The same applies to our SPD in Germany. Maybe the base members of the parties are different but since the SPD is governing our country they are the same as our conservatives (CDU).Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Shaitan
Printable View
The same applies to our SPD in Germany. Maybe the base members of the parties are different but since the SPD is governing our country they are the same as our conservatives (CDU).Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Shaitan
In that case we are exactly the same. The 'Old Labour' members of the Labour party are radically different to the 'New Labour' members who are running the party and the country at the moment.
My thoughts exactly ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
http://www.socialistinternational.or...ish/europe.htm
Quote:
France Socialist Party, PS
Germany Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD
Great Britain The Labour Party
Check it up. You know what "Democrathic Socialism" means? Politics beeing based on Soldarity as major value.Quote:
Albania Social Democratic Party, PSD
Albania Socialist Party of Albania, SPA
Andorra Social Democratic Party of Andorra, PS
Armenia ARF Armenian Socialist Party
Austria Social Democratic Party of Austria, SPÖ
Belgium Socialist Party, PS
Belgium Socialist Party, SPA
Bosnia and Herzegovina Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina, SDP BiH
Bulgaria Bulgarian Social Democrats
Bulgaria Bulgarian Socialist Party, BSP
Croatia Social Democratic Party, SDP
Cyprus Movement of Social Democrats EDEK
Czech Republic Czech Social Democratic Party, CSSD
Denmark Social Democratic Party
Estonia Estonian Social Democratic Party
Finland Finnish Social Democratic Party, SDP
France Socialist Party, PS
Germany Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD
Great Britain The Labour Party
Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement, PASOK
Hungary Hungarian Social Democratic Party, MSzDP
Hungary Hungarian Socialist Party, MSzP
Iceland Social Democratic Party
Ireland The Labour Party
Italy Democrats of the Left, DS
Italy Italian Democratic Socialists, SDI
Latvia Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party, LSDSP
Lithuania Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, LSDP
Luxembourg Luxembourg Socialist Workers' Party, LSAP/POSL
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, SDUM
Malta Malta Labour Party
Netherlands Labour Party, PvdA
Northern Ireland Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP
Norway Norwegian Labour Party, DNA
Poland Democratic Left Alliance, SLD
Poland Union of Labour, UP
Portugal Socialist Party, PS
Romania Social Democratic Party, PSD
San Marino Party of Socialists and Democrats
Serbia and Montenegro Social Democratic Party of Montenegro, SDPM
Slovakia SMER-Social Democracy
Slovenia Social Democrats, SD
Spain Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, PSOE
Sweden Swedish Social Democratic Party, SAP
Switzerland Social Democratic Party of Switzerland
Turkey Republican People's Party, CHP
The Socialist International has this Name since the 19th Century.
I think the reason why you laugh is that many Communist Parties also call themselves "Socialists". But that is a wrong impression.
an organization that had António Guterres as it´s main secretary for a bunch of years can´t really hold much water with me.....the guy is absolutelly spineless, and was one of the worse prime-ministers my country has had in the last years....
tipical example of Guterres in office:
step one- in response to the alarmingly high road-accident rate here in portugal, the maximum allowed achool level in the driver´s blood is dropped from 0.5 grams for litter to 0.2 grams for litter, stronger fines are enforced..(i actually applauded this one....it was the right move).
step two - over the next 2 weeks a bunch of wine and spirits merchants and producers lobbies go apesh*t over the change.....stating that it would reduce their profits and put their businesses in danger(no reference made to the people wrapping their cars around lamp-posts after consuming said spirits)
step three - New government directive....."errrr....forget everything then....we´re going back to 0.5"
i lost all respect for the man that day......the guy resign from his position as prime minister the next year....and was still the secretary general of the socialist international for 2 MORE YEARS!!!!
They are socialists - at least social democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
The biggest sign of a socialist govt is normally the redistribution of wealth - this Labour govt has redistributed more wealth from rich to poor than any govt since the early 70's. That is also despite arriving into office after 18 years of redistribution the other way...
hmm well the Social Democrats in sweden counts as rightwingers in many ways.
