The shapes of economic recovery | Page 2 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

Alexandre said
If you've noticed, I already pointed that society today does afford many "useless" jobs and also many free goodies that someone in 1890 couldn't even dream of.

Who is creating the wealth to support just those I listed above?

Society cannot afford to and does not sustain "useless" jobs.

Those who don't come to their senses do starve or commit suicide as the song It Never Rains in Southern California describes.

Fortunately, many do eventually come to their senses and realize the low job market value of their diploma or degree. Such people eventually become taxpayers and not social benefits collectors.

The friend with the human resource bachelor degree eventually became an English-as-a-second-language teacher.

That bachelor of archaeology graduate? She immediately accepted an offer from the Royal Bank for six months of internal training to be a branch teller!

That one with the diploma in marketing eventually became gainfully employed after going back for an IT diploma. The only job offer he received after the marketing diploma was for a shoe salesperson position that anyone could get!

Then there is the former aspiring glamour photographer Kevin O'Leary. It wasn't starvation or suicide that gave him his epiphany. His stepfather broke the news that photography was not his calling.

Alexandre said

I'll tell you honestly I don't have answers on all questions. I see the progress over century or two, and that progress going in the direction defined by Karl Marx. As economic system evolves, so does society, including its attitude to "useless" professions and "useless" old people.

Once you start working on the funding as Bill questioned, then you'll see how challenging it is to sustain something like universal income.

Also, don't mistake some of the changes you've mentioned for "economic system evolution". There is no evolution. It's still capitalism.

What has changed is the higher taxation acceptable in Canada to fund some of those things like health care. Even the higher taxes are not enough now.

In BC, there is a Medical Services Plan monthly premium that one has to pay. In Ontario, there is a payroll tax for OHIP plus a personal Ontario Health Premium that's assessed at income tax time.

Don't believe the propaganda about communism being the only way to achieve some of those nice things that Marx wrote about. One can have all those and even more with capitalism if one is willing to accept higher taxes.

The challenge with communism is that it doesn't work in practice. Countries have tried it and the results are not great. People have tried it in groups and it doesn't work either.

In his biography, Steve Jobs recounted his early experiences on a commune. The person who ran the commune was manipulative and exploitative. Jobs slept under a table in the kitchen one night and saw his fellow comrades stealing community food in the middle of the night!

This is how much society changed in a century. Don't tell me another century will pass and nothing will change for better. That universal basic income won't be implemented before end of this century, for example.

Extrapolating like that is a common mistake in the social sciences. Isn't that what demographers did years ago?

They extrapolated the Baby Boom and missed the subsequent "Bust". Extrapolated the "Bust" and missed the subsequent "Echo"!

Norman1 said

Don't believe the propaganda about communism being the only way to achieve some of those nice things that Marx wrote about. One can have all those and even more with capitalism if one is willing to accept higher taxes.

Saying "destroy capitalism now and build communism right away" is wrong and will not work, because you first need to build a foundation, a proper economy, to support it.

It is, actually, other way around. As capitalism evolves to more wealthy society, it'll become more humane society (again, compare 1820 with 2020).

It is evolution, not overnight revolution. Just like capitalism in 1820 is quite different from 1920 and that one, in turn, is almost unrecognizable comparing to capitalism from 2020. Didn't happen at one specific day or night, but changed gradually.

With more "freebies" given to people and their distribution controlled by the government, with improved safety net that'll give people opportunity to choose the job they want to do instead of one they have to do, it'll more and more resemble communism, until actually becomes it.

Besides, who said capitalism will be against people taking jobs they like? A happy employee is a productive employee.

The challenge with communism is that it doesn't work in practice. Countries have tried it and the results are not great.

Yes, this is standard argument, saw it many times.

Well, how about we turn tables, and I'll say: The challenge with Christianity is that it doesn't work in practice. Countries have tried that religion and the results are not great.
For example, Christianity is still the predominant religion in Germany - should I remind history of 20th century?

Also, one might say that Christianity is in essence Holy Inquisition and Crusades. That would be similar to "look at how many people communism killed."

So, I'll conclude my argument, based on the historical undisputable facts I just presented everyone who hasn't done it yet must give up on Bible and abandon ideas of Christianity. They don't work.

How about that?

No, I don't intend to badmouth Christianity, this is just to point flaws in an argument "tried but failed."

In his biography, Steve Jobs recounted his early experiences on a commune. Jobs slept under a table in the kitchen one night and saw his fellow comrades stealing community food in the middle of the night!

Sorry, but that simply proves one can't build proper communist society before economy can support it.
Think Star Trek food replicators. If Steve's commune had one, would people steal food from it? No, concept of stealing food will be lost: you get food you want when you want, as much as you need.

Yes, I might get ridiculed for using science fiction, but go back to 1820 and explain people the Internet.

Finally, one other common argument against communism is still missing: people will mindlessly waste resources, such as food, because everything is free.
That is also an argument which is based on current state of society, and even it fails already.

