How can capitalism be great if people live paycheck-to-paycheck?

mr_fegelien

This is an argument I've heard against capitalism. I know that no economic system is great and capitalism is better than pure socialism, communism, facism.

The issue I've always wondered is something that my relatives brought up when visiting Ireland. They said to me it's funny how Westerner's claim that capitalism is great when you can end up on the streets if you happen to be physically/mentally sick and can't go to work. It seems that at least in the U.S., Ireland, UK, there aren't many social supports if you can't work for a period of time.

Homeless shelters are particularly nasty places to be (violence, theft) and some homeless prefer to sleep in a tent for safety in the rain (which is tragically ironic).

In developing countries, though there are homeless people, most are orphans without any family members. There's a greater social support in developing countries. Here in the West though you'll find a millionaire family that allows a mentally ill family member who lost their job to sleep on the street.

SmartinMartin

Cheque.

1123heavy

Ideally, like most things in life, things are best in moderation.

The ideal society (imo) would have capitalist and socialist aspects. You need encouragement for people to go to work but you also need to carry the weak of society.

Pure socialism does not truly reward the worker and can lead to lots of resentment when they see their able bodied unemployed counterparts getting what they do but for 'free'. The workers among us know there are no 'free rides' in life, your ticket is simply paid for by somebody else.

Pure capitalism essentially throws aside the weak in society, you will literally be left to die. As well as this, the disadvantaged are faced with a situation where they have no resources to get them or their children out of the disadvantaged lifestyle. This causes crime to sky rocket, drugs, lack of education and ambition develops, teenage pregnancy etc becomes prevalent and it turns into a vicious circle (the US is proving itself to be a prime example).

Wesser

Most irish people are not living paycheque to.paycheque and have some savings and some assets. Most have a reasonable lifestyle. There are suppprts available if you fall on hard times eg the dole HAP medical card FIS etc.

In every society there are those who fall outside if e safety net.... rich societies and poor societies..... for a variety of reasons.... not all of them are financial.....

kalych

mr_fegelien wrote: »

This is an argument I've heard against capitalism. I know that no economic system is great and capitalism is better than pure socialism, communism, facism.

The issue I've always wondered is something that my relatives brought up when visiting Ireland. They said to me it's funny how Westerner's claim that capitalism is great when you can end up on the streets if you happen to be physically/mentally sick and can't go to work. It seems that at least in the U.S., Ireland, UK, there aren't many social supports if you can't work for a period of time.

Homeless shelters are particularly nasty places to be (violence, theft) and some homeless prefer to sleep in a tent for safety in the rain (which is tragically ironic).

In developing countries, though there are homeless people, most are orphans without any family members. There's a greater social support in developing countries. Here in the West though you'll find a millionaire family that allows a mentally ill family member who lost their job to sleep on the street.

Which society do at least 50% of people not live paycheck to paycheck? Honest question.

Eduard Khil

eviscerate the proletariat no working class moving the cogs then higher order will fall creating new social order of equality.

Teach a man to fish you lose a business opportunity

Socialism is so redundant

mr_fegelien

Wesser wrote: »

Most irish people are not living paycheque to.paycheque and have some savings and some assets. Most have a reasonable lifestyle. There are suppprts available if you fall on hard times eg the dole HAP medical card FIS etc.

In every society there are those who fall outside if e safety net.... rich societies and poor societies..... for a variety of reasons.... not all of them are financial.....

Would you say that most people who are street homeless are there because they just fell on hard times (lost job), or they have deeper underlying issues (drug addiction, mental illness, criminal record)?

Wesser

Probably a combination of circumstances that got them there and not just one issue

Most have a story to tell and cannot be generalised into one homogenous group

mr_fegelien

Wesser wrote: »

Probably a combination of circumstances that got them there and not just one issue

Most have a story to tell and cannot be generalised into one homogenous group

Interesting. Do you know anyone who is homeless?

manonboard

Most people don't live pay cheque to pay cheque, and of those that do. Most still use luxury goods and different entertainments which provide a reasonable life style. Small differences in behavior can lead to savings for many of them.

I've a couple of friends who live that lifestyle. They tend to spend at the limit of their means on impulse buys. Though the ridiculous price of rent has a big factor to play with that.

Another friend spent most of her life in some poverty but there were plenty of social nets to help her and family out, until she could stand on her own two feet.
Her single parent household was dysfunctional because her mum was pretty bad at it. Huge personality clashes, lies etc.

I think as a society, we are doing pretty fantastic. I base this on the quality of life we have compared to pretty much any other point in history. There is no point in history where life was this comfortable and the quality of life even for those who have little has been so high.
No bodies grandparents or parents or ancestors would ever say we do not live an excellent life.

