So whats a "living wage"?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I've notice that a lot of communist are complaining about people in America not making a "living wage". "Many people in America aren't even making a living wage" they say. So if they aren't making a "living wage" that must mean they are not making enough to live therefore all this people should be dead.

What? they are still alive? (darn) Then we shouldn't be calling it a living wage should we? Just like we shouldn't call communism something where people have the right to associate with one another huh?

Anyways this term should be instead change to a "makes-people-complain-wage".

"Many people in America are making a makes-people-complain-wage" Yes that sounds a lot more accurate.

[spice756]

I believe by living wage they mean they are struggling a putting roof over their head and food on the table.

And having a hard time do to low pay.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A living wage usually implies that you don't have to be reliant on building rents and debt for necessities, not that you can breathe air.

Better question: I hear capitalism is "freedom." Why not substitute it for freedom-to-be-a-slave?

[Plagueround]

From Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia anyone can edit!

Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living. In developed countries such as the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) or Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland), this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing), food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food), utilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilities), transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport), health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care), and recreation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation).

People die every day in the U.S. from lack of all of these things (excluding recreation, although lack of recreation can definitely lead to depression, anxiety, and all sorts of other undesirable conditions). Got anymore lame strawmen for us?

[Zurdito]

so under capitalism, "living" = "not being dead".

It is quite funny to see the degeneration of the ideological supporters of capitalism int he modern epoch, which goes hand in hand with the degeneration of the system.

people like Adam Smith for example were genuine utopians due to living at a time when capitalism was revolutionising the world, who believed in capitalism as a morally correct system because it could liberate humanity, not just in a "negative liberty" sense, but actually continually raise living standards and solve the problems people were complaining about at the time.

today the message, repeated by our good friend CaptainCapitalist but pretty much the same when you hear it from the representatives of capital, is, "you're not dead, so stop complaining".:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've notice that a lot of communist are complaining about people in America not making a "living wage". "Many people in America aren't even making a living wage" they say. So if they aren't making a "living wage" that must mean they are not making enough to live therefore all this people should be dead.

What? they are still alive? (darn) Then we shouldn't be calling it a living wage should we? Just like we shouldn't call communism something where people have the right to associate with one another huh?

Anyways this term should be instead change to a "makes-people-complain-wage".

"Many people in America are making a makes-people-complain-wage" Yes that sounds a lot more accurate.

How about you learn what a living wage means before you shoot your own mouth off with such ignorant remarks.

[Killfacer]

How about you learn what a living wage means before you shoot your own mouth off with such ignorant remarks.


This pretty much sums up your crapness. Stop asking questions then, before you get the answer, saying how shit communism is and making remarks which are clearly not very funny.

[R_P_A_S]

How about you learn what a living wage means before you shoot your own mouth off with such ignorant remarks.

I second that... we got our selves a comedian! a terrible one:thumbdown:

[pusher robot]

so under capitalism, "living" = "not being dead".


Eh...I have a feeling this is a definition not particularly unique to "capitalism."

Most people would be hard pressed to find example of people who are both "not living" and "not dead" or both "living" and "dead." Generally it tends to be one or the other.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I believe by living wage they mean they are struggling a putting roof over their head and food on the table.

And having a hard time do to low pay.

I've seen enough poor people here in the US to know that the reason they are poor is because of their own fault.

It usually because of drinking, having too many kids, knowing that if you're poor you'll get welfare, drugs, or they don't simply care.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

A living wage usually implies that you don't have to be reliant on building rents and debt for necessities, not that you can breathe air.

Better question: I hear capitalism is "freedom." Why not substitute it for freedom-to-be-a-slave?


you can be a slave, robot, executive, rich person, homeless, CEO, doctor, choose wisely.

[Ken]

but captaincapitalist... what about the 2 billion in the third world? do they have those freedoms?

[Plagueround]

but captaincapitalist... what about the 2 billion in the third world? do they have those freedoms?

According to him that's their fault too. Sick, isn't it?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've seen enough poor people here in the US to know that the reason they are poor is because of their own fault.
There are millions of poor people in the United States. I bet you haven't seen more than a hundred. Therefore, even if your impression of the people you saw happened to be correct, your attempt to generalize = fail.


