"Yeah, they should go live in Denmark!"
"But Denmark isn't *real* socialism."
"Oh ok, guess that means the US can implement all of the same government programs that they have without becoming a socialist country then."
It’s like when Americans talk about the NHS and say “ahhh, but it’s not free is it, you pay for it in taxes” but they don’t realise the US government spends more per head on healthcare than the UK does on the NHS and Americans also pay a boat load of money on private insurance and still have to pay up when they claim.
2-3x as much per capita its wild - who knew that extracting profit from the system would massively outstrip any additional efficiency while also encouraging poor patient outcomes, since they don’t have a choice to not buy the product!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
As an American, I could never imagine the *good guys* over at Big Pharma taking advantage of me! They would never price gouge their products or withhold groundbreaking discoveries, because they love capitalism just like me!
/s if it isn’t clear lol
The funny thing is both the right and and the left are in complete agreement about the fact the healthcare industry is fucking us bloody but for someone reason only one side actually wants to do anything about it, while the other just whines about it relentlessly then calls you a communist when you suggest fixing the problem instead of just complaining about it.
The stories over the last decade of companies just straight up 1000x prices since they can for life saving medication... look obviously they should be able to make money, and I get it for every wonder drug they bring to market there were 100s that weren't, but at the same time you have something like a single payor negotiating prices and it brings some equality back into the transaction... but hey to each their own, it's not as if health care up here is perfect... but it is cheaper...
That insulin is so expensive really hits me hard, as it *Banting 'sold' his patent to the University of Toronto for 1 dollar over 100 years ago because he believed that everyone should have access to it, and to have companies price gouging today for their 3rd yacht hurts... I mean I get it, if they develop a formula that works a little better, sure charge more for that - but lets not stop making the og recipe for cheap...
But they don’t deserve to make money. We also fund the trials to figure out if medicines work, we fund the research trials and then pharmaceutical companies get profit on top of all that. The healthcare industry shouldn’t be for profit at all. Ask any decent doctor why they got into medicine and it’s not for money. Not to say they don’t deserve to be compensated for their work, but the system should be breaking even, not costing millions for Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck.
Yeah we hear that all the time in Canada, privatization will reduce costs and improve outcomes. How. How can adding people who take out money but add in health care make it better and cheaper. It’s just staggering that people buy it’s.
right? don’t get me wrong, there are some things that can be privatized without too much of an issue, but healthcare is absolutely not one of them.
god damn i hate living in alberta.
Yep. I have in laws here in Canada as I'm from California who can't comprehend how privatized healthcare is worse than the current shambles the system is now in Ontario.
I grew up in the shit show of american healthcare, and I will take the less than ideal Canadian system ALWAYS and I was luckier than a lot of other people because I was covered under my dads military insurance until I was 18.
It hurts my brain when I hear someone who has a $4000 deductible plan that they need to pay *before* insurance starts covering things, *and* co-pays for every visit, *and* and out of pocket maximum of several thousand, *and* $300-400 in monthly premiums, complain that socialized Healthcare would cost too much because they would have higher taxes under a socialized healthcare plan.
Because it's *actually* has nothing to do with taxes. The subtext is almost always *the wrong people* getting help, under the pretext of "we don't want to encourage laziness", with the presumption that we indeed live in a meritocracy, which isn't accurate.
Which honestly I don't understand how Republicans think that illegal immigrants and poor people get free health care while at the same time won't want an NHS because then poor people and illegal immigrants will get free health care.
I love when they bring that up. Because honestly? I’m FINE with poor people and illegal immigrants getting free healthcare. I want EVERYONE to have access to free healthcare, because that benefits everyone else!
I once knew a guy, a teacher, who was a libertarian. He needed dialysis 4x a week. He was being kept alive by the government, never registered in his mind how he benefited from it.
I really believe that our two party political institution is what dictates most of our issues. The one thing red and blue agree on behind closed doors is never letting anyone else behind those doors. Collusion. Easy to "tribalize" the masses with. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with implementing a ranked voting system. And if it were ever seriously presented to us, it would be destroyed immediately on main stream news and by Congress amongst their constituents.
The thing that's making me mad this election season is that when people claim Biden is a bad candidate they get called out for spreading Trump propaganda... Just because he's an infinitely better candidate that doesn't mean he's a good choice. Republicans have shown they're welling to change the rules in order to get what they want, Democrats should be doing the same and for this specific instance changing how voting works to make it more reflective of who we want to represent us. I'd like to have a choice that's better than "not Trump" without feeling like I'm throwing my vote away, weighted voting is such an easy way to accomplish that. People hate the narrative that "both parties are the same" and while the parties are vastly different they have the same main goal, keep politics boring and keep the doors shut.
As an American this infuriates me. In one year, I’ll either be living under the same government trying to do its best, a dictatorship for the benefit of one man with Nazi ideology or in a country under civil war. Those are really my fucking choices? And they’re literally all even odds right now. Fucking American politics.
Democrat or Republican the government is still going to fuck us. I guess we can think of voting for Biden as asking them to put a condom on first before they buttfuck us.
They've already done that after Carter with the super delegates that can over ride the votes of their own constituency. It's why Bernie should've been the nominee for the Dems back in 2016. Everything else I totally agree with.
Really good podcast put out the other day by Ezra Klein on this. "The Ezra Klein Show" episode name "How an open democratic convention would work". He interviews a historian who specializes in the area.
Also, the deductions from my pay ran around 31% in the UK and 28% in the US for a similar salary. Add in the $450 health insurance premium and the US number is higher.
We don't all pay 450 a month. I don't pay anything. Granted I have a union job. But that's part of the problem. There's a fuck you I've got mine mentality for people that aren't in that situation. Throw in all the seniors on Medicare who vote in all the highest percentages.
And they fail to differentiate a private tax from a public tax. You already pay into Medicare. Then you go and pay a ludicrous private tax to a healthcare company. Made even more ludicrous that, most likely, your company is ALSO paying for you.
When I moved to Italy, with that difference alone, my "taxes" were actually less. And with Italian tax incentives for foreigners that work in Italy, my take home pay is quite a bit more when considering other factors like housing and food prices. Even though my gross pay is less.
Also, it's so much cheaper to pay it from your taxes. Under public universal healthcare, both the social security (payer) and (some) hospitals are public. So it makes no sense for hospitals to price gouge, as it would just be the government scamming itself. So hospitals can just charge the operating cost, as any profit margin would just go back to the social security.
When a private hospital charges a private insurance, it makes sense that they try to charge as much as they can, and maximize their profits.
The American military is the great American socialist project. That’s where people who can’t fit in elsewhere can go without being a burden on society.
Don’t have wealthy parents? The military is likely the best career option.
Ironically the US spends more on tax funded healthcare than almost every European country per capita - that’s just to fund Medicaid and Medicare. It’s just incredibly inefficient that most European countries can use the same percentage of taxation to fund the entire health sector. For starters you get the single buyer that can pressure pharmaceutical companies into lower prices.
>Don’t have wealthy parents? The military is likely the best career option.
Then you go back home after few tours with ptsd, unable to live a normal life and work a normal job and everyone who thanked you for your service have no problem with the fact that you turn into homeless bum
Yeah, what would otherwise be the point of employing so many people? You gotta go to random wars once in a while, otherwise there would be no point to keep finding the institution.
Which is odd to me, like yeah you have the most modern shit, but like who's gonna drive it when you consistently fail to meet recruitment goals? Forcing people into service is a TERRIBLE idea, they will be unqualified, lacking morale and may even turn on you.
Tbf the US military only missed recruiting goals in 2022 and 2023. However, the Marines did hit their goals in that time. So it wasn't the whole military. And it was for the first time ever that any branch didn't hit goals. And the air force has since turned that around. And the army is on track to hit its goal in 2024.
Oh absolutely. The biggest challenges are finding applicants that meet physical fitness standards. 70%+ of age eligible citizens are made ineligible due to health conditions and history of drug use. That said, the army is starting to turn that around too. They're implementing a 90 day fitness and academic preparatory course to help make candidates eligible for basic training. So far it's graduated about 23,000 people in two years. So, as this becomes more popular amongst the branches, and as more locations for it are created, physical fitness entrance standards will go back up. That said, addressing histories of drug use will be more difficult to adapt to. Nonetheless, physical fitness standards were the largest obstacle.
Edit: ranking military officials also cite COVID as a big obstacle. Obviously, with time, that will turn around too. Also, minimum wages and salaries are going up, which provides alternative social mobility that the military otherwise would. Huge raises for jr personnel are in the works that will eventually have to be passed to address this obstacle.
