• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Young People are Becoming Socialists in One Graph

DifferentDrummr said:
I am obliged to provide Joe with a small fraction of a roof, if Joe can't provide a roof for himself. It's part of the price of living in a civilization.

Why does this concept seem so difficult for you?
Click to expand...

I'm OK with helping those who try to help themselves. In fact, I just bough a new smart phone for a friend today and added them to my plan. It's those who think they are entitled to live off of other people's earnings that I refuse to help. All I ask is that a person do their best to try. No try, no hand-out.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm OK with helping those who try to help themselves. In fact, I just bough a new smart phone for a friend today and added them to my plan. It's those who think they are entitled to live off of other people's earnings that I refuse to help. All I ask is that a person do their best to try. No try, no hand-out.
Click to expand...

By and large, I don't disagree. I also believe that mentally healthy people truly want to work and to contribute to society.

It's just the idea that the only way to do that should be by enhancing someone's bottom line that I think has some major flaws.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Someone will be (only if you can't do it yourself), because everyone has the obligation collectively. That's how civilization works.
Click to expand...

Great. See them tomorrow.
 
Individual said:
The words I posted are true.
Yes, work is ALWAYS available, "but may not be what people want to do or where people needing it want to go."
Click to expand...

That's not true. If we have robots that are self-maintaining and can satisfy every desire, then there is no work available. The closer we get to that, the less work is needed. So no, work is not ALWAYS available.

Yes, workers are a component of production, and the economy is the result of consumption of production.
Click to expand...

Then as components of production, which gain value as productivity increases, why isn't their compensation going up? Workers have become more valuable because they produce more, so why shouldn't we try to drive more income to them?
 
phattonez said:
That's not true. If we have robots that are self-maintaining and can satisfy every desire, then there is no work available. The closer we get to that, the less work is needed. So no, work is not ALWAYS available.
Click to expand...
But we DON'T have robots that are self-maintaining and can satisfy every desire.


phattonez said:
Then as components of production, which gain value as productivity increases, why isn't their compensation going up? Workers have become more valuable because they produce more, so why shouldn't we try to drive more income to them?
Click to expand...

Producing more of something does not necessarily increase its value, but if demand is high, profits may increase as a result of sales volume. In most cases increased productivity is the result of less human labour, which has been replaced by much more efficient automation and/or tools. Compensation relative to the work being performed by humans has increased. Workers have NOT become more valuable because they, more than the machinery and tools actually responsible for the increased production, can be replaced most easily.
 
Individual said:
But we DON'T have robots that are self-maintaining and can satisfy every desire.
Click to expand...

No, but we are far closer to that than we ever have been. As such, there is far less need for labor than ever. So how do we manage a growing economy where less labor is needed, when the only thing that most people have to offer is their labor? How do we distribute the gain to them as well?

Producing more of something does not necessarily increase its value, but if demand is high, profits may increase as a result of sales volume. In most cases increased productivity is the result of less human labour, which has been replaced by much more efficient automation and/or tools. Compensation relative to the work being performed by humans has increased. Workers have NOT become more valuable because they, more than the machinery and tools actually responsible for the increased production, can be replaced most easily.
Click to expand...

When something produces more of something than it could before, then it is more valuable.
 
phattonez said:
No, but we are far closer to that than we ever have been. As such, there is far less need for labor than ever. So how do we manage a growing economy where less labor is needed, when the only thing that most people have to offer is their labor? How do we distribute the gain to them as well?
Click to expand...
Closer to having "robots that are self-maintaining and can satisfy every desire"? I don't agree.
There is always a need for labour, but it is increasingly becoming a need for menial labour.
Should we expect our economy to grow perpetually?
Should gains be "distributed" by government at all?


phattonez said:
When something produces more of something than it could before, then it is more valuable.
Click to expand...
Only if you mean the total value of the production is worth more if demand results in consumption. But take into account that some things are worth more simply because of their rarity.
 
phattonez said:
grattan-house-prices-Vs-wages.jpg


And this isn't even looking at a constant population. The workforce is older and more experienced, and we have a lower percentage of people working.

If you want to guarantee a socialist revolution, make sure that no one can afford basic necessities.
Click to expand...

It's possible this plays a part. However at state level the stats don't quite suggest this is the most important issue.

Housing is Affordable in the Hoosier State

http://i.imgur.com/Xqoh5jU.jpg

Sanders is most popular in Vermont, which has home prices that are no where near the worst
Second most popular state is Oregon, which is also much more affordable than CA and WA.
Third is New Hampshire, which is cheaper than Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Hawaii is the most expensive and he doesn't seem to have much support there at all.
 

Attachments

  • housing_fig1.gif
    housing_fig1.gif
    16.6 KB · Views: 55
phattonez said:
No, but we are far closer to that than we ever have been. As such, there is far less need for labor than ever. So how do we manage a growing economy where less labor is needed, when the only thing that most people have to offer is their labor? How do we distribute the gain to them as well?

