MovieChat Forums > Politics > Is Capitalism even any good when 65-75% ...

Is Capitalism even any good when 65-75% Americans are living paycheck to paycheck?

posted 8 months ago by Rorikon (18396)
30 replies | jump to latest

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/most-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-heres-why.html
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/

Those on the right say Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system, which is partially true but what constitutes poverty and just barely getting by and having to work 2-3 jobs? The only ones for Capitalism are those already well off or doing well in general, they couldn't care less of other folks.

https://time.com/6320076/american-poverty-levels-state-by-state/ (12.4% US)
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/11/20/learning/2020electionwinnermapLN/2020electionwinnermapLN-superJumbo.png?quality=75&auto=webp

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68625344.amp (18% UK)

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024020-eng.htm (9.9% Canada although probably higher in 2023/24)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/460446/poverty-rate-france/ (14.5% France)

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2023/05/PE23_190_63.html (17.5-20.9% Germany)

[–] TheHardSell (2087) 8 months ago

No, we are living under the shackles of the shekel !

[–] pumpspunk (187) 8 months ago

of course it is. it's the greatest thing to ever happen to the world.

i'm stealing from milt friedman here, but he wass a lot smarter & wiser than me, so it makes sense to listen to him.

the only places in the world to escape the grinding poverty that has dominated all of human history are the ones that have adopted largely free markets & trade. the places that are worst off are the ones that have deviated from that the most.

(the only exception to that i know of are the petrol states, & i don't think that's a model we want to adapt even if we could).

& in the last 40 years, we've seen one of the greatest economic miracles the world's ever seen - the collapse in true, deep poverty, largely due to the expansion of trade & adoption of free markets.

nirvana is not for this world. if you're asking for people to have lives without want, that is not going to happen. but if you want to give the greatest number of people the best live possible - clean water, plenty of calories, a place to live - the thing you should want most is as much capitalism as possible.

& if you look at the areas of life that are causing people to have trouble saving, it is the sectors that are dominated by government regulation that are increasing in cost the most - education, medicine, housing, where you have all manner of government intrusion, regulation of industry.

it is the fault of government flooding the economy with money in the last three years that has caused the value of money to decrease & daily costs to increase. that's not capitalism.

it's in the areas where you have the most freedom, the least government intrusion, that prices have decreased.

even if you look within medicine, the areas where there is the most freedom - plastic surgery, dentistry, optic laser surgery - prices have decreased, products are more widely available, there are little or no waiting lists.

so the judgment of history, of facts is crystal clear on this: it is not capitalism that has failed. government intrusion has failed, has made people's lives more difficult than they ought to be.

good chart here:

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-8/

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 8 months ago

Honestly a lot of that can be credited to advancements in technology. Which of coarse will be credited to capitalism, it's just an overarching label that everything gets swept into even though tons of dynamics are in play. War could be easily used in place of capitalism to credit a ton of advancements in technology and it's hard to figure out how war is free market when the governments are in complete control over the winners of all those contracts and the money. They just spend so much money that even the losers come out looking like gold.

To answer the original posts question, we can use capitalism as long as it doesn't lead to corruption which leads to importing 100 million new people that will work for next to nothing or jump on the native populations social programs.

[–] Corbell (11007) 8 months ago

The various shit holes of the world, where those "100 million new people" want to flee from and come to here, has just as much access to modern tech as we did.

So, I don't think that you CAN credit the rise in wealth to advances in tech.

[–] pumpspunk (187) 8 months ago

if it's only technology, then why do north koreans live in misery. why hasn't that technology made everyone in africa as rich as americans & swedes & canadians?

systems matter.

[–] Rorikon (18396) 7 months ago

Mm yes, because if government pulls back, those people in medicine and housing will surely play fair to benefit the people with Capitalist love. Martin Shkreli and many of his bros say hi.

That graph link just shows me that mass-produced products have been offshored to other nations hence the cheaper cost while the rest is domestic. Too many factors lead to their rise, regulation has little do with it. Simple search for healthcare shows reason for rising cost is population growth, population aging, and rising prices for healthcare products and services. Increase in chronic illnesses also attribute. Junk food and fructose are a fine example of no government regulation leading to an obesity crisis in America.

