Relative to what? We have a significantly higher standard of living in areas of the country where people "make less" such as Texas or the Midwest in general compared to the coasts where people "make more". Making more money doesn't do anything when your rent or mortgage is 4 times higher, groceries are significantly more expensive, property taxes are also way higher, many of those states also have very high income tax rates as well. The problem trying to equate Europe with the US is that the US is massive and we have a far more diverse population than most European countries. People constantly bring up Sweden or Switzerland but they neglect the fact that EVERYONE and I mean virtually everyone in those countries is essentially middle class and there is no ethnic diversity to speak of. The only poor people in those countries are immigrants. Massachusetts is lily white where almost everyone is middle class and they are better off than Sweden or Switzerland. Its easy to preach about how great you are when you don't have a bunch of illegals draining your system. Look how far Germany and France have fallen with their mass immigrant problem. So with that argument out of the way to the topic of how stupid do you have to be to be working for minimum wage when you are 30 years old? You would have to be really really really really really really ****ing stupid.
The pursuit of labour market flexibility doesn't get you anywhere. Britain stripped away minimum wages and destroyed labour rights. End result? Firms living for short term profit opportunity, leading to reduced training and a low skilled equilibrium. I don't know many socialists who have kind words to say about the Soviet system. Its state capitalism, with workers neither having ownership or control of the means of production. There's certainly no jolly outcome from either extreme of the economic spectrum, laissez faire and command economy.
I didn't bring up Sweden or Switzerland, so you're dangling a red herring. I referred to all of Continental Europe. Fix the poverty line (like Smeeding did using the American poverty measure) and the UK/US cannot be compared. Now Continential Europe has a rather diverse population (increased further by the history of empire), so your argument is not credible. In addition, even if the US had higher immigration, it should actually increase social mobility (e.g. see the analysis into human capital 'compatibility' ) Your focus on immigration is revealing, but not interesting. You haven't answered my question. Try again? We know that, compared to countries like France and Germany, the US has high working poverty and low social mobility. Why? [Hint: it isn't about immigration!] You haven't said anything credible. Try again!
Just the opposite. In America, the factory belongs to the capitalist or shareholders. Workers can only be minonitarian shareholders and cannot make decisions. They can strike. Product quality is determined not by the worker, but by the "free market", which will buy cheap products of the worst quality. Chinese In the USSR, the factory belongs to the Society. Why does the worker have a factory? He must have a stable job and salary. Product quality is determined by the state control. For violations can be severely punished. As I said before, the Fundamental and Applied parts of Economics should be considered. The fundamental part of the USSR had no equal in the whole world. Planned Economy. - The USSR originated in 1922 from an agrarian country. By 1941, the USSR was the second economy in the world after the United States. - after the 2nd World War, the USSR lost 1/3 of the industry, and the United States increased 2 times. Nevertheless, given the high growth rates, by the early 80s the USSR was slightly behind. The applied part of the economy was ineffective. Planned economy in this case does not work need a market economy and a free market. Your economists are talking about the second part.
If you are going to bring up the entire region then the US is WAAAAY ahead of them. Countries like Italy, Spain, France and Greece drag the Contintental numbers down so whatever nonsense you are reading about Europe being great is just propaganda. You claiming that France ahs more social mobility is completely laughable. France is one of the most closed societies in Europe. All France's immigrants are in ghettoes with no jobs. France has twice the unemployment of the US and a significantly lower standard of living. Immigrants in the US end up excelling, legal ones that is. And on the subject of minimum wage I don't know a single illegal immigrant who makes minimum wage either. They all work in construction or some related field and those all pay well above minimum wage. Once again if you are working at a job that only pays minimum wage and are 30 years old you are a little prepubescent man child or woman child who is a retarded moron.
If Germany is now mobile, it sure has changed since I was there on duty in the Army in 62-3. Sure nothing stays the same, but the Germany I knew was less than mobile. They do drive cars and take trains, but as to moving about, seems seldom one sees a home selling on the market.
Sounds like you've reinvented the definition of society. There isn't socialism from a command economy. It is very much the opposite as worker ownership and control is about democratising the workplace.
You do enjoy making unsupported comment. Sorry, but that won't encourage a perception that your position has intellectual merit. The higher performance is well known. Try, for example, the following. This demonstrates how skewed your perception really is.