This is of course, the first world. The third world do not enjoy this fortune we have.

manonboard

mr_fegelien wrote: »

The issue I've always wondered is something that my relatives brought up when visiting Ireland. They said to me it's funny how Westerner's claim that capitalism is great when you can end up on the streets if you happen to be physically/mentally sick and can't go to work. It seems that at least in the U.S., Ireland, UK, there aren't many social supports if you can't work for a period of time.

OP, may i ask why you think this is true?
There are huge safeguards in place against this. The ability to evict someone in this country is very limited. It's a nightmare to evict someone.
A huge number of people are provided homes for almost free, and another huge number are heavily supported by the state with token or modest amount provided by claimant.
When it comes to illness, there are disability payments that take care of that stuff, you are assigned social care and also we have pretty free access to health care. There are delays and problems.. but its not true to say in our capitalist/socialist hybrid that its easier to end up on the street than in ANY developing country.

Do you not think the vast majority of mentally ill people are cared for by their families, with state support where possible, and its just pretty invisible to us because its such an intimate and private affair in many cases?

mr_fegelien

manonboard wrote: »

OP, may i ask why you think this is true?
There are huge safeguards in place against this. The ability to evict someone in this country is very limited. It's a nightmare to evict someone.
A huge number of people are provided homes for almost free, and another huge number are heavily supported by the state with token or modest amount provided by claimant.
When it comes to illness, there are disability payments that take care of that stuff, you are assigned social care and also we have pretty free access to health care. There are delays and problems.. but its not true to say in our capitalist/socialist hybrid that its easier to end up on the street than in ANY developing country.

Do you not think the vast majority of mentally ill people are cared for by their families, with state support where possible, and its just pretty invisible to us because its such an intimate and private affair in many cases?

Okay I think that was a misunderstanding. That comment referred mainly to the U.S. system as my cousins were living there for a time.

Do you know why there are less social supports in America than here or any other European country.

And can I ask, do you know any homeless?

Wesser

Yes i work with the homesless

mr_fegelien

Wesser wrote: »

Yes i work with the homesless

And may I ask, is drug use the most common?

Also is it uncommon to meet homeless that were originally from the middle class?

manonboard

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Okay I think that was a misunderstanding. That comment referred mainly to the U.S. system as my cousins were living there for a time.

Do you know why there are less social supports in America than here or any other European country.

And can I ask, do you know any homeless?

Ah i see, thanks for correction.

At the moment, I am not personally close to any homeless. Technically i have a current friend (20M) who is homeless but it only happened last week. Fight with dysfunctional father. He has moved into friends couch. He is already in the process of getting rent paid to a new place (finland, bit faster).

Just before i left ireland, I purposefully made friends with a homeless man who i passed by on the bridge each day. His name was Rob. US citizen but cant go back for legal reasons. He stayed in a hostel/shelter during the bad months, and whatever woman/friend/street the other times. He did odd jobs, a bit too aggressive but ..homelessness would do that to people after a time. Partial drug and drink problem, but small.

Whilst living in Ireland (33 years), I worked for inner city helping homeless for 2 years. Great organisation. Pretty smoothly run. Mostly volunteers.
I met many homeless then on our night runs.. Vast majority were drug addicts.
A few were definitely not. Usually some other problem due to personality. Some just hated work. Not the work itself, but the containment and regularity of it filled them with dread. Likely some internal control issues at play. They considered themselves 'free'. I'd call it crazy but each to their own.
Some, and this surprised me.. preferred being homeless. The requirements of running a basic home, they hated/feared. It was a very strange concept to me. It helped me see that sometimes the most simple of tasks are giant walls to others.
I suspect because I was feeding the street homeless in the city. That greatly changes my perception. Most homeless, dont stay on the street, and don't fall into those categories. They are in private/public facilities, dress nice, spend time in libraries, have family or friends, working through their issues etc.. or waiting on a break to give them an opportunity. Most are VERY embarrassed or ashamed about it. Many ended up their not just by 'the system'.. but because of interpersonal issues with family/spouses/friends/children etc.

Geuze

mr_fegelien wrote: »

It seems that at least in the U.S., Ireland, UK, there aren't many social supports if you can't work for a period of time.

In Ireland, approx 45% of the pop are recipients or beneficiaries of welfare.

We have a large and well developed welfare state.

Geuze

I know very few people "living paycheck-to-paycheck".


I know people who own five houses by age 40.

I know couples on 100k combined, others on 170k combined.

Totally normal, typical people.

There is 800bn wealth owned by households here.

Geuze

The head of non-con means-tested pensions in Ireland told me that one issue they have is that many non-con pensioners save so much out of their weekly pension (237) that they accumulate enough savings to subsequently fail the non-con means-test.

Yurt2

Geuze wrote: »

I know very few people "living paycheck-to-paycheck".


I know people who own five houses by age 40.

I know couples on 100k combined, others on 170k combined.

Totally normal, typical people.

There is 800bn wealth owned by households here.

How much of that is notional fuzzy 'what my house is worth' wealth? See chart.2 from the Central Bank. Hint: A hell of a lot of it.


https://www.centralbank.ie/statistics/statistical-publications/behind-the-data/a-new-high-in-irish-household-wealth-what-is-different-this-time

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118245954#Comment_118245954

hahaha horseh1t, this is what happens when you promote and encourage particular sectors, particularly the fire sectors, to become the dominate sectors to drive your economy, and their ultimate goal is to 'maximise share holder value' at all costs, and particularly related to property and land, which in turn drives up the price of these assets, and turns your whole economy into a rent seeking mess, this in fact is why a large proportion of people effectively live pay cheque to pay cheque, as they try service the debts that are created from these activities

a2deden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058108806/how-can-capitalism-be-great-if-people-live-paycheck-to-paycheck

Are you joking

landofthetree

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/1115/1259992-ireland-bank-deposits-savings-pandemic

In this terrible capital system Irish people have managed to save 135 billion on deposit.

Stop wasting your money on stuff you dont need and you will be fine.

Since we are dealing with logical extremes, which is better, living wage slip to wage slip in a neo-liberal nightmare or ration to ration in a communist nightmare?

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247933#Comment_118247933

it is in fact these very objectives thats actually failing all, including shareholders, as we have entered an era of capitalism that could very well end it, and possibly even end human existence, it is now clearly obvious, 'maximising shareholder value' has failed, and along with state approaches such as 'lassie faire' etc, we better do something very quickly, or else.......

we clearly need to figure out how to reduce wealth inequality, and fast, or

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248087#Comment_118248087

another sign, something seriously dysfunctional is occurring with this form of capitalism, some having the ability to comfortably save, and a growing amount struggling to provide themselves with their most critical of needs, most evident in their property and health care needs, something is going seriously wrong there!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248154#Comment_118248154

both sh1t, why do we keep defaulting to extreme's, are we really this fcuking thick!

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250147#Comment_118250147

....because its clearly obvious, that it has!

where is this prosperity? this is in fact an astonishingly disturbing statement, its clearly obvious that these approaches are failing!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248154#Comment_118248154

But living wage slip to wage slip is not the neoliberal nightmare. You're conveniently excluding all the child labour around the world in your "logical extremes". Child slaves being exploited and beaten so they can deliver you your lovely goods for a few pence cheaper.

That is the extreme of capitalism.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250196#Comment_118250196

neoliberalism encompasses a hell of a lot, its a very difficult ideology to define clearly, but slavery, including child slavery, has always been a part of most if not all political and economic ideologies, not just neoliberalism

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250224#Comment_118250224

Oh, absolutely, I agree that it's not just neoliberalism. I was just pointing out that neoliberalism wasn't just a mild case of people living week to week.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250163#Comment_118250163

Psychologically we are predisposed to often look at things subjectively and negatively, but if we look at things with historic and economic context, then indeed, on aggregate, we are living in the most prosperous times. Likewise, many would think we live in a very violent dangerous world now when in fact it's one of the most peaceful times in human history.

For example, global extreme poverty, in 1820 that was 90%, a hundred years later we are around 15%. And that's with massive population growth. Similar picture with literacy. Education, infant mortality, political freedom, etc. We know this because we keep metrics, standards of living.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250375#Comment_118250375

yes, you are indeed correct on many of these points, but its incredible disturbing to see many people in fact dont see the whole picture at all, including respected economic commentators such as deirdre mccloskey etc, we have clearly taken a complete wrong turn in regards political and economic ideologies in just the last few decades, such folks are unable to somewhat detach themselves from their historical facts, which many are in fact true, but some are simply not. it is clearly obvious that we ve entered an era of deep instability in regards our most critical of needs, and that goes for all human needs, including the wealthy, i.e. shareholders etc. we re clearly experiencing a rapid growth in instabilities politically, economically, socially, environmentally, amongst other instabilities, all of these instabilities have accelerated in just the last few decades, such commentators are not able to engage in such a detachment, to realise why this is so, they have become fixated on their historical facts and approaches, again, which many are indeed true, but......

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250490#Comment_118250490

....and we re back to one of the main metrics of failure, GDP!

gdp is well known now to be a truly awful metric in measuring the wellbeing of economies and societies, even kuznets himself tried to explain this after his creation of it, but we keep defaulting to it!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/114461704#Comment_114461704

It is very true that some people are much better at managing their resources than others. I have had relatives, who by choice in materialistic and managed their small income extremely well and make 100% out of every meagre resource they had. Enjoyed 2 annual bargain holidays, had a great long lives. One of them died only recently aged nearly 100. Other relatives on modest incomes led very good quality stable lives by managing finances well. By the same token I have known people on higher incomes (and with less outgoings, eg no children etc) than average who seemed perpetually semi-broke. There can be health factors at play, or simply poor life and financial management which is often born out of never having made a habit of looking any way forward to “where will I be in 10 / 20 years time? Will I hope to qualify for a mortgage?”

