• Public vs Private Sector in America
    80 replies, posted
[QUOTE=StephenOrlov;34784272]If the worker had it worse, then he would not work there. Another company would hire him. In order to keep that worker working, the company would be forced to pay him greater wages or provide better benefits. This is the way a free-market system would work. If a hamburger joint can pay someone low wages for their work, they can sell their hamburger for cheaper prices. Cheaper prices mean more revenue, which would improve the restaurant. If there was another restaurant hiring employees and they offered a slightly better pay rate than the first hamburger joint, the employees would flock there. So, in order to keep the employees, the first hamburger joint would have to increase their prices. There is a demand for workers, that's the way of an ever-changing, constantly advancing and innovating free market system. This is just an example, of course. It's late.[/QUOTE] wages and prices aren't as flexible as you make it out to be. manufacturers aren't so willing to lower prices because then people will be accustomed to the lower prices, and same deal with raising wages this is the reason why classical economics has been pretty much abandoned nowadays because in classical theory prolonged inflation/recession never happens
[QUOTE=Contag;34784944]so basically you're despicable, is that what you're trying to say not only do you per-emptively insult everyone who disagrees with you, you indict the whole of fucking humanity for not believing in your views are you American by any chance? My understanding is that countries with strong social democratic tendencies such as Scandinavia and Australia are quite well, thanks. Far better than the (even more) deregulated and privatized States and historically proven? what the fuck are you even talking about? What do you mean? The bretton woods system collapsed only 40 years ago[/QUOTE] It's not an opinion, it's elementary economics. A perfect free market system would be able to allocate limited resources more efficiently than any other system. (the entire point of economics) [QUOTE=Contag;34784944]that position makes no sense if the money they make is oh-so-beneficial to society why would the state tax them? you say "I'm not defending any corporations that uses loopholes to pay next-to-nothing taxes", and then you proclaim the very justification [I]for[/I] corporations paying next to nothing taxes[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how you perceive the world... taxes are, objectively, a leakage from the economy. (they have recessionary effects) Any and all taxes (from anyone) cause less growth and/or shrinkage.
[QUOTE=sgman91;34787386]It's not an opinion, it's elementary economics. A perfect free market system would be able to allocate limited resources more efficiently than any other system. (the entire point of economics) I'm not sure how you perceive the world... taxes are, objectively, a leakage from the economy. (they have recessionary effects) Any and all taxes (from anyone) cause less growth and/or shrinkage.[/QUOTE] Posts like this make me lose faith in humanity
[QUOTE=Contag;34787506]Posts like this make me lose faith in humanity[/QUOTE] Thank you for this insightful post. I'm sure that we all know exactly what you're talking about and thus require absolutely zero reasoning, explanation, or argument.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34787584]Thank you for this insightful post. I'm sure that we all know exactly what you're talking about and thus require absolutely zero reasoning, explanation, or argument.[/QUOTE] Yes. Almost like this "It's not an opinion, it's elementary economics. A perfect free market system would be able to allocate limited resources more efficiently than any other system. " except mine was far less broad it's a bit like arguing about the finer points of african american masculine hegemony and how that relates to edgeworth theory with someone who thinks black people are inherently criminal it's a fucking waste of time and ultimately demoralizing
Why do people try and strive for a completely free market economy? It is impossible to achieve.
I'd like to see a degree of privatisation removed from colleges in America. I want to go but there's just no way I can pay for it, and I'm not exactly thrilled about the prospect of getting a loan I won't pay off until after I retire to get a degree I may not even be able to use thanks to the economy. If college were cheaper, say around $5000-$15000 as most Brits pay, I'd be more inclined to get the loan and go. I could pay that off in a few years even without getting into my field of choice.[QUOTE=gamefreek76;34736129]Privatized schools. Our public schools are a terrible mess.[/QUOTE] And private schools cost an absolute fortune. some parents can't even afford public schools, and by privatising all schools you lock the majority of the nation's youth out of an education. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;34787386]It's not an opinion, it's elementary economics. A perfect free market system would be able to allocate limited resources more efficiently than any other system. (the entire point of economics)[/quote] Free markets don't work. The turn of the 20th had an almost entirely unregulated workforce in America, and as a result, workers were paid next to nothing and forced to work long, hard hours in excessively dangerous conditions. You need some regulations or companies are going to kick their workers in the balls just because they can. [quote] I'm not sure how you perceive the world... taxes are, objectively, a leakage from the economy. (they have recessionary effects) Any and all taxes (from anyone) cause less growth and/or shrinkage.[/QUOTE] Oh god. No, they aren't. Taxes, while annoying, are necessary, as without taxes the state has no money. If the state has no money, the state cannot afford law enforcement. Without law enforcement, you have absolute anarchy. Tax the rich. They can afford it. [QUOTE=Destroyer25;34765881] [B]Postal Services.[/B] The mix seems to work well. You have FedEx, UPS, etc, if you want something delivered fast, and the state run postal services if time is not a factor and you want to minimize costs (although the state run services aren't always cheaper, and can have a bad habit of losing your mail). [/QUOTE] I notice no difference in service between USPS and UPS. Fedex is awful though, they can't even find my driveway half the time. [QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34763127]So if I work harder to achieve a better financial grounding, I shouldn't have the option to pay for better and quicker private care? Why bother being financially secure if I can just sit on my ass and have the government take care of me?[/QUOTE] Why should I be denied basic healthcare because I can't afford it? Why should I have to die of an easily curable ailment because I don't have a six figure checking account? A lack of money is why I haven't been to a doctor in YEARS. For all I know my heart could be getting ready to shut down as soon as I submit this edit, and yet there's no way for me to do anything about it because I can't afford to pay the exorbitant bills [i]just to have it looked at[/i]. And if the doc finds anything wrong? Holy chit the bill's gonna be big. Bigger than a car payment, matter of fact. Privatised healthcare benefits the wealthy and leaves the middle and lower classes to die. I'm not really all for long-reaching government programs, but free healthcare ala europe and canada is one thing we do need. I shouldn't have to hope I don't get sick because I can't afford to see a doctor.
[QUOTE=Destroyer25;34765881] [B]Education.[/B] Again, highly debated. When one looks at USA, it's undeniable that their public education system is an abomination. The education budget has been progressively getting larger and larger, (3% of GDP in the 50s, 6% today), and it has gotten worse and worse over the last 30-40. Then there's the fact that the vast majority of the public schools are very biased to the left, which is the same up here in Canada. You'd be extremely lucky to ever even have the right wing perspective on any issue shown. The only place you're not subject to left wing propaganda is Alberta. I suspect it's similar in certain US states, but even then you'd probably have to live in the suburbs, because the inner cities are Liberal. So, needless to say, there's a pretty big argument for making education in USA 100% a state level matter. The Federal government and the teachers unions have ruined the US education system. [/QUOTE] Where do you get this left wing bias from? Having gone to a physical public school for 10 years, and then an online one for a further 2, I have not seen this at all. In fact, political discussions of any kind were taboo for the teachers to talk about. The one that we had, in a debate/government class of sorts, had 90% of the class on the right wing side because my state (Nevada) is highly right-favoring and most kids these days are indoctrinated into one party. I swear I don't know a single person that went to my school that didn't get their bias (left or right) from mommy and daddy. I don't think privatizing the schools would make much of a difference, to be honest. Both systems could work, it's just how they're implemented. Things like "No Child Left Behind" and the fact that my school had $2000 projectors put into every room for no reason really push the money out into a pit, rather than in areas that would improve curriculum. We ran out of paper halfway through the year a few years back, so a bigger budget is a bigger waste rather than more money going to the right things. For profit schools while competitive are horrible ideas, because the problem of most kids not getting a proper education will still exist. As it is, you practically have to pay in to a private school to get a decent education anywhere in the US. My online public school isn't that horrible, but it is far from decent. On that, I believe education is a right and not a privilege, so feel free to disagree entirely. I just don't see how you can justify someone coming from less than fortunate circumstances not getting an education just because their parents don't have the means.
