Capitalism: Failed System?

[God]

capitalism

cap·i·tal·ism [kap-i-tl-iz-uhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm]
nounan economic system (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economic+system) in which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


As seen in the world, the Wealthy are accumulating lots of money, while the poor keep on getting more poor. In the Usa the richest 400 people own the same amount as 185 Million of the lower part of the spectrum. Talk about Wealth Inequality.

Do you believe it's time for Capitalism to cease? There are many alternatives like Socialism and Cooperative businesses

Or

Do you believe that Capitalism needs to stay.

[lemons]

yes

Edited by e5 (Forum Super Moderator) - Please do not post pointlessly, thanks!

[Matt]

Capitalism: A love story by Michael Moore is a documentary about Capitalism that we just finished studying in English and it's pretty good at making Capitalism seem like a failed and corrupt system. It is a failed and unfair system in my opinion and it's what ruined Americas economy.

[Ardemax]

It might well be a partly failed system but what alternative is there?

[MKR&*42]

It might well be a partly failed system but what alternative is there?

This^

I would rather capitalism over communism any day.

[God]

Capitalism: A love story by Michael Moore is a documentary about Capitalism that we just finished studying in English and it's pretty good at making Capitalism seem like a failed and corrupt system. It is a failed and unfair system in my opinion and it's what ruined Americas economy.
I really need to watch that sometime soon, how long is it?


It might well be a partly failed system but what alternative is there?

Well Ardemax, that is an amazing question. A great alternative is Socialism. Also Cooperative Businesses which are owned by the workers.

This^

I would rather capitalism over communism any day.c

Well our fears with Communism are all present with Capitalism.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Capitalism: A love story by Michael Moore is a documentary about Capitalism that we just finished studying in English and it's pretty good at making Capitalism seem like a failed and corrupt system. It is a failed and unfair system in my opinion and it's what ruined Americas economy.

Ahh, so according to Michael Moore it's capitalism that is the reason why America's economy is in a mess and not the fact that the Federal Government keeps spending what it doesn't have and now has over $17bn in terms of debt?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl8vP9L6Imo

And what's unfair about it? Surely it's unfair to have wealth taken from people by the state and wasted by the government? If you invent something or some up with a great product to sell, why should you have the fruits of your labor stolen from you when it's rightfully yours?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-o0kD9f6wo


Well Ardemax, that is an amazing question. A great alternative is Socialism. Also Cooperative Businesses which are owned by the workers.

Exactly! Let's not aim to be like the capitalist hell holes of Hong Kong, Singapore, parts of China, parts of India, Chile and the western world in general! No no no, let's aim to be more like the socialist paradises of Venezuela, Cuba, much of South America, Zimbabwe, South Africa, much of Africa, much of Arabia and Vietnam, Burma and North Korea. All such great third world alteratives to a first world system.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw


"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Sir Winston Churchill

I suggest you both take an hour to watch the numerous Milton Friedman videos on YouTube where he debunks socialism. I would have thought that this argument had died back in the 1990's when the Soviet Union fell but evidently not. Pretty worrying really.

The basic difference between capitalism and socialism is the centralisation of power. In a capitalist economy, many people - if not most - have the ability to produce and create wealth and keep it thus spurring on competition. In a socialist system, that ability is restricted to a small few in the government - most of whom know nothing about producing anything other than ******** theories that usually cost billions in costs and sometimes millions of lives. Why do you want to keep repeating the mistakes of the past?

Capitalism hasn't failed. We should be pushing for more capitalism and less socialism.

[Ardemax]

Ahh, so according to Michael Moore it's capitalism that is the reason why America's economy is in a mess and not the fact that the Federal Government keeps spending what it doesn't have and now has over $17bn in terms of debt?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-o0kD9f6wo

And what's unfair about it? Surely it's unfair to have wealth taken from people by the state and wasted by the government?



Exactly! Let's not aim to be like the capitalist hell holes of Hong Kong, Singapore, parts of China, parts of India, Chile and the western world in general! No no no, let's aim to be more like the socialist paradises of Venezuela, Cuba, much of South America, Zimbabwe, South Africa, much of Africa, much of Arabia and Vietnam, Burma and North Korea. All such great third world alteratives to a first world system.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw



I suggest you both take an hour to watch the numerous Milton Friedman videos on YouTube where he debunks socialism. I would have thought that this argument had died back in the 1990's when the Soviet Union fell but evidently not. Pretty worrying really.