It usually because of drinking...
Statistics 101: Correlation is not causation. Are they poor because they drink, or do they drink because they're poor and want to drown their worries?

[Bud Struggle]

According to him that's their fault too. Sick, isn't it?

I think if you are poor in America you have a much larger responsibility for your own dilemma than if you came from the third world. There are lots of opportunities here under Capitalism that don't exist in other places. :)

[Ken]

I think if you are poor in America you have a much
Smilies :):(:D ;):laugh::cool: :crying::rolleyes::blushing: :confused::lol::unsure: :mellow::thumbdown::tt2: [More (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#)] Post Icons

larger responsibility for your own dilemma than if you came from the third world. There are lots of opportunities here under Capitalism that don't exist in other places. :)

definitely. if only the first world could be the whole world...

crap i clicked a button and all this weird stuff happenned.

i think most of us will agree that life in the first world is no epic struggle. i dont earn much and am probably falling deeper and deeper into debt. technically i shouldnt be getting paid anything seeing as i dont turn up to class enough to fulfil the 20 hours needed or whatever it is to be eligible for welfare. do they care? will i have to pay it back? i dont know. but i made my choice.

as for the poor in the U.S. well... they made their choices too. the government, the media and other institutions have the power to sway and indoctrinate, to inculcate, but i do not believe that any human being is a robot or is predictable, and that every human being makes his own decisions. whether to be a dumb shit, to bash people, to shout at strangers, to mug randoms, to be a junkie etc... they are all decisions.

i am uncontented with life here, but its livable. what i dont like is the third world... and i think capitalism has a lot to do with the third world's current condition.

[Plagueround]

I think if you are poor in America you have a much larger responsibility for your own dilemma than if you came from the third world. There are lots of opportunities here under Capitalism that don't exist in other places. :)

There is definitely more opportunity to become "not poor" in America than a third world country, but there are far too many factors to simply blame the poor for their situation. Believe me, I do know people who are indeed poor because it's their own fucking fault, but I don't think that they are the majority in the situation. Also, don't forget that much of the the third world is already under capitalism's influence...quite literally.

[Vanguard1917]

so under capitalism, "living" = "not being dead".

It is quite funny to see the degeneration of the ideological supporters of capitalism int he modern epoch, which goes hand in hand with the degeneration of the system.

people like Adam Smith for example were genuine utopians due to living at a time when capitalism was revolutionising the world, who believed in capitalism as a morally correct system because it could liberate humanity, not just in a "negative liberty" sense, but actually continually raise living standards and solve the problems people were complaining about at the time.

today the message, repeated by our good friend CaptainCapitalist but pretty much the same when you hear it from the representatives of capital, is, "you're not dead, so stop complaining".:lol:

:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

and i think capitalism has a lot to do with the third world's current condition.

Maybe. Just like Communism has a lot to do with the tyrant in North Korea. Really--lots of third world countries have no rule of law and some bad ass sickos ruling over them. It's not Communism or Capitalism--it's despotism. These people use Communism and Capitalism to their own benefit. Look: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a self proclaimed Communist and I think the world's sixth riches man. His country is starving--is he a Communist? Other simmilar idiots are Capitalists.

Both Communists and Capitalists have to stop trading with people that wun their countries into the ground for their own benefit.

[Jazzratt]

3 square meals a day, a home with at least one bedroom per 1 or 2 people, a place to shit and clean oneself, a place to prepare and eat food, heating, electricity, and a decent quantity of cash left over for miscellania (travel and so on) is the absolute minimum anyone in any kind of civilised part of the world should expect. I would argue it's still fairly barbarous considering what rich ****s get, but as an absolute minimum it's acceptable.

No one should be forced to choose between being warm and being fed.

[pusher robot]

3 square meals a day, a home with at least one bedroom per 1 or 2 people, a place to shit and clean oneself, a place to prepare and eat food, heating, electricity, and a decent quantity of cash left over for miscellania (travel and so on) is the absolute minimum anyone in any kind of civilised part of the world should expect. I would argue it's still fairly barbarous considering what rich ****s get, but as an absolute minimum it's acceptable.

No one should be forced to choose between being warm and being fed.