Socialism in all its form is a dangerous ideology that should be countered at all times.
It not only endangers the wealth and economy of nations, but the cultural makeup as well.
Socialism breeds dependency, irresponsibility, and laziness and threatens those that are successful with taxes and laws aimed at social engineering.
As Europe becomes more socialist you will see unemployment rise, economies stagnate, and an ever increasingly entrenched class system. :no:
You say that like it's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Yuck.
My favorite Churchill quote:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Actually, I like that so much I think I'll siggy it for a while. Sorry Panzer, you're out...
~;)
The quote is bollocks because the second part is wrong. If you believe creating a situation where everyone in a society lives in a humane and decent existence, is misery then I have to completely disagree and I think most people would. There is no reason that the huge wealth our nations create HAS to be held in the hands of an elite few. I think that creates misery.Quote:
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
As for you PJ - oh you are a laugh, blah blah blah.
Depends. I personally believe that wealth should be in the hands of those who have worked to earn it. Socialists believe that just by virtue of having been shot out of a vagina and then mastering the difficult skill of breathing, that they have a right to as equal a share of wealth as everybody else, whether they have done anything to earn it or not (and in most cases, "not").Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Every year, roughly 35% of my income gets "redistributed" to those who have done nothing to earn it. I don't mind it going to those who are truly in need, but some people clearly are just too damned lazy to do for themselves, and they drive me crazy.
When I was younger, I worked as a bank teller. At that time, on the last Wednesday of the month the provincial government issued social assistance (read: welfare) cheques and as a bank teller I stood there and shelled out cash to the assistance recipients cashing their cheques all day. It was a pretty small town and out of the doors of the bank, you could see which way people were headed with their "windfalls" to begin spending. Now, it never bothered me to see a single mother cash her welfare cheque and go straight accross the street to the grocery store to buy food for her babies. That seemed like a justifiable use of my tax dollars. However, to the right of the bank was a bingo hall, and to the left was a strip bar. I can not even count the amount of childless, seemingly able-bodied couples who would come into the bank, cash their "pay-cheques" (as they liked to refer to them), then walk out of the branch with a pocket full of my tax dollars, wherupon the female would turn right, and the male would turn left.
That not only creates misery, it creates fury.
How does redistributing wealth entrench class systems, which are usually based on wealth?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
What you fail to realize JAG is that that huge wealth would quickly disappear with increased socialist policies.Quote:
There is no reason that the huge wealth our nations create HAS to be held in the hands of an elite few. I think that creates misery.
Some people and some industries must have wealth to create jobs and drive the economy.
Socialism stifles social mobility and the desire to get ahead, as a socialist tax system punishes success.Quote:
How does redistributing wealth entrench class systems, which are usually based on wealth?
Ho hohohoh! Never laughed so much in my life. I think you get get the facts of social mobility before you go around stating outrageous claims like that. Check out who is near the top - in fact I think it is at the top - of the least social mobility in a country. Then check out who has the most... Cross reference that with policies undertaken in the domestic countries and bingo you get humiliated.Quote:
Socialism stifles social mobility and the desire to get ahead, as a socialist tax system punishes success.
Increased socialist policies will evidently mean an altered free market, but that doesn't mean there cannot be wealth created and GDP growth. In fact in many countries after a socialist govt is elected GDP stays at exactly the same trend levels. Where has a modern socialist government turned a country into such a drastic state as you attempt to illustrate? The facts show that there is nothing in your populist claim about socialists making 'wealth disappear'.
Socialist governments do generally realise that you cannot suddenly take money from the rich and give it to the poor direct, as it doesn't work in the modern climate, that is why it is gradual, secret if you like. Over here people don't know about Labours socialist policies through lack of media attention and intentional shunning of them, but they are there making peoples life better - and the country is growing GDP wise faster than it ever has before, more consistently than it has before. That is after a minimum wage and vast increases in public spending on public owned institutions.
Just because there are rich people who create business' and jobs, it doesn't mean some people have to live in poverty, misery and hardship, simply because they are born into a situation with less chances. There is not justification for that, you can scream about rich people being 'needed' all you like, the reality is poor people are not desirable for a country such as mine and yours which creates such huge wealth.