I may be wrong, but isn't much of Scandinavian politics and society built upon Socialism?

[GommeInc]

Humans are selfish and only care about their own interests. Asking humans to distribute wealth is far too much to ask. Capitalism isn't necessarily a failed concept as it does work, but it is how it is being used by many humans which is the problem. It's like religion. Religion isn't bad, it's the people who use it for their owns gains or to manipulate others who are bad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I may be wrong, but isn't much of Scandinavian politics and society built upon Socialism?

Nope, Scadinavia is a myth. In recent years, as the article explains, Scandinavia has been moving towards more capitalism.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/swedish-model


Do you think America would be better off with a Swedish-type welfare state? This question tends to evoke strong reactions from both the left and right, yet few understand Sweden’s economic history and the revisions it has been making to its welfare-state model in recent years. Sweden was a very poor country for most of the 19th century.

The poverty of those years caused many to emigrate from the country, mostly to the U.S. Upper Midwest. Beginning in the 1870s, Sweden created the conditions for developing a high-growth, free-market economy with a slowly growing government sector. As a result, Sweden for many years had the world’s fastest-growing economy, ultimately producing the third-highest per capita income, almost equaling that in the United States by the late 1960s. Sweden became a rich country before becoming a welfare state.

Sweden began its movement toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was about equal to that in the United States. However, by the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP.

Most full-time employees faced marginal tax rates of 65 percent to 75 percent, as contrasted with 40 percent in 1960. Labor-market regulations were introduced to make it very difficult to fire workers. Business profits were taxed heavily, and financial markets were regulated heavily. By 1993, the government budget deficit was 13 percent of GDP and total government debt was about 71 percent of GDP, which led to a rapid fall in the value of the currency and a rise in inflation.

These policies and outcomes greatly diminished the incentives to work, save and invest. Economic growth slowed to a crawl. Other countries that avoided the excess spending, taxing and regulation of Sweden grew more rapidly, leaving Sweden in the dust. Sweden is still a prosperous country, but far from the top, and its per capita income has fallen to just about 80 percent of that in the United States.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, Sweden began an economic course correction that continues today. Marginal tax rates were reduced for most of the population, and this trend is expected to continue.

The wealth tax and inheritance tax were abolished. Financial markets, telecommunications, electricity, road transport, taxis and other activities were deregulated. Privatization of industry was begun, and the current government is continuing the process. The generosity of some welfare and other benefits has been reduced, with the goal of making work more economically rewarding relative to government benefits. Also, trade liberalization has been expanded greatly. The result has been a pickup in economic growth, and Sweden is no longer falling further behind other developed countries.

One notable success has been pension reform. Sweden was the first nation to implement a mandatory government retirement system for all its citizens. Sweden, like the United States and most other countries, was faced with an increasing, unfunded social security liability as a result of low birthrates and people living much longer. After studying the problem in the early 1990s, the Swedes approved, in 1998, moving toward a Chilean private pension system, first developed by former Chilean Labor Minister Jose Pinera. (Seventeen countries have adopted variations of the Pinerian system, which has been very successful in Chile.)

The new Swedish pension system has four key features, including partial privatization, individual accounts, a safety net to protect the poor and a transition to protect retirees and older workers. The benefits have been substantial budgetary savings, higher retirement income and faster economic growth.

Those who wish to chase the Swedish model need first to decide which model they seek: The high-growth, pre-1960 model; the low-growth model of the 1970s and 1980s; or the reformist, welfare-state model of recent years.

Article continues via the link....

In terms of the best case studies to look at, China v India in the 1970s to today is an interesting one.

As is Chile vs rest of South America in 1980s to today.

Or post-USSR Estonia vs the rest of Eastern Europe since 1990.

Or UAE/Oman/Kuwait/Qatar and Saudi Arabia vs Yemen/Iraq/Syria/Iran since the 1960s.

In all of these cases, they've all moved towards capitalism and have become wealthier - the one's which have moved towards capitalism the fastest and have become more free market have been the ones which have done better (Chile, China) than those who have been slower (India, South America).

[FlyingJesus]

1) Explain how capitalism has "failed". The system is working exactly as it's always supposed to have, even if you don't like what the results are
2) Socialism can never work because if it was fully implemented that's exactly what everyone would do - never work. It's a system of rewarding the unproductive at the expense of the hardest-working

[GommeInc]

In terms of the best case studies to look at, China v India in the 1970s to today is an interesting one.

As is Chile vs rest of South America in 1980s to today.

In all of these cases, they've all moved towards capitalism and have become wealthier - the one's which have moved towards capitalism the fastest and have become more free market have been the ones which have done better (Chile, China) than those who have been slower (India, South America).
A bit arguable in some areas. Wealth isn't being distributed in some of the cities in India and is being kept to the middle classes, business owners and above.

[Kyle]

When the topic of capitalism is washed up there always seem to be people spouting alternatives left right and centre without any real foundation beneath them. Dragga; Why is socialism better? Why cooperative business?

The Scandinavian system is one that combines both capitalism and socialism, and it works oh so well. There is no way to remain completely socialist and keep your people happy, so I doubt any shackles will be being thrown off any time soon.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A bit arguable in some areas. Wealth isn't being distributed in some of the cities in India and is being kept to the middle classes, business owners and above.

Well India isn't the best example and next to China it is the lesser example, but in recent years it's done much better because it has moved to a more capitalist system. The example you give for example of conditions of workers in Indian factories etc is awful yes - compared with us in the western world. The same for China. But you have to ask, why is it that workers continue to flock from the countryside in China and India, as they did in Victorian Britain, to these dirty factories? Because it's better than what they left behind in the countryside. Development never falls from the sky, Britain took about a hundred or two hundred years to develop.... India and China are thankfully doing it faster since 1970 (China) and 1990 (India).

India still has many problems too which keep the poor downtrodden which are written into it's socialist constitution: strong union laws, regulations, tariffs and state meddling. That's why - if India doesn't keep up reform - on current trends, China will stay miles ahead of India for the next 50 years.

[GommeInc]

Well India isn't the best example and next to China it is the lesser example, but in recent years it's done much better because it has moved to a more capitalist system. The example you give for example of conditions of workers in Indian factories etc is awful yes - compared with us in the western world. The same for China. But you have to ask, why is it that workers continue to flock from the countryside in China and India, as they did in Victorian Britain, to these dirty factories? Because it's better than what they left behind in the countryside. Development never falls from the sky, Britain took about a hundred or two hundred years to develop.... India and China are thankfully doing it faster since 1970 (China) and 1990 (India).

India still has many problems too which keep the poor downtrodden which are written into it's socialist constitution: strong union laws, regulations, tariffs and state meddling. That's why - if India doesn't keep up reform - on current trends, China will stay miles ahead of India for the next 50 years.
But is the countryside necessarily bad? Wealth isn't being distributed to the countryside - main public amenities are kept to the cities or to towns. Being a farmer does not mean pain and suffering, or a nanny (which is often the case) and so forth. The problem with India is that when it switched to capitalism wealth was kept to the key economic areas such as cities, when from the start townships should have received some wealth to go towards agriculture, small business, schools, facilities and infrastructure like roads etc. If anything, you could argue like I hinted at that it's not capitalism which is to blame for that, but it's application :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

But is the countryside necessarily bad? Wealth isn't being distributed to the countryside - main public amenities are kept to the cities or to towns. Being a farmer does not mean pain and suffering, or a nanny (which is often the case) and so forth. The problem with India is that when it switched to capitalism wealth was kept to the key economic areas such as cities, when from the start townships should have received some wealth to go towards agriculture, small business, schools, facilities and infrastructure like roads etc. If anything, you could argue like I hinted at that it's not capitalism which is to blame for that, but it's application :P

Well instead of asking me all you have to do is look at how people have voted with their feet. :P

But yes, the countryside is bad. Just to get by they have to do gruelling hand work in the fields outdoors in whatever weather for 12 hours+ a day, it's wet and filthy, the meals aren't all that great, there is disease, there is famine, there's a lack of independence.. that's just some of it. Common sense dictates that had the undeveloped countryside lifestyle been better, then Britons/Chinese and Indians wouldn't have left in their hundreds of millions during each of their respective nations' Industrial Revolutions.

As for distributing in India, see I disagree. Often attempting to force the market and business to move to areas they do not want to will simply destroy or greatly decrease any economic gain you'd have got otherwise. It's telling in China for example that at the start it [development] was very focused on the Eastern seaboard whereas now because wages are rising (which is due to development itself, not unions or government legislation) the companies are now moving inwards towards the west along the rivers: a free market process that has swept certain very poor areas and left them as middle class, and is now moving to other poorer areas. In turn, the newly developed middle class areas have now shifted to industries that require higher education levels and better development levels. It's an amazing process that is best when left alone to do it's work.

The state can have a role sometimes though, say if an area is fed by a river that is very unreliable then it would make sense for the state to maybe step in and see whether building a damn to stabilise the water flow would attract business to areas which wouldn't have been profitable. But even with examples like that I am sceptical - most of the canals/railways in Britain during the Industrial Revolution for example were funded and built by the companies and producers that needed them.

[GommeInc]

Well instead of asking me all you have to do is look at how people have voted with their feet. :P

But yes, the countryside is bad. Just to get by they have to do gruelling hand work in the fields outdoors in whatever weather for 12 hours+ a day, it's wet and filthy, the meals aren't all that great, there is disease, there is famine, there's a lack of independence.. that's just some of it. Common sense dictates that had the undeveloped countryside lifestyle been better, then Britons/Chinese and Indians wouldn't have left in their hundreds of millions during each of their respective nations' Industrial Revolutions.
Then surely if capitalism was successful wealth would have been distributed to combat countryside failings such as disease, which is my point? Look at farmers in our country who have a better standard and quality of life except abuse is happening by over-commercialisation where supermarkets aim to get the best deal at the detriment of the quality of life and quality of product), which immediately becomes a failing. Loans could be offered or some sort of incentive to buy machinery which would improve the quality of life in rural India. Even sewer systems, fresh water etc to support these areas so quality of life is greatly improved. When taking on the system India did the wrong thing by getting people to move to the cities to generate wealth when other industries exist :P Capitalism fails when it focuses immediately on the economic areas of a country, when proportionality is key and a portion of the wealth goes back into industries which cannot exist in cities such as farming.


As for distributing in India, see I disagree. Often attempting to force the market and business to move to areas they do not want to will simply destroy or greatly decrease any economic gain you'd have got otherwise. It's telling in China for example that at the start it [development] was very focused on the Eastern seaboard whereas now because wages are rising (which is due to development itself, not unions or government legislation) the companies are now moving inwards towards the west along the rivers: a free market process that has swept certain very poor areas and left them as middle class, and is now moving to other poorer areas. In turn, the newly developed middle class areas have now shifted to industries that require higher education levels and better development levels. It's an amazing process that is best when left alone to do it's work.
But what about industries that cannot work in cities? Farming cannot for obvious reasons such as space, and not in the central areas. Capitalism is only of benefit to all people in a society, and some do not want to work in a city and once a city becomes full to capacity it starts to destroy itself with high crime and poorer quality of life including overworked hospitals, factories, infrastructure such as fresh water, sewage, gas, electricity etc.


The state can have a role sometimes though, say if an area is fed by a river that is very unreliable then it would make sense for the state to maybe step in and see whether building a damn to stabilise the water flow would attract business to areas which wouldn't have been profitable. But even with examples like that I am sceptical - most of the canals/railways in Britain during the Industrial Revolution for example were funded and built by the companies and producers that needed them.
Indeed, it's a huge difference to what it is now and may never exist again in our life time as the public sector has arguably made the private sector selfish - or the rich, even. Philanthropy was the back bone of English culture with the rich paying to school entire towns and villages, or parts of cities. Heck, the cotton factories in this country pushed for better regulations and that's where our modern day health and safety laws came about, although the "safe" period when it wasn't so strict or ridiculous was decades ago and the Government went a bit far in some respects so you can't blame those factory owners now (mainly because they're dead, but they didn't foresee that later Governments/parliaments would make it cost so much and be so restrictive). My point is looking at ways to improve growth outside of cities and promote wealth in the countryside. A better workforce on the fields can only be a good thing. I still find it bizarre we ship off old tractors despite the cities in these countries not wanting to pay to boost the countryside/farmers themselves.

[Inseriousity.]

I would like an alternative that was fairer and yet still stable but there isn't one that's convincing. It hasn't failed though, it does exactly what it's intended to do: capitalism thrives on inequality and it just sucks to be you if you're at the bottom.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Then surely if capitalism was successful wealth would have been distributed to combat countryside failings such as disease, which is my point? Look at farmers in our country who have a better standard and quality of life except abuse is happening by over-commercialisation where supermarkets aim to get the best deal at the detriment of the quality of life and quality of product), which immediately becomes a failing. Loans could be offered or some sort of incentive to buy machinery which would improve the quality of life in rural India. Even sewer systems, fresh water etc to support these areas so quality of life is greatly improved. When taking on the system India did the wrong thing by getting people to move to the cities to generate wealth when other industries exist :P Capitalism fails when it focuses immediately on the economic areas of a country, when proportionality is key and a portion of the wealth goes back into industries which cannot exist in cities such as farming.

