Companies can't find Workers who can hold a Conversation or Show Up on Time

[jillian]

there are still PUBLIC vocational high schools? not that I know of in New York. There should be, though.

There are quite a few, Aviation is one of them (My father is a grad)

Aviation Career Technical Education High School - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Aviation High School is certified by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the training of Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (AMTs). Students who successfully complete the school's rigorous technical programs are allowed to take their FAA certification examinations without further qualification.

In order to achieve this, students at the school spend about three to four periods every day in "shop," technology related classes that concentrate on every aspect of an aircraft's structure, systems, and components, as well as more general aviation subjects such as aerodynamics and Federal Aviation Regulations. These specialized classes are taught by FAA-certificated AMTs, many of whom are themselves alumni of the school.

thanks. my dad went to automotive high school. he went back to college when he was about 30.

there used to be many more vocational high schools. I think they're very important.

Having more of them is only 1/2 the fight. We have to get parents to realize that having your kids go to vocations is not a stigma. For the past few decades the "everybody goes to college" mentality has de-valued vocational learning, as well as working (even as an apprentice) right after high school. How do you convince parents their "precious little flower" is more suited to a manual skilled trade than 4 years at a college? The same parents that have been brought up under the "college or bust" mentality we see today?

I think most parents understand whether or not their kid is cut out for a four year college. ... at least the people I've met understand what their kids are and aren't good at.

and, frankly, college is too expensive to waste the money if your kid isn't going to benefit from it.

Even in the mid 90's we had plenty of kids at my College who really shouldn't have been there, and most flunked out within two years. From what I see of most parents of kids under 10, they fight to get their kids in special programs, and most of those are not designed to feed into vocational programs.

In NYC the push to get your kids into the right program starts in freaking kindergarten. Yes, some of the kids do deserve to be in them, but all of them? THAT is the mentality that needs working on.

when I was at Binghamton, most of the people I knew belonged there and were there for four years. some fell by the wayside, but it was more likely a function of them not adjusting or being unhappy away from home.

I know just what you're talking about in terms of the fight to get kids into the right "programs". when my son tested for high school, other parents were paying huge amounts of money for prep courses so they could get into Brooklyn tech or Stuyvescent. I figured if my son needed that much prep, he shouldn't be in the school because he wouldn't do well. (I wasn't ever going to be able to spend $38,000 a year for private school for high school so I never considered that). He got into Tech and decided not to go there anyway. The college stuff was crazy. It's so competitive. I don't remember it being that way in the 80's either.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I wonder if its got anything to do with the type of people who would manufacture for whatever pay theyre offering.

there is that. there is also the problem of these same people having their intro jobs taken by older people unable to find work because of outsourcing and bush's crash of the economy. so they don't have experience in the work world when they go in.

also, perhaps we should reinstate school programs like shop and maybe a return to vocational high schools for the people who maybe aren't cut out for 4 year colleges.

i'm skeptical about the article. and there are many reasons such a situation can exist... like applications being done online and older workers who cost more being rejected out of hand for the inexperienced.

there are still vocational high schools

And there are all kinds post secondary technical schools

Yes, there are post secondary technical schools. Like Portland Community College. And it will cost you over $100 dollars per credit to go there. So try to hold a 40 hr. work week job at $10 per hr, put a roof over your head, and have something to eat, and go to that school, even part time. Now I see many students doing exactly that, but they are dead tired, and not learning anywhere near their abilities because of fatigue.

The first two years of college, or two years of technical education should be free to those that can qualify and get a C or better average. That would ease the present dearth of skilled people we need in industry.

Get some roommates and work a night job. That's how I got through college while working 40 hours a week or more. In the summers I worked 100 hours a week and saved every penny I could.

So if you want to do it you can. The problem is people don't want to do whatever it takes anymore because it cuts into their TV time.

And people should pay for the first 2 years before they qualify for any aid because most people drop out in the first 2 years.

