• curiousaur@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not every human, just the ones with economic value.

      We should seriously discuss how our society should treat the rest.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If an economy’s working correctly, it certainly should be. The demand for goods/services and willingness to work for them is one of the few things that’s basically fundamental to human nature. Of course we have all kinds of problems that make that inaccessible in an economy, or that artificially skew the ratio of one to the other (for better or for worse, depending on the person). First and foremost, that across the public/private spheres, a few people at the top have the entire economy by the throat.

  • snooggums@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The main problem is that people who feel trapped don’t have the financial stability to go without income for any period of time, which greatly limits the ability to find a new job.

        • Firemyth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s really not. Someone has to train the doctors. The doctors have to get the medication- to get the medication it has to be made somewhere. To be made Someone has to research how to make it and what needs to go in it. To get what needs to go in it Someone has to go grow/mix/etc etc etc.

        • Upwuarkdownquark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you’re telling me you’ve never had to go through hoops to get healthcare? I can’t do sports I liked because I cannot afford getting injured and be in debt

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve been to many European countries and lived in a few of them for long periods of time. There are no hoops, something happens - you get fixed. I do mountain biking, I have a long history of broken bones, torn ligaments and concussions (I’m 39, cycling since childhood). Never paid a penny.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you quit because of bad conditions, like unsafe conditions.

        If you get a new job and put in two weeks, your first job might immediately fire you. Teo weeks without pay is a crisis for a lot of people.

        If you need to spend time applying and interviewing you might not be able to work your crappy job during that time.

        These are US issues for low income earners who are afraid of getting a new job.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of places will walk you out the moment you turn in notice.

        If you planned a two week notice and the other job won’t be ready for you until then…you’re kind of SOL.

        That’s why it’s important to pay close attention to how your job treats others who have left, and plan accordingly.

        But beyond that, you’ve also got payroll conflicts. If you get paid every other week at your current job, and your new job is off cycle or does bimonthly, or pays on set days, that can result in some short term gaps in income. If those happen to hit when bills are due and you are paycheck to paycheck, you’ll either have to get a loan or hope there’s an adequate grace period.

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because you never know what’s going to happen at the new job. You might be given circumstances you cannot adhere to or deal with people you simply can’t put up with.

        Starting a new job is always a gamble and can fail easily

      • Pratai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah. That’s what I was thinking. If I don’t like my job, I work while I find one that I would or could like. And I do this until I find the one I wish to stay with.

        There is not a lot of logic here. It’s a carryover from the reddit sub. Unflinching rigidity and cringy as hell.

        • Platomus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is such a narrow world view that it becomes really hilarious when you try to say other people aren’t using logic.

          What if someone got fired just because of a horrible boss? What if someone quit because of shitty working conditions? What if someone had to go on medical leave for an extended period of time? What if someones house burned down and they have to move away from their job? What if a work place becomes hostile? What if the business just closes?

          This could be a literally endless list.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ve done (or had done to me) the first two and last two multiple times and his advice still holds. Not sure what you’re aiming at.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not lying. It’s how I went from making 36k to just over 100k in 6 years.

                • Platomus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A job you had unexpectedly closed and you already had a job lined up?

                  You’re lying.

          • Pratai@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah. That’s called “working.” That’s life. Get used to it.

            • Platomus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s literally not. We’re talking about losing your job and NOT working.

              I don’t even know how you could be so wrong.

              • Pratai@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, we’re talking about looking for a better job while you already have one. Stop changing the topic.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I did this while at my poorest. It’s literally how I climbed out. My ratchet-ass cousin just did this last month, and she is perpetually trying to make a dollar out of 15 cents. My ex-teacher friend is currently doing it too. Anyone at any income level can just keep an eye out for opportunity.

            You work one job while looking for better opportunities elsewhere, then quit and go elsewhere, rinse and repeat. Fastest way to increase your earnings, period, and way better in terms of QOL.

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I hadn’t considered that your experience is the only valid one and nobody can have a different one than yours. Such a convincing argument you have there.

        • Maestro@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You have no time to find a new job when you’re already juggling two just to make ends meet. Let alone interview for it.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like “just start your own business!” I had a small business that did well enough that I was able to run it for 10 years and only stopped out of choice. I now have a relatively low-paying job with someone else and I am more financially secure now than I was during any of those 10 years.

    • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody said it’s easy to be independent. Stability is definitely not guaranteed when you have a small business

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        When “just start your own business” is presented as a real viable alternative to a job with someone else, they are saying it’s easy. There’s nothing easy about it. And they don’t tell you very important things like the tax penalty you have to pay if you don’t file quarterly.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Starting a business is very easy. Much easier than searching for a job. Sustaining your business is a different matter.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Life is not naturally easy- it is only because of the labor of others that life is anywhere near as comfortable as it is now.

          • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We have the means to make a fair and equitable society with minimal crime and no hunger. We, as a society, choose not to. We choose the hard life for the sake of getting everything we worked for to ourselves at the risk of losing it all with one bad day. That’s not comfortable. The labour of all should benefit all so that everyone can have an easy and comfortable life.

              • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We choose to continue to live in a pro-capitalist society, therefore we choose the hard life. Pure and true socialism is the easy way out my friend. Comfort for all.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            life can be easy for everyone if we all chip in a little, it’s the whole basis of society, we just can’t afford the hoarding aristocracy

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Serious question: do you think the “aristocracy” has like, vaults full of money? Like you think Jeff Bezos has billions of dollars sitting in his bank account? Or a literal vault?

              Because that is definitely not how rich people actually live. As a rule, they have very little liquidity as a percent of their net worth.

              • biddy@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What does that have to do with anything? Just because the wealth is on paper doesn’t make it any less real.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It matters because people suggest that Bezos et al “hoard wealth” which is both untrue and impossible with the way their wealth is calculated.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude, stop. They don’t want to run a business, they want a guarantee of security, and by rights they are entitled to that. If you don’t agree, that’s your problem, but don’t come up on here thinking their complaints are a threat to your society thinking you have to change their way of thinking to quell it.

            We’re abandoning you whether you like it or not :P

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re defending a shitty evil economic system by defending the notion of small business as a meaningful alternative to work while ignoring the motivations of who you’re talking to. Doing that belies your motivations: you see him complaining as a threat to capitalism which you support, which is why you’re trying to convince him in the first place.

                I am telling you we’re going to abandon capitalism whether you like it or not, shutting down your primary goal of convincing people not to complain. I’m telling you emphatically we’re going to do a lot more than complain.

                It’s that simple

        • Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And they don’t tell you very important things like the tax penalty you have to pay if you don’t file quarterly.

          Meh, you find out about that the first year and honestly in the US, it’s not that much.

    • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the same people that think we can simple jack up no-skill job wages to $15, 20, 30/hr think that all business owners are bazillionaires who can easily afford the more expensive wages.

      That was also the running theme in subs (on Reddit) when it came to landlords - they were all evil billionaires just looking to screw over their tenants.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope. I am one of those people. If you can’t afford to pay employees a livable wage, you shouldn’t be running a business. I had no employees, in part because I couldn’t afford to pay an assistant a wage I felt they deserved. People don’t deserve to suffer just so you can get The Burger Hole off the ground.

        • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one is talking about “suffering” FFS. But a no-skill job is still a no-skill job. Get a marketable skill and there is plenty of money out there.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Paying someone less money than they can afford to live on is allowing them to suffer at your business’ expense.

            So yes, we are talking about suffering.

            And there is no such thing as a ‘no-skill job.’

            • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              no-skill job

              There are plenty of no-skill jobs. If someone off the street can be told what to do in an hour or so then the skill level is 0. If that is the level of work one does, there should be no expectation as to the level of money one deserves. Earn a skill and demand more money, society shouldn’t be funding, let alone encouraging, lazy moochers.