Plastic surgery financing has become common. For most patients, the plastic surgery costs are too much to pay at once. Most doctors now offer payment plans which allow patients to pay in installments for their cosmetic procedures.

[–] B1cKsurN (17838) 8 months ago

Paycheck to paycheck still gets you...

A roof
Electricity
Clean, running water
Flushing toilets
Access to food
Ability to have a family

The poorest Americans today, live better than kings from hundreds of years ago...

[–] pumpspunk (187) 8 months ago

100%

[–] Chomsky89 (439) 8 months ago

I do not think many people are disagreeing that countries should be ran on a mix of capitalism and socialism like every democracy is today. The disagreement starts at how capitalism heavy that mix should be. At least for 99% of people.

There are a lot of models from Social democracy to Corporate capitalism on roids. No matter which model you choose life will get worse for a certain segment of the population. It is significantly tougher to be at the bottom in The U.S versus certain other western first wold nations. That is largely because the u.s-mix is very capitalism heavy. But there are other advantages with such a capitalism heavy mix.

And that is why we will never agree on how this mix should look like.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) 8 months ago

And 10,000 dollars worth of lottery tickets annually.

[–] chilidoggg (14614) 7 months ago

"The poorest Americans today, live better than kings from hundreds of years ago..."

Nonsense. The King gets all the pussy (or dick) that he wants.

[–] B1cKsurN (17838) 7 months ago

Sorry you're not getting any?

[–] chilidoggg (14614) 7 months ago

I can't snap my fingers and have Morgan Fairchild in my bed, no.

But I'd rather be the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObAGzMw-sWU

[–] Rorikon (18396) 7 months ago

True to some extend for those you've listed except the last bit. If things breakdown then you're in the shits. You can't raise a family if you only got money enough for yourself but, who wants to live like that? Slaving away just to get by. Not much of a life. Still misery but less being homeless.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/941292021/paycheck-to-paycheck-nation-how-life-in-america-adds-up

[–] Bloodworth79 (5739) 8 months ago

Have you traveled to other places?
America is far better.

And people have been living paycheck to paycheck worse under Democrats.

The Democrat open borders, Democrat college loan forgiveness, Democrat push for electric vehicles, Democrat sanctuary cities, cost a boat load of money.

So like a king, Democratsare over taxing the peasants. Through inflation which is a tax on everyone, Democrats are taking every penny they can from the citzens.

[–] pumpspunk (187) 8 months ago

this article is slightly outdated, but i doubt the fundamentals of it would have changed much. if anything, the euro nations will probably have gone down even further given how much most of them are stagnating economically.

it contains a chart listing the 50 american states & selected european & asian countries ranked by their gpd, adjusted for purchasing power pariy.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/us-gdp-per-capita-by-state-vs-european-countries-and-japan-korea-mexico-and-china-and-some-lessons-for-the-donald/

"As the chart demonstrates, most European countries (including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium) if they joined the US, would rank among the poorest one-third of US states on a per-capita GDP basis, and the UK, France, Japan and New Zealand would all rank among America’s very poorest states, below No. 47 West Virginia, and not too far above No. 50 Mississippi. Countries like Italy, S. Korea, Spain, Portugal and Greece would each rank below Mississippi as the poorest states in the country."

[–] Chomsky89 (439) 8 months ago

This is not how you look at it sir. At least not if the goal is to find out how most people are doing.

You have to look at median purchasing power adjusted for differences in the tax package.
Then you can try to figure out how well off MOST people are, and how much that is influenced by which model the society is ran on.

GDP per capita does not say much on how tough it is for the median person, or the lowest paid members of society.
It is a alot less stressfull to be a full time Mcdonalds worker in Denmark compared to new mexico.

You can have the same gdp per capita with 75% of the country doing better in country A. When gds per capita are not miles apart, then which model from Social democracy to corporate capitalism on roids is usually more influential on most peoples lives.