But agriculture won't power an economy. And that's not to mention the fact that if you do manage to introduce modern farming methods to the countryside, then what happens to the people displaced? As an economy industrialises, the labor force of the agricultural sector decreases whilst food output grows: simply because a smaller number of people can now feed a larger number of people working in other sectors, usually in the cities. It's like in a undeveloped country, you'll usually find that over 50% to 90% of the people will need to work on the farms in order to feed the country... when development occurs - as it has in Britain - the figure needed to work on the farms is something like 1% or 2% of the population. The fact is that if a country attempted to keep people in the countryside then it would be condemning them to be forced out of work. In any case, governments cannot stop the influx of people to the cities in which there is work - the shanty towns of Brazil being a prime example of this.

In terms of introducing modern farming methods instantly via the state, that is again something that can end in disaster. The Soviet state was notorious for micro managing it's farming yet caused countless famines as well as crop failures. There's also the other example we did in Economics a few months ago which I think was Bangladesh whereby the western nations introduced tractors and combine harvestors into rural Bangladesh yet it was a total failure and the tractors were left rusting at the side of the road. Why? Because they couldn't afford to run them and didn't have the replacement parts nor anybody with the know-how on how to operate or fix them properly.


But what about industries that cannot work in cities? Farming cannot for obvious reasons such as space, and not in the central areas. Capitalism is only of benefit to all people in a society, and some do not want to work in a city and once a city becomes full to capacity it starts to destroy itself with high crime and poorer quality of life including overworked hospitals, factories, infrastructure such as fresh water, sewage, gas, electricity etc.

Well you naturally get the shift back to the countryside as the middle class in the city grows. You only have to look at British towns and cities to see this pattern: millions moved from the countryside into the small slums and terraces which surrounded the dirty factories in which they worked. As people became wealthier, bigger terraces and eventually semi-detatched houses began to get built around neighbouring towns or in the countryside. That's why such an emphasis was placed after the Edwardian era on 'garden cities' - the middle class had became big enough and wealthy enough to demand their own green space and the market provided that.


Indeed, it's a huge difference to what it is now and may never exist again in our life time as the public sector has arguably made the private sector selfish - or the rich, even. Philanthropy was the back bone of English culture with the rich paying to school entire towns and villages, or parts of cities. Heck, the cotton factories in this country pushed for better regulations and that's where our modern day health and safety laws came about, although the "safe" period when it wasn't so strict or ridiculous was decades ago and the Government went a bit far in some respects so you can't blame those factory owners now (mainly because they're dead, but they didn't foresee that later Governments/parliaments would make it cost so much and be so restrictive).

Oh I agree completely with all of that.


My point is looking at ways to improve growth outside of cities and promote wealth in the countryside. A better workforce on the fields can only be a good thing. I still find it bizarre we ship off old tractors despite the cities in these countries not wanting to pay to boost the countryside/farmers themselves.

And there's nothing wrong with that in a developed economy - indeed many rural areas are richer per capita than urban areas in a developed economy like ours because of the wealthy leaving the cities and moving to the countryside. But it simply isn't the case in rural areas in undeveloped or developing nations and they need to focus on generating wealth which happens in the cities.


I would like an alternative that was fairer and yet still stable but there isn't one that's convincing. It hasn't failed though, it does exactly what it's intended to do: capitalism thrives on inequality and it just sucks to be you if you're at the bottom.

But that is also a myth regarding capitalism. Most if not all people move upwards over their lifetimes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6prvUkrOh4

Dr. Sowell touches on this in this video, there's a better video on this but I can't seem to find it at the moment. He explains in it though that virtually everybody starts on the bottom, and end up near the top (not the VERY top) at the end of their lifetime.

"A study was done some years ago showing that at the end of eight years, more of the people who were at the bottom 20% at the beginning were now in the top 20% than remained in the bottom 20% - so you have this enormous turnover of people in these brackets [...]"

I would agree with you though that there's increasing inequality. But that isn't down to capitalism itself, that's down to what the Austrian School of Economics calls fiat currency - where by government and the central banks manipulate the money supply and debase it meaning that the resulting inflation wipes out the savings of those on the bottom but leaves those with more savings on the top in better shape, ie corporations & banks. But that's another whole subject. :P

[Inseriousity.]

Well I can only go from experience really.

my great nana worked in a shop, my nana worked in a shop, my mum works in a shop.
my granddad's a painter and decorator (and I think his dad was one too but I'm not sure), my dad's a painter and decorator, my brother was going to be a painter and decorator until oops recession so now he's a 'groundsperson' apprentice.

There are whole cycles of poverty and while there is the opportunity to progress, it is easier for those who were born into a more middle class background. Despite that, I do think that'll be the case for every system: it's not about the money (money money), it's the power that creates that inequality and the powerful and the powerless will occur in every structure.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I can only go from experience really.

my great nana worked in a shop, my nana worked in a shop, my mum works in a shop.
my granddad's a painter and decorator (and I think his dad was one too but I'm not sure), my dad's a painter and decorator, my brother was going to be a painter and decorator until oops recession so now he's a 'groundsperson' apprentice.

There are whole cycles of poverty and while there is the opportunity to progress, it is easier for those who were born into a more middle class background. Despite that, I do think that'll be the case for every system: it's not about the money (money money), it's the power that creates that inequality and the powerful and the powerless will occur in every structure.

But there's nothing wrong with those jobs.

Of course a lot can also depend on what areas are included. A young twenty-something year old working in a supermarket in Bradford, Liverpool or Glasgow may earn £5 an hour. In London or in places in the Midlands, that may be £8 or £15 even...... swap both of them around and the one from London may end up shifting into another income bracket if they lived in Liverpool where as in London they'd still be in the bottom income bracket. A lot of it depends in circumstance and indeed - as Sowell makes the argument - age. A painter or a decorator in Middlesborough may start on the very bottom when he begins (living in a low income city with a job that starts as low income) yet at the end of his life he may have risen to the top bracket in that city.

A lot of people make the mistake of assuming that capitalism/the free market must be a win-lose game. It's not, most can & are winners from it.

[Inseriousity.]

I never said there was anything wrong with those jobs, it's an example of how these things can become a cycle.

Top bracket of what exactly? Wait so when this study says "those at the bottom 20% end up in the top 20%" it just means in that job. No **** sherlock, someone gets older, they get more professional, they can charge more or in the case of a shop, the minimum wage goes up, they get more but if that bracket is grossly underpaid then it doesn't make a blind bit of difference! Honestly, how middle class are you.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I never said there was anything wrong with those jobs, it's an example of how these things can become a cycle.

Ah okay, but yes things usually happen in cycles in families/among friends anyway. A lot of people - especially in sectors where their parents are working and own a company or business - will usually take on the family mantle as their father/mother retires. Just human nature.


Top bracket of what exactly? Wait so when this study says "those at the bottom 20% end up in the top 20%" it just means in that job. No **** sherlock, someone gets older, they get more professional, they can charge more or in the case of a shop, the minimum wage goes up, they get more but if that bracket is grossly underpaid then it doesn't make a blind bit of difference! Honestly, how middle class are you.

No, it means the income brackets of the population as a whole not in that particular sector/job.

He's very clear about it - those who start on on the bottom tend to end up at the top. Most of them, anyway.

[Inseriousity.]

Yes I mentioned the cycle cos it'd contradict what that study says. You're right, it is human nature so if someone's parents had a working class occupation it's likely they'd follow. Obviously not always but generally speaking. I'd like to see that study then cos it doesn't really add up tbh.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes I mentioned the cycle cos it'd contradict what that study says. You're right, it is human nature so if someone's parents had a working class occupation it's likely they'd follow. Obviously not always but generally speaking. I'd like to see that study then cos it doesn't really add up tbh.

It adds up easily.

That most people who started in the bottom income bracket, by the end of their careers, have moved into the top income bracket - that can take many forms. Through experience and simply moving upwards through a company or taking ownership in a company.

A friend of my mother left school without any decent qualifications yet she's now on a fairly high wage. She's moved up through experience.

Obviously it cannot be true for 100% of all people, no system is. But on the whole? People generally do very well under capitalism.

[Inseriousity.]

And again I'd like to see this study! It makes sense that people will move up but that suggests they're employed in a business where those promotion opportunities are available so if you're working class and working for a small business where those opportunities are not available it is highly likely you will remain where you are. I would just refute whether it's the majority or not so would like to see this study!