|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:49 pm Post subject: 9 Myths about socialism |
|
|
Published on Saturday, April 10, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Nine Myths about Socialism in the US
by Bill Quigley
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say �Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.�
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US in making up the OECD � the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
MYTHS |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10% in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries � better only than Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however, is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education, the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
Bill Quigley is Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. There is a version of this article with footnotes for those |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10% in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s. |
This one in particular is a peeve of mine. Anyone who brings up "class warfare" invariably brings it up to defend the rich, but it's the wealthy who are the ones actually engaging in class warfare in this society (and in fact, their usage of the term "class warfare" is actually another example of the class warfare they're engaging in, try to delegitimize opposition to their efforts).
Most people in the middle and lower classes just want to get by with the basics assured and a reasonable amount of comfort. It's the wealthy who are constantly trying to get the system remodelled to benefit them. And they've largely succeeded, to the detriment of the rest of our society. It will only get worse. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Location: Incheon
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My two cents on this matter, is that the US has for some time been more or less very socialistic towards the wealthy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Few if any of those myths are myths "about socialism" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
manlyboy

Joined: 01 Aug 2004 Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries. |
Oh dear, there goes another leftist abusing the english language again. Not being able to afford cable tv does not mean you're living in poverty. Nobody is starving to death. In fact, in America "poverty" means you're at high risk of obesity. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
manlyboy wrote: |
Quote: |
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries. |
Oh dear, there goes another leftist abusing the english language again. Not being able to afford cable tv does not mean you're living in poverty. Nobody is starving to death. In fact, in America "poverty" means you're at high risk of obesity. |
Do you know the rational used in determining 'poverty'? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
BoholDiver
Joined: 03 Oct 2009 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it means 56% (or so) of your net income is used for necessities.
Captain Corea wrote: |
manlyboy wrote: |
Quote: |
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries. |
Oh dear, there goes another leftist abusing the english language again. Not being able to afford cable tv does not mean you're living in poverty. Nobody is starving to death. In fact, in America "poverty" means you're at high risk of obesity. |
Do you know the rational used in determining 'poverty'? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
animalbirdfish
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer wrote: |
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10% in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
|
Not to be excessively rosy about the state of the world, but it should be noted that, as the economist Stephen Rose points out, the so-called "decline" of the middle class comes almost entirely from people moving up the income ladder, not down. That is, the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 a year has doubled since 1979, while the percentage of those earning less than $30,000 a year has remained flat. Rose's article, which is well worth a read, is here: http://www.ppionline.org/documents/MiddleClassJobs100207.pdf
The US has problems, to be sure, but many of these "Class War" stories come from bad statistics (measuring household income instead of individual income, or focusing on statistical categories rather than actual people) or misinterpreting/ignoring good stats (claiming that wages have fallen even as total compensation has risen).
Just thought these points might be in order before everyone hauls out their pitchforks in anticipation of the Class War. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Few if any of those myths are myths "about socialism" |
You have a point, but that was the title of the article. They are myths connected to what many Americans think about America, which is removed from reality. The difference between America and those other OECD governments are their policies.
Someone seemed to say if you're obese, you can't be poor. As far as obesity, it doesn't mean you are not poor if you are obese, it just means you eat a poor diet in many cases. There are rich and obese people, of course. Long ago being fat was assocated with having money. I am not sure that's true in America. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
manlyboy wrote: |
Quote: |
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries. |
Oh dear, there goes another leftist abusing the english language again. Not being able to afford cable tv does not mean you're living in poverty. Nobody is starving to death. In fact, in America "poverty" means you're at high risk of obesity. |
Among racial and ethnic groups for whom data are available, the trend toward increasing obesity is most pronounced for adult black females (50 percent of whom were obese in 1999�2000, up from 38 percent in 1988�1994) and for adult Mexican American females (40 percent of whom were obese in 1999�2000, compared with 35 percent in 1988�1994). What served as the catalyst(s) for the notable increase in 1988 from 40% to 50% in 1999?
The proportion of children and adolescents aged 6 to 19 years who are overweight increased from 11 percent in 1988�1994 to 15 percent in 1999�2000. The proportion of overweight females rose from 10 to 15 percent, and of overweight males, from 12 to 16 percent. For Mexican American children and adolescents, the proportion overweight in 1999�2000 was 24 percent; for black children and adolescents, 22 percent. Less than 5 percent of children and adolescents, male or female, were overweight in 1966�1970. The target is 5 percent (Obj.19-3).
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/correlation-between-obesity-and-poverty-health-people-2010-should-increase-attention-those-poverty-14046.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kimbop

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's fix this problem! Let's give free money to lazy people! Let's pay deviants to reproduce! Then let's pay state workers to raise the kids! Let's completely abolish any accountability! Divorced? lazy? gay? ugly? Not to worry! You are entitled to receive free money, as we've abolished our merit-based society! Priase the rich!
Don't feel like studying or improving your skills? Not to worry! Obama's backing of the unions will give you an inflated wage for minimum work! No need for med school! Heck, who cares if our kids study or not-- everything's free!
While we're at it, let's raise corporate taxes so our biggest taxpayers move abroad! (Actually; raising taxes wouldn't much affect me or any educated person, as I hide my debt and tax liabilities in my corporations) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kimbop wrote: |
Let's fix this problem! Let's give free money to lazy people! Let's pay deviants to reproduce! Then let's pay state workers to raise the kids! Let's completely abolish any accountability! Divorced? lazy? gay? ugly? Not to worry! You are entitled to receive free money, as we've abolished our merit-based society! Priase the rich!
Don't feel like studying or improving your skills? Not to worry! Obama's backing of the unions will give you an inflated wage for minimum work! No need for med school! Heck, who cares if our kids study or not-- everything's free!
While we're at it, let's raise corporate taxes so our biggest taxpayers move abroad! (Actually; raising taxes wouldn't much affect me or any educated person, as I hide my debt and tax liabilities in my corporations) |
The problem with your argument is that the rich don't produce in so many cases than workers or union members. You are claiming that unions make people lazy. Sweden has strong unions. The Swedes are not known to lazy. Are the Germans known to be lazy? No. The US is more productive largely because American companies spend more money on the lay out of factories, bringing in the latest equipment and making sure they are properly maintained. German workers are more educated, but the management is not more superior. There are many great things associated with America, but I don't think that social programs necessarily make one country less productive than another. Germany has more social programs than the UK, but Germany is more productive.
One may argue against corporate taxes for factories or giving breaks to companies that buy capital to improve production. Obviously, taxation policies need to be logical. However, progressive taxation does make sense if one wants to increase opportunity in a state. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer wrote: |
Kimbop wrote: |
Let's fix this problem! Let's give free money to lazy people! Let's pay deviants to reproduce! Then let's pay state workers to raise the kids! Let's completely abolish any accountability! Divorced? lazy? gay? ugly? Not to worry! You are entitled to receive free money, as we've abolished our merit-based society! Priase the rich!
Don't feel like studying or improving your skills? Not to worry! Obama's backing of the unions will give you an inflated wage for minimum work! No need for med school! Heck, who cares if our kids study or not-- everything's free!
While we're at it, let's raise corporate taxes so our biggest taxpayers move abroad! (Actually; raising taxes wouldn't much affect me or any educated person, as I hide my debt and tax liabilities in my corporations) |
The problem with your argument is that the rich don't produce in so many cases than workers or union members. You are claiming that unions make people lazy. Sweden has strong unions. The Swedes are not known to lazy. Are the Germans known to be lazy? No. |
It is not reasonable to compare Germans and Swedes to Americans. And if you're going to do that, compare them to German Americans and Swedish Americans. I've noticed that German Americans and Swedish Americans do quite well. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mises wrote: |
Adventurer wrote: |
Kimbop wrote: |
Let's fix this problem! Let's give free money to lazy people! Let's pay deviants to reproduce! Then let's pay state workers to raise the kids! Let's completely abolish any accountability! Divorced? lazy? gay? ugly? Not to worry! You are entitled to receive free money, as we've abolished our merit-based society! Priase the rich!
Don't feel like studying or improving your skills? Not to worry! Obama's backing of the unions will give you an inflated wage for minimum work! No need for med school! Heck, who cares if our kids study or not-- everything's free!
While we're at it, let's raise corporate taxes so our biggest taxpayers move abroad! (Actually; raising taxes wouldn't much affect me or any educated person, as I hide my debt and tax liabilities in my corporations) |
The problem with your argument is that the rich don't produce in so many cases than workers or union members. You are claiming that unions make people lazy. Sweden has strong unions. The Swedes are not known to lazy. Are the Germans known to be lazy? No. |
It is not reasonable to compare Germans and Swedes to Americans. And if you're going to do that, compare them to German Americans and Swedish Americans. I've noticed that German Americans and Swedish Americans do quite well. |
German workers are not as productive as American workers, so what's your point? German workers are more educated and work hard. One may say America because Germany has more socialism, but Germany is more productive than the UK, which has less benefits. I don't think socialism makes a country less productive unless it's almost communist and a command economy. You can compare workers. In general, American workers are very productive, though less educated than their German counterparts possibly due to company investment and managerial attitudes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|