The European model wouldn't work for the US

  • Thread starter Thread starter Litcrit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oscarthecat said:
I think that this is related to the general attitude toward royalty-
The whole idea of a royal class, defunct or not, reinforces the idea that the average person is unable to manage their own affairs without relying on someone else with a higher social rank or political status. In principle, they paid taxes to their local royal figure and worked on his land, and in return expected to be protected and taken care of in times of need.

I could be wrong, but I think that even though most, if not all, european countries have separated political power from their royal families, many still recognize (and apparently take lots of pictures of) their royal families.

I think that it makes sense that europeans still have this sense that they need to be taken care of by a higher social group- but now it is just an elected governmental body taxing them and taking care of them instead of a royal family.

On the other hand, rejection of the need for a royal class (and subsequently any kind of overbearing government) in favor of self-sufficiency and self-government was one of the main reason many immigrants came here in the first place, and ended up being a pretty big issue in our revolution.
Click to expand...
On a related note:

Joe Biden gave an interview, and in an election where, the Democrats howled no one’s patriotism should be questioned, he said that yes, they were going to raise taxes and that it is the time from “patriotism.” So if you question his right to take money that you earned so he can give it to whom he chooses, you’re not patriotic.:rolleyes:
 
Oscarthecat said:
Exactly- I’d like to add that “bare subsistence” used to include food, shelter, clothes, and basic/immediate medical care.
Click to expand...
There are many conservatives here, who don’t believe in ‘subsistence’ living conditions as a ‘right’. They would like nothing better than to employ people for 20c an hour, have them work all their waking lives, bunk ten to room, and eat a couple of bowls of soup and some rice a day. You seem to be one of these people, ie against any labour laws or government intervention whatsoever.

What ‘subsistence’ is is always up for debate. Surviving is these conditions is possible, was common just over a century ago in the west, and still occurrs in the third world.

My point is that there is no agreed on ‘liveable’ level of wages or conditions, as employers will always be pulling in one direction with employees and unions in the other. It’s nonsense to say that without regulations employers would naturally ensure that employee standards of living were ‘good enough’, just out of concern for them, because noone can agree on what individuals deserve or are entitled to expect in the first place.
 
cynic said:
There are many conservatives here, who don’t believe in ‘subsistence’ living conditions as a ‘right’. They would like nothing better than to employ people for 20c an hour, have them work all their waking lives, bunk ten to room, and eat a couple of bowls of soup and some rice a day. You seem to be one of these people, ie against any labour laws or government intervention whatsoever.

What ‘subsistence’ is is always up for debate. Surviving is these conditions is possible, was common just over a century ago in the west, and still occurrs in the third world.

My point is that there is no agreed on ‘liveable’ level of wages or conditions, as employers will always be pulling in one direction with employees and unions in the other. It’s nonsense to say that without regulations employers would naturally ensure that employee standards of living were ‘good enough’, just out of concern for them, because noone can agree on what individuals deserve or are entitled to expect in the first place.
Click to expand...
And government regulation solves that problem how?
 
all i know is purity turns to carma and more power way beyond reason and possibility dealings with the government
 
cynic said:
There are many conservatives here, who don’t believe in ‘subsistence’ living conditions as a ‘right’. They would like nothing better than to employ people for 20c an hour, have them work all their waking lives, bunk ten to room, and eat a couple of bowls of soup and some rice a day. You seem to be one of these people, ie against any labour laws or government intervention whatsoever.
Click to expand...
That’s a rather presumptuous statement- I believe very strongly that employers and employees should operate according to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. What you can’t seem to wrap your head around is that I also believe, just as strongly, that whatever success government may have in securing a basic level of workers rights in the short term is outweighed by the negative long term effect of that same intervention because workers and employers ultimately replace their obligation to treat one another justly with their obligation to meet the government’s arbitrary minimum standards.
What ‘subsistence’ is is always up for debate. Surviving is these conditions is possible, was common just over a century ago in the west, and still occurrs in the third world.
Click to expand...
Actually, subsistence is not up for debate-it is pretty clear what human beings need to survive. Maybe you’re confusing “subsistence” with “thriving.”

Interestingly enough, CST emphasizes “thriving” over “subsistence,” while government bureaucrats keep trying to redefine “subsistence” AS “thriving” which is itself unjust because sometimes a subsistence wage is all that an employer can offer, and it is unjust to place a legal obligation on someone to pay more than what they can actually afford.
This is an important difference.
My point is that there is no agreed on ‘liveable’ level of wages or conditions, as employers will always be pulling in one direction with employees and unions in the other.
Click to expand...
Hey, but didn’t we just pass this big minimum wage law?
Are you saying that this government intervention didn’t secure a “liveable” level of wages (you can call that a living wage, for future reference).