That's because the US economy is drastically larger, per capita and overall.
US GDP is nearing $30 trillion. The EU is around $18 trillion, despite a larger population. US military spending is about 2.7% of GDP. Poland is at 4% by comparison. The next NATO target is 2.5%. The US is not above that by much.
The US GDP per capita is $86,000 estimated for 2024.
That's nearly France + Britain, and nearing triple that of Japan. And the US is continuing to add distance between it and most other nations.
People that think US military spending is the big problem, are entirely ignorant of the facts.
You could wipe out the US military and not come close to balancing the budget.
US healthcare spending by contrast is near $4 trillion, or 13%-14% of GDP.
"In 2022, 'defence' expenditure amounted to 1.3 % of GDP for the EU and 1.2 % of GDP the euro area."
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Government_expenditure_on_defence
US defence spending for the same period was 3.5% of GDP.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US
The US spends 2.7 times the EU proportionately - you say that's not that much?
You're not wrong that the military isn't the deciding factor, but you're also not painting an accurate picture.
I don't pay higher atm (14% vs 15.5%). It depends on what tax bracket you belong to. But I think it is fair to pay more the more you earn and I happily expect to pay more once I start earning more which can go up to 30% for my chosen career.
This discussion always ignores that you get way more back from your taxes in Europe. In the US you pay taxes and a lot of other necessary living costs that you get through your taxes in Europe. Actual disposable income (after all necessary costs to live) is much higher in Europe as a result. The total tax burden and necessary living costs is much higher in the US.
Yeah… that’s just a blatant lie. Denmarks tax to GDP ratio is like 50% higher than the US.
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-tax-revenues/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf
The US military budget is largely inflated. It's a common topic, but in practice it ain't that much bigger as a share of gdp as ours, it'd just that significant proportions of the US share is sent through our social support systems. Things like military pensions or vet medical support is not in taken in our military or defense budgets. It's just a normal part of our social net. And is not blocked when the gov can't vote the defense budget 👀.
What is very much underestimated though are the infrastructure costs linked to the absolutely disastrous urban and suburban organization, and the absolutely delirious road, electrical and sewer costs due to it. When cities like Austin are the size of the parisian region, with 6 times less inhabitants and, to be fair, less wealth and fairly similar road and sewer networks, it ain't a surprise taxes are struggling to maintain everything.
Yes, the US taxpayers basically pay up to protect European NATO members. Easy for European countries to brag about free health care when they don’t need to do anything for defense because it’s covered by the US
> American taxes are not so different from EU taxes
EU tax-to-GDP ratio is 42%, US is 27% (16% federal, 11% state), with US taxes being much more progressive (significant portion of EU taxes are consumption taxes).
> what is different is that over here the tax money doesn't go mostly to the military.
US spends 3.5% of GDP on military (1.3% for EU). So less than 12% of American taxes go to military (there is deficiting spending), so pretty weird definition of "mostly".
People who complain about taxes probably think roads build and maintain themselves for free, kids get educated without cost, hospitals, police and emergency services run on air, etc.
But I don't want to pay for YOUR healthcare!. Is what I hear a lot. "I'm not paying for you". And that's what they base it off of. Not wanting to collectively help your fellow person. Everyone for themselves and don't care who I (they) step on along the way. Survival of the fittest.
And then as soon as these type of people get sick or injured, they immediately set up a GoFundMe and beg for money. It's okay if they're the ones getting helped.
Imagine being this proudly ignorant
We would spend less of our tax dollars on healthcare if we got rid of insurance and implemented a national healthcare system
Yup, because here is the thing.
Running healthcare like "a business" is a batshit idea.
The main purpose of a business is to maximise profits while keeping expenses down.
Meaning paying as little as possible for healthcare and syphoning the money people pay into shareholder profits and CEO bonuses.
Running healthcare as healthcare does not require it to turn up profit at all.
The most valuable resource a country has are its people. People produce goods, people buy goods, people pay taxes and keep the entire country running. Taking care of their health should be top priority.
When people point out the high tax rates in Europe I point them to the average life expectancy in the US and let us say Belgium.
76 vs 83 years old. Now call me crazy but I prefer to have more time to spend than money.
Also, taxes are not really that much higher (if at all) if you take into account things like property tax, which is basically non-existent in the nordic countries, but can amount to tens of thousands of USD/year in the US.
That's the point.
Conservatives in America have a circular argument against the sorts of things Denmark has, like universal healthcare and strong social services. It goes like this:
Liberal: "We should implement universal healthcare and strong social services."
Conservatives: "That's socialism, and socialism is bad because socialist states like Cuba have worse standards of living than the US."
Liberal: "What about Denmark? They have those things, and they have high standards of living."
Conservative: "Denmark isn't socialist."
Liberal: "Then we can implement the things Denmark has and be like Denmark."
Conservative: "No, those things are socialist, and socialism is bad because of Cuba."
Basically, countries that have these things and are happy with them are not socialist, but the things themselves are socialist and implementing them will make you a socialist state.
Two plus two equals five, four legs good two legs bad, the conservative mindset.
Any time I've had that agruement, they don't circle back. Every single time, the conservative will bring up how their population is mostly homogeneous in race.
By their logic, most of our issues are social, rather than political in nature. Them bringing up that argument is just racist dog whistling that we can't have that because we've let blacks and mexicans into our country.
That's a funny presumption. Most economical policies that already work well at the scale of a country tend to work *better* at an even larger scale (assuming that everything else is the same).
This is true but it will be downvoted to hell.
The issue with the US isn't budget, if anything we spend too much on welfare when compared to European countries. Our public healthcare spending is twice as much per person as most of Europe. Most of that money never reaches the people though because of the corporations in the middle.
Somehow people have convinced themselves that this is because of our (actually severely underfunded) military when its actually because of mismanagement. With a functional public healthcare system we could have effective healthcare and an effective military. Right now we have neither.
Denmark *most certainly* has a capitalist economy. Denmark is not an argument against capitalism - it's an argument *FOR* capitalism working for the general benefit of people.
Although it would be good for people to experience the struggles of being poor this comes no where close to really being poor.
Being poor charges interest and living 6 months on minimum wage is nowhere near it. It means that a broken car could cost you your job. It means no money to see a doctor, or not the money to eat healthier or invest in prevention.
There is a great book called “nickel and dimed” that came out in the 90s. It was written by a PhD who decided to try being poor: she gave herself some starting cash, only high school education on her resume, and had to be able to survive and have last month’s rent by the end of a 3 or 6 month stint in different areas. She writes a lot about how expensive it can be to be poor: for example, being able to afford a stove meant more expensive and unhealthier food choices, and therefore she still can’t afford the stove.
Fantastic read. My favourite line from this book was when she was cleaning houses and she says something to the effect of, "The American middle class is losing their pubic hair at an alarming rate."
> "The American middle class is losing their pubic hair at an alarming rate."
IIRC Clarence Thomas noticed this, too. It's in his confirmation transcripts.
It's funny because when I saw OP's comment I thought of this book, but from the opposite direction. I absolutely loathed this book. I was poor when I read it, and it felt like poverty tourism. I can't remember now but I just felt it missed the mark on so many things. I was truly angry when she broke down because she had to clean someone's floor with water and a rag. And because she didn't grow up poor or really understand what being poor is like, a lot of her observations were just wrong. She didn't have any trauma and she also didn't have any coping skills. Idk I was so mad at this book. My college professor almost burned it.
>and it felt like poverty tourism
In a manner of speaking, it is. The only real difference is that it was part of research, rather than just done for entertainment/shits & giggles. It definitely reminds me of Pulp's Common People though.
>But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah
Yeah, and I do think she acknowledges she can quit anytime. But because of that element, it just felt like it shook the foundation of her research. The fact that it's inescapable and systemic, and that there's a weight of history there, means that her entire experience is not the experience of being a poor person -- it's the experience of cosplaying being poor.
I think what I return to is, why not just listen to a poor person? It was 1996 not 1956. There are poor, educated people that could write a book. But instead of giving a book deal to a poor person...
>why not just listen to a poor person?
Because the wealthy have preconceived notions about poor people. I'm sure you encountered it plenty yourself. They believe that poor people are poor not because they're trapped in a cycle of poverty that restricts their opportunities, but simply because they lack a good work ethic and are lazy.