Hell, you can get all that in prison.

[Jazzratt]

Hell, you can get all that in prison.

AH well fuck looking for a job, I'll just glass a copper next time I'm at the pub then :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

I think if you are poor in America you have a much larger responsibility for your own dilemma than if you came from the third world. There are lots of opportunities here under Capitalism that don't exist in other places. :)

..newsflash! Most of Africa, asia, latin america is capitalist.:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

..newsflash! Most of Africa, asia, latin america is capitalist.:rolleyes:

Newsflash: Most of Asia, Latin America and Africa is FEUDAL.

[Dr Mindbender]

Newsflash: Most of Asia, Latin America and Africa is FEUDAL.

feudal free markets. They may have despotic dictators in charge but that doesnt stop me from setting up a trainer sweatshop, call centre or soft drink plant near the local populace where low wages are expected and working conditions just as low.

Capitalism in action.

[Bud Struggle]

feudal free markets. They may have despotic dictators in charge but that doesnt stop me from setting up a trainer sweatshop, call centre or soft drink plant near the local populace where low wages are expected and working conditions just as low.

Capitalism in action.

Nope. Just like you Communist disavow as not being "Communist" the Soviet Union and Communist China and Pol Pot and North Korea--we Capitalist disavow all those third world dictators that may have have Coke and McDonalds for sale as Capitalistic.

So there. :tt2: :lol:

[CaptainCapitalist68]

but captaincapitalist... what about the 2 billion in the third world? do they have those freedoms?

Communism (which lead to totalitarian government), theocracy, tyrannical government, or too stupid to act civilized.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

3 square meals a day, a home with at least one bedroom per 1 or 2 people, a place to shit and clean oneself, a place to prepare and eat food, heating, electricity, and a decent quantity of cash left over for miscellania (travel and so on) is the absolute minimum anyone in any kind of civilised part of the world should expect. I would argue it's still fairly barbarous considering what rich ****s get, but as an absolute minimum it's acceptable.

No one should be forced to choose between being warm and being fed.

This things are all fine and dandy but who should be paying for this things for everyoen to have? The indiviuals or society?

Its not that hard to go out a get a fuckign job to support yourself. Even the dumbest motherfucker can pull this off. If you dont liek yoru job then create your own or find a job with potential to move up or save enough money for colege to get a job you want. People do this all the time. What excuse is there?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

There are millions of poor people in the United States. I bet you haven't seen more than a hundred. Therefore, even if your impression of the people you saw happened to be correct, your attempt to generalize = fail.


Statistics 101: Correlation is not causation. Are they poor because they drink, or do they drink because they're poor and want to drown their worries?

If they had any brains they wouldn't be drinking if they are poor. Hell they shouldn't even be drinking soda since thats a luxury they shouldn't be able to afford since they should be working on at least becoming middle class.

the only type of welfare I would allow for poor people is for a efficency/correctional officer to go to their house and point to all the things that isn't helping them.

NO SALLY YOU CAN'T HAVE A NEW CAR! NO TOMMY YOU CANT AFFORD TO SIT ON YOUR ASS ALL DAY! NO JIMMY YOU CANT HAVE THE NEW JORDANS! NO BILLY YOU CANT HAVE THE NEW PS3! NO TIMMY YOU CANT AFFORD TO GO OUT THIS WEEKEND! NO NO NO NO!!!!

[Dr Mindbender]

Nope. Just like you Communist disavow as not being "Communist" the Soviet Union and Communist China and Pol Pot and North Korea--we Capitalist disavow all those third world dictators that may have have Coke and McDonalds for sale as Capitalistic.

So there. :tt2: :lol:

doesnt stop your ideaologues doing business with them or supporting them politically in one hand when it is convienient for them to do so and in the other decrying other states for human rights abuses for not allowing Mc Donalds to open a branch on every street corner.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Hell, you can get all that in prison.

Its bad enough this low life scum prisoners get to work out in jail and come out bigger and stronger when they come out.

Thats such BS, no wonder we have so many people in prison. If it was up to me i would only be given this MoFos all the water and balony sandwiches they can eat and their ass would be put to work!

