- cross-posted to:
- benjamingetthemusket@lemmy.cafe
- cross-posted to:
- benjamingetthemusket@lemmy.cafe
You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe gen a will be the ones with the balls to actually rise up, set everything on fire, and kill the people responsible for destroying everything. Because of the rest of us are just sitting around complaining.
And yes, I admit, I’m in that category.
It looks like if gen Z’s massive wave of unionization doesn’t work that’ll be the case. Gen A is likely the water war generation unless we clean up our act enough for it to be gen ß
fails self-restraint check
gen β, not ß
- edited to correct a tragic ragey blunder
No, the Troika changed it when Germany took control of Greece 10 years ago.
deleted by creator
Good old Gen SS
I can’t believe I have never seen this joke made in any context before
SS seems powerful, sure but the godlike powers of SSS class generations could put black holes to shame with their inescapable might.
SSSS class generations can harness the power output of a galaxy
self-restraint, not self-restaint
:)
We cannot name one gen Alpha and the next Beta, that is too mean
deleted by creator
I have been educating my child on unions and workers’ rights. When he’s old enough, we move on to the proper engineering and maintenance of guillotines.
Have you considered teaching him welding and bulldozer operation?
deleted by creator
Programming your foot up a billionaire’s ass
It is getting to the point that is the only option. Voting doesn’t matter, protesting doesn’t matter, complaining doesn’t matter. Millennials were raised that those are the processes, we have come to realize they don’t work and our kids are being raised with the understanding that that doesn’t work. If they want things to change, and it literally HAS to, that is what needs to happen. Either accept the status quo or forcefully change it. If I understand history, that is the most American thing you can do.
The funny thing is that we have politicians here in Australia that complain about “woke” environmentalists standing up for the environment by sitting down on the road. They’re trying to have them labelled as terrorists for simply sitting down in the street.
Meanwhile in France, Farmers who are angry about stopping of diesel concessions are setting things on fire, blocking streets with tractors and dumping manure and dirt into the street to block public servants responsible into buildings.
The point is two fold, French have always done protests better. And the west conservatives have a massive raging boner for eroding ones rights to protest.
I support protesting wholeheartedly, but blocking a road is among the most moronic ways to protest I can think of.
They are blocking emergency vehicles, people going to work, people doing errands, visiting family, goods being transported etc.
There is a reason people get pissed off and pull them off of the road themselves. It does absolutely nothing to further their cause.
It doesn’t even effect the people they protest against.Imagine missing your kids show, mothers dying breath or the flight to your long awaited vacation and family visit because someone couldn’t think of a more appropriate way to protest than sitting down and being an absolute butthole.
Isn’t the inconvenience literally the point though?
I don’t call people potentially dying an inconvenience.
They have no moral right to decide wether or not people make it to where they are going.So what do they hope to achieve?
If it is awarenes, then there are much better ways of doing itJust wondering if you’ve ever participated in a protest or this is just an academic exercise. In my experience well behaved protests are basically ineffective. It’s true that you can actually end up vilifying the cause in the eyes of people that you’ve inconvenienced.
But that creates social pressure on our leaders to address the problem. Either by compromise with the protests demands or clearing them out by force.
I get that it may block the direct path of an ambulance potentially. But most gps algorithms when they see a ton of stationary phones in the street interpret that as traffic and try to route around it.
At the end of the day, yes there is the small potential for harm to a few individuals, but (hopefully) the benefits to a larger group offset that.
I went to UT and there were protests in the street all the time. It always inconvenienced me and I actually came to blows with a few of the protesters, but they should know that’s a possibility going into it. There’s really no right or wrong here. There’s only large organized group against a few impacted drivers.
I appreciate your arguments but respectfyully disagree.
A GPS guided detour should not be necessary for vital social functions to operate.
I also dislike the small potential for harm to a few individuals when there are better ways to get the point across.Block construction.
Occupy offices and locations.
March.
Send letters and run awareness campaigns.
Vote.Do anything you can that makes people see you. Just don’t block the road. To me that is too risky. If everybody would protest like that to achieve their political goals we would live in total anarchy.
Hope my opinions make sense even though you might disagree.
