this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
26 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
9830 readers
753 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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!
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.
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.
My comment was satire. Stop arguing with the wind.
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.
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.
The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.
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.
You are applying overly broad extrapolations, distorting the sense of my comments, and also imposing an inaccurate view that I expressed hostility.
So leading with "the argument is sloppy" is a nice friendly way of opening a conversation?
Please tell me exactly what I'm broadly extrapolating or distorting here, because your comment makes broad accusations without actually talking specifics, while mine does exactly the opposite. If anything, ur the one extrapolating bs.
You're the one that chose to make a useless comment in the first place, don't bitch when you get called out for it.
You just literally don't know how to accept/respond to satire, and when you realized you took satire seriously, instead of saying "oh okay" u got defensive and offended.
Grow tf up dude. Let satire exist. Read other replies before adding to meaningless drivel like you did.
I am rejecting your characterization that I have been hostile, which is also not supported by the text you quoted.
Your tone consistently has escalated toward one that is petty and oppositional.
Starting a reply with "the argument is sloppy" is unfriendly, yes. Deny it all you want.
Your first comment was 100% unnecessary if you'd spent 30 seconds to read further into the thread instead of taking those 30 seconds to tell me I'm wrong.
That's antagonistic.
Now go look up the definition of hostile.
Yeah bc ur comments from the first one have been utterly pointless, added nothing to the discussion, and shown that you have an inability to just admit when you're wrong.
The other person who took my comment seriously just up voted my reply saying my comment was satire and left it at that. U just got something up ur ass and can't handle ppl correcting u.
Bye lil bro, have fun arguing with the ether. Hope you can grow tf up someday.
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.
Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, 1 disaster away from bankruptcy and absolute poverty. What the actual fuck are you taking about??
You are willfully ignorant.
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.