[Dr Mindbender]

This things are all fine and dandy but who should be paying for this things for everyoen to have? The indiviuals or society?

Its not that hard to go out a get a fuckign job to support yourself. Even the dumbest motherfucker can pull this off. If you dont liek yoru job then create your own or find a job with potential to move up or save enough money for colege to get a job you want. People do this all the time. What excuse is there?

what other than the credit crunch, the job shortage, the spiralling cost of living and the fact that by the time that my landlord and various other ****s like the supermarket and electricity company have had my money i've hardly any wages left?

Have you any idea how long it takes to save the money needed on minimum wage for a respectable amount let alone the amount needed to become self sufficient? Its difficult enough for me as a childless worker, god knows how tough it is for a parent.

[Bud Struggle]

doesnt stop your ideaologues doing business with them or supporting them politically in one hand when it is convienient for them to do so and in the other decrying other states for human rights abuses for not allowing Mc Donalds to open a branch on every street corner.

Never stopped you "Communists" from doing business in Darfur or subjecting Tibet to your "freedom."

[Dr Mindbender]

Its bad enough this low life scum prisoners get to work out in jail and come out bigger and stronger when they come out.

Thats such BS, no wonder we have so many people in prison. If it was up to me i would only be given this MoFos all the water and balony sandwiches they can eat and their ass would be put to work!

we have lots of prisoners because capitalism creates fewer jobs than there are people.

So people invariably end up resorting to criminality to feed themselves out of co-ersion.

[Dr Mindbender]

Never stopped you "Communists" from doing business in Darfur or subjecting Tibet to your "freedom."

I'm not a maoist so i'm ill prepared to defend china.

But china hasnt even been maoist since Deng Xiao Ping took over.

[Jazzratt]

This things are all fine and dandy but who should be paying for this things for everyoen to have? The indiviuals or society?

The two are inseparable, you prat. The whole concept of dividing things into the interests of an individual and a society at last is nothing more than a divide-and-conquer philosophy of capitalism.


Its not that hard to go out a get a fuckign job to support yourself.

You're a fucking moron, first you ask what a living wage should give people and then when someone explains what a living wage should provide someone with you recommend that those who can't get it because their wages are too low get a job. Do you even bother to read through what you're writing to make sure you're not coming off as a tool?


Even the dumbest motherfucker can pull this off. If you dont liek yoru job then create your own or find a job with potential to move up or save enough money for colege to get a job you want.

1) To "create your own job" you need starting capital, luck, favourable economic conditions and a million and one other things. If someone is unable to afford a full and nutritious diet how in the fuck would they get starting capital? Don't even pretend a loan is possible for people in grinding poverty.

2) As for "find[ing] a job with potential"... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Not everyone gets an executive position from mummy and daddy. While the realities of the job market may well elude you, they certainly do not elude those who are stuck without the basic means to support themselves. If you want though, here is a quick diagram.

[----] Jobs
[----------------------------------------] People who need jobs.

The first is always getting shorter and the second is always getting longer.

3) YOu can't "save" money you don't have.


People do this all the time. What excuse is there?

Maybe in the fantasy land you live in they do, but not here.

[pusher robot]

we have lots of prisoners because capitalism creates fewer jobs than there are people.

So people invariably end up resorting to criminality to feed themselves out of co-ersion.

No it doesn't.

[Dr Mindbender]

No it doesn't.

oh wow i'm convinced. :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Newsflash: Most of Asia, Latin America and Africa is FEUDAL.

No, it's not. Unless you call corporate control feudalism. I call it capitalism.

[Dean]

Nope. Just like you Communist disavow as not being "Communist" the Soviet Union and Communist China and Pol Pot and North Korea--we Capitalist disavow all those third world dictators that may have have Coke and McDonalds for sale as Capitalistic.

So there. :tt2: :lol:

That's patently false, TomK. If you were to describe people as they do themselves, you might have a limping argument. But if you have any real world stipulations for what is communist or capitalist, it becomes clear that the USSR and China (who never called their societies communist, btw) are either saturated bureaucracies or oppressive capitalist regimes. In Africa, you have a variety of governmental structures, but the standards of free-market, profit-oriented economic organization is thoroughly upheld on the continent. Depending on what you call capitalism, you might only have Somalia as a true capitalist regime, but by that measure the entire western world only had a few fragmented and short-lived instances of capitalism.