Let them earn their aid

 

[Skull Pilot]

I wonder if its got anything to do with the type of people who would manufacture for whatever pay theyre offering.

there is that. there is also the problem of these same people having their intro jobs taken by older people unable to find work because of outsourcing and bush's crash of the economy. so they don't have experience in the work world when they go in.

also, perhaps we should reinstate school programs like shop and maybe a return to vocational high schools for the people who maybe aren't cut out for 4 year colleges.

i'm skeptical about the article. and there are many reasons such a situation can exist... like applications being done online and older workers who cost more being rejected out of hand for the inexperienced.

there are still vocational high schools

And there are all kinds post secondary technical schools

there are still PUBLIC vocational high schools? not that I know of in New York. There should be, though.

There are 2 within 20 miles of me

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you accept a job then you do your best .Period.

If you don't then you have no self respect.

I have to sympathize with the kids on the tardiness issue, they were taught by public school teachers.

Many of the teachers I taught with were late at least one day a week, many were late almost every day.

The solution our brilliant school board came up with was to required us to come earlier.

Same people were still late, the punctual just had to come earlier.

We even went to time cards, and it did not help; teachers would get one teacher to punch in the cards for four or five.

But, cliquishness in public schools is another story.

How long did it take for you to learn to get to work on time?

It doesn't have to be taught. You know how to tell time, you know how long it takes you to get up shower and get dressed, you know how long it takes to get to work.

It seems like common sense to me

Strange that people can't be on time. I had an employee, he couldn't be on time, I talked with him, I worked with him and finally suspended him. The suspension was what got his attention.

If you can't respect your job or your fellow employees,to be on time, then you have no respect for your work.

I have no patience for anyone who can't show up on time.

I tell all of my employees," If you're 5 minutes early as far as I'm concerned you're 10 minutes late"

Tardiness is my biggest pet peeve as there usually in no excuse for it

 

[Uncensored2008]

Keep assuming I don't know anything about marxism, may make yourself feel better. Really? Poor fortune? Ah, great job saying they didn't believe the bullshit, nothing to back that hilarious claim up. Lenin/stalin/mao, what they practiced was not communism, more so marxism-leninism, and with mao, Maoism, which is essentially an extension of leninism. Great job ignoring most of my post.

It's interesting the ego of small children. You are of no concern to anyone. If your message is interesting then I respond. I feel nothing for you at all.

We have all heard the childish pouts that with only 200 million slaughtered, we just didn't give Marxism a fair shake. Sorry, the world has seen what Marxism is.

You spew the typical bullshit that since the USSR didn't start out as a stateless, classless society, it wasn't Marxist - which is the first clue that you have never actually read Marx. Engels wrote at length about the empowerment of the proletarians - this concept that the dregs of society are somehow above corruption, envy, and greed. Marx and Engels represent the rise of the pampered radical, who live off the largess of parents, are well educated, and hate everyone for giving them everything.

Because we have the hindsight of the 60's, most of what Engels wrote is laughable, the meandering of a spoiled child lashing out at daddy. Mix that with the perversions of economic theory provided by Marx, and we have a real mess - the Manifesto.

You complain that Mao was just a dictatorial thug who used Marxism as a vehicle for personal power - all true. But it is the vacuous nature of Marxism that makes it a viable vehicle. Marx offered justification for every form of brutality. Dictatorship of the proletarian - brilliant. Lets take lowest performers of the least educated and give them unlimited power over life and death - what could go wrong?

 

[Uncensored2008]

YOU are being an absolute ignorant idiot.

NAFTA was negotiated by President Bush 1, with Mexico and Canada...

Clinton, said he would HONOR the treaty negotiations that Bush1 had already agreed to and negotiated with the other two Presidents/leaders and who had already signed off on it.

Before we accept your historical revision and complete pile of bullshit, would you mind posting what year it was that NAFTA was ratified?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, funny thing. Coming up on 7 years where I currently work. Did six years at the place before that.

And in that time, I've seen people fired because they were gay, fired because they dated the girl who was now dating the manager, fired becuase they were pregnant, fired because they had medical expenses....

A whole list of shitty behavior you wouldn't have if you had strong worker protections.

Oh sure, I believe you....

