Republicans are pro big business, that's literally the main platform for the republican party and it's predecessors. They don't support the common man other than to make big business money.
Not to solely bash the republican party so i'll speak out against the democratic party as well. The democrats are a strictly popular party. Their platform swings too and fro with the social climate but only to the point that they superficially represent the common man. They don't actually want change they just want you to think they're on your side when in reality they're stuffing their wallets in the same way repunlicans are.
Yep. At the end of the day, all of the federally elected officials are either abnormally wealthy or well on their way to becoming so. This wealth is far beyond their government paychecks which begs the question of where the money is coming from.
.
The 'prestige' here, as it's used in magic, is the suggestion that republicans and democrats are opposition. It's a simple miss direction. The citizens will become upset with any system. The brilliance of their game is the deflection of blame from the country's true leaders toward the "opposing party".
.
We should be using our votes to gut the cronyism and corruption but we're too busy exchanging a D for an R every 2, 4, 6, or 8 years.
Denmark is ranked as the third happiest country in the world, the US is eighteenth (as of 2018). Also, don't the people of Denmark have more social care due to their higher taxes?
Again, happiness is only part of the picture
It's an important part, granted
But I don't see very much innovation in technology that leads to a higher quality of life coming from Denmark
America has been the leader in almost every sort of innovation for the past 50 years
2Reply
deleted
· 4 years ago
Having worked fast food, I don't think it's worth more than $9.00 an hour, and adults trying to support families should find different jobs.
The problem with that is that there exists a very small amount of jobs that are even halfway capable of supporting a family. Note how I said "jobs" not "careers", climbing the corporate ladder, any corporate ladder, in 2019 takes much longer and far more work hours to get to a position to support even a modest family.
3
deleted
· 4 years ago
Depends on what you define as "needs" vs "wants" when deciding what to use to support your family.
If we want to get philosophical- “need” is easily accomplished in most developed countries with no job. If we define “need” as the necessities of survival- we can see that people in underdeveloped countries are able to survive with less resources than what is available to a homeless person in America. We have so much food waste that meeting caloric needs of survival or even surplus is almost a non issue if one is willing to scavenge.
No one “needs” a car or even 3 meals a day. No one “needs” a phone or internet, or even more than one set of clothes. Humans have survived a long time without these things. But when we say “need” we are generally referring not to survival but to life. To a standard of life that we as a society define. So most people “need” very little, but it’s up to us as a society to decide who does without so that we can have more. It’s a question of wether we think we should penalized for not being able or willing to do better- but then- since our society requires many of these roles be filled- why would we penalize people for performing functions that support our society?
Living wages are a good idea in principal and a goal we should work towards- but for the 1000000 time ARENT ALL ABOUT WAGES. Denmark has a high standard of living and one of the top per capita earnings in the world along with a very low inequity of income between people. Denmark has very high taxes, very strong unions, and hosts of economic and government policies to control goods and trade. As a country they run negative interest. That basically means that there is a tax on keeping money. The more money you keep and the longer you keep it- the less you have.
In the US the average hourly wage of a Doctor is $80, in Denmark it is $90 an hour. The average US banker makes $18.17 and hour and the average Danish banker makes $27.93 an hour. US garbage collectors average $16.55 and hour, In Denmark a garbage collector makes $26.58. We can see that it isn’t a minimum wage or basic living cost- there are across the board significant differences in pay.
What you have to understand is that the way a country manages inflation and controls its markets plays a much larger part in standard of living than how much you make, and how individuals behave and think influences that as well. It’s an average of $1400 a month for an apartment in the city center in Denmark, and about $1000 for one outside the city center. Compared to major US cities like New York and SF where median rent for a one bedroom is about $3600.
Now consider this- my salary in a major west coast city rents a 2 bedroom condo without exceeding 30% of my income, a mortgage and property’s tax would be about $70,000 in mortgage costs a year at good interest rates on a small 2 bedroom house. If I continued to make what I make now, but moved somewhere like the Carolinas or Midwest, I could pay cash for a large 2 bedroom home for less than a years wages. A person making $1,000 a month would be more able to afford a home living in those places than a person making 10x that in a major city.
The point here is that it isn’t the amount people make that is a problem. It’s the fact that the cost to live certain places is so much higher than others within the same country or state. “Just move” is an ignorant answer for many reasons. If everyone moved away from these places to other places they’d just drive costs up there. That’s the backbone of gentrification and how it works. People need jobs and where there are more people tend to be more jobs. What’s more- of all the people who can’t afford to live in a place move- who serves the people who can afford to live there coffee, who cleans and who does all those jobs that dont pay enough to live there? Then you have people commuting hours to make $8 an hour? Now they’re making less because of gas etc while having a lower quality of life due to lost time etc.