Goof, there will of course be those in a system who take advantage of it. But the question is not whether you have a welfare system and redistribution or not, but how is it best to get those who are able to work into work and those who need welfare support the money instead. But I think we are missing the point, welfare although redistribution, of course, is not the main way of redistributing income, and increasingly by socialist governments it is the least preferred way of redistribution, for exactly the problem you point out.
When Thatcher drastically cut back the welfare support over here in the 80's, thousands of needy people suffered, but it is true many people who could work but didn't, also got jobs. What Labour do now is use the cut backs Thatcher made in the basic welfare to not only get people into work but also increase redistribution of wealth. This redistribution comes from work. Obviously there is the minimum wage, but what Labours main policy is tax credits - if you start working after not having worked for a long time (due to many reasons, a baby, no qualifications, not bothering etc) the government not only lets you keep all your wage packet if you are on a low income job, but it bumps up your earnings in benefits to give you an incentive to work, stay in work and be an active member of society. This means that you not only get off the problem you state and get people into work, but you have the desired effect of helping those - single mothers etc - who need help the most. I don't see a problem with that, that is a good system which helps those and gives more to those who need it most and doesn't hurt the economy at all, in fact it benefits it.
On top of those there is the extra benefits those at the bottom get through the brilliant sure start centres the government has set up - helping single mothers with child help and providing information hubs for those who often don't get all the critical information http://www.surestart.gov.uk/ - and the new deal also set up by this Labour govt - http://www.newdeal.gov.uk/ - which also helps those at the bottom of society gain qualifications or training they missed etc. Even if these don't look like it - they are redistributive measures, they give money and chances to gain more money to those who didn't have it before. Using tax money to set up brilliant schemes which help those who really need help and bringing everyone into society and the economy. It is win, win - and it is the new direction of the left in Europe I am sure, it also works. I don't know Goof, why you cannot think these kinds of ideas and schemes good ideas, sure a few people might still take advantage of it, but is that a reason to stop the vast majority for which this offers a huge lifeline to? I don't think so. You clearly have strong feelings on the subject as a result of the direct experience of some of the failings a system like this can hold - but that doesn't mean it is all bad.
Another scheme introduced over here involves the government part buying key workers - like nurses - houses with them, so they can get on to the property ladder where they could not have before. Again I fail to see how tax payers money, here helping those near the bottom of society help themselves and the whole of society, is a bad thing. It works, it is fair and just and creates equality in the long run - it just illustrates how PJ's view of socialist govt's smash bang whallop approach is so outdated.
Schemes elsewhere such as allowing workers of a company to gain significant proportions of shares in the company, also works, is fair and I fail to see a problem with it.
Thanks Goofball for my new sig... Flying welfare babies launching out of a vagina is a great description. Thanks ~:)
Wow, that is a very naive explanation. You don't have to work hard to earn, who told you that? You *can* work all your life in a mine and not have a peny when you retire even if you are frugal, and you *can* start a company and have other people work while you count the money because you *own* the company. You don't have to work at all to make money. Usually it all depends on what you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I'm glad Dave here enjoyed it.
PS. I don't agree with just any redistribution of wealth, but I do agree with providing free health care, and high pensions to everyone and help to single parent families.
Never heard of the "working poors" heh ? Or for that matter, of the "wealthy bastards that screw up everything they do, fire thousand of people, hire chinese workers and earn the money".
What about equally poor two parent families? Why should a family be targetted for wealth re-distribution purely because they could not hold their relationship together?Quote:
help to single parent families.
I was using the single parent example because normally that is what people have in their mind when they talk about those in disadvantaged situations. Of course poor families from all backgrounds and types, etc, are covered. Thanks to this Labour government. Socialist Labour govt*Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
...and yet the class divide wealth-wise is greater now, under Labour, than it ever has been before.
incorrect, last year growth was at roughly 3%, under the tories in 1988 growth was at 4.5%.Quote:
and the country is growing GDP wise faster than it ever has before
Our growth rates aren't high enough to cover Gordon Brown's increased spending and borrowing. He has been running a budget deficit at an economic peak, which is a very bad move. Borrowed money has to be paid back and because growth will very likely not be as Gordon Brown so optimistically forcasted, we will see tax rises, most likely for the middle classes.
