[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]There are probably different implementation of socialism too. I know many people from Sweden and over there, you’d get pay equivalent doing manual labor work as being an engineer. Since school is also free over there, many people chose to do manual labor work instead since it require less education and you get paid the similar.[/quote]

Entry level this is true – however, this is not true once you get into mid career path (I work with a Swede :D).

It is not true once you hit mid career levels or higher. A mid career engineer there makes a little less than here, but is still well above median wage (either here or there). 75K or so in equivalent dollars. Management is a bump above that. The payscale is somewhat compressed compared to here, but there is still a range, and the higher demand and higher education jobs still pay significantly better over a career.

[SDEngineer]

I have no doubt this is an urban legend.

One clue is that the professor presumably would have known the difference between socialism and communism. The example used in this class was strict communism.

Under most forms of socialism, there is still incentive to get ahead, and people are not treated exactly equally. A doctor, for example, still commands a premium wage over a ditchdigger. The difference is simply that the wage inequality which occurs under capitalism is kept somewhat in check (especially under most hybrid systems, which appear to be the most successful, which fuse elements of both capitalism and socialism together), and a minimum living standard (usually pretty low) is guaranteed to it’s citizens.

Does anyone here really think that, for example, a CEO actually should be paid 200-300x the average salary of his workers (which is roughly the current average)? Or a trust fund kiddy who’s dad made it big, but who has never actually done anything productive themselves make – simply based on capital investment alone – hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

[SDEngineer]

I have no doubt this is an urban legend.

One clue is that the professor presumably would have known the difference between socialism and communism. The example used in this class was strict communism.

Under most forms of socialism, there is still incentive to get ahead, and people are not treated exactly equally. A doctor, for example, still commands a premium wage over a ditchdigger. The difference is simply that the wage inequality which occurs under capitalism is kept somewhat in check (especially under most hybrid systems, which appear to be the most successful, which fuse elements of both capitalism and socialism together), and a minimum living standard (usually pretty low) is guaranteed to it’s citizens.

Does anyone here really think that, for example, a CEO actually should be paid 200-300x the average salary of his workers (which is roughly the current average)? Or a trust fund kiddy who’s dad made it big, but who has never actually done anything productive themselves make – simply based on capital investment alone – hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

[SDEngineer]

I have no doubt this is an urban legend.

One clue is that the professor presumably would have known the difference between socialism and communism. The example used in this class was strict communism.

Under most forms of socialism, there is still incentive to get ahead, and people are not treated exactly equally. A doctor, for example, still commands a premium wage over a ditchdigger. The difference is simply that the wage inequality which occurs under capitalism is kept somewhat in check (especially under most hybrid systems, which appear to be the most successful, which fuse elements of both capitalism and socialism together), and a minimum living standard (usually pretty low) is guaranteed to it’s citizens.

Does anyone here really think that, for example, a CEO actually should be paid 200-300x the average salary of his workers (which is roughly the current average)? Or a trust fund kiddy who’s dad made it big, but who has never actually done anything productive themselves make – simply based on capital investment alone – hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

[SDEngineer]

I have no doubt this is an urban legend.

One clue is that the professor presumably would have known the difference between socialism and communism. The example used in this class was strict communism.

Under most forms of socialism, there is still incentive to get ahead, and people are not treated exactly equally. A doctor, for example, still commands a premium wage over a ditchdigger. The difference is simply that the wage inequality which occurs under capitalism is kept somewhat in check (especially under most hybrid systems, which appear to be the most successful, which fuse elements of both capitalism and socialism together), and a minimum living standard (usually pretty low) is guaranteed to it’s citizens.

Does anyone here really think that, for example, a CEO actually should be paid 200-300x the average salary of his workers (which is roughly the current average)? Or a trust fund kiddy who’s dad made it big, but who has never actually done anything productive themselves make – simply based on capital investment alone – hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

[SDEngineer]

I have no doubt this is an urban legend.

One clue is that the professor presumably would have known the difference between socialism and communism. The example used in this class was strict communism.

Under most forms of socialism, there is still incentive to get ahead, and people are not treated exactly equally. A doctor, for example, still commands a premium wage over a ditchdigger. The difference is simply that the wage inequality which occurs under capitalism is kept somewhat in check (especially under most hybrid systems, which appear to be the most successful, which fuse elements of both capitalism and socialism together), and a minimum living standard (usually pretty low) is guaranteed to it’s citizens.

Does anyone here really think that, for example, a CEO actually should be paid 200-300x the average salary of his workers (which is roughly the current average)? Or a trust fund kiddy who’s dad made it big, but who has never actually done anything productive themselves make – simply based on capital investment alone – hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

[SDEngineer]

Nothing is immune. Some zip codes are simply getting hit later than others.

The list of “immune” zip codes was far longer last year, most of which have since begun their plunge.

The market correction started in the communities farthest out from the coast and the city center and has been steadily working it’s way in from there.

[SDEngineer]

Nothing is immune. Some zip codes are simply getting hit later than others.

The list of “immune” zip codes was far longer last year, most of which have since begun their plunge.

The market correction started in the communities farthest out from the coast and the city center and has been steadily working it’s way in from there.

[SDEngineer]

Nothing is immune. Some zip codes are simply getting hit later than others.

The list of “immune” zip codes was far longer last year, most of which have since begun their plunge.

The market correction started in the communities farthest out from the coast and the city center and has been steadily working it’s way in from there.

[SDEngineer]

Nothing is immune. Some zip codes are simply getting hit later than others.

The list of “immune” zip codes was far longer last year, most of which have since begun their plunge.

The market correction started in the communities farthest out from the coast and the city center and has been steadily working it’s way in from there.

[SDEngineer]

Nothing is immune. Some zip codes are simply getting hit later than others.

The list of “immune” zip codes was far longer last year, most of which have since begun their plunge.

The market correction started in the communities farthest out from the coast and the city center and has been steadily working it’s way in from there.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am very concerned about the rights of all Americans and how they are being rapidly eroded by this power grab in the name of emergency. Check out some of the postings on “The Big Takeover”. The links are a real eye opener. I have always been a huge supporter of women’s rights, especially the ones in Iraq who now are voting. Bush was widely maligned and yet in essence he freed an entire generation of women from an oppressive government.[/quote]

Actually, in Iraq, women were in a better situation (largely) under Hussein. The same can be said for religious minorities. In much of Iraq now (especially the Shia south), there’s been a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism (that Hussein, being a secular Sunni, largely kept tamped down). It’s not as bad as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan was (and still is in many places), but it’s definitely placing women in second class status. Iraqis may technically be freer – but that also means they are freer to choose to live under severe Islamic laws which treat women as second class citizens. The fact that in many areas the local militias wield as much power as the local governments doesn’t help much.

Now Afghanistan is better than it was – if only because it couldn’t have been worse than it was. Unfortunately, it’s trending back towards Taliban fundamentalism in much of Afghanistan, at least for the moment. We took our eye off the ball there in order to concentrate on Iraq.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am very concerned about the rights of all Americans and how they are being rapidly eroded by this power grab in the name of emergency. Check out some of the postings on “The Big Takeover”. The links are a real eye opener. I have always been a huge supporter of women’s rights, especially the ones in Iraq who now are voting. Bush was widely maligned and yet in essence he freed an entire generation of women from an oppressive government.[/quote]

Actually, in Iraq, women were in a better situation (largely) under Hussein. The same can be said for religious minorities. In much of Iraq now (especially the Shia south), there’s been a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism (that Hussein, being a secular Sunni, largely kept tamped down). It’s not as bad as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan was (and still is in many places), but it’s definitely placing women in second class status. Iraqis may technically be freer – but that also means they are freer to choose to live under severe Islamic laws which treat women as second class citizens. The fact that in many areas the local militias wield as much power as the local governments doesn’t help much.

Now Afghanistan is better than it was – if only because it couldn’t have been worse than it was. Unfortunately, it’s trending back towards Taliban fundamentalism in much of Afghanistan, at least for the moment. We took our eye off the ball there in order to concentrate on Iraq.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am very concerned about the rights of all Americans and how they are being rapidly eroded by this power grab in the name of emergency. Check out some of the postings on “The Big Takeover”. The links are a real eye opener. I have always been a huge supporter of women’s rights, especially the ones in Iraq who now are voting. Bush was widely maligned and yet in essence he freed an entire generation of women from an oppressive government.[/quote]

Actually, in Iraq, women were in a better situation (largely) under Hussein. The same can be said for religious minorities. In much of Iraq now (especially the Shia south), there’s been a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism (that Hussein, being a secular Sunni, largely kept tamped down). It’s not as bad as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan was (and still is in many places), but it’s definitely placing women in second class status. Iraqis may technically be freer – but that also means they are freer to choose to live under severe Islamic laws which treat women as second class citizens. The fact that in many areas the local militias wield as much power as the local governments doesn’t help much.

Now Afghanistan is better than it was – if only because it couldn’t have been worse than it was. Unfortunately, it’s trending back towards Taliban fundamentalism in much of Afghanistan, at least for the moment. We took our eye off the ball there in order to concentrate on Iraq.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am very concerned about the rights of all Americans and how they are being rapidly eroded by this power grab in the name of emergency. Check out some of the postings on “The Big Takeover”. The links are a real eye opener. I have always been a huge supporter of women’s rights, especially the ones in Iraq who now are voting. Bush was widely maligned and yet in essence he freed an entire generation of women from an oppressive government.[/quote]

Actually, in Iraq, women were in a better situation (largely) under Hussein. The same can be said for religious minorities. In much of Iraq now (especially the Shia south), there’s been a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism (that Hussein, being a secular Sunni, largely kept tamped down). It’s not as bad as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan was (and still is in many places), but it’s definitely placing women in second class status. Iraqis may technically be freer – but that also means they are freer to choose to live under severe Islamic laws which treat women as second class citizens. The fact that in many areas the local militias wield as much power as the local governments doesn’t help much.

Now Afghanistan is better than it was – if only because it couldn’t have been worse than it was. Unfortunately, it’s trending back towards Taliban fundamentalism in much of Afghanistan, at least for the moment. We took our eye off the ball there in order to concentrate on Iraq.

[Author]

Posts