[–] pumpspunk (187) 8 months ago

you're making very good points, but you're also wrong to simply dismiss gdp per capita as a measure, since that tells you a great deal about the wealth & dynamism of america vs other regions.

i don't think it's so clear that it's better to be a mcdonalds employee in denmak. it might be at one point in time in a person's life - though when you look at the much higher level of taxes middle & low income people pay in denmakr, i'm not sure it's so cleark. but is it the case that a young person who might have a better time being a mcdonalds worker in denmark at 20 will be better off at 40 or 60? that is where the dynamism of more free market econmies can unleash earning potential for people as they earn personal capital over their lives.

i think the higher adjusted incomes in america vs europe reflect that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income

[–] Chomsky89 (439) 8 months ago

I do not dismiss gdp per capita, but that is more a reflection of what the middleman could get, not how the middle man is doing.

So i think that Wikipedia page is not in anyway adjusted for tax package differences right?

So what we have to try to consider is:

- How much % of an americans salary are lost to expenses normally taxed, like health insurane premiums, several fees. etc.

- We also have to consider that they are using average instead of median. And we know that the opposite side are not able to push the average to their direction to the same degree. The top has a much greater ability to push it up, and the top has a very large % of the totality in The U.S.

- We also have to consider cost of living differences, but less important the the first two.
- Somehow we have to add working hours into this as well, which influences gdp.

So it aint easy, but yeah. the U.S is obviously way up there for the middle man as well. There are at least 180 countries where the middle man has it worse. And at least 160 countries where it is worse to be at the bottom.

[–] pumpspunk (187) 8 months ago

perhaps i'm not following what you mean by tax package differences - but the wiki site does say the income figures include all social transfers. so that would include all low income gov't programs like food stamps, rent assistance, earned income tax credits, etc.

i take all your points, they're all very fair & all things that ought to be considered.

i'm not american, and i'm not a cheerleader for them. in many ways, based on the reading i've done, the us is less capitalist than the 'social democratic' nations like sweden & denmark.

see the rankings on heritage's site for the most economically free countries, for eg. sweden, norway, finland, netherlands, denmark all rate better than the us.

https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/all-country-scores

those countries definitely have higher taxes & all the benefits that go to people from that, but they also as i understand it are more free economically in many ways. businesses are less regulated, there is something very much like school choice in sweden, etc.

i'm willing to believe that those models have worked reasonably well in places like sweden, where you have had mostly heterogenous pops. i think the experience in the us in the last 55 years shows that gov't transfers have been pretty bad for lots of people & have done what their worst critics accuse them of: keep the poorest, worst off in welfare traps.

but if the us or other places opt for high taxes & more transfers, i'm not completely opposed, though it wouldn't be my preference. i like to keep my own money & invest it as i see fit. but i'd be willing to accept that stuff if we allowed more of the things that create prosperity - more open trade internationally, less business regulation, fewer housing restrictions, etc.

anyway, happy sunday to you. i have to bugger off for most of the rest of the day.

[–] Rorikon (18396) 7 months ago

You'd only have to compare standards of living. US is the bottom with 50% as middle class and Europe being 64% all the way to 80% in Norway.

[–] Rorikon (18396) 7 months ago

A good indicator is the happiness index and wealth disparity. This is why the Nordic countries rank so high.

[–] CraigC (8842) 8 months ago

The problem ain't capitalism. The problem is a government that wastes money and only exists to perpetuate itself. The problem is people living beyond their means.

I'd love to know where all these people are who are working 2-3 jobs to get by.

[–] Chomsky89 (439) 8 months ago

I don't think it makes sense to talk about capitalism as one model. There are many models within the capitalist framework.

From the social democracies of the world to the corporate capitalism on roids. They all have in common that they run on a mix of socialism and capitalism. The U.S mix is of course very capitalism-heavy, and how that mix should look like is essentially what 99% of people are debating. 99% of people want to live in a mixed system.

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

The reason why people are living from paycheck to paycheck is because they spend their money right when they get it. The reason why they spend right away is because they know that because of inflation saved money loses half of its worth in 10 years. The people who blow their money are smart to do this. The people who save their money, like me, are stupid. I worked various factory jobs for 20 years and all the money I saved is only worth half of what it was so I was a slave for at least 10 years. I wish I had figured out all this back when I was in high school, so I could have just went on welfare and avoided being a slave.

[–] Keelai (36176) 8 months ago

American Capitalism isn't. It's too pro-big business and rich people. Capitalism practiced in countries like Canada, Norway and Gernany are better for regular folks.