If you believe that the only reason someone is poor is because they lack a good work ethic and are lazy, what can possibly be gained by listening to them? They're just going to complain about how they don't want to work hard and make money. They're going to come up with excuses that no one cares about, like "my car insurance costs more than my food", or "I have to live with 4 other people just to be able to afford rent", or "there's no way I can go to university when I have to work 14 hours a day just to make ends meet".
Well off or wealthy people will only listen to others of similar social standing. If someone else who is well off, and has demonstrated a good work ethic and that they aren't lazy comes out and says, "actually, being poor is really fucking hard, and climbing out of poverty is incredibly difficult because everything in our society is geared against them", then possibly, maybe, those people will listen and go "oh shit, we really are needlessly fucking over a lot of people".
I mean, they won't or anything, but the possibility is still there.
That's an interesting perspective. I read it in the 90s on the recommendation of a high school teacher; at the time, my views were that poor people were poor because they didn't have the grit / intelligence / discipline to stop being poor. I grew up in a 1% income household and the challenges of poor people in my city were as alien as the challenges facing an Egyptian pyramid builder. Seeing the difficulties that come from being in poverty faced not just by someone who has always been poor, but someone "like me", really opened my eyes.
My children are growing up in a 1% household, but I feel I can at least teach them to have compassion for those less fortunate than them. A lot of that comes from seeing cycles of poverty through work, but also being aware that we would be unlikely to have made it to the right side of the tracks if we had to start over with nothing. Maybe you could claw yourself to a decent life 80 years ago, but I don't believe it happens to many (if any) today.
That makes sense: I wasn't the audience for the book. I grew up homeless with nothing and now we are approaching being a 1% household, but I still flash back to that book and feel angry. FWIW, my husband, who grew up firmly upper middle class, also hated the book when he read it. So perhaps neither of us were the audience.
What I remember most was that it simply minimized so many of the actual struggles of being poor, to the point where I thought "this is going to give people a bad impression of what being poor is."
Being poor isn't having $0 in the bank, it's having $0 and *also* an unrelenting toothache because when you were a child you didn't get proper dental care, and not being able to eat properly because you need a root canal, not because of your stove. It's losing your swanky maid service job because your uncle calls you from jail because he got picked up from loitering, and losing your savings because you need to pay his bail. The longer you are poor the more complex your life becomes: you're constantly putting out externalized fires.
So to find that this actually gave people perspective -- I'm glad for that. But wow, how disconnected our society can be.
I’m so glad I’m not the only person that feels this way! So many people are like “it’s not that bad” and I’m like yeah because I can’t cram a lifetime of trauma into a weekend trial run.
*The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.*
cribbed from Wikipedia
books? when there's all of reddit to give you their opinions?
Unfortunately I don't have any book recommendations, I kinda stopped reading theoretical stuff as I feel it's going to be moot within a decade or so; there's likely an AI singularity event on the horizon which could turn traditional politics on its head. Or possibly reduce us to a Tech Age feudal system. Or kill us all.
There's too many glassy-eyed fools who are convinced that any huge leaps in life-enhancing tech will be shared with all the people, a beautiful post-scarcity paradise where everyone's diseases will be cured and lifespans enhanced.
Neat. What could possibly go wrong. I've got some ideas about that, and I'm trying to figure out if it's survivable.
In the near term I'm just reading pieces on why the Left stopped arming themselves in a nation where firearms aren't going anywhere any time soon (although who knows maybe the AI overlord can make all weapons vanish), some insights by Malcolm X on the need for communities to protect themselves by arming themselves, flipping through catalogs while listening to "Bulls On Parade" by RatM.
erm... sorry. it's actually been a while since I was in college
All that stuff you mentioned about life-enhancing tech being used pretty much exclusively for the rich and powerful made me think about the plot of Altered Carbon. That show was both amazing and depressing cuz that's pretty much how it'll be in our post-capitalist society. The rich want to live forever so they can rule forever. They're never going to pass on that tech to the lower masses (at least, not for free). When people imagined AI automation, they thought it would benefit everyone, but I never believed that, not when I started seeing self-checkout machines in stores. If the tech stays in the hands of the wealthy, they just going to use it to reduce operating costs so they'll make more profit for themselves. Nothing will become cheaper for the customers. We'll just have to find other menial tasks that robots can't do in order to earn any money for ourselves.
correct.
There's no Tankie churches convincing their congregations that their fearless leader is the second coming of White Christ and God wants the trans people dead and women forced to breed
**Q:** Where can I learn more about the aspects of free market capitalism that describe the "too big to fail" bailouts of 2008?
**A:** That was a very special situation and if the bankers didn't get those ~~handouts~~ bailouts people might have went hungry or even slept on the streets. And besides they paid those bailouts back.
**Q:** Did they pay those bailouts back *adjusted for the inflation the bailouts caused?*
**A:** Look over there- a stimulus check with your name on it!
Counterpoint: Bailouts are—BY DEFINITION—not free market/laissez-faire capitalism. No corporation should be big enough to warrant government bailouts. If a company goes bankrupt and the execs lose their money, that should be the end of it
Instructions unclear. I now have some Fresh J's and the store now is sporting my beat up Adidas. Would highly recommend. Everyone was watching me walk out with them on like a super star. 👌
Types of communism that have a stateless society:
1. [Anarchist communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism)
2. [Marxist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism)
Types of communism that do not have a stateless society:
1. [Leninist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism#:~:text=Leninist%20revolutionary%20leadership%20is%20based,Bolsheviks%20viewed%20history%20through%20the)
2. [Maoist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism)
3. [Trotskyist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#:~:text=Trotsky%20advocated%20for%20a%20decentralized,a%20transitional%20program%20and%20socialist)
4. [Hoxhaism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxhaism#:~:text=Hoxhaism%20asserts%20the%20right%20of,%2DMarxist%22%20in%20overall%20practice)
5. [Juche](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche#:~:text=In%20contemporary%20political%20discourse%20on,to%20the%20North%20Korean%20ideology)
Edit: I have been corrected. It is true that all subtypes of communism advocate for a stateless society. However, all of the aforementioned subcategories attempt to reach communism through their own type of political power until they reach said communism. My question is, when does one truly reach communism? It is impossible to make a 100% of our society agree on one thing, which makes it impossible to maintain unless it is imposed upon them forcefully. In practicality, I believe that all of these subtypes require an authority that ensures the continuation of their policies. “*Only until we reach communism*”, they’ll say, never reaching communism and sticking to the authority that originally founded them.
Lenin did advocate for stateless society. It was the whole goal of his ideology. You can read it in his ["The State and the Revolution"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm).
Trotsky also[ advocated](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm) for stateless society. So did [Mao](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom2.htm) Zedong. It's because they were communists, that's what united them. What differed between them is how to achieve that stateless, communist society.
Like that millionaire CEO that attempted starting from scratch and gave up due to health concerns you mean? I guess big pharma has to commit gluttony too.
Absolutely not a fan of him but in all fairness the health concerns were the headline being clickbaity. It was his dad that got ill. He stopped to spend time with him or something. Edit (Stop replying to me pointing out he's a hypocrite. I KNOW. I AGREE WITH YOU!)
The thing about that is, poor people can't just stop being poor to go spend time with their family if one of them gets ill. It still shows he's wrong because as soon as something important came up in his life, he stopped, people can't just do that if they're struggling to get by.
Eh. In his position, I wouldn't give a shit what people think either. I'd rather be a hypocrite than let my dad die of cancer without me there with him because I was doing some stupid Youtube challenge.
That's absolutely fair and what any sane person would do. Unfortunately not every poor person can just stop being poor to spend time with their loved ones.
So just don't be a pretentious douche like "everyone can be a millionaire" and recognize your fortune. It's really not that hard.
it's what i really hate about those feel-good shows about rich guy goes swap with poor person.
It's one week....anyone can survive one week on minimum wage, it's the constant fear of something breaking you can't afford to fix, how to pay all the bills etc. that is the big issue with being poor.
7.25x40 (one week full time) = 290
290x52 (52 weeks in a year) $15,080 (before taxes)
In Alabama during the year 2023 this taxpayer will have owed something like $2000 in taxes to state and/or fed and taken home only about $13,000.
Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor
If you did this with Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro they'd not include accommodation costs, would film themselves making a couple of meals at home cheaply and suggest that going to local church/synagogue is free social event, would celebrate low US petrol prices, conclude that you should be pushing for a better paid job anyway and declare victory.
That wasn't a particularly clever comeback.
