The rise of Socialism and it's appeal to young people is troubling

a reply to: Xtrozero

And there's nothing wrong with higher ed being for profit. The problem is that the main customer now is the lender and the lender is the government. Not many students can compete with the money the government can shell out per credit hour. That means there's little to no market incentive to keep costs low to meet the needs of their customer base -- students. Whatever the asking price is, government will pay which means fewer and fewer kids come in with the means to make their own way all the time.

originally posted by: peck420
We won't have extreme poverty eradicated in North America, in our life times, without substantial changes being made. Globally, excellent progress has been made, but each system can only go so far. We are getting very close to the end game of capitalism.

Extreme poverty in NA...lol that is funny...you would not know what that is if it bit you in the ass. World standards for extreme poverty is 1 dollar or less per day, you most likely do not have electricity, 1/2 your kids died to diseases and malnutrition so you have like 8 to get a couple to age. Your kids work and don't go to school, your floors are mud and you don't have shoes, you eat maybe once per day and need to walk a good distance for water that you get in a bucket/pail.

We have this in America?

Poverty: is 1 to 4 bucks per day, sucks still but up to 4 times better than the above.

Middle class: 4 to 16 bucks a day, once again 4 times better than poverty. Here you have electricity, kids go to school, you have some medical care, no mud floors, 3 meals a day, shoes, in house water pluming, one motor scooter/cheap car


High Class: 16 to 64 bucks a day...90% of America is 2, 3, 5+++ times higher than this... The middle of high class for most of the world is 10,000 dollars per year...then we have America and other rich first world nations that see 16 bucks per hour (not day) as minimum wage for what many there see as "extreme poverty"....

People need to get out and see the world...lol The homeless guy on the street won the lottery in terms of how he lives to much of the world.

originally posted by: ketsuko

And there's nothing wrong with higher ed being for profit. The problem is that the main customer now is the lender and the lender is the government. Not many students can compete with the money the government can shell out per credit hour. That means there's little to no market incentive to keep costs low to meet the needs of their customer base -- students. Whatever the asking price is, government will pay which means fewer and fewer kids come in with the means to make their own way all the time.

Agree, but a good number of people should not be going to college in the first place past maybe a cheap SS degree level that is more tech/skill based training. Colleges dumb down degrees for that profit, and those degrees mean very little in the working world.

originally posted by: headorheart

I don't want a participation trophy and I don't want to sue the business world. I would like to make sure future generations understand the repercussions of college, that trades are not to be looked down upon, and how to prepare for adult financial situations before it is too late for them.

Well the good news is you have your whole life ahead of you to fix it. Most people change careers many times until their later 30s early 40s. I have one son in college doing an EE degree and one in high school who might go into the AF as a dentist, with neither having a bill for their school...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ketsuko

And there's nothing wrong with higher ed being for profit. The problem is that the main customer now is the lender and the lender is the government. Not many students can compete with the money the government can shell out per credit hour. That means there's little to no market incentive to keep costs low to meet the needs of their customer base -- students. Whatever the asking price is, government will pay which means fewer and fewer kids come in with the means to make their own way all the time.

Agree, but a good number of people should not be going to college in the first place past maybe a cheap SS degree level that is more tech/skill based training. Colleges dumb down degrees for that profit, and those degrees mean very little in the working world.

No disagreement on that either.

But it's not PC to track little Johnny and tell him he'd be better off taking a trade.

Those of you pitching coding, fecking quit, please.

That is a highly over-saturated market not worth much anymore per job opening and it's no better than factory work at the end of the year. In fact, where I am, you stand to earn MORE working a factory job, and that says a lot about the coder industry.
My brother rode that late 90's wave when you could get in the industry and actually pull $80 or $90 grand. Man, was he smug back then, rubbed it in and tried to get me to hop on board. I saw it for what it was right away -- a bubble waiting to burst. Those salaries wouldn't last, the skills were too easy to learn and jobs too simple for the money. In other words, once the "worth" settled & evened out, it wasn't going to be worth my time any more than any other low-end job is.