As several patrons expressed theit interest that the discussion about Socialism should be continued, I carved out the relevant posts (i.e., the ones that were discussing socialism as a form of government as such) from the "Socialist International" thread to make a new thread that would allow a hopefully civilised discussion.
Enjoy the discussion :bow:
Hooray! :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:
Thank you very much, Ser! :bow:
Before starting the discussion can we find an agreement what Socialism is?
Yes but surely by starting a company you are taking an enourmous financial risk. For every new company that starts and is sucesful, there are probably another two where the company fails and the owner(s) end up with nothing and back to square one. In the early days, the directors of small companies will normally work obscene hours a week because they know that their livelihoods are on the line and they are determined not to let their project fail. People who start companies are visionaries with ideas and it only follows that people who start sucessful companies have good ideas that are beneficial to progress.Quote:
You *can* work all your life in a mine and not have a peny when you retire even if you are frugal, and you *can* start a company and have other people work while you count the money because you *own* the company. You don't have to work at all to make money.
These people bolster the economy as well. All employees of a company are essentially taking a share of the profits from the owners idea in exchange for their labour. If there were no companies, people would just work for themselves, in which case you'd have a country similar to the dark ages of subsistance farmers and craftsmen. In such a world, you wouldn't have your employee rights, national health service etc.
P.S Clegane you're a hero. One day they'll be naming streets after you.
Since humans by nature are egoistical in a very negative way and are all corrupt in their Ego, socialism wouldnt be viewed as someting possitve.
Since humans look up to those that have wealth by the millions and have the "phatest" car and so on socialism will never work.
Some might argue that people just want to be happy and that moeny isnt a big part of it. Bullshit, people need money to be happy since we will capitalistic world were money is what takes you somewhere in society.
I might argu thou that friends are more important, but since people are so damn narrow-minded and completly stupid nobody wants to be friend with a homeless bum. Some of you might argue that you would, but you would only say so couse it sounds like the right thing to say.
Now, since socialism means that wealth are spread out to everyone more or less that would mean, if we installa a socialist system in the world the Western Europe and North America would loose alot of its wealth since we no longer will be able to "rape" the rest of the world in the all goody goody imperialistic way.
To make a better future tho, with less international conflict we need to install a socialistic world order but it would take a long long time before we can all reap the benefits of it.
And since we are all so damn shortsighted and cant plan for the future that will never happen.
...lets all have a beer ~:cheers:
This is very general. Could you go more in detail? There are so manyx forms of S, radical and moderate and I'd like to know why you ban all.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Let me assume that NOT SOCIALISM IN ALL ITS FORMS = PURE CAPITALISM, I mean the Manchaster kind Adam Smith wanted to have, it may create a lot of wealth. I agree. But the wealth will concentrate to a small part of the poulation. You may say that is good, but I would not call it wealth of nation if it just belongs to let's say 10%. There is an obvious disadv. 90% of the people will not be happy. They may not even have enough to live. So the political system will be very instable and the society very violent. (crime, riots,...)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
How? Capitalism creates dependencies. In pure capitalism most of the workers live like slaves, maybe worse. The ideas of Marx did not become so popular because he was such an excellent writer. It was because many people were suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
You think that Europe is getting more socialist ~D ~:confused: ~D ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
That is a good one. Germany is becoming more and more unsocial. It was a Social society in the beginning of the 70ies. It has lost ever since. Rest of Europe is similar.
Is that true? How does it come that you have such a bad picture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
90% of the wealth of the United States is controlled by 5% of the population, yet the people are still for the most part happy.Quote:
But the wealth will concentrate to a small part of the poulation. You may say that is good, but I would not call it wealth of nation if it just belongs to let's say 10%. There is an obvious disadv. 90% of the people will not be happy. They may not even have enough to live.
