While You Were Sleeping: Among Democrats 49% Favorable To Socialism

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
This isn't about how much they can make for retirement, it's about having ownership in the company they work for -- having a compelling reason to want the company to succeed.

You can't invest enough making 50k a year to gain any appreciable ownership in the company you work for.

What I find funny is this

Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.8 percent.

. We seem to talk all the time about big corp America but here is where America works, so why are they not majority owned by the employees? Also, people move a lot this days, they have about as much loyalty to the company as it seems companies have to them.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That is a very skewed statistic that isn't accounting for franchising. Which is simply shifting the management to a position called ownership.

The franchisees don't have publicly traded companies but the parent company is a large publicly traded corporation that feeds into the elitists shareholders bottom line.

a reply to: ketsuko

Though your posts do have aspects of cannibalistic tendencies at times ... don't overly aggrandize.

State the theory of socialism you are referring to. If not, you're just blowing smoke.

I see you are choicefully avoiding the facts of the matter of "your" money as previously pointed out to you. I understand why you wish to attempt to segue into some nonsensical parochial pretense at economic understanding.


... and you aren't talking about anything real. Let's drop the pretenses.

You live and work and have everything you have in your life because of two things: your own abilities and our society.

The results of your abilities are yours after a certain contribution to maintain the engine of your success: our society.

Now, we can quibble for decades about the details, but that is the fundamental scenario.

If you don't wish to participate in the system fully, and that means paying your part for the benefits you receive, perhaps go out into the wilderness and live off the land. You'll still likely be consuming our society's resources, but at least you'll have a better claim to "the sweat of your brow" than now.

/shrug

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

Yay! A 401k! I can contribute a meager amount of my low pay and get my employer to match it!

Meanwhile, my 'shares' are worth less than .001% of the total company, even though the work I do brings in twice what I'm paid!

Got to start somewhere, get a group of 15 people and start your own Burger King....

originally posted by: Isurrender73
The franchisees don't have publicly traded companies but the parent company is a large publicly traded corporation, that feeds into the elitists shareholders bottom line.

As I said to Mystik, get 15 of your closest friends and start your own franchise, problem solved for at least 15 of you.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Assuming there is a demand for a better "burger king", and customers with enough disposable income.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Xtrozero

Assuming there is a demand for a better "burger king", and customers with enough disposable income.

In this me first, me last and only I matter world, I doubt I could get 15 family members to cooperate long enough to buy any sort of business and run it successfully, much less then 15 friends.

Sad because my family has the money and intelligence that we probably could do this. However half my family doesn't even talk to each other, for various reasons.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: mikkelno
a reply to: infolurker

Nothing wrong with being helpful to the people who needs help. That's also a christian view, am i right?

Are you being serious?

Being relieved of your property and the fruits of your labor by the threat of government (fines, prison, or barrel of a gun) is not a Christian view.

Socialism doesn't remove your property. If you're talking about actual socialism it simply means worker owned but that isn't the kind of Socialism Americans are beginning to favor. They like Democratic Socialism in which Capitalism is still the economic model. It means that people can still raise capital, take loans and have investors if they choose to to open or operate their own businesses. The stock market would still exist so would banks.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Xtrozero

Assuming there is a demand for a better "burger king", and customers with enough disposable income.

The deal is it isn't that easy to get ahead, and I would hate flipping burgers for the next 40 years even if it paid 100k per year as part 1/15 owner and we all worked it. It seems that people want others to do it for them. I want a Pension if I work here, I want to be part owner etc. Full Sails Brewing out where I live is 100% employee owned but they built it from the ground up. I think that is about the only way to do it.

The company I work for started in garage, today there is about 1000 employees. They sold the company to as very large company 8 years ago. Investors got return on their investments. Today I have a good job even though I have a 401(k) that is nicely growing BTW. I could quit tomorrow if I wanted and that is nice knowing I do not need to work there my whole life to get a Pension.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Sad because my family has the money and intelligence that we probably could do this. However half my family doesn't even talk to each other, for various reasons.

The old India model... 12 family members come here all work minimum wage and live together and pool their money. They learn the convenience store quite well and buy some small market in a bad part of town. They continue to work and open up other small markets and one day they have a string to 7-11s. We laugh about it, but they laugh all the way to the bank.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Footing the bill? Sure, we pay taxes, those taxes are used for all kinds of things.

We do, and I feel we pay too much of them.

As for the saying that it goes right back into the economy, that is the a fallacy that Bastiat addressed quite some time ago. It is not sound economics.

This is not to say I am opposed to social assistance, just that it is not a net benefit to the economy.

Everyone has always felt that they pay to much taxes. It's the nature of taxes.

It is not a fallacy. It's fact. Simple economic fact. Where does the money of the working poor go?

Simple question; simple answer.

(Bastiat is a theorist, why cite a theory as if it is proven fact? Your Austrians notwithstanding. )

Inflation has removed 95% of the poor people's wealth, and 95% the employer's payrolls.

Inflation is from Socialism, the ditz at the door who let in the vampire.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Sad because my family has the money and intelligence that we probably could do this. However half my family doesn't even talk to each other, for various reasons.

The old India model... 12 family members come here all work minimum wage and live together and pool their money. They learn the convenience store quite well and buy some small market in a bad part of town. They continue to work and open up other small markets and one day they have a string to 7-11s. We laugh about it, but they laugh all the way to the bank.

Tell me about it. In my last job I consulted small business owners and many of them started as family business just like you suggested.

I wish my family would have been cohesive enough to do the same thing. Most of my aunts, uncles and cousins have college degrees and six figure incomes.