Since that initial wave, and subsequent heavy flood of people into coding classes to take advantage of the easy windfall, he's doing good to break $35k today. Even HE KNOWS it's because of over-saturation. Seniority means squat, you're very easily replaced with a PT high schooler on the cheap, people. The job does not retain it's value like it did for a while in the beginning when it was the hip job of the century back then, it's today's tech version of flipping burgers (his words, not mine, and he DID flip burgers in HS) If you'd sneer at the job of flipping burgers and think of it as over-saturated, not worth much and too easy, then coding should be an easy equivalent to figure out.

a reply to: neoholographic

The U.S. should house some of the young leaders in a socialist nation for a year. When they return to America, they might not be so anxious to turn our country into a socialist nation.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You didn't even look at the visual capitalist article did you?

Ok. Do me a favor.

Break down college, education and housing cost from when you were 20 and measure them against average hours required to pay them off vs now


Ppplllleeeaaasssseeeeeeeeeee do.

I'll wait.

a reply to: Nyiah

Yeah... no kidding. Like thanks guys for advice that would've been great 10-20 years ago. The advent of self-writing code is going to replace most coders pretty quick anyways.

I wonder if those that are pitching it actually have anything to do with the industry atm? Hmmm.

originally posted by: toysforadults

Break down college, education and housing cost from when you were 20 and measure them against average hours required to pay them off vs now


Ppplllleeeaaasssseeeeeeeeeee do.

I'll wait.

Lets start with why are people taking 60 to 100k loans who never would have any ability to pay them off. My one son is in first year of EE at a top engineering school. He elected to attend a research off campus classes at one of the main research facilities. It is a 30 min drive for him and so he lives at home and with a couple of small scholarships he is costing me 6k a year. If he was on campus it would have been 30k a year.

The problem with Capitalism is that it only have the illussion that it is fair in the beginning before the market oligarchies and monopolies are created. The free market is an illusion that is never created.

The more piece of the pie the 1% takes the less the 99% are allowed to have. It is usual practice to destroy supply even when demands in the market is not met.

We will need new ideas when automation maxes out and 10% of the population will be needed to produce goods at 8 hours of day work. 90 of all humans will not have work if jobs are not shared.

If humanity was wise and used resources wisely every person on earth would have food, clothes, medicine and house/apartment. But now days the banking debt system makes the middle class even struggle to have the basics.

I do not mind people who contribute much to get a little more. But being a parasite in a power pyramid Ponzi scheme is not contributing. And that power pyramid scheme is both on the left political (socialist) side and the right (capitalist) political side.

The end result fascism where Political Power and Ownership takes away control from the majority of people and put it in the hands of few can both be created in capitalism and socialism.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
Despite what many on the right might think, almost no one is calling for socialism as a system to replace capitalism. Calling for Medicare For All or free college tuition isn't socialism...

Then, pray tell, why are so many democrats in Congress belonging to socialist or socialist-fronted groups...like these...
List of Socialists and Communist in the U.S. Congress in 2019

[...]Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Very close to several key Communist Party USA allies in San Francisco in the 1970s and ’80s. Also some involvement with Democratic Socialists of America.

Barbara Lee (D-CA) Lee has been close to the Communist Party USA for decades. In the 1990s she was a leading member of the Communist Party spin-off Committees of Correspondence. Has been to Cuba more than 20 times.
[...]
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members through her political career. Ties to some Filipino-American “former communists.” Worked with Communist Party USA affiliated former Congressman Dennis Kucinich to defend Soviet-Russian puppet Syrian leader Bashar-al-Assad.
[...]
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Supported by Democratic Socialists of America- controlled groups Our Revolution and National Nurses United. Reportedly a self-described “Democratic Socialist.”

Congressional Progressive Caucus Has Extensive Ties to Marxist Organizations

Members of Congress
With Connections to the Communist Party USA...PDF file list is not current...but you get to see some popular names

The Democratic Socialists of America show their muscle in New York congressional upset

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

That's easy, but first: why the hell would I take anything written on "sheabloglife.wordpress.com" seriously? LOL, look at some of these lines...

"Very close to Democratic Socialists of America."

"has worked with Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011."

So conclusive. And the links to Keywiki?!?!

I'll just respond with my own wiki link...

rationalwiki.org...

Anyways, like I said it's an easy one because, because as far as I know, none of these people are calling for the replacement of capitalism with socialism. They are advocating for social policies and a mixed economy at most. Ya know, stuff like Medicare and Social Security...? Stuff we've had for almost 100 years and as American as apple pie.

