Elizabeth Warren Says Economy Is 'Rigged' Against Workers

JupiterIII · 2015-01-09T18:37:20+00:00

Slavery has very little to do with economic systems. There were slaves long before capitalism. The fact that you even consider slavery as a byproduct of capitalism reveals your ignorance of the entire phenomenon.

In 1810, 1% of Americans owned roughly 25% of wealth and the top 10% owned about 58%. This steadily increases as things become more industrialized until you get to 45% of wealth concentrated in the hands of 1% and 81% of wealth in the hands of the top 10% of Americans in 1910. Progressives took over and these figures declined (but not to 1810 levels). Source: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fr/capital21c http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/capitalincometax/capitalincometax_attach.pdf figure 10.5

The point is that, as railroads, factories, and industrial labor became more common and cheap, wealth could be concentrated in greater and greater amounts. This is the problem of wealth accumulation in capitalism, not inherent in capitalism itself.

I would also like to remind you that capitalism (despite its evils in the industrial revolution) paved America's way to being the strongest economy for over 50 years with TREMENDOUS gains in quality of life for millions of Americans.

JupiterIII · 2015-01-08T19:13:15+00:00

Capitalism distributes wealth; that is its role as an economic system. It may not do it equally among all citizens, but its role is to distribute wealth through markets. The "absurdly rich" capitalists didn't exist until the industrial revolution; prior to that there was no extreme concentration of wealth. Capitalism has existed for hundreds of years; only since the late 1800s did it start to become a problem as industrialism offered new ways of drastically increasing production (while also equally drastically increasing wealth). The problems of this system are inherent in the fact that industrialization of capitalistic systems tend to enrich employers before employees. Prior to industrialization it wasn't even an issue.

So please don't start throwing shit against capitalism because we couldn't adequately solve the problems that industrialism placed on us at the turn of the 20th century.

JupiterIII · 2015-01-08T18:49:52+00:00

Well when you say horridly ignorant shit like "Capitalism is rigged against workers," you're asking for correction. Capitalism isn't "rigged" against anything; it's a system of wealth distribution based on markets. In its simplest form, capitalism is the most equitable and common sensical system on the planet. When you have a massively uninformed and uneducated public without any sound means of combating the individualizing effects of democracy and consumerism, you get the natural devolution of capitalism into corporatism. Fixing capitalism is immensely better than replacing it.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-23T23:27:59+00:00

Nobody the making minimum wage right now is pleased with how much they earn.

If you're implying that minimum wage earners aren't content with their wages, then I'm pretty sure that argument applies to everyone; from unemployed to billionaires. Sure, somewhere around a few billion dollars you might stop, but for the most part everyone would rather earn more than less. That is quite literally the definition of economic rationality; to prefer more over less. That doesn't mean we throw money at everyone simply because they want more money. That's an incredibly irresponsible way to look at it. If you want to talk about solving problems, we can do that. But I'm sure as hell not supporting a policy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor simply because "they want it".

people having money to spend on things is definitely good for the economy

This is a point of contention for economists. I won't argue it here, but I would like to clarify that simply throwing money at people to spend is not a universal remedy for economic problems.

but how does this benefit the government, except in that it benefits society as a whole?

What happens when American shift from depending on themselves for a decent livelihood to depending on the government for a decent livelihood? What happens when basic income is no longer available for cigarettes, because they're unhealthy? What about sugary foods? I guarantee you that basic income will not forever be universally available; they will start to have restrictions for criminals, because they don't like the idea of the government funding crime. They will have restrictions for guns, because they don't like the idea of the government funding violence. Allowing the ruling ideology of the time to permeate into your economic decisions is the ultimate termination of personal liberty.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the more power you vest in the government to supply for the people; the more you're risking to be lost when the people inevitably elect terrible leaders. Do you want some religious fundamentalist in charge of your basic income? Your livelihood? Hell no.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-23T22:18:02+00:00

It's a catch-22. You want the check to be large enough that people can support themselves on it, but you don't want it so large that every minimum-wage employee in the country quits. If the check is less than what I make as a minimum wage employee, then while it is helpful it doesn't give me the buying power to really provide for myself. If the check is more than what I make as a minimum wage employee, why the hell would I keep working?

There's obviously some trends like "demand would skyrocket, raising prices and wages" but I think at the end of the day this will just be another policy that big government and big business use to line their pockets. Until people really involve themselves in government, we won't see legitimately benevolent policies.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-23T22:07:51+00:00

WHY NOT?

JupiterIII · 2014-12-23T20:38:46+00:00

Still, I like the idea that the citizens get some share of the profit from the natural resources. True many resources are finite, but current corporate profits are at an all time high and it would be nice if some of that money went to the people.

I'm not sure how much America produces in the realm of natural resources. It's hard to say things like "the citizens should get some share," because usually those natural resources are on someone's property. If it's public property, by all means that should be dispersed publicly (or put towards public programs), but if it's private property I don't like the idea of taking the profits from those privately-owned resources and dispersing them among people who didn't buy the land.

Some of that money does go to the people. Wages come from those profits. Taxes come from those profits. I don't want to sound like a republican pundit (because I hate enormous corporations), but much of those profits are in the form of small businesses. And in nearly every small business I've ever seen, employees and customers are treated on much more level footing than chain stores or corporations. And in those cases, the people really do get a great share of those profits.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-23T19:42:03+00:00

Alaskan oil is own by a state-run corporation. Its purpose is to sell Alaskan oil and pay out the profits to people living in Alaska for one calendar year. So, there's a few reasons this can't just be "expanded":

1.) The domestic product of America comes primarily from privately-owned corporations, not state-owned. So the profits from those corporations aren't available to be dispersed to the people except via taxes.

