While I don’t disagree. there don’t have to be dragons hoarding all the wealth making us fight among ourselves to survive
Comment on Feelin free
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 2 months agoSomeone still has to work for those things to be produced.
ieatpwns@lemmy.world 2 months ago
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 months ago
An asset appreciating in value does not deprive anyone else of money in their wallet.
If you bought a rookie baseball card for $5, the player had a great year and now the card’s worth $100, your net worth increased by $95. But who is down $95 as a result of your card becoming more valuable?
Nobody. Wealth is not zero sum.
Also, wealth in the form of purchased investments into businesses that run within the economy, is literally the opposite of hoarding. If you buy things with your money, you’re not hoarding your money.
ieatpwns@lemmy.world 2 months ago
but an asset appreciating in value off the back of another persons labor deprives the laborer of their fair share
Shardikprime@lemmy.world 2 months ago
We’re they not paid for their time in a consensual agreement?
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 months ago
There is a vast gap between most people need to work for everyone in society to live comfortably and every individual needs their own personal income to survive.
nomy@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
The amount of brainwashing and propaganda is incredible. People actually just can’t imagine a world where they’re not toiling for their bosses.
frosty99c@midwest.social 2 months ago
It’s insane. And any attempt to argue against it is shut down immediately. This post (mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/?v=3) is one of the most digestible things I’ve seen for the scale at which those people hoard wealth. It’s so easy to follow and understand how the world could be better if those people didn’t exist. But anyone I try talking to says “oh I’m not going to read all that” or “scrolling through that will take too long” …which is exactly the fucking point. And this is from 4 years ago! Their wealth has only increased while our buying power has gone down.
ynthrepic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The point is that technology means a fraction of the population can feed and house the rest, and that fraction doesn’t need to live like royalty, and the rest don’t need to live in servitude for that exchange to happen.
Don’t you want others to enjoy your success with you? Apply that principle to all of humanity the world over, and you have what could be, if we just stopped waring over hoards.
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Nowhere in your comment did you refute the fact that it’s currently not possible to have a society where no one has to work. There still has to be human labor.
I said nothing about the distribution of wealth or supporting our current system.
ynthrepic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I don’t think even OP or OC meant that nobody would work. But “work” as we imagine it now need not exist. Most specialist roles are fulfilling enough that people do them enthusiastically and with passion. That’s true for me in my work.
I imagine there’s still a wealth hierarchy but it’s a lot less dispirate and follows meritocratic lines, including the merit of being willing to get your hands dirty doing dirty or dangerous work not currently possible to automate. And obviously being very talented at sport, music, art, comedy, etc such that people want to spend any excess wealth they have on supporting them or buying access to their content (like now).
It’s not so different from now, it’s just the continued progressive advancement of what we see in many European nations already.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
True, but how many people actually work to make that happen?
Most people I know work for a company that works for a company to increase the profit of another company.
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
A lot of those businesses still need to exist for society to function. They could be restructured into non-profits, but they’ll still exist.
There will always be a need for jobs that people aren’t going to just do for the hell of it. No one enjoys breaking their back harvesting crops or digging ditches.
I’m not saying the current system is any good, but the idea of no one having to work if they don’t want to is not obtainable without some serious advances in robotics.
rockerface@lemm.ee 2 months ago
If harvesting crops would pay six figures, I’m sure there’d be enough willing people
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Where’s that money going to come from?
The point of UBI isn’t to allow anyone to not work if they don’t want to. It’s so that everyone can live securely while still contributing to keeping society running, and allow those who can’t work to live without worry about survival.
You can’t have UBI without workers. It’s still working to survive, just with a massive safety net.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
I specifically mean those companies that do not directly add to the jobs that “need” to be done.
My feeling is that more people work bullshit jobs because they pay better than e.g. harvesting crops or driving a bus.
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
They work bullshit jobs because harvesting crops and driving a bus are shitty jobs that basically no one wants to do.
I used to work those shitty jobs, and pay wasn’t the issue
Shardikprime@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Those are low requirement jobs
Almost every body able citizen with a license can drive
Almost every body abled citizen can harvest a crop
Not EVERYONE wants to do it, so they invest time and money into themselves to get a skill level that will allow them to get a job in something else not related to the thing they don’t like
But that was in the old days or with low ROI enterprises
Now most modern agriculture is done with automation, gps tracking and smart systems
Your average crop picker doesn’t matter anymore
They’d need to be more knowledgeable to not only be in a new harvester cabin, but understand the training that comes with it
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Also, at what point do you tip into you-dont-get-choose-your-job land? Is it still considered freedom if you are required to have a job to serve basic needs of the larger community? For example, we need more doctors even without universal healthcare in the US. If we covered the basic needs of everyone, wouldn’t we have to require some people to become doctors, who are not on that trajectory today?
rockerface@lemm.ee 2 months ago
If doctors would be paid what managers are paid today, I’m sure there will be enough incentive. Essential jobs need to pay what they’re worth, which is more than any other jobs