Also, as GeneCosta pinte out, you have some regimes which are corporatist, an economic organization quite distinct from feudalism.


Never stopped you "Communists" from doing business in Darfur or subjecting Tibet to your "freedom."
...or you "capitalists" at Ford from knowingly selling vehicles to Sudan which were used to transport gangs of people from village to village killing every man, woman and child.

[Zurdito]

Eh...I have a feeling this is a definition not particularly unique to "capitalism."

Most people would be hard pressed to find example of people who are both "not living" and "not dead" or both "living" and "dead." Generally it tends to be one or the other.

In my experience, to most people "living" means something more than simply not being dead. most people differentiate the terms "existence" and "life". I don't think that existence on a street, eating food out of dustbins, malnourished, diseased, illiterate, ignorant and in constant danger of violent death, is really "living", do you?

[Bud Struggle]

That's patently false, TomK. If you were to describe people as they do themselves, you might have a limping argument. But if you have any real world stipulations for what is communist or capitalist, it becomes clear that the USSR and China (who never called their societies communist, btw) are either saturated bureaucracies or oppressive capitalist regimes. In Africa, you have a variety of governmental structures, but the standards of free-market, profit-oriented economic organization is thoroughly upheld on the continent. Depending on what you call capitalism, you might only have Somalia as a true capitalist regime, but by that measure the entire western world only had a few fragmented and short-lived instances of capitalism. Very similar to the Communists, don't you think? The Paris Commune, PreFranco Spain. My point was that you (RevLefters) seem to define Communism as a VERY narrow almost precious type of system, but everytime someone sells a bottle of Coke you have Capitalism. Capitalism is endless corruptable and endlessly corrupted in exactly the same way that any attempt at real Communism has been corrupted.

In perfect Capitalism ALL the resources of each individual would be put to full use so that they would produce as much as possible and consume as much as possible. Surely that's not the case in much of Asia or Africa or S.America. These places are just as much about being REAL Capitalists as the Red Army was about Marxism.

For that matter with it's welfare system and government bailouts America isn't about Capitalism either--but it comes pretty close in having a good (though not perfect) educational system and regulations to make it as fair as possible for the maximum amout of people.

But is America REALLY Capitalists? Not really I'd consider it a Degenerate Bourgeoise State. :)


Also, as GeneCosta pinte out, you have some regimes which are corporatist, an economic organization quite distinct from feudalism. OK, Corporatist it is.



...or you "capitalists" at Ford from knowingly selling vehicles to Sudan which were used to transport gangs of people from village to village killing every man, woman and child. I really don't know what Ford knew...that's just conjecture. But it's China that has the intention and the motivation to be involved in Sudan.

[pusher robot]

oh wow i'm convinced. :laugh:

Hey, I cited as much evidence as you did.

[Zurdito]

Very similar to the Communists, don't you think? The Paris Commune, PreFranco Spain. My point was that you (RevLefters) seem to define Communism as a VERY narrow almost precious type of system, but everytime someone sells a bottle of Coke you have Capitalism. Capitalism is endless corruptable and endlessly corrupted in exactly the same way that any attempt at real Communism has been corrupted.

In perfect Capitalism ALL the resources of each individual would be put to full use so that they would produce as much as possible and consume as much as possible. Surely that's not the case in much of Asia or Africa or S.America. These places are just as much about being REAL Capitalists as the Red Army was about Marxism.

no, capitalism is not ideology, it is a mode of production where when the means of production are owned by capitalists. A workers state is one where they are owned by a state which the workers democratically control, communism is a stateless society with no classes or money where each works according to his ability and according to his need, and socialism is a workers state in transition to communism. marxism is the struggle to create a workers state and establish socialism and then communism.

a workers state was et up in Russia after 1917,but it did not acheive socialism, due to the conditions of isolation and material backwardness. to have reached the stage of socialism where the workers state was able to begin the process of liquidating itself into a stateless society, there would have needed to be many succesful revolutions in western Europe. This was a real possibility but for various reasons it didn't happen. therefore the workers state in Russia degenerated and came under the political control of a bureacracy.

to criticise marxism, you can argue that marism is incapable of creating real workers states: I accept that real marxists took part in real struggles to create workers states, and in many cases failed and that these revolutions ended in stalinist regimes. you can say that workers states are incapable of acheiving socialism: again as part of our movement we have to accept the degeneration of the Russian Revolution.