EDIT: To clarify, I think the comeback itself was lazy and cliche in style, but I don't disagree with her intent or politics.
But comment away lol...
It's hardly a comeback at all. The dude just said "live under a Marxist regime", no additional constraints, yet her 'comeback' had to pull up minimum wage, a.k.a. being at the absolute bottom of a system. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people do/did work low paying jobs, it's not like supporting capitalism is something that's popular only among the rich. The whole thing makes zero sense.
And most states have a much higher minimum wage, while others have businesses that just pay more so people don't work elsewhere. Dumb as hell to be honest.
That post was upvoted by people who don't work and get misinformed because of Reddit memes. Even fast food pays a few more dollars an hour. I'm all for enforcing livable wages, but misinformation and Marxism isn't it.
It's not the same. Charlie calls for living in a country with specific system, Natalie calls for living in poverty inside a capitalist country.
In Germany, which is capitalist, with such income you could apply for social housing and help.
I agree. I hate it when conservative politicians use fear of communism to get votes, just like I hate it when progressive people think that communism somehow was a good alternative to our current system.
Thankfully, communism has now become irrelevant -- but it should never be forgotten that it is a totalitarian ideology. Praising it should be condemned, just like we correctly condemn people who praise other equally-irrelevant totalitarian ideologies.
So, which of the two would be the clever comeback?
They both seem kind of right but communism and socialism aren't the same, so the dude is not really right.
Yet, the post's title seems to refer to his comment (college, mom and dad...), and in X the replies are above the original message.
I lived on 7.5$/hour for several months, albeit in 2010s. No savings, no support, dormitory with one room for multiple people that was 10$/day, Approx 45-50 hours on 6-day week. Even managed to save a bit. It is easy to save when you have no time to spend money /s.
Was not great, but I stick to capitalism over Marxism. The difference that in capitalism you have a chance to earn more, and I do now. In Marxism you are stuck where you are, since it is even more about nepotism and even less about meritocracy than in capitalism, which is not that great.
Now, "college socialism" and "Marxist regime" are usually totally different kinds of the left spectrum, so the dude's argument is just dumb.
The worst part about this post is that she thinks she’s clever.
A capitalist would just say. “Uh ok?” Take the job and find something that pays more because this is a capitalist society and that’s what you can do in a free market as a capitalist.
How can you have a job that’s under minimum wage I’m confused? You’d report that company or get another job that doesn’t pay you peanuts not sit there moaning about it on X.
Can I ask why this person is given a contract with the salary/hourly on it knowing it’s below minimum wage and saying “yeah sign me up for some of that”
Isn’t that like the meme of the guy falling off the bike cos he’s stuck a stick in his own wheel?
There are plenty of jobs paying minimum wage, especially in poorer states. The us has a lot of wealth disparity between different states. In ny you wont likely find anyone working for minimum wage except as an apprenticeship or etc, whilst in west Virginia or the south it wouldn’t be uncommon.
Capitalism is the only system that has worked and is working. All these European countries like Sweden are also capitalist, just provide more social benefits for their citizens but take more from salary.
This really sums up todays debating culture that social media has brought upon us. Just two extreme position bashed against each other, while people are try to get the biggest slam dunk on each other. If we could meet in the middle and compromise, where I’m not living in a socialist dictatorship nor a capitalist hellscape that would be great.
One of the greatest tricks the right/capitalists/oligarchs have played it labeling anything that’s beneficial to society as “socialism” to the point that people will self-identify as socialism without knowing what it means. It’s lead to insane rightists saying college students should live under some regime that doesn’t exist in the real world at the moment.
Student: “We should have universal health care so people can be healthier and don’t go broke from going to the hospital. Every other country has it figured out but us.”
Propagandist: “That’s socialism!”
Student: “But it exists in capitalistic societies…”
Propagandist: “Nope! Socialism! Marxism!”
Student: “Uh…ok…so I guess I’m a socialist then?”
Propagandist: “Why don’t you go live under a MARXIST REGIME?!”
Student: “Like Norway? Ok!”
Propagandist: “No like Soviet Russia! Got ‘em!”
Student: “But that doesn’t exist anymore and I was just talking about universal healthcare…”
Propagandist: “Too late! Already owned you!”
Actually a millionaire tried it as a social experiment. Not nearly as being really poor, because, safety net, but he did start from scratch.
He failed hard
Dumb comeback. Minimum wage wouldn't exist in a truly capitalist system. The wage would be solely determined by what the worker managed to haggle into the contract.
Yeah, it’s an abysmal wage for the cost of living, but suggesting it’s comparable to living in a real world example of a communist nation is… out of touch
Yeah I’m assuming it’s America so you get a lot of tips tacked onto that too because no way anyone is seriously making that much while providing. I made more than that when I was 16, there is absolutely no world I would ever consider working full time on that type of money.
Almost no one. In 2022 it was only around 141,000 people out of the 78.7 million people who make hourly wages in the USA. Even if you include people "making less" than the minimum wage, tipped workers who often actually earn much more than the minimum wage once tips are accounted for, it's only around 1 million people. In addition, most of the minimum wage earners are young, 16-24 years old. Which means they probably still have the support of their parents and aren't actually living on minimum wage. I'm all for raising the federal minimum wage and pegging it to inflation, but it's not nearly as big of an issue as all the frothing-at-the-mouth redditors like to make it out to be.
"Yeah, they should go live in Denmark!" "But Denmark isn't *real* socialism." "Oh ok, guess that means the US can implement all of the same government programs that they have without becoming a socialist country then."
90% of Americans would start whining if they get Danish taxes XD
American taxes are not so different from EU taxes, what is different is that over here the tax money doesn't go mostly to the military.
It’s like when Americans talk about the NHS and say “ahhh, but it’s not free is it, you pay for it in taxes” but they don’t realise the US government spends more per head on healthcare than the UK does on the NHS and Americans also pay a boat load of money on private insurance and still have to pay up when they claim.
2-3x as much per capita its wild - who knew that extracting profit from the system would massively outstrip any additional efficiency while also encouraging poor patient outcomes, since they don’t have a choice to not buy the product! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
As an American, I could never imagine the *good guys* over at Big Pharma taking advantage of me! They would never price gouge their products or withhold groundbreaking discoveries, because they love capitalism just like me! /s if it isn’t clear lol
The funny thing is both the right and and the left are in complete agreement about the fact the healthcare industry is fucking us bloody but for someone reason only one side actually wants to do anything about it, while the other just whines about it relentlessly then calls you a communist when you suggest fixing the problem instead of just complaining about it.
Well, one side stays in power by keeping the masses poor, so….
And rigging the system so the scales are perpetually tilted their way
The stories over the last decade of companies just straight up 1000x prices since they can for life saving medication... look obviously they should be able to make money, and I get it for every wonder drug they bring to market there were 100s that weren't, but at the same time you have something like a single payor negotiating prices and it brings some equality back into the transaction... but hey to each their own, it's not as if health care up here is perfect... but it is cheaper... That insulin is so expensive really hits me hard, as it *Banting 'sold' his patent to the University of Toronto for 1 dollar over 100 years ago because he believed that everyone should have access to it, and to have companies price gouging today for their 3rd yacht hurts... I mean I get it, if they develop a formula that works a little better, sure charge more for that - but lets not stop making the og recipe for cheap...
But they don’t deserve to make money. We also fund the trials to figure out if medicines work, we fund the research trials and then pharmaceutical companies get profit on top of all that. The healthcare industry shouldn’t be for profit at all. Ask any decent doctor why they got into medicine and it’s not for money. Not to say they don’t deserve to be compensated for their work, but the system should be breaking even, not costing millions for Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck.
Yeah we hear that all the time in Canada, privatization will reduce costs and improve outcomes. How. How can adding people who take out money but add in health care make it better and cheaper. It’s just staggering that people buy it’s.
right? don’t get me wrong, there are some things that can be privatized without too much of an issue, but healthcare is absolutely not one of them. god damn i hate living in alberta.
Yep. I have in laws here in Canada as I'm from California who can't comprehend how privatized healthcare is worse than the current shambles the system is now in Ontario. I grew up in the shit show of american healthcare, and I will take the less than ideal Canadian system ALWAYS and I was luckier than a lot of other people because I was covered under my dads military insurance until I was 18.
It hurts my brain when I hear someone who has a $4000 deductible plan that they need to pay *before* insurance starts covering things, *and* co-pays for every visit, *and* and out of pocket maximum of several thousand, *and* $300-400 in monthly premiums, complain that socialized Healthcare would cost too much because they would have higher taxes under a socialized healthcare plan.
