Capitalism's corporate grifts enabled by democratic "equal rights" advocacy.
There are others but I'll mention just a couple of them here.
1. Labor statistics are flawed severely. Over the last 60 years an increase if females entering the work force was never factored into employment numbers or the unemployment rate.
2. Since mothers were previously the primary household and child care providers, the reduction in that full time occupation was switched into a daycare part time with limited days for mothers, and added hours of work for husbands that now shared those household duties without a corresponding increase in income. That translates to lowering discretionary time without pay. Bureau of labor doesn't get to add this work into the employment calculations. It also doesn't amortize these hours into FICA quarterly qualification scores.
Socialism, which is just the economic sales pitch for communism, is so flawed that only a full on fantasy follower would think its a good thing so suffice it to say that it pretends to eliminate classess but really creates poverty for the masses and an ultra elite that rules over them at gunpoint.
@Guitarman123 perhaps I can help bring you up to speed.
Henry Ford had a turnover problem. It turned out that production lines are very mind numbing soul crushing boring work. He solved it through changing the amount of pay and hours his employees worked.
It wasn't for feelgood. It wasn't to profit more. It wasn't even because government stepped in and made laws. And it sure the heck wasn't because a union was in the Ford Company Henry Ford refused to let a union be formed in his company. He disliked unions immensely. Not for being in favor of workers. Because he knew they were actually working for themselves and using government and business to promote flawed marxist ideals.
The 10-12 hour 8 hour five day minimal pay work week became an 8 hour 5 day double pay plus profit sharing with contingencies out of that worker turnover problem he had. He doubled the hourly pay rate, shaved days off the work week and gave bonuses to his smartest, thriftiest and law abiding workers. He paid the same high wages regardless of ethnic background.
The unions were trying to get those things long before Henry Ford started the company.
Government did eventually institute a minimum wage.
Laws for over 40 hrs in a week time plus half time hourly pay.
Unions took credit. They didn't need or deserve it. That's what socialists always do tho. They seek credit.
Every accomplishment isn't perfect and while not actually doing anything they helped politicians craft a law that would ultimately hurt business more than it ever hurt workers.
I don't blame workers for wanting to give enough power to the likes of monopolists that will destroy the industrialists and crush all the 1% and make themselves the .0001%,... if they can.
@SteelHands trade unions are the reason why workers don't still suffer under conditions that they did during the industrial revolution and sorry to break it to you but your advocating facism https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism
@Guitarman123 Your partially informed opinion is noted.
Still, unions in the US had very little effect on the relationship between business owners and their employees before Henry Ford, a true innovator and problem solver, improved them at his factories.
The other factories worked with government to limit his massively powerful influence by joining him, implying the support of unionization, creating labor cabinet posts and oversight positions, which businesses quickly and quite easily purchased influence, coordinated wage fixing, and continued on their merry ways to fleece labor markets.
Argue until you're blue in the face and explain a continuous shrinkage of the middle classes shortly after and ever since. Explain a vast expansion of labor agencies that collect 30-50% of gross wages from the "temporary skilled and unskilled labor force" such as Adeco, Manpower Inc. Etc.
Explain entire steel plants, engine manufacturers, car manufacturers, even whole cities livelihoods being exported with the blessings and subsidies of and right under the noses of unions.
Piss down someone elses back and tell them it's a slight rain. You're not convincing anyone that knows Jack.
@SteelHands trade unions are incredibly important for continuing fights for workers rights and unions in America can be incredibly useful https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/general-trades-union-strike-1835/
@Guitarman123 Borderline poverty not abject poverty exists in any system and in capitalist systems avenues to correct it are numerous.
We have of course government agencies with safety net systems to assist those that need help. It's intended as a way so that with reasonable effort on the part of the help-ee and other help-er type incentives a person in that situation can remove themselves from that condition.
It's not 100% successful however when it isn't there are reasons onnected to a error in freely made choices on the part of those in that condition.
Bad choice examples:
Drug use. Excess marijuana use that interferes with an individual's personal motivation.
Drug addiction that interferes with basic functionalities in workforce suitability at levels that can be far ranging from basic communication to more insidious like repeated dishonesty and larceny or theft from employers.
These very ill advised economic choices aren't the only ones either since even excess gambling game or television indulgence can interfere with a person's ability to get proper sleep and make intelligent decisions regarding one's free time and personal economics.
Another common problem is that for whatever free decision led to a refusal at an early age to learn to read, write and learn basic math, become fixated or obsessed on non the productive pastimes listed above or other things like criminal behaviors, gambling, porn or other otherwise widely rejected indulgences by the non poverty afflicted.