              • webadict@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then why do you need to hire someone else to do it? If anyone can do it, why don’t you fucking do it? Is it because you’re too lazy that you don’t want to do it? Is it because you don’t want to make so little money doing it?

                • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Maybe look up what the term “Opportunity Costs” means. As a high value employee, one should focus their time on - you guessed it - high value roles instead of wasting your limited time on something that can be done by just anyone off the street. But if you want to continue to not understand, then that’s on you.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Good thing we’ll get God-Emperor Trump in there and take care of all those “lazy moochers.” You left out “welfare queens,” by the way.

                I can’t even imagine the “some people don’t deserve to be paid enough to survive” mindset.

                • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Riiiiight… asking for people to stand on their own with marketable skills is apparently a huge ask these days from some. Just come out and say you are lazy and want hand-outs.

              • ObsidianBlk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Regardless of whether the job is classified as a “skilled” job or not (and who’s definition of “skilled” you choose to accept or not)… the work and time your employee puts into the labor is as important to your business as any work you may be doing. Without their labor your business is meaningless. That labor deserves, at minimum, the employee’s ability to be able to live (food, shelter, medical, transportation, and some degree of entertainment). If, as a business owner, you cannot value your employees time and labor in your business with appropriate compensation to allow them to live, then you do not deserve your business.

                • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  the work and time your employee puts into the labor is as important to your business as any work you may be doing.

                  This is comically wrong. No, sorry… a salesperson closing a $1M contract for the purchase of some equipment, and a janitor dumping out some trash is not equivalent. Those jobs are not “as important”. Not even remotely in the same league. That’s why those two aren’t paid the same and why one position can be done by any jamoke off the street with 5 minutes worth of training versus someone who might have a decade of knowledge and training in the industry. Hell if something happened to the janitor for a day or three, work wouldn’t stop. Things would still get done. Jim in accounting could dump his trash into the dumpster in back. It would be a mild inconvenience, but it can still be done. It isn’t the end of the world if a no-skill job gets pushed back a bit. Not closing a deal that keeps the other employees working, the machines humming and the incoming coming in, is a whole different ball of wax.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “skilled” and “unskilled” labor have actual definitions. Unskilled labor is absolutely a thing

              • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You have to learn something to do the job. It literally doesn’t matter what you do, it requires knowledge and effort, that is not no skill.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Low-skilled/unskilled labor” is a term used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to categorize work that requires little or no experience or training to do or consists of routine tasks.

              • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, everything requires you to know how to do it and put effort into it. Therefore it is not a zero skill job. Unless you get paid to sit and literally do absolutely nothing all day long, it is not zero skill. Less skill, sure, but not zero

                • Aux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Most jobs require life skills which every adult should have acquired during their childhood. Walking is also a skill which you must train, but no one expects a grown up not to know how to walk. Thus these jobs are zero skill.

            • Palkom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Post WW2 a lot of stock was put in scientism in industrial nad manufacturing jobs, which has led to the rise of new public management, cementing the dissolution of the bond between identity and job. The basic principle is that everything can be quantified and measured, and that every step carried out by a master craftsman can be exactly described and distributed. The replacement of actual manufacturing with the menial task of carrying out a single, repeatable step hour after hour after hour, day after day. Like a robot.

              That’s the death of skilled jobs, and it’s driving the collapse of the uneducated man, according to Richard Reeves among others. A shift towards cognitive work instead of labor has taken place, and a lot of the jobs that previously carried a large segment of the lower strata has simply moved to asia and lower wage countries.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Hazdaz The whole role of a business owner is based on appropriating the positive and negative fruits of others’ labor. This is a violation of the moral foundation of property rights (getting the fruits of your labor). The workers should get the positive and negative fruits of their labor without any employers and run their company as a worker cooperative.

        Landlords are privatizing the products of nature which everyone has an equal claim to. Thus, landlords similarly inherently violate rights

  • ChefKalash@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yet when the writer’s guild and sag aftra went on strike they all decided to wait until people started losing their homes.