ROFL

 

[jillian]

I wonder if its got anything to do with the type of people who would manufacture for whatever pay theyre offering.

there is that. there is also the problem of these same people having their intro jobs taken by older people unable to find work because of outsourcing and bush's crash of the economy. so they don't have experience in the work world when they go in.

also, perhaps we should reinstate school programs like shop and maybe a return to vocational high schools for the people who maybe aren't cut out for 4 year colleges.

i'm skeptical about the article. and there are many reasons such a situation can exist... like applications being done online and older workers who cost more being rejected out of hand for the inexperienced.

there are still vocational high schools

And there are all kinds post secondary technical schools

there are still PUBLIC vocational high schools? not that I know of in New York. There should be, though.

There are 2 within 20 miles of me

 

[Uncensored2008]

doesn't pay more than what I make. I probably make more than you.

I actually make more than minimum wage.

Maybe, if you would show up on time, and sober, you would too!

But if you want to ask someone to do a menial job and not pay them, they might as well collect welfare.

and the rich will get people like you to subsidize it.

Genius.

When I buy an apple at the store, I pay what I think the apple is worth.

No doubt you look at the background of the apple growers and pickers and pay hundreds of dollars for a single apple to ensure there is a "living wage" for all.

If not, you're a fucking hypocrite who demands others be held to standards you don't follow.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think you are pretty ignorant about the histories of China and India.

India is impoverished because England looted the country for hundreds of years until they finally threw the bastards out. Today, it is one of the world's rising economic powers.

So, your claim is that India had less poverty under the Mughal dynasty than under Britain? You further claim that poverty DECREASED after Britain left?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a fucktard you are.

You are living proof that leftism is based on ignorance combined with flat out stupidity.

 

[Toro]

Many bosses don't treat people well, as shown by most capitalists in poor areas around the world, india, china, the third world, fast food..

Your boss isn't your mommy.

I don't speak to third world shit holes. India and China became shit holes by adopting Socialism. They are slowly clawing their way out of the cesspool by adopting market driven policies. Less people physically starve to death today, than when Socialism was in full bloom in India, but the nation remains impoverished. India never fell as deeply into the sewer as China did - life is still brutal in the Communist shit hole. China has become a typical gangster state - which is inevitable with Socialism. Government stolen goods are openly sold on the black market, well connected thugs reap the rewards while the enslaved masses toil. Communism always yields the same results, death, misery, and bitter despair.

The amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..

More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.

That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.

If you want to

Many bosses don't treat people well, as shown by most capitalists in poor areas around the world, india, china, the third world, fast food..

Your boss isn't your mommy.

I don't speak to third world shit holes. India and China became shit holes by adopting Socialism. They are slowly clawing their way out of the cesspool by adopting market driven policies. Less people physically starve to death today, than when Socialism was in full bloom in India, but the nation remains impoverished. India never fell as deeply into the sewer as China did - life is still brutal in the Communist shit hole. China has become a typical gangster state - which is inevitable with Socialism. Government stolen goods are openly sold on the black market, well connected thugs reap the rewards while the enslaved masses toil. Communism always yields the same results, death, misery, and bitter despair.

The amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..

More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.

That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.

Yes, I can agree capitalism pulls people out of poverty at first and with intense regulation, but by nature, it cannot end poverty, and it cannot sustain itself

Of course it can.

And it has.

 

[Marxist]

Many bosses don't treat people well, as shown by most capitalists in poor areas around the world, india, china, the third world, fast food..

Your boss isn't your mommy.

I don't speak to third world shit holes. India and China became shit holes by adopting Socialism. They are slowly clawing their way out of the cesspool by adopting market driven policies. Less people physically starve to death today, than when Socialism was in full bloom in India, but the nation remains impoverished. India never fell as deeply into the sewer as China did - life is still brutal in the Communist shit hole. China has become a typical gangster state - which is inevitable with Socialism. Government stolen goods are openly sold on the black market, well connected thugs reap the rewards while the enslaved masses toil. Communism always yields the same results, death, misery, and bitter despair.

The amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..

More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.

That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.

If you want to

Many bosses don't treat people well, as shown by most capitalists in poor areas around the world, india, china, the third world, fast food..

Your boss isn't your mommy.

I don't speak to third world shit holes. India and China became shit holes by adopting Socialism. They are slowly clawing their way out of the cesspool by adopting market driven policies. Less people physically starve to death today, than when Socialism was in full bloom in India, but the nation remains impoverished. India never fell as deeply into the sewer as China did - life is still brutal in the Communist shit hole. China has become a typical gangster state - which is inevitable with Socialism. Government stolen goods are openly sold on the black market, well connected thugs reap the rewards while the enslaved masses toil. Communism always yields the same results, death, misery, and bitter despair.

The amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..

More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.

That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.

Yes, I can agree capitalism pulls people out of poverty at first and with intense regulation, but by nature, it cannot end poverty, and it cannot sustain itself

Of course it can.

And it has.

No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etc

 

[Marxist]

Keep assuming I don't know anything about marxism, may make yourself feel better. Really? Poor fortune? Ah, great job saying they didn't believe the bullshit, nothing to back that hilarious claim up. Lenin/stalin/mao, what they practiced was not communism, more so marxism-leninism, and with mao, Maoism, which is essentially an extension of leninism. Great job ignoring most of my post.

It's interesting the ego of small children. You are of no concern to anyone. If your message is interesting then I respond. I feel nothing for you at all.

We have all heard the childish pouts that with only 200 million slaughtered, we just didn't give Marxism a fair shake. Sorry, the world has seen what Marxism is.

You spew the typical bullshit that since the USSR didn't start out as a stateless, classless society, it wasn't Marxist - which is the first clue that you have never actually read Marx. Engels wrote at length about the empowerment of the proletarians - this concept that the dregs of society are somehow above corruption, envy, and greed. Marx and Engels represent the rise of the pampered radical, who live off the largess of parents, are well educated, and hate everyone for giving them everything.

Because we have the hindsight of the 60's, most of what Engels wrote is laughable, the meandering of a spoiled child lashing out at daddy. Mix that with the perversions of economic theory provided by Marx, and we have a real mess - the Manifesto.

You complain that Mao was just a dictatorial thug who used Marxism as a vehicle for personal power - all true. But it is the vacuous nature of Marxism that makes it a viable vehicle. Marx offered justification for every form of brutality. Dictatorship of the proletarian - brilliant. Lets take lowest performers of the least educated and give them unlimited power over life and death - what could go wrong?

200 million slaughtered? Literal bullshit. That's not even the accepted death toll, I always hear 100 million, although that counts many ridiculous things that also happened under capitalist governments. Oh, I've read marx and engels, and I will agree that the proletarians are prone to these influences, engels was wrong on this, but humans are always inherently going to have some of these tendencies, the system in place helps lean them towards certain ones. Capitalism? Greed is prevalent. The pampered radical? Have you seen what they had to experience in their lives? Yes, many intellectuals throughout history come from educated families and speak against systems that may benefit them, such as slavery, while using cotton products from the south, doesn't mean that intellectual supported slavery, same with capitalism. Perversion of economics theory? Marx laid down a wonderful way to examine history, examine capitalism, a beautiful critique, I never argued it wasn't marxist, I argued that it wasn't communism, as wrote about by Marx/engels. Mao wasn't a dictatorial thug, in my eyes, I admire Mao, although he made many mistakes. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a great idea, as getting to a communist society is not possible without the working class having political power. Performers of the least uneducated? You may need to reevaluate your understanding of how marxism has changed over time, with extensions by Lenin,mao..

 

[Marxist]

doesn't pay more than what I make. I probably make more than you.

I actually make more than minimum wage.

Maybe, if you would show up on time, and sober, you would too!

But if you want to ask someone to do a menial job and not pay them, they might as well collect welfare.

and the rich will get people like you to subsidize it.

Genius.

When I buy an apple at the store, I pay what I think the apple is worth.

No doubt you look at the background of the apple growers and pickers and pay hundreds of dollars for a single apple to ensure there is a "living wage" for all.

If not, you're a fucking hypocrite who demands others be held to standards you don't follow.

Or, we realize we have enough food for 10 billion people, we adequate land, food, water, technology, medicine, energy technologies, and realize that our method of distribution is fucked, and that capitalism relies on exploitation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah all that new technology is bad for the economy

It's been horrible for the economy, but the real problem is free trade. A bigger problem is that you have airlines making record profits while airline pilots are making $20,000 a year. That's fucking insane.

You got a link? You lie so much, no sane person would take you at your word.

 

[tigerred59]

My company is holding a massive hiring event and people simple aren't showing up....BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF GOOD PAYING JOBS TO CHOSE FROM.....THANKS TO DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA!!