Totally. No animosity here. Never considered occupying an office.
i’d rather complain than be complacent at least
I’m gonna be honest, I’m a zoomer (ahhh yes I’m a zoomer, I’m a zoomer, yippee! Everyone look at me, I’m the zoomer) and, looking towards the future, my future, I’m already kinda there. I just think we both haven’t quite hit the critical mass where everyone else is at that point, yet, and I think that the narrative about, you know, why things suck, I think that’s been co-opted with a mixed level of success, forcing people to feel “fine” with their circumstances, or, forcing people to feel personally responsible for their circumstances, as the case may be. I also think there’s a good amount of cynicism about standing up to the US government and institutions, since we’ve been fed a shitload of stuff against that, and then, you know, we’re all fucked and have limited resources and whatever. I also think people are probably too nice for their own good, most people just kind of want to chill, even if that means they’re actually not allowed to chill because they have to work 2 jobs and have no energy and one financial emergency could wipe them out instantly.
I dunno, I feel pretty cynical, but I also feel like things will probably get at least a little bit worse, before they get better. I just hope they get worse in the right way, instead of in the whole like, world ending kind of way. Or, localized apocalypse, kind of way, more likely.
deleted by creator
This seems like a good place to post this reminder that in the last 50 years income has lost to inflation by 137 points. That’s decades of prices rising faster than wages. It’s not rocket science. They walked away with all of the productivity gains, and gave the entire country a pay cut at the same time. You want a boring dystopia? How about stealing your paycheck a couple percentage points a year until suddenly we realize we can’t afford to live without 3 full time incomes in one household.
Where I’m from, the median house price has risen 600% relative to the median income in the past 50 years.
That means the deposit we pay today is the equivalent of the entire 30 year mortgage of the people calling you lazy.
Yup, the 137 points is just “core” inflation. Education, Housing, Food, and Cars all come in over that. Which is fine because those aren’t necessary in the US right?
And yet nearly anyone IRL you point this out to spouts some form of free market propaganda bullshit.
When houses cost twice a person’s salary there were no 30 year mortgages.
True - that’s been the response to pricing getting out of control rather than addressing the fundamental issues with the economy.
Without violent pushback there is no reason at all to improve things. Cant afford to live?.. fuck you, we’ll find someone who can. Piss off, peasant.
All we would need is 3 days of a general strike with at least 10% participation.
But unfortunately there are several factors that prevent this, some human nature, some deliberately manufactured.
-
Almost no one I know can afford missing a week’s worth of work: This is manufactured with stagflation and at-will work laws
-
The rich inflaming radical partisanship with traditional and social media to distract from who the real enemy is, reducing social cooperation
-
American culture has become largely an ‘observer culture’, where the world is treated as a thing to passively watch while feeling disconnected, this is probably the worst contributor.
So many of the labor movement gains our forefathers bled and died for have been trampled by an owner class hell bent on recapitulating european nobility on American soil and they have been WILDLY successful the last 30 years.
Either we organize a general strike, or there will be food riots within a decade.
Shawn Fain (United Auto Workers president) has been calling for unions across every industry to align their contracts to end at the same time on May 1st, 2028 (International Labor Day), specifically so that we can prepare for a general strike. Gives the already organized unions time to build up a strike fund and non-organized folks time to get organized.
If there was an IT workers union with presence in my state I would absolutely do the same, though to be fair I could probably just take a week off that might not end until the owner class comes humble to the table.
Might be worth your while to look into Locals in your area that aren’t necessarily IT focused unions. Some unions (like the Teamsters and others) will still help you organize under their union even though they typically represent workers in a specific industry. I don’t have an office workers union local in my neck of the woods, but I’ve been giving it some thought as well.
People who can’t afford three days off work will certainly fare well by not participating in a general strike.
/S
If I had never sold or lost a single bitcoin I mined I could afford to pay for a few thousand people to cover the costs, even more for the most needed protesters, the fast food workers. If I were a billionaire I would literally break my fortune to pay for every fast food worker in the U.S. (in their pockets, to be clear) to take a week off.
I would live on ramen and burning newspaper for warmth if it would guarantee that even 5% of the fast food and restaurant workforce took off for a week.
-
We could do a general strike.
137 points
What’s a point?
One percent relative what the market was at the starting point.
The market today is 237 % of starting point (probably 1990).
Inflation isn’t prices growing faster than wages, it’s just prices growing in general. Don’t let anyone tell you that gentle inflation is bad for poor people.
Debtors gain from inflation because they pay their fixed debts with currency worth less. When interest rates are low, refinance or borrow at low fixed rates. When inflation rises, your fixed debt costs go down in real terms.
If you want wages to increase, support a higher minimum wage.
This isn’t just inflation over 50 years. This is divergence in the inflation of wages and core inflation. So prices over all have risen by 137 points more than wages have risen. This isn’t the talk about inflation vs deflation vs death spirals. This is everything slowly becoming less affordable over time. And it really doesn’t matter if the money is worth less when the interest rate on the loan is far beyond inflation in the first place. You either pay it back quickly (monthly on a card) or watch it spiral out of control rapidly because adjustable rate loans work off of inflation and your wages didn’t go up to match. So now you have that much less money a month to buy food.
Theoretically inflation is good for borrowers. In practice you need a certain base of money for that to be true. If you can’t cover increased costs over the life of the loan then inflation is going to take you behind the shed.
gave the entire country a pay cut
Entire country? Which country? We’re talking about our whole western civilisation.
The data I’m using is for the US.
After WW2 almost every other developed nation was in ruin. The US was “the only game in town” when it came to production. This caused US labor to be in high demand and priced at a premium compared to places like in Europe or Japan, who were more concerned about rebuilding than exporting goods.
THIS is how a high school dropout could afford a house and a family. Because that high school dropout was basically your only option for labor. As those other countries finished rebuilding a lot manufacturing jobs left and things started to get “back to normal”.
The US was in a unique position but like most things it was just squandered. Now the US is “regressing towards the mean”. This is going to be the new normal because the last 40-50 years was an exception.
Europe was reduced to rubble, but my grandfathers, who were children during the war and after, both still managed to build a house, raise two kids each and set money aside; one of my grandmothers worked as a seamstress and those grandparents not only built houses for themselves and each kid, but essentially owned a whole block in our village. The other grandfather was the son of an orphan, still managed to do well.
I had to take a job that requires great effort, stress and skill and keeps me away from home 40% of the time, it pays well but still I couldn’t dream to be able to do the same as they did.
That’s true to a point. However bigger effects were the rise in executive compensation, the loss of labor and corporate regulations, and the resurgence of the shipping industry such that it was cheaper to ship from China than to make it in the US. It’s true that demand for US manufactured goods has fallen, but there’s no reason our current Service economy should struggle like it is.
enlightened bit of context here.
correct me if i’m wrong, but these are the colloquial “golden days” that so many want to return to, right? a period which undoubtedly contributed to the presumption of american exceptionalism in the minds of its citizens.
if only there was a way to build a future out of transparency and sustainable systems instead of perpetuating our collective delusions.
I think attributing the “good years” just to post war production is an incomplete explanation. The real issue is irresponsible private ownership and hobbling the value our economy can create.
Creating true value in our work is possible. Once some types of work are done the output can continue to benefit our society for decades. But a confluence of decisions by private owners have meant often we don’t receive that benefit, and instead it’s siphoned away as profit.
I moved from the US to Italy, where everything is cheaper and better quality, and we get free healthcare, free college, retirement pension and six months paid maternity leave. All this on a 35% tax rate. Public daycare is about $300 a month, housing expenses are about half of what I paid in the US, and while groceries are about the same, they are all local, organic, non GMO and -get this - crops are grown for flavor rather than weight. Houses are smaller here and wages are usually lower, but working hours are less and less intense, and the pace of life is much chiller.
Oh wow non GMO groceries what a magical fairy tale land.
Thankfully we don’t live in the US then, but these same dark times are washing over us in Europe too :-(
The most important thing is the rich getting richer
The Market Has Spoken: Get Fucked.
A riveting exploration of the markets and society of the 21st century that will be written in 2200 lol
We’re DINKs just starting to push into the “living a comfortable life” range. As in, we can do what we want and enjoy doing it.
However, bringing a kid into that picture throws all of that away. Hospital bills, diapers, just the costs in general would wipe us out.
We most likely wouldn’t qualify for any reimbursements and are already maximizing the ones we have such as house financing and taxes.
I obsessively try to keep my “IOUs” to a minimum meaning aggressive mortgage payments and credit cards within the limitations of what I can pay off immediately but even that is difficult.
The house needs work - new siding and windows, unexpected issues like the boiler dieing etc. And I’m generally fearful of what we’d find behind the siding (termites??? everything not up to code?) A new job like that could turn into $40-50K that we just don’t have floating around.
I don’t go to doctors because I was afraid of what I might find. I’m lucky in the fact that my insurance is now pushing in the correct direction but still ludicrously expensive… And I mean ludicrously for the lack of services available that won’t cost me an additional fortune.
The wife also works a must-commute 9-5. Not sure how she, or both of us would be able to handle childcare needs and not feel like we would be neglecting the kid.
When would I ever be able to afford a kid in these situations?
And I am lucky to say that we are DINKs that are getting paid relatively well… How can people that are below us in income survive having kids?
deleted by creator
Unfortunately, much of that wealth was stolen from the global south via colonization. Redistribution of ownership must be done at a global, international level.
And harvested from the stolen land of the indigenous peoples of North America!
Not just their land, but their ideas of “freedom”, “equality”, and “democracy”. Europeans didn’t even know those words until the French Missionaries in the late 1600’s were met with the Indigenous Critique, and how Indigenous Americans had equal rights for men and women, were free to disobey arbitrary authority, had a conglomerate of states that conveined in a “federal” central committee, and could impeach their rulers. Of course, so-called “Enlightenment” philosophers who were just rich trust-fund babies stole that idea to create America and call themselves “Enlightened Thinkers” as if they came up with it themselves, while simultaneously degrading the Indigenous Critique by calling them “savages” who were “less advanced” than Europeans based on evidence they dreamed up while staring at a fireplace (I’m look at you Rousseu and Hobbes), stealing Indigenous politics as their own, and thanking them with ethnic cleansing.
Fuck Europeans.
As a European I agree. The amount of shit we, on our high white horses, caused across the globe is astonishing. It would be interesting to see what the world would have looked like today had there never been any colonization.
deleted by creator
It’s the whole “they’re gonna hunt me for sport?!” Meme, I think. They imagine that if we share ownership equitably globally, they will suddenly have to go to eating rats and dying in the streets, when realistically it will just mean a heavier emphasis on industrialization and international public transit, with more equitable distribution of wealth.
For anyone confused: no, I’m not advocating for people taking your gaming PC.
I am
You have a problem, Lemmings
I got ideas…
Careful, you’ll get the tankie label for posts like this around these parts
Most countries have a largely planned economy, including the US.
There are many things that need change, but fixing the housing prices isn’t complicated, it’s just unpopular. You just need to take make speculating on housing as an asset very expensive. This will drive down the demand from non owner occupiers (businesses). It will also reduce the value of the largest asset most people own. People who invested so much into owning a home with the expectation that it will appreciate aren’t going to support policies that do the opposite.
We should’ve been taxing homes or land that people own but are not their primary residence, from the start.
It would be super easy to implement, and flexible - if housing prices are too high for 75% of the population, you raise those taxes little by little and the problem eventually sorts itself out. If it’s no longer a problem, you reduce the taxes.
Or you keep those taxes the same and use the money to reinforce social programs to make sure no one in your area ever has to go homeless or hungry again.
We already have first, primary, and only home exceptions to many things. There’s no reason Frank and Martha’s house should be any less valuable. The problem is housing as speculation is causing houses to be priced higher than their real value.
It’s not even about money anymore.
I’m not positive that the world is going to be a comfortable place to live in at all in the next 40-80 years. I can’t be sure it’s morally acceptable to bring a new life into the world just to struggle until death. I know if I were given the choice I would have rather just not have been, it’s not worth struggling forever just to barely get by until the game changes yet again and you get knocked back down to the peg you started on.
I can’t be sure it’s morally acceptable to bring a new life into the world just to struggle until death.
That has been true for just about everyone throughout history.
the game changes yet again and you get knocked back down to the peg you started on.
People in the developed world not having kids is part of how they ‘win’ the game.
The reason boomers were able to demand so much is because, as the name implies, they’re a big fucking cohort. They were politically influential from the time they could vote. Keeping birthrates depressed and shipping in cheap foreign labour is how those with power keep everyone else powerless.
It’s a weird situation, but the way to improve living standards for future generations is to… have future generations. Even if you don’t feel like you can entirely support them now.
You’ll bring the “Population Bomb” doomers out, proving failed predictions never have consequences for the predictors since they can always say it will happen next year- since 1798
I’m not advocating violence, of course, because that’s illegal both on this platform and in real life.
However, the history of humanity has demonstrated that powerful people need to be publicly executed in order for there to be sea change in economic inequalities. When enough people have nothing to lose, said executions become inevitable.
I’m not advocating violence, of course, because that’s illegal both on this platform and in real life.
No it’s not.
-
This platform’s policies do not have the force of law.
-
Advocating for violence in general isn’t illegal; only specific threats are. (Trump, for example, is an idiot-savant at walking that fine line.)
Also the advocating for violence rule has always been weird, because it’s rarely against the rules to advocate for war, even if it’s literally violence and also much much worse due to the scale and horror of it.
Yeah no, lemmy.world’s admins and mods are already infected with the alt-right taint, calling for eating the rich can and will get you banned.
-
Don’t advocate violence. Instead, imply advocacy for violence.
It’s not “let’s kill the rich”, it’s “it’d be a damn shame if someone killed the rich”
It’s not “you’re morally obligated to burn that pipeline”, it’s “you’re morally obligated to burn that pipeline in Minecraft”
Wanna reenact the French revolution
In Minecraft
Install the guillotine mods
The only way to avoid this that I have ever been able to imagine would require our global society to somehow abandon the concept of currency. But that’s insane, of course, so we’re probably screwed…
Not insane. Insane is making up a system of what is worth keeping alive and then sacrificing life on Earth for that system. If we want to survive as a species, we might have to embrace a sort of gift economy.
Thanks for your reassurance. You know, given that the entire purpose of operating as a society is for everybody’s individual benefit, it seems kinda weird to reject a “gift economy” out of hand, doesn’t it? Basically, if each and every member of a society doesn’t benefit from how that society is organized, then said society has failed at it’s most primary function.
deleted by creator
Assuming change involves violence you simply advocate for the change and “defending” your way of life or “taking back” or “sheparding society”. Violent Neo Nazis use this kind of rhetoric all the time to get people to do stupid shit and then escape accountability for winding them up. The absolute best way though? Thoroughly make your case and spread your ideology. When enough people feel like things aren’t going right and they can’t make change any other way, violence is the natural next inflection point.
That all said. We really should be trying to do things peacefully. Political violence is fucking nasty and modern civil wars see things like militias taking control of small towns or neighborhoods to kill everyone they find because they think they voted the wrong way. If we could avoid that I’d be grateful, I really don’t need to witness a second factional battle with hundreds of people on either side right down a main street in a city.
I certainly don’t want civil war. I would, however, like to see a few billionaires fear for their life enough that they would lossen their death grip on the future health and wellbeing of the rest of the world’s inhabitants.
It’s really hard for me to imagine a scenario where large groups of people are fighting on principle to protect billionaires.
Yeah the thing about violence though? You don’t get to decide when it stops.
A general strike of 3 days with 10% of the population participating would do a LOT more than public executions of billionaires.
That said, there’s no fucking way you will get 10% of the population to agree on ANYTHING anymore because every single communication channel, forum, and social space is FILLED with people who actively create hostile, circular and unproductive environments. Either for the hell of it or at the behest of their corporate masters, the result is the same.
We can’t do it the easy way, so we will suffer until the only choice is the hard way.
All so 8 people can own half the fucking world.
It’s class warfare, plain and simple.
The owner class has collectively decided there are too many worker class people and have gone out of their way to make sure that fewer and fewer are born, and to actively punish those who choose to have children.
One thing I want to point out because I’m sure some rightie tightie always whitie is going to come by and say ‘Butbutbut… there are more millionaires now than evar!!!11!1one1!!’
Yes.
They are trust fund kiddies, nearly all of them.
Upward mobility has been actively crippled by stagflation and several ‘once in a lifetime economic crises’ all in the span of 20 years.
Even lower end millionaires are scared of this and claim they are struggling.
Eat the rich, it is the only solution.
Being a millionaire isn’t even enough anymore. You have to be at least a multimillionaire to live off of it.
Yeah, because they know that they are the next ‘middle class’ that will be targeted for extraction.
No joke I used to do consulting work for fast food franchise owner with 4 locations, the guy netted 800k a year with investments added.
Caught him several times literally sweating in fear that he wasn’t going to be able to afford his kids private school and that he’d have to sell a franchise to stay above water.
Would be nice to get some class solidarity with them, but they’ve spent generations spitting on us so I really don’t think they’ll ever join the cause.
Hell, most of them blame US for the inflation that has made their money worth less.
That’s giving them too much credit. They’re just greedy and trying to manipulate markets to hoard as much wealth as possible and they don’t care what happens to the workers.
Most of them, yeah, but the few capable and practiced in such actions whisper to the ignorant rich what they are to do.
I’m not pretending the wealthy are a monolithic entity, but I’m also not pretending that 8 people hold more power for political and economic change than 5 billion combined. And even if only 1 of them is a eugenicist (protip: a fucktonne more of them are eugenicists) then they in their own hand has the power to shape politics and money to whatever the fuck their twisted will is.
And some of them is to reduce the ‘excess population’.
I agree with your stance on policy, but honest question here:
I hear lots of theories that the ownership class are trying to limit reproduction of the classes below them.
Why though? Don’t they want a huge population of desperate workers that keep fueling their profits and keeping their well-manicured hands from doing any real work?
I dunno, I wonder sometimes if we apply Hanlon’s Razor and it really is an extreme example of incredibly shortsighted capitalist stupidity: “Yeah we’re running out of workers but that’s not a problem THIS quarter…”
Why though? Don’t they want a huge population of desperate workers that keep fueling their profits and keeping their well-manicured hands from doing any real work?
Did you not see the rich’s reaction to Kelly Osbourne’s tactless ‘who will clean our toilets?’ statement?
If anything the last 40 years has taught me that the ultra wealthy have zero understanding of planning for a world beyond the next quarterly report.
The reason ‘why’ is mostly petty af, they consider us unsightly and are annoyed that our brightest are out-competing their trust fund crotchfruit in prestigious education, and are fully aware of the coming economic collapse and want as few as possible rioters banging on the doors of their ultra lux survival compounds.
I dunno, I wonder sometimes if we apply Hanlon’s Razor an
No, all you need to do is talk to them about it without them knowing that you are poor. They will tell you with their own mouths.
Class warfare has existed since before writing, and it exists wherever the wealthy are allowed to take power.
You want to keep them fighting amongs themselves so you limit their resources and opportunities. Don’t want a lot of them suddenly realising there’s a lot more of them than there are of you.
It’s wealth inequality. Capital accumulates capital, and it actually means something because wealth is control, and things like housing that determine control over people’s lives are forms of wealth that get concentrated away from regular people along with everything else.
IMO two main things need to happen:
- redistribution of wealth
- increase housing supply
Oh but they actively took our paychecks too. This wasn’t just government welfare for the wealthy and the stock market. When they fired Janet because they only needed one worker instead of two thanks to new software? They didn’t pay Bob extra. That’s wealth just sucked up into the Executive and Shareholder realm. Then to add salt to the wound of doing two jobs they give Bob a December raise below inflation. (because of course there is still actually more that Bob has to do, the software didn’t fix everything.) So now they get Janet’s pay and the extra revenue they denied Bob, because of course their prices damn sure went up in step with inflation.
This kind of fuckery has resulted in an estimated upwards transfer of around 47 Trillion dollars.
The thing I don’t like with that kind of argument is that it is inherently anti efficiency and anti progress. We don’t want jobs to be done in the most inefficient way just so that a lot of people can be paid to do them that way. We want them to be done efficiently and then everyone gets fed,… anyway because society values people over wealth.
It’s anti progress to say “don’t improve productivity”, but it’s anti worker to say “don’t increase wages commensurate with improved productivity”.
That’s not what they’re saying the issue is though, the issue is how it’s redistributed. In fact, what you’re saying quite literally is the living example of anti-progress.
It could be fine in the current state if companies paid people fairly, but they don’t, any progress or efficiency that could have been made was stifled by the company pocketing the ex-employees wage. Rather than supporting the current employee by giving them a raise or a team of members to work with, it’s taken.
To put it this way: Bob and Janet are janitors who split their work equally. A new tool the company bought is able to cut their workload down by 15% each. Now Bob and Janet only have 35% of their work, instead of 50%.
A good workplace will support Bob and Janet in various ways, making them both more efficient by being able to accomplish more tasks.
A bad workplace will fire one of them, making the work load for one of them to 70%, without supplemental pay.
That 35% of value Janet brought is no longer going into the economy, it’s going into the corporate profit.
It’s very efficient. That’s why corporations do it. Now one worker is extremely overworked and underpaid, but the job still gets done and the company makes more money? Sounds like a win.
It is not inherently anti-efficiency or anyi-progress. It is pointing out how those things have been corrupted by those in charge. In a more perfect world, Janet and Bob just work less hours due to the software while retaining their pay.
I mean with the turnabout of current generation work ethic, I personally think that the current systems anti-productivity / efficiency in the first place. There used to be a worker loyalty and high work ethic but it’d increasing trends among millennial and Gen Z to just… not, and why would they when it’s been proven time and time again that the company culture is now replace first and hope the replacement is better or another annoying trend is replace and then not fill, with the expectation that the rest of the team will take on the extra workload for no additional pay.
I think the only real solution to the issue is either an overall wealth tax, or regulation in the spectrum of the next tier has to be at within x amount of the previous or the highest tier must be within x amount of the lowest tier, which would allow for competition in the work hiring field still, raises would still be allowed to happen it’s just in order to raise one tier they have to raise the tiers below it as well.
I think you are right, and it would be better not to focus on trying to micromanage specific business practices. You cannot write a good set of regulations that will prevent companies from siphoning wealth, because profit is the entire reason for existence of a company to begin with, and they will either find a way around it or stop functioning. Instead I think they should be allowed relative free reign, and the market allowed to do what it does, except that in the end a portion of the wealth extracted is taken and given back to the people, such that the level of concentration is kept stable instead of perpetually increasing.
increase housing supply
It makes sense to me that governments should be providing their citizens with items at the base of the pyramid for Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Air is everywhere, but governments mostly do have clean air regulations to make sure that air is breathable. Water is also typically provided by the city for every residence. It’s not free, but it’s pretty cheap. But, governments could be doing a lot more when it comes to shelter and food.
It’s a bit strange that governments do spend a lot of effort / money on employment and personal security when they’re higher up the pyramid than basics like housing and food.
It isn’t that strange if you think of us as being in a sort of situation of soft indentured servitude which is intentionally maintained.
Why? Slave owners fed and housed their slaves. Providing housing and food seems basic.
What other mechanisms exist to compel people to do work they wouldn’t choose at unrewarding wages?
People who think of their children and want to give them the best future but don’t have the money for it don’t have children. People who don’t care about the future of their children, ended up having children.
This leads to more children being born with shitty parents who don’t care about them.
This is a bit unfair. There are lots of circumstances that result in children that weren’t planned. Lots of millennials grew up being told to just pop out the babies and the rest will happen. No the fuck it doesn’t. Not anymore anyway. Maybe that was true at some point but now what happens is they have to work harder than ever while daycare raises their kids. Meanwhile, they have to work a second job to just pay for daycare. When I was a kid I remember my mom getting a lot more gov assistance than seems to ever happen for people now. It was rough but we never had to worry a out keeping a roof over our heads or food on our table. Half those life changing programs are gone now. At least in my area.
Die.
Whenever I hear someone say “what are people supposed to do?”, that is what I remind myself is the default.
When the rich have taken everything that they want, that is all that is leftover for literally everyone else.
A magic utopia is not the default. That took effort to build, and now the ultra-wealthy are putting in effort to tear it down, so it is ludicrous to think that without effort that things will magically go back to the way they were. That is neither how inertia nor entropy work.
Sorry this is upsetting, but it is the Truth. When Trump wins, it will get even worse, not better. Maybe we should do something about it.
deleted by creator
Gotta tax the rich.
It’ll have two effects… 1) not as much money being dumped into real estate. 2) more money available for social programs.
Though on the other side of things some expectations may need to change. Owning a house is going to be really only possible if you live in a rural area. Having a house in the suburbs and having a couple of cars in the garage that you use for everything from commuting to work to picking up groceries will have a high environmental cost so that style of life should be expensive.
Though we can improve the livability of apartments, and lower rent (or mortgage costs for a condo) for high density apartments. Make them larger improve nearby greenspaces nearby so people can comfortable raise a family in high density residential areas.
A lot of the real estate thing is problematic politically. Everyone says they want housing prices to go down, but people that already own a house really don’t. The value of their house will drop if that happens. But given that the suburban ideal isn’t actually all that ideal considering environmental factors, having the price of a house stay high while reducing the cost while increasing the quality of high density housing feels like it should be a politically achievable goal.
But yeah tax the rich, they aren’t all that motivated to to fix housing prices given their current investments in real estate will lose value if they do that. Municipal governments aren’t likely going to zone high density housing either since they get more tax revenue per person from low density housing. If people in low density housing use cars instead of transit, tax revenue - costs of services per person is higher than for people living in high density housing. I’d suggest changing how municipalities raise taxes to avoid this, but saying we should get rid of property taxes sounds like some pro-wealthy kind of thing so isn’t politically feasible. So… tax the rich use the money for social programs, building better public transit and building high density housing.
So yeah the expectation of living the suburban dream isn’t really feasible in most places because of environmental factors. But living a different kind of dream living in a spacious apartment with a green space nearby with reliable public transit available to take people where they need to go seems achievable. And dare I say, may even be better than the suburban dream. But we gotta tax the rich to make it happen.
How do we tax the rich?
Everything above the neck goes.
Get rid of an income tax and move to a federal sales tax on everything. Provide cost of living stipends for everyone. It could provide a safety net and stop tax avoidance schemes.
Sales tax on everything… isn’t a tax on wealth. Why not just do some of the things Scandinavian countries do?
Why is it so all-or-nothing on any one idea? There is a lot of nuance in how you tax income, and the teeth and regulation in order to effectively tax corporations. E.g. Anything over 400k, taxed at 90%… is something. Suggesting to tax it instead at 0% because you can slap on some flat sales tax… is just silly.
Doesn’t help that politics are very corrupt, politicians can do insider trading, media is owned by private interests, unions are demonised and unsurprisingly workers rights are almost non-existent, and you have a two party system that’s deeply flawed.
The US had a real shot at moving in the right direction, but the DNC saw it fit to sabotage its own candidate. I’d imagine treason charges for something like that… but, not even an apology.
Anyways…
You don’t need to tax wealth. Amased wealth will be taxed when the wealth is spent.
I understood your argument. It’s just not how it works. Even if amassed wealth was used to buy stuff as a exchange of goods, it wouldn’t be anything significant, and it would be less significant the more wealth we’re talking about. That in itself should clue you in on why this doesn’t work.
If taxes is a problem in terms of inequality, why… not tax it more progressively then? That’s the whole point of it. Reduce taxes for lower brackets, increase for higher brackets. Even if you thought 0% tax makes sense, which sort of already exists for the lowest bracket, and you want this to apply to more people… then, just do that, starting at from lower income side. Do the same starting from the upper income side, but there you increase it significantly. How far you go, is politics.
Put into place stricter regulations for the exploitation of workers. Actually enforce this stuff, not just give fines that are less than the gains. Replace your election system, it’s broken. Etc. There are soooo many things, that actually make sense, and would have a good effect. But looking at say 400k+ incomes and thinking “tax it at 0%”. Reagan’s grave would look like the classic zombie stereotype, except it would be his dick protruding from the ground.
The thing a consumption tax fixes is eliminating all the tax avoidance schemes. People living off their wealth don’t pay high taxes, they take out loans against their wealth and pay the loan back at 5% instead of the 20% capital gains tax. Carl Icahn, an investor was able to pay no income tax using this scheme. He had an adjusted gross income of $544 million but deducted it all from paying his 1.2 billion dollar loan.
People living off their wealth don’t pay high taxes
That’s… why you might want to tax wealth? Sales tax does literally nothing to address the problem of neither wealth nor income inequality. Income tax does address some of it. Removing it just because it doesn’t address all of it is absurd. Thinking it is covered by sales tax, is even more so. Those who would be in the lower tax brackets would have less buying power, and those with high incomes would be having a party, well… until the fairly immediate collapse of the economy and the riots start, that is. Just because one aspect doesn’t cover everything doesn’t mean you remove it all-together and replace it with… well, I’m still curious.
The ways to circumvent paying taxes, is what you go after, but you don’t do that by just removing existing obstacles. You do it by adding more obstacles. You can still tax income, and you adjust it to tax the high income earners much more. You evaluate wealth and tax that. You put a tax on absurd inheritances. You limit the profitability of trading necessities (e.g. housing) as goods by also high taxation.
The only thing I objected to in your original comment was to suggest 0% tax on income… and that this is compensated for by increasing sales tax… as if it solves anything at all. Income tax accounts for about 50% of the US federal budget. Tricks to avoid paying income tax are well known, but the idea of not addressing the issue, but instead just “start from scratch”, or suggest to remove something fundamental to the function of a modern state, is … tiresomely American. It’s like the Churchill quote of Americans always doing the right thing, after having tried everything else.
