Comment on Wreck the economy because it only works for the billionaire class.
severien@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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.
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.
We’re not talking globally though.
The next step is pretty difficult, as far as I can tell. Survival at task will require crime, suffering, and mutual aid.
Coreidan@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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.
SCB@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Literally no member of the UAW is poor.
NatakuNox@lemmy.world 9 months ago
You need a lesson in economics. It’s $32 billion better in 100 people’s hands or in the hands of 400,000 peoples hands? The Average UAM makes ~$64k a year. Where 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!
SCB@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Median income in Wayne Michigan is just under half that, at 27k.
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.
lemann@lemmy.one 9 months ago
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
SCB@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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” whole telling me that it is literally impossible to live on even 150% of the median income.
So, what specifically are you, yourself, doing?