Bro, I've got a tent. I'm guessing OH has a tent. We can just get drunk and sleep in the ditch. It's not too late for you.

No.... But I'm not trying to argue for a capitalist
utopia.

And it's more than just not utopian. It's not useful in any way to pontificate on why and how the soviet union grew so fast while intentionally ignoring the victims it robbed to do so.

Don't you do the same thing when you try to get people to admit that capitalism has done good things?

@ bat

No cause globally it has done certain things to increase the standard of living. The soviet model of rapid industrialization did nothing fundamentally different other than direct all their productive capacity towards the aims of the state. It was a sound strategy, militarily. Economically less so. Millions had to die in sacrifice.

Where as capitalism had down sides, and I believe is unsustainable long term, but the industrial model is driving down the price of goods so that a higher general quality of life is possible on a worldwide scale.

It goes hand and hands with technological innovation though so it's not like capitalism as such is soley responsible for the quality of life. It's mainly responsible for stream lining the process of manufacturing and assembly.

no, it's stealing food from peasants and then selling that food on the global market to buy industrial machinery.

But aren't you also "inviting" us to not think about Gilded Age worker exploitation, kids mining cobalt in the Congo for our cellphones, and just imperialism in general?

Inviting you? I don't understand your question.

You accused elph of using that video you two are arguing about as a sneaky way of promoting the Soviet Union because it only talks about the ways in which the Soviet economy worked. I'm accusing you of hypocrisy because you do a similar thing with capitalism.

I'm not really in this argument in general tbh. I'm just bored and pickin' at you.

you keep deflecting with that but that's literally all the soviets did differently. They decided to buy machines instead of let their people eat. It's not like I'm arguing in favor of capitalism or saying that America didn't use conquest and slavery to benefit our position. But when we industrialized didn't have 10-30 million people die in an artificially produced famine. So when you point to the soviet union or China and maybe they're doing something better than us cause they're growing faster... Without bringing up those deaths... Yea that's propaganda.

But communism is bad. That’s the only point there is. Anything else is ridiculous.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oqwCefR-Ty...Allegiance.jpg

yea but you're simply wrong. I openly stated that America is wealthy based on conquest, slavery and winning ww2.

that was one reason, yes.

But in general they also needed to industrialize in their pov to really create communism. They needed the proletariat as a political base and the mechanized efficiency of industrial out put to truly bring them up out of backwater status and realize their communist vision.

Yeah I think you're a capitalism flip flopper tbh. Like you know it isn't the bees knees but sometimes you still find yourself channeling that kid who grew up in America learning American things and you defend stuff on reflex. There's no shame in it tbh. I find it hard sometimes to think rationally about Afghanistan personally. I mean **** the Iraq War but that mu****er hit us with planes and then the Taliban gave us the finger. Wutcha gonna do but drop bombs?

Except the stats I quoted cover people above that threshold too. That's why the number is 1.8 million as opposed to 550 thousand (the 550k being people at minimum wage or below: 1.8 million covers people above that threshold going up to at least 20 dollars an hour). I don't get what you guys are arguing with me about at all when you can't respond to actual numbers and I get handed some graph from 2012 that talks %s of demographics with no accompanying numbers in regards to the population stats it's supposedly citing.

The vast majority of Americans are way above those thresholds (which is why I cited the total U.S. population census in 2019 for reference). 1.8 million people is a drop in the bucket and nowhere near the 42% of our population (or whatever the hell OH was trying to cite). Present me information that actually proves otherwise.

It said "exactly" minimum wage. And below.

well tel me where I contradicted myself and maybe then I'll admit you're onto something

But so far I'm not noticing the flip flop

Capitalism is effective at one thing which is creating wealth and streamlining production. It's bad at other things like the environment, it creates inequality, etc.

So you’re claiming there’s only 1.8 million people making less than $20 an hour in the entire United States? If you are I’ll bet a permaban you’re wrong.

how do you ensure the other side also doesn't have guns

Thinking that the federal minimum wage goes up to 20 dollars an hour seems pretty out of touch. You should read your own sources:

He definitely doesn't know his employees' names.

