Scot Dutchy wrote:Forty Two wrote:This is not a thread about who's better, The Netherlands or the US. This is about whether capitalism is the best solution for poverty. US gun policy is not relevant to that discussion. The only person claiming some sort of superiority here is Dutchy, on behalf of the country he says is "exceptional" in relation to every other country in the world.
The US has its problems, and there are people who need help, as there are in all countries. But, by and large, the US poor are not poor by world standards. That's a reality. The people in the Netherlands, Belgium, England, Denmark, etc. - they too are not poor by world standards. It's the reality. The argument I was opposing was the one that said the US sucked so bad in this regard that it was an "outlier" compared to the "rest of the world."
You see I beg to differ. Gun policy is very important in the way it affects society and the general environment that people live and their attitude to other people. America's gun policy is typical of a sort of capitalism that I dont want to know. It is also the way American society deals with its poor and homeless. It is brutal and egoistic. Everyman for himself. Walking over bodies is a favourite way to reach the top. These are all symptoms of a greedy and selfish society. Your state of inequality is obvious proof. I am not against people having money but the amount that some have is just sick and symptomatic of American society. A prime example is the Walton family and the way their staff of Walmart is treated.
If the discussion was about which country is overall better, or which country's policies/laws are better, then you'd be right. However, US gun policy is not relevant to whether capitalism is the best solution to poverty. Gun policy is not a feature of capitalism per se, unless you are saying that gun regulation is anti-capitalist.
You argue that America deals with hits poor and homeless in a brutal and egoistic fashion - in this way, you, again, make this a pissing contest. Who is better? That's what you think is the issue. Capitalism remains the best solution to poverty, even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the US is brutal and egoistic.
Now, to address your nonsense, it's just not true -- and it's a product of your own ignorance -- to say that the US deals with poor and homeless in a brutal and egoistic fashion. That's just ridiculous. In the US, the homeless can receive housing, food, and clothing for free. If a person in my town is homeless, they can get taken to a homeless shelter, receive welfare, food and funds, apply for housing, and get the aid they need to get off the streets. That's neither brutal, nor egoistic.
Look at what you really care about. You focus on the fact that some people have more money than you think is right. You don't say "look at X, they don't have enough." You focus on the Walton family, and that they have too much. Take away what they have, is what you would do. That's not a solution to poverty, though. That's a solution to wealth. And, that's what you're concerned about.
Did you see the state that there are actually more homeless per capita in the Netherregions than in the US? Slightly more. Almost equal, but the edge goes to the Netherlands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... population
Scot Dutchy wrote:
The Waltons have these riches thanks to the hard work of their own employees and all of us taxpayers. Based on recent estimates, Walmart receives $6.2 billion annually in taxpayer subsidies to make up for the low wages it pays its workers. Instead of paying workers enough to survive, the Waltons take billions from Walmart every year, while driving their workers on to food stamps and other public assistance.
They don't receive "subsidies." That's a misrepresented statistic, because what they are saying, really, is that people on minimum wage or work part time can apply for government benefits and not be denied. So, people making minimum wage are receiving food stamps. That's very likely true, but it's not a bad thing. If you have a social safety net, it doesn't have to be a net that only subsidizes those who have no job or work part time. The safety net is based on income and family size, so a guy working 20 hours per week at Wal-mart because he takes care of two kids at home the rest of the time, would still be able to receive government aid. That's not brutal or egoistic. That's a safety net.
Scot Dutchy wrote:
This year, the Waltons will receive an estimated $3.2 billion in Walmart dividends. If they actually worked for their dividend checks, they would be handed $1.56 million every hour. Meanwhile, Walmart workers start at $9/hour and are routinely denied full-time work.
Well, you see, this is what happens when you start and own a company. Walmart is just about the most successful retailer in world history, and has managed to do great things for the consumer by virtue of its business. Walmart's food prices are about 1/2 or a 1/3 less of what one spends at other competing supermarkets. Food prices are very, very low there. The rest of the store sells everything else a household might need, and prices are almost invariably lower than the competition. That's a good thing.
Walmart workers start at $9 an hour, which is above the minimum wage. And, what that means is a young person can get a job at Walmart starting at age 16 or 17, and college students can work at Walmart, and spouses who need a part time job while the kids are in school, or just to defray some expenses can get a job there too. The elderly and handicapped also can work at Walmart, and do in droves. So, they start at $9 an hour, and they can work their way up over time. In 2018, Walmart is raising the starting salary for department managers to $15 an hour, which is $30k per year. That's almost the median income in Europe. To become a department manager, you just need to work a year or two as a line worker and get a promotion. So, 18, 19 and 20 year olds can be that. It's not a skill position.
Median per capita income in the Netherregions is $14,450 per year. That's working full time at $7.50 an hour in the US. Median HOUSEHOLD income in the Netherlands is $38k. That's $20 an hour. So, you're pissed off about Walmart paying workers $9 an hour TO START. If a husband and wife work there, they're making roughly the median income in the Netherlands -- $18 an hour. That's about $38k per year.
In the US, the median income is about $50k, because we have a system that pays its workers more than in the Netherlands.
In the US, the NATIONAL minimum is $7.25, but 1/2 the States have higher minimum wages than that, to reflect the different costs of living. North Dakota is different than New York.
I'm really sort of tired of your moralizing on this issue. You have just as much or more homeless in the Netherlands as in the US. You have about 20-25% lower median income. And, if you want talk about what you pay cashiers at supermarkets and stores? Here
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/neth ... O12,19.htm Looks like you pay workers 6 euros to 8 euros an hour to be a cashier in many retailers.
The Netherlands minimum wage of 8.95 euros per hour only applies to people 23 years and older. Younger workers, from 15 to 22 are paid from 30% to 80% of that.
So, spare me the crying about how bad the US is. Hour minimum wage is comparable, when we take into account cost of living. We don't pay as high taxes here, and local purchasing power in the Netherlands is about 25% lower than in the the US, and generally speaking cost of living is much lower in the US than the Netherlands.
You are just way off the mark with your understanding of the US. You bitch and moan about the $9 starting pay at Walmart -- for an unskilled checkout person, or greeter at the door, or someone bagging groceries or putting stock on a shelf -- and yet that is roughly the minimum wage in the Netherlands, which has a higher cost of living than the US. And, you bitch that the evil and uncaring nonexistent social welfare safety net doesn't take care of the people, but then when you post explicitly that the US social safety net actually pays welfare subsidies to people who are employed on the low end of the wage spectrum, you bitch at that and call it a "subsidy" to walmart.
Apparently, you ignore what your own country does, and you suggest that in the US, to be a good, kind country, we have to mandate a minimum wage nationwide that will make sure that any person with any job must make more than what would qualify them for government benefits. Otherwise, it's a subsidy to the employer.
Do you hold the Netherlands to the same standard? A minimum wage worker in the Netherlands, making 8.95 euro per year with 3 kids, would he be entitled to any government benefits? Yes, or no? If not, why not? Do you not have a generous social safety net? If so, why are you giving subsidies to employer who refuse to pay workers 20 euros per hour?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
