Current Events > More young Americans and Democrats support socialism than capitalism

(+) Yeah! (+)

Giant_Aspirin posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Doom_Art posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The younger generation got that raw deal d7e to Socialism, though

...what

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security - all socialist policies that literally are the root of our financial problems.

stagnating wages that dont keep pace with economic growth has nothing to do with it? interesting

Wages stagnate because your employer pays significantly more in taxes just for hiring you.
---

Well, I'm 25 and I put away $100 each pay in my 401b, and the company gives us some money each year through profit sharing as well. Ive got it all in a blue chip growth fund and it has been doing pretty well. :v So hopefully I can retire early.
---

We need to cut spending and raise taxes, Socialism won't help at all because we'll be in the same situation we're in now just with more spending and more taxes.

It's easy to blame others but you have to take personal responsibility for your financial future whether you like it or not. And either way our debt isn't sustainable, so just hope the current system lasts for our as long as possible.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

you should easily be able to save much more than $200 per month.

Case in point that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lmfao I grew up in a large lower middle class (and when the recession hit lower class) family in the south side of chicago

Sure yah did.
---

Hairistotle posted...

I know very few people who are able to save anything at all, let alone 200 dollars. At first glance it seems like you're out of touch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/24/how-your-disposable-income-compares-to-other-peoples-around-the-world/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-average-american-households-discretionary-inco.aspx

unfortunately we don't have access to median discretionary income but the average is quite promising, and even if we reduce it by something like 25% to be safe, most people are in a position to stash away $100 or $200 a month without breaking a sweat
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lmfao I grew up in a large lower middle class (and when the recession hit lower class) family in the south side of chicago

Sure yah did.

Yeah, I did. Pro-tip: Don't base your entire argument on your assumption about someone's upbringing, because if you're wrong then you're going to look stupid lmao
---

Capitalism, socialism...


---

darkphoenix181 posted...

@A_Good_Boy

Above I mixed up universal basic income and living wage. Maybe that is why you didn't understand my post. My bad.

That does make a lot more sense.
---

Muta, you've been suggesting that it's not feasible for the average American (or the average working American) to save money for retirement.

Why is this? You know that the median household income in the US is about $60k, right? Of course, a household of 1 is a lot different than a household of 3, 5, etc. but if you have a mindset that you can't save money then you probably won't save any money.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Hairistotle posted...

I know very few people who are able to save anything at all, let alone 200 dollars. At first glance it seems like you're out of touch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/24/how-your-disposable-income-compares-to-other-peoples-around-the-world/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-average-american-households-discretionary-inco.aspx

unfortunately we don't have access to median discretionary income but the average is quite promising, and even if we reduce it by something like 25% to be safe, most people are in a position to stash away $100 or $200 a month without breaking a sweat

I mean, even using mean instead of median, fully 1/5 people have negative discretionary income

Are you saying that 1/5 people are edge cases?
---

Anyone arguing that the average able-bodied person under 30 can't fund a comfortable retirement is simply being willfully delusional.

You could literally fund that working 10-15 hours a week at some random-ass side gig if your main job isn't yet enough or doesn't yet have an employer match.
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Hairistotle posted...

I know very few people who are able to save anything at all, let alone 200 dollars. At first glance it seems like you're out of touch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/24/how-your-disposable-income-compares-to-other-peoples-around-the-world/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-average-american-households-discretionary-inco.aspx

unfortunately we don't have access to median discretionary income but the average is quite promising, and even if we reduce it by something like 25% to be safe, most people are in a position to stash away $100 or $200 a month without breaking a sweat

I mean, even using mean instead of median, fully 1/5 people have negative discretionary income

Are you saying that 1/5 people are edge cases?

how do you figure that 1/5 of working americans have negative discretionary income?
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Muta, you've been suggesting that it's not feasible for the average American (or the average working American) to save money for retirement.

Why is this? You know that the median household income in the US is about $60k, right? Of course, a household of 1 is a lot different than a household of 3, 5, etc. but if you have a mindset that you can't save money then you probably won't save any money.

Exactly. If you believe you can think the money into existence!
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

how do you figure that 1/5 of working americans have negative discretionary income?

By looking at the chart that you yourself posted?

Did you read your own links? look at discretionary income by decile at the bottom of the second
---

Thanks trump

It also strongly indicates, though doesn't directly show, that you would need to reduce the mean by more than 25% to get a true median, as 70% of US households have less discretionary income than the mean

60% of households have less than that mean minus 25% so...
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

how do you figure that 1/5 of working americans have negative discretionary income?

By looking at the chart that you yourself posted?

Did you read your own links? look at discretionary income by decile at the bottom of the second

the bottom decile means that the bottom 10 percent of americans have a discretionary income between $0 and $11,000

so 1/10, not 1/5. and of that 1/10, most of them are probably not left with $0 discretionary income, let alone negative discretionary income

note that discretionary income means after paying your taxes and your necessities like rent, so 10% of $11,000 could fund someone's comfortable retirement if they're able-bodied and under 30

and this is especially achievable once we realize that people don't remain in the bottom decile. they get raises, they get employer matches, they move in with room mates or with significant others, they get married, etc.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

the bottom decile means that the bottom 10 percent of americans have a discretionary income between $0 and $11,000

No, that is their entire income

FLUFFYGERM posted...

so 1/10, not 1/5. and of that 1/10, most of them are probably not left with $0 discretionary income, let alone negative discretionary income

You didn't scroll down far enough lol
---

https://infogram.com/discretionary_income_by_income_decile
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

how do you figure that 1/5 of working americans have negative discretionary income?

