> That's not what the St. Louis FED is measuring. They are trying to build an index of maximum sustainable production. We are at about 76% which has declined from the 1970s level of ~90%.

I guess you're talking about this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLGMFDS

The problem is that you're only comparing the peaks of the graph at 1970 with the average of now. If you look at it you will find that the average has declined from 80% from the 70s to 75% in the last decade, not the 15% figure you're alluding to.

And even then to jump to the claim that it means that we can cut working hours based on that gap is just a giant leap of logic, and is not what the FED of St. Louis is claiming. Again I think it shows a basic lack of knowledge of industry and manufacturing. Just mindlessly producing stuff leads to waste, WIP and various other problems. This principle even applies to IT and software development.

Having a low stock rotation rate is bad. Having a too high occupancy rate is as bad as too low (85% is considered good).

At best this is a measure of efficiency of usage of land occupied by industrial plants and a very very short term predictor of recessions.

> I doubt that. Moving labor from a low productivity country to a high productivity one would mean overall more goods are produced. With international solidarity, both countries can be helped. Mass immigration can be somewhat disruptive, but most of that conflict is based on economic fears that they are taking jobs or using limited resources. If they aren't then there's little problem.

International solidarity doesn't really exist except for small scale charity. The reality is that game theory prevails when it comes to different group of people separated by continental distances. And by the way developed countries are already doing that. In Canada we frequently employ Mexicans and other workers from South America to pick our crops. This already happens in a capitalist society. Also not all labor is equal and that balance between high skills and low skills workers must be maintained even in a planned economy. All communist countries limit free movement of labor.

Lowering of wages and conditions by cheap labor is a real phenomenon that even populist socialists acknowledge.

> There are other reasons people have problems with immigration, but I don't consider most of those valid.

This is not really a compelling argument.

> Well, either the workers themselves spontaneously or a socialist government grabs it with force of arms. A socialist government is more inclined to help workers than a capitalist one, but even some capitalist ones have cooperative businesses. Countries have different experiences with real workplace democracy including places like Spain, Italy, and the US. Yugoslavia tried market socialism. The USSR had a central planning process, and China is more of a mix.

Contrary to Marxist theory predictions, workers never shared a spontaneous will or momentum just by virtue of their "oppressed state". Even less so at a country or global scale. In reality self-called Marxist revolutions never came from the workers. Nearly all leaders weren't workers, but educated. Some of the leaders knew poverty, most didn't. There's a good reason revolutionaries around the world consider be the only ones being "enlightened" enough to be only in charge and that they have to actively steer up inner conflicts among the population to gain a modicum of support.

Also all of these examples are counterexamples to your argument. China got better with liberalization and capitalism, and is now getting worse going reverse.

> Right the workers get paid. However, it is free at the point of service. This comes from taxes duh. I would like to see a citation on Cuba. My understanding is their doctors are trained for free and are expected to serve for a certain number of years in return. Here, we load students with debt, excluding the lower classes from the profession to a great degree.

Yes, and it costs a whole lot and service is not that great. In Canada our health system has been in "crisis" for 20 years now by the way. Citizens in Cuba are not allowed to leave, this is a well known fact, and doctors are the most watched over this for obvious reasons. And sorry but "expected to serve" is just plain slavery. Nobody can be forced to work in a free society. This is why the positive right of "free health care" lead to being forced to work down the line. In Canada right now nurses are forced to work 16 hours shifts, they can't really work in the private sector (there isn't) but leas they can quit without going to prison. And doctors can afford student loans, the real problem is that the US doesn't allow people to default on student debt, which is an entirely another issue.

> In the US, health care is rationed based on ability to pay. This means if you can pay, you get (sometimes) quick service. If you can't pay, you suffer and die (or wind up in the ER where you have to be treated with a bandaid but then they come after you to try to ruin you financially). In a planned system, everyone gets triaged and more urgent problems are prioritized. It is possible to underresource a system, which will result in exaggerated wait times. Better resourcing improves service.

That's not actually true. You will get treated in the US (hospitals can't refuse patients) and then fill up the cost to those who can pay. Yes they can bankrupt you but the real problem is the system being inefficient which finds its root cause in the government: over-regulation, over-litigation and political donations that aggravate these problems. And just thinking that we "should just put resources" to improve services is not a policy is simply a naive privileged customer-like view of the real world with no consideration for scarcity and the complexity of the circumstances.

> It basically depends on whether there is a real incentive to do so as to whether it will happen. The current system in the US will not, but recall that communists call for revolution. It's sad that even capitalist systems in other countries are willing to reduce prices. We are uniquely bad.

Please have a conversation from people of other under developed countries. The US and other Western government are way better even without their problems. Communist countries have to stop their citizens from reporting what is going on on the ground and setup Potemkim villages for a good reason.