Does Capitalism Inevitably Produce Inequalities? The answer is yes.

originally posted by: daskakik

And if things don't change, then it becomes a revolution thing...

I call it a game reset scenario where the young today think that they can just reset the game if they do not like where they start in a game already running. They see one person that spent 40 years getting where they are and the young are like, that is not fair, I want that too, I want it all, I want it now!...

Be careful about the whole revolution thing...I don't find the young today to be very strong in will power...

It is amazing how some older rock cuts to the core with today ideals... Words of wisdom here lol Enjoy

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

The truth of the matter is that Capitalism will inevitably produce unequal classes. There needs to be a bottom line working force earning close to or on minimum wage. It's the only way Capitalism can function.

No. Inequalities exist in every system, capitalism simply doesn't hide them out of sight.

a reply to: Xtrozero
The point of the OP wasnt whether 1 individual can succeed, but whether many have to fail. You measure your success by what you have that others dont, so clearly for you to be in the top 5%, a lot of people have to be in the bottom 5%. Since resources are finite, whenever one person has more, someone has to have less. The OP's point is, since that is inevitable, we shouldnt blame the poor for being poor anymore than we should blame an old person for not being young.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Call it whatever you want, it won't change the players or the game.

Wouldn't be my revolution so I'm not sure why I would have to be careful with that.

I think you misunderstood the words of wisdom in those songs.

a reply to: lawman27

Ah, I see.

Well, I really don't think many people blame someone who is economically "poor" as it happens to many of us in life at one time or another.

What people despise are those people who purposefully live off Social Programs for life gaming the system for money, free houses, free food, etc. and do not want to work like the rest of us who get to get taxed so they don't have to work.

I grew up in a town with 3rd generation welfare moms. Girls in high school would get pregnant so that they could get free stuff and move out of their parents house.

Pretty good scam. Get a live in boyfriend with a job and sit around all day.

Seriously, I despise intentional social program abuse and let's be honest about it, there are millions of people doing this.

Why work, start out at the bottom when you can get free stuff from somebody else mindset.

An verified example (Politifact's rebuttal):
www.politifact.com... 3-hou/

Our ruling

The Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity tweeted that "Common welfare programs give income of $43,330 or $20.83 an hour."

It's not income as most people think of it. It's how much a poor single parent with two children under age 5 would have to earn to get the equivalent value of all programs, including food stamps, medical care, heating assistance and housing subsidies, plus $6,648 a year in cash assistance.

But that's a hypothetical maximum.

Now, want to hear a good one?

Job interview, towards the end of the interview the "candidate" asks how much the job will pay. When told she scoffed at us saying that she would maybe make 2-3 dollars more an hour than she gets for free now and that she was not going to come work for us 40 hours a week for just $2.00 to $3.00 an hour.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

One of my favorite quotes...

"Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free".

Capitalism is the only method where free people can use their God given talents to better themselves and their situation. It is a beautiful thing to see people motivated to reach their potential to the betterment of all.

All other systems cater to the lowest common denominator. All other systems suck the will and hope from the population.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Southern Guardian

One of my favorite quotes...

"Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free".

Capitalism is the only method where free people can use their God given talents to better themselves and their situation. It is a beautiful thing to see people motivated to reach their potential to the betterment of all.

All other systems cater to the lowest common denominator. All other systems suck the will and hope from the population.

that quote though...reminds me of a little witticism of my own.

"prosperous people are not successful...successful people are not prosperous." capitalism is a good example.

originally posted by: Metallicus
"Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free".

And neither of them has ever actually seen capitalism.

All other systems cater to the lowest common denominator. All other systems suck the will and hope from the population.

As I get older I can't help but notice how this idea is an excuse for getting pissed on, trickle down and all that.

Underneath the different veneers (forms of government) is the same corruption. The only difference is the thickness of the veneer.

The problem is that some of the things they want are the things they need to keep moving upwards.

If I can rent my own apartment, I can afford to buy a desktop PC or laptop. Then I can learn a dozen different skills; web page design, programming, graphics, Photoshop, 3D Studio, then I can build up a portfolio, print out business cards and become a freelancer, get a better job.

If I'm stuck spending all my salary on paying rent/food/heating, I can't get anywhere.

Look at the rents in London. Prices are £500/week for a single room if you don't want to live somewhere edgy.

originally posted by: lawman27
The OP's point is, since that is inevitable, we shouldnt blame the poor for being poor anymore than we should blame an old person for not being young.

Resources are not as finite as one might think, that is the point everyone is missing, and it is an excuse people latch on to. You bring up an interesting point... what is poor? Why is poor bad or good, same with wealthy? There is no blame game just reality that people do not achieve all they want to in life...There are happy people with little and sad people a much, so when someone complains about where they are in life that is something they need to get over.

I think we use the word poor too freely and we call 50% of America poor, but poor based on desires is a lot different than poor based on survival.

A favorite thing that Catherine Austin Fitts says regularly, when folks take a shot at capitalism... "The one thing we don't have in the U.S. is capitalism... we should try it before we knock it."