I write in simple words to make it clear. What does "no socialism in a command economy?" I lived in the USSR and in America, studied the economics of capitalism and socialism, worked in the financial system. Did you live in the USSR? If not, how can you say such a thing? How does Planned Economy work and how does it differ from free market economy?
You have to live in a country to know whether its socialist or not? Wow, that's a stretch. I haven't lived in Somalia. That isn't socialist. I haven't lived in Egypt. That isn't socialist. I haven't lived in Germany. That isn't socialist. State capitalism is not socialism. Socialism encompasses a wide range of approaches (from Christian to anarchist), but they share a key ingredient: democracy in the workplace. You don't get that with command economies.
I think that your figures are very low unless you live in a rooming house and don't drive a car or buy clothing, etc. The minimum wage is a learning wage and not a living wage that is paid to unskilled workers. It needs to be increased due to the high costs of survival in our country. However, if it is raised too much the skilled workers will have to get a corresponding increase in wages to separate them from the unskilled or there will be discord in the workplace. Also, the cost to live is + or - $47,000 per year. How do we reconcile this? And who pays for it? Small business cannot afford to pay it and the result will most certainly be layoffs of unskilled workers. Maybe a half a loaf is better than no loaf.
You do not know anything and do not know the answers to simple questions. Any American with a bachelor’s degree knows these answers. I have a little higher education, so you are not interested in me. Therefore, please do not appear on my thread.
Sir, thanks for the answer, but you are confusing the concepts. Salary from 6.5 to 12.5 dollars per hour in different states of America is approximately 7.5 dollars . This is called "the standard of living in America" It includes food, cheap clothes and hygiene " You do not pay taxes .. . There is another concept: the average salary in America. This salary is equal to 54,000 dollars a year. You pay federal, state, and domestic taxes, which are about 20% When you calculate all your expenses, you will save $ 100 a month in savings. In the USSR, there were no taxes or insurance. The socialist system created in the USSR will win sooner or later. Because it is progress.
You forgot to justify the arrogance with argument! A command economy cannot be socialist, by definition. You've confused yourself with the economic spectrum (which can only tell us the extent of interventionism)
There is no such thing as "command economy". This concept was invented in the 90s by politicians for uneducated people. There is a concept of "Planned Economy" It was developed in the USSR. Some items of a planned economy are taken and are called Budgeting, Planning and Management. They are accepted in American monopolies ... Learn the subject, mister!
Wrong! Its a direct reference to the economic spectrum, from laissez faire to command. A command economy can refer to general state capitalism, such as the USSR. Alternatively, it can refer to forms of fascism. Note that supporters of the Soviets tend to have similar traits as the fascists. For example, both share authoritarian personality traits (alien to socialism). Wrong again! The concept of a planned economy is used in the socialist calculation debate. That refers to how the Walrasian Auctioneer can be hypothetically replaced by the socialist planner, such that perfect competition can be delivered and market failure avoided. There are two key aspects with that. First, Hayek destroyed that belief (and market socialism no longer focuses on such unrealistic theoretical approaches). Second, it had naff all to do with the Soviet Union. The notion of planning success in such command economy outcomes is of course ludicrous (with the price mechanism failing to deliver efficient allocation criteria)
After these words, I know only one answer to illiterate American morons, like you: Get Out! I'm sorry for the time that I spent on you.
Again you attack when you should listen. A command economy can indeed refer to either the likes of the Soviets and the likes of the Fascists. The link between the two is also supported in the psychology literature. e.g. McFarland et al. (1996, Russian Authoritarianism Two Years after Communism, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol 22, Issue 2, pp. 210 - 217)
Just referring to the scholarly evidence. We know that the Soviet Union is inconsistent with market socialism (and the proposed used of the planned economy to ape perfect competition). We also know that supporters of the Soviet Union have been found to share the exact same authoritarian personality traits associated with the extreme right. I'm sorry reality isn't your friend here. It obviously means a lot to you...
Simple questions for literate Americans: 1. What is the difference between Planned Economy and Free Market? 2. Imagine that coal is worth $ 1. You are the master of the mine. You can sell coal for only 50 cents. How to make a profit? When I hear the answers, then I will answer.
There is no such thing as a 'free market'. It is neither desirable or achievable. Even countries which celebrate free market economics (such as the UK and the US) have a long history of key interventionism. From Chang's 'kicking away the ladder' analysis into economic development to the use of the military industrial complex to also demand manage the economy, we clearly have a mixed economy result.
Where on this forum "yawning smile"? I’m not interested in responding to posts of people without Education.
