Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think most people would like us to live in a communist country?

345 replies

wannaBe · 24/01/2012 14:05

"landlords shouldn't be allowed to rent for more than x amount of money."

"People shouldn't be allowed to sell their houses for more than a certain amount of money."

"People shouldn't be allowed to earn more than a certain amount of money (I'm talking salary here not benefits)."

This isn't a thread about who is better off and who can afford to do what - that's been done to death elsewhere.

But do people really think we would be in a better place if we didn't live in a free economy and where we were dictated to by the state how much we could and couldn't earn/whether we could or couldn't sell our house etc? really?

OP posts:
PrincessTamTam · 26/01/2012 18:56

No one said it didn't need reforming. But it's whole workforce agrees the proposed legislation will mean its end. They have not been effectively consulted during the process. How can we let this happen?
As I said, shameful.

bradbourne · 26/01/2012 19:12

Hullygully - you don't half talk a load of cr*p.

1 in 2 Amerivans live in poverty? B**cks!

"Today, the Census Bureau released its annual poverty report, which declared that a record 46.2 million persons, or roughly one in seven Americans, were poor in 2010...

However, understanding poverty in America requires looking behind these numbers at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word ?poverty? suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one?s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as ?poor? by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.

The following are facts about persons defined as ?poor? by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning.
92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
43 percent have Internet access.

96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
Other government surveys show that the average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and is well above recommended norms in most cases. "

www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

TheParanoidAndroid · 26/01/2012 19:12

No-ones been to a communist state.

Am I invisible?

HELLO?!

PrincessTamTam · 26/01/2012 19:20

OK, The Heritage Foundation: From Wiki...

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".[1]

Nuff said.

bradbourne · 26/01/2012 19:30

The statistics quoted wre from the US census bureau if you read more carefully.. Have you got any actual evidence to substantiate Hullygully's outrageous and laughable claims?

"the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line last year, 15.1 percent, was the highest level since 1993." www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

"In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000. "
www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

"In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States" www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

That enough links for you?

Hullygully · 26/01/2012 19:30

Quite.

Still, who cares, as long as it says what you want?

bradbourne · 26/01/2012 19:30

Any actual evidence to sunstantiate your laughable claims?

Hullygully · 26/01/2012 19:36

WASHINGTON -- Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans ? nearly 1 in 2 ? have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too `rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax cut, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.

"There's no doubt the recession has thrown a lot of people out of work and incomes have fallen," Rector said. "As we come out of recession, it will be important that these programs promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence and encourage people to look for work."

Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold ? roughly $45,000 for a family of four ? because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job. Housing and child-care costs are consuming up to half of a family's income.

States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million.

January 26, 2012 Huffingtonpost Data released by the Census Bureau last week.

bradbourne · 26/01/2012 20:06

If you read that article, you will see that the poverty figures with "low income" figures to come up with the 1-in-2 figure. Which is pretty logical really - obviously, around half the population will earn below average income.

"About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level..."

So, by including people on virtually double the income level defined as poverty (ok, ok, up to a mere 199% of the poverty income level) - then you can claim 1-in-2 live in poverty?

TuftyFinch · 26/01/2012 20:56

Capitalism has failed. Completely.

True socialism would be fine with me.

People could choose the jobs they would most like to do, not the one they have to do. All the jobs that no one chooses get divided up, so everyone has to do a bit of unskilled, manual work. So a teacher might teach for 4 days and do bin emptying for one day. There's be no student debt. They'd be no housing shortage. There'd be no giant food mountains. No homeless people. All children get the same access to the same education. What's not to like?

Norway or Sweden? can't decide now. I think I'll go to Sweden because I like Saabs.

bradbourne · 26/01/2012 21:02

And what about this gem?

"half of the population of the USA UNABLE TO BUY FOOD "

Unable?? Not "find it difficult to afford" or even "occasionally go without". "UNABLE TO BUY FOOD". You make it sound like Ethiopia, circa 1982. Should we be expecting Bob Geldolf and Midge Ure to launch "Live Aid USA" imminently?

Any actual evidence to substantiate this claim, Hullygully? Or is it yet more hyperbole?

EdlessAllenPoe · 26/01/2012 21:12

"Capitalism has failed. Completely"

this is a very functional-looking failure tutty....although as others have pointed out this is not true capitalism.

bradbourne · 26/01/2012 21:24

TuftyFinch - if you think that's how life is in Sweden, you are sadly misinformed. For example, around 80% of Swedish schools are privately run, as are the railways. There is no public ownership of production. You apy a fee to visit the doctor or for a stay in hospital. Employment in the public sector has halved since 1997. Sweden is not a socialist country.

"People could choose the jobs they would most like to do, not the one they have to do. All the jobs that no one chooses get divided up, so everyone has to do a bit of unskilled, manual work."