We should give him an -ism. Cleganeism or Serism :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
hmm well, just watch the news every hour on the TV and youll see what humans do to each other on a regular basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Live in a big city and see how anti-social people can become in an urban enviroment.
The world system that we live in shapes us into egotistical commercially mad parasistes of this world with no other goal in life then gain wealth and spend it to regain it and so it goes on.
Watch the commercials on tv... get in shape! eat right! use this shampo! buy this new mobilephone (with 90% useless features) and so on and so on.
Bombard the human being with fear every day and she will enter a state of constant consumption.
By nature I ment, the current natural state we are in. We can ofcourse change the natural behavior and shape the human being into something better.
Please do not believe all you see on TV. They just have to sell sensations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
So it is not the nature of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Let's change the system!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Glad you joined us ~:cheers: ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Thanks Ser Clegane! :thumbsup:
The only nation to attempt actual socialism on a grand scale to my knowledge was Russia. They could not compete and their economy tanked.Quote:
Increased socialist policies will evidently mean an altered free market, but that doesn't mean there cannot be wealth created and GDP growth. In fact in many countries after a socialist govt is elected GDP stays at exactly the same trend levels. Where has a modern socialist government turned a country into such a drastic state as you attempt to illustrate? The facts show that there is nothing in your populist claim about socialists making 'wealth disappear'.
If you eliminate such things as personal property, the ability to grow wealth, and hard work=better pay - you eliminate the basis of a strong economy. When the government is the only entity that has enough wealth to start and sustain industry and business, it creates a myriad of issues that are detrimental to the economy.
As European nations have flirted with socialist policies, their economies have suffered and rebounded in turn.
I dont consider Britains government socialist, nor the minimum wage. Their socialist policies cannot be shown to have helped the economy though. And thrashaholic seems to have called into question your GDP claims.Quote:
Socialist governments do generally realise that you cannot suddenly take money from the rich and give it to the poor direct, as it doesn't work in the modern climate, that is why it is gradual, secret if you like. Over here people don't know about Labours socialist policies through lack of media attention and intentional shunning of them, but they are there making peoples life better - and the country is growing GDP wise faster than it ever has before, more consistently than it has before. That is after a minimum wage and vast increases in public spending on public owned institutions.
As I said earlier, eliminating a wealthy class eliminates the ability for people to create industry, which hurts the economy... kills it actually.
I think we should define exactly how far you would take socialism. Its begining to sound like you support more of an FDR style socialism than a Marxist view. I dont mind properly run welfare and safety nets, as long as the government doesn try to subversively engineer the populace through taxes. There is plenty of money to pay for helping people down on their luck without taxing wealthy people to extreme levels. Thats why I support a flat tax.Quote:
Just because there are rich people who create business' and jobs, it doesn't mean some people have to live in poverty, misery and hardship, simply because they are born into a situation with less chances. There is not justification for that, you can scream about rich people being 'needed' all you like, the reality is poor people are not desirable for a country such as mine and yours which creates such huge wealth.
The difference between socialism and responsible capitolism is that the safety nets in socialism are so great that they create dependency on the government. The safety nets in a responsible capitolist country should be designed to help people get back on their feet, not support them as they lay on the ground the rest of their life.
In any event, I think I understand your view of socialism better now. I have no problem with government supported help for the poor. However, I think in some european countries it has been taken too far and now a large group of people are living off the government at the expense of the successful people, who should be creating jobs and reinvesting in industry instead of being taxed to support the leaches. In the long run a continued destruction of the wealthy will hurt economy.