    Ghouls. All of them

  • Xariphon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I kind of feel like both are true.

    The threat of starvation and homelessness is a pretty strong coercion to keep working at all

    …but nobody’s really stopping you from job-hunting if you really hate this particular job rather than the concept of having a job at all.

    I’m not going to sit here and be like “just go back to school, get certifications, blah blah blah” because seriously fuck that. You and whose fuckin’ Time Turner?

    That said, even looking for a less-awful workplace doing the same thing you’re already doing could be an improvement in your overall mental health and life situation. A small step, maybe, but I know from myself and people around me that it can be a step.

    • twoshoes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you to an extent. From my personal experience, working at a string of shitty companies, some industries don’t provide better opportunities. In service jobs for example you usually can only choose between being treated like “a piece of shit” or “a human who is also a piece of shit”.

      Additionally, working 8 hours as a punching bag, plus 1 hour unpaid overtime, plus 2 hour commute doesn’t leave much energy to write applications.

      I also managed to get out of it eventually, but I’ve always been overqualified for the service industry and always had problems with authority, which made it easier for me to question the way I was treated. Still it was way harder than it had to be.

    • LostCause@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That feels like a musical chairs approach to this issue, where people who find a good job are lucky and sit in that and the rest shuffle between the shitty job leftovers. I recently found a decent job and it‘s only cause the guy retired after 30 years. Now I can only hope they will keep me on, or else I get to participate in that awful game again. Or maybe it will turn shitty for some other reason, like how there is no raises and my rent keeps going up anyway.

      We even got unions in my country, and still we ended up like this where a lot of people switch jobs every few years to try and keep up with inflation. I’m not saying don’t take that step though. Sorry, I got no point I think? Just a rant your comment inspired in me.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You need to be very certain though. What if the new job doesn’t work out and they decide 6 months later they don’t need you after all? Having a job, as shitty as it might be, is stability. Changing a system always comes with risks.

      (Never mind that a different job needs to even be available without moving your whole life elsewhere)

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your current shitty job could do the same thing.

        You should always be casually interviewing. Your current employer should be passively fighting to keep you (with the conditions and comp and growth your are experiencing there). If another job offers more, off you should go.

        • Lumidaub@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, it could also happen to my current job. But then I haven’t actively done anything to cause it. I haven’t gone out of my way to change the situation and thus made it worse. That’s a big factor in why people are afraid of change, the risk of actively and inadvertently making it worse, instead of passively enduring.

          (Disclaimer: I’m on disability so I don’t have a “current job” and I also live in a place with decently sane labour laws)

          • AshLassay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But just enduring the current job also comes with a risk even in a country with strong labor laws. Not changing jobs comes with stagnation of skills and wages. I’ve heard plenty of stories of loyal employees who worked the same job for decades but who now earn less than the new hires. Risk averse people are also often too afraid to even renegotiate their wages. And bosses know that and exploit that.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      but nobody’s really stopping you from job-hunting if you really hate this particular job

      Yes and no. It might be extremely difficult to get an interview due to the hours you’re currently working.

  • Nevoic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

    Edit: this response was part of a chain, but I posted it when lemmy.world was having issues and I think my lemmy client couldn’t find the comment it was responding to, so it just posted it at the top level, here’s the chain for context: https://lemmy.world/comment/1973311

    Capitalism is an ideology, you have a very weird relationship with definitions, first denying what scalping is and now denying what an ideology is. I don’t know why you choose to live in a world where you just make up your own definitions, but it makes it harder to communicate.

    Demand outstrips supply absolutely, and yeah if we built an infinite number of houses we’d have a fine supply, but also if we didn’t have 16 million vacant homes we’d also have a fine supply. We currently have more vacant housing units than homeless people (by a factor of ~30), and capitalists are purposefully restricting supply to increase cost.

    I don’t know why you choose to live in a world where there is only one possible solution to the housing crisis. I’ve already said building more would obviously help supply, I don’t know why you’re so ideologically motivated that you can’t admit that putting literally millions of housing units on the market would also help supply. You seem to have an inability to even consider that capitalism could have any problems. That’s the epitome of an ideologue.

      • Nevoic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup. GPU scalpers do the same thing, they buy up an entire stock, and then restrict supply by only letting a couple units go at a time, which inflates the price.

        In housing, capitalists lovingly call this practice “investing”, when you buy up land or housing and don’t rent it out or sell it, you just let it sit and increase in value.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s an easy explanation to reach for, but the theory rapidly breaks down without a unified cartel controlling the entire thing, because it’s opportunity cost down the drain to sit on properties to try to drive up prices across the market - each individual participant would make more money breaking with the cartel and just selling/renting their stock. Hence, the sheer number of actual participants in the market disproves it.

          • Nevoic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are a ton of reasons why individuals/corporations would scalp housing units and hold onto them without opening them up to use, from laws requiring fair treatment of renters like in NYC (where 90,000 rent controlled apartments remain vacant), to “unified cartels” actually have incredibly large influence over some areas (there are some companies that hold 10s of thousands of housing units, like blackrock, and these corporations purposefully keep some vacant to inflate the price of all units and control supply).

            But even if you want to just close your eyes and ignore my last paragraph, you can try to rationalize away the data, but the data will still be there. There are 16 million vacant housing units in the U.S. Even if you can’t fathom any reason why these might exist, they still do, and they still impact supply even if you’d like to believe they don’t.

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not pretending they don’t exist. I’ve called the problem out myself. But simple “capitalists are hoarding them to price gouge” is not a plausible explanation as to why.

              • Nevoic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You didn’t respond to anything I said. You essentially said “I agree and you’re wrong” with some fluff, so uhm okay good talk buddy.

        • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You also get:

          • a population with an increasingly large number of older people

          -a relatively higher tax rate

          -a pension program which is unsustainable needing a new retirement age of 65 to 67

          -A country where mid career change is difficult

          -stratospheric chronic unemployment rate

          -a lifetime-employment system which translates to a large permanently-jobless population that’s just generally pissed

          -and employment being somewhat elite

      • Kinyutaka@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You get a bit of welfare, 'nuf for rent 🎵 A little bit of food, I recommend 🎶 A little bit of health care, for your life 🎵 And a little bit of family time, for your wife 🎶

  • ram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This same logic could be used to argue that the government forced people to get the covid vaccine.

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, the truth is that you could just go get a tent and live in a national park if you truly wanted to. You could build a houseboat and live on that. Or fuck off to the Alaskan wilderness. There are remote places you could live without having to pay any money.

    • YashaB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You do realize that you still need to eat? Or going to a doctor or a dentist once in a while? Or at least buy some medication, or some shoes because the old ones are wasted? Living in the wilderness is possible, but very, very hard. Only very few people are actually able to live like that.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can get all that stuff for free in nearby towns and nothing is stopping you from hiking into town once a week for supplies. It’s entirely possible to live for free if you wanted to. I’ve done it before, so I know the score.

        I agree with you that living up in the Alaskan wilderness would be a whole different ball game. In most of the continental U.S., though, if you’re close to a national park, it is possible. People do it all the time

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Most towns give free food and clothing to the indigent, especially at churches. It’s a true fact. Living in a tent in a woods is essentially doing just that and there are people who live their whole lives off of charity like that. You could, in principle, do it.

            • Beliriel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is not scalable. Other people have to put in work to run a charity and community effort like that. If everyone is living off of charities, who is funding them?

  • tdstoff@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Homelessness and starvation are still not “someone”. If we’re going to have this conversation, shouldn’t it start a little more honestly than this?

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Agree, you can’t just walk away from your only income.

    But even with the challenges of life, you have to carve out time to apply to better jobs, or pursue education to elevate yourself (in anything meaningful, trades included). It sucks. Life isn’t fair. But the only person who can plan a better future for you, and attempt to access it, is you.