[QUOTE=TestECull;34789285]I'd like to see a degree of privatisation removed from colleges in America. I want to go but there's just no way I can pay for it, and I'm not exactly thrilled about the prospect of getting a loan I won't pay off until after I retire to get a degree I may not even be able to use thanks to the economy. If college were cheaper, say around $5000-$15000 as most Brits pay, I'd be more inclined to get the loan and go. I could pay that off in a few years even without getting into my field of choice. And private schools cost an absolute fortune. some parents can't even afford public schools, and by privatising all schools you lock the majority of the nation's youth out of an education.[/QUOTE] I'm currently going to college for electrical engineering at Cal Poly Pomona for around 5k a year. I'm able to pay it off year by year with a very part time (16 hours/week during school and 20-40 hours/week in summer) minimum wage job. I also pay for gas, insurance, etc. Now, let's say I can't pay it off. I'll be around 25k in debt from tuition and books/fees, which will be absolutely no problem at all to pay off in a couple years after school. Sure it's expensive, but it's also VERY doable. The problem is that people get degrees that hold no value in the market and are then unable to make enough to pay of their loans. [QUOTE=TestECull;34789285]Free markets don't work. The turn of the 20th had an almost entirely unregulated workforce in America, and as a result, workers were paid next to nothing and forced to work long, hard hours in excessively dangerous conditions. You need some regulations or companies are going to kick their workers in the balls just because they can.[/QUOTE] This is a topic of debate. Of course it seems terrible when compared to to day, but if you compare it to before the industrial revolution both the real income and living conditions were much improved. A very large majority of humanity lived in abject poverty prior to the industrial revolution, working blue collar jobs, with terrible hours, just to survive. [QUOTE=TestECull;34789285]Oh god. No, they aren't. Taxes, while annoying, are necessary, as without taxes the state has no money. If the state has no money, the state cannot afford law enforcement. Without law enforcement, you have absolute anarchy.[/QUOTE] I never said anything about how necessary taxes are in our society, just that they have recessionary effects in the economy. Now whether you think the damage to the economy is worth the benefits to society it another question entirely. [QUOTE=TestECull;34789285]I notice no difference in service between USPS and UPS. Fedex is awful though, they can't even find my driveway half the time.[/QUOTE] The difference being that USPS is billions of dollars in debt while UPS is making a profit. [QUOTE=TestECull;34789285]Why should I be denied basic healthcare because I can't afford it? Why should I have to die of an easily curable ailment because I don't have a six figure checking account? A lack of money is why I haven't been to a doctor in YEARS. For all I know my heart could be getting ready to shut down as soon as I submit this edit, and yet there's no way for me to do anything about it because I can't afford to pay the exorbitant bills [I]just to have it looked at[/I]. And if the doc finds anything wrong? Holy chit the bill's gonna be big. Bigger than a car payment, matter of fact.[/QUOTE] This type of argument can be made for literally anything.
[QUOTE=TestECull;34789285] Why should I be denied basic healthcare because I can't afford it? [/QUOTE] Why should I be denied that expensive car because I can't afford it? Why should I be denied anything, I'm entitled to anything, everything, if I don't get it for free I'm being screwed over by everyone. Seriously, it's called people die, it's part of life and too fucking bad.
