- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/46305684
You must log in or # to comment.
Mostly yes but these claims that “we isn’t even HAVE to work!” is just so brain rotting stupid
Yes, we do have to work. Yes, all of us that can and are able to. Yes, we probably could work less, like 20-30 hours a week, we might be able to get away with that but less than that?
Who is going to stock the shelves at super markets? How do you think your food arrives at supermarkets to begin with? How do you think that food is grown? Who will take care of your broken bones?
We all have jobs and yes, it is still very much a necessity. Maybe in some future we will enslave actually sentient AI to do all our mind killing work for us but until that day, we’re on our own
But yeah, fuck the extremely rich that control the world
also, anyone that’s consulted (like real consulting: not bullshit “management” consulting: actually building, but with a mandate and permission to actually change shit and get things done) knows that human systems are not perfectly efficient either
just like no machine is perfectly efficient (they all lose energy to tolerance, error, wear, slop, friction, heat, etc), human organisations lose efficiency in both materials and human effort for similar reasons: liquid capital must be available to deal with emergencies (eg paying people during a global pandemic), warehouses must have stock, humans must check to ensure other humans haven’t made mistakes or acted with malice
just because theoretically humanity produces more than enough money, food, hygiene supplies, etc to feed the US population (~>300m) 20x over doesn’t mean all of those supplies would be enough to feed, clothe, and sanitise the world (~>8b)
If you could alter human nature so that everybody trusted everybody else, and everybody cooperated with everyone else, then people could work significantly less.
In that scenario you wouldn’t need police, courts, food inspectors, restaurant inspectors, auditors, or a military because everyone would just be cooperating and honest. Offices would need far fewer managers because managers would just be coordinating work, and never have to worry about employees slacking off. HR would never have to fire anybody or discipline them because everyone would be trustworthy. You’d need far fewer executives, and the executives would be honest about how little they worked, and wouldn’t ask for absurd compensation.
But, that isn’t humanity. Throughout history people solving disputes non-violently has been extremely rare. It’s possible among small isolated groups who all know each-other, but as soon as you get towns, people are no longer able to completely trust the people they encounter day to day.
People are also underestimating how good we in the developed world have it today. Working only 40 hours a week was something only the privileged few used to be able to do. Being able to choose what you want to eat is something that only the nobility used to do. Could it be better? Sure. Has it gotten worse on the small time scale of decades? Maybe for some groups. But, for most of the world the last few decades have been ones where the standard of living has gone up by leaps and bounds.
Yes, we should guillotine all the rich, but look at the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution to see how a fully justified plan can still cause death, starvation and chaos in the short term. Humans are still animals, and although we can sometimes recognize there’s a problem, cleanly transitioning to a better system without chaos and death is not something we’ve figured out how to do.
According to modern finance guys, they slaved their whole lives, multiple generations did, to ensure maximal shareholder value.
We could have been anything. We chose to be complete douchebags.
They worked hard and broke their backs to create this world but we’ve failed to work hard and break our backs to retain control of it.
Be the change you want to see in the world, embrace minimalism, don’t buy shit you don’t need, let the capitalists cry that their sales have slumped and if you want, work less hours and adjust your living standards, that’s what you can do.
Also vote for people who will bring more equality into society and tax the rich to better distribute wealth.
But the endless crying about working less hours online is the exact weapon the right wing cunts will use to call you lazy and entitled, because that’s how it comes off, bread doesn’t just appear in the grocery store.
But maybe I am just too European for this as I don’t work 60-80 hours like some americans and I get more than 2 months worth of paid time off and I have paid sick leave.
P.s. fuck fast fashion, they are destroying the planet
Problem with voting for the people that support this on a national scale is you’d have to get past the ingrained mindset people in America have of a third party never winning. O can guarantee you no Democrat will have support this and even if the someone wanted to pull a Bernie and just run as a Dem, but actually be a small bit more left than the corporate Dems, they’d fail hard cause the DNC doesn’t want to actually do anything.
you’d have to get past the ingrained mindset people in America have of a third party never winning
It’s not just a mindset, Game Theory shows that when you have First Past The Post voting and a 2-party duopoly, a third party just siphons votes from the establishment party that is closest to their platform. That results in the other major party effectively gaining votes.
Getting rid of FPTP would fix this. But, FPTP is what guarantees a D or an R will win. The only way to change the voting system is to have the lawmakers change it, but the lawmakers are the Ds and Rs that FPTP guarantees will win. So, they’d have to vote for a system that will cause them to lose elections.
There may be individual lawmakers who are honest and would want a better electoral system. But, they’d have to go up against their entire party apparatus which exists to block anything that is bad for the party.
There’s a “simple living” subreddit which is largely about finding your own personal way to grab this “easy life” even if the whole world isn’t doing so. The fact is that a person CAN live a life our previous generations would consider very nice, at a low cost. It would just look like poverty by 2025 standards. The main trick is to ignore all the new shit that has been invented since that generation was around, and cease caring what anyone else thinks of your home, clothes, whatever. Stop buying fast fashion and get real durable clothes from thrift stores. Grow as much food at home as you can - it’s a lot more than you think. Find work you can walk or bike to even if it pays less. Read books from the library for entertainment or get involved in community theater. Stop thinking you need to fly somewhere in a plane twice a year or you aren’t having any fun. And just check out of all the other bullshit. No one is forcing you to play the latest AAA games on an ultra wide monitor, buy endless shit on Amazon, DoorDash takeout food, doomscroll on a maxi-phone… And most people are far too attached to the area they happen to have lived in for a while. If you’re willing to do some research and move you can find a pocket to live the simple life in.
