Well, I hope others can see past this hyperbole and gross overgeneralization.

Others can just look at the data re Phil majors.

http://dailynous.com/2019/01/03/philosophy-majors-make-money-majors-humanities-field/

Not bad! Though I do feel for educators landing last place on that chart...

Relevant additional study: http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/73.pdf

When asked to hypothetically fire a significant amount of the workers in a factory in order to maintain the previous year’s profit (even though one could choose to fire fewer workers and still make a profit), economic students would on average fire as many people as possible, while philosophy students would fire the least.

From the paper:
---
They were explicitly told that the questionnaire was not an exam and that there were no right answers.
---
And therein is the difference between an economist and a philosophy major.

Well, yeah, and that kind of ties into why economists have this narrow view of how capitalism is the holy grail and so on. Capitalism promotes, endorses, and rewards only one type of living, and that's worshiping the bottom line. Socialism allows for differences in people's life trajectories, goals, passions, etc. and aims to allow everyone their individual pursuit of happiness.

Yes, socialism along with communism are the only two forms of government that concern itself with what is ethical on an individual level. I suppose this is why we see the huge difference between the economist and the Phil major.

When I think of people who have good, moral intentions and beliefs, I think economists, financiers, and accountants

What's very frustrating about these types of polls on socialism is that the term is never defined for the people being polled, so there's only so much to take away from it.

Well, the professions you mention are in the business of trying to make people happy. The heterodoxy of philosophy doesn't coincide with trying to make people 'happy'.

Well, the professions you mention are in the business of trying to make people happy. — Wallows

At best, they are in the business of making or saving their customers money. Not "happy".

At best, they are in the business of making or saving their customers money. Not "happy". — Maw

And, what about that makes you so fond of them?

I was being sarcastic.

I was being sarcastic. — Maw

Oops, sorry. Hah. My internet autism is showing.

Socialism comes in many forms. So it's about which demographic can see it in the best possible light. It's a correlation between the ability to make socialism work in theory. Which also means that if a person feels strongly that we are living as we should, then socialism is instinctively contradictory, hence not viable. So someone has to both feel as if we are not yet doing things right and be able to picture a version of socialism that would work. Personally I think it hinges mostly on how well a person suits this way of living compared to those who would change it. And again, that's after you factor in the likelihood of someone holding that position before becoming a professional as it would obviously have some say over their life choices. Honestly there's so many variables the figures are useless on their own.

when you start down the road of philosophy by reading The Republic. . .

though that is consistent with socialism, that does not establish socialism as its foundation.

Ize... Philo majors don't make any money. So they DEPEND on public hand-outs.

Eco and finance people, and esp. lawyers, make lots of money, so they don't need socialist welfare.

If you drew a chart on on axis counting the money earned by average graduate per discipline, and on the other axis average trend to like socialism (on one end) or capitalism, you'd get a clear picture.

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

edited out, post was too extra.

It's because philosophy majors have no ability to turn their craft into making money, but remain certain that they have something valuable (although monetarily of little value) to impart upon society, so they ask those whose labors actually result in financial success to provide for them so that they can enjoy the benefits of society they could otherwise not afford.

Those whose focus is on business and the earning of money (the mundane fields of finance, law, and accounting), don't seem as needful of the social pooling of money for the general welfare. — Hanover

What business people seem to miss is that they GET TO OWN EVERYTHING. That means they get to determine their own pay, and the pay of everyone beneath them. And they will sell you a load of shit that “the markets determine this.” Nope. They control the markets. How did it get this way? I’ll tell you. Government entitlements. I’m not talking about Social Security or Medicare. I’m talking about corporate charters and property rights. The government ensures through its laws that the few get to determine how much the many gets. That’s the biggest hand-out of all.

I’m not prescribing anything different. I’m an investor myself. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Relevant additional study: http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/73.pdf

When asked to hypothetically fire a significant amount of the workers in a factory in order to maintain the previous year’s profit (even though one could choose to fire fewer workers and still make a profit), economic students would on average fire as many people as possible, while philosophy students would fire the least. — NKBJ

While those who stand a higher risk to be fired would prefer a social-economic system of protective socialism, the workers who go on working would tend to prefer a less intensive socialist economic system.

Did I say that?

the workers who go on working would tend to prefer a less intensive socialist economic system. — god must be atheist

That's a broad claim I hope you have some evidence or at least argument to back up.

