Miami activist thinks they are above reality / the law

[Illuminatus Primus]

Right, and I should've mentioned that the quality of life is relative and limited in many ways merely to accessibility of consumer and luxury goods and services; if you have serious health problems, in many ways you'd be less secure in your station in life. Yeah the Soviet health care was not great. But the U.S. health care system today can completely ruin a brilliant engineer and his whole family and children's futures in a way not really present in a system with guaranteed health care.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Right, and I should've mentioned that the quality of life is relative and limited in many ways merely to accessibility of consumer and luxury goods and services; if you have serious health problems, in many ways you'd be less secure in your station in life. Yeah the Soviet health care was not great. But the U.S. health care system today can completely ruin a brilliant engineer and his whole family and children's futures in a way not really present in a system with guaranteed health care.

Yeah, that's another thing, not merely health care costs, but also your childrens' educations, which you need to find entirely in America if you're well to do, so that gives you, say, 80,000 for undergraduate and 80,000 for graduate studies for each child, assuming three kids -- that's an outlay of 480,000 USD, all of which you'd have to realistically budget for, as you can't seriously expect children to be independent until they're 30 or so. Average lifetime healthcare expenditures for a woman in the USA are 316,000 USD, due to maternal related costs and longer life expectancy, and 269,000 USD of a man. My family lives to 95+ as a matter of course, so that's another 1/3rd of costs if you're me (so like 400,000 USD), since 1/3rd again of all costs are accrued for people who live longer than 85. 15% of an average lifetime health cost will be accrued for each child before the age of 30, so that's 143,000 USD for three girls, adopted. In the case of my family, that's two women, though, with similar extra-long life expectancies, so that comes to about 1 million dollars of healthcare in America for the duration... Add probably another 50k due to my unique non-covered medical considerations. Even with health insurance this could add up to an average of $6,000.00 USD a year for 30 years in premiums and more + 480,000 USD in educational outlays, as well as uncovered procedures, like dental and so on.

Cut it any way you want, but assuming that the modern USSR if it hadn't collapsed would resemble modern day Cuba in terms of jurisdictional terms (a reasonable assumption) for people like me, I'd be saving close to a million dollars over a lifetime by living there. And USSR health coverage was by no means incompetent across the board or substandard; the important people got care just as good as in the rest of the first world. The educational benefits though are what really helps. Especially since that's a low-end estimate; it could easily take longer than four years to fund a graduate education.

When you factor in life insurance, which is another necessity in the United States that it isn't in a communist country, you probably push back through the 1 million boundary layer. Lifetime costs avoided by living in a socialist system might reach 1.2 million for a lesbian couple with three children, and for a more normative family, about 1 million.

For an engineer making 100,000 USD a year at a very prestigeous position, after you subtract taxes (say about 40%), that's 20 years of a single-income family's income completely consumed, and 10 years of a dual-income family's; that leaves you, assuming a retirement age of 80, 30 years worth of income (60k a year) to average across all your other livelihood costs for a period of 50 years, or a net income of 36,000 USD a year for a single family income... At minimum you can expect to pay 1,000 USD a month continuously over thirty years for a very modest home, which averages over the whole span of time to meaning that your monthly available income after all those expenses are paid, since housing is ALSO covered in the Soviet system, works out to a net of about 2,500 USD a month. This of course assumes that you are not putting any money into retirement at all and that you work until you're 80. So a two-income family is basically required, despite the fact that's impracticable with three children in the extreme.

Now do you start to see the reality of living in the American capitalist system?

Note that if anyone complains that "Oh, that's unrealistic, because you can earn interest and invest", consider the fact that most of the costs are END-LOADED in the first thirty-five years. Which means your month-to-month income in that period will be barely enough for you to survive on after all these expenditures.

Or, of course, you can take out debt to manage it, and then spend the next fifteen years of your income--your nominal golden years from 65 to 80--with a reduced income working to pay off the accrued interest from that debt.

[Adrian Laguna]

Marina, you're not accounting for the higher taxes that are required to support a socialist system. The net savings would still be substantial, but not past the million dollar boundary. As complete guess off the top of my head, I'd say we're looking at actual savings in the neighbourhood of half a million, three quarters of a million, over a lifetime.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina, you're not accounting for the higher taxes that are required to support a socialist system. The net savings would still be substantial, but not past the million dollar boundary. As complete guess off the top of my head, I'd say we're looking at actual savings in the neighbourhood of half a million, three quarters of a million, over a lifetime.

You wouldn't be receiving a monetary wage at all in a socialist system, Adrian. Note that comment is intended to refer to the USSR, not to any system I'd advocate, as usual, as a means of explaining something only. So let's not make it a talking point; it's a statement of fact about the old USSR, and nothing more or less.

The point of the comparison was to show how rapidly that monetary wage in the capitalist system disintegrates, and how the rubles that you'd receive in the USSR are not appreciably worse as a form of payment for your services than the money you'd have left over in America after paying for all of this stuff. With all of those services, including pension, provided by the government, making only a very small actual "wage" becomes a much more viable prospect, is what I'm saying, because in America your huge wages would go to pay for all of those things anyway, and leave you with very little left.

[Darth Wong]

So? I don't want to be rich. I want stability in my life. The American system fails at providing long term socioeconomic stability.

None of the people in power want people to feel that they have stability and security in their lives. It's all about the money, and I've known businessmen who would come right out and say it: the mouse runs faster on the wheel if he's scared. One businessman in particular loved it when his employees bought new cars, and tried to encourage it whenever he talked to anyone. His reasoning was simple: people with more monthly payments would work harder just to keep their heads above water.