I wouldn't agree with you on those counts, but you can make those arguments and have a serious conversation with people. But what you can't do is use terms to mean something they don't.

[Bud Struggle]

no, capitalism is not ideology, it is a mode of production where when the means of production are owned by capitalists. The trouble here is that's YOUR definion. Now say--"without any government intervention" and I'd agree.

But what we now have in the world and the third world especially is a Socialist/Capitalist Condominium. It's a (as I said elsewhere) a Degenerate Bourgeoise State.

It's not Capitalism.

[Zurdito]

The trouble here is that's YOUR definion.

no. I wish I was clever enough to have invented that definition. luckily for me, I was born ito a world were social science had alrady done it for me.


Now say--"without any government intervention" and I'd agree

so capitalism has never existed?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Free market capitalism" even in Adam Smith's day wasn't "free." Mercantilism may have gone, but lots of infrastructure spending and state-financed colonial adventurism were the order of the day.

[spice756]

I've seen enough poor people here in the US to know that the reason they are poor is because of their own fault.

It usually because of drinking, having too many kids, knowing that if you're poor you'll get welfare, drugs, or they don't simply care.


That is propaganda the conservative use.I would say 95% are not lazy.And the 5% that do drop out off society is not their fault they are alienated by class struggle and competition.

There are alot of middle class and pop stars who drink and do drugs so that is false.

With out the goverment helping the people you got crime and homelessness.That cost the goverment anyways to put them in jail for robbery or B&E.

Where that money could be use to help them.Spend money on helping them or you got crime and homelessness.

[Dr Mindbender]

Hey, I cited as much evidence as you did.
you dont require evidence when you apply logic and common sense.

i dont require evidence to prove that gravity causes apples to fall from trees.

[spice756]

you dont require evidence when you apply logic and common sense.

i dont require evidence to prove that gravity causes apples to fall from trees.


What I think it is more than any thing else is a prison industrial complex in the US do to some who profit on prisons .

We are no where like some other countries with crime but have more people in jail than some backwards countries:cursing:

Mostly for drugs and non-violent crimes.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Eh...I have a feeling this is a definition not particularly unique to "capitalism."

Most people would be hard pressed to find example of people who are both "not living" and "not dead" or both "living" and "dead." Generally it tends to be one or the other.
Are you purposefully being obtuse? Obviously "living" has a social meaning as well as a biological one. Somebody who works 45 hours a week and goes hungry just to end up further in debt isn't "alive"m in my view, though they are not quite dead (chances are it won't be long though).

[pusher robot]

Are you purposefully being obtuse? Obviously "living" has a social meaning as well as a biological one. Somebody who works 45 hours a week and goes hungry just to end up further in debt isn't "alive"m in my view, though they are not quite dead (chances are it won't be long though).

No, I'm not being puposefully obtuse, I'm making the point that the view that "living"="not dead" - which was ascribed to "capitalism" - is objectively a scientifically reasonable one. The poster who made that observation seemed to imply that it's somehow terrible that people might think "living" and "dead" to be opposites, which, of course, they usually are under any economic system.

I understand that the use of "living" in your context means something more akin to "living well" or "easy living." But it's a term that's so vague and subjective as to be rather useless in any context of policy.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No, I'm not being puposefully obtuse, I'm making the point that the view that "living"="not dead" - which was ascribed to "capitalism" - is objectively a scientifically reasonable one. The poster who made that observation seemed to imply that it's somehow terrible that people might think "living" and "dead" to be opposites, which, of course, they usually are under any economic system.

I understand that the use of "living" in your context means something more akin to "living well" or "easy living." But it's a term that's so vague and subjective as to be rather useless in any context of policy.
Well obviously it's something that has to be defined, but I don't think it's so vague as to be beyond definition. Certainly much vaguer terms are given much greater weight in the law.