You haven't thiugh this through, have you? So anyone could be a brain surgeon if they fancied it? Or they could perhaps try their hand at a bit of university lecturing? Or perhaps a train driver. And then what happens if lots of people want the same job - do you have some sort of "time share" arrangement? So you get one afternoon a week doing a nice job like, say, flower arranging and make up for that by spending the rest of the week cleaning the sewers?

belsize77 · 26/01/2012 21:30

That 2 in 1 figure has come from the calculation of a new measure SPM. www.epi.org/publication/poverty-measure-highlights-dire-circumstances

Even those academics and lobby groups who claim that the national census poverty statistics are incorrectly calculated do not suggest that 50% of Americans live in poverty by any of the conventional measures. What SPM appears to do, according to the article, is to calulate poverty levels if certain key forms of state assistance were removed. Its partial purpose is to allow review of specific government policies on poverty. The article comes from a slightly left leaning think tank. It is described as non partisan but is partially union supported.

Our own figures wouldn't look great if we removed from calculations any income individuals received from the state. In fact, this form of measurement presumably counts against countries with a generous welfare provision.

TuftyFinch · 26/01/2012 21:34

In recent years, there have been a number of concerns raised about the official U.S. poverty measure. In 1995, the National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics convened a panel on measuring poverty. The findings of the panel were that "the official poverty measure in the United States is flawed and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the public about who is poor and who is not poor.

The panel was chaired by Robert Michael, former Dean of the Harris School of the University of Chicago. According to Michael, the official U.S. poverty measure "has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the economy." The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:
"According to the panel's recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care.?

TuftyFinch · 26/01/2012 21:42

Of course I havn't thought it through Bradbourne. This is Mumsnet not the London School of Economics. Have you heard of a word called 'flippant'? If you have a dictionary to hand maybe you could look it up?

As a lecturer, I had to train and get in debt to do so. Not everyone would want to be a lecturer though would they. Socialism doesn't mean that everyone can do what they want. It means everyone gets a fair chance to do what they want. A chance that isn't based on family income.

If I want to move to Sweden because they have nice cars. I can.

bradbourne · 26/01/2012 21:56

20:56
"True socialism would be fine with me... People could choose the jobs they would most like to do, not the one they have to do"

21:42 "Socialism doesn't mean that everyone can do what they want"

Slight contradiction there, methinks? Still, that's okay - I know I contradict myself at times, too - don't we all?

Oh well, good night all. You've given me plenty to think about but I've wasted far too much time here today, so I'm off.

nooka · 27/01/2012 05:45

I doubt very much that half of all Americans live in poverty, however a sizeable number certainly survive on very little, and considering the huge wealth of the country I find that slightly appalling. Especially coupled with the 'anyone can achieve anything if only they really work hard' ethos that sometimes prevails to such an extent that those who do fall on hard times are felt almost to be at fault in doing so. Some of the rhetoric in the last US election (and I expect in this one coming up) was really incredibly unpleasant on that front.

But there we go, it is one of the natural outcomes of capitalism that some people do well and others fall by the wayside.

allthatglittersisnotgold · 27/01/2012 07:25

In summary boom......roasted. So glad to see someone like bradbourne on here. The intellect is refreshing!

tryingtoleave · 27/01/2012 08:06

Capitalism certainly doesn't look like it's failed from where I'm sitting. I understand that Britain is in a bit of a mess but I suspect that is due to other factors - poor regulation, a bloated welfare state, etc.

And you can keep saying all you like that there has never been a true communist state. But there have been many attempts to set up communist states and they have all resulted in massive human suffering. Pure ideas tend to result in suffering, because the idea is prioritized over people. So, no more experiments, please.

tryingtoleave · 27/01/2012 08:07

And to add to the food queues and other horror, people in the ussr used to have to keep living with their parents or in laws after they got married because it was impossible to get an apartment.

Hullygully · 27/01/2012 08:40

Who wants truth when you can have fluffy fantasy, eh?

MrPants · 27/01/2012 09:50

Hullygully "Who wants truth when you can have fluffy fantasy, eh?"

Oh, the irony!

niceguy2 · 27/01/2012 09:57

For me the answer is simple.

Would I prefer to be poor in a western capitalist society? Or would I prefer to be poor in any communist country in the world, both past or present?

Capitalism isn't great. It's wasteful and unless we think of something better, it will rumble on until we consume all our world's resources.

However, until we think of something better then it's the least worst choice in my opinion.

bradbourne · 27/01/2012 10:06

Hullygully : "Who wants truth when you can have fluffy fantasy, eh?"

Certainly not you, it would seem.

Pathetic.

Swipe left for the next trending thread