The power elite manipulate the crap out of language and idea memes in America, and corporations get goodies and benefits from the grifters we call "elected officials", inside the beltway... and the Mainstream Media plays along calling it Free Market Capitalism... when it's nothing of the sort.

If we had capitalism and free markets... there would have been no bailouts of Banksters and the Auto Industry. We would have had a terrible terrible crash... and by now we would have had a thriving economy where honest smart money had come in and created new businesses.

Sure, a lot of wealthy folks would have lost a LOT of money... well boo f****ing hoo! If you're willing to gamble... you better be willing to accept the risks. In the American corporate fascist state... it's the middle class and working stiffs that pay the penalties of bailing out rich folks who take risks.

Bailing out graft and fraud can be called a lot of things... but "Capitalism" isn't one of them.

FWIW... I've got no problem with folks accumulating great wealth... so long as they do it the good old fashioned way... by working for it... or having a family member who worked for it. But acting like you are in a casino and making hinky deals that will bite taxpayers isn't "work" or "productivity". It's graft and elitism.

There's no real respect for "The Rule of Law" in America any more... we have a two tier system. One for the citizens... and one for the power elite. Somehow... we need to get back to using the Rule of Law... the same for all people. Even if the system needs to implode to get there.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You're saying you're not aware of those on minimum wage, the poor, being looked down upon? I see it everyday. I see people on here criticize those on minimum wage for being where they are because of faulty choices, not unfortunate circumstances.

I really have not noticed this and I have worked minimum wage jobs most of my life and have never once thought of myself as being poor. Others may have had those thoughts of me but me, I have everything I need and most of what I want, and frankly quite a lot that I really do not need.

If someone looks down on me I could care less as I am happy with my situation and that is all that matters. I didn't make "faulty" choices because of what I earned, but I am surrounded by friends who make a lot more but are in dire straights due to debt and living outside their means, those are the people complaining about the minimum wage I hear from when they have to take a second job in addition to their "real" job to cover the foolish choices they make with their money, my circumstances are not unfortunate.

And I understand that you are not attacking capitalism and I did not mean to come across as attacking you, just needed to point out that its not any better or worse than anything else out there, and frankly until people learn how to be happy without money then no one will ever be happy.

The day is coming soon when there will need to be some sort of universal income due to loss of jobs from all the automation once AI begins to take over. And someone suggested a tax on every robot and taxes on automation type companies so when technology does take over that we will be able to compensate the humans who no longer have an income from work.

No matter what we come up with, there will never be equal status for all as humans are not wired for that. All our needs and wants may be covered but there will always be those who have more, and then someone who has more than that, and someone who has more than that and so on.

The greatest thing about Capitalism, at least to me, is this:

It provides, especially in THIS country (the USA), provides a greater set of tools than any other economic system in the world to turn POTENTIAL success into ACTUAL success.

When I was growing up, I didn't resent people who were wealthy and/or successful, to me, the object of the game was to BECOME one of them. Of course, "Success" can be measured in a lot of ways other than wealth, and being wealthy or successful is not evil, nor does it make one evil.

All men are CREATED equal. After that, all bets are off. Some are more intelligent, some have greater physical abilities, some have more ambition, some have great personalities, some are *ssholes, some are stupid or just plain dumb. Some are physically attractive, others hit each and every limb.

I couldn't begin to tell you how many times I was told while growing up "Son, in this country it is possible to become or accomplish anything you wish, with the single greatest limiting factor being how hard you are willing to bust your *ss to do so". (notice I said GREATEST limiting factor, not ONLY limiting factor).

I believe that the probability of success, however one is inclined to measure it, is directly proportional to this equation, or at least a similar one:

(intelligence + character + ambition + integrity) * How hard you are willing to work to be successful

and inversely proportional to this equation, or at least a similar one:

(stupidity + narcissism + apathy + sense of entitlement) * (laziness + how much of an *sshole you are)

with a +-15% margin of error due to forces beyond one's control.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
First off let me just start by saying this isn't an attack piece on Capitalism as a system. In my opinion, as much as it can be flawed in many ways, it is the best system our level of civilization can cope with at this period of time. Now whether we're talking regulated or free market capitalism, that's a whole other discussion. I'll just be focusing on the basic concept of capitalism and it's inevitable impact on society.

There seems to be this attitude from much of the public and here on ATS about the poor and those less fortunate being in the positions they are in because of their own decisions. I was discussing an article the other day with a good friend of mine, very conservative, about how it's becoming unaffordable for those on minimum wage or low wage to rent in the US. Only 6 counties in the country can you afford an apartment on minimum wage. The response I got from my good friend was all too familiar.... "They shouldn't be working minimum wage jobs by that age" "Don't like your job? Move on" "They had every opportunity to get something better but they chose that job they're in" and of course the oh so common "minimum wage laws are to blame in the first place, get rid of it".