So if someone chooses those things and everybody is letting them know that those things do not make for a job suitable life then they are choosing poverty.
Remember, society at large is always willing to provide some help and even holds goodwill to those who overcome their own faults and escape their self caused poverty when they do.
And finally it's time we both agree on the fact that there should be more effort by government to reduce the number of traps that lead to poverty. However in recent times it would seem that government is doing the exact opposite by legalizing mind altering substances like pot, subsidizing pill pushing by doctors and drug companies, giving tax deductions for ads promoting media and its other addictions, and being the mouthpiece of the university , that these institutions have become the vanguard of victimist worship, blame culture, and phoney, overpaid, often perverse, intellectualism.
@SteelHands saying the same nonsense as any other capitalist, blaming homeless people for their own situation and ignoring the impact the system has on people's life's and how much it screws them over if they don't play the game. Nobody chooses poverty and to think that is utterly stupid as well as incredibly disrespectful to those people
@SteelHands weed should be legalised and the government should aim to end poverty not ignore those in need. Nobody chooses to live in unhealthy conditions and be looked down upon by society
@Guitarman123 A middle ground opinion would say that it's government's responsibility to suppress the traps that lead individuals into poverty conditions and not encourage a passive acceptance of poverty as an acceptable condition for its population.
As for drugs, they aren't a necessity so they shouldn't be prohibited but awareness of their common result should be a requirement in education.
@Guitarman123 Landlords corporations and banks do not profit by increasing the number of persons living in poverty so no. I do not agree that they are the cause of it.
@Guitarman123 So? What if I own a property and me and my wife work hard to pay it down then take a second mortgage out of the equity.
So what if it's to invest in a comercial business of our own, buy a lake cottage that we might someday retire in, or spend it on the vacation of a lifetime or build or buy a multifamily or other commercial building we want to lease or manage.
That isn't because the banks profit from making good business decisions or that I succeed by making myself more useful in the economy?
Very.
To excise the individual of his or her responsibility to make themselves useful, then claim government is the controlling mother of a wealthy daddy company of childlike society that many feels no desire to function usefully is the core of the Marxist argument.
Not only does socialism fail to function but it breeds large scale criminality, an epidemic of malaise toward life, and children that are not loved nor capable of it that tend toward a dog eat dog life philosophy.
@SteelHands and if you fail to keep up with payments the bank can forcibly evacuate you by taking pocession of your house. Capitalism breeds of that dog eat dog mentality by creating competition and division between people
@Guitarman123 when you qualify to take out a mortgage you make a down payment that secures a portion of the asset and proof is shown that you have been working and paying your rent and other costs, i.e. utilities and various living expenses together with any other loans you have made.
The bank takes on the majority of the financial risk for a percentage return on their money. Likewise, while the buyer may assume the risks of having a roof go bad, an expensive plumbing problem, or needing to keep the home up with regular maintenance costs, his portion of money risk going in is only a fifth or a fourth of the bank's risk.
Foreclosures are never preferred and banks will try to solve an unanticipated late payment once or twice by deferring at least one. If the party in financial trouble doesn't foresee being able to keep up his loan he usually can sell his equity and relinquish the home to another buyer. As long as he doesn't delay so long that it becomes a distressed situation, and forced to take a substantial loss.
In other words these things aren't common in all places where reputable mortgage firms operate but they sometimes happen. It's not the business plan however. Finance predation is far more common in small easy car loan and payday loans or easy credit card approval companies.
You should also be aware that there's a thing called shopper addiction too, where instead of posting payments a person buys things exorbitantly to the demise of their line of credit.
That's not the average person with a mortgage approval though. And it still remains a matter of personal decision making, bad or good.
@SteelHands it's worrying that you defend banks but accuse homeless people of being in that position willingly. Banks are a business and they want to make money and if they can make it by reprocessing a house and forcing the residents out of the property they will do it. Shopper addiction is a result of mass consumerism which in itself is a result of the capitalist system which they use to pacify citizens
@Guitarman123 I really hope you never go to work for a bank.
If you know a financial expert you need to spend time having them explain it to you. You'll find out that loan success is highly important to a bank's success. Loan failure is bank failure too.
The failures were aware of in the banking world handed billions of assets to smart thinking decision makers and they're not getting it back.
Complaining about the poverty they caused isn't going to either. They're on the way down. I can guarantee it.
We would much prefer issuing mortgages on newly constructed homes if asked. The ratings of bundled assets are how banks and clearing houses move up the financial markets. Not by collapsing the entire economic systems around them.
I am aware they're still rubbing each other's thighs with the big shorts but it's going to cut them out entirely eventually.
We have options they are entirely inept at grasping. I find you amusing. By the way. 🤣