Democratic socialists, or social democrats, or w/e you want to call them don't want to replace capitalism completely, they simply want to unrig the economy. Because the current economy is clearly not working for most people.

By all means, continue your McCarthy-esque crusade. It's probably as dated as whatever other beliefs you might have.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
they simply want to unrig the economy. Because the current economy is clearly not working for most people.

I would dispute that. Most people have seen improvements in the economy, job creation, personal wealth.


Unemployment is down across all spectrums, food stamp usage is down, welfare recipients are down.


I imagine you could paint a gloomy picture that would necessitate the need for larger government and an increase in taxes, but it would only increase levels of poverty and make more people dependent on government.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
they simply want to unrig the economy. Because the current economy is clearly not working for most people.

I would dispute that. Most people have seen improvements in the economy, job creation, personal wealth.


Unemployment is down across all spectrums, food stamp usage is down, welfare recipients are down.


I imagine you could paint a gloomy picture that would necessitate the need for larger government and an increase in taxes, but it would only increase levels of poverty and make more people dependent on government.

Yeah, the economy is great! Unemployment is down, yet wages are stagnant, GDP is growth is MEH, most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Many middle-class folks paid more in taxes this year, and that is expected to continue next, American buying power is down, ect, ect. you were right, I could paint a more gloomy picture than you.

Larger government? Naw, I want to decrease military spending and overturn citizens united, get money OUT of politics, and by extension cut off the oligarchs from their puppets, which would considerably shrink government,

a reply to: VoiceOfTheEmperor

Oh Christ.

Pipe dreams.


Socialism is redistributing wealth. You won't get rid of "oligarchs", you'll just trade the current ones for new ones.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Pipe dreams, maybe.

You're right, we shouldn't try to stop the corruption rampant in our system. It's too hard.

What about the redistribution of wealth that has and is already going on in our country? Do you not care that the middle-class is shrinking and that the gap is growing? That workers are having their work and wages stolen from them by exploitative employers? That small businesses are choked to death against overwhelming corporate opposition? That banks are allowed to prey on the vulnerable and gamble with our savings with little to no consequences?

I am not trying to get rid of Oligarchs, simply limit their influence on our political system, and yeah... maybe it is a pipe dream, but it won't stop me or others who haven't simply given up from trying.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: neoholographic

A socialism movement seems to be the legacy of unbridled capitalism. When 1% of the world holds 50% or more of the world's wealth and student debt is piling up, with no end in sight...coupled with the polluting of the world and the destruction of natural resources...well, what do you expect? Do you expect them to embrace the status quo?

I expect one of two things:

1) If they have been raised with the ideas of work ethic and personal responsibility I would expect them to not whine about the world in the first place and make mature decisions for their future.

2) if they have been coddled and convinced that the world owes them, that they are entitled, that they should always get a trophy for participation... I expect them to whine, complain and gnash teeth and say 'capitalism bad,' other people should be forced to pay for the coddled children's bad decisions.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
Anyways, like I said it's an easy one because, because as far as I know, none of these people are calling for the replacement of capitalism with socialism. They are advocating for social policies and a mixed economy at most. Ya know, stuff like Medicare and Social Security...? Stuff we've had for almost 100 years and as American as apple pie.

They are not almost 100 years old, they are not 'American as apple pie', and they are unsustainable policies. SS is basically a legal Ponzi scheme and Medicare is the reason private insurance keeps rising.

Democratic socialists, or social democrats, or w/e you want to call them don't want to replace capitalism completely, they simply want to unrig the economy. Because the current economy is clearly not working for most people.

"Unrig"... with more regulations, and picking the winners and losers based on social justice, and high taxes on people who dare to prosper. Sure thing, buddy.

We know they can't replace capitalism because it's the only way socialist policies have a chance to work long enough to draw people to the feeding trough. As has been observed, socialism requires millionaires and billionaires to exist so they can be leeched for cash while at the same time telling people that millionaires and billionaires are evil and no one should ever want to become one of 'those people.'

Capitalism on the other hand doesn't require millionaires and billionaires, it simply lets people strive for success and benefit in the process. Yes this means people will fail and have to rebuild. That's life.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You didn't follow through with what you said

How much did you pay for college and based on the median pay at the time of graduate how long did it take to pay it back verse now

Stop being so entitled and lazy and give us the actual numbers.