So… we move to fantasy land where jobs exist that pay enough for a small home with a small yard?
Still hate that we think we don’t work enough. There’s so much automation anymore, why are we always pressured to feel like we’re behind?
Give me 4 - 8s brother, I’m tired.
there being enough food to feed the world probably doesn’t mean you work less: people outside the imperial core often work far more for far less… if we even out those scales, i reckon we’d probably end up working more; not less!
yeah billionaires are a thing, but distribute the top 10 billionaires’ wealth across the US population and that’s still only about $1000 each… the top 20 to the world and everyone still only gets about $100USD
why are we always pressured to feel like we’re behind
One reason is because of old Christian morale. You’re born in sin and have to work and obey to repent for that sin, idle hands are the devil’s workshop, that kind of stuff. Of course this kind of mentality got co-opted by industrial society to the point that work forms somebody’s entire status in society and obligation to the nation. Industry then does what it does best and mercilessly exploits this.
A second reason is because the entire monetary system and economy is built on growth. There always needs to be more goods, more services, more consumption. And if the population isn’t growing enough, then the people have to be made to buy more.
What brings us to advertisements, pushing to spend more, to compare yourself with the neighbors, always evaluating the status you’re projecting.
nah it’s capitalism. endless growth requires every advancement to be the bare minimum.
oh the best we’ve ever produced was 40 units in a year but this year we managed to produce 60 units? well next year we gotta produce at least 90 units or we will have slowed down.
no, the profit we made from the extra 20 won’t be reflected on your paycheck because the shareholders and/or your boss would literally go hungry if they don’t horde all of it.
Hands that burn down churches are not idle at all.
I do not want 14 hour shifts starting at 4. 9 - 5s are bad enough.
The problem is consumables. This photo appears to be an oil worker.
The US burns something on the order of 20 million barrels of oil a day(!)
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
Up from 19 million not too long ago. 100 million in a work week. 5.2 billion a year.
Someone needs to be out there producing it. Yeah, it would be great if we could wean ourselves off of it, but then we’d still need people producing and managing whatever replaces it.
Bicycles. Very little oil required.
Oil is used in a lot more than just transportation.
Fuck 4-8s
I want 2-4s
I just want the choice. You work 2-4s, they work 4-8s, I want to work 5-5s.
I want to work 5-5s
Ia that 0 hour shifts, 12 hour shifts, or 24 hour shifts? 🤔
I think they meant five 5-hour shifts per week.
I don’t think we can maintain our standard of living and cut down that much. I think 32 hours is definitely doable, and a huge QoL improvement.
Robots literally stacking boxes in warehouses. Everything is possible already, except getting humans to actually want good for others. We want to build an eternal hell on Earth, devoid of any mercy.
There are a lot of people to bring up from much worse shape.
It’s possible we could get down to 24-27 hours a week while maintaining our current standard of living and bringing those people up. Some day.
I don’t think 16 hours is reasonable. And I think 32 is a more reasonable short/medium term goal.
We absolutely have an obscene amount of wealth the spread, but it spreads really fast. Walmart made 15.5 billion in profit last year. They have 1.6 million employees in the US. If you take 100% of those profits and divide, that comes out to $9500 per employee. Average Walmart employee makes about $36,000 per year. So after some very rough napkin math, the average employee generates an additional 25% of their salary as profit. If you reduce their productivity by 50%, they’re no longer profitable. If they’re not longer profitable, they’re no longer sustaining themselves at the current rate even if the owners take no profits.
We do have a lot of room to make things better. But we still need people to work. We still need people to deal with ~80% of the crap they deal with now. But that 20% still makes a difference, and we should be working towards that instead of away from it.
It could be easy, but people make it hard by supporting the status quo.
We will never get change as long as enough people are comfortable and don’t want to risk losing anything.
The rich and powerful are supported by the status quo, and they’ll resist any attempt to change it. Because they’re rich and powerful, if they think it’s necessary they’ll resist that change with violence.
That’s why things only tend to change when people are really, really “uncomfortable”. If you’re comfortable, then the injury and death you risk by attempting to change things isn’t worth it. If people are already dying from starvation or disease, then it becomes worth it to risk death by challenging the status quo.
Nothing will change until people are hungry.
It could be easy, but people make it hard by
supportingenforcing the status quoFixed it for you. Shaming the gaslighted masses won’t stop the ones with the actual power from oppressing and otherwise abusing the rest of society.
It’s not like any of the people in charge ever got a majority of a 100% participation vote. They’ve been systematically standing in the way of majority rule for centuries and pretending that everyone knows that for a fact and likes it just keeps us squabbling between ourselves while the root causes for most of the world’s biggest problems only worsen.
The masses are the only ones who can be shamed into acting, not the oppressors. The issue stems from them not executing their power.