 

[Papageorgio]

My company is holding a massive hiring event and people simple aren't showing up....BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF GOOD PAYING JOBS TO CHOSE FROM.....THANKS TO DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA!!

Probably true, not too many people want to be hotel maids.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etc

"Poor" is not "poverty." Poverty is the inability to meet physical needs of food, potable water, and shelter.

Poor in America means having to wait until PS4 drops in price before getting one.

 

[Marxist]

Yeah all that new technology is bad for the economy

It's been horrible for the economy, but the real problem is free trade. A bigger problem is that you have airlines making record profits while airline pilots are making $20,000 a year. That's fucking insane.

You got a link? You lie so much, no sane person would take you at your word.

No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etc

"Poor" is not "poverty." Poverty is the inability to meet physical needs of food, potable water, and shelter.

Poor in America means having to wait until PS4 drops in price before getting one.

i typed it wrong, but yes, poverty cannot physically end. The projections show that it will take 100 years for the worlds most impoverished workers to make a 1.25, not even looking at price increases, possible crashes, resource loss, etc..

 

[Toro]

Your boss isn't your mommy.

I don't speak to third world shit holes. India and China became shit holes by adopting Socialism. They are slowly clawing their way out of the cesspool by adopting market driven policies. Less people physically starve to death today, than when Socialism was in full bloom in India, but the nation remains impoverished. India never fell as deeply into the sewer as China did - life is still brutal in the Communist shit hole. China has become a typical gangster state - which is inevitable with Socialism. Government stolen goods are openly sold on the black market, well connected thugs reap the rewards while the enslaved masses toil. Communism always yields the same results, death, misery, and bitter despair.

The amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..

More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.

That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.

If you want to

Your boss isn't your mommy.

I don't speak to third world shit holes. India and China became shit holes by adopting Socialism. They are slowly clawing their way out of the cesspool by adopting market driven policies. Less people physically starve to death today, than when Socialism was in full bloom in India, but the nation remains impoverished. India never fell as deeply into the sewer as China did - life is still brutal in the Communist shit hole. China has become a typical gangster state - which is inevitable with Socialism. Government stolen goods are openly sold on the black market, well connected thugs reap the rewards while the enslaved masses toil. Communism always yields the same results, death, misery, and bitter despair.

The amount of uneducated bullshit in this post is hilarious. China has become a gangster state? Imperialist countries haven't? Communism has been put into place? Really? What stateless society are you referring to? Ah, the usual death, misery, and despair bullshit, what's interesting is that almost half of russians when polled supported/support stalin's policies. Mao also has large amounts of support in china. Your boss isn't your mommy? Yes, I know the capitalist doesn't care about the well being of the proletariat. Third world shit holes consistently being destroyed by capitalism. You can look at the "rising" employment and the poverty numbers set by capitalists, but you show me the pay, the quality of life for the laborers in china/india, and countries like Haiti, the congo.. Their labor is consistently exploited. Yeah, you wonder why they're third world shit holes, how do you think first world countries get materialistic goods so cheap? Show me your data on India and china, and I'd like you to observe countries that have had "market" and capitalist influence for long periods of time that are consistent shit holes. Capitalism relies on systemic poverty, exploitation of labor, wasting of surplus goods..

More people have been pulled out of abject poverty by capitalism than your failed ideology.

That's why communism has been abandoned for market reforms by almost every country in the world. And one of the last ones, Cuba, is about to do so soon.

Yes, I can agree capitalism pulls people out of poverty at first and with intense regulation, but by nature, it cannot end poverty, and it cannot sustain itself

Of course it can.

And it has.

No, it literally cannot end poverty, people will always be poor and fail to achieve what's needed for a healthy life under capitalist distribution etc

The foundation of the Western economy - which has lifted more people out of poverty in human history - is capitalism.

There will always be people who will be relatively poor, but the poor today live better than most people did a century ago.

The fundamental premise of capitalism is a profit-driven economy underpinned by the ownership of private property. A capitalist economy does not preclude that the gains of the economy all accrue to the property owner. Wealth creation can be redistributed. Sweden and the United States are both capitalist economies. The only difference is degree.