Now lets get the facts on this a little more specific - I hear this all the time from those who expouse socialism as the way to go - but all they do is throw that percentage out there like it is some great inequality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
A study
Her opening line is kind of enlightening on the subject
http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/ams3/rich1.htmlQuote:
Professor Anna Marie Smith
The following is a summary of reports on the distribution of income and wealth in contemporary American society. There are of course substantial debates among academics about this data. This is the case, first of all, because the enormous and enduring gap between the rich and the poor in this country challenges the very foundation of cherished American ideals and raises serious moral questions. However, virtually every single one of the significant truth claims that are made in the social sciences are, by their very nature, subject to contestation. No data comes to us in its "natural" or "a-political" form; information is always already shaped by the frameworks that we necessarily use to make otherwise inaccessible forces comprehensible for us. Further, all frameworks -- especially the ones that are called "objective" and "scientific" in positivistic social science disciplinary discourse -- are always shaped by political struggles and diverse ethical and moral perspectives. The advanced student is encouraged to trace the figures cited here back to their sources and to investigate the controversies behind their conceptual definitions, statistical methods, and so on.
Quote:
1. Distribution of wealth -- general
(Note: Income -- wages, salaries, etc. -- is relatively less important for the wealthiest Americans, who tend to hold the majority of their total assets in the form of property, stocks, bonds and so on. Any discussion of inequality must address the distribution of both income and wealth. Note also that while analysts may point to the fact that more Americans now have their own 401(k) or mutual funds accounts than before, these wealth gains may be more than offset by the decline in employer-funded pension plans.)
Between 1995 and 1998, all families saw an increase in their net worth, except those earning less than $10,000 per year and those headed by individuals who did not have a high school diploma. The rate of increase was greatest for those families with the largest family income. Families earning $100,000 or more each year increased their net worth 22.8% from $1,411,900 to $1,727,800 on average. Families with incomes between $10,000 and $100,000 enjoyed rates of increase in their net worth between 6.6% and 9.2% on average. Families earning less than $10,000 saw a 14.2% decrease in their average net worth, from $46,600 to $40,000. In 1998, the net worth for families earning more than $100,000 was 43.2 times greater than the net worth for families earning less than $10,000 a year on average. Family net worth also increased more slowly for non-whites or Hispanics than for white non-Hispanics, and in 1998 remained only 30.4% of the value of white family net worth on average.(all figures in 1998 dollars) (see below for more black/white comparisons) (Kennickell, A. et. al. 2000: 7)
The 2000 Federal Reserve study also found that the average consumer debt in families has increased by nearly $10,000 between 1995 and 1998. (Bernstein 2000) (A family's net worth is obtained by subtracting debts owed from the total value of assets held.)
In 1992, the richest 1 percent of American households owned about 42 percent of the total national wealth; whereas in 1982, the richest 1 percent owned 32%. (Herbert 1995)
In 1992, the concentration of wealth among the very richest in the United States is about twice that found in Britain.(Herbert 1995)
In 1995, the top 20 percent of American households owned more than 80 percent of the national wealth. (Herbert 1995) (Sandel 1996: 329)
In 1997, 50 percent of all financial assets in the US were owned by the wealthiest 1 percent of the population; and more than 75 percent of all financial assets were owned by the wealthiest 10 percent. (Cassidy 1997: 255)
Sixty percent of American families do not own any stocks at all, either directly or in a 401(K) pension plan; the majority of families who do own stocks have total holding worth less than $2,000. (Cassidy 1997: 255)
The share of marketable net worth held by the wealthiest 1 percent of American families fell 10% between 1945 and 1976, and then increased 34% between 1976 and 1983, and increased a further 39% between 1983 and 1989. Meanwhile, the share of wealth held by the bottom 80% fell by more than 20% between 1976 and 1989; by 1989, the bottom 80% of American families owned only 15% of the net worth in the U.S. Financial net worth is distributed even more unequally: in 1989, the top 1 percent of families owned 48% of the total financial wealth; while the top 20% owned 94%. (Herbert 1996a)
"By 1989, the richest half of 1% increased their share of the nation's wealth from 24% in 1983 to 29% in 1989 ... The holdings of those 500,000 families were worth $2.5 trillion in 1983. By 1989, they had risen to $5 trillion ... The holdings of those families grew by almost three times as much as the national debt grew during that same period. Those 500,000 families could have paid off the entire national debt, not just its growth, and still have owned 10% more wealth than they did in 1983." Rep. David Obey, The Nation, 8 April 1996, 7.