We would most likely all be well off, sitting at home counting dollars by now. Instead we all continue to work and carry various amount of debt.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The actions of the rich ruling "job producing class" has eradicated anything resembling a middle class in this country.

If you would deny that, I'm going to lose a lot of respect for you.

Still waiting for that list of actions, Gryph.

Or you can just admit to hyperbole.

Remember, they must be actions that were accomplished without government involvement.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Inflation has removed 95% of the poor people's wealth, and 95% the employer's payrolls.

Inflation is from Socialism, the ditz at the door who let in the vampire.

99% of inflation is due to a debt based society that allows usury, and a system that has given private bankers the ability to control the monitary supply.

Inflation is not from Socialism.

Eliminate private banks and usury and we would move into a deflationary model. A model where products get cheaper as production costs decrease.

Socialism will only work if everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.

There needs to be a culture change. People need to value their own worth --- meaning what they can contribute --- not what they can take from.

Education: can you contribute through science, medical, a trade, as a teacher, etc.

The culture of reproducing ourselves irresponsibly needs serious evaluation.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: mikkelno
a reply to: infolurker

Nothing wrong with being helpful to the people who needs help. That's also a christian view, am i right?

Are you being serious?

Being relieved of your property and the fruits of your labor by the threat of government (fines, prison, or barrel of a gun) is not a Christian view.

Socialism doesn't remove your property. If you're talking about actual socialism it simply means worker owned but that isn't the kind of Socialism Americans are beginning to favor. They like Democratic Socialism in which Capitalism is still the economic model. It means that people can still raise capital, take loans and have investors if they choose to to open or operate their own businesses. The stock market would still exist so would banks.

And I repeat. 49% of Democrats don't understand what Socialism is.

Capitalism is equal economic competitive opportunity and unequal outcome based on risk/reward and hard work.

Socialism is one-size-fits-all economic central planning by bean counters, and attempts at equal outcome rationing.

The two cannot coexist.

'Democratic Socialism' is just a shiny coat of paint. Buzz words. A panel-tested sound bite. Chosen to convince you that you don't need to think too hard, the government has it under control.

originally posted by: Annee
Socialism will only work if everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.

There needs to be a culture change. People need to value their own worth --- meaning what they can contribute --- not what they can take from.

Education: can you contribute through science, medical, a trade, as a teacher, etc.

The culture of reproducing ourselves irresponsibly needs serious evaluation.

If everyone takes responsibility for their actions, we don't need socialism. Socialism can only exist with an overpowered government to force it on everyone.

In the mean time, there is a reason Star Trek is a fictional universe. We aren't drones.

originally posted by: infolurker
Progressive Socialism is on the move with Democrats. I guess I was hoping to never see this in my lifetime and it is crazy how fast this insanity (in my opinion) has spread in less than a decade. I guess the dumbed down US education system has succeeded in political indoctrination since they can't teach anything else but propaganda.

But of course, that's just it. It didn't happen overnight. It didn't even happen in a decade. It's been happening for many decades. A lot of people just didn't see it until the mask started coming off.

Go back however many decades you want and watch the most popular movies from that period. The socialist message will be there almost every time. Sometimes really subtle and other times very blatant. But it will almost always be there. What is happening now is not surprising at all if you have ever noticed how ubiquitous socialists have been in the power structure (and especially the education system) for decades.

In the US, if you're a Socialist, you call yourself a progressive, because it sounds like you're "for progress", even though in reality, Socialism is completely "regressive", given that it has failed every time that it has been tried, leaving countries economically stagnant or devastated. The only reason why David Cameron calls himself a "progressive", is because he agrees with the morality of collectivist-altruism, which lies at the root of Socialism. How can he oppose an insidious political ideology, such as Socialism, when he can't even bring himself to oppose its moral code? - Rougie, London

Actually, I think there's a much simpler reason as to why "progressive" describes these people to perfection (whether they like it or not). Their strategy is (and always has been) baby steps. That's the plain English definition of "progressive".

originally posted by: Annee
Socialism will only work if everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.

There needs to be a culture change. People need to value their own worth --- meaning what they can contribute --- not what they can take from.

Education: can you contribute through science, medical, a trade, as a teacher, etc.

The culture of reproducing ourselves irresponsibly needs serious evaluation.

Wow. Now that is an awesome statement.

You are right on the money. Socialism always fails when those who want to receive do not want to contribute and they will always support a Government that will give them more (See: Greece). It always happens.

originally posted by: Annee
Socialism will only work if everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.

There needs to be a culture change. People need to value their own worth --- meaning what they can contribute --- not what they can take from.

And of course, it necessarily follows that socialism can only work if irresponsible people are always forced into absolute compliance with whatever is deemed to be responsible. Which results in exactly what we have seen from the most severe socialist regimes. Extremely harsh policies and punishment for the slightest indiscretions and deviations from the rules.

When you have something that has to be absolute in order to work, you obviously can't leave any room for flexibility.

You see. We are used to engineering machines and structures. We can do this with objects because they are not human. You can force concrete into a mold and it won't feel a thing. You don't go home at the end of the day thinking about how that poor concrete didn't want to be forced. When you try to apply the same engineering concepts to human beings, you inevitably run into human beings who don't want to be forced.

So what do we know about this? What happens when you force someone into shape? Well, we've seen how it affects military people. It tends to turn them into killing machines. Which is (of course) morally ambiguous enough to not be worth debating here. But these people are (in the US at least) volunteers.

Consent matters. Socialism is not consensual and cannot be made so. And again, it has to be absolute in order to work. Which is why it is inhumane.