Imagine some Canadian who makes 6 figures salary. That person could buy a gallon of milk every day and pour it down the drain. It won't have any noticeable financial impact on that person.
Would you do that, even if you make not 6 but 7 figures salary? I don't think so.
What would you think about someone if that person brags they do it? Exactly.

Now, suppose you are at the grocery and they have promo: milk is free today. Would you take gallon of free milk, come home and dispose of it? Then, proudly tell others what you've done.
Not a chance, I suspect.

But, why not? That activity is totally legal. Yes, it is, but not acceptable as a social norm among the group of people like you and me, and that is really the only thing that stops someone like us from doing it and bragging about it.

Now, expand that idea of constantly evolving social norms and you'll see the flaw in original argument of "everyone will waste everything."

I don't see any sign of drugs in the Puff the Magic Dragon lyrics. Perhaps people are taking liberty with the "Puff" and "Magic" in the song title.

In contrast, the It Never Rains In Southern California lyrics are not as happy as the music they are set to (YouTube video). Out of work. Out of bread. Underfed. Don't tell the folks how he was found:

Got on board a westbound 747
…
Oh, that talk of opportunities, TV breaks and movies
Rang true, sure rang true
…
Out of work, I'm out of my head
Out of self respect, I'm out of bread
I'm underloved, I'm underfed
I wanna go home
…
Will you tell the folks back home I nearly made it?
Had offers but didn't know which one to take
Please don't tell 'em how you found me
Don't tell 'em how you found me
Gimme a break, give me a break
…

Nah, no suicide angle in my view, guy says he wants to go home but he's embarrassed as he told folks he was headed for stardom and it didn't pan out, he hit tough times. Plus he wrote a song about it, he can't be dead! So I'm going to keep happily humming along, though maybe it's a bit greasy to do so re song about someone else's misfortune.

The problem, Kidd, is that those happy tales are for the very few who do "make it".

As far as Hollywood, one drama teacher shared that, at auditions, there's usually 100+ actors/actresses applying to each role! That's not just for the leading role or roles either.

It is a challenge to make a good living in a line of work that is oversupplied with workers by a factor of 100+.

We'll have to disagree, Norman1, plus I did some research:

Per the writer, Hammond, no reference to suicide: "It never rains... was written in London, before we (Albert and Michael) came to Los Angeles, and we knew we were coming, and I've been telling Mike the story of me in Spain when I started and how I was asking for money outside of the train stations because I had no money to eat and I didn't want to tell my parents. My cousin was on honeymoon then, and he came out of the train station and saw me, and I didn't even know it was him... I just asked him for some money, too. And he said 'you should be ashamed, I'm gonna tell your father,' and I said 'please, don't tell him, he'll go crazy and and stop me doing this!'

And then he took me back into the hotel, I had a bath, he gave me some clean clothes and some money. I moved on, but he did tell my father, you know. All these things like 'will you tell the folks back home I nearly made it' and all that stuff came from that era of my life when I was struggling, trying to make it, trying to get from Morocco to Spain, from Spain to England, from England to America... That struggle you go through, that's It never rains in Southern California, the story of my life."

Also not much support for suicide interpretation in comments here:
https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858555874/

But that's art, subject to interpretation.

Don't know about Mark, but Marx made the essence of communism be that everything is owned in common, by "the masses" (via the state), and is then used according to need. No private ownership. Communism, for Marx, is like a big commune.

In that sense I agree that today's Russia is less communist than in the heyday of the Soviet Union. But the state, often via the oligarch aristocracy, essentially still owns most stuff.

Two corrections to my last posting:
1. As has been noted, I meant to quote Marx, not Mark.

2. A typo had me saying $30 million was 100 times $30 thousand. Of course, that's 1000 times!

Now... in a Marxist communist state, the state does NOT own all property. It owns all "capitalist" property - that is, property that earns money. Anything that is a "means of production." You can own a car but not a taxi service; a home but not one that gets rented (though in Soviet Union practice this was not the case); no factories or stores or anything earning interest.

Post-Soviet Russia is not AT all communist. The oligarchs are not the state, and they bear zero responsibility for the needs of the people or the country. And they do not necessarily co-operate with each other.

Modern Russia is a kleptocracy, controlled by politico-criminal gangs. There's no point trying to compare it to a communist country.

China is still a centrally-planned economy with a communist party, but they have also been dumping responsibility for their citizens in favor of control and manipulation of the people. China was a leader in providing universal health care, and now it joins the U.S.A. as the only two developed nations without it.

In case you're wondering, I am not a communist, Marxist or socialist. I understand that the "tragedy of the commons" discussed above makes it near-impossible to prevent corruption in a communist society without massive oppressive repression - which in itself fosters corruption as the only way to get ahead.

Capitalism naturally harnesses self-interest to reward production and distribution of goods and services. But that is only justifiable if there is a taxation regime that ensures that "winners" in the market economy don't get all the spoils. There's no reason a population would want to tolerate an economy that lets a few people get everything to themselves. We want to incentivize investment but also harvest a portion of it for everyone.

And, of course, a free-market economy does not exist where monopoly manipulation prevails.
RetirEd