Or he could get JWB to read it to him.

https://jewilson01.files.wordpress.c.../03/images.jpg

And out of the 80.4 million people being paid any kind of hourly rate, that's 2.3% (or less) of the total. And that's still only a chunk of the total U.S. population. Those 80 million represent (supposedly) around 58.3 of all salaried workers in the United States. So let's say the ultimate grand total (taking that number into consideration) is 160 million or so.

The idea that 42% of that can't afford insurance and pay bills or whatever doesn't add up when you look at those statistics.

Wait, so 170 million Americans are unemployed or paid under the table (which usually means less than minimum wage)?

I make eight ****ing dollars an hour. That statistic does not include me. I can not afford an apartment, food, and, insurance. I am not an outlier. And if you could refrain from giving me disingenuous "advice" to distract from the point that would be great.

No, there's 170-ish million people on some kind of salary or hour wage if the 80 million cited represents around 58% of all salaried workers. Out of those, only 1.8 million (as noted) are at or below the federal minimum wage. That's not a lot compared to the whole working population.

If your already applying to different places then there's no advice I could give you that you wouldn't sneer at anyway. I've covered this topic before with practical advice so there's no point in going over it again.

There's always another side until you kill everyone but you.

So they're just a minority which means that they don't matter, cool.

What about the 170 million people who fall outside of that working population? Are they also reaping the benefits of capitalism?

not necessarily

That's more so for immigrants who get exploited

My dad worked under the table his whole life and he made decent money for a while. It's just a matter of not wanting to create a legal business and assume the costs that go with that

My mom also hustled on the side cleaning rich people's houses. Also better paying than your average low end wage slave job.

I'm not against it in principle but I'm too cynical to expect that

I would probably hide a gun somewhere just in case it was the old banana in the tailpipe

Is he ignoring that point or is it a reading comprehension problem?

Where the **** did you get that from, Ant?

Lolwut, why are you projecting? You can vote for Trump and I'll vote for Yang or Warren like I've only said a billion times over at this point.

I'll also cite this from CNN Business (just because it's interesting)

I don't know every single one of their individual stories, but I'm sure you'll run across a wide spectrum of opinions on that if you surveyed them.

I read it, but it's irrelevant to the discussion when I can't monitor him in real time and see what or what he is or isn't doing and why he's at BK when other restaurants who are hiring have better wages. Trying to address something that anecdotal is an exercise in futility, just like arguing about the pros and cons of the ACA from person to person.


I was looking at some other BLS-cited study about people higher than minimum wage and got my wording mixed up. I need to go back and fix it.

Responding to people recognizing a problem with "it doesn't impact a lot of people though!" is dismissing the relevancy of that problem based on the fact that it only affects a minority, like I've explained several times already. Backpedal however you like but this remains true.

How convenient!

You can't have it both ways Frown. Are we talking numbers or feelings and bad life choices? Your diverting from the original discussion point and your comments demonstrate it. We are talking about capitalism. My argument is that it benefits more people than you think and that the situation is better than what is being paraded around here. Your opinion is that it isn't.

You seem to have this perception that just because something is a minority doesn't mean I don't think they need to be helped. That's not the point I'm making. I'm interested in answers to a complex set of questions. Don't try to turn this into something that it isn't and then call it "backpedaling" when you know exactly what I'm talking about.

He has failed to demonstrate he can correctly interpret basic information from a simple text.

http://themarketingbureau.co.nz/imag.../fail-exam.png

You were talking about numbers until it became obvious you don’t understand the statistics. Then suddenly it’s about why Bat is still at BK. Or my attitude...

But at least Bat and I can read. Unfortunately, in America idiocy and ignorance are rewarded.

Yes, I'm aware that you're attempting to justify the flaws of capitalism with shiny success stories. Someone can disagree with you and still understand what a discussion is about, ya know.

I haven't said that, I'm just here to point out when someone says some dumb ****.

You guys are the ones nitpicking for no good reason. Again, since you seem to be stuck on something from three pages ago (even after I addressed it)