That's one of the reasons the American economy is so robust: so many people spend their entire lives running as fast and as hard as they can, because they can feel the wolves of poverty nipping at their heels. In pursuit of the goal of a more powerful economy, the people must be afraid and some people must be thrown under the wheels.

Of course, you can probably get an economist to say the exact same thing, but in economists' obfuscated language designed to make it sound like it's wonderful.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So? I don't want to be rich. I want stability in my life. The American system fails at providing long term socioeconomic stability.

None of the people in power want people to feel that they have stability and security in their lives. It's all about the money, and I've known businessmen who would come right out and say it: the mouse runs faster on the wheel if he's scared. One businessman in particular loved it when his employees bought new cars, and tried to encourage it whenever he talked to anyone. His reasoning was simple: people with more monthly payments would work harder just to keep their heads above water.

That's one of the reasons the American economy is so robust: so many people spend their entire lives running as fast and as hard as they can, because they can feel the wolves of poverty nipping at their heels. In pursuit of the goal of a more powerful economy, the people must be afraid and some people must be thrown under the wheels.

Of course, you can probably get an economist to say the exact same thing, but in economists' obfuscated language designed to make it sound like it's wonderful.

And this is why Quebec is the minimum in terms of acceptable social safety nets for my future (since I know it varies by province, and the government there likes to be very Gallic, of course). I could never imagine spending my entire life working like that; I'd go pretty much anywhere to find personal stability.

[Darth Wong]

Or you could try to reach the magic point where you're rich enough to be fairly secure; there's a point where you can make shitloads of money and barely work at all, and your kids can be incompetent numbskulls and they'll be assured of success too. Of course, that is quite difficult to accomplish, and requires a lot of different things coming together. It's what Americans call the "American Dream" now, because that old "chicken in every pot" thing was apparently too socialist.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Or you could try to reach the magic point where you're rich enough to be fairly secure; there's a point where you can make shitloads of money and barely work at all, and your kids can be incompetent numbskulls and they'll be assured of success too. Of course, that is quite difficult to accomplish, and requires a lot of different things coming together. It's what Americans call the "American Dream" now, because that old "chicken in every pot" thing was apparently too socialist.

I'll take socialism to that kind of hollow existence, obtained at cost of a life of far to much stress, thank you very much..

[Adrian Laguna]

You wouldn't be receiving a monetary wage at all in a socialist system, Adrian. Note that comment is intended to refer to the USSR, not to any system I'd advocate, as usual, as a means of explaining something only. So let's not make it a talking point; it's a statement of fact about the old USSR, and nothing more or less.

The old USSR did pay its workers wages, which they were free to use for buying luxury items. I understand pleasure boating in lakes was quite popular.

The point of the comparison was to show how rapidly that monetary wage in the capitalist system disintegrates, and how the rubles that you'd receive in the USSR are not appreciably worse as a form of payment for your services than the money you'd have left over in America after paying for all of this stuff. With all of those services, including pension, provided by the government, making only a very small actual "wage" becomes a much more viable prospect, is what I'm saying, because in America your huge wages would go to pay for all of those things anyway, and leave you with very little left.

I agree with you completely, I was just pointing out that the difference is not quite as great as you posit, though it is still rather large.

Your example reminds me of the case that in Venezuela tax evasion is retardedly easy for individuals, or was, I hear the Chavistas are cracking down on that. However because the public schools suck balls, crime rates are sky high, and the bureaucracy is shit, whatever money you save by evading the tax man is lost through other means. Putting your kids through private school*, paying ridiculous insurance rates, hiring guards for your home, and occasionally bribing public officials, all take a toll over the long term.

*Pre-K through 11 only, college is free in Venezuela, you don't go to a private college unless you're too stupid to pass the entrance exams and are rich off your ass.

[Ryan Thunder]

Or you could try to reach the magic point where you're rich enough to be fairly secure; there's a point where you can make shitloads of money and barely work at all, and your kids can be incompetent numbskulls and they'll be assured of success too. Of course, that is quite difficult to accomplish, and requires a lot of different things coming together. It's what Americans call the "American Dream" now, because that old "chicken in every pot" thing was apparently too socialist.

Why call it a dream if its possible?

[salm]

And this is why Quebec is the minimum in terms of acceptable social safety nets for my future (since I know it varies by province, and the government there likes to be very Gallic, of course). I could never imagine spending my entire life working like that; I'd go pretty much anywhere to find personal stability.

I'll take socialism to that kind of hollow existence, obtained at cost of a life of far to much stress, thank you very much..

I agree.

I opened a thread about this a couple of months ago in which i questioned whether i should keep my well earning job or not. I basically earned a whole lot of money during long working hours in a boring job. IIRC, most people told me to keep the job and toil away. I quit shortly after that anyway and became a freelancer. Now i work significantly less, earn signifacantly less but take a week off about every month or so.

Free time and social security is worth so much more than useless luxury items and McMansions.

[Vendetta]

Or you could try to reach the magic point where you're rich enough to be fairly secure; there's a point where you can make shitloads of money and barely work at all, and your kids can be incompetent numbskulls and they'll be assured of success too. Of course, that is quite difficult to accomplish, and requires a lot of different things coming together. It's what Americans call the "American Dream" now, because that old "chicken in every pot" thing was apparently too socialist.

Why call it a dream if its possible?

Because for 98% of the population it isn't.