pjhenry1216

This post has devolved into shit and filled with a bunch of whiners complaining about the same dumb shit that isn't a goal of this phone. Might as well whine the new iPhone doesn't cost under $400 for as reasonable of a complaint anything on this post is.

Because everyone in the supply chain is being paid a fair wage and not being exploited.

Based on what? Cost? The whole premise is sustainability and ensuring the people who build it aren't working sweatshop workers like with every other major phone. I say this knowing full well I'm using one of those phones but Fairphone has only recently become available in my country.

So it depends on if you want a bad deal by parting with some extra dollars or it's a bad deal for the workers that are getting exploited so you save a few dollars.

I despise people repeating comments. How is making the device cheaper, more sustainable, and more reliable greenwashing? I would love anybody who just loves complaining about the headphones jack to explain that. No one else has. I doubt anybody complaining really cares about the environment either. What phone do you currently have?

This is a ridiculous analogy. It's also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.

And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you're doing is trying to claim I'm making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn't communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn't been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I'm not even claiming communism can or can't work. Just that the arguments provided don't support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn't give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I've even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.

You act as if it's been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it's not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

And it doesn't devolve into it. It's simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you're unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don't know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn't devolve into authoritarianism. They're not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It's like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn't devolve into one. They're not the same thing.

Income share isn't actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn't mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn't buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you're unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you're actively misleading people.

You're technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don't believe communism would work either. Communism isn't the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren't actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.

It's a shame that it's even considered "radical" since it's basically a copyright holder upholding their end of the bargain in the promise behind the origin of copyright. To incentivize creative content, a creator is given sole ability to monetize it for a fixed period of time. In return for that protection, the public gets it at the end of the term. Today's copyright is so far off course that it defeats the intent. There's no incentive to create anything new if you can keep milking existing content. And the public never gets a return for offering that protection.

Workers wanted an increase in pay, so shareholders needed to offset that by even more. Workers can't get a raise without shareholders getting a raise.

Inflation is majority driven by profit, not wages. Dems barely attack that angle. Republicans actively work against it.

Let's not be confused here. Specialization is what allows for free time. If everyone has to farm and hunt, that's all you'd do. Specialization is a good thing for humanity and diverse institutions and industries to arise.

Am I the only one where all the links show up as searches instead of links to the communities themselves?