|
See? Americans aren't that bad... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
From what I've read, the country that gives the most to charitable causes around the world is actually Germany.
So the premise of this thread may be incorrect. |
Do you have a source for that?
And I'm sorry (not pointed at you), but taxation does not count as charitable contributions. If you're forced to give, it's not "giving to charity," it's paying your taxes. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Has any economic system not failed? Every economic system has had it's good points and bad, the American right-wing economic system being no exception. It's good because it's stable, but it doesn't cater for everyone with 12% below the poverty line (the figure is higher for some similar economies in Europe)
A blend between libertarianism and socialism is considered the most effective economic system by all Western governments and those that are further to the left seem to have less poverty culminating with the Scandinavian countries who, according to the CIA, have "N/A" poverty (which is because it is close to 0%) so go figure... |
Yeah, but those Scandinavian countries pay like 55% tax on income. (To be fair, that's the level for high income earners in Canada IIRC) But I don't think I'd enjoy living in a country that takes so much of my money.
I'm all for basic health care and free education up to high school and all the social benefits required for a person to be able to have opportunities to improve themselves.
But once you go over that and guarantee a comfortable standard of living for everyone, the desire and motivation to innovate and improve tends to disappear. Heck, would you want to work hard if you get 3 good meals, a warm bed and money to do whatever you want? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Simple mathematics.
Per Capita income.
The US person on average earns about 41-42k a year.
As a rough comparison to other westernised countries, earn around 29-33k a year, this includes UK, Australia and most of the big Euro's like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, France and the Japanese.
Living costs, the US is either cheaper or roughly the same as those countries.
= More spare money on average per household. |
Simpler yet; poor people can't give to poor people (what they'd like). |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I'm all for basic health care and free education up to high school and all the social benefits required for a person to be able to have opportunities to improve themselves.
But once you go over that and guarantee a comfortable standard of living for everyone, the desire and motivation to innovate and improve tends to disappear. Heck, would you want to work hard if you get 3 good meals, a warm bed and money to do whatever you want? |
Exactly.
If the Window cleaner is getting paid the same as the Neusurgeon, what do you think the career path is going to be? :crazy: |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Yeah, but those Scandinavian countries pay like 55% tax on income. (To be fair, that's the level for high income earners in Canada IIRC) But I don't think I'd enjoy living in a country that takes so much of my money.
I'm all for basic health care and free education up to high school and all the social benefits required for a person to be able to have opportunities to improve themselves.
But once you go over that and guarantee a comfortable standard of living for everyone, the desire and motivation to innovate and improve tends to disappear. Heck, would you want to work hard if you get 3 good meals, a warm bed and money to do whatever you want? |
And yet those Scandinavian countries still innovate, still go to work and have low unemployment work. The truth is most of the pro pure capitalist, low tax systems are based on false premises. No one has shown that more welfare leads to higher rates of unemployment. Usually the opposite is true. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Exactly.
If the Window cleaner is getting paid the same as the Neusurgeon, what do you think the career path is going to be? :crazy: |
Career path is not all about money. There would still be people interested in neurosurgery and people that can't do anything better than window cleaning. Money is not the only way of discriminating how goes to what job.
Hell, with the stress and liabilities, if the neurosurgeon was a rational player in an economic model he would be a baseball player! Why the hell risk dying of a heart attack when you can hit a ball with a bat all day and get payed 10x the money. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
And yet those Scandinavian countries still innovate, still go to work and have low unemployment work. The truth is most of the pro pure capitalist, low tax systems are based on false premises. No one has shown that more welfare leads to higher rates of unemployment. Usually the opposite is true. |
I'm not denying the fact that Scandinavian countries right now maintain high standard of living.
But I'm interested to see how long this goes before they gradually loses their will to innovate. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Career path is not all about money. There would still be people interested in neurosurgery and people that can't do anything better than window cleaning. Money is not the only way of discriminating how goes to what job.
|
Certainly there are people who live an altruistic life and want to work for the better of society.
But honestly, do you really give a rat's ass about other people, to the degree that you're willing to share everything you have, even to possible detriment to yourself and your family?
I don't think not many people fall under that category.
| quote: |
Hell, with the stress and liabilities, if the neurosurgeon was a rational player in an economic model he would be a baseball player! Why the hell risk dying of a heart attack when you can hit a ball with a bat all day and get payed 10x the money. |
Because not many people are born with athletic gifts that allows them to be a pro player? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Certainly there are people who live an altruistic life and want to work for the better of society.
