage in the country. They're not coming in and lowing the standards, they're raising the standards in almost every conceivable way. Companies cannot open child-labor sweatshops in countries that prohibit sweatshops and child labor. And while some companies have indeed made an immoral decision and used such labor most tend to raise the standard far above what the country itself does for it's citizens.

The assumption by many in this thread that rampant capitalism is necessarily good in and of itself amazes me.

I have never said that. People do need certain protections. But please give me the example of when, where, and how unfettered socialism has ever worked. It didn't work in the Soviet Union, it didn't work in China, it doesn't work anywhere. Show me the government untainted by greed, free of abuse and irresponsibility. Show me the government that is not run by the super-rich primarily interested in their own power and welfare. Show me the government that is fiscally responsible in everything they do. Please.

Forget social welfare. Forget giving people a hand up. Forget free education. If people born into poor circumstances can't drag themselves up out of poverty, they have no right to live in America - or at least no right to be heard.

What are you talking about? Where did you get this idea? Of course we need to be concerned with social welfare. Of course we need to provide education. Of course we should provide support for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Who is saying that we don't? This is exactly the partisan, ideological bullshit I'm talking about. "If you're not a freaking communist you're all about money, you think people should be treated like shit, trampled on and abandoned." Propagandist crap.

~Raithere

 

[mouse]

If you live in an area of high unemployment, shouldn't you then MOVE

If you live in the US, that's perhaps an easy option. For those who happen to live in, say, a small European country, it's an entirely different story. Moving in the terms of distances that matter when it comes to escaping an economic slowdown, we usually express by the term "emigration". Although the EU made movement between member countries considerably easier, it's still a time consuming and costly business. If you are unemployed, time is perhaps not an issue, but the capital necessary to set up somewhere else, obviously, is.

Even moving within my own country is fiscally challenging, especially when you've just graduated. You want to live near the economic hotspot, but of course you can not possibly buy your own appartment. It would set you back about 150 000 euros (which translates in about 180 000 dollars, at the moment of this writing). I certainly didn't have that on my account after getting a degree. In fact, most students consider themselves fortunate if they finish university without being in debt.

Of course, renting a house would be a viable option, but ony if you take your time. Getting through a waiting list for a decent room (yes, room, not a decent house) for the capital is about two years. An appartment? Anywhere between three to six years.

To get the point across, moving is not always an option.

or start a business of your own? Yes? No? If no, why not?

Good point. Firstly, you need be able to provide a service, which, in general, would be a matter of either a convenient educational background or personal talents. If you are educated in a branch of computer science, you'd be able to set up shop relatively easy as a free lance consultant or developer. However, if you'd been educated in English literature, you'd have to re-educate yourself first. Which is possible, but it takes time and, yes, money. Which I assume, you'd lack.

Secondly, you'll need a starting capital for your own minimum salary and, if applicable, necessary equipment. Obviously, no bank is going to give you a loan without a waterproof business case.

If you manage to draft up a good plan and convince your bank, the third issue would be to work your way through the bureaucracy the government will instantly throw at starting entrepeneurs. That's all perfectably manageable too, but it takes effort, time and most importantly, money. A very rare asset for a starting company.

To summarize, it's not impossible, but at the very least you need the quality of mindless persistence and some portion of luck too to come as far to be able to legally utter the phrase "open for business". To give you an example, I'm working for a small company, but even with our very limited size (11 employees, most of which are on a part-time basis), keeping a proper auditable administration for our tax services is a full time job.

 

[Raithere]

Somehow I missed this the first time around.

Or should I get some kind of retirement plan now? So I have some money when things go pear shaped later?

Abso-fucking-lutely. No question. The earlier you start the better off you will be, with a substantially smaller investment too.

Really, all else aside I cannot stress this enough. Invest now or you will pay for it later.

Run some calculations:
http://www.tcalc.com/tvwww.dll?Save?Cstm=fundadvice&IsAdv=0&SlvFr=6
http://www.tcalc.com/tvwww.dll?Save?Tmplt=Millionaire.htm&Cstm=fundadvice
http://www.tcalc.com/tvwww.dll?Save?Cstm=fundadvice&IsAdv=0&SlvFr=6

~Raithere

 

[mouse]

Somewhere people developed the retarded notions that life is supposed to be fair, that they are entitled to what they want, and that every imbalance in life demands redress from those with the advantage.

I know where I picked up that notion, or at least a more nuanced version of it. It used to be government policy. Even as recently as two decades ago, my country was a wellfare state, which tried to make sure that everyone would at least get a shot at being able to make a profitable livelihood, at the expense of those who were already doing well and could take the burden. Abuse of benefits, an inefficient government and an increaslingly more competitive Asia were contributing factors for social reforms.