By looking at the chart that you yourself posted?

Did you read your own links? look at discretionary income by decile at the bottom of the second

the bottom decile means that the bottom 10 percent of americans have a discretionary income between $0 and $11,000

so 1/10, not 1/5. and of that 1/10, most of them are probably not left with $0 discretionary income, let alone negative discretionary income

note that discretionary income means after paying your taxes and your necessities like rent, so 10% of $11,000 could fund someone's comfortable retirement if they're able-bodied and under 30

and this is especially achievable once we realize that people don't remain in the bottom decile. they get raises, they get employer matches, they move in with room mates or with significant others, they get married, etc.

They also start getting sickness, diseases, disabilities once they start aging past mid 40s as most people do start to develop problems as that's part of aging. Medical issues that cost money, and in a capitalistic environment those medical issues can suck away a persons entire life savings.
---

oh yeah you're right, didn't see that last chart >_> my fault trying to do this while working :/

for those people, I'd ask - 1) how many will remain in that bottom decile? 2) how can they increase their income? we already now from other data that the majority of people at that bottom earning power don't remain there over their working career.
---

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

how do you figure that 1/5 of working americans have negative discretionary income?

By looking at the chart that you yourself posted?

Did you read your own links? look at discretionary income by decile at the bottom of the second

the bottom decile means that the bottom 10 percent of americans have a discretionary income between $0 and $11,000

so 1/10, not 1/5. and of that 1/10, most of them are probably not left with $0 discretionary income, let alone negative discretionary income

note that discretionary income means after paying your taxes and your necessities like rent, so 10% of $11,000 could fund someone's comfortable retirement if they're able-bodied and under 30

and this is especially achievable once we realize that people don't remain in the bottom decile. they get raises, they get employer matches, they move in with room mates or with significant others, they get married, etc.

They also start getting sickness, diseases, disabilities once they start aging past mid 40s as most people do start to develop problems as that's part of aging. Medical issues that cost money, and in a capitalistic environment those medical issues can suck away a persons entire life savings.

this is why we have health insurance, and it's also why we should combat obesity and smoking as just those two avoidable things represent 30% of our yearly healthcare expenditures, and that's just in known costs.

we're a fat and unhealthy population, but that's especially exacerbated by our sedentary lifestyle and poor diets
---

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

Muta, you've been suggesting that it's not feasible for the average American (or the average working American) to save money for retirement.

Why is this? You know that the median household income in the US is about $60k, right? Of course, a household of 1 is a lot different than a household of 3, 5, etc. but if you have a mindset that you can't save money then you probably won't save any money.

Exactly. If you believe you can think the money into existence!

You can joke, but it really is about your mindset.

Let's say you are working more than one job which pays near minimum wage. There are probably a lot of people like that.

First of all, where do you live? Housing is the most expensive expense for most people. If you are living in an expensive city, you NEED to move out as soon as possible. That needs to be one of your main goals in life. Can you live with roommates? Can you live with family? Etc.

Second, how much are you paying for transportation? If you have a car, how much are you paying for it monthly? Do you need to have a car that's that expensive?

Basically, some people have it tougher than others, but it's up to you if you want to be financially successful. People who have trusts funds or whatever are lucky enough to have an ancestor somewhere along the line who didn't have much money but took the initiative to be financially successful.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

this is why we have health insurance

So you, FLUFFYGERM, like health insurance, just to be clear?
---

fwiw I agree with you about controlling spending on obesity and smoking but its tough to see a practical solution that isn't 'excise tax the shit out of anything that is unhealthy' which is a political non-starter
---

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

this is why we have health insurance

So you, FLUFFYGERM, like health insurance, just to be clear?

no, i don't. ideally we'd live in a society where automation and AI in healthcare replace the need for human labor in healthcare. making healthcare way cheaper.

Balrog0 posted...

fwiw I agree with you about controlling spending on obesity and smoking but its tough to see a practical solution that isn't 'excise tax the shit out of anything that is unhealthy' which is a political non-starter

fine people for being obese. we already penalize the financially successful in the form of higher taxes, so why not punish people who are committed to bad behaviors?
---

Godnorgosh posted...

I had a top-notch education in what I studied.

it really doesn't seem that way, tbqh
---

Quite serious. I had a professor who specialized in continental philosophy who taught a class specifically about Marxism, and we also touched on it in a political philosophy class. The faculty at the philosophy department at my alma mater hold PhDs from schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. I had a top-notch education in what I studied.

Congrats on studying opinions.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Quite serious. I had a professor who specialized in continental philosophy who taught a class specifically about Marxism, and we also touched on it in a political philosophy class. The faculty at the philosophy department at my alma mater hold PhDs from schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. I had a top-notch education in what I studied.