But honestly, do you really give a rat's ass about other people, to the degree that you're willing to share everything you have, even to possible detriment to yourself and your family?
I don't think not many people fall under that category.
|
I don't think anyone is talking about a system that will cause detriment either to particulars or their families. In the obvious comparison, the Scandinavian countries, no persons or families are being harmed. And most people, if able to live comfortably, are very understanding and probably wouldn't mind working for a better society. Specially if society acknowledges and rewards altruism and looks negatively on egotism. There are ways around the problems you raise. In the long run a more socialist government is bound to be more stable and fruitful. A system where everyone has to fend for themselves, whilst everyone being interconnected at the same time is bound to implode. It will happen eventually in the US. The wealth divide is growing. Eventually it would lead to irreconcilable gaps and people will start revolting. At that point a more socialist government will have to emerge or the states will fall into chaos. Capitalism, as implemented right now in the US, is bound to fail.
| quote: |
Because not many people are born with athletic gifts that allows them to be a pro player? |
Easily fixed with 'roids ;). |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Career path is not all about money. There would still be people interested in neurosurgery and people that can't do anything better than window cleaning. Money is not the only way of discriminating how goes to what job.
Hell, with the stress and liabilities, if the neurosurgeon was a rational player in an economic model he would be a baseball player! Why the hell risk dying of a heart attack when you can hit a ball with a bat all day and get payed 10x the money. |
I don't follow the rationale with the neurosurgeon vs. window cleaner argument. If you take away the "advantages" of being a neurosurgeon (besides the supposed reward of helping people) who in their right mind would decide to be a neurosurgeon instead of a window cleaner? With the neurosurgeon you have years of hard work in school, followed by years of hard work in residency, followed by years of hard work as a surgeon. Why would you do that for say, $10 an hour, when you could wake up, wash windows and come home, working 9-5 with no schooling, for the same money? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I'm not denying the fact that Scandinavian countries right now maintain high standard of living.
But I'm interested to see how long this goes before they gradually loses their will to innovate. |
Even though the curiosity is valid, it does not add weight to the argument that they will lose it eventually. The fact is they haven't lost it. They are alive and well, and everyone is willing to work. Most successful CEO's know that people who are happy work the best. The government in these countries is doing exactly that, making sure everyone is happy and secure. You really believe that just because there is a backup net it means people will lose motivation? It's a pretty fatalistic view of humans. In all my studies in psychology I have never come across anything that would point to people becoming lazy just because they have a fall back plan. Millionaires that don't have to work still work, sometimes harder than many others. Many people work hard to get to one university even though they're sure to get in to lesser ones. I have yet to see anything in our current society that points to welfare alone creating more unemployment or lazier people. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I don't follow the rationale with the neurosurgeon vs. window cleaner argument. If you take away the "advantages" of being a neurosurgeon (besides the supposed reward of helping people) who in their right mind would decide to be a neurosurgeon instead of a window cleaner? With the neurosurgeon you have years of hard work in school, followed by years of hard work in residency, followed by years of hard work as a surgeon. Why would you do that for say, $10 an hour, when you could wake up, wash windows and come home, working 9-5 with no schooling, for the same money? |
People don't operate solely on cost/benefit analysis. Research on vocational choices point to 2 factors as being strongly correlated with vocational choice. One is complementarity between career and personality. Second is the occupation of your parents. Granted it is not a perfect correlation, but it is very strong. Monetary concerns, amount of stress, hardship in school have little influence in the decisions. Therefore it is more probable that as long as neurosurgeons have kids, and there is people that are meticulous, hard working and like brains there will be neurosurgeons, regardless of pay. This scenario is more probable than everyone choosing to be a window cleaner, or a bum.
You are also not considering factors such as the prestige of the job, the inherent interest people have towards different subjects, the persons characteristics, the desire to help or contribute towards society. There are many factors. Boiling it down to just what pays more seems arbitrary. Just because people will have more resources available for them, regardless of their status, does not mean society will melt. Even just the societal mechanisms that are already in place would make sure that everything kept going smoothly even with lesser difference in pay. Societal pressures are a strong influence in peoples behavior. |
|
|
|
|