More than 11 million American households had negative net worth in 1998. (Rainbow/PUSH Coalition 1998)
The median net worth of the top 20% of Americans is 28 times greater than that for the poorest 205. (Rainbow/PUSH Coalition 1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Distribution of income -- general
Between 1950 and 1978, the poorest 20 percent saw a 138 percent increase in their family income, while the top 20 percent had a 99 percent increase. This was, therefore, a period in which income inequality tended to decrease. However, between 1978 and 1994, the real incomes of the poorest 20 percent declined 17 percent while those of the wealthiest 20 percent increased 18 percent. (Corn 1995)
Whereas the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest decreased between 1947 and 1968, it increased significantly between 1968 and 1994. (Holmes 1996)
In 1997, inflation-adjusted average hourly wages were still below their 1973 levels. (Cassidy 1997: 255)
Seventy-five percent of the income gains during the 1980s and 100 percent of the increased wealth went to the top 20 percent of American households.(The New York Times 1995)
Where the top 20% of the nation's households received 40.5% of the national aggregate income in 1968, they received 46.9% in 1994; during the same period, the share of the income going to the rest of the nation's households either declined or remained stagnant. The average income for the top 20% of households increased 44% (in constant dollars) between 1968 and 1994, while that for the lowest 20% increased only 7%. In 1978: the typical CEO of a large corporation earned an income 60 times greater than that of an average worker; by 1995, this difference increased to 170 times. (Cassidy 1997: 255)
According to a study by the Twentieth Century Fund, by 1989, the inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S. had reached a 60-year high, and by 1995 had surpassed the levels in all other Western countries. (Herbert 1996a)
In 1979, 16 percent of all money produced by the corporate sector went to profits and interest; by 1997, this figure had risen to 21 percent (Cassidy 1997: 255)
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute reported that the income gap between the poorest and richest U.S. families continued to widen through the 1990s. Earnings for the poorest fifth of American families rose less than 1% between 1988 and 1998 but jumped 15% for the richest fifth. (Note: a family is defined as a household with at least two relative cohabiting.) Income for the poorest fifth of families rose on average $100 to $12,990, while income rose $17,870 to $137,480 for the richest fifth of families. (All figures are adjusted for inflation.) The report's authors cite as causes for the increasing gap the large capital gains from the stock market that heavily favor wealthy investors; the replacement of manufacturing jobs with lower-paying service jobs for the poorest workers; and the stagnation in the minimum wage after inflation is taken into account.(American Press 2000)
Family incomes before taxes increased for all income groups between 1995 and 1998, while unemployment was less than 5% and the consumer price index rose at an annual rate of 2.2%. The proportion of families with incomes of more than $50,000 rose about one fifth, to 33.8%, while the proportion of families with incomes below $10,000 fell about one sixth to 12.6%. The average family income for the poorest quarter of the population rose between 1989 and 1998 by 9.7%. However, average income only grew between 1995 and 1998 for families headed by individuals with at least some college education, and the rate of growth for non-white or Hispanic family income was lower than that for white non-Hispanic family income. (all figures in 1998 dollars) (see below for more black/white comparisons) (Kennickell, A. et. al. 2000: 4-5)
Between 1978 and 1998, the income gap between the rich and the poor widened in the U.S. The gap increased in New York more than in any other state. (When we divide the population according to income in five equal parts, each part is called a quintile.) The poorest quintile saw a 6% decrease in income on average in the U.S. as a whole, and a 21% decrease in New York. The second quintile saw a 1% decrease in the U.S. and a 4% decrease in New York. The third quintile saw a 5% increase in the U.S. and a 4% increase in New York. The fourth quintile saw a 11% increase in the U.S. and a 14% increase in New York. The wealthiest quintile enjoyed a 33% increase in the U.S. and a 43% increase in New York. The richest five percent of the population saw even greater increases: 55% in the U.S. and 67% in New York. (all calculations were adjusted for inflation) (Bernstein 2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Poverty
During the 1990s, poverty among single-mother-headed families declined somewhat, but the poverty rate among all families -- approximately 8 percent -- remained largely unchanged from the 1980 and 1990 levels.(Kilborn, 2002: A14)
[The poverty line was officially defined as $17,600 for a family of four in 2000.]