This argument had me thinking... is it really a valid one? Putting aside one's circumstances which may lead them to settling on a minimum wage job, what happens if that person moves up from minimum wage? Gets that cozy office job in the city and starts earning decent? What becomes of the vacant minimum wage job? The answer is, somebody in a similar predictament fills it again.

The truth of the matter is that Capitalism will inevitably produce unequal classes. There needs to be a bottom line working force earning close to or on minimum wage. It's the only way Capitalism can function.

The arguement that everybody has the opportunity to get out of these cirucmstances, get out of minimum wage, doesn't come off all too true when you factor in reality. That somebody has to take up that low paying job within the system. It is a requirement for Capitalism to function:

More importantly, at the very heart of capitalism lies an incentive that leads to the increase of inequalities. Capitalism is based on the principle of competition, and businesses must compete with one another in order to survive. Each company, therefore, strives to maximize its profits in order to achieve a competitive advantage. For example, they can use extra profits to offset lowering the price of their product, undersell their opponents, and push them out of the market.

But in order to maximize profits, businesses must keep productive costs to a minimum. And a major portion of productive costs includes labor. Consequently, as a general rule, in order for a business to survive, it must push labor costs to a minimum. And that is why, of course, so many businesses migrate from the U.S. and relocate in countries like China, Viet Nam, Mexico, and Bangladesh where wages are a mere pittance.

www.commondreams.org...

What's the point of this thread? Well my point is, demonizing the poor, those on minimum wage and those in need is not only wrong, it also makes little sense. Somebody in society has to fill that position, such is the sad reality of capitalism. This idea that everybody can lift themselves up in the current system we're in, at the same time, is naive. This is what I don't understand as well from my conservative friends. We should be ensuring those unfortunate enough to find themselves in low paying work, poverty, have some safety net in place. This is based on the fact they are the inevitable bottom line that makes Capitalism function. If not them, it could you or your family member in that position. Somebody has to do the dirty work. This is the reality of the system we're in. Does this mean that everybody in that position are there by no fault of their own? No. But it's a fact that those on the poverty line, those on the bare minimum, are part of an inevitable function of our current economy.

Capitalism doesn't create inequality. Inequality has always been a fact of life. Where is this magical place and time where there is no inequality?

For the vast majority of the populace,a minimum wage or low paying job is just a stepping stone to other career opportunities. Yes, there are some people for various reason who may find themselves unable to progress, but that is not the majority.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it has been the most successful economic system lifting more people out of poverty than any other.

Capitalism produces inequalities in the same was as other systems produce inequalities. Stalin (a good communist) was Tsarist in his powers, as was Mao. Similarly, even in the socialist idyll that is Cuba, Castro was miles above the average peasant - he had running water.

If you look at the most unequal countries you get places in Africa (corruption), China (corruption and control), Russia (corruption and control), South America (corruption) trumping the inequality in the US and and to a lesser extent the rest of the developed world.

You can conclude that capitalism - as practised in the developed world - produces less inequality because it lifts the poor up the earnings ladder.

I love when people talk about minimum wage in the USA. I'm not sure if they realize how very few people actually make minimum wage. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, all hire in at above minimum wage. 3.3 million according to Google make Min wage (or less), but that includes workers who collect tips. So abouts 1%. And an unknown number of them receive tips that may or may not push them above min. wage.

Anyone who wants to in the USA can earn as much as they want. The key work is WANT to. In my opinion that's the key difference between Capitalism and the others.

originally posted by: paraphi
You can conclude that capitalism - as practised in the developed world - produces less inequality because it lifts the poor up the earnings ladder.

The is not entirely true. It isn't because it lifts the poor up. The reason for less inequality in developed countries is mostly due to socialist actions like safety nets so "as practiced in the developed world" actually means with a dose of socialism.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: paraphi
You can conclude that capitalism - as practised in the developed world - produces less inequality because it lifts the poor up the earnings ladder.

The is not entirely true. It isn't because it lifts the poor up. The reason for less inequality in developed countries is mostly due to socialist actions like safety nets so "as practiced in the developed world" actually means with a dose of socialism.

Nope... in developed countries, people have the freedom to better their lot. They aren't artificially held down because of birth right, class, etc. Rags to riches stories are quite common. Yes, not every person will be a millionaire, but in a capitalist society, people rarely stay in the bottom income earning class. What you guys often miss is class mobility. The vast majority of the people at the bottom of the income ladder in any given year don't stay there.

In addition, there is a saying that wealth is wasted within three generations meaning that most of the wealth built up by a family typically gets pissed away by the third generation. 70% of wealthy families squander the money by the second generation. 90% by the third.

70% of rich families lose wealth

originally posted by: Edumakated
Nope... in developed countries, people have the freedom to better their lot.

They have that in many under-developed countries as well so the gap in equality must be due to something else.

For me the goal isn't to eliminate that a lower class exists. It's to elevate what being lower class means. Having an upper class is fine if the needs of the lower class are met first. We need to raise the quality of life of the lower class, and make sure basic needs to survival like health care are provided.