Nevertheless, I still would defend that a society, which aims to provide at least free education up to a master's degree, free health care and enough benefits to arrange a minimum of housing and food, is a bare requirement if you want to give companies such extensive freedoms as to fire people without due notice. Having said that, I have to admit that I have no idea how to make that work in reality.

 

[wesmorris]

That's the problem, welfare states are as of now - completely unsustainable. It would take a serious technological revolution that involves a means of sustaining virtually infinite resources. So long as resources are finite, welfare states will be unsustainable.

 

[Raithere]

Even as recently as two decades ago, my country was a wellfare state

And how has that been working out? How is the economy? Is the economic sector booming with entrepreneurial spirit?

which tried to make sure that everyone would at least get a shot at being able to make a profitable livelihood, at the expense of those who were already doing well and could take the burden.

And here's the key question:

If I work hard only to get most of what I work for taken away from me and given to someone else what motive do I have to continue to work hard?

The government is already taking away well over 1/3 of the proceeds from my labor (actually it's closer to 50% after you include all taxes and social security). About 67% of this is spent on social welfare.

What exactly is my obligation to everyone else? How much more work do I need to do to support others? Why is it that because I have taken the time and effort to plan ahead, to work hard, to invest even when it hurt I am somehow obligated to assist those who don't? When will favor be returned?

Please tell me what exactly is fair about this.

Nevertheless, I still would defend that a society, which aims to provide at least free education up to a master's degree, free health care and enough benefits to arrange a minimum of housing and food, is a bare requirement

I think a masters is a bit much, trade school is much more effective. But yes, other than that I agree.

if you want to give companies such extensive freedoms as to fire people without due notice

I don't know how it is there but in the US companies are required to give severance pay. Two weeks is standard. For large corporate layoffs companies have to give 60 days notice or 60 days severance. I'd hardly call it "extensive freedom".

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Somehow I missed this the first time around.

Abso-fucking-lutely. No question. The earlier you start the better off you will be, with a substantially smaller investment too.

You can't buy a future. Not even for a small amount. Your precious economy can blow up. Your money is worth nothing. Your pension funds might suffer from a corrupt employee blowing up the funds...blabla..

my point was actually that there is no security for the individual.

Saving up for your own future is just another example of selfishness that permeates this society.

About fairness:

how fair is it people in the 3rd world are slaving for us? So we can put a little investment away every month so we can a nice retirement.

It is all relative.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

And how has that been working out? How is the economy? Is the economic sector booming with entrepreneurial spirit?

It is working out fine in Finland. You can't get more socialist then that. And they outcompete the US on almost every level.

So, it works out nicely.

 

[Raithere]

You can't buy a future. Not even for a small amount. Your precious economy can blow up. Your money is worth nothing. Your pension funds might suffer from a corrupt employee blowing up the funds...blabla..

No shit. That's a hoot. Considering that a page ago I was telling you there is no "safe equilibrium.

However, it is considerably more likely that the economy will be doing just fine aside from the occasional fluctuation. And you'll wind up dependent upon the coerced charity of others to survive. You're exactly the kind of person I object to helping.

Saving up for your own future is just another example of selfishness that permeates this society.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'd say that leeching off of other people's hard work because you couldn't possibly be bothered to save something for the future instead of spending it in the bar last weekend is the selfish thing to do.

I'm not the one expecting people to take care of my needs for me.

how fair is it people in the 3rd world are slaving for us? So we can put a little investment away every month so we can a nice retirement.

Beg pardon? How do you figure that one?

It is working out fine in Finland. You can't get more socialist then that.

And they outcompete the US on almost every level.

Yeah. Right...

GDP Per Capita, USA: $40,100
GDP Per Capita, Finland: $29,000

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You mean you don't know that your luxury is bought with the suffering of other people? People conviently living somewhere else?

And what does GDP tell you about living conditions and wellbeing of the general population? Nothing.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Business spending in research and development
Scroll down for more information
Definition: Business R&D spending as % of GDP (1999).


Country Description Amount
1. Sweden 2.58 % of GDP
2. Japan 2.19 % of GDP
3. Finland 2.13 % of GDP
4. Switzerland 1.84 % of GDP
5. United States 1.76 % of GDP

----------

Economy: Child poverty

Definition: Child poverty" index is defined as the share of the children living in the households with income below 50% of the national median.


Country Description Amount
1. Mexico 26.2
2. United States 22.4
3. Italy 20.5
4. United Kingdom 19.8
5. Turkey 19.7
6. Ireland 16.8
7. Canada 15.5
8. Poland 15.4

----------

Comparative price levels

Definition: Comparative price levels (OECD average=100)


Country Description Amount
1. Switzerland 135
2. Japan 127
3. Norway 123
4. Denmark 117
5. Iceland 112
6. Sweden 110
7. United States 109
8. United Kingdom 107
9. Ireland 105
10. Luxembourg 101
11. Finland 101

----------

Literacy - Adults at high literacy level


Definition: Percentage of adults whose level of document literacy is rated 'high'. Data for 1998.


Country Description Amount
1. Sweden 35.5%
2. Norway 29.4%
3. Denmark 25.4%
4. Finland 25.1%
5. Canada 25.1%
6. Netherlands 20%
7. Czech Republic 19.6%
8. United Kingdom 19.1%
9. United States 19%
10. Germany 18.9%

---------

Everybody can pick a stat that makes his point look good.

 

[mouse]

And how has that been working out? How is the economy? Is the economic sector booming with entrepreneurial spirit?

It used to be pretty good. During the nineties, our average growth was well above the EU average. However, after a significant slow down in recent years, the expected recovery fails to materialise.

If I work hard only to get most of what I work for taken away from me and given to someone else what motive do I have to continue to work hard?

My experience is that humans are competitive by nature. The drive to do better seems to be built in, regardless of a financial incentive. I'll admit that a suitable reward does obviously help, but I do not think it is the sole motivation for work. Why would there be a large community of volunteers, if a more attractive bank balance was the only motivation which could make people do something?

What exactly is my obligation to everyone else? How much more work do I need to do to support others? Why is it that because I have taken the time and effort to plan ahead, to work hard, to invest even when it hurt I am somehow obligated to assist those who don't?

The fact that you have the vision to give the future the due attention it deserves, gives you no right to assume that others can equal you in that. You seem to take personal responsibility as your slogan, which, personally, I find admirable. Yet, you can not keep the whole of society to your high standards. People make mistakes, and sometimes are unable to carry the consequences. That means some else has to pick up to bill. Today, that may very well be you, but what if the day comes when you make a mistake you have not been adequately prepared for?

When will favor be returned?

You get to live with the comforting thought that you are helping to build a society in which equal opportunity could bring social stability. Moreover, you may expect that when life turns around on you, you can count on protection just as well.

I think a masters is a bit much, trade school is much more effective. But yes, other than that I agree.

Perhaps. Personally, I find a university's approach to promote critical thinking extremely valuable in an open democracy and quite profitable when it comes to running a business. Moreover, in my experience, universities also tend to learn you how to learn, which makes taking up whatever the economy demands after graduation a fair bit easier.

I don't know how it is there but in the US companies are required to give severance pay. Two weeks is standard. For large corporate layoffs companies have to give 60 days notice or 60 days severance.

If I remember correctly, two months notice or pay is considered appropiate here. A very popular alternative is a time-limited contract, usually on the basis of six months or a year. However, an employer is only elligble to give two consecutive time-limited contracts. The third is automatically for an indeterminate amount of time.

As an exercise, I looked up which decisions for a layoff can be challenged by an employee. The layoff could be deemed illegal, if it's motivation or execution is
- on the basis of religion, race, sex, age, handicap.
- during the first two years of an employee's illness
- during pregnancy or pregnancy leave
- in association with a requested parental leave
- in association with the employee's potential duties concerning documents which enjoy the protection of privacy laws.
- on the basis of the employee's association with a political organisation
- on the basis of an unexpected severe moral dilemma with his or her current function
- in association with conscription duties in the country of his or her origin.

I'd hardly call it "extensive freedom".

Nor would I'd call it extremely strict.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It is not so difficult to get rid of someone.

In the last slave job I was in they would just give you an extremely menial job (more than normal)....outside (rain)...(or inside when it wasn't raining).

Most people give up after a while.

Or as the last person I saw being fired. They set him up. Then lied. Nobody challenged it. Well, they complained for 5 minutes but then some older employee would set them straight on the truth. They would be next.

Can't believe people are so naive to think companies are nice..large or small...

edit...


they have the 3 one year contracts too in Holland. But people are usually not asked back after the last temp contract. Plenty of people left in the working pool...0

 

[mouse]

Can't believe people are so naive to think companies are nice..large or small...

Well, I happen to feel quite secure with the company I work for. To be honest, I enjoy working for it. And in return, I do my utmost to keep the whole show on the road. The incidents you cite are undoubtedly unfair and tragic for those involved, but I'm not sure if they are the norm.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Maybe not for people with skills. They have things to offer. But it is how it is at the bottom. Anyone can do that kind of work.

 

[guthrie]

The UK economy grew at a greater percentage during the 30 years after WW2, than in the last 20 years of Thatcherite "free" economy reforms. Thats partly because our economy was switched from a manufacturing to a services base.

Raithere, life is not fair. The problem is in building some kind of social system where people can agree on what is fair and act on that agreement.

Anyway, if we can all get off our nice abstract high horses and get back onto the topic of ID, speaking of which, Behe was in the box at the current trial, and seems to have managed to make himself look stupid.

 

[wesmorris]

And they outcompete the US on almost every level

Everybody can pick a stat that makes his point look good.

So you just said that to be provacative, knowing it was an empty statement only supported through choosing random statistics that appear to support it, but really don't?