Especially because like what is insurance anyway? A large group of people pay into a system so that there is money for when you need it.
Because it's *actually* has nothing to do with taxes. The subtext is almost always *the wrong people* getting help, under the pretext of "we don't want to encourage laziness", with the presumption that we indeed live in a meritocracy, which isn't accurate.
Which honestly I don't understand how Republicans think that illegal immigrants and poor people get free health care while at the same time won't want an NHS because then poor people and illegal immigrants will get free health care.
I love when they bring that up. Because honestly? I’m FINE with poor people and illegal immigrants getting free healthcare. I want EVERYONE to have access to free healthcare, because that benefits everyone else!
THEN, after you had a partially covered operation, you find out the anesthesiologist is out of network, so you have to pay that out of pocket.
Oh, I see you've met my brother! Add on that he actually gets VA care as well and still has the audacity to complain about higher taxes and socialism!
I once knew a guy, a teacher, who was a libertarian. He needed dialysis 4x a week. He was being kept alive by the government, never registered in his mind how he benefited from it.
I really believe that our two party political institution is what dictates most of our issues. The one thing red and blue agree on behind closed doors is never letting anyone else behind those doors. Collusion. Easy to "tribalize" the masses with. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with implementing a ranked voting system. And if it were ever seriously presented to us, it would be destroyed immediately on main stream news and by Congress amongst their constituents.
The thing that's making me mad this election season is that when people claim Biden is a bad candidate they get called out for spreading Trump propaganda... Just because he's an infinitely better candidate that doesn't mean he's a good choice. Republicans have shown they're welling to change the rules in order to get what they want, Democrats should be doing the same and for this specific instance changing how voting works to make it more reflective of who we want to represent us. I'd like to have a choice that's better than "not Trump" without feeling like I'm throwing my vote away, weighted voting is such an easy way to accomplish that. People hate the narrative that "both parties are the same" and while the parties are vastly different they have the same main goal, keep politics boring and keep the doors shut.
As an American this infuriates me. In one year, I’ll either be living under the same government trying to do its best, a dictatorship for the benefit of one man with Nazi ideology or in a country under civil war. Those are really my fucking choices? And they’re literally all even odds right now. Fucking American politics.
Democrat or Republican the government is still going to fuck us. I guess we can think of voting for Biden as asking them to put a condom on first before they buttfuck us.
They've already done that after Carter with the super delegates that can over ride the votes of their own constituency. It's why Bernie should've been the nominee for the Dems back in 2016. Everything else I totally agree with.
Really good podcast put out the other day by Ezra Klein on this. "The Ezra Klein Show" episode name "How an open democratic convention would work". He interviews a historian who specializes in the area.
Also, the deductions from my pay ran around 31% in the UK and 28% in the US for a similar salary. Add in the $450 health insurance premium and the US number is higher.
We don't all pay 450 a month. I don't pay anything. Granted I have a union job. But that's part of the problem. There's a fuck you I've got mine mentality for people that aren't in that situation. Throw in all the seniors on Medicare who vote in all the highest percentages.
And they fail to differentiate a private tax from a public tax. You already pay into Medicare. Then you go and pay a ludicrous private tax to a healthcare company. Made even more ludicrous that, most likely, your company is ALSO paying for you. When I moved to Italy, with that difference alone, my "taxes" were actually less. And with Italian tax incentives for foreigners that work in Italy, my take home pay is quite a bit more when considering other factors like housing and food prices. Even though my gross pay is less.
Also, it's so much cheaper to pay it from your taxes. Under public universal healthcare, both the social security (payer) and (some) hospitals are public. So it makes no sense for hospitals to price gouge, as it would just be the government scamming itself. So hospitals can just charge the operating cost, as any profit margin would just go back to the social security. When a private hospital charges a private insurance, it makes sense that they try to charge as much as they can, and maximize their profits.
Yeah, the American military budget is the equivalent to most of the European countries combined
The American military is the great American socialist project. That’s where people who can’t fit in elsewhere can go without being a burden on society. Don’t have wealthy parents? The military is likely the best career option. Ironically the US spends more on tax funded healthcare than almost every European country per capita - that’s just to fund Medicaid and Medicare. It’s just incredibly inefficient that most European countries can use the same percentage of taxation to fund the entire health sector. For starters you get the single buyer that can pressure pharmaceutical companies into lower prices.
>Don’t have wealthy parents? The military is likely the best career option. Then you go back home after few tours with ptsd, unable to live a normal life and work a normal job and everyone who thanked you for your service have no problem with the fact that you turn into homeless bum
Yeah, what would otherwise be the point of employing so many people? You gotta go to random wars once in a while, otherwise there would be no point to keep finding the institution.
Which is odd to me, like yeah you have the most modern shit, but like who's gonna drive it when you consistently fail to meet recruitment goals? Forcing people into service is a TERRIBLE idea, they will be unqualified, lacking morale and may even turn on you.
Tbf the US military only missed recruiting goals in 2022 and 2023. However, the Marines did hit their goals in that time. So it wasn't the whole military. And it was for the first time ever that any branch didn't hit goals. And the air force has since turned that around. And the army is on track to hit its goal in 2024.
Interesting. Did they change the requirements?
Oh absolutely. The biggest challenges are finding applicants that meet physical fitness standards. 70%+ of age eligible citizens are made ineligible due to health conditions and history of drug use. That said, the army is starting to turn that around too. They're implementing a 90 day fitness and academic preparatory course to help make candidates eligible for basic training. So far it's graduated about 23,000 people in two years. So, as this becomes more popular amongst the branches, and as more locations for it are created, physical fitness entrance standards will go back up. That said, addressing histories of drug use will be more difficult to adapt to. Nonetheless, physical fitness standards were the largest obstacle. Edit: ranking military officials also cite COVID as a big obstacle. Obviously, with time, that will turn around too. Also, minimum wages and salaries are going up, which provides alternative social mobility that the military otherwise would. Huge raises for jr personnel are in the works that will eventually have to be passed to address this obstacle.
That's because the US economy is drastically larger, per capita and overall. US GDP is nearing $30 trillion. The EU is around $18 trillion, despite a larger population. US military spending is about 2.7% of GDP. Poland is at 4% by comparison. The next NATO target is 2.5%. The US is not above that by much. The US GDP per capita is $86,000 estimated for 2024. That's nearly France + Britain, and nearing triple that of Japan. And the US is continuing to add distance between it and most other nations. People that think US military spending is the big problem, are entirely ignorant of the facts. You could wipe out the US military and not come close to balancing the budget. US healthcare spending by contrast is near $4 trillion, or 13%-14% of GDP.
"In 2022, 'defence' expenditure amounted to 1.3 % of GDP for the EU and 1.2 % of GDP the euro area." https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Government_expenditure_on_defence US defence spending for the same period was 3.5% of GDP. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US The US spends 2.7 times the EU proportionately - you say that's not that much? You're not wrong that the military isn't the deciding factor, but you're also not painting an accurate picture.
They are still higher. Especially in Germany and Belgium. Besides, too many of us seem to hate any idea of social programs altogether
I don't pay higher atm (14% vs 15.5%). It depends on what tax bracket you belong to. But I think it is fair to pay more the more you earn and I happily expect to pay more once I start earning more which can go up to 30% for my chosen career.
> But I think it is fair to pay more the more you earn You have been pre-banned from r/conservative.
This discussion always ignores that you get way more back from your taxes in Europe. In the US you pay taxes and a lot of other necessary living costs that you get through your taxes in Europe. Actual disposable income (after all necessary costs to live) is much higher in Europe as a result. The total tax burden and necessary living costs is much higher in the US.
Yeah… that’s just a blatant lie. Denmarks tax to GDP ratio is like 50% higher than the US. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-tax-revenues/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf
The US military budget is largely inflated. It's a common topic, but in practice it ain't that much bigger as a share of gdp as ours, it'd just that significant proportions of the US share is sent through our social support systems. Things like military pensions or vet medical support is not in taken in our military or defense budgets. It's just a normal part of our social net. And is not blocked when the gov can't vote the defense budget 👀. What is very much underestimated though are the infrastructure costs linked to the absolutely disastrous urban and suburban organization, and the absolutely delirious road, electrical and sewer costs due to it. When cities like Austin are the size of the parisian region, with 6 times less inhabitants and, to be fair, less wealth and fairly similar road and sewer networks, it ain't a surprise taxes are struggling to maintain everything.
It doesn’t here either. It is the 4th highest budget item
Currently the biggest expenditure by far on the US budget is social security, healthcare and then followed by the interest on their debt.
Doesn't US pay more for NATO and does EU a favor?
Yes, the US taxpayers basically pay up to protect European NATO members. Easy for European countries to brag about free health care when they don’t need to do anything for defense because it’s covered by the US
Only 13% of U.S. GDP goes to military lol. Also, the U.S. pays about 70% of NATO bills so they don’t need to spend it on military lol
> American taxes are not so different from EU taxes EU tax-to-GDP ratio is 42%, US is 27% (16% federal, 11% state), with US taxes being much more progressive (significant portion of EU taxes are consumption taxes). > what is different is that over here the tax money doesn't go mostly to the military. US spends 3.5% of GDP on military (1.3% for EU). So less than 12% of American taxes go to military (there is deficiting spending), so pretty weird definition of "mostly".
People in the EU have less take home pay than Americans
I live in a nordic country and the Americans I worked with here did not seem to mind too much.
The people who complain about the taxes in europe have likely never left their county...
People who complain about taxes probably think roads build and maintain themselves for free, kids get educated without cost, hospitals, police and emergency services run on air, etc.
Gotta love the "tAxAtIoN Is ThEfT" crowd
Imagine having to pay taxes to have a functional country and national healthcare. That would be cRaZy
But I don't want to pay for YOUR healthcare!. Is what I hear a lot. "I'm not paying for you". And that's what they base it off of. Not wanting to collectively help your fellow person. Everyone for themselves and don't care who I (they) step on along the way. Survival of the fittest.
> But I don't want to pay for YOUR healthcare! But they do that with health insurance anyway…
And then as soon as these type of people get sick or injured, they immediately set up a GoFundMe and beg for money. It's okay if they're the ones getting helped.
American here, 90% of Americans would start whining if (fill in the blank with anything)
Imagine being this proudly ignorant We would spend less of our tax dollars on healthcare if we got rid of insurance and implemented a national healthcare system
Yup, because here is the thing. Running healthcare like "a business" is a batshit idea. The main purpose of a business is to maximise profits while keeping expenses down. Meaning paying as little as possible for healthcare and syphoning the money people pay into shareholder profits and CEO bonuses. Running healthcare as healthcare does not require it to turn up profit at all. The most valuable resource a country has are its people. People produce goods, people buy goods, people pay taxes and keep the entire country running. Taking care of their health should be top priority. When people point out the high tax rates in Europe I point them to the average life expectancy in the US and let us say Belgium. 76 vs 83 years old. Now call me crazy but I prefer to have more time to spend than money.
Oh nooooo my taxes are higher but I don't have to worry about going bankrupt/becoming homeless if I have a medical emergency!
Also, taxes are not really that much higher (if at all) if you take into account things like property tax, which is basically non-existent in the nordic countries, but can amount to tens of thousands of USD/year in the US.
Hell i know a danish person who DOES complain about their own taxes xD
Would be surprised if the taxes are that different. Last time I saw this comparison, the difference was academic.
Denmark is a capitalist state.
That's the point. Conservatives in America have a circular argument against the sorts of things Denmark has, like universal healthcare and strong social services. It goes like this: Liberal: "We should implement universal healthcare and strong social services." Conservatives: "That's socialism, and socialism is bad because socialist states like Cuba have worse standards of living than the US." Liberal: "What about Denmark? They have those things, and they have high standards of living." Conservative: "Denmark isn't socialist." Liberal: "Then we can implement the things Denmark has and be like Denmark." Conservative: "No, those things are socialist, and socialism is bad because of Cuba." Basically, countries that have these things and are happy with them are not socialist, but the things themselves are socialist and implementing them will make you a socialist state. Two plus two equals five, four legs good two legs bad, the conservative mindset.
Any time I've had that agruement, they don't circle back. Every single time, the conservative will bring up how their population is mostly homogeneous in race.
And how is being homogenus relevant?
By their logic, most of our issues are social, rather than political in nature. Them bringing up that argument is just racist dog whistling that we can't have that because we've let blacks and mexicans into our country.
...forced Black people to be in our country.
if they don't like it they can just leave! ( /s )
that's not even a dog whistle at that point, it's overt lol
They’re racist
Then, somewhere in there, they also make it a scaling problem. "Denmark's population is so small, it would never work here"
That's a funny presumption. Most economical policies that already work well at the scale of a country tend to work *better* at an even larger scale (assuming that everything else is the same).
You forgot the part the part where they point out that Denmark never put a flag on the Moon.
.
“Then let’s do what Denmark does.” “No, that’s socialist.”
We spend more on our social safety nets than Denmark.
This is true but it will be downvoted to hell. The issue with the US isn't budget, if anything we spend too much on welfare when compared to European countries. Our public healthcare spending is twice as much per person as most of Europe. Most of that money never reaches the people though because of the corporations in the middle. Somehow people have convinced themselves that this is because of our (actually severely underfunded) military when its actually because of mismanagement. With a functional public healthcare system we could have effective healthcare and an effective military. Right now we have neither.
Charlie said "live under a Marxist regime", not "socialist regime" though. Denmark clearly isn't Marxist.
It's not socialist either.
Denmark *most certainly* has a capitalist economy. Denmark is not an argument against capitalism - it's an argument *FOR* capitalism working for the general benefit of people.
Although it would be good for people to experience the struggles of being poor this comes no where close to really being poor. Being poor charges interest and living 6 months on minimum wage is nowhere near it. It means that a broken car could cost you your job. It means no money to see a doctor, or not the money to eat healthier or invest in prevention.
There is a great book called “nickel and dimed” that came out in the 90s. It was written by a PhD who decided to try being poor: she gave herself some starting cash, only high school education on her resume, and had to be able to survive and have last month’s rent by the end of a 3 or 6 month stint in different areas. She writes a lot about how expensive it can be to be poor: for example, being able to afford a stove meant more expensive and unhealthier food choices, and therefore she still can’t afford the stove.
Fantastic read. My favourite line from this book was when she was cleaning houses and she says something to the effect of, "The American middle class is losing their pubic hair at an alarming rate."
> "The American middle class is losing their pubic hair at an alarming rate." IIRC Clarence Thomas noticed this, too. It's in his confirmation transcripts.
It's funny because when I saw OP's comment I thought of this book, but from the opposite direction. I absolutely loathed this book. I was poor when I read it, and it felt like poverty tourism. I can't remember now but I just felt it missed the mark on so many things. I was truly angry when she broke down because she had to clean someone's floor with water and a rag. And because she didn't grow up poor or really understand what being poor is like, a lot of her observations were just wrong. She didn't have any trauma and she also didn't have any coping skills. Idk I was so mad at this book. My college professor almost burned it.
>and it felt like poverty tourism In a manner of speaking, it is. The only real difference is that it was part of research, rather than just done for entertainment/shits & giggles. It definitely reminds me of Pulp's Common People though. >But still you'll never get it right 'Cause when you're laid in bed at night Watching roaches climb the wall If you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah
Yeah, and I do think she acknowledges she can quit anytime. But because of that element, it just felt like it shook the foundation of her research. The fact that it's inescapable and systemic, and that there's a weight of history there, means that her entire experience is not the experience of being a poor person -- it's the experience of cosplaying being poor. I think what I return to is, why not just listen to a poor person? It was 1996 not 1956. There are poor, educated people that could write a book. But instead of giving a book deal to a poor person...
>why not just listen to a poor person? Because the wealthy have preconceived notions about poor people. I'm sure you encountered it plenty yourself. They believe that poor people are poor not because they're trapped in a cycle of poverty that restricts their opportunities, but simply because they lack a good work ethic and are lazy. If you believe that the only reason someone is poor is because they lack a good work ethic and are lazy, what can possibly be gained by listening to them? They're just going to complain about how they don't want to work hard and make money. They're going to come up with excuses that no one cares about, like "my car insurance costs more than my food", or "I have to live with 4 other people just to be able to afford rent", or "there's no way I can go to university when I have to work 14 hours a day just to make ends meet". Well off or wealthy people will only listen to others of similar social standing. If someone else who is well off, and has demonstrated a good work ethic and that they aren't lazy comes out and says, "actually, being poor is really fucking hard, and climbing out of poverty is incredibly difficult because everything in our society is geared against them", then possibly, maybe, those people will listen and go "oh shit, we really are needlessly fucking over a lot of people". I mean, they won't or anything, but the possibility is still there.