For the people who did fall below the poverty line in 1999 and 2000, their incomes were so low that they fell further below this figure than in any other year since record-keeping began in 1979. Experts attributed the unprecedented drop in their incomes to cuts in food stamps and cash assistance programs, and to the declining participation in poverty programs as a whole. (Seelye 2001: A12)
In 1998 -- a year in which the 1990s economic boom produced record wealth for the richest households --, nearly one in five American children lived in a household that fell under the poverty line. (Henwood 2000: 8)
A 1989 Gallup poll found that 55% of Americans believed that lack of effort by the poor was the principal reason for poverty. Nearly two thirds believed that welfare programs reduced the incentive to work.(Giddens: 1996: 170)
Typically, about half of those officially living in poverty are actually working, but hold jobs that pay so little that they fall under the poverty line. (Giddens: 1996: 170)
Only 2% of able-bodied adult men under the age of sixty-five are on welfare. (Giddens: 1996: 170)
The majority of poor people do not receive welfare benefits because although they fall under the poverty line, their earnings make them ineligible for assistance. Only one third of the poor depend on welfare benefits. (Giddens: 1996: 170)
Fewer than 1% of welfare applications involve fraudulent claims. As much as 10% of income taxes is lost every year because of mis-reporting, evasion or fraud. (Giddens: 1996: 170)
One out of every four children in the United States now lives in poverty. (Herbert 1996b)
Half of the Americans who live below the poverty line are elderly. (Herbert 1996b)
Between 1979 and 1994, the number of children under the age of 6 who were living under the poverty line in the U.S. grew from 3.5 million to 6.1 million. (Herbert 1996b)
While 18% of children under 6 lived under the poverty line in 1979, 25% did so in 1994. (Herbert 1996b)
In 1994, 36% of the children residing in large cities lived under the poverty line, as compared to 17% of the children in suburban areas and 27% of the children in rural areas. (Herbert 1996b)
The Urban Institute estimated that the welfare law passed in August, 1996 will increase the total number of children in poverty by 1.1 million. (Herbert 1996b)
Wages for working poor adults have declined to the extent that 62% of the children under the poverty line in 1994 had at least one parent who was employed; less than a third of these children lived in families that relied exclusively on public assistance. (Herbert 1996b)
Young children in poverty are more likely to be born at low birthweight, to be hospitalized during childhood, to die in infancy or early childhood, to receive lower-quality medical care, to experience hunger and malnutrition, to experience high levels of conflict in their homes, to be confronted by violence and environmental hazards in their neighborhoods, and to experience harmful delays in their physical, cognitive, language and emotional development (Herbert 1996b)
I'm not a fan of socialism, I was merely pointing out an innacuracy in Franconius argument.Quote:
Now lets get the facts on this a little more specific - I hear this all the time from those who expouse socialism as the way to go - but all they do is throw that percentage out there like it is some great inequality.
What is your argument? Or am I supposed to read all of that and then try to guess what your point is?
That the figure you used is questionable because it is skewed by the politics - and that its also not as accurate as one would like to think because of the exact same reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Citing wealth distrubtion as an arguement for or against socialism is really nothing but skewing data to get an emotional appeal from the target audience.
The point of what I posted is that there are many such studies and many say different things - many of them often confilcting within there own content.
JAG, I don't disagree with much of what you said there. But for the most part, I would not call what you are describing "socialism." I would think of it more as "enlightened capitalism" acting in its own best interests. Kind of like when Henry Ford intentionally kept his car prices low enough and his employees' wages high enough so that they could all buy one of his cars if they so desired. It's just good business to help people help themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
That's why the companies that treat their employees the best always have a better chance of being successful. Not to mention the fact that if you have happy employees it keeps those insidious labor unions from sticking their filthy camel noses under the proverbial tent flaps.
Do you like my sig? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
If I do say so myself, it's a work of pure genius. I smell a Pulitzer...Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
~:cool: