Because every man-hour freed by automation is a man-hour of opportunity to exploit and profit elsewhere.
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
788 points (97.6% liked)
unions
1363 readers
67 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Always remember the dishwasher and why it was invented. Then apply that to EVERYTHING man-made. It's alway to save time, for someone who is not you.
I'm glad that dishwashers exist though. Washing dishes fucks up my skin and I couldn't pay someone to do it for me.
at this point in time.... All hunger, all deprivation, all poverty
Is because SOMEONE wants it so. Not because circumstances make it so
Do you know how long it takes for crops to grow?
What are you implying with that comment?
That long work days are still necessary, technology isnt fully there to automate everything
have you seen modern farming? these days there are tractors that can be set to follow a route and the driver just has to monitor things.
yeah it's not completely automated, but it's extremely disingenuous to imply that we're closer to traditional farming than we are to full automation.
But the farmer is not eating all the crops them self. And it doesn’t have to be one farmer doing all the work.
Because capitalism demands infinite growth, forever, which means even when we're post-scarcity we need to keep working forever to continue growing beyond what is necessary.
There ought to have been a more definitive goal to work towards...
Clearly it's because of all those immigrants stealing your share of the crumbs.
Because old people aren't looking at tweets like this.
It's just our generation that has this as a standard view, and now we're reaching the point where our generation will take over.
And there's going to be some changes, let me tell you.
It's not a generational thing. It's an economic class thing.
1984
Hard to believe people work sixty hours. Got a decent living over here in Europe and am currently reducing from 40 to 35, just because.
When I was a security guard I used to work 48 hours a week. Never known anyone works 60 hours a week.
You don't know many factory workers then. Even unionized factories have mandatory overtime.
Maybe you forgot to type '/s'?
No, why would you work 60 hours a week?
Because rent is going up 30% a year while pay is going up 3%.
The future is already here. It's just unevenly distributed.- William Gibson
Many great reasons raised to explain why the current system persists so its clear to me that there isn't just a single roadblock. One reason, in my mind, is the challenge of reaching consensus. Even in small groups this can be problematic and more so for an entire population. It frustrates me no end that often small disagreements in the details of an idea is enough to prevent any positive change, even though at a macro scale the idea is good and universally supported.
Without (real or artificial) scarcity profits would go down, and if profits ~~go down~~ stop growing the-best-possible-system© just collapses.
Temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome. "I can't vote against what the rich people want, because what if I become rich some day?" Completely missing that they, in the course of their entire lives, will not make as much as what most of the rich assholes of the world make in a day/hour/minute/second.
EAT THE RICH.
You forgot the part where rich make sure that poor remain poor.
Basic services should all be free to any human.
Yeah, the spirit of your comment i agree with, but not the letter.
Nothing should be completely free, because nothing is free. Water needs processing, electricity needs a grid, sewage needs treatment, etc.
Basic things should be affordable for all: housing, water, electricity, internet, food etc.
But "free" creates incentives to be careless with resources. Which is counterproductive to making sure they are available for all at affordable prices.
No. Time to privatize water, you commie!!! /s
Water were already privated in parts of the world. The s tag doesn't work here.
Maybe oxygen, for now.
Propaganda
Why the bunny girl outfit. Bunny girls are liars?
For-profit media sells what people will buy. Hollywood movies tend to put women in revealing outfits (men too really). A guy wearing a drab, comfortable t-shirt draws much less attention. Though Don't Look Up was a fantastic exception:-). Still, all else being equal, the barriers are higher for the right booth than the left bc the inherent interest factor is lesser.
Ooh, nice take. Still don't get why the bunny girl specifically. I guess for artistic style.
Meh, it's a Japanese thing, and therefore Japanophiles enjoy using that iconic imagry around the world. Japan only more recently started leaving behind their extremely heavy prudishness, similar to the 1960s hippy movement in most Western nations, and so this is their version of a "scantily-clad female", dressed up specifically with the intent of causing excitement. I doubt many people ever physically wore such an outfit, although the way it looks here makes it look more like something you'd see in a Vegas-style casino (irl image, mostly SFW but still out of sensitivity I am merely linking rather than auto-displaying it here), which is an exact analogy to the more anime & video-game style.
Also btw there is a male version - e.g. the chip & dale style. Example irl image. Notice how both the above for woman and this here uses fishnets, either as tights or in lieu of a shirt.
The point though is that they are "dressed to impress", and like not in a business suit kinda way, but rather to titillate and excite the audience, even if just shy of the NSFW line. Joss Whedon's (and so many others) "lens flares" in movies or is a non-person example - something that adds little to nothing in the way of substance, and in fact somewhat even if only slightly distracts from such - and instead is purely for style. Another example would be those wing / wind-spoilery things on cars, which if you are doing city driving you will literally never get any functional benefit from whatsoever, yet they help them sell b/c it pushes an "image" to the potential purchaser.
TLDR: one way to think about it is that comforting lies are style over substance, while unpleasant truths are substance over style. Though really that's kind of a distracting dimension, since no matter how you package the latter people don't tend to enjoy it, and vice versa for the former... - but still, those thoughts do often travel together.