So a standard of basic living is based off more than a universal minimum wage increase. As we see with Denmark they don’t just pay minimum wage workers more- they also pay other higher earning workers more too- and they also have other controls for consumer goods and services. Regulating real estate and treating it as a necessity instead of an investment is a possible start there as well. There’s a complex web of policies and attitudes that need to be in place so that a basic standard can be assured.
That is indeed a major factor. To put things in perspective Florida, a single state, has a population of over 21 million, while Denmark a single country has less than 6 million. That's well over 3x the population to manage. Governments, which by definition doesn't make money, need to be of a certain size to manage a country or state. I'm not even referring to military just civilian government employees. Population is a major part in determining the amount of people needed to successfully run a government. Downside is that larger governments require more money. Governments, let me say it again, don't make money. They are parasites. Necessary yes, but still parasites. I'd be more interested in these types of topics if someone did an after tax/after bills comparison between countries. Like at the end of the day when everything is paid for, food, housing, etc..., taxes are taken, how much money can they reasonably expect to pocket every paycheck? I think the answers would be interesting.
No it's not. In fact, the larger the scale, the cheaper it is, as overhead costs go down.
Even ignoring that and going by just the same ratios, it still scales just fine.
Think of it like this, say 1 accountant can manage 100 accounts, 10 can handle 1,000, 100 can handle 10,000. 1 accountant is still going to require 1 person for oversight, but 10 accountants isn't going to require 10 people for oversight, just 1, and 100 accountants might require 3.
Now when it comes to government, your argument works, but not when it comes to business... and the whole point of this post was that government had nothing to do with it, it was the unions.
Anyway, a good quote from Oscar Wilde: “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
There is one exception in business to this: when government mandates insurance with no cost control. Health insurance in the US is the obvious example of this. Insurance companies literally do nothing that the government couldn't do, besides requiring a price increase so they can make a profit. That's just a needlessly complex supply chain between pharmaceutical companies and the customer.
In business or government there is always a point of diminishing return. A very small company with few profit transactions can’t keep many or pay very well to employees while remaining “in the Black.” As it grows not only will it need more employees, but it will be able to sustain more and pay better. At a point however the organization becomes too big. Administrative and overhead costs pile up. Healthcare as an example- having 4 employees and not having to pay insurance or health coverage on them would allow a small profit company to pay more or remain profitable. When business increases and the threshold is reached where insurance is needed, dedicated HR staff is needed, and layers of management and compliance are needed that do not generate profit but are required to run the business- even if profits increase proportional to staff the overall gross profit goes down.
It’s a logistics problem. You can provide more individualized attention to fewer people, have dedicated people to work with the people and ensure a higher quality consistency when dealing with smaller groups. If you need to hire 5 police officers- it’s easier and takes fewer people to ensure consistent quality of all 5. The people who interact with those 5 will get better and more individualized attention on the whole. If you need to hire 500 and you can only find 10 that meet your standards- you still need 490 at least to effectively serve their purpose. You also need more people to filter the candidates, more people to train them, more people to support them, more people to oversee them and monitor them...
Using a company as an example- you and a small number of people you trust don’t require much management or oversight. If you put $1 mill of your own money up, and each friend put up $100k- you can each easily see where the money is going, that no one is stealing, that everyone is working. You’re all like minded with a shared vision you’re invested in. You’ll work long hours and hard and so will they because they are invested too. When you expand to 4,000 people- now can you hand pick them? Do you implicitly trust all 4,000 with your money and your company? Trust in their ability and work ethic, their judgment?
Now if you’re busy running the company- who watches them? Makes sure all 4,000 people are on time, doing their work, meeting the standards for their job, not stealing time, money, goods, or equipment? You can’t any more. You’ll need people to manage. Eventually you’ll need people to manage groups of managers, and so on.
As you try to improve overall performance and efficiency you’ll also need specialists- people with very narrow roles who do just that and do it very well. The myth of exponential growth is a fallacy of modern business. There are issues of scalability related to expansion. You simply cannot apply the exact same principals or cost projections and measures to a group 10,100,1000 times the size of another group.
Avoiding “bloat” requires a combination of trust in a shared or compatible goal and the individual, and individuals of intelligence, character, and fortitude. A great number of the population doesn’t fit these criteria- and in a place like America where cultures vary greatly not just in their roots but from place to place, there simply isn’t the shared vision to get everyone working to one goal.
The whole idea of America is that you can find your version of happiness (in theory..) and what that means to everyone is different. Such a huge population all with often conflicting visions of the way things “should be” doesn’t lend itself to a shared vision unless people get past themselves and what they want or think is right and make the idea of each person being able to make their own decisions and live their way in peace an equal or larger priority than themselves getting what they want.
Debates on gender, abortion, sexuality, etc are prime examples here. The inability for such a diverse population to say “well- if I can do as I like and they can do as they like, that’s good by me.” Instead of working towards such a common goal we fight over what the one and singular “truth” must be that we apply to all people wether they like it or not. This means substantial resources must be diverted to dealing with these ideological clashes. Substantial time and expense must be spent maintaining an uneasy balance between opposing sides that do not have to be in opposition if they held to a shared idea that so long as all have the option, what each chooses is right for them.
Ah behold...... The epicenter of ingenuity and advancement that is ........ Denmark.
.
There are a LOT of reasons this comparison is not one of apples and apples.
Well Americans love to make excuses as to why systems that work in other counties won't work in theirs. It's like a combination of being defeatist and indoctrinated.
I would disagree. Here's an example I think you can understand. Now this isn't completely accurate but it's simplified. I'm sure you've worked on a group project. So lets say that group has 5 members. Each of the 5 has their jobs and they do it and turn it in to the group. Now with 5 it's easy to see which members did a great job, which did okay, and which if they even did their part is mediocre at best. Worst case scenario the rest of the members work harder to pick up the slack of that one bad member. Now lets say your group has 380 people. Same scenario. Only now you need people whose job is nothing but checking others work. People whose job is nothing but picking up the slack. People who have to organize all the work into a cohesive unit. People whose job is to check that. How about presenting the work? The group with 5 can each do the bit they know because they did the work. But the 380 have to choose a group of people who then have to learn everyone else's bit so they can
present it coherently and hopefully concisely. This also assumes there are no issues with picking a leader or following the time table or anyone mistaking what they're supposed to do. Plus, simply because of the numbers involved the larger group must turn in their work 76 times earlier so everything that needs to be done before the presentation can get done. So could a system that works for 5 work for 380? Kinda, but not really. Everything got way more complex simply because of the numbers involved. And remember this isn't taking into account personalities that may clash or division in how something needs to get done. So @princessmonstertru was right in saying this shouldn't be and apples to apples comparison because at best it would be an apples to orchard of apple trees and that makes a huge difference.
It's ridiculous what is considered "normal" in the US..everytime I find out some new information and I am shocked why are so many people still trynna get the green card..
Honestly it's the system here in Denmark.
So firstly, for the pension: everyone in Denmark, who has lived in the country 40+ years since the age of 15 until 65, has the right to full pension. If you live alone, it is 2000 dollars a month (before taxes) and 1480 dollars a month if you are still with your spouse/partner. If you haven't lived in Denmark for the 40 years within the time frame, you can still be afforded part of that amount, spending on various factors (citizenship, years in Denmark, other pensions etc.)
Now, as for taxes, things get a bit complicated here. I still have some Danish friends who still don't quite. In Denmark you have a trækprocent and a fradrag. A trækprocent is the percentage you pay in taxes.,normally this is 38-40 %. Fradrag is the money this trækprocent is not applied to. The fradrag advantages decrease the higher your income becomes, however this is because Denmark doesn't have a flat tax. However it still is considered relatively high
However, you get a lot for your taxes. Healthcare, education, pension, financial aid to students (800 USD for students not living at home, pursuing an education past high-school) are funded thusly. There are a few benefits I am not mentioning. So, while the taxes are high (which is what arguably makes a burger King worker in Denmark earn more than their US counterparts) the system makes it so that it evens out some differences in our society.
In terms of wage... Yes, no minimum, but paying someone below 110 (16.6 USD) kroner per hour is rare. Mainly this is because the unions could act upon this very quickly... And they normally do if it is brought to their attention.
So yes, the problem in the US is a systemic one. And while the comparison to Denmark isn't the wisest, it also highlights the differences in welfare and quality of life. Definitely not all of it can be chucked up to corporate greed... It not about capitalism, but how the government protects its most vulnerable.
You worker ants youre viewing it from a workers perspective. This type of thinking is dangerous because its the reason venezuela is venezuela and cuba is cuba. If you pull your head out of your ass you can see that when you force companies to do this denmark model of job "rights" on a position as useless as a burger king server position, you are fucking over the small businesses too. Hiring people would be even MORE of a hassle because it would cost way too much to get someone on board... The answer is in education not taking from the rich to give to the poor. Perhaps our brains as a mass havent evolved yet to understand these basic things.
There’s substance to your overall message, I think the main reason you got the DV was your tone. I believe you’re correct in many ways. But here is where the flaw exists in your argument- you’re putting the cart before the horse. There’s a homogelation which is observable and provable throughout America. Small business makes up less than half the US work force, accounts for 99% of US business by numbers, but make less than half the total profits. On average small businesses add about 850,000 jobs a year- but closure of small businesses result in about 750,000 lay offs a year- meaning that at the end of a given year the gross jobs increase amounts to about 100,000 jobs.
Small businesses are owned overwhelmingly by whites at over 70%, with 2/3rds belonging to males. What’s also critically important? The bulk of small business is comprised of laboratories and skilled technical professionals, skilled trade workers, and property renters. Not retail or food service employees. So for a non white non male who isn’t a skilled worker.... that leaves some slim margins. Of course we could say “do better...” but it’s somewhat difficult to learn a trade while paying rent and taking care of a family while making minimum wage.
Now- the kicker here is the average incorporated small business pays a salary of $50-60k- enough to live pretty comfortably in much of the country. Montana is one of the nations larges small business employers. Near monopolies and huge conglomerates and partnerships make competition from small business an after thought and is a driving cause of the closure of small businesses.
So it already seems odd that we wouldn’t try to hold large companies to meet the average salaries of smaller competitors, but then factor in the rest and you still have a good point- that these types of laws do potentially hurt small business formation- however with all the other odds stacked against small business it seems that in the interest of fostering small business and helping people thrive the answer is to work at laws that would encourage competition from small business and strengthen the work force.
So you’re certainly right in that simply raising wages- especially just at the “bottom” isn’t a brilliant solution. However laws which reign in large businesses and keep the landscape competitive for entities of all sizes, as well as regulation to break up large conglomerates and profiteers such as large scale land developers and introduce controls to markets like housing which define the backbone of what wages a person must make to survive are apt. If you increase wages the price of goods just inflates to compensate and the buying power of those “above” simply decreases.
If you regulate certain necessities to prevent their use as investment tools and encourage their use as practical assets- such as land- you encourage growth and make resources accessible to those small businesses and private citizens. As for taking from the rich- to some degree it seems prudent. The system of regulation designed to profit the “little guy” and encourage competition and innovation was broken to support entrenchment and stagnation in the guise of stability. Recouping some of this money to fund programs aimed at creating the means to set the system back to encouraging self ownership and realization over a Corporatocracy in which undercutting costs is the primary means of innovation over development or production.
.
The 'prestige' here, as it's used in magic, is the suggestion that republicans and democrats are opposition. It's a simple miss direction. The citizens will become upset with any system. The brilliance of their game is the deflection of blame from the country's true leaders toward the "opposing party".
.
We should be using our votes to gut the cronyism and corruption but we're too busy exchanging a D for an R every 2, 4, 6, or 8 years.
There's no minimum wage in Denmark
And taxes are considerably higher than in the US
It's an important part, granted
But I don't see very much innovation in technology that leads to a higher quality of life coming from Denmark
America has been the leader in almost every sort of innovation for the past 50 years
Even ignoring that and going by just the same ratios, it still scales just fine.
Think of it like this, say 1 accountant can manage 100 accounts, 10 can handle 1,000, 100 can handle 10,000. 1 accountant is still going to require 1 person for oversight, but 10 accountants isn't going to require 10 people for oversight, just 1, and 100 accountants might require 3.
Anyway, a good quote from Oscar Wilde: “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
There is one exception in business to this: when government mandates insurance with no cost control. Health insurance in the US is the obvious example of this. Insurance companies literally do nothing that the government couldn't do, besides requiring a price increase so they can make a profit. That's just a needlessly complex supply chain between pharmaceutical companies and the customer.
.
There are a LOT of reasons this comparison is not one of apples and apples.
So firstly, for the pension: everyone in Denmark, who has lived in the country 40+ years since the age of 15 until 65, has the right to full pension. If you live alone, it is 2000 dollars a month (before taxes) and 1480 dollars a month if you are still with your spouse/partner. If you haven't lived in Denmark for the 40 years within the time frame, you can still be afforded part of that amount, spending on various factors (citizenship, years in Denmark, other pensions etc.)
Now, as for taxes, things get a bit complicated here. I still have some Danish friends who still don't quite. In Denmark you have a trækprocent and a fradrag. A trækprocent is the percentage you pay in taxes.,normally this is 38-40 %. Fradrag is the money this trækprocent is not applied to. The fradrag advantages decrease the higher your income becomes, however this is because Denmark doesn't have a flat tax. However it still is considered relatively high
In terms of wage... Yes, no minimum, but paying someone below 110 (16.6 USD) kroner per hour is rare. Mainly this is because the unions could act upon this very quickly... And they normally do if it is brought to their attention.
So yes, the problem in the US is a systemic one. And while the comparison to Denmark isn't the wisest, it also highlights the differences in welfare and quality of life. Definitely not all of it can be chucked up to corporate greed... It not about capitalism, but how the government protects its most vulnerable.