But if government intervention is so great, then why should any employer feel obligated to pay their employees one penny over the minimum wage? After all, they’re not legally obligated to do more than the minimum, right? So it must be just fine for an employer to pay the minimum wage to a single mother of 4 in New York because that’s what the government says to do, right?

Are you starting to understand why I think that government intervention is useless? It undermines personal responsibility.
It’s nonsense to say that without regulations employers would naturally ensure that employee standards of living were ‘good enough’, just out of concern for them, because noone can agree on what individuals deserve or are entitled to expect in the first place.
Click to expand...
No, just employment practices are not naturally achieved by simply removing government intervention- that takes a lot of work.
but the presence of government intervention does naturally diminish the probability that just employment practices will ever be achieved because it replaces what is “just” with a minimum standard.
 
Getting back to the subject of health care, I think it is pretty arrogant for us Americans to say that the European health care system doesn’t work. Who says it doesn’t work? Americans? What experience do we have with it? After all, in America, we have free education through high school. Why should education be covered but not health care?

Maybe the person who started this thread could enlighten the rest of us with details about how the European health care system works. Give us an example. Let’s say you had a bad cold that has turned into walking pneumonia. You’re feeling terrible. How long did it take you to get an appointment? How much choice did you have about which health care provider to see? Did he or she have to be in a “network” like in the U.S.? Did you have to pay anything for your office call? A copay? How much did your anitibiotic cost?

I think that we Americans would be more open to a system such as this if we heard the details from Europeans (rather than Americans who probably don’t know what they’re talking about, especially if they’ve never lived in Europe.)
 
Well, I did post that children 5 and under die more in the US than in any other countries outside of the third world countries. That says enough…
 
Listener said:
Getting back to the subject of health care, I think it is pretty arrogant for us Americans to say that the European health care system doesn’t work. Who says it doesn’t work? Americans? What experience do we have with it?
Click to expand...
Some, a lot. Especially those with contacts with Europeans who come here for health care.
After all, in America, we have free education through high school. Why should education be covered but not health care?
Click to expand...
You seen the state of public education lately?
Maybe the person who started this thread could enlighten the rest of us with details about how the European health care system works. Give us an example. Let’s say you had a bad cold that has turned into walking pneumonia. You’re feeling terrible. How long did it take you to get an appointment? How much choice did you have about which health care provider to see? Did he or she have to be in a “network” like in the U.S.? Did you have to pay anything for your office call? A copay? How much did your anitibiotic cost?

I think that we Americans would be more open to a system such as this if we heard the details from Europeans (rather than Americans who probably don’t know what they’re talking about, especially if they’ve never lived in Europe.)
Click to expand...
 
Shoshana said:
Well, I did post that children 5 and under die more in the US than in any other countries outside of the third world countries. That says enough…
Click to expand...
The US is also the only country outside of the third world countries having children 5 and under in any number.
 
Oscarthecat said:
Interestingly enough, CST emphasizes “thriving” over “subsistence,” while government bureaucrats keep trying to redefine “subsistence” AS “thriving” which is itself unjust because sometimes a subsistence wage is all that an employer can offer, and it is unjust to place a legal obligation on someone to pay more than what they can actually afford.
This is an important difference.
Click to expand...
Yes, and besides, what ends up happening in these situations? Employers are forced to hire less people. And then you get an increase in unemployment, which in turn causes average salaries to go down. Great domino effect. The result is exactly the opposite of what our “very well intentioned” politicians had envisioned.
Oscarthecat said:
No, just employment practices are not naturally achieved by simply removing government intervention- that takes a lot of work.
but the presence of government intervention does naturally diminish the probability that just employment practices will ever be achieved because it replaces what is “just” with a minimum standard.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I add that, save very rare occasions, in the long term, the mere pursuit of profit and its “invisible hand” will tend toward justice for all. This is Economics 101, Adam Smith.