[QUOTE=The one that is;34791575]Why should I be denied that expensive car because I can't afford it? Why should I be denied anything, I'm entitled to anything, everything, if I don't get it for free I'm being screwed over by everyone. Seriously, it's called people die, it's part of life and too fucking bad.[/QUOTE] So if you suddenly developed cancer this minute, but you were denied treatment for it, you'd be happy about that? I really fucking doubt it.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34788247]Why do people try and strive for a completely free market economy? It is impossible to achieve.[/QUOTE] it's not impossible, it just a very, very bad idea
[QUOTE=The one that is;34791575]Why should I be denied that expensive car because I can't afford it? Why should I be denied anything, I'm entitled to anything, everything, if I don't get it for free I'm being screwed over by everyone. Seriously, it's called people die, it's part of life and too fucking bad.[/QUOTE] Cars are a luxury. Your health is not. Stop making shit arguments and actually try please.
[QUOTE=The one that is;34791575]Why should I be denied that expensive car because I can't afford it? Why should I be denied anything, I'm entitled to anything, everything, if I don't get it for free I'm being screwed over by everyone.[/QUOTE] An expensive car is not essential to life, and you can acquire one by earning money to trade to a company that manufactures them. So effectively you are not denied a car, you are just too lazy to get one. Healthcare you cannot get on your own, and it's essential to life. [QUOTE=The one that is;34791575]Seriously, it's called people die, it's part of life and too fucking bad.[/QUOTE] What a [I]fucking shitty[/I] outlook. How will the world progress with thinking like that?
not to mention the right to life is guaranteed by the constitution
[QUOTE=Sickle;34793814]What a [I]fucking shitty[/I] outlook. How will the world progress with thinking like that?[/QUOTE] It's called getting on with your life and not dwelling on the dead.
[QUOTE=The one that is;34791575]Why should I be denied that expensive car because I can't afford it?[/quote] Because you don't need it. [quote]Why should I be denied anything, I'm entitled to anything, everything, if I don't get it for free I'm being screwed over by everyone. Seriously, it's called people die, it's part of life and too fucking bad.[/QUOTE]People like you are why this country is so fucked. Some things, like nice cars, are fine being limited to only those who can afford them. other things, like health care, shouldn't be limited to only those who can afford it. Health care is a need, not a want.
[QUOTE=The one that is;34791575]Why should I be denied that expensive car because I can't afford it? Why should I be denied anything, I'm entitled to anything, everything, if I don't get it for free I'm being screwed over by everyone. Seriously, it's called people die, it's part of life and too fucking bad.[/QUOTE] This is not an argument. This is dragging your opponent's point to absurdity and then saying "it's too fucking bad". Either provide something substantive or leave.
[QUOTE=Megafan;34797172]This is not an argument. This is dragging your opponent's point to absurdity and then saying "it's too fucking bad". Either provide something substantive or leave.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_absurdum]Reductio ad absurdum[/url]. It's a valid argument.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34797243][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_absurdum"]Reductio ad absurdum[/URL]. It's a valid argument.[/QUOTE] Did you even read that page? He's presented it on the premise of "if some people are entitled to things like healthcare, why am I not entitled to an expensive car?". How is that not a false dichotomy? It's the same as saying 'Either people are entitled to everything, or no one is entitled to anything',
[QUOTE=Megafan;34797323]Did you even read that page? He's presented it on the premise of "if some people are entitled to things like healthcare, why am I not entitled to an expensive car?". How is that not a false dichotomy? It's the same as saying 'Either people are entitled to everything, or no one is entitled to anything',[/QUOTE] He presented it on the basis of "if people are entitled to healthcare, why am I not entitled to everything?". He's questioning [i]where you draw the line[/i].
[QUOTE=The one that is;34791575]Why should I be denied that expensive car because I can't afford it? Why should I be denied anything, I'm entitled to anything, everything, if I don't get it for free I'm being screwed over by everyone. Seriously, it's called people die, it's part of life and too fucking bad.[/QUOTE] Are you serious. Health-care is a very useful service that can drastically extend your life and your overall health. Expensive cars are a social icon and aren't required for much of anything that serves a practical purpose. They aren't the same, unless you see being cured of life threatening diseases a social icon for the rich. Sure people die, but you can't tell me you'd prefer the ages when you wouldn't live past 30.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34797424]He presented it on the basis of "if people are entitled to healthcare, why am I not entitled to everything?". He's questioning [i]where you draw the line[/i].[/QUOTE] If that's what he was after he would have added that question to the end. Besides, it doesn't take much logic to figure out where the line is. Things people need, such as education and healthcare, should be provided by the state. Things people want, such as Aston Martins and dragon dildos, should be earned through hard work.