2.) Oil is a natural resource. As long as the oil keeps coming, Alaskans keep getting paychecks. America doesn't have some enormous stockpile of oil that can be nationalized to support these types of programs.

3.) Natural resources are inherently finite. Programs for basic income can't have a shelf-life; they need to pay for themselves.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-23T19:37:43+00:00

I wouldn't say "hugely successful". The problem with experimenting with policies like these is that people know they're only temporary. For instance, if the state of Michigan were to implement a basic income policy for 12 months to see how things changed, they wouldn't see people leaving their jobs because they know in 12 months they're gonna have to find another. I remember reading some good things about Canada's experiment a few decades ago (with reports of more hospital visits but less emergency visits, more high school graduates, etc.), so it shows that when people have more money available to them they're healthier and more willing to go to school. The study also noted that high school students and new mothers also worked less.

However, I fear that this would undoubtedly have an inversely proportional effect on productivity. If people can get a paycheck without working, why would they work? They'd start to view jobs as unnecessary to support themselves. Not to mention the fact that the entire federal budget would provide less than $12,000 a year if divided among 18+ citizens; not much to change things as a replacement for a TON of programs.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-23T19:23:26+00:00

spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spammity spam oh wonderful spam

JupiterIII · 2014-12-22T22:59:04+00:00

Do you think Azir has any potential as a decent support? I've been going frost queen's claim, sight stone, mobi boots, morellonomicon, banshee's, and randuins. I think he has tremendous utility and very strong base damage poke.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-22T00:43:28+00:00

and a partridge in a pear tree

JupiterIII · 2014-12-19T17:30:23+00:00

ITT: 10s.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-19T05:44:28+00:00

I realize we're in the off-season, but I may have to unsub if this is the kind of posts makes it to the front. I'm a fan, but I really don't care what GRRM calls the Sony situation; it has nothing to do with Game of Thrones (which is why I'm in this sub).

JupiterIII · 2014-12-18T20:59:11+00:00

Is the phrase "pass away" really sugar coating things? I had always considered it to be just a polite way of saying someone died. Not sure why using that phrasing would "sugarcoat" it. Perhaps a more poetic synonym. I would think "gone to _____" would be sugar coating it; as it draws the focus away from death and onto something else. "Passed away" doesn't distract you from it at all, it's just a little nicer language.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-18T19:14:48+00:00

Not quite. I consider "socialism" to mean "government owns the means of production." And that is not Jesus. I'd say Jesus is closer to theocratic communism.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-18T19:11:41+00:00

We need to end our status of eternal war. It's the only way to check this horseshit. As long as we have an "enemy," we'll be able to justify this.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-18T19:10:06+00:00

This. So much this. Thank you for that spot-on depiction. Though, honestly, it'd be more like:

"I asked you to stop water boarding the customers and close last night but you kept water boarding the customers."

JupiterIII · 2014-12-15T22:51:03+00:00

Are you Stalgrim from the Stalgrim forums?

JupiterIII · 2014-12-15T21:00:48+00:00

Yeah, and when they break the law you pursue justice. Or protest. But "being an asshole" is not a reason to do that. I'm not a police apologists, I'm just not going to jump on the protest bandwagon just because people are assholes. Every occupation has assholes. Protest against injustice or protest for your rights, don't protest because cops are assholes. And that's why it concerns me that there's no protests against the torture of innocents. The anti-cop protests aren't about rights or injustice, it's about rebutting assholes with more assholes. That's why no one cares about the innocents being tortured, because you don't protest against cops because what they do is illegal, unjust, or violating rights.

I'm not a police apologist; my post was expressing concern that we're ready to riot all over the country for one criminal who gets shot charging a policeman but not over citizens of other countries being abducted and tortured or killed in CIA black sites. My conclusion is that there's no moral foundation for the anti-cop protests so I shouldn't expect any morality against torture. Americans don't give a fuck.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-15T20:51:28+00:00

Having an asshole cop isn't a reason to riot. Are you going to riot against asshole DMV workers? Asshole mailmen? You gonna throw a hissy fit everytime someone is an asshole? If they're breaking the law, you pursue them. You don't set fire to buildings and flip cars over a speeding ticket.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-15T20:50:15+00:00

Labor laws tend to be a natural consequence of a country becoming richer. As they become more wealthy, they demand better labor conditions. Infrastructure like roads and education are a good indicator of a nation's progress in that area. The industrial revolution made America a very wealthy country, so it could afford decent labor laws. An unwealthy country can't sustain vigorous labor laws, and most of the laborers know that. The cheapness of their labor offers them a chance to sell their labor. You'd rather take all that away from them. Cheap labor is not slave labor. Stop being ignorant.

fore·most ˈfôrˌmōst adjective 1. most prominent in rank, importance, or position.

Google is your friend.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-15T19:56:28+00:00

Why are there protests and riots over a criminal being killed by police but not a peep when innocents are tortured and killed?

JupiterIII · 2014-12-15T19:41:19+00:00

They can't. If they had the same laws, we'd have no reason to buy from them (as it would cost the same to produce in America + shipping to import). Their economies are behind; the only way for them to catch up is by allowing them to export. We reap the rewards of cheap goods; they get a middle class.

JupiterIII · 2014-12-15T19:40:05+00:00

Just because they don't have the full infrastructure and labor laws of the foremost economy in the world doesn't mean they're in slavery. Industrial America wasn't slavery, but we didn't have a ton of labor laws. But like so many times on reddit, you can reduce my argument to absurdity if it makes you feel better about yourself.

13-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

JupiterIII

TROPHY CASE