A personal example: I am a permanent resident from Brazil. When I went to get my first job here in the US, let’s just say that my Brazilian resume wasn’t necessarily attracting hundreds of opportunities.
Was this discrimination? No. My university is excellent, but it’s just plain not famous here. I had some good previous jobs to list, but with companies nobody here is familiar with, etc (and in case you were wondering, no, I didn’t move here to find a job, but because of my marriage, hubby is American).
So it’s just natural to prefer to hire somebody that you can check more easily, it’s more likely to be profitable. That’s what I would do.
Well, so what did I do? I went back 1 step so that I could go 2 forward. I took an entry level position even though I had a couple years of experience after graduating. And I took a salary that is even too low for entry-level positions with a bachelor’s degree.
My interviewer asked me why I was accepting that rate, I answered “so that I can show somebody my worth, I’ll be asking for a raise soon”.
Sure enough, I got my first raise after 3 months.
And why did I get my raises? Because they were mean before and then they decided to become good people? No, because of the pursuit of profit, just as before. They saw my skills and realized they would need to fix my rate if they wanted to keep me from finding another job.
Now, had these “miraculous” government regulations or unions be setting my pay rate at a minimum higher than my initial rate, I might be still looking for a job now, because they probably wouldn’t have thought I was worth taking a chance at this hypothetical minimum pay rate. 👍
 
Listener said:
Getting back to the subject of health care, I think it is pretty arrogant for us Americans to say that the European health care system doesn’t work. Who says it doesn’t work? Americans? What experience do we have with it? After all, in America, we have free education through high school. Why should education be covered but not health care?

Maybe the person who started this thread could enlighten the rest of us with details about how the European health care system works. Give us an example. Let’s say you had a bad cold that has turned into walking pneumonia. You’re feeling terrible. How long did it take you to get an appointment? How much choice did you have about which health care provider to see? Did he or she have to be in a “network” like in the U.S.? Did you have to pay anything for your office call? A copay? How much did your anitibiotic cost?

I think that we Americans would be more open to a system such as this if we heard the details from Europeans (rather than Americans who probably don’t know what they’re talking about, especially if they’ve never lived in Europe.)
Click to expand...
There have been a lot of posts already about specific details and examples, with the respective explanation on how they got the information. Maybe you missed them?
 
Shoshana said:
Well, I did post that children 5 and under die more in the US than in any other countries outside of the third world countries. That says enough…
Click to expand...
Sources? If this includes abortions, it doesn’t surprise me.
 
Thais said:
Sources? If this includes abortions, it doesn’t surprise me.
Click to expand...
That is beside the abortions. This excerpt was quoted in post 35:

United States Has Higher Death Rate
Than Most Other Countries
**Excerpted from **
State of the WORLD’S MOTHERS 2007
Saving the Lives of Children Under 5
Report by Save The Children
1may2007

Child Deaths in the Developed World
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2007/US-Death-Rate1may07a.gif
Child Death Rates in the United States
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2007/US-Death-Rate1may07b.gif
mindfully.org/Health/2007/US-Death-Rate1may07.htm
 
Thais said:
Now, had these “miraculous” government regulations or unions be setting my pay rate at a minimum higher than my initial rate, I might be still looking for a job now, because they probably wouldn’t have thought I was worth taking a chance at this hypothetical minimum pay rate. 👍
Click to expand...
Yet you still would have benefited from the minimum wage at that point in time (whether you were at it or near it), hopefully allowing you to buy enough to eat, and pay rent on modest accomodation.
 
Thais said:
Yes, and besides, what ends up happening in these situations? Employers are forced to hire less people. And then you get an increase in unemployment, which in turn causes average salaries to go down. Great domino effect. The result is exactly the opposite of what our “very well intentioned” politicians had envisioned.
Click to expand...
That argument could be used to justify paying people less than $2 an hour. Is that ideal though?

You could always have more to invest, employ more people, or give a higher return to shareholders, if labour costs were lower and lower. At some point that benefit to society of the jobs your provided becomes very small. I thought there was a labour demand in the U.S at the moment anyway.
 
cynic said:
Yet you still would have benefited from the minimum wage at that point in time (whether you were at it or near it), hopefully allowing you to buy enough to eat, and pay rent on modest accomodation.
Click to expand...
No, I was way above it, thank you.
But anyway, my ultimate point in both parts of that post was: what good is a federal or state minimum wage without a job??
 
cynic said:
That argument could be used to justify paying people less than $2 an hour. Is that ideal though?

You could always have more to invest, employ more people, or give a higher return to shareholders, if labour costs were lower and lower. At some point that benefit to society of the jobs your provided becomes very small. I thought there was a labour demand in the U.S at the moment anyway.
Click to expand...
It’s called supply & demand, it also works with employment. The “good” being sold and bought is labor.
If more jobs are available, employees become scarce and therefore more expensive.

You should try to at least accept the possibility that government cannot guarantee justice, there’s almost always a way around it. It is a free market that brings competition and consequently justice.

Some minimum of Economics should be taught in schools… we have way too many well intentioned but flawed ideas, and they affect people’s lives very directly.
 
Thais said:
Ok, any neutral source, or at least one that at least pretends to be unbiased?
Their main page has a picture of McCain and Palin with the words:
Click to expand...
:eek: Sorry about that…I will look for something not biased!😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top