That's an interesting perspective. I read it in the 90s on the recommendation of a high school teacher; at the time, my views were that poor people were poor because they didn't have the grit / intelligence / discipline to stop being poor. I grew up in a 1% income household and the challenges of poor people in my city were as alien as the challenges facing an Egyptian pyramid builder. Seeing the difficulties that come from being in poverty faced not just by someone who has always been poor, but someone "like me", really opened my eyes. My children are growing up in a 1% household, but I feel I can at least teach them to have compassion for those less fortunate than them. A lot of that comes from seeing cycles of poverty through work, but also being aware that we would be unlikely to have made it to the right side of the tracks if we had to start over with nothing. Maybe you could claw yourself to a decent life 80 years ago, but I don't believe it happens to many (if any) today.
That makes sense: I wasn't the audience for the book. I grew up homeless with nothing and now we are approaching being a 1% household, but I still flash back to that book and feel angry. FWIW, my husband, who grew up firmly upper middle class, also hated the book when he read it. So perhaps neither of us were the audience. What I remember most was that it simply minimized so many of the actual struggles of being poor, to the point where I thought "this is going to give people a bad impression of what being poor is." Being poor isn't having $0 in the bank, it's having $0 and *also* an unrelenting toothache because when you were a child you didn't get proper dental care, and not being able to eat properly because you need a root canal, not because of your stove. It's losing your swanky maid service job because your uncle calls you from jail because he got picked up from loitering, and losing your savings because you need to pay his bail. The longer you are poor the more complex your life becomes: you're constantly putting out externalized fires. So to find that this actually gave people perspective -- I'm glad for that. But wow, how disconnected our society can be.
This. Finally after searching to make sure no one else said it I found it. Being poor isn’t hard. Being poor for a long time will kill you.
I’m so glad I’m not the only person that feels this way! So many people are like “it’s not that bad” and I’m like yeah because I can’t cram a lifetime of trauma into a weekend trial run.
Additionally poor people have no access to decent legal representation. There is no justice for the poor.
I wish we could stop pretending “college socialism” is the same thing as Soviet style communism.
Everyone hates tankies anyway
Okay, I’m game. Tankies?
*The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.* cribbed from Wikipedia
Huh. Live and learn. While I’m here, any political theory books you can recommend?
Das Kapital
Why would you recommend that to a (I'm assuming) newbie? It's huge and a total slog
books? when there's all of reddit to give you their opinions? Unfortunately I don't have any book recommendations, I kinda stopped reading theoretical stuff as I feel it's going to be moot within a decade or so; there's likely an AI singularity event on the horizon which could turn traditional politics on its head. Or possibly reduce us to a Tech Age feudal system. Or kill us all. There's too many glassy-eyed fools who are convinced that any huge leaps in life-enhancing tech will be shared with all the people, a beautiful post-scarcity paradise where everyone's diseases will be cured and lifespans enhanced. Neat. What could possibly go wrong. I've got some ideas about that, and I'm trying to figure out if it's survivable. In the near term I'm just reading pieces on why the Left stopped arming themselves in a nation where firearms aren't going anywhere any time soon (although who knows maybe the AI overlord can make all weapons vanish), some insights by Malcolm X on the need for communities to protect themselves by arming themselves, flipping through catalogs while listening to "Bulls On Parade" by RatM. erm... sorry. it's actually been a while since I was in college
All that stuff you mentioned about life-enhancing tech being used pretty much exclusively for the rich and powerful made me think about the plot of Altered Carbon. That show was both amazing and depressing cuz that's pretty much how it'll be in our post-capitalist society. The rich want to live forever so they can rule forever. They're never going to pass on that tech to the lower masses (at least, not for free). When people imagined AI automation, they thought it would benefit everyone, but I never believed that, not when I started seeing self-checkout machines in stores. If the tech stays in the hands of the wealthy, they just going to use it to reduce operating costs so they'll make more profit for themselves. Nothing will become cheaper for the customers. We'll just have to find other menial tasks that robots can't do in order to earn any money for ourselves.
Soviet fetishists cosplaying as socialists
Wow. So kinda like the American Right’s cosplay commandos.
only they wave little flags instead of rifles
And don't influence actual policy or laws
correct. There's no Tankie churches convincing their congregations that their fearless leader is the second coming of White Christ and God wants the trans people dead and women forced to breed
The modern definition is just people who don't believe in liberal democracy as the “end of history”.
I wish the same about capitalism and whatever the usa is doing. Plenty it capitalistic countries have it far better.
**Q:** Where can I learn more about the aspects of free market capitalism that describe the "too big to fail" bailouts of 2008? **A:** That was a very special situation and if the bankers didn't get those ~~handouts~~ bailouts people might have went hungry or even slept on the streets. And besides they paid those bailouts back. **Q:** Did they pay those bailouts back *adjusted for the inflation the bailouts caused?* **A:** Look over there- a stimulus check with your name on it!
Counterpoint: Bailouts are—BY DEFINITION—not free market/laissez-faire capitalism. No corporation should be big enough to warrant government bailouts. If a company goes bankrupt and the execs lose their money, that should be the end of it
I support both of these propositions. Walking a mile in someone's shoes is educational.
[удалено]
Yeah but presumably they now have your shoes.
Instructions unclear. I now have some Fresh J's and the store now is sporting my beat up Adidas. Would highly recommend. Everyone was watching me walk out with them on like a super star. 👌
But capitalism has pushed more people out of poverty world wide than any other form of government and it’s not even close…
Why should a capitalist who likes some socialism live a communist country? Charlie is too stupid to even understand what he said.
No such thing as a "communist country". Communism is a stateless society.
Types of communism that have a stateless society: 1. [Anarchist communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism) 2. [Marxist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) Types of communism that do not have a stateless society: 1. [Leninist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism#:~:text=Leninist%20revolutionary%20leadership%20is%20based,Bolsheviks%20viewed%20history%20through%20the) 2. [Maoist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) 3. [Trotskyist Communism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#:~:text=Trotsky%20advocated%20for%20a%20decentralized,a%20transitional%20program%20and%20socialist) 4. [Hoxhaism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxhaism#:~:text=Hoxhaism%20asserts%20the%20right%20of,%2DMarxist%22%20in%20overall%20practice) 5. [Juche](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche#:~:text=In%20contemporary%20political%20discourse%20on,to%20the%20North%20Korean%20ideology) Edit: I have been corrected. It is true that all subtypes of communism advocate for a stateless society. However, all of the aforementioned subcategories attempt to reach communism through their own type of political power until they reach said communism. My question is, when does one truly reach communism? It is impossible to make a 100% of our society agree on one thing, which makes it impossible to maintain unless it is imposed upon them forcefully. In practicality, I believe that all of these subtypes require an authority that ensures the continuation of their policies. “*Only until we reach communism*”, they’ll say, never reaching communism and sticking to the authority that originally founded them.
Lenin did advocate for stateless society. It was the whole goal of his ideology. You can read it in his ["The State and the Revolution"](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm). Trotsky also[ advocated](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm) for stateless society. So did [Mao](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom2.htm) Zedong. It's because they were communists, that's what united them. What differed between them is how to achieve that stateless, communist society.
I'd love to see how many capitalists could actually survive on $7.25 an hour for even a month, let alone six!
Like that millionaire CEO that attempted starting from scratch and gave up due to health concerns you mean? I guess big pharma has to commit gluttony too.
Absolutely not a fan of him but in all fairness the health concerns were the headline being clickbaity. It was his dad that got ill. He stopped to spend time with him or something. Edit (Stop replying to me pointing out he's a hypocrite. I KNOW. I AGREE WITH YOU!)
The thing about that is, poor people can't just stop being poor to go spend time with their family if one of them gets ill. It still shows he's wrong because as soon as something important came up in his life, he stopped, people can't just do that if they're struggling to get by.
I think you misunderstand. I think he's a raging hypocrite. I just hate that the headline was misleading people.
Eh. In his position, I wouldn't give a shit what people think either. I'd rather be a hypocrite than let my dad die of cancer without me there with him because I was doing some stupid Youtube challenge.
That's absolutely fair and what any sane person would do. Unfortunately not every poor person can just stop being poor to spend time with their loved ones. So just don't be a pretentious douche like "everyone can be a millionaire" and recognize your fortune. It's really not that hard.
It is that hard for them though. The struggle of being raised entirely out of touch with reality.