The point of a meritocratic system is that everyone has equality of opportunity - an equal chance to chase their dreams. Now, if someone cannot afford education how is that giving everyone equal opportunity? If you have two equally bright people who will succeed? The rich one with a comfortable living or the poor one who lives 'in the ghetto' and has to work in the evenings to survive? The fact that the poor one is unable to reach their full potential due to the lottery of birth is a shocking waste of talent. Americans hate the Monarchy due to the inherited wealth and power - yet they praise the children of the rich.
[QUOTE=TestECull;34798543]If that's what he was after he would have added that question to the end. Besides, it doesn't take much logic to figure out where the line is. Things people need, such as education and healthcare, should be provided by the state. Things people want, such as Aston Martins and dragon dildos, should be earned through hard work.[/QUOTE] Can you clarify. How are you defining the word need? [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mythman;34799786]Americans hate the Monarchy due to the inherited wealth and power - yet they praise the children of the rich.[/QUOTE] No, Americans hate the monarchy because they had absolute power over their subjects and the average citizen had no say.
Are there any countries that have a mix of both private and public healthcare? Like, public healthcare if you're willing to wait (non-emergency issues, obviously. Life-threatening issues would have immediate assistance), and private healthcare for more immediate (but not very important) assistance. I think such a system has the potential to work better than all private or all public. Postal service should remain both public and private, like it currently is. I have no issues with the USPS; sometimes they're cheaper and/or faster than Fedex or UPS, sometimes not.
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;34789619]Where do you get this left wing bias from? Having gone to a physical public school for 10 years, and then an online one for a further 2, I have not seen this at all. In fact, political discussions of any kind were taboo for the teachers to talk about. The one that we had, in a debate/government class of sorts, had 90% of the class on the right wing side because my state (Nevada) is highly right-favoring and most kids these days are indoctrinated into one party. I swear I don't know a single person that went to my school that didn't get their bias (left or right) from mommy and daddy. [/QUOTE] Teachers are generally more liberal. It comes with their job. They encourage people to think of things differently and that there is more than 1 solution to a problem. Thats why there typically aren't as many conservative teachers (Unless they are math and science teachers where there IS a right way and a wrong way)
[QUOTE=Saber15;34808029]Are there any countries that have a mix of both private and public healthcare? Like, public healthcare if you're willing to wait (non-emergency issues, obviously. Life-threatening issues would have immediate assistance), and private healthcare for more immediate (but not very important) assistance. I think such a system has the potential to work better than all private or all public. Postal service should remain both public and private, like it currently is. I have no issues with the USPS; sometimes they're cheaper and/or faster than Fedex or UPS, sometimes not.[/QUOTE] The healthcare in the UK is a bit like that. We have the NHS for basic, important care but we also have a fair private sector that provides less vital, more immediate care. We have NHS dentists available to everyone but it can take time to get an appointment. Yet we aso have private dentists that will offer immediate, better care for those with the money. Its the same with NHS/Bupa hospitals and public/private elderly carehomes.
How about a regulated capitalist economy? Why does it have to be one of the extremes?
[QUOTE=Pantz76;34810849]How about a regulated capitalist economy? Why does it have to be one of the extremes?[/QUOTE] Reforming Capitalism is Socialist and Socialism is bad. /sarcasm A mixed economy is certainly the best economy. However, there are extremes on both sides of the fence who want to force their ideologies in the belief they can achieve the perfect economy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.