Congrats on studying opinions.

lmao
---

Both are horrible when not regulated. Modern China has both but controls them better. China is rising to the top of the world as America rots from the inside out.

Not saying China is perfect, but to deny they're actively replacing America is to be in denial.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

continental philosophy

I've found the problem

jk jk
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Both are horrible when not regulated. Modern China has both but controls them better. China is rising to the top of the world as America rots from the inside out.

Not saying China is perfect, but to deny they're actively replacing America is to be in denial.

uh China is a nightmare to live in

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-monitoring-insight/from-laboratory-in-far-west-chinas-surveillance-state-spreads-quietly-idUSKBN1KZ0R3

they've certainly advanced because of capitalism, but they're still very much trying to use all that as a bootloader for communism. Soviet Union 2.0 incoming
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Capitalism, and especially the whole Reganomics type, and specifically in the West, hasn't improved the lives of a good number of people which has forced them to look for alternatives.

I disagree with your assessment, but it's hilarious that someone who believes this would posit socialism as a viable alternative for improving the standard of living. Even though we've seen throughout the entire 20th and 21st centuries that it simply collapses standards of living and entire countries.

I'm not even saying that, only that people shouldn't be surprised to see differing and more "outsider" ideologies on the rise. This isn't a phenomenon with just college students or just on one side, or even in the states, it's happening in all generations across the West entirely.

It's only happening in the west because of a concerted and organized effort to brainwash an entire generation into radical leftism, all as a means of trying to collapse America from within.

Ok so this is a joke tinfoil hat topic. Good to find that out early so I dont have to read the rest of the topic.
---

In these polls, do they ask people to define what they view socialism and capitalism as?
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Quite serious. I had a professor who specialized in continental philosophy who taught a class specifically about Marxism, and we also touched on it in a political philosophy class. The faculty at the philosophy department at my alma mater hold PhDs from schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. I had a top-notch education in what I studied.

Congrats on studying opinions.

Marxism is a mode of analysis in itself, not an opinion, but OK

lmao sorry buddy but nope
---

darkjedilink posted...

Kineth posted...

When you gonna buy that book for me to read?

You have proven many, many times that you can't read, so why waste the money?

This will be hard for you, but think about this for a second. If I can't read, why would you have wasted your time typing words? You're petty. And I mean that as an evaluation of your worth, not your attitude/approach.

Seek help so you can deal with your anger issues. I ain't the reason your life is unsatisfying.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Quite serious. I had a professor who specialized in continental philosophy who taught a class specifically about Marxism, and we also touched on it in a political philosophy class. The faculty at the philosophy department at my alma mater hold PhDs from schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. I had a top-notch education in what I studied.

Congrats on studying opinions.

Marxism is a mode of analysis in itself, not an opinion, but OK

Whatever you say.

Studying an opinion or a philosophy does not suddenly make it a science.

I could study nihilism for decades and it still wouldn't mean anything.

you see what I did there
---

some good news for once
---

Kineth posted...

This will be hard for you, but think about this for a second. If I can't read, why would you have wasted your time typing words?

slammed

mario2000 posted...

some good news for once

lmfao, you've been shitposting on gamefaqs for nearly two decades AND you're a socialist? bahahaha
---

I think the average person's idea of socialism is socialist policies in a capitalistic hybrid society. So not surprising that younger people support "socialism". They see Scandanavian nations as a better alternative to America
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lmfao, you've been shitposting on gamefaqs for nearly two decades AND you're a socialist? bahahaha

He's a fellow LUEser. He's only been like this, afaik, when posting on CE, and only over the last... 2 or 3 years.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Kineth posted...

This will be hard for you, but think about this for a second. If I can't read, why would you have wasted your time typing words?

slammed

mario2000 posted...

some good news for once

lmfao, you've been shitposting on gamefaqs for nearly two decades AND you're a socialist? bahahaha

oof, not sure how i'm gonna recover from that one
---

Kineth posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lmfao, you've been shitposting on gamefaqs for nearly two decades AND you're a socialist? bahahaha

He's a fellow LUEser. He's only been like this, afaik, when posting on CE, and only over the last... 2 or 3 years.

with this much effort applied IRL, he could've become a multi-millionaire by doing something productive
---

Video games have turned Millennials inot lazy bums. If Gen Z is not careful, they're going to down that path too. Kids these days are too worried about their stupid Snapchat streak than actually do something with their lives.

It's not surprising that there are so many Socialists here, on a gaming board. So many are still living with their parents and play video games all day. Put down the controller and make some of yourself instead of expecting free handouts.
---

How much socialism? I dont think most are suggesting socialism outside of healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

cerealbox760 posted...

How much socialism? I dont think most are suggesting socialism outside of healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Yeah, it's fucked that socialism has become synonymous with using your tax dollars to invest in this country. Like... it's fucking ridiculous.

Meanwhile, McCarthyists are perfectly fine with excessive amounts of farm subsidies that fuck with the prices of goods and the materials used, therein. You wanna talk about a controlled economy? Talk about real shit instead of these glorified horror fantasies you have in your head.
---