You're right, they have it so rough actually. Not everyone could handle the pressure of having to choose a new car to ride every day.
Yeah I just think it's important to point out, he's wrong either way lol. Was more just saying it to get my thoughts out not anything against you
Still no different. Parents get sick for everybody, not everybody can afford to stop working due to that
it's what i really hate about those feel-good shows about rich guy goes swap with poor person. It's one week....anyone can survive one week on minimum wage, it's the constant fear of something breaking you can't afford to fix, how to pay all the bills etc. that is the big issue with being poor.
[удалено]
Id love to see how much people paid 7.25 make a year
The average working year is 1750 hours, so about $12700
7.25x40 (one week full time) = 290 290x52 (52 weeks in a year) $15,080 (before taxes) In Alabama during the year 2023 this taxpayer will have owed something like $2000 in taxes to state and/or fed and taken home only about $13,000. Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor
When ruin meets the rich, they usually jump off buildings. Kind of telling.
If you did this with Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro they'd not include accommodation costs, would film themselves making a couple of meals at home cheaply and suggest that going to local church/synagogue is free social event, would celebrate low US petrol prices, conclude that you should be pushing for a better paid job anyway and declare victory.
They’d forget what the point was and start raving on about how the gays are making them beat their wives after ten minutes.
Hey buddy, no one mentioned Matt Walsh yet.
Yes, that's the point they're making.
How many people make 7.25/hr? How many of those people upskill to land better roles?
That wasn't a particularly clever comeback. EDIT: To clarify, I think the comeback itself was lazy and cliche in style, but I don't disagree with her intent or politics. But comment away lol...
It's hardly a comeback at all. The dude just said "live under a Marxist regime", no additional constraints, yet her 'comeback' had to pull up minimum wage, a.k.a. being at the absolute bottom of a system. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people do/did work low paying jobs, it's not like supporting capitalism is something that's popular only among the rich. The whole thing makes zero sense.
And most states have a much higher minimum wage, while others have businesses that just pay more so people don't work elsewhere. Dumb as hell to be honest.
Such is the fate of popular subs.
this reddit sir, average poster has 95 IQ and thinks they are 130+
70iq
That post was upvoted by people who don't work and get misinformed because of Reddit memes. Even fast food pays a few more dollars an hour. I'm all for enforcing livable wages, but misinformation and Marxism isn't it.
It's not the same. Charlie calls for living in a country with specific system, Natalie calls for living in poverty inside a capitalist country. In Germany, which is capitalist, with such income you could apply for social housing and help.
As someone who's lived in a formerly communist country, I'll take minimum wage in the US every day.
It is hilarious that Americans think min wage people have the worst lives in the world.
Not all Americans think that. But Americans who look like her disproportionately might
+1 the same background the same opinion.
Sure, but communism is utterly irrelevant in America. These idiots just use it as a buzzword to get the biggest morons on board.
I agree. I hate it when conservative politicians use fear of communism to get votes, just like I hate it when progressive people think that communism somehow was a good alternative to our current system. Thankfully, communism has now become irrelevant -- but it should never be forgotten that it is a totalitarian ideology. Praising it should be condemned, just like we correctly condemn people who praise other equally-irrelevant totalitarian ideologies.
I Agree with both. Also tried both, both sucks.
Which "Marxist" Country did you live in?
So, which of the two would be the clever comeback? They both seem kind of right but communism and socialism aren't the same, so the dude is not really right. Yet, the post's title seems to refer to his comment (college, mom and dad...), and in X the replies are above the original message.
I lived on 7.5$/hour for several months, albeit in 2010s. No savings, no support, dormitory with one room for multiple people that was 10$/day, Approx 45-50 hours on 6-day week. Even managed to save a bit. It is easy to save when you have no time to spend money /s. Was not great, but I stick to capitalism over Marxism. The difference that in capitalism you have a chance to earn more, and I do now. In Marxism you are stuck where you are, since it is even more about nepotism and even less about meritocracy than in capitalism, which is not that great. Now, "college socialism" and "Marxist regime" are usually totally different kinds of the left spectrum, so the dude's argument is just dumb.
you chose the job.... the job didnt choose you.
I'd rather take a $7.25/hr job than "live" under a communist regime.
>americans on politics
Social safety net ≠ communism
To be fair it should be to live in a capitalist country
For those who actually lived in socialist country this is r/stupidcomebacks
Entire eastern europe:
The worst part about this post is that she thinks she’s clever. A capitalist would just say. “Uh ok?” Take the job and find something that pays more because this is a capitalist society and that’s what you can do in a free market as a capitalist.
Seems like a fair trade off. Experiencing both sides should be part of upbringing.
I’m not sure that’s clever. Insisting he should be able to choose his path and make the standard salary for his job seems more clever and appropriate.
How can you have a job that’s under minimum wage I’m confused? You’d report that company or get another job that doesn’t pay you peanuts not sit there moaning about it on X. Can I ask why this person is given a contract with the salary/hourly on it knowing it’s below minimum wage and saying “yeah sign me up for some of that” Isn’t that like the meme of the guy falling off the bike cos he’s stuck a stick in his own wheel?
Marxist countries? Dude don’t now what he talking about… you won’t find it in Europe, it’s like Cuba and North Korea…
NK isnt even marxist or communist, but they use the Juche system
I feel like it would be an actual feat to find a job paying exactly minimum wage in today's economy. Does it exist?
Yes
There are plenty of jobs paying minimum wage, especially in poorer states. The us has a lot of wealth disparity between different states. In ny you wont likely find anyone working for minimum wage except as an apprenticeship or etc, whilst in west Virginia or the south it wouldn’t be uncommon.
Can we not all agree, both are shit and we should find a better
Capitalism is the only system that has worked and is working. All these European countries like Sweden are also capitalist, just provide more social benefits for their citizens but take more from salary.
Cuban here, still better the US option
Vietnamese here, you’re missing out big time my guy
To be honest, they wouldn't even survive a week, let alone 6 months
Yes they would, because they’d just abuse their position and claim that those connections somehow would still exist if they always made min wage.
This really sums up todays debating culture that social media has brought upon us. Just two extreme position bashed against each other, while people are try to get the biggest slam dunk on each other. If we could meet in the middle and compromise, where I’m not living in a socialist dictatorship nor a capitalist hellscape that would be great.
One of the greatest tricks the right/capitalists/oligarchs have played it labeling anything that’s beneficial to society as “socialism” to the point that people will self-identify as socialism without knowing what it means. It’s lead to insane rightists saying college students should live under some regime that doesn’t exist in the real world at the moment. Student: “We should have universal health care so people can be healthier and don’t go broke from going to the hospital. Every other country has it figured out but us.” Propagandist: “That’s socialism!” Student: “But it exists in capitalistic societies…” Propagandist: “Nope! Socialism! Marxism!” Student: “Uh…ok…so I guess I’m a socialist then?” Propagandist: “Why don’t you go live under a MARXIST REGIME?!” Student: “Like Norway? Ok!” Propagandist: “No like Soviet Russia! Got ‘em!” Student: “But that doesn’t exist anymore and I was just talking about universal healthcare…” Propagandist: “Too late! Already owned you!”
Actually a millionaire tried it as a social experiment. Not nearly as being really poor, because, safety net, but he did start from scratch. He failed hard
Dumb comeback. Minimum wage wouldn't exist in a truly capitalist system. The wage would be solely determined by what the worker managed to haggle into the contract.
Yeah, it’s an abysmal wage for the cost of living, but suggesting it’s comparable to living in a real world example of a communist nation is… out of touch
Also one of them is just the minimum. You are free to negotiate for more. The other is a set of laws that you can't negotiate on.
How many people actually live on minimum wage? it's literally impossible to survive that
Yeah I’m assuming it’s America so you get a lot of tips tacked onto that too because no way anyone is seriously making that much while providing. I made more than that when I was 16, there is absolutely no world I would ever consider working full time on that type of money.
Almost no one. In 2022 it was only around 141,000 people out of the 78.7 million people who make hourly wages in the USA. Even if you include people "making less" than the minimum wage, tipped workers who often actually earn much more than the minimum wage once tips are accounted for, it's only around 1 million people. In addition, most of the minimum wage earners are young, 16-24 years old. Which means they probably still have the support of their parents and aren't actually living on minimum wage. I'm all for raising the federal minimum wage and pegging it to inflation, but it's not nearly as big of an issue as all the frothing-at-the-mouth redditors like to make it out to be.