Both short term & long term savings is a very good habit which can be taught to children, and more so nowadays with Revolut. As a young child I was regularly brought to the post office (where I had an account) and the bank, where my father showed me through all banking transactions, (I had to fill out parts of the forms) which quite frankly scared me at the time but made me conscious of the way things worked.

This is real Home Economics, which was so lacking at school (sewing and baking were the sum of it) but depended on my parents passing in good habits to me. People of almost any income range can fail or succeed in maintaining a relatively stable financial life. Eg, a wealthy relative who had a serious gambling addiction lost several houses and all assets, having been handed them in a plate as an inheritance from his grandfather in his early 20s.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250535#Comment_118250535

...but it is regularly used in such contexts, we regularly use it, and it is implied that as gdp is rising, all is well in society, this is not necessarily true for all, theres clearly something going catastrophically wrong in regards the value of assets, their distribution, and other metrics such as wage inflation etc etc etc

we actually dont have metrics in place yet, that represents such outcomes, we dont know how to do that yet, we may never, due to the complexities involved

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250559#Comment_118250559

again, more disconnection, to a growing number of citizens, i.e. no they dont!

this is just pure ignorance now!

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250588#Comment_118250588

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250573#Comment_118250573

......

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250606#Comment_118250606

...and you re clearly ignorant of reality, it is clearly obvious that many younger generations are unable to fulfill some of their most critical of needs, primarily related to their property and health care needs, and you wonder why our primary government parties are in a serious downward trend!

where have i said, that 'everything is wrong', this is clearly untrue!

reason and data! do some humans live under a rock!

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250675#Comment_118250675

ah yea the ould, our healthcare systems faults are largely due to state 'inefficiencies', this is only a part of the truth, the bigger picture being, the implementation of the private sector into the system has introduced its own inefficiencies, in particular the rent seeking activities of the insurance sector, which simply extracts wealth from the sector, in order to 'maximise shareholder value'! our health care needs are also far more complex than the past, for many reasons, including longer age expectancies etc etc, but both our physical and psychological, particularly our psychological needs are now far more complex, therefore simply costs more to treat.

its clearly obvious our healthcare systems are in rapid decline, and are not fit for purpose, and we dont know how to achieve this, another sign, something is going catastrophically wrong

again, a vast amount of our wealth is saved in the value of assets such as property and land, but not everybody owns such assets, and in fact, cannot gain access to the ownership of such assets

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250697#Comment_118250697

Rehabilitative healthcare... Brain injuries / hemorrhage, nerve disorder, stroke....ALL conditions prevalent in young people....you need to have access to months of inpatient help, possibly years of outpatient to compliment it as the brain has good capacity to heal but does so slowly...very slowly..

try getting a young person funding for the NRH or Doolaghs Park specialist rehabilitation unit... try finding a free bed ffs.

Strumms

We don’t need to learn....

Not when...We know, each of those patients when they have a consultation each year, sits in front of a consultant... who outlines what services will be required to help them... but more often then not, tells them it won’t be available because the spaces / funding isn’t there... but if they have tens of thousands good luck...ring the NRH / Doolaghs Park....

is it worse now ? Yes... because there are longer waiting lists courtesy of the bigger population and less beds / spaces available to cater for them....

as of 15th of December there are over 900,000 people on hospital waiting lists. Population increases are a significant driver as well as a lack of doctors.

Recent figures from the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) estimate that of the approximately 4,700 GPs currently working in the State, 700 will retire over the next five years, while just 350 GP training places are planned for 2026....

The Irish Medical Organisation (IMO), representing almost 7,000 medical professionals across all specialties, has called on the Government to urgently address Ireland’s crisis in medical workforce resourcing, saying that our health system will collapse leading to devastating implication for patients if more doctors are not recruited on a properly sustained basis.

a sustained basis, not a few coming from X countries, getting experience and pay and fûcking off again with that pay and experience back to xx.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/114461654#Comment_114461654

Pure capitalism essentially throws aside the weak in society, you will literally be left to die.

I'd argue there's two definitions of pure capitalism.

One is idealistic where the best product or service wins on it's own merits and new entrants have a chance.

The other realistic one is where the dominant products or services only maintain their position through corruption, patents, lawyers, quasi-legal tax avoidance, state subsidies, and deliberately breaking laws because fines can be paid out of petty cash after the competition goes bankrupt etc. It's where new entrants get stomped on.