Think public resistence to general medicare introduced in the USA. Same difference.

Please I beg you to work it out for yourself, because the concept is too simple to interest me to explain.

Think public resistence to general medicare introduced in the USA. Same difference. — god must be atheist

The public generally (70%) likes the idea of general medicare: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

the concept is too simple to interest me to explain. — god must be atheist

That's a cute attempt to save face, but sadly also very transparent.

I have a transparent face. Many people have told me that.

I have a transparent face. Many people have told me that. — god must be atheist

You also have nothing to back up your ideology.

Junior philosophers like to think they know what's best for others, and to that illusion socialism caters greatly.

Okay, NKBJ: I appeal to human nature when I say that the more disenfranchised, the poorer, the more marginalized somebody is, the more likely it is that he or she will want to have a system in place where social safety-nets are more abundant and more easily accessed. Converesely, those who find much reward in the system, do not promote social safety nets, as their safety and well-being is well-established, and providing for the safety and well-being of those who are in need will only reduce, even if however litte in amount and in impact, the status of the well-off.

This is my point. If you were unable to figure this out, I am sorry.

It almost hurt me to go down to this basic level of understanding human nature: the more helpless one is, the more help he or she will wish for, the less helpless one is, the less he or she will wish for help. This is... something that you don't have a concept of? If you do, why did you have to egg me to say this thing which a simple, uneducated 25-year-old is capable of figuring out?

Instead of exercising your brain, you called me spineless (not literally), stupid (not literally), and an incompetent arguer (not literally).

I hate this. I really did not come here to tell somebody as if it were wisdom,that "the helpless need help, and they therefore wish for it."

Cripes.

Why did you do this? Why did you do this to me? Are you really incapable of extrapolating such little wisdom from a few words that indicate this, or you had an agenda to make me do things I thought I would not need to do in the company of intelligent people which I hope this website is populated with?

Why did you egg me on? This is a serious question, not rhetorical. What was your very reason to squeeze this almost trival, trifle knowledge out of me, instead of admitting that it was almost self-evident?

Instead of exercising your brain, you called me spineless (not literally), stupid (not literally), and an incompetent arguer (not literally) — god must be atheist

Funny how you seem to take offense at my (apparently fictional?) ad hominems, but have no qualms about issuing them.

this thing which a simple, uneducated 25-year-old is capable of figuring out? — god must be atheist

Are you describing yourself here? That would explain a lot, actually--including your spelling.

Why did you egg me on? — god must be atheist

I did nothing of the sort to you. But it does sound like you have some issues (paranoia, for example) you may want to take up with a therapist.

But back to the actual content. You said:

the workers who go on working would tend to prefer a less intensive socialist economic system. — god must be atheist

and

Think public resistence to general medicare introduced in the USA. — god must be atheist

To which I replied that 70% of Americans (and therefore a considerable percentage of those workers "who go on working") support medicare for all.

I appeal to human nature when I say that the more disenfranchised, the poorer, the more marginalized somebody is, the more likely it is that he or she will want to have a system in place where social safety-nets are more abundant and more easily accessed. Converesely, those who find much reward in the system, do not promote social safety nets, as their safety and well-being is well-established, and providing for the safety and well-being of those who are in need will only reduce, even if however litte in amount and in impact, the status of the well-off. — god must be atheist

This isn't really an argument for or against socialism. For instance, a person who's leg is broken will have an interest in getting a cast. Someone who's leg is not broken will not share that interest. Therefore, what? Per your logic, therefore the person with a broken leg shall not receive a cast?

Instead of moaning that the nitty-gritty details of your position are so elemental that it literally causes you pain to explain them, perhaps you should spend more time making sure they're actually any good.

It's because philosophy majors have no ability to turn their craft into making money, but remain certain that they have something valuable (although monetarily of little value) to impart upon society, so they ask those whose labors actually result in financial success to provide for them so that they can enjoy the benefits of society they could otherwise not afford.

Those whose focus is on business and the earning of money (the mundane fields of finance, law, and accounting), don't seem as needful of the social pooling of money for the general welfare. — Hanover

One of the worst assumptions of all economics is that people should like producing things, and that production is good in and of itself. The assumption is we should throw more people into the world so they can be happy producing things. Kill me now please. :vomit: