Spyke

MOD NOTE: BE NICE.

It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to insult or threaten other posters with violence.

3

What the UAW is doing here is fighting for all workers. This sets precedents that ripple across all industries. What formed the UAW back in 1937 took some balls, and so does this.

It's not communism to fight for dignity and a living wage. We're practically fighting for some more table scraps, but the rich are acting like we're threatening social fabric.

Go and get it Shawn, this is exactly what we all need right now. Support the UAW.

175
lemmy.world

Even China knows this. Give the hard working people a better job than mom and dad had and they won't rebel.

The people who are rolling in their next billion have forgotten what happens when you take that away.

139
eestileibreply
sh.itjust.works

China is about to find out as well, they have something like a 30% new-grad unemployment rate, and Pooh Bear is on a bootstraps kick saying that social protections encourage laziness.

They're on even thinner ice than the US.

58
DrPopreply
lemmy.one

I mean we all know what "didn't" happen last time students got together in protest. Whatever became of the Hong Kong protest btw?

16

This is a good question. Last time I brought this up on Lemmy, someone said they were better off under the CCP than British rule. 🤔

2
Calaverareply
lemm.ee

They are in the economic industrial boom that already happened to western countries decades ago. The problem is that eventually all booms end

22

That is just buying into accepting the current model where the rich can have it all at the expense of the poor. The model is the problem not the amount we have to distribute.

33

That has been the US and western Europe strategy. Give back just enough so that people don't think they have enough to win by changing the existing order

11

Apparently these billionaires vote & elect the folks who want to arm all of these workers you speak of. Sound logic if you ask me

3

Well nothing has happened, what is being asked of them is less than what they've taken. Worse case scenario is they give back some of the stolen goods.

But this is the same as a fine for breaking the law, they made more than they lost as a result so this is all factored in.

1
lemmy.world

The UAW has always been pushing for Americans as a whole. Hats off to them.

33

Yeah, but Fain is the first democratically elected UAW leader (prior leadership was chosen by delegations and was fraught with racketeering and embezzlement) and it shows.

24
solsticereply
lemmy.world

Wasn't it that same episode where Rom basically says word for word that he doesn't support unions because one day he might own Quark's bar and then he'll be able to oppress people too? What a great show, some people dislike the ferengi episodes but they're some of my favorites in the series.

60
zcdreply
lemmy.ca

Who could dislike the Ferengi episodes??

26

People with the same mindset as Ferengi and who don't like to be called out for their shit.

27
solsticereply
lemmy.world

Ikr? Some people hate 'em. They're really goofy and cartoonish so I guess I get it. Profit and Lace is pretty tough to watch. The Magnificent Ferengi is my personal favorite (Iggy Pop guest stars too, what a treat!) And I quote the Rules of Acquisition in real life somewhat regularly, heh

22
lemmy.world

The first couple episodes Rom is a real dick pushing the shit downhill onto Nog but once he goes from basic greedy goblin to engineer savant the dynamic is great

13
solsticereply
lemmy.world

Yeah the Ferengi were cartoonish evil space goblins at first and weren't very well received. They worked much better as comic relief when the writers toned them down.

15
lemmy.world

Quark is also a great foil to the stiff backed Federation ideals that Sisko is always preaching. It’s nice to see life on the station outside of the rules of Starfleet, and the Ferengi episodes became some of my favorites cause it’s heartwarming in a way to see them try so hard, especially Nog. Toss up between Quarks and Ten Forward

6
programming.dev

I vote for wrecking the rich's yachts. There's even a great capitalist reason to do it: the companies that build them might make new sales! Win-win!

95
lemmy.world

When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.

It's like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.

44
lemmynsfw.com

Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person. As craftsmen, they could have improved the lives of tens of thousands in their community instead. As engineers, they could have built products serving millions.

Not to mention the natural resources used for one person's benefit.

There's nothing positive about super yachts (and mansions, private jets,...) being built. Don't let the flow of money confuse you.

37

the problem is actually how the rich keep buying the houses and making the prices increase for inorganic reason making people who really needs house cant afford it while at the same time the rich keep the house they bought empty

13

To be clear my comment was intended purely as satire. I definitely don't view the construction of yachts as positive in any way.

4
SCBreply
lemmy.world

Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person.

And then they take the money they earn and they buy shit, directly helping other people

-5
lemmy.world

Nah, directly helping other ppl would be the person who bought the yacht instead spends their money on things that enrich their community/society/their workers.

2
SCBreply
lemmy.world

Their workers

Like paying yacht staff?

-1

No, like building public third spaces (that aren't built around consumerism), building free housing, paying off people's houses, paying for medical facilities, improvements to schools, public transit (or something like free mechanic services), paying off medical debt, taking care of homeless, etc.

Billionaires are the ones with the power to change the status quo and fix so many issues with society.

Look at what can be accomplished with just a portion of a single billionaires wealth in a single area (Mark Cuban with CostPlus). Billionaires have an ethical obligation to use their wealth for the food of humankind.

0
eestileibreply
sh.itjust.works

This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.

Smith concluded that no, it isn't a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.

However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I'm not sure how he'd view this case.

26

Money goes from the billionaires to the millionaires that owns the yacht companies 😅

9
lemmy.world

The argument is sloppy.

The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.

If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.

The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.

1
lemmy.world

Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.

2
lemmy.world

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

I said "shooting holes in a water tower to make trickle-down economics work" as a reply to someone making an obvious quip. IDK if you've just never been around leftist discussions, but joking about how fucked trickle-down economics is isn't an endorsement of building megayachts that wreck the environment and provide no good to society.

Stop being intentionally obtuse, or just don't blame others for your inability to read between the lines.

EDIT to add: I also explicitly stated it was satire in response to the only other comment that replied to mine taking it seriously. But even their comment just seemed more like a clarification for anyone else reading, not someone actually taking my comment seriously.

0
lemmy.world

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.

1

So then why reply to my comment with a hostile argument when there was already a thread in reply to mine which cleared up any possible confusion?

You can't read satire, got confused and replied without spending the time to even read the other reply saying the same shit you said.

And you wanna blame satire for creating confusion.

If u smell shit everywhere you go, check ur own shoe bud.

0
SCBreply
lemmy.world

When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.

People who think the rich just have vaults full of money are so fucking ridiculous.

Poor people sit on cash. Poor people hide cash in their house. Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.

-22
Miqoreply
lemmy.world

“We were very wealthy,” says Errol Musk. “We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe.”

With one person holding the money in place, another other would slam the door.

“And then there'd still be all these notes sticking out and we'd sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”

You are willfully ignorant.

10

You're an idiot if you thinks fucking safe holds any real amount of money, or that one South African semi-rich person counts as any sort of evidence.

Cash depreciates over time. No rich person keeps a ton of cash, because it means they get less rich every day.

-5
lemmy.world

Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, 1 disaster away from bankruptcy and absolute poverty. What the actual fuck are you taking about??

8
SCBreply
lemmy.world

Yes, and a big part of that is that rather than get bank accounts, savings accounts, and any sort of money discipline, they fly blind and end up turning to terrible shit like payday loans.

See, one of us has actually worked to help change the spending habits of low-income people and the other person gets their information from memes.

-7
lemmy.world

Source- trust me bro!

That's a pretty cool story you've got going on in your head there lol. You're a fucking 🤡

6

7 million out of 39 million living in poverty don't have bank accounts. Lol, that's your proof for your argument. And that's not including the working poor. Wow, I don't know what's scarier- the fact that you think this is proof that the PoOr aRe CoNdItiOned tO noT uSe bAnKs- If OnlY thEy'D oPen Savinzgs AcCoUnts, or that you think that you "got me" with that stat. Fucking 🤡

5

Underbanking is a problem, and so is underinvesting. Both are caused by profit motives because investors rather put in pay day loan services instead of grocery stores in historical redlined districts🤷

But sure, blame the habits of poor people.

3
lingh0ereply
lemmy.film

Yeah, all those poor folks literally sleeping on cash under their mattresses because they don't have to spend it immediately on things like, you know... staying alive.

7
小莱卡reply
lemmygrad.ml

It boils down to poor people are poor because they don't invest, and rich people are rich because they invest 😂 nothing else matters!

6
lemmy.world

He's talking like poor people can just put money into a savings account and make money lol. What a fucking out of touch clown

4
SCBreply
lemmy.world

Tell me you don't actually know any poor people without telling me you don't actually know any poor people.

-7
lingh0ereply
lemmy.film

Lol. Sure sure. Apparently I've been living poor incorrectly by immediately spending my money on things like food, shelter and childcare instead of hoarding it like some kind of Scrooge McDuck wannabe.

You think poor people have money they don't need to spend, so they just keep it stashed away in a shoebox or something? How out of touch are you?

5
SCBreply
lemmy.world

This is an endemic problem with poor people, actually, because poor people are often conditioned not to "trust" banks.

You'd know that, if you knew them.

-8

You must be right. I've never lived in and among poverty. Thank you for explaining my life to me. Is there anything else I didn't actually experience?

5

Yeah, cause poor people and low income people are so much more rare to encounter during a day, then a millionaire/billionaire or people in top 5%..... /S

2
lemmy.world

Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.

Damn, maybe poor people should just hire a full-time broker and give them the $20 they can spare this month and let that smart person invest it so they're not poor anymore 🤓

Being poor in the US is a literal trap. It is intentional. It is exploitation. The lack of financial education isn't the fault of poor people who grew up going to schools that could barely afford to run, and/or went to school hungry.

And once you're poor, it can be extremely difficult to escape, bc the system is designed to punish poor ppl. Poor ppl sit on cash bc if it's in a bank the money they need for food might get taken away bc of some bullshit overdraft fee or similar. I know bc I've been poor and know poor ppl.

Poor people aren't poor because they don't invest wisely enough. They're poor bc the system is designed in so many ways to keep it that way.

Also rICh pEoPle dOnT Sit ON tHeiR MoNey ThEY iNvEsT it

Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it "investing 🤓" or whatever. It's still hoarding, it's still immoral and detestable.

You sound like you're 17 and just started listening to Fox Business for financial advice.

2
SCBreply
lemmy.world

Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it “investing 🤓” or whatever. It’s still hoarding, it’s still immoral and detestable.

This has no factual basis.

You seem like you think I'm attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.

-1
lemmy.world

This has no factual basis.

Yes it does.

See I used as much logic in that response as u used in ur comment, so my answer is just as valid as yours. But since I used more logic in the comment you're replying to, my original point still stands. Try again, lil bro.

You seem like you think I'm attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.

I do not give a flying fuck whether you were making fun of someone or trying to get a billionaire to see ur comment so they'd let u suck their dick, bootlicker. You're wrong.

Also billionaires can literally just use their stock value as cash, genius.

Why you simp for billionaires bruh. U ain't gonna become one.

0
SCBreply
lemmy.world

Imagine caring about the opinions of someone who calls you a "bootlicker" for simply understanding how reality works

1
小莱卡reply
lemmygrad.ml

The only one talking about vaults of cash is the comment i replied to 😂 what no reading comprehension does to a mfer, the "vaults of cash" is something he pulled out of his ass.

What i am saying is that he is dumb to think rich people are rich because they invest and poor people are poor because they don't invest.

1
Eviereply
lemmy.world

Wow...The mask came off, huh... who else from what base is notorious for saying "Go back to (insert country here)" yeah.. the mask always comes off

Fucking right wing fascist apologists are worse than commies but that nuance may be lost on you due to brainwashed propaganda you have been consuming...

3
SCBreply
lemmy.world

Go back to (insert country here)”

Lemmygrad is not a country.

-6
bdonvrreply
thelemmy.club

You're kidding right?

  1. The yachts are probably insured

  2. Just because they don't literally have millions sitting in a checking account doesn't mean they can't liquidate some of their investments and get it in short order.

0

actually putting money into the economy

This person veliev s rich people have millions sitting in checking. This belief is widespread, and is not just misleading, it changes the entire discussion from wealth to money.

0

Gibraltar Orcas: "Way ahead of you there buddy"

20
lemmy.world

I need a couple of their yachts to drag over some sturdy icebergs. Re-enact a much more expensive Titanic.

2
NaoPbreply
eviltoast.org

Isn't that what they want you to think? Throwing around words like communist and making it seem like a bad thing to share wealth?

7

Exactly. Unions exist in Liberal and Social Democracies, too. They want to keep us on this Neoliberal path, because it's so very exploitable. Unions are just a drop of democracy, but for your workplace, or sometimes renting and transit systems.

8
lemmy.world

There is nothing communist about that. He's not advocating abolishing private ownership. Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

The free market doesn't exist in a communist economy. Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers. This eliminates workers' leverage over employers.

6

There is nothing communist about that.

Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.

He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.

Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.

Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.

The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.

You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.

Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.

Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.

This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.

2
lemmy.world

Image Transcription:

X/Twitter post by user Teddy Ostrow @TeddyOstrow reading '"In their economy, workers live paycheck to paycheck while the billionaires buy another yacht... So we're gonna wreck their economy cuz it only works for the billionaire class," says @UAW prez Shawn Fain in Detroit.'

Attached is an image of UAW president Shawn Fain speaking passionately at a targeted strike rally against the Detroit Big Three automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis).

[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]

69
bertreply
lemmy.monster

I'm happy to see this transcription "service" here on Lemmy. Thank YOU!

12

Why not? Megacorps and billionaires wreck the economy all the time, and exploit it for their favor.

Why not let the poor and worker class wreck it for once.

Set the whole goddamn thing on fire, and throw the rich into it.

56

That is something I wonder about. Inflation makes the poor poorer but when asked, economists are like "trust us, inflation is good".

48
lemmy.world

At this point I am all for a plan that will fuck me over but takes them down with me. Let's do this shit.

45

When you have no roof over your head and it rains, just make a tarp from the skin of a landlord.

36

Only problem with this is that this doesn’t even hurt the ultra rich - every catastrophe is just a new investment opportunity for them. E.g. after Brexit they just moved their money and businesses out of the UK, leaving the poor schlebs who live there to deal with it.

41
lemmy.world

What's that? Given a fat pay check quietly and the next day he calls everybody back to work and increases Union dues

-39
lemmy.world

Care to explain that one?

I've got no particular love for Biden beyond him being better than the alternative (although he's made some pretty strong pro-union moves lately). I just haven't heard of this stuff.

4
lemmy.world

Biden has been collecting checks from and acting on behalf of corporations and executive side industry lobbies his entire career and strongarmed Congress into violating the rights of and defanging railway workers by passing a bill ending their strike.

although he's made some pretty strong pro-union moves lately

No he hasn't. People more pro union than him that he hired at the advice of other people more pro union than him (and the people that work for them)have.

Don't be like the establishment media by giving him the credit that Lauren McFerran and the rest of the NLRB have earned.

5
SCBreply
lemmy.world

"I don't understand how cabinet positions work, and I don't know how to use Google" is all you needed to write.

Also there's this:

“We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.

https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

Imagine pretending to care about unions enough to act all pissed on their behalf but not caring enough to just Google what the outcome was.

-2
lemmy.world

Imagine pretending that the IBEW speaks for all railworkers because they and one other of the dozen unions involved accepted a crappy deal and has a leader who loves kissing neoliberal ass.

Here's over 500 labor historians disagreeing in an open letter.

0

You are overplaying it though. I am active in my union and in the organized labor movement more broadly here in the PNW. The railway strike left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, but there's also a recognition among leadership that the administration didn't have any great options if they didn't want to further tank the economy and cause even more inflation with potentially worse long-term results for everyone.

On the flipside he has appointed by far the most pro union NLRB in history, so this is kind of a case of letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.

2

Your labor historian letter is from the year prior.

December 2, 2022, 9:00am

Mine is from this June.

June 20, 2023

You didn't care enough to follow up because none of this is real to you. It's just posturing. That's sad as fuck

Just admit you don't actually give a fuck about people's lives. You have your worldview and the reality doesn't matter.

2

If conditions are unlivable for too many people, that's bad and it calls for a re-negotiation of everything. It also bears reminding today's leisure class/ultra-wealthy that part of the basis for their existence as such was always a trade-off between them paying their workers enough to live with dignity and the metaphorical torches and pitchforks and guillotines staying in mothballs

32

"For the fired auto workers Who were twisted, tricked and robbed To the peasant in Guatemala In a sweatshop got your job And she can't feed her family On the pennies that she makes Meanwhile the crime rate's rising Up and down the Great Lake states

Like vegetables left in the field The signatures smell rotten On the contracts and the deeds That push the race down to the bottom As they load the rubber bullets As they fire another round I'm heading into the tear gas Dig in man, hold your ground

For Joe Hill and Cesar Chavez Who fought in their own time For our brothers and our sisters Up and down that picket line For the unnamed and unnumbered Who struggle brave and long For the union men and women Standing up and standing strong"

Tom Morello/The Nightwatchman - Union Song

30

On my commute home yesterday I encountered a "wide load" convoy that was hauling a millionaire's yacht down the highway. Not a mega-yacht, just a yacht. I don't care that it was just a millionaire's yacht, I felt compelled to roll down the window and give it the bird.

29

I think a perspective shift is necessary.

"Destroy the economy" is about sabotage.

"Work for each other and against wealthy investors" would result in a smaller economy, but the focus is on the positive thing built, instead of just sabotage.

21

Is it a smart move? No. But it's the only one that could work

20

Way to go. Bring them down on their knees. Force them to share. They've proven they will never share the wealth with the workers unless forced to.

12

That... is a very...VERY BAD IDEA.

Billionaires have enough money to survive an economic crash without batting an eyelid. Do you?

10

Controversial: how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?

Rent would be cheaper if renters would unionize and wouldn't spend above an agreed on limit.

It's so hard to coordinate that only some workers can ask billionaires for better deals. Why? Why is not everybody ashamed that they cannot coordinate with their neighbors?

Roman's walked out of town once a year to remind the elite of their value. The west models itself after the Roman Republic but tries to skip on the hard parts.

4

How does the working class not realise that the wealthy are the sodden bitch in a bog handing out the sword? Jeeebus

2

The amount of well meaning idiots upvoting this who dont seem to grasp who actually suffers when this happens is depressing.

-1

I'd rather not be sent into poverty like in 1930s Germany tyvm. The "winner takes all" mentality though needs to go. The US especially has a lottery winning mentality.

-3

Right, the economy isn't something that supports the life of all humans. Billionaires have yachts so it must only be working for them. And since only billionaires benefit from the economy, we can wreck it no problem. There won't be deaths from starvation and exposure, because food and housing aren't part of the economy we're going to wreck.

-4

The "economy" will exist whether it's a capitalist system or something else. Blaming the system is a stupid take when it's the actors within it causing the issues you complain about.

It's like blaming gravity.

-6

Why are you linking a trash source like this here? The guy is a chemical engineer who was antivaxx and despite lacking the scientific background made a lot of unqualified claims.

Given they are a complete joke when discussing subjects outside their expertise why would you think this has credibility?

16
Kichaereply
kbin.social

It's not sealioning when you say something incomprehensible and someone else asks you WTF you tried to say

8
reddthat.com

Their source is a chemical engineer who tried to make antivaxx claims as if they had expertise on the subject which they can't.

10
lemmy.world

I don't get it, do they think that wrecking the economy will not wreck them as well? The rock bottom is still pretty far.

-30
Coreidanreply
lemmy.world

Ya you clearly don’t get it. The economy is already destroyed for poor people. You can’t wreck what is already destroyed. Since the economy is already destroyed for poor people the next step is pulling the rich down with us and making them bleed.

12
SCBreply
lemmy.world

The economy is already destroyed for poor people

Literally no member of the UAW is poor.

-11
lemmy.one

UAW members being poor doesn't really play any importance here in my opinion - if we were to use this way of thinking for protests, restricting them to only those directly affected/impacted by the subject of said protest, IMO there would either be no change or things could get violent.

If anything, you as a person in authority could easily silence the whole problem at that point by wiping out the protesters.

I think it is better for the people who care to do something, regardless of whether they are affected or not, since the alternative is for society's most exploited people taken advantage of even more

5
SCBreply
lemmy.world

What specifically are you doing?

Because I don't see a broken economy anywhere. I see people not voting locally, so housing prices in their area skyrocket. I see people not campaigning, so we never hit a critical mass of Congresspeople to effect national change. I see people born with silver spoons in their mouths invoking "class solidarity" while telling me that it is literally impossible to live on even 150% of the median income.

So, what specifically are you, yourself, doing?

-9
lemmy.one

One of the only MOPs in my village's local authority meetings.

Use public transport as I'm against overdependence on cars - it's futile because cuts are made anyway, and combined usage costs as much as owning a car to begin with. The buses are very comfortable and air conditioned though 👍

Voting for a difference, but the status quo stays the same because everyone here is being fed the same sweet talk by a government that has said on the record that they are not interested in building new housing while there is an ongoing shortage.

Taking part in temporary government funded schemes, set up with the intent to collect feedback guiding future areas of expenditure.

And much more.

It's all a waste of time though, nothing changes as a result. I say the UAW have got the right idea for going for what will hurt the most. People living paycheck to paycheck deserve better than this, or even worse, those stuck in endless debt. Last year the energy costs around here were equivalent to buying a new PS5 every month.

We can can shout all we like into the echo chamber here about possible solutions - but is the everyday voter even educated about how any of the existing institutions work? Asking people on an online internet forum what they are doing in their community, in an elitist condescending tone, does nothing to further this IMO. A union doing things like this, is everything that does.

4
SCBreply
lemmy.world

You're doing great! More people should be like you.

Voting for a difference, but the status quo stays the same because everyone here is being fed the same sweet talk by a government that has said on the record that they are not interested in building new housing while there is an ongoing shortage

This is a hard fight, but the end goal is just to keep working on persuading these people. Power happens locally.

Asking people on an online internet forum what they are doing in their community, in an elitist condescending tone, does nothing to further this IMO

Strong disagree. Online memes are not action, and through action we fix problems. If even one person stumbling by becomes more active, it's worth calling out the people who are not.

-2

No one's getting involved because you're being an asshole online. You're high on the smell of your own shit.

-2
Sunforgedreply
lemmy.world

Way to 100% miss the point of the person you're replying to in an conniving attempt to undermine their point without actually debating.

Truly awful!

-3

Don't be dumb. This wasn't a debate. This was me calling out bullshit responses.

Literally all you had to do was scroll down one comment to watch me metaphorically high-five OP.

Literally takes less effort to read the conversation than it does for you to Velcro your shoes or put on your helmet before you walk outside.

-3
NatakuNoxreply
lemmy.world

You need a lesson in economics. Is $32 billion better in 100 people's hands or in the hands of 400,000 peoples hands? The Average UAM makes ~$64k a year, add in where these manufacturing plants are that's not enough for a single individual to live within driving distance to work. The auto makers could give every unionized work a $40k a year raise and still have $16billion in profits!

2
SCBreply
lemmy.world

The Average UAM makes ~$64k a year, add in where these manufacturing plants are that’s not enough for a single individual to live within driving distance to work

Median income in Wayne Michigan is just under half that, at 27k. It's absurd to suggest "a single individual" cannot live there on a UAW salary.

UAW provides great salaries and benefits (and continues to do so, with this strike) and suggesting UAW members are impoverished discredits the union.

Idk where you're getting $32B from. Ford has $42B cash-on-hand and while you don't went to spend even most of that, I agree that it can be better allocated as pay/benefits up to a point.

-3
NatakuNoxreply
lemmy.world

Median income isn't a metric for cost of living. And definitely doesn't mean the workers who actually made the cars shouldn't get paid more. $27k a year just means there are hundreds of thousands of workers in Michigan that need to strike as well. (Regardless of they are unionized.) no one is arguing for workers to be paid more than their errands. Or economy is failing because money is pooling in few and few hands. And those few hands are lying about there not being enough to go around or just because someone flipping burgers doesn't deserve to make enough to feed themselves and their families.

3

Median income is absolutely indicative of cost of living because people do in fact live in Wayne MI. I know it is crazy to you that some people make so much less than your parents, but I promise they do and they are alive.

The rest of your post is meaningless and unrelated to the topic.

-4
kbin.social

The rock bottom is still pretty far

for you perhaps, millions if not billions globally are already there.
Choosing the status quo to maintain your own minor and almost certainly temporary comforts over change serves no one but the obscenely rich and powerful.

10

The next step is pretty difficult, as far as I can tell. Survival at task will require crime, suffering, and mutual aid.

-1
lemm.ee

Seems very ungrateful to the job creators and innovators that just because the economy doesnt work for you, you want to wreck it for us too. Why not try starting up your own car company instead of cutting into the profits of the hard working Ford and GM families.

-37
lemmy.world

User is a sarcastic concept account cosplaying as the most ridiculous pro-billionaire stooge possible 😁

23
lemmy.world

First I didn't get that it was a joke. Then I got that it was a joke and it was an okay joke. Then I saw the joke over and over. Now I'm sick of the joke and I downvote it (not that it helps).

8

Sorry, I've just seen it in too many posts now and it is tiresome to see so many people get fooled by it every time.

4
lemmy.world

It's almost like acting like a dumbass and being a dumbass are identical to each other!

5
lemmy.world

To the unobservant, yes.

Not their fault that end stage capitalism and the resurgence of fascism have made the most braindead takes mainstream enough that it's more difficult to spot the difference between sincere idiocy and satire 🤷

4
discuss.tchncs.de

Satire isn't just 'say a ridiculous thing and hope people don't take it seriously'. There's supposed to be an element of commentary. This guy is basically just a pro billionaire bot spitting out what they actually believe.

5
lemmy.world

Yeah, you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. If you'd had just a cursory glance at their comment history you'd have found such gems as "ABUB: Always Be Union Busting" and this one:

Under capitalism I allow my workers no such thing, they must toil physically for a full work day and if I catch a whiff of complaint or dissent, I threaten them with unemployment. Not only will the trenches not dig themselves but my profits don't come out of thin air. I need them to work extra hard so I can pay off my second sailing yacht (one stays in the carribean, the other in the med) this year and put a down payment on a third (south pacific).

1

Are we supposed to check comment history every time we see some moron that's bad at satire make a comment that's identical to actual bootlicker rhetoric?

2

So making fun of bootlickersin a room full of people who don't like bootlickers is a bad thing now?

Or are you just expecting people to be too stupid to spot the differences between playing a loathsome persona for laughs and being a loathsome person?

1
Cryophiliareply
lemmy.world

Congratulations, you win the "stupidest shit I've heard all day" award.

I suppose you also think Christian Bale is actually Batman?

-1
lemmy.world

You're a complete fucking moron that doesn't understand the difference between satire and being a bootlicker.

2
Pavidusreply
lemmy.world

I'm impressed that you made it through posting that comment without drowning in bullshit. Bravo.

12
NatakuNoxreply
lemmy.world

Uhhhh what?! Lol the car manufacturers made $32 billion in profit last year. A record amount. Are you honestly going to say there's not enough money to pay their works a livable wage? The union isn't even being out of line for what they are asking for. 400,000 workers even devided across everyone equally (which isn't what the are asking.) would be $80,000 a year. That's a life changing amount of money for those workers cbd would do better in their hands, apposed to a few executives and owners. However, that's not even close to what they are asking for! So you are lying or dumb.

4
lemm.ee

The car manufacturers need that profit to distribute to their shareholders, or do stock buyback or whatever best benefits the share price etc. By doing so they are helping the whole economy and that money will eventually trickle down to the little guys in some form or another.

For example: instead of giving all that money to the greedy UAW, GM can use it to buy back their stock. The price of the stock and the net worth of the people who own most of it therefore goes up. They borrow against that stock for a new yacht in the Mediterranean and use it to visit a charming seaside village in Greece or Italy. They eat at the nicest restaurant in the nicest resort in that village.

Now, you see how that money helped the villagers who otherwise never would have seen a dime of it? The auto workers aren’t going to spend any of that money in Greece or Italy. Not to mention support the families of boat-makers, boat-loan-processors etc along the way.

-2

"oh well someone please think of the poor shareholders and executives making millions off other peoples labor!"

The is no trickle down. It's been 70 years of that crap and it gets more moronic every time. There is no evidence that high executive pay or shareholder payouts benefits the economy. Just out right lies. What the Villiers should do is murder the people hording resources and spend their vacations in Greece and Italy.

3
Cryophiliareply
lemmy.world

It's a parody account, you dumb fucks

Pull the sticks out of your asses for christ sake

2
criitzreply
reddthat.com

He who gets his laughs by pretending to be an idiot will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.

2
Cryophiliareply
lemmy.world

Is your autistic ass really arguing against the entire concept of satire and parody?

1
lemmy.world

Dude we get it. Shitty "satire" account is your alt and shitty satire is shitty satire. Find a new hobby, because you suck at satire.

1

You've accused like 3 people of being this dude's alt

Maybe just admit you enjoy sharp sticks up your butt?

Which is fine, but keep your dysfunction to yourself.

0
lemmy.world

When you have to point out that something is satire, it's pretty dogshit satire.

1
lemmy.world

Billionaires aren't the ones that starve when the economy implodes.

This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions. Sure we support your goals but the side-effects of that cure are ten times worse than the disease itself.

-80
lemmy.world

Just because there is public support does not mean it's right. Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won't notice. It's not just the UAW that's impacted, there's huge ripple effects. Many suppliers were barely hanging on and this will probably be a death knell. And honestly, this is what makes me fucking hate working in Financial Services for one of the big 3.

I run a department that performs forecasting that eventually influences the affordability of leasing globally and I'm responsiblefor a $25B portfolio. I work my ass off and I have a new family with a 1 year old - we were having a decent year finally after 3 bad ones, then this fucker comes along and is going to tank it.

So now my family is going to suffer because of something completely unrelated to my role and performance. He makes sound bites, but the sides are so far apart it's ridiculous. They accuse the companies of negotiating in bad faith, yet the UAW has yet to respond to any offer with a counter. They've been offered 20%+ raises, cost of living adjustments, signing bonuses, elimination of tiers, more holidays off, and better profit sharing - which is a huge improvement and gets them the majority of what they are asking for, but they've literally thrown that in the trash. My bet is all he will accomplish is more factories moving to non-UAW locations or Mexico.

What exactly is the advantage of being American made when the workers turn out the worst quality for the highest wages and they can shut down production on a whim every few years? It's honestly very frustrating to see this issue not being taken seriously here and there seems to be such little appreciation for the broader impacts.

-22
lemmy.world

Tanking the economy will only hurt the majority, billionaires literally won't notice

You're talking about another recession where they can scoop up assets on the cheap and weather the storm while less fortunate people die. We're talking about dismantling the system that makes that possible.

17
lemmy.world

Asking for specifics, unable to grasp obvious concepts or being a sealion?

12

Several reasons.

First of all, a lot of people argue in bad faith online and it's not worth my time and effort to feed trolls, sealions and shills.

Second, the question without further context implies that only people who know exactly what to replace it with are allowed to advocate the end of a horrendously wrong system.

Second and a halfth, why are you talking me with being more specific when the question was far too vague to even know if that's what they were asking for? Why demand specificity from me and not them?

Third, in this specific case I'm tired and thus have less energy left to spend on what might be another futile back and forth. If they're not serious about discussing it in good faith, I'd much rather spend my remaining energy on something fun like Baldurs Gate 3 or something..

1
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

It is a lot easier to tear down the hard work of others than to build something up yourself.

The UAW is not some benevolent non-profit out to help the poor people of America. They are an organization that represents less than .05% of Americans in one of the best paid low-skill jobs in America, and they say they are willing to try and tank the economy for the benefit of their members at the cost of everyone else.

They are in no way going to dismantle the system that has made them wealthier than their friends and neighbors. They are just holding out for a bigger package with more benefits, and are willing to play Russian Roulette with the economy to get it.

Even if all three CEOs gave up their salaries and benefits packages to benefit the UAW workers they would each only gain about $1 an hour based on my napkin math.

This Fain guy's rhetoric is nothing more than that and it makes him and the union sound like an asshole to a neutral observer. Not that there are any neutral observers in this post.

-17
lemmy.world

How about if the three auto companies gave up 5% of their profits instead?

14
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

I have no idea what sort of profit margins the auto companies are working on. I do think profit sharing is a pretty decent idea though. I am surprised the UAW isn't asking for something like that. Maybe it is too unstable for wage workers in case of a recession.

-2

No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they're making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?

6

Am I wrong? I was using it as a comparison to jobs that require a similar amount of education and training.

I tried to check and it seemed to be categorized as "unskilled". Didn't really seem like a completely fair assessment so I used "low-skill" instead.

What would you call jobs in this category?

-4

nothing but a bunch of pro-establishment and anti-union gaslighting nonsense

We're done here, bootlicker.

9

Thanks for the report CNmsNbc! Much appreciated

You’re talking out of your ass with bs anecdotes. I don’t care.

The corporate executives are tanking the economy not the workers. If you believe otherwise you’re an idiot…… or just talking out of your ass

13

The Dollar is the world reserve currency. Most billionaires wealth is directly tired to its stability. It's why China/Russia may hate our government but they don't try and fuck with wall street, they have their value tired to the same piggy bank. Destroying the US economy would directly impact the billionaire class and to act like it wouldn't is such a fucking cop out.

So now my family is going to suffer because of something completely unrelated to my role and performance.

Considering you seem to not give two shits about the others getting affected by shit outside of their control and now that we are working to get rights for everyone else you feel slighted because your fucked corporate role aided in fucking everyone else, I have no fucking sympathy for you. I hope your affected because then you might just fucking get it because you clearly fucking don't. Go pound sand dumb ass.

They've been offered 20%+ raises, cost of living adjustments, signing bonuses, elimination of tiers, more holidays off, and better profit sharing - which is a huge improvement and gets them the majority of what they are asking for

They want CEOs, and the billionaires reading the benefits of their work to be striped of most their wealth and redistributed to the masses where it's needed. They don't want scraps and what should of been given in the first place, they want fucking change. Honestly the fact you think this is enough clearly defines how fucked your mindset is and clearly demonstrates why you need to feel the hurt from this change. Go cry to your ceo I'm sure he will toss you to side just as quickly as everyone else even though you feel so strongly you need to defend those incompetent pieces of shit.

4
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Most Americans would like a cost-of living increase ourselves. It is easy to support the UAW when they are going for a goal we agree with; especially when it costs us nothing.

If the UAW intentionally makes that cost another economic recession/depression, we will see how strong that support is.

-23

how dare the workers try to use their labor to survive, why won't anyone think of the poor rich people who may lose some stock value

9
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

No I mean when the guy in the picture says, "we're going to wreck their economy."

If you don't like his phrasing then it sounds like we agree.

-2
sh.itjust.works

We agree that I can not tell if you are farting or if you are talking with your head very deeply lodged in between your buttocks.

Either way, very impressive

2

Funny thing is that you are the one with the verbal diarrhea.

All your old, tired,disproven, neoliberal, corporate, 1% talking points are completely and quite literally made up bullshit meant to enrich the donor class at the expense of the working class.

There’s literally no point in responding to anything you say other than with verbal diarrhea, because ALL of your talking points are completely made up… whether or not this is intentional on your part doesn’t really concern me at this point.

1
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Yes, "moderates".

Those of us who realize the building we all live in is old, has holes in the windows and floors, and never had an elevator installed, but would still prefer to renovate it than burn it down. Yes, we know some people are getting wet, or fell through the floor, and a few can't even get to their rooms, but the majority of us are warm, well-fed, and mildly entertained. We definitely need to get the holes patched and we should work on some sort of lift, but burning the place down is not going to help those who are missing out now and will harm everyone else in the process.

-40
lemmy.world

You know that they tear down dilapidated buildings with good reason, right? The foundation is crumbling, the floor won't support weight and the roof is more leak than barrier.

Trying to apply repairs to a crumbling and unsafe building is actually a great analogy for how your "moderate" bullshit is keeping most of society in a death spiral. Nice self-own.

17
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Even if we are approaching a point where a tear down would be more cost effective, we are not at a point where we can unite enough to rebuild anything from the rubble.

Maybe pushing it any farther is risking a collapse, but I rather like being one united nation sitting at the top of lists for economic and military power, rather than 3 or 4 smaller nations barely in the top 10.

-12
lemmy.world

We are way past the point where a tear down is necessary to save millions of lives, never mind "cost effective".

sitting at the top of lists for economic and military power

You KNOW that all that economic power belongs to the rich and the rest are poorer than most western countries, right?

Also, celebrating military power as a virtue is some North Korea type shit, not something a modern democracy should be doing.

11
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Military power is neither inherently virtue nor vice it is a tool that can be used for good or ill. However, without it the voice of a nation becomes smaller and smaller until it becomes non-existent without the support of others.

-9

Military power is neither inherently virtue nor vice

False. It's an evil. Some would say a necessary evil, but that's debatable.

without it the voice of a nation becomes smaller and smaller until it becomes non-existent

Bullshit. Organised murder isn't free speech, nor does it protect free speech. It's very often used to SUPPRESS free speech and democracy, though.

5
sopuli.xyz

Bruh, in your analogy where are you getting the money and materials to patch up the building? It’s being hoarded by the guy that owns a giant state of the art mansion up the street that needs 0 repairs.

And that mansion has TWO elevators.

13
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Fair question.

In my hastily put together analogy, the rich guy would live up on the top floor which he converted to a pent house, probably with a helicopter pad. That guy like in real life is going to try to squeeze the money out of the guys a few floors down from himself. If it actually comes to a building collapse or something catastrophic, he probably tries to escape to another building.

Really though, this analogy is probably stretched to its limit.

-3
lemmy.world

Why wouldn't he escape before the building got that bad? Why wouldn't he escape the first time someone fell through the floor?

5
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Presumably their part of the building is holding up fine. We certainly aren't seeing a lot of rich people flee the US so far.

Incidentally, not that it really matters, the holes in the floor were not meant to indicate the building itself was rotting away, just that the layers had worn through and need to be replaced. Basically everything after the first post has just been shoe-horned into the analogy on the fly.

0
lemm.ee

Or you could build a new and better building instead of patching up poor construction.

11

Sure, if you can get most of the residents to agree on what kind of building they want the new one to be, you might even make it happen fairly smoothly.

As is, we have at least a half a dozen groups who each want different designs and the two largest groups aren't even sure they want to live in the same building anymore. Those two groups have already started drawing lines down the middle of the current building and are demanding everyone pick a side. To make matters worse the other groups don't agree with each other enough to even band together for their own defense. In the end, we will be lucky if we get a couple small condos where once a sky-rise stood.

-2

Of course they don't starve, they're often the cause, or accessory to said implosions, and governments are all too happy to bail them out of their bullshit while telling people to suck it up and go back to work.

24
lemmy.world

This kind of rhetoric is what makes moderates ambivalent about unions

No. That would be the constant drone of pro-establishment and thus pro-billionaire propaganda from the billionaire-owned corporations that dominate the media landscape.

Also, here's a song about moderates for you.

18
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Thank you for the link from a billionaire-owned corporation. I would consider listening to it, but I don't use google products anymore than necessary. Also, youtube transcript doesn't seem to work on it.

-13
shuzukoreply
midwest.social

I like good folk music but I'm not allowed to wear headphones at work, so I appreciate the lyrics link! Looking forward to listening to the song later, seems like a good one.

3

Happy to help! Speaking of helpfulness, or rather unhelpfulness though, this is one of the most incongruous "see also" boxes I've ever seen 😂

1

Damn right he was. We just have to try our best to honor his memory by improving the world.

3
Bluereply
lemmy.world

Ohh look a centrist! what a disgusting piece of shit

12
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Very constructive. I am sure you convince a lot of people of the rightness of your opinions with your eloquent speeches.

-15
Bluereply
lemmy.world

I'm not trying to convince you of anything dipshit, I know your type, you will vote for whoever will keep your privileges, "don't rock the boat" "keep the status quo", that's is what you really think, so why the facade? hypocrite

At least fuckin fascist will tell me that they want to make me a slave or put me in gas Chambers, communists are honest about wanting to meat grind the rich, even Anarcho-capitalists accept they want to fuck kids.

But you, you are the silent supporter of the exploitation of the people, keeping silent because you are too coward to admit you are a piece of shit.

And you know why I know that? Ask a person who works 2 or more jobs to survive, believe me they will no tell you they are "centrist" or "moderate".

16
citizensgaming.com

Have you considered it may be your attitude holding you back? I'm not a business owner, but I haven't done a decent number of interviews and participated in hiring decisions. Someone who gave even a hint of this toxicity would never be considered for any decent paying job. Most people as extreme as you seem to be can't hide it very well.

Oh, look, you worked for a company without ethics, making sure they can keep their status quo, congrats dumb ass, you're part of the problem as was described before. Any company with a backbone doesn't give a shit and will allow you to participate in community outreachs that help progressive initiatives. You are to worried about your creature comforts that you can't fathom that their are massive portions of the population without such comforts and instead of sticking up for the right to those comforts for all (which you somehow think would strip you of your comforts instead of excess from those whom are accumulating obscene amounts of captial beyond reason), you would rather villianize those attempting to make change as it could mean an inconvenience for you in the short term as changes are made, fucking pathetic.

3
Bluereply
lemmy.world

I'm not a business owner

I'm, and I don't exploit people.

1
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Since you clearly missed it that was sarcasm. You are obviously doing nothing but spewing self-righteous textual diarrhea.

I am truly sorry for you that you don't realize many self-proclaimed moderates and centrist could be your natural allies. Not me of course, I would never intentionally associate myself with a zealot that thinks anyone who doesn't share his exact opinion is his true and natural enemy. It is a shame that you are probably an atheist, you would fit right into a fundamentalist sect.

-11
Bluereply
lemmy.world

Oh now it's sarcasm? Are you gonna cry and say it's a joke now? Stupid.

I am truly sorry for you that you don't realize many self-proclaimed moderates and centrist could be your natural allies.

You are not, you vote for shit people just like you, because you are afraid of change, silent supporters of bloody regimes, happy in their gated communities, with zero empathy for their fellow men.

2

They are the good ol' I support what ever doesn't inconvenience me. Fuck em, they want to side with fascists because it's easy, they can be treated the same as its 'easier' to not distinguish them. Let em reap what they sow.

3
gibmiserreply
lemmy.world

War* is never worth it for the ones who die fighting it. That is why we honor them for their sacrifices.

*so long as the war is for a good cause.

11

As long as they chose to join the fight sure, but when you start dropping bombs in civilian areas it becomes harder and harder to justify that war.

-10

Thanks to people who want to retain the status quo that economic crisis are handled by fucking the poor and bailing out the rich. That is not a law of nature btw. It is a choice made by both large american parties every time.

The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies... That would bring the economy back on track and also help everyone to prosper.

What you describe is the result of deliberate disaster capitalism, where crisis are embraced as an opportunity to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

10
Cryophiliareply
lemmy.world

both large american parties

Whoa whoa whoa let's not "both sides" this shit. There is one party doing this, and another party sometimes having to make concessions to them.

The US could also increases taxes, seize assets from rich people and imprison tax evaders. With that money they could invest in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, renewable energies…

Guess which party is working on all of this right now (minus the higher taxes part)?

Hint: the answer is not "neither"

-2

the US democrats are far right conservatives by most countries standards. You saw how they fiercly opposed the idea of a somewhat lefty candidacy and instead brought on Clinton, who is a neoliberal economist and war hawk and Biden who is also a neoliberal economist and has a strongly racist history.

2
Cryophiliareply
lemmy.world

Who gives a fuck, they're not regressive fascists. "Both sides" is bullshit propaganda.

2

I am not saying that "both sides" are equal and it doesnt matter what to vote. I am saying that the problems will not resolve as long as the democrats are not moving towards being an actual center/progressive party. So it needs the activism on the streets and in the companies, because there is no political solution available in the current US party system.

1
Cryophiliareply
lemmy.world

Why does it seem like you guys have never heard of primaries? Or democratic party elections?

I stood in line to vote for my local reps who go to the national Dem party who decide what the party platform is and what to spend money on and who to support. Did you even know that was a thing?

1

How does that relate to the US democrats mostly having conservative/right wing positions? Also how do the primaries help you, when the US elections are significantly influenced by who can muster the most money in return for representing the interests of their money givers? Your constitutional court even argued, that bribing politicans is a form of protected speech.

2

seize assets from rich people

I agree with everything you said except this bit. The 4th Amendment is supposed (glares at imminent domain) to protect us from a tyrannical government seizing our assets just because they want them.

-2
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Thank you for your well-thought-out and oh so eloquent opinion.

-3
Shadywackreply
lemmy.world

The problem is that the billionaires never starve. They just end up with slightly less fathomless oceans of cash while we can afford rent or a mortgage.

If this doesn’t work, it’s time for some guillotines, then nobody has to starve at all.

8
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

then nobody has to starve at all.

Ah yes, more cannibalism! How long exactly do you think 999 people can survive off of eating one?

-2
Cryophiliareply
lemmy.world

Lol a ton of people literally starved during the Reign of Terror

You keyboard warriors are so annoying

-4
Shadywackreply
lemmy.world

There was a lot of the same thing back in the Roman Empire. The reason many more emperors weren't gutted like a fish was due to their Praetorian Guard. If we had a solid way to get past the tear gas and national guard en masse, there'd be much less rhetoric and a lot more action. Hopefully we co-opt them, much like what happened back then. The Praetorians killed quite a few shitty emperors, hopefully we get after the oligarchs in the same manner.

3

"Is there a crime here that goes beyond denunciation? No. It's the grapes of wrath who are wrong."

3
Honytawkreply
lemmy.zip

Poor aren't either, since they got some nice rich to cook on a spit roast.

1
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Yes, haha very funny, let's all become cannibals of the rich. I'm sure that everyone will get a mouthful of that yummy long pig. What are the poor going to eat after that?

-7
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Is it fair to assume you have those trees growing outside your house?

Personally, I have a flock of chickens running around the yard, but only one sad little plum tree that has a couple years yet before I will have enough extras for neighbors or canning. Thinking about putting some potatoes in the ground in the spring though.

1
lemmy.world

Is it fair to assume you have those trees growing outside your house?

Yes?

Why is that so hard to believe?

2
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

It isn't. That is why I mentioned my own plum tree and chickens. Was just curious if you were trying to blow smoke up my ass.

0

Even if I don't have those trees, those that have excess can share with those who do not.

2
citizensgaming.com

What are the poor going to eat after that?

The same food they are forced to slave away to produce. Are you fucking stupid? Poor people are literally the foundation of your society not some executive flying around to talk to clients. Literally fuck off. IT has access to security controls in an org. Accountants can access funds if they need as they have the rights. Billionaires add nothing of value to this society nor to its functioning. The driver who delivers your produce, the farmer who produces it, the factory worker who packages it, the restaurant employees who cook and serve you, the gas station clerk who turns your pump on and off, the grocery store workers, the municipality workers managing waste water and electrical infrastructure, all the jobs foundational to a society are not done from billionaires and seeing the rich gone tomorrow would not change that instead it would release a burden and allow progress. Honestly it takes just a miniscule of common sense to understand this, which shows how disconnected and stupid the billionaire class and those who defend it are.

0
Nahvireply
lemmy.world

Please stop arguing against your own fantasies of what I might think and actually comment on what I said. Doing the former makes for nice campaign speeches, but we aren't politicians.

Billionaires aren’t the ones that starve when the economy implodes.

Nowhere here did I say billionaires are a good necessary parts of society and we should support them. Crashing the economy will cause mass starvation, but not by those who have the resources and foresight to prepare for turbulent times.

Poor people are literally the foundation of your society

Agreed, but those poor people depend on having a useful currency to trade for tools to make more food. If you crash the economy the little piece of paper we trade around right now will become worthless and we will be back to bartering until someone prints new paper or mints a new specie to use.

The guy making the tools can't do anything with 100,000 heads of lettuce, he needs something he can pay metallurgists with, who in-turn need something to pay the miners with. That lettuce is going to rot before it changes hands enough times to get into someone's belly.

2
citizensgaming.com

those poor people depend on having a useful currency to trade for tools to make more food. If you crash the economy the little piece of paper we trade around right now will become worthless and we will be back to bartering until someone prints new paper or mints a new specie to use.

You are too ingrained with a monetary system you cant even imagine a system in which one doesn't exist. The miner doesn't need a currency when his food and tools are provided for. The metallurgist doesn't need to sell tools when they can give away the excess. The farmer doesn't need to sell his food when he can give away the excess. We don't need constant accumulation to distribute resources in an efficient manner. Especially when the only reason these excess products weren't given away in the first place is profit motive. Not to mention most of the labor intensive work could be outsourced to robotics where we not hoarding the physical resources for profit and war time motives, making them overtly expensive.

We live in a time where automation and robotics could allow us much more freedom and dignity however we have allowed those at the top too use that efficiency to hoard profits and resources as power management tools instead of utilizing these resources for growth and equity across our species.

0

You are too ingrained with a monetary system you cant even imagine a system in which one doesn’t exist.

I can imagine it, but only in a post-scarcity society. It just doesn't seem plausible to me until we are at least a Type 1 Civilization, more likely Type 2.

When two people want or need the same limited resource how do you decide who gets it? Money solves that issue. While it is a poor solution, I have yet to see something that wouldn't have just as many problems, though admittedly different ones

Even if we had post-scarcity potential, I am not at all sure human nature would allow it. Some people have a fundamental need to stand above other people, others have a fundamental need to collect things, and then there are takers. Takers being those who would gladly take from others but would never give away their own stuff without being forced, even if it was pure excess.

We live in a time where automation and robotics could allow us much more freedom and dignity

I agree that we are definitely approaching an era where robotics/automation could replace the need for most human labor. Though I don't really think we are there yet. One of my favorite sayings a few years back was, "humans should be in the business of thinking and creating, not laboring." Sure I can buy a "perfect" machine made wooden chair but there is a certain character and richness to having one an artisan made.

I was a fan of taxing the labor of robots that replaced humans and using those funds to cover a UBI long before I ever heard the name Andrew Yang, though even that doesn't get rid of the monetary system.

2