When something produces more of something than it could before, then it is more valuable.
Click to expand...

The idea that machines are stealing American jobs might have found large support when the economy was struggling and unemployment was high. But now unemployment is low. We should not worry about the speculative possibility that machines will steal our jobs until something like that starts to happen in a way which endangers the working class in real ways which cannot be denied.
 
phattonez said:
Lol, you really think people look at the fact that they can't afford a home, and it doesn't make them sympathetic to socialism? A guy coming out of college sees he can't afford to buy, is forced to rent at high cost, and thus must delay family formation. Yeah, sounds like the kind of thing most would be indifferent to.
Click to expand...

This is news to me, I have moved all over the country for work. In 1995 I bought a new house when I was making a little over half of what I am making now and two years ago I bought a 10 year old house (might as well be new) slightly larger, slightly different floor plan, for about the same price, within $2000.

I'll tell you something else: there are a lot of kids who had majors in fields that nobody in industry wants; biology is my personal favorite. Most of the technicians we get went to college and thought that just any degree in a hard science (biology) would be the ticket to fame and fortune. They would have been better off going to welding school. They have told me that they just picked that particular field so they wouldn't have to study humanities. We had one who could barely spell her own name, the mathematical skills of a 5th grader, and a vocabulary that was only slightly better.

Just having a college degree ain't cutting it anymore.
 
it's just me said:
This is news to me, I have moved all over the country for work. In 1995 I bought a new house when I was making a little over half of what I am making now and two years ago I bought a 10 year old house (might as well be new) slightly larger, slightly different floor plan, for about the same price, within $2000.

I'll tell you something else: there are a lot of kids who had majors in fields that nobody in industry wants; biology is my personal favorite. Most of the technicians we get went to college and thought that just any degree in a hard science (biology) would be the ticket to fame and fortune. They would have been better off going to welding school. They have told me that they just picked that particular field so they wouldn't have to study humanities. We had one who could barely spell her own name, the mathematical skills of a 5th grader, and a vocabulary that was only slightly better.

Just having a college degree ain't cutting it anymore.
Click to expand...
Apparently not "all" over. In my home county, the median house price in 1995 was $250K. In 2012 it was $625K.
 
marke said:
The idea that machines are stealing American jobs might have found large support when the economy was struggling and unemployment was high. But now unemployment is low. We should not worry about the speculative possibility that machines will steal our jobs until something like that starts to happen in a way which endangers the working class in real ways which cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

Trump, December 8, 2016: “The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”

He was right then. And it's still true.

fredgraph.png
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Apparently not "all" over. In my home county, the median house price in 1995 was $250K. In 2012 it was $625K.
Click to expand...

As the debt spirals upward so will inflation and prices. No country can continue to spend more and more money it does not have and expect for things not to get bad.
 
phattonez said:
Trump, December 8, 2016: “The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”

He was right then. And it's still true.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

The number of poor people getting on disability skyrocketed under Obama. At least one doctor admitted he gave disability to just about any black person requesting it because he figured blacks would not likely be able to get jobs in the economic depression, at the time under Obama.
 
marke said:
As the debt spirals upward so will inflation and prices. No country can continue to spend more and more money it does not have and expect for things not to get bad.
Click to expand...

Prices already have. That's why people insist on cheap Asian labor for cheaper products that we would otherwise build, and then they complain about no high paying jobs.

Damn libtards.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Apparently not "all" over. In my home county, the median house price in 1995 was $250K. In 2012 it was $625K.
Click to expand...

I think I know where you are talking about, and that's a place I wouldn't want to live, regardless of the property values.
 
phattonez said:
Trump, December 8, 2016: “The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.”

He was right then. And it's still true.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

While there may be some truth in the words you wrote, the graph doesn't represent unemployment numbers, and could be interpreted to show that more women are becoming the primary breadwinner.

Have you given up on attempting to explain "Why young people are becoming socialists"?
I don't believe you will be able to accomplish that conclusively in "one" or even many graphs.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
I think I know where you are talking about, and that's a place I wouldn't want to live, regardless of the property values.
Click to expand...

The weather's a lot better than in most of the rest of the country, but yeah, I wouldn't recommend moving here without a large financial cushion.
 
phattonez said:
grattan-house-prices-Vs-wages.jpg


And this isn't even looking at a constant population. The workforce is older and more experienced, and we have a lower percentage of people working.

If you want to guarantee a socialist revolution, make sure that no one can afford basic necessities.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more due to a total failure of our education system. Kids go in and stupid people graduate.
 
marke said:
The number of poor people getting on disability skyrocketed under Obama. At least one doctor admitted he gave disability to just about any black person requesting it because he figured blacks would not likely be able to get jobs in the economic depression, at the time under Obama.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Obama either, so I'm not seeing how this helps your case. The unemployment numbers are bogus and we still have an entire generation of Americans falling behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom