Why obamacare is not same as universal health care?

[Starlightembers]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Yes.

How do you justify supporting education; but not universal health care?

Payed? You're a pre-med?

Typos, my friend. Also, Ad hominem.

 

[VixRap]

You're obviously coming into this thread with an agenda, but the rich have the most money so that only makes sense. It's not as if the rich are rich solely by merit and it's certainly not asking too much to require them to provide a portion of their wealth for the benefit of society.

It's like people don't learn about the social contract anymore.

Where does the Locke, et al say one's wealth should be redistributed to others?

Stuff like the military, infrastructure, et al; hell yeah. I have no problem paying those taxes. Everyone benefits. Not everyone benefits from Molly receiving her colonoscopy.

 

[VixRap]

How do you justify supporting education; but not universal health care?

I was saying, "Yes, I think public schools should be abolished."

Typos, my friend.

"Payed" isn't a typo. Psid or paif would be. Yours screams lack of elementary education.

Also, Ad hominem.

Okay.

 

[Starlightembers]

Stuff like the military, infrastructure, et al; hell yeah. I have no problem paying those taxes. Everyone benefits. Not everyone benefits from Molly receiving her colonoscopy.

Having a system of system of universal health care benefits more people than just the individual receiving it. To give one example, sick, injured and/or disabled people cannot go to school, work and contribute to society to the same capacity a healthy person can. Someone without insurance will likely be sick, injured and/or disabled longer than a person with insurance. Giving everyone access to health care will help minimize loss of productivity due to said reasons.

I was saying, "Yes, I think public schools should be abolished."

I misunderstood you then. If you believe public education should be abolished, I challenge to look at the above argument. Recipients of public education have the potential to benefit others through their education and their ability to advance into higher levels of education; thus, it benefits society as a whole.

"Payed" isn't a typo. Psid or paif would be. Yours screams lack of elementary education.

Typo:

: an error (as of spelling) in typed or typeset material​

->Source<-

I typed something that I did not mean to (not due to lack of knowledge; but due to rushing what I was doing): it was an error in a typed sentence. Thus, it was a typo.

Okay.

Logical fallacies. You should read about them. Using one invalidates your argument.

 

[thestrokes14]

Just a little side not to those trying to understand health care reform. Medicaid is already a program that covers people with the lowest incomes and various disabilities. Obama is really trying to make health care affordable to the middle class who aren't covered by Medicaid. The key word is affordable. Even those who are employed with lower incomes simply cannot afford the insurance plans offered within the private sector. I personally like what Obama is doing, and I think he is trying to emulate the health care system in France.

 

[Starlightembers]

Just a little side not to those trying to understand health care reform. Medicaid is already a program that covers people with the lowest incomes and various disabilities. Obama is really trying to make health care affordable to the middle class who aren't covered by Medicaid. The key word is affordable. Even those who are employed with lower incomes simply cannot afford the insurance plans offered within the private sector. I personally like what Obama is doing, and I think he is trying to emulate the health care system in France.

Not disagreeing with you; however, I felt that I should point out that Medicaid does not even cover/reach everyone in the lower class (and that it is possible to be employed and still be a part of the lower class).

 

[csmittyB]

You're obviously coming into this thread with an agenda, but the rich have the most money so that only makes sense. It's not as if the rich are rich solely by merit and it's certainly not asking too much to require them to provide a portion of their wealth for the benefit of society. It's like people don't learn about the social contract anymore.

This made me vomit in my mouth a little.

Why are the wealthy responsible for society? If someone can't afford healthcare, why don't they get another job to pay for it? Why don't they make the sacrifice to afford healthcare? Why do the wealthy have to make the sacrifice? If a rich person wants to DONATE their money to someone in need, so be it.

When you are willing to give up points from an A grade you earned to boost the grade of a failing student to a C while losing your own A, then you can lecture on taking from the "rich".

 

[Starlightembers]

This made me vomit in my mouth a little.

Why are the wealthy responsible for society? If someone can't afford healthcare, why don't they get another job to pay for it? Why don't they make the sacrifice to afford healthcare? Why do the wealthy have to make the sacrifice? If a rich person wants to DONATE their money to someone in need, so be it.

When you are willing to give up points from an A grade you earned to boost the grade of a failing student to a C while losing your own A, then you can lecture on taking from the "rich".

This comment made me vomit in my mouth a little bit; it shows incredible ignorance.

If you believe in universal health care or not, if you believe that the wealthy should take care of the poor or not, I just want to set this one straight: being poor does not mean someone is lazy, or that they do not work, or that they do not work hard enough or any other equally ridiculous idea you could think of. My mom works four jobs (depending on what is available, sometimes she will take on more), seven days a week, from 5 in the morning to 8:30pm - 9:00pm and, though she has health insurance through one of her employers, still cannot afford the co-pays for seeing health care providers and for the medications she needs to survive (such as an inhaler for asthma); she also depends on food pantries so that she/we has/have enough food to eat, government aid to help afford heat (when they are willing to give it out. Often, they tell her that she makes too much and needs to work less hours, when working less hours would mean not being able to afford electricity, gas to get to her four jobs, food when the food pantry runs out, etc. So, in reality, we end up hoping that somebody will help us by lending us money most months) and so on. I have had to call 911 multiple times throughout my childhood because my mother was unconscious and couldn't breath, a situation that would have been avoided simply by being able to afford/get a frickin' inhaler. The only reason I have been spared the same fate is because I, as a child/dependent, qualified for Medicaid and the people working there have fought to get it renewed every year for me (otherwise, I would have had nothing for most of my life).

If a society or single individual has an obligation to provide for those less fortunate is a long, complex ethical debate that will likely never have an absolute resolution as both sides have provided what are (in my mind) compelling arguments for their position; however, no matter the stance you take on the issue, please open your eyes and stop with the holier than though attitude. Yes, you worked hard and deserve to be where you are; but that does not mean everyone that has not been able to get where you are are a bunch of lazy, entitled bums.

 

[thestrokes14]

This made me vomit in my mouth a little.

Why are the wealthy responsible for society? If someone can't afford healthcare, why don't they get another job to pay for it? Why don't they make the sacrifice to afford healthcare? Why do the wealthy have to make the sacrifice? If a rich person wants to DONATE their money to someone in need, so be it.

When you are willing to give up points from an A grade you earned to boost the grade of a failing student to a C while losing your own A, then you can lecture on taking from the "rich".

I encourage you to look into the occupy wallstreet movement. American capitalism has basically distributed 50% (or some large amount) of the wealth in the hands of the top 1% of our society. It's just not fair to everyone else. The grading system in school, however, is a fair system based on a normal distribution, usually. That's why your example about donating an A to a C student seems to make sense. Redistributing our country's wealth will change a lot for the poor, and change very little for the rich. Think percentages.

This comment made me vomit in my mouth a little bit; it shows incredible ignorance.

If you believe in universal health care or not, if you believe that the wealthy should take care of the poor or not, I just want to set this one straight: being poor does not mean someone is lazy, or that they do not work, or that they do not work hard enough or any other equally ridiculous idea you could think of. My mom works four jobs (depending on what is available, sometimes she will take on more), seven days a week, from 5 in the morning to 8:30am - 9:00pm and, though she has health insurance through one of her employers, still cannot afford the co-pays for seeing health care providers and for the medications she needs to survive (such as an inhaler for asthma); she also depends on food pantries so that she/we has/have enough food to eat, government aid to help afford heat (when they are willing to give it out. Often, they tell her that she makes too much and needs to work less hours, when working less hours would mean not being able to afford electricity, gas to get to her four jobs, food when the food pantry runs out, etc. So, in reality, we end up hoping that somebody will help us by lending us money most months) and so on. I have had to call 911 multiple times throughout my childhood because my mother was unconscious and couldn't breath, a situation that would have been avoided simply by being able to afford/get a frickin' inhaler. The only reason I have been spared the same fate is because I, as a child/dependent, qualified for Medicaid and the people working there have fought to get it renewed every year for me (otherwise, I would have had nothing for most of my life).

If a society or single individual has an obligation to provide for those less fortunate is a long, complex ethical debate that will likely never have an absolute resolution as both sides have provided what are (in my mind) compelling arguments for their position; however, no matter the stance you take on the issue, please open your eyes and stop with the holier than though attitude. Yes, you worked hard and deserve to be where you are; but that does not mean everyone that has not been able to get where you are are a bunch of lazy, entitled bums.

This is very inspiring. I admire your and your mother's courage.

 

[NickNaylor]

This comment made me vomit in my mouth a little bit; it shows incredible ignorance.

If you believe in universal health care or not, if you believe that the wealthy should take care of the poor or not, I just want to set this one straight: being poor does not mean someone is lazy, or that they do not work, or that they do not work hard enough or any other equally ridiculous idea you could think of. My mom works four jobs (depending on what is available, sometimes she will take on more), seven days a week, from 5 in the morning to 8:30am - 9:00pm and, though she has health insurance through one of her employers, still cannot afford the co-pays for seeing health care providers and for the medications she needs to survive (such as an inhaler for asthma); she also depends on food pantries so that she/we has/have enough food to eat, government aid to help afford heat (when they are willing to give it out. Often, they tell her that she makes too much and needs to work less hours, when working less hours would mean not being able to afford electricity, gas to get to her four jobs, food when the food pantry runs out, etc. So, in reality, we end up hoping that somebody will help us by lending us money most months) and so on. I have had to call 911 multiple times throughout my childhood because my mother was unconscious and couldn't breath, a situation that would have been avoided simply by being able to afford/get a frickin' inhaler. The only reason I have been spared the same fate is because I, as a child/dependent, qualified for Medicaid and the people working there have fought to get it renewed every year for me (otherwise, I would have had nothing for most of my life).

If a society or single individual has an obligation to provide for those less fortunate is a long, complex ethical debate that will likely never have an absolute resolution as both sides have provided what are (in my mind) compelling arguments for their position; however, no matter the stance you take on the issue, please open your eyes and stop with the holier than though attitude. Yes, you worked hard and deserve to be where you are; but that does not mean everyone that has not been able to get where you are are a bunch of lazy, entitled bums.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but if your mom is working "5:00am to 9:00pm, 7 days a week" then she has a pre-tax annual income of ~$35k (assuming minimum wage for 98 hours of labor a week). Where do you live? How many siblings do you have? Something isn't really adding up here unless you live somewhere with an extremely high cost of living and/or have a large family that must be cared for.

Either way, I agree with the sentiment of your post, though I disagree with your political perspective.

 

[Starlightembers]

I'm not trying to be an ass, but if your mom is working "5:00am to 9:00pm, 7 days a week" then she has a pre-tax annual income of ~$35k (assuming minimum wage for 98 hours of labor a week). Where do you live? How many siblings do you have? Something isn't really adding up here unless you live somewhere with an extremely high cost of living and/or have a large family that must be cared for.

Either way, I agree with the sentiment of your post, though I disagree with your political perspective.

Not being an ass at all. I figured someone would bring that up. Simple answer: some of the work is under the table (it was all she could find/that was available); thus, minimum wage does not apply.

And I appreciate the bolded.

This is very inspiring. I admire your and your mother's courage.

Thank you. I admire her, too. Hopefully I'll be able to improve things for us one day.

 

[kpcrew]

This made me vomit in my mouth a little.

Why are the wealthy responsible for society? If someone can't afford healthcare, why don't they get another job to pay for it? Why don't they make the sacrifice to afford healthcare? Why do the wealthy have to make the sacrifice? If a rich person wants to DONATE their money to someone in need, so be it.

When you are willing to give up points from an A grade you earned to boost the grade of a failing student to a C while losing your own A, then you can lecture on taking from the "rich".

If I earned the A in the first place by taking a bigger share of the points, then yeah, having some of those points taken back by the government wouldn't be something that I would be too upset about. The income of the wealthy has increased drastically in the last few years. Do you really believe that those who are rich got rich through merit? Take the Saud family for example, what qualities did they possess that made them so fabulously rich? Or James Murdoch, how is it that he earned his wealth? Leo Apotheker was a fabulous steward of HP, I'm glad he earned his millions after less than a year as CEO. Our system is biased towards those who own capital, not those who have to give up their labor to earn a living. When you see boards cutting thousands of jobs while making record profits and sitting on huge piles of cash, then you can see that something is wrong with the system. When bankers' bets go bad and they rely on taxpayer money to keep the system solvent, yet the average person on the street is suffering for their misdeeds, something is wrong with the system. Society offers the wealthy the opportunity to become rich, you can't earn massive amounts of money by yourself, you have to exploit the working class to do it. This is not a bad thing in and of itself and would actually be desirable in a meritocracy but we live in a corporatocracy where the people at the top have become a permanent overclass in which vast inheritances are being handed down while government and finance do everything hand in hand. There's a severe lack of social justice in our country and our place on the Gini index isn't exactly something to be admired. People used to come here to fulfill their own American Dream but that dream has been shattered for decades. Politicians are all bought and paid for and elections have become a sham because of the immense amount of money being thrown around, buying influence for those who don't need it. Wealth and power are being concentrated while real incomes for everyone else is falling due to inflation. Guess what? A well-educated, healthy work force is necessary to keep America competitive in the future, but funding for education is cut while the rich get enormous tax breaks that they don't need. Enjoy the taste of your own vomit.

 

[NickNaylor]

If I earned the A in the first place by taking a bigger share of the points, then yeah, having some of those points taken back by the government wouldn't be something that I would be too upset about. The income of the wealthy has increased drastically in the last few years. Do you really believe that those who are rich got rich through merit? Take the Saud family for example, what qualities did they possess that made them so fabulously rich? Or James Murdoch, how is it that he earned his wealth? Leo Apotheker was a fabulous steward of HP, I'm glad he earned his millions after less than a year as CEO. Our system is biased towards those who own capital, not those who have to give up their labor to earn a living. When you see boards cutting thousands of jobs while making record profits and sitting on huge piles of cash, then you can see that something is wrong with the system. When bankers' bets go bad and they rely on taxpayer money to keep the system solvent, yet the average person on the street is suffering for their misdeeds, something is wrong with the system. Society offers the wealthy the opportunity to become rich, you can't earn massive amounts of money by yourself, you have to exploit the working class to do it. This is not a bad thing in and of itself and would actually be desirable in a meritocracy but we live in a corporatocracy where the people at the top have become a permanent overclass in which vast inheritances are being handed down while government and finance do everything hand in hand. There's a severe lack of social justice in our country and our place on the Gini index isn't exactly something to be admired. People used to come here to fulfill their own American Dream but that dream has been shattered for decades. Politicians are all bought and paid for and elections have become a sham because of the immense amount of money being thrown around, buying influence for those who don't need it. Wealth and power are being concentrated while real incomes for everyone else is falling due to inflation. Guess what? A well-educated, healthy work force is necessary to keep America competitive in the future, but funding for education is cut while the rich get enormous tax breaks that they don't need. Enjoy the taste of your own vomit.

With respect to the bold: there's nothing "wrong" with that unless you think corporations have an obligation to provide society with jobs. If a company can make "record profits" with less labor (i.e., less cost), that sounds like a pretty well-run company to me.

 

[IlDestriero]

With respect to the bold: there's nothing "wrong" with that unless you think corporations have an obligation to provide society with jobs. If a company can make "record profits" with less labor (i.e., less cost), that sounds like a pretty well-run company to me.

Yes. That's a company I want to invest in. If a company ran the way the government is run, it would be out of business in a year. The choices they make are for the short and longterm good of the corporation. It didn't matter if they have 10 employees or 1,000,000.
Jobs are a side effect of a successful business, not the other way around. The jobs in a lean and well run company are likely far more secure as well. An entire division or branch with thousands of jobs may have to be sacrificed for the good of the company and all the rest of its employees. That's business.
You see this in local hospitals as well. Trauma centers, OB wards, peds floors, etc. close because they are running the hospital into the ground and will force it to close completely if something is not done. Other hospitals have to pick up the slack. Perhaps they will be more profitable due to increased volume, or better management, or they'll be the next to face cuts.

 

[thestrokes14]

With respect to the bold: there's nothing "wrong" with that unless you think corporations have an obligation to provide society with jobs. If a company can make "record profits" with less labor (i.e., less cost), that sounds like a pretty well-run company to me.

This is true only with limited perspective, but it raises another important point. Corporations are non-ethical entities. A good corporation is one that makes the most profit. It is important for corporations to make profit legally, obviously, but not necessarily ethically. It is up to us people to encourage/elect politicians to introduce the ethics into health care. I believe that health care is a universal right, and it is important that we, as a nation, ensure that everyone has reasonable access to health care.

 

[Starlightembers]

With respect to the bold: there's nothing "wrong" with that unless you think corporations have an obligation to provide society with jobs. If a company can make "record profits" with less labor (i.e., less cost), that sounds like a pretty well-run company to me.

My biggest issue with the job cuts is the fact that they are being shipped overseas where the workers can be payed almost nothing, forced to work as many hours as the company wants them to if they would like to keep their jobs, are exposed to hazardous working conditions, hired at extremely young ages and have no protection or recourse if they are harmed in some way. Thus, they are not making record profits with less labor, per se; it's just that it's cheaper to use the labor you can exploit and abuse, rather than the labor that you have to treat with some decency.

This is true only with limited perspective, but it raises another important point. Corporations are non-ethical entities. A good corporation is one that makes the most profit. It is important for corporations to make profit legally, obviously, but not necessarily ethically. It is up to us people to encourage/elect politicians to introduce the ethics into health care. I believe that health care is a universal right, and it is important that we, as a nation, ensure that everyone has reasonable access to health care.

This is why I believe that the existence of some regulation is so important. A corporation, by nature, is going to pursue its bottom line at all costs, even if it harms a society as a whole and/or creates an unsustainable situation. They should be allowed to make a profit and have incentive to do so; however, not at the risk of causing instability and loss/decreased functioning for the rest of the country.

 

[NickNaylor]

This is true only with limited perspective, but it raises another important point. Corporations are non-ethical entities. A good corporation is one that makes the most profit. It is important for corporations to make profit legally, obviously, but not necessarily ethically. It is up to us people to encourage/elect politicians to introduce the ethics into health care. I believe that health care is a universal right, and it is important that we, as a nation, ensure that everyone has reasonable access to health care.

Well, it depends on your individual ethics whether or not you think maximizing profits while minimizing cost is "ethical" or not. I'd say that it's unethical to force or otherwise "persuade" a company to waste money and provide jobs that are unnecessary, though I understand why that sort of maneuver might be popular.

My biggest issue with the job cuts is the fact that they are being shipped overseas where the workers can be payed almost nothing, forced to work as many hours as the company wants them to if they would like to keep their jobs, are exposed to hazardous working conditions, hired at extremely young ages and have no protection or recourse if they are harmed in some way. Thus, they are not making record profits with less labor, per se; it's just that it's cheaper to use the labor you can exploit and abuse, rather than the labor that you have to treat with some decency.

This is why I believe that the existence of some regulation is so important. A corporation, by nature, is going to pursue its bottom line at all costs, even if it harms a society as a whole and/or creates an unsustainable situation. They should be allowed to make a profit and have incentive to do so; however, not at the risk of causing instability and loss/decreased functioning for the rest of the country.

This is a reality of globalism. In a majority of the world, the cost of living is exponentially lower compared to the US, thus labor is significantly cheaper. While there are certainly some well-known stories of terrible labor conditions (i.e., China), many of these corporations brings jobs to areas where there are very few or no jobs available and/or pay wages that are higher than would otherwise be available. I think everyone can agree that that's a definite benefit to these societies.

Everyone wants the positives of cheap labor without the negatives. We all love that we can go to Walmart and purchase extremely cheap goods because we can buy more for a given amount of money. By doing so, you're directly supporting Walmart which supports vendors that are constantly looking to cut costs. We all want to provide more Americans with jobs, yet no one wants to pay (hell, maybe some people would be entirely UNABLE to pay) the significantly higher prices that would result from all of the products we buy on a regular basis being produced by American labor. We (the Western world) benefit from cheap labor from the rest of the world. It's easy to decry this apparent "injustice," yet no one wants to make the sacrifices necessary to correct the "injustice."

I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

 

[Celerity]

Well, it depends on your individual ethics whether or not you think maximizing profits while minimizing cost is "ethical" or not. I'd say that it's unethical to force or otherwise "persuade" a company to waste money and provide jobs that are unnecessary, though I understand why that sort of maneuver might be popular.



This is a reality of globalism. In a majority of the world, the cost of living is exponentially lower compared to the US, thus labor is significantly cheaper. While there are certainly some well-known stories of terrible labor conditions (i.e., China), many of these corporations brings jobs to areas where there are very few or no jobs available and/or pay wages that are higher than would otherwise be available. I think everyone can agree that that's a definite benefit to these societies.

Everyone wants the positives of cheap labor without the negatives. We all love that we can go to Walmart and purchase extremely cheap goods because we can buy more for a given amount of money. By doing so, you're directly supporting Walmart which supports vendors that are constantly looking to cut costs. We all want to provide more Americans with jobs, yet no one wants to pay (hell, maybe some people would be entirely UNABLE to pay) the significantly higher prices that would result from all of the products we buy on a regular basis being produced by American labor. We (the Western world) benefit from cheap labor from the rest of the world. It's easy to decry this apparent "injustice," yet no one wants to make the sacrifices necessary to correct the "injustice."

I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

I so agree.
Globalism means equaling out overall wealth which means that US standards of living go down and other countries will come up.

If you want to make jobs come back to the US, you have to give incentives to businesses to come back and make it unprofitable for them to be anywhere else.

US has the among the highest corporate tax rate in the world and low import taxes. China has cheap labor and also you don't have to worry about silly things like software licensing and environmental precautions. Ask yourself where you would go if you ran a business.

 

[thestrokes14]

Well, it depends on your individual ethics whether or not you think maximizing profits while minimizing cost is "ethical" or not. I'd say that it's unethical to force or otherwise "persuade" a company to waste money and provide jobs that are unnecessary, though I understand why that sort of maneuver might be popular.

You are saying it is unethical to regulate corporations. Ethics cannot be applied to corporations. They are by definition non-ethical entities. It may be unlawful to regulate corporations to various extents, but certainly not unethical. It is unethical to deny people health care. It is unethical to deny people jobs. Ethics is only applicable to human beings.

Remember, corporations are not human beings!😀

 

[NickNaylor]

You are saying it is unethical to regulate corporations. Ethics cannot be applied to corporations. They are by definition non-ethical entities. It may be unlawful to regulate corporations to various extents, but certainly not unethical. It is unethical to deny people health care. It is unethical to deny people jobs. Ethics is only applicable to human beings.

Remember, corporations are not human beings!😀

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You speak as if corporations are somehow distinct from people, and therefore you can't talk about them.

Corporations are a group of people's (the shareholders) property; as such, you're dealing with people. In my opinion, it's unethical to deny people their property (i.e., their share of profits that a corporation makes) by forcing the corporation to provide jobs to society. So, I guess we have to make a choice between two unethical (according to you) actions: "denying jobs" (whatever that means) or denying/reducing shareholder's claims to a company's profits by forcing the company to hire individuals that it doesn't need.

 

[eHombre]

So much fail in this thread...

If someone can't afford healthcare, why don't they get another job to pay for it? Why don't they make the sacrifice to afford healthcare?

JOB /=/ healthcare. But sure, your worldview would be a whole lot easier if it did.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but . . . I agree with the sentiment of your post, though I disagree with your political perspective.

What part of working four jobs yet still lacking health insurance do you not understand? What political perspective was evident from that all-too-true story? Or would you rather pretend that people like Starlightembers' mother don't exist, the better to inflate your own self-righteousness.

You speak as if corporations are somehow distinct from people,

. Okay, that was just a laffer.

With respect to the bold: there's nothing "wrong" with that unless you think corporations have an obligation to provide society with jobs. If a company can make "record profits" with less labor (i.e., less cost), that sounds like a pretty well-run company to me.

Corporations mooch off of society too much as it is. Where do you think their well-educated labor comes from? Why do corporations continue to out-source the training of their employees to publicly funded educational institutions. They want their employees to come pre-trained on the someone else's dime. As such, combined with all the various other governement incentives they're all too happy to take advantage of, corporations do have an obligation to society. Besides, the good PR that comes from being good "corporate citizens" usually redounds to their financial benefit, so it's hardly altruism.

 

[NickNaylor]

What part of working four jobs yet still lacking health insurance do you not understand? What political perspective was evident from that all-too-true story? Or would you rather pretend that people like Starlightembers' mother don't exist, the better to inflate your own self-righteousness.

Corporations mooch off of society too much as it is. Where do you think their well-educated labor comes from? Why do corporations continue to out-source the training of their employees to publicly funded educational institutions. They want their employees to come pre-trained on the someone else's dime. As such, combined with all the various other governement incentives they're all too happy to take advantage of, corporations do have an obligation to society. Besides, the good PR that comes from being good "corporate citizens" usually redounds to their financial benefit, so it's hardly altruism.

With respect to your first paragraph, I wasn't meaning to minimize Starlight's story at all. You should perhaps cool your judgmental jets before getting your panties in a bunch. I'm not sure how my post was at all self-righteous. No one should have to work 98 hours a week to support themselves, but certain lifestyle considerations (e.g., living in a high cost of living area, having a large family, etc.) might make that necessary.

With respect to your second paragraph, you're all over the place. I don't even know what point you're trying to make about education. I'll only say that the bolded assertion you wrote is a pretty huge assertion to make without any sort of argument. Why do corporations have an obligation to society? What's the basis for that argument? Because in my eyes, people should be able to do what they want with their money and time. Society or the state dictating what a corporation has to do (and, thus, dictating how a group of people's property must be used) is ridiculous in my opinion. A corporation's sole objective is to make money. Usually, a successful corporation is good for society in that it provides jobs, money, and a desired product or service to society.

Or would you prefer bloated "corporations" like those run by the government? We all know what a treat dealing with state and federal agencies are. Have you ever had to deal with your state's DMV office or been to an actual post office to do business? How about the county tax office? I'm not arguing that all corporations are impervious to criticism. Some corporations do some bad things. But arguing that all corporations are the cause of the downfall of society and provide no tangible benefits to society (without being forced to do so) is ridiculous and naive.

In an ideal world, it would be nice if everyone was insightful and selfless enough to work for the benefit of society rather than the benefit of themselves. I know that I would much rather live in that world despite some very obvious individual losses that would occur because that world would be a much better place to live in. However, that world doesn't exist, and trying to force it to exist via coercion by the force of the government will fail. People need incentives to do things. Forcing them to be altruistic (as you seem to suggest) simply won't work.

 

[zwitterion34]

With respect to your first paragraph, I wasn't meaning to minimize Starlight's story at all. You should perhaps cool your judgmental jets before getting your panties in a bunch. I'm not sure how my post was at all self-righteous. No one should have to work 98 hours a week to support themselves, but certain lifestyle considerations (e.g., living in a high cost of living area, having a large family, etc.) might make that necessary.

With respect to your second paragraph, you're all over the place. I don't even know what point you're trying to make about education. I'll only say that the bolded assertion you wrote is a pretty huge assertion to make without any sort of argument. Why do corporations have an obligation to society? What's the basis for that argument? Because in my eyes, people should be able to do what they want with their money and time. Society or the state dictating what a corporation has to do (and, thus, dictating how a group of people's property must be used) is ridiculous in my opinion. A corporation's sole objective is to make money. Usually, a successful corporation is good for society in that it provides jobs, money, and a desired product or service to society.

Or would you prefer bloated "corporations" like those run by the government? We all know what a treat dealing with state and federal agencies are. Have you ever had to deal with your state's DMV office or been to an actual post office to do business? How about the county tax office? I'm not arguing that all corporations are impervious to criticism. Some corporations do some bad things. But arguing that all corporations are the cause of the downfall of society and provide no tangible benefits to society (without being forced to do so) is ridiculous and naive.

In an ideal world, it would be nice if everyone was insightful and selfless enough to work for the benefit of society rather than the benefit of themselves. I know that I would much rather live in that world despite some very obvious individual losses that would occur because that world would be a much better place to live in. However, that world doesn't exist, and trying to force it to exist via coercion by the force of the government will fail. People need incentives to do things. Forcing them to be altruistic (as you seem to suggest) simply won't work.

This! 👍😎👍

 

[kpcrew]

With respect to the bold: there's nothing "wrong" with that unless you think corporations have an obligation to provide society with jobs. If a company can make "record profits" with less labor (i.e., less cost), that sounds like a pretty well-run company to me.

No, it has more to do with globalization and the advent of new technology. The thing is that it's not a sustainable system. If you make more with fewer people on your payroll, that means that the people at the top are going to be free to take a larger share of the profits while everyone else is either losing their jobs or stuck with stagnant wages. What will happen when the middle class is gone because people aren't paid decent wages for their work? The system works because money goes around but if people don't have earn enough to pay for goods and services (whether necessary or unnecessary), then where will corporations earn money? It just seems that we're heading to a pretty dismal future because people who own much of the world's wealth continue to take an ever larger share of it. There's nothing wrong with being rich, but the accelerating growth of the gap is something to be concerned about.

 

[NickNaylor]

No, it has more to do with globalization and the advent of new technology. The thing is that it's not a sustainable system. If you make more with fewer people on your payroll, that means that the people at the top are going to be free to take a larger share of the profits while everyone else is either losing their jobs or stuck with stagnant wages. What will happen when the middle class is gone because people aren't paid decent wages for their work? The system works because money goes around but if people don't have earn enough to pay for goods and services (whether necessary or unnecessary), then where will corporations earn money? It just seems that we're heading to a pretty dismal future because people who own much of the world's wealth continue to take an ever larger share of it. There's nothing wrong with being rich, but the accelerating growth of the gap is something to be concerned about.

Definitely agree with all of your points, but that still doesn't really implicate corporations (or their shareholders) in doing anything wrong. They're interested in only making as much money as possible. I don't blame them for implementing the use of robotics rather than human labor if it means lower costs. Blame the robotics developer rather than the corporation. Your point still stands that society as we know it isn't sustainable, though. But that's due, in my opinion, to more fundamental problems with our society rather than corporations seeking profits.

 

[eHombre]

I'm not sure how my post was at all self-righteous. No one should have to work 98 hours a week to support themselves, but certain lifestyle considerations (e.g., living in a high cost of living area, having a large family, etc.) might make that necessary.

In a rich society, no one should be in a situation where they work 98 hours/week and still can't get the healthcare they need, no matter where they live. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the developed world. Equality of opportunity, my foot.

Why do corporations have an obligation to society? What's the basis for that argument? Because in my eyes, people should be able to do what they want with their money and time. Society or the state dictating what a corporation has to do (and, thus, dictating how a group of people's property must be used) is ridiculous in my opinion. A corporation's sole objective is to make money. Usually, a successful corporation is good for society in that it provides jobs, money, and a desired product or service to society.

Your argument is so myopic it's astounding. The point is that corporations all take advantage of inputs that society has provided, like well-educated workers, a well-functioning transportation network, and a law enforcement agencies that protect their property and investments. As such, they have an obligation to society. No one ever made money in America on his own.

People need incentives to do things. Forcing them to be altruistic (as you seem to suggest) simply won't work.

This obligation is enforced both through the mechanism of taxation (coercive, yes, but effective), and through more indirect mechanisms that rely on protecting their company's reputation in the eyes of the public. The reason corporations have to do the latter is because the public understands all of this. There's an expectation to give back. No altruism involved here. But acknowledging this expectation--that organized business enterprises ought to give back to the society that makes possible their success--is the point you're (wrongly) not conceding.

Where do you think corporate scholarship programs come from? Why do so many corporations donate to charities like the Jimmy Fund? Maybe the free advertising makes them money, maybe it doesn't. But the very fact of these programs' existence acknowledges the fact that society expects more of corporations than simply "jobs, money, and a desired product or service to society."

http://www.jimmyfund.org/cor/testimonials/

 

[aSagacious]

I don't blame them for implementing the use of robotics rather than human labor if it means lower costs. Blame the robotics developer rather than the corporation.

This actually brings up a really interesting ethical dilemma for the tech industry, and I don't think there's presently a well-defined line drawn for how far we are willing to let robots/computers replace human workers.

 

[NickNaylor]

In a rich society, no one should be in a situation where they work 98 hours/week and still can't get the healthcare they need, no matter where they live. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the developed world. Equality of opportunity, my foot.

Your argument is so myopic it's astounding. The point is that corporations all take advantage of inputs that society has provided, like well-educated workers, a well-functioning transportation network, and a law enforcement agencies that protect their property and investments. As such, they have an obligation to society. No one ever made money in America on his own.

This obligation is enforced both through the mechanism of taxation (coercive, yes, but effective), and through more indirect mechanisms that rely on protecting their company's reputation in the eyes of the public. The reason corporations have to do the latter is because the public understands all of this. There's an expectation to give back. No altruism involved here. But acknowledging this expectation--that organized business enterprises ought to give back to the society that makes possible their success--is the point you're (wrongly) not conceding.

Where do you think corporate scholarship programs come from? Why do so many corporations donate to charities like the Jimmy Fund? Maybe the free advertising makes them money, maybe it doesn't. But the very fact of these programs' existence acknowledges the fact that society expects more of corporations than simply "jobs, money, and a desired product or service to society."

http://www.jimmyfund.org/cor/testimonials/

I agree with your first paragraph - very few people contend that you should have to slave away to be able to afford basic necessities.

With respect to the second paragraph, your argument is so poorly founded that it's laughable. How about the fact that corporations pay taxes in return for the use of this infrastructure (please don't mentioned the tired GE example - their case is not typical of most businesses)? And the fact that individuals themselves pay taxes to support this infrastructure? So if you utilize any sort of government service, you're now entirely subservient to the government? That makes sense. Using your argument, if you utilized a state-funded university or state-funded grants, the state should then be able to dictate what you're going to do for a career based on what it thinks are society's needs, including your major and post-education job. How does that sound?

I don't think there's any expectation on the part of anyone that corporations should donate their wealth. I'm not sure how the fact that corporations are involved in charitable activities demonstrates that they OUGHT to or MUST be involved in charitable activities. This sounds like one of those logical fallacies that I've heard of...

I agree that given the incredible resources available to corporations, it'd be very little skin on their backs to be involved in a very meaningful way in charitable activities. That doesn't mean that they must be involved in societal welfare.

 

[NickNaylor]

This actually brings up a really interesting ethical dilemma for the tech industry, and I don't think there's presently a well-defined line drawn for how far we are willing to let robots/computers replace human workers.

I think the idea behind robotics is that, given enough advancement, we'll no longer have to work in jobs since all goods and services will be provided be via robotic labor. The pessimist in me makes me think that, somehow, we won't see this lovely utopia even if technology advances to the required level.

 

[aSagacious]

I think the idea behind robotics is that, given enough advancement, we'll no longer have to work in jobs since all goods and services will be provided be via robotic labor. The pessimist in me makes me think that, somehow, we won't see this lovely utopia even if technology advances to the required level.

Even if we never achieve singularity we may advance too quickly for our society to retrain/reeducate our unskilled workforce and exacerbate our unemployment dilemma. Even if it's not as explicit as robots on car factory lines, who would've thought that the average Joe could pick up a $50 program that does his taxes for him (TurboTax)? Or that a handful of farmers could manage the same acreage as what would've required dozens of farmers just a few decades ago? Or that self-check out lanes would make (many) cashiers obsolete? In short, it doesn't have to be as dramatic as the Jetsons to have real consequences on our workforce.

 

[NickNaylor]

Even if we never achieve singularity we may advance too quickly for our society to retrain/reeducate our unskilled workforce and exacerbate our unemployment dilemma. Even if it's not as explicit as robots on car factory lines, who would've thought that the average Joe could pick up a $50 program that does his taxes for him (TurboTax)? Or that a handful of farmers could manage the same acreage as what would've required dozens of farmers just a few decades ago? Or that self-check out lanes would make (many) cashiers obsolete? In short, it doesn't have to be as dramatic as the Jetsons to have real consequences on our workforce.

Sorry - I meant to imply that even if that technological level is achieved (singularity or otherwise), I doubt we'd have a utopia. I doubt we will ever live in a society that doesn't include elements of class and superiority/inferiority. Even if no one has to work (and, thus, we have no need for money), I'm sure that society will come up with other ways to create class and rank systems. Not to mention the example that you give that industries that were dominated by human labor will slowly be done away with or erode as we approach an advanced technological level.

In other words, I agree with you.

 

[aSagacious]

Sorry - I meant to imply that even if that technological level is achieved (singularity or otherwise), I doubt we'd have a utopia. I doubt we will ever live in a society that doesn't include elements of class and superiority/inferiority. Even if no one has to work (and, thus, we have no need for money), I'm sure that society will come up with other ways to create class and rank systems. Not to mention the example that you give that industries that were dominated by human labor will slowly be done away with or erode as we approach an advanced technological level.

In other words, I agree with you.

Oh, so we're both cynics at heart. 🙂

 

[eHombre]

How about the fact that corporations pay taxes in return for the use of this infrastructure? And the fact that individuals themselves pay taxes to support this infrastructure? So if you utilize any sort of government service, you're now entirely subservient to the government? That makes sense. Using your argument, if you utilized a state-funded university or state-funded grants, the state should then be able to dictate what you're going to do for a career based on what it thinks are society's needs. How does that sound?

I don't think there's any expectation on the part of anyone that corporations should donate their wealth. I'm not sure how the fact that corporations are involved in charitable activities demonstrates that they OUGHT to or MUST be involved in charitable activities.

As before, you've twisted my argument and ignored the points I've made. I already brought up the point about taxes in my post. So yes, when you utilize any government service, as everyone does, you pay taxes for that. Not sure where you got the dictating-your-career stuff, but it wasn't implied in my post.

The question we were debating was whether as a society we have decided that corporations ought to, as a values proposition, provide anything to society other than a profit for its shareholders. Certainly, shareholder profit is their raison d'être, but I'm saying that we as a society have decided that charitable giving, community involvement and environmental stewardship are things that a company ought to care about. Most of the incentives associated with these societal expectations are not coercive and merely affect a company's reputation in the eyes of the public. Some of the incentives, like taxes and regulation, more directly affect the company's bottom line. I cited the ubiquity of corporate philanthropy to underscore the point that this has become a societal norm.

I suspect you may disagree more strongly with the extension of this logic to the proposition that a corporation ought to generate jobs for its community. Sure, corporations don't have to generate any jobs at all. However, if they don't, corporations should lose access to the "job-generating" tax subsidies they collect all-too-willingly and should face their communities' justified scorn.

 

[Quicksilver005]

You're obviously coming into this thread with an agenda, but the rich have the most money so that only makes sense. It's not as if the rich are rich solely by merit and it's certainly not asking too much to require them to provide a portion of their wealth for the benefit of society. It's like people don't learn about the social contract anymore.

I am going to step in to this debate.

kp, yes, the wealthy should pay, but we should pay the same percentage as every other group. If I have to pay a larger proportion, then it isn't fair and then it becomes class warfare. Why does the poor deserve the money more than the rich? Why are they entitled to it? True, that money can go a long way for the poor, but that argument doesn't justify that they are entitled to my hard earned money.

vixrap, you make a lot of valid points. You may not have said it very politely, but you are right on the money. Other European countries, which everyone have romantic and rosy feelings toward, are facing austerity measures because they are spending too much. Part of their spending comes from their universal healthcare and other entitlement programs. Vix is right on the money with this one here.

The problem with the US is that we are spending way too much. Fact from ABC News, which is a part of the liberal media, claims that if we tax the rich at the same percentage as the rest, then we would only raise 10-50 billion a year, which is a drop in the bucket when we are in a deficit of about a trillion a year. We are headed toward financial disaster if we keep spending at our rate. Adding a universal healthcare system to the united states would further exacerbate things. And even if we taxed every american 100% of our income for 10 full years, we still would not be able to pay off all of our debt. That tells us how dire our situation is and adding more programs (entitlement or not) and therefore debt to a system that is this much debt just simply cannot work and is unsustainable. I am for universal healthcare, but that simply cannot be sustainable at this point in time. We have to fix social security before we even tackle this problem.

 

[kpcrew]

you do know that much of the income of the wealthiest americans is paid in a way that is considered "capital gains", such as stock options? they pay 15% on that for long term as opposed to the 35% that they would pay on the money they earn beyond $379,150. So no, you don't pay a larger proportion and it's not like you're getting taxed 35% on the entire amount. Corporate taxes are also at a very low rate. you may say that this is necessary to help keep american companies competitive, but i'm not really seeing this at all for the same reason that i don't see the reason for allowing a tax holiday to repatriate funds (because they said they would use the money to create jobs and such but that obviously didn't materialize).

To nick, yes, corporations are designed to act like that. The issue is that government is supposed to curb the excesses of corporate actions. However, they cannot play that role when we're continually cutting regulations (the argument is that this would help business flourish and grow the economy but in fact, economies with much more regulation like brazil and china have had much greater percentage growth in the last few quarters). Also when you have the revolving door of politics where you have people coming from industry and taking top positions in government or politicians going into industry after their careers, you can see that there is an obvious conflict of interest. When corporations are focused on earnings, the government should be there to curb the negative externalities like damage to the environment or excessive risk that don't get factored into their profit margin calculations. But this isn't happening. For example, Obama tries to position himself as a populist and tough on Wall Street to obtain votes but you just need to look at the money trail to see what's the truth. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup aren't supporting his campaign for free.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

I'd like to address the idea that globalization is somehow bringing wealth to poorer nations. While this may be true in countries like China that take their trade surpluses and use it to invest in their own country (and in China's case, their State Capitalist system also means the government making its own corporations) there are far too many cases in which there is absolutely no wealth creation because the government invests its money in mansions and private jets for its leaders and the workers are at such a high supply and unable to collectively bargain. When a country finally breaks through and begins unionizing or its government steps up to extract some money out of the corporations they simply move on to the next available country.

There are plenty of countries in Africa in which relationships with corporations have done nothing but hurt the people being hired. When once a man could make a simple living as a farmer, he now must work at a Chinese owned mine in order to afford imported food because the government needs cash crop farming to pay for anything. These workers will never see pay raises because starving men have nothing with which they can bargain except their fists. If the United States had never passed any labor laws at the beginning of the last century, this is where we would be. We are quickly returning to that golden era.

 

[NickNaylor]

As before, you've twisted my argument and ignored the points I've made. I already brought up the point about taxes in my post. So yes, when you utilize any government service, as everyone does, you pay taxes for that. Not sure where you got the dictating-your-career stuff, but it wasn't implied in my post.

The question we were debating was whether as a society we have decided that corporations ought to, as a values proposition, provide anything to society other than a profit for its shareholders. Certainly, shareholder profit is their raison d'être, but I'm saying that we as a society have decided that charitable giving, community involvement and environmental stewardship are things that a company ought to care about. Most of the incentives associated with these societal expectations are not coercive and merely affect a company's reputation in the eyes of the public. Some of the incentives, like taxes and regulation, more directly affect the company's bottom line. I cited the ubiquity of corporate philanthropy to underscore the point that this has become a societal norm.

I suspect you may disagree more strongly with the extension of this logic to the proposition that a corporation ought to generate jobs for its community. Sure, corporations don't have to generate any jobs at all. However, if they don't, corporations should lose access to the "job-generating" tax subsidies they collect all-too-willingly and should face their communities' justified scorn.

I think the distinction in our positions comes not whether corporations should, in an ideal world, care about our communities. Without question I think they should. The real point is whether or not we should FORCE companies (via high taxation or otherwise) to care about their communities. I don't think we should. You seem to think the opposite. I think the discussion is a less a values one (we agree what is right/ideal) and more a political one (what the government should and shouldn't do).

Let's take the case of Apple. Steve Jobs quite infamously ended all of Apple's philanthropic efforts when he returned, and, as far as I know, they still haven't been resumed despite Apple's record-breaking profits and ridiculous treasure chest of cash. Do you think the government should step in and force Apple to be philanthropic?

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

NickNaylor, I agree with you 100% that we shouldn't try to force companies to do what is against their interests (except for regulations that prevent scamming or charge them for externalities like pollution). I think the preservation of profit motive is key for a healthy economy and trying to force companies to bear the burden of the less fortunate isn't going to help anyone. However, this belief leads me to the conclusion that it is the government's responsibility to step in and become the 'employer of last resort' when the economy falls apart and should provide utilities because no company can be trusted not to try to profit at the expense of everyone else in society off of